From his June 9 blog post, titled "GM: The MSNBC-Endorsed Car Maker":
GM has launched a new ad campaign to try and rebrand the company. No need. MSNBC has ridden to the rescue and is proud to declare Government Motors its new favorite cause. The hard-left cable network had adopted GM, so let the word go forth that if you want to support President Obama, his cheering section at MSNBC has made it clear that means buying GM product.
MSNBC's hapless Ed Schultz accused me of "hating" President Obama on his Tuesday's show because I have announced that I will not buy a GM or a Chrysler car. (Since 2001 I have purchased two GMs --a Saab and a Trailblazer.) My reasoning is explained in this WashingtonExaminer.com column and this Townhall.com column. Briefly put: The socialization of GM severely disadvantages Ford, Toyota and other auto workers while undermining basic, bedrock principles of free enterprise, and I will not endorse the deal with my dollars and don't think any other car buyer should either. In Ed's rather fevered world this means I "hate" President Obama. In fact I supported the first GM/Chrysler bailout and would have been happy to see the feds support the two companies with loan guarantees or other assistance that would not have resulted in government ownership of the company.
But I won't support a government-owned car company that tilts the competitive field against every other car maker, and the feds now own and control GM, and the new Government Motors has a $65 to $75 billion dollar advantage over the shareholders, bondholders and workers at every other car company in the country. The left doesn't care because President Obama decreed this state of affairs it so it must be good, but it is inimical to the American way of doing business, building widespread prosperity, the middle class and great cars, and to ideals of freedom and liberty. A government-owned car company is a car company that can dictate who wins and loses and who gets the good deals. That's the danger of Government Motors
Schultz's shouted tirade is par for the course for a left long used to screaming at its opponents, and his attribution to me of "hatred" for the new president is simple projection of Schultz's feelings towards the old president on to me. We had a good laugh on my show at Ed's expense, and at his desperate attempt to find a new ratings hook now that George W. Bush is beginning to fade from the mind of a public that is beginning to chuckle at the number of jobs President Obama "saved or created" this week, even as unemployment continues to rise after the near-trillion dollar stimulus that wasn't. The Dems are running everything in D.C., and not well, so the MSNBC play-book is down to one page: Attack center-right commentators.
What the left doesn't understand is that Team Obama would rather they drop the whole GM takeover issue. There's a reason the White House isn't talking up the nationalization of GM and would rather talk about anything else: They know the public hates this, including large majorities of independents and significant numbers of Democrats. The advisors around Obama also know that the cumulative effects of the trillions spent the president's friends are adding up to one enormous bill the staggering total of which will give even liberals pause when the subject of a "government option" for health care comes up this month and next. President Obama wants the feds to take over health care just as it has GM, but even the enraptured MSM is beginning to ask the inconvenient questions, such as "If you can't run Medicare how do you propose to expand it hugely and contain costs?" The unfolding misadventure with GM is simply an introduction to how government-run operations function. The Post Office and the DMV are exhibits one and two on that list, but more than any other Obama initiative, the takeover of GM promises to illustrate what the new Democratic Party stands for: A pay-off of friends and a kiss-off to everyone else.
If you are fine with that, but a GM instead of a Ford or now a Saturn or a Toyota. GM is now the brand endorsed by MSNBC and Ed Schultz, Keith Olbermann and the rest of the crew over there. The folks at Government Motors must love this rebranding-assist. Let's wait for the ads starring Ed, Keith, Chris and Rachel pitching Obamacars.
See also: Socialist cars?
Take a look at the first two paragraphs of this New York Times article:
The Obama administration on Wednesday appointed a compensation czar who will have broad discretion to set the pay for 175 top executives at seven of the nation's largest companies, which received hundreds of billions of dollars in federal assistance to survive.
The mandate given to the new compensation official, Kenneth R. Feinberg, a well-known Washington lawyer, reflects the federal government's increasingly intrusive role in the corporate affairs of troubled companies.
"Increasingly intrusive"? That's a little judgmental, isn't it? If you borrow some money from a friend to cover your rent, and she insists that you use it to pay your landlord rather than to play blackjack in Vegas, is she taking an "intrusive" role in your finances? Or is she doing you a favor?
Matthew Yglesias, noting yet another study that demonstrates the difficulty of correcting lies and myths once they are spread, concludes:
[P]eople who care about honesty ought to consider themselves very seriously obligated to reprimand people who are deliberately spreading misinformation. At the end of the day, it's extremely difficult to actually counter misinformation, and so society needs there to be disincentives to spreading it.
That's a very good point, and something the media does very poorly. Reporters tend to privilege lying, rather than punishing it. In order to remove the incentives for lying, the media should shun, rather than embrace, people who have a history of spreading falsehoods.
To take one obvious recent example: During last year's presidential campaign, John McCain lied. A lot. He lied personally, and he allowed his campaign to lie. A lot. There was actually a brief period when the media acknowledged this; when they debunked his false claims. But then what happened? They quickly moved on, and began rehabilitating him (scroll down to "Rehabbing McCain.) They insisted that wasn't the "real McCain," that he was really "principled" and "honorable." They pretended both campaigns were equally negative. And now? McCain's dishonest campaign is a thing of the past; the media pretends it never happened.
That, quite obviously, rewards lying. The primary disincentive to political figures spreading misinformation is the possibility that they will be seen as dishonest. If the media refuses to make that dishonesty clear, there will be more misinformation.
