Eighty advertisers have reportedly dropped their ads from Glenn Beck's Fox News program since he called President Obama a "racist" who has a "deep-seated hatred of white people." Here are his December 14 sponsors, in the order they appeared:
For those who haven't followed the controversy surrounding Glenn Beck's promoting of Goldline while suggesting on his show that people should buy gold because society might collapse, Jon Stewart summed it up nicely last week:
That's kind of a nice little feedback loop. Glenn Beck is paid by Goldline to drum up interest in gold, which increases in value in times of fear, an emotion reinforced nightly on Fox by Glenn Beck.
The relationship between Goldline, Beck and Fox News would actually make for a great, dare I say it, chalkboard diagram.
As the media began to pick up the story and question the relationship between Goldline and Beck, Fox News clarified the relationship this weekend. A senior executive at Fox News told the New York Times that Fox's legal department contacted "Beck's representatives," who "sent back word that he is not a paid spokesman." But according to the exec, it would be "problematic without question" if he was a paid spokesman.
And to make things even clearer, according to the Times, Fox released a statement outlining its official policy: "Fox News prohibits any on-air talent from endorsing products or serving as product spokesperson."
If you're wondering how what Beck does for Goldline is any different than that, you're not alone.
Goldline sponsors Beck's television program and his radio program, but the relationship doesn't end there. Beck's face appears on Goldline's website, where, until the relationship began to be questioned, he was listed as a "paid spokesman." Not so, said Beck's representatives to Fox News. These aren't the droids you're looking for.
On Friday's radio show, Beck used a preview for his Friday night television show to plug Goldline.
Here's our sponsor this half hour. Our sponsor this half hour is Goldline. Gold is something that I have invested in. I bought when it was about $300/oz and I've never done it for an investment. Don't listen to me for an investment advice. Please. I can tell you directions that I think, but I could be wrong. And have been in the past. Gold is something that I buy as an insurance policy. You don't put all your money into gold or anything like that. Because if the dollar falls apart and please watch tonight's show and I'll show you what's coming. If the dollar does fall apart, what do you have? Now you may not be able ot afford gold and for god's sake don't go and get into debt. I know they offer payment plans. Please don't. Please. Don't rack up any debt. But you have to have something of value as an insurance in case things go haywire. For me and my family that's gold. You decide on your own. Call Goldline and find out all the options. Ask them how I buy gold, why I buy the gold that I buy. I buy the coins. I will tell you that that's a little off the deep end. But I'm off the deep end if I'm going to have an insurance program, I want an insurance program. Find out all about it. Go to goldline.com. Go to 866-Goldline. Full disclosure: Goldline is a sponsor. That's why I'm telling you this is a paid commercial. 1-866-Goldline.
Sure enough, on Friday night's program Beck essentially suggested that people better start buying gold because the country's about to fall apart. Beck first used a stoplight metaphor to explain how our economic system works. Green light means everyone buys stocks, yellow light means T-bills and red light means "Gold, Guns and God." Beck claimed we are at yellow for one of the few times in our history. But there are signs it all might fall apart:
Anybody who has a ton of money and they put their money where their mouth is, they don't feel comfortable where we're going. It is yellow.
And, by the way, you're seeing flashes of red. Gold is massively down in the last week, but it may zoom up again, it may not. But it's a warning sign of flashing red light, which we also rarely, if ever, see.
If that wasn't clear enough, Beck said: "The smart money is saying 'hunker down.'"
The same show, Beck employed another metaphor:
[A]s a country, it's like we've moved to California where it's the land of earthquakes. But we've never had earthquakes before, OK? If you're in Washington or if you're in New York and say to somebody, where is the safest place in your house besides under the table in an earthquake, a lot of people wouldn't know.
It's in the door frame, OK? You stand in the door frame. If you're from the west coast, you know that. Stand in the door frame. Why? It is the threshold. It is the place that is most secure for you.
The country has never had earthquakes, financial earthquakes like this. So, the door frame on this side is the stocks and T-bills.
I talked to this guy, and he said, "Glenn, I'm here. The door frame of insanity, really, is gold, God and guns, because you don't know what's on this side of the door, right? So you're standing here with the treasuries, and you're just hoping you're going to jump back out, but you really don't know. He said, for the first time, he doesn't know which way he's going and he has no idea. Nobody has ever thought about what's on this side of the door frame.
Does that make sense?
Uh, not exactly, but it's pretty clear you want us to consider buying gold.
Over the weekend, Beck posted an online video on his site responding to the controversy, asserting:
I wasn't aware that apparently was the most powerful man on the planet. I didn't know that by me suggesting to you to buy gold through a fine establishment like Goldline.com, 866-Goldline, that the global price of this trillion dollar industry, global industry, would actually start to wildly fluctuate.
Beck's obviously not going to seriously answer these questions. And by refusing to hold him accountable - again - Fox is allowing everyone to see who really runs the show.
The Washington Post's Charles Lane is having a heck of a day.
First, the Post published his column calling for a reduction in the minimum wage, a phenomenally bad idea just about any time, but one that could have catastrophic consequences in difficult economic times.
Now Lane has posted an ill-considered screed attacking his Post colleague Ezra Klein.
Earlier today, Klein wrote that, since a lack of health insurance contributed to the deaths of and estimated 137,000 people between 2000 and 2006, and since Joe Lieberman's stated objections to health care reform don't make a whit of sense, "Lieberman seems primarily motivated by torturing liberals. That is to say, he seems willing to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in order to settle an old electoral score."
That set Lane off, denouncing Klein's "venomous smear" and accusing him of having lost his mind. Here's Lane:
How else to explain the outrageous smear of Lieberman, posted earlier today by youthful policy wonk Ezra Klein on The Post's Web site?
Let's stop there: What does Klein's age have to do with anything? He isn't twelve. He's in his twenties, and is pretty widely acknowledged to have some level of health care expertise. But apparently Lane would rather debate Klein's age than his ideas, which tells you something about Lane and the strength of his case.
This is disgusting, and pretty illogical, too. Klein brandishes a study by the Urban Institute showing that the lack of health insurance contributed to the deaths of 137,000 people between 2000 and 2006. But last time I checked, Joe Lieberman does not oppose insuring everyone. Indeed, he is on record favoring "legislation that expands access to the millions who do not have coverage, improves quality and lowers costs while not impeding our economic recovery or increasing the debt." He simply opposes the public option, as well as Harry Reid's last-minute improvisation on Medicare. Klein's outburst only makes sense if you assume that there is one conceivable way to expand health insurance coverage, and that Harry Reid has discovered it.
Talk about illogical! Lane's argument boils down to this: Forget about what Joe Lieberman does and focus instead on what he says. Lieberman doesn't "simply" oppose the public option -- he has yet to propose an alternative that would provide health care to the millions he says should have it.
Actually, strike that: Lieberman is on record as saying he doesn't want to help them get it, regardless of the mechanism. Here's Lieberman in August:
LIEBERMAN: Here's the tough one. We morally, every one of us, would like to cover every American with health insurance. But that's where you spend most of the $1 trillion plus, a little less that is estimated, the estimate said this health care plan will cost. And I'm afraid we've got to think about putting a lot of that off until the economy's out of recession. There's no reason we have to do it all now, but we do have to get started. And I think the place to start is cost health delivery reform and insurance market reforms.
Note that Lieberman didn't say "we should cover people who don't have insurance, but not through the public option," which is what Lane suggests Lieberman's position is. No, Lieberman said we have to put off covering those people -- regardless of the mechanism -- until the economy is better.
But Charles Lane still wants to give Lieberman credit of being in favor of covering those who currently lack insurance -- even after Lieberman has said we shouldn't do that, and even after Lieberman has opposed efforts to do so, and even after Lieberman has declined to come forward with his own plan for doing so.
Then Lane acknowledges that Lieberman may not be acting from the purest of motives:
Joe Lieberman is an odd political duck, to put it mildly. I understand that he seems to bear a grudge against the Democratic liberals who tried to unseat him in 2006 because of his vote for the war in Iraq, and that he might be engaged in a little pay back right now. Perhaps he's shilling for his home state insurance interests, as if no other senator would ever do such a thing.
Wait a second: Charles Lane acknowledges that Joe Lieberman may be opposing health care reform out of a desire for "a little pay back," or to shill for insurance interests. And Charles Lane acknowledges the reality that without health insurance, people die. But if you combine those two things -- each of which Lane acknowledges -- he'll denounce you for making a "venomous slam" and an "outrageous smear."
Incredibly, Lane was doing better when he was focusing on Klein's age.
UPDATE: Lane defends Lieberman by saying he "simply opposes the public option, as well as Harry Reid's last-minute improvisation on Medicare." But Lieberman was for a Medicare buy-in as recently as September, suggesting that his current opposition to it is something less than sincere. Did Lane bother to learn anything about Lieberman's history of words and deeds on this topic before leaping to his defense and trashing a colleague in the process?
UPDATE 2: Greg Sargent, whose Plum Line blog is owned by the Washington Post, digs up video of Lieberman endorsing a Medicare buy-in in September. Maybe Lane should have talked to his colleagues before defending Lieberman on this one ...
UPDATE 3: Ezra Klein responds to Lane, noting that "Lane, well, agrees with my venomous smear."
On Fox News' America's Newsroom this morning, guest anchor Juliet Huddy hosted Mary Grealy, "the president of the Healthcare Leadership Council." Grealy spent her time attacking a proposal to include allowing people age 55 to 65 to buy in to Medicare as a "non-starter," complaining about the current "cost-shift" from government programs to private insurers and underpayments to hospitals, and advocating for subsidies to purchase private health insurance instead:
Somehow, Huddy never got around to explaining what the "Healthcare Leadership Council" is. Here's the situation: they are a healthcare advocacy organization that represents some of the biggest healthcare providers and private insurance companies in the country. In other words, Grealy collects a paycheck from the very people who stand to lose from a Medicare buy-in and stand to gain from subsidies for private insurance.
Report What The Politicians Say, Don't Tell Readers What They Believe
Yes, the Post commits this fundamental sin once again telling readers in reference to an omnibus spending bill approved by the Senate that: "all but three Senate Republicans opposed the measure, citing what they consider to be wasteful spending on domestic agencies at a time of war" (emphasis added).
The point of course is that the Post doesn't have a clue as to whether Republican politicians really consider the items in the bill to be wasteful. What it knows is that they say the items are wasteful.
As Baker points out, there are many plausible reasons for the Republicans' actions -- reasons that they'd never admit to. And the Post has no way of knowing that the Republicans' stated reasons are their actual reasons.
This is an extremely common problem, one I've noted in the past:
Gloria Borger on CNN, moments ago: "Conservatives believe that empathy is about feelings, and that feelings have no place when you're deciding the law."
No. Conservatives say they believe that. But in reality, they support conservative judges who -- they say -- demonstrate empathy.
The difference between "X believes Y" and "X says Y" may seem like nit-picking. And if X really does believe Y, it isn't a big deal. But if X doesn't really believe Y and is just using it as an excuse (or a convenient attack), it is a big deal. It privileges the lie, assuming -- and asserting -- its truthfulness.
And because reporters can rarely be certain whether X believes Y or X just says s/he believes Y, we'd all be better off if they didn't pretend to know what politicians believe.
Very curious non-denial denial today issued by the Journal's editor Robert Thomson in response to the column published by the NYT's David Carr. Carr detailed how, since being purchased by Rupert Murdoch, the Journal's D.C. bureau is being pushed to adopt a more conservative, and openly skeptical, tone when reporting on the Obama administration, and to do it in the paper's news hole, which is supposed to be a no-no. (See exhibits A, B, C, and D.)
A little over a year ago, Robert Thomson, The Journal's top editor, picked Gerard Baker, a columnist for The Times of London, as his deputy managing editor. Mr. Baker is a former Washington bureau chief of The Financial Times with a great deal of expertise in the Beltway. The two men came of age in the more partisan milieu of British journalism.
According to several former members of the Washington bureau and two current ones, the two men have had a big impact on the paper's Washington coverage, adopting a more conservative tone, and editing and headlining articles to reflect a chronic skepticism of the current administration.
Thomson's rather overexcited response? Here it is in full, via NY Observer. Please try to find the part where Thomson denies the central charge of Carr's piece, because I couldn't find it either:
The news column by a Mr David Carr today is yet more evidence that The New York Times is uncomfortable about the rise of an increasingly successful rival while its own circulation and credibility are in retreat. The usual practice of quoting ex-employees was supplemented by a succession of anonymous quotes and unsubstantiated assertions. The attack follows the extraordinary actions of Mr Bill Keller, the Executive Editor, who, among other things, last year wrote personally and at length to a prize committee casting aspersions on Journal journalists and journalism. Whether it be in the quest for prizes or in the disparagement of competitors, principle is but a bystander at The New York Times.
So there you have it. The New York Times detailed today how the Journal's D.C. news bureau is under increasing pressure, internally, to report from the right, and the Journal's editor today failed to deny the charge.
Conservatives who bash The Washington Post as liberal tend to overlook the streak of conservatism that runs through the Post's editorial pages -- indeed, we've detailed how some Post editorial positions dovetail nicely with those of the unambiguously conservative Wall Street Journal.
Given that history, it's no surprise that Post editorial page staff member Charles Lane would pen a column that advocates, as one way to boost job growth, reducing the minimum wage. No, really.
In support of this claim, Lane cites the increase in unemployment as the minimum wage increased in increments over the past three years, adding: "I am not saying that the minimum wage increase caused this; far from it. But study after study has shown that this supposed benefit to the poor prices low-skilled workers out of entry-level jobs. It was unwise to keep raising the cost of hiring them in a recession." But Lane ignores that there are studies showing that raising the minimum wage has no significant effect on unemployment -- this one, for instance, and this one.
It's probably not surprising that Lane goes on to cite a Journal op-ed to make his case.
Missing from Lane's article, on top of the lack of data that conflicts with his suggestion, is any acknowledgement of the impact of cutting wages of people who aren't making that much in the first place. As the Economic Policy Institute points out, 4.5 million Americans saw a wage increase with the most recent incremental hike. Is cutting those wages really a smart thing to do in a recession?
Lane's other suggestions are equally dubious. It's unclear how ending federal protection of the domestic sugar industry will create jobs, nor does he explain how repealing the Davis-Bacon Act (which mandates that federally funded projects pay the prevailing local wage) will do anything other than lower wages.
But never mind. Lane's minimum wage suggestion got attention at the one place you'd expect it to (outside the Journal, anyway): Fox News.
James Rosen's report on the December 14 edition of America's Newsroom prominently features Lane's column, as well as similar claims by the author of the Journal op-ed Lane cited, David Neumark. Like Lane, Rosen ignored studies that show the minimum wage does not impact unemployment, though he conceded that a rollback is unlikely.
Rosen went on to misconstrue the debate on the issue, portraying it as between Democrats citing "social justice" and Republicans speaking "in macroeconomic terms" -- ignoring there's an macroeconomic argument for raising the minimum wage in terms of increased consumer spending.
If The Washington Post is supposed to be so unapologetically liberal, why is it manufacturing catnip for Fox News?
That was the Associated Press' recent finding [emphasis added]:
E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data — but the messages don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.
The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change. However, the exchanges don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.
The scientists were keenly aware of how their work would be viewed and used, and, just like politicians, went to great pains to shape their message. Sometimes, they sounded more like schoolyard taunts than scientific tenets.
What's missing from Adam Nagourney's New York Times profile of John McCain? Any indication that this is a bunch of bull:
Mr. McCain's friends said that in raising his profile, he was motivated not by concern at home, but by philosophical differences over the scope of Mr. Obama's health care proposals and spending measures.
"Had they reached out to him in a more genuine way, and not tried to pursue a pretty leftist agenda, I think they might have had a potential ally in John on certain things," said Senator Jon Kyl, Mr. McCain's fellow Republican from Arizona.
That would have been a perfect place for Nagourney to point out -- or at least quote a Democrat pointing out -- that Obama did reach out to Republicans, making massive concessions during the stimulus debate, in exchange for very little GOP support -- and none from John McCain.
But Nagourney didn't do that; he didn't include so much as a word of rebuttal to the claims that John McCain was ready to work with President Obama, but Obama refused to reach out to Republicans.
A few days ago, Politico did its own State-of-John-McCain article -- and it, too, uncritically quoted claims that McCain was outraged by a lack of bipartisanship by Obama:
Mark Salter, McCain's former Senate chief of staff, ghostwriter and close confidant, said McCain may have responded differently if Obama had governed more from the center.
"You can't expect him to do things that are antithetical to his beliefs," said Salter, who still talks to the senator multiple times each week.
Discussing Obama's first big initiative, the stimulus, Salter said that his old boss could not get behind what was mostly an infrastructure spending bill.
"If [Obama] had said we're going to do this half my way and half your way, guys like John McCain and others would have been all over it," he said.
Politico didn't include any mention of the concessions Obama made to Republicans on the stimulus, either.
Gateway Pundit's Jim Hoft is again attempting to link Department of Education official Kevin Jennings to a workshop for high school students which included explicit discussions of sex that took place at a 2000 GLSEN/Boston conference. Hoft's new "Explosive" claim is that a Massachusetts teacher who "wanted to remain anonymous out of safety considerations for herself and her family" claims "that there is 'no way' that Obama's Safe School Czar did not know about the pornographic and sexually explicit material that was presented and discussed at the conference." Of course, neither Hoft nor the anonymous teacher provide any actual evidence that Jennings knew the specific explicit content that would be discussed at that workshop When Jennings was made aware after the fact, he reportedly criticized it.