(Of course, the opposite problem kicks in when the media decides to portray the wrong candidate as dishonest, and make false claims in order to do so...)
Gawker reported the details on this yesterday, and it's still worth a look.
Basically, late last week Newsweek posted an interview with Scarborough, who's out pushing a new book. And right up at the top, because of the headlines made by the killing of abortion provider Dr. George Tiller, Newsweek asked Scarborough about the fact that as a young attorney he had once defended the murderer of an abortion doctor. (A fact the Village Voice highlighted last week.)
When the Newsweek interview was posted online, the abortion part was featured right at the top. But then somebody from Scarborough's "team" contacted Newsweek and complained, so Newsweek de-emphasized the abortion doctor discussion and moved it down further in the interview.
Who explained the change to Gawker? Newsweek editor Jon Meacham. Who's a frequent guest on Scarborough's MSNBC morning show? Newsweek editor Jon Meacham.
UPDATE: And just to be clear, it was Meacham himself who opted to alter the Scarborough interview.
These puff pieces pretty much write themselves at this point. Although this effort from ABC's John Stossel is particularly puffy.
See, Beck's a funny guy, who holds Democrats and Republicans accountable. He's just like that guy from Network. He speaks up for the little guy. Yadda, yadda, yadda.
BTW, if Beck's so insightful and entertaining why doesn't ABC ever have him on the air? ABC's Good Morning America hired him to be a regular commentator but virtually never had him on the show. What do ABC's GMA producers knows that John Stossel does not? (Well, besides all that....)
Because even when journalists are factual, conservatives claim the press' bias is showing. It's comical to watch, actually.
Cue Newsbusters and this item:
CBS's Smith: GOP Base 'Mostly White, Older, Very Religious'
Newsbusters flagged Brian Smith at CBS because he was bad-mouthing the Republican Party [emphasis original] :
While discussing the future of the GOP on Sunday, CBS's Harry Smith wondered: "Is there room for moderates in the Republican Party?...there's a brand-new Gallup poll that mostly white, older, very religious, just almost demographically the future of the party can't just be based in those folks."
Apparently Newsbusters didn't like Smith painting a portrait of the GOP that made it look like it was the party of white people. But guess what, it's true and Newsbusters never even tried to deny the polling data that Smith cited.
Smith on CBS made a factual observation about the makeup of the Republican Party, and Newsbusters called him out for...making a factual observation about the makeup of the Republican Party?
Like we said, conservatives make lousy media critics.
Via Think Progress:
In recent days, Fox's Bill O'Reilly has criticized the "liberal media" and CNN for what he viewed as a paucity of coverage of the deadly attack on the Army-Navy recruiting station in Little Rock, AR last week. "Only Anderson Cooper at 10 o'clock covered the story," O'Reilly said of CNN. (In fact, CNN had reported on the attack over a dozen times.) Despite O'Reilly's insistence that Fox News has been following the attack story more closely than its competitors, when the lone survivor of the attack, Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula, spoke with reporters earlier today, only CNN and MSNBC carried the press conference live. Fox News never cut to the press conference, choosing instead to focus on Newt Gingrich's criticisms of the Obama administration from last night's congressional Republican fundraiser.
So the question is, will O'Reilly complain about his network's failure to cover today's presser? Or is Fox News above such complaints because its not part of the "liberal media"?
Newsbusters' Kyle Drennen:
CBS 'Early Show' Gushes Over Obama Date Night In Paris
On Monday, correspondent Richard Roth gave a glowing report on President and Michelle Obama in Paris: "The big tourist treat in Paris this weekend was for the tourists treated to a sight of the Obamas driving by. For the President and First Lady, the treat may have been a European reprise of their date night in New York a week ago."
Really? That's what qualifies as gushing these days?
It's getting to the point that if a media figure mentions Barack Obama without accusing him of being a secret Muslim who can't produce his birth certificate and is dragging America towards socialism, some right-wing clown claims the report "gushed" over Obama.
Gushing is when Chris Matthews and Gordon Liddy ramble on about how the president's "manly characteristic" looks in a parachute harness and how he "looks great in a military uniform. He looks great in that cowboy costume he wears." That's gushing.
This Early Show report that has Drennen so worked up? That's nothing.
Just to echo what Jamison wrote in regards to the WashPost's Ben Pershing's observation that the Sotomayor battle is unfolding just like previous SCOTUS show-downs. From Pershing's vantage point, Democrats and Republicans have assumed their predictable roles, with opponents making the exact same charges against the nominee that are always made.
Inside the Village, they've seen this act before. Nothing new this time around.
Because c'mon folks, Supreme Court nominees always get tagged as racists--early and often, in fact--when they face a confirmation, right? Don't act like Democrats didn't brand Roberts and Alito as racists right after their names were put forward by President Bush. We all know they did.
Because that's what always happens in these battles, which is why the press had such a ho-hum reaction when an array of high-profile conservatives branded and demeaned Sotomayor a racist. The press didn't really blink, let alone object. Why? Because that ugly charge gets thrown around all the time during Supreme Court nominations.
Jonah Goldberg wonders:
Would judge Sotomayor be your first pick in a lawsuit against a Puerto Rican organization if your livelihood was on the line? It may be entirely unfair to her, but I think reasonable people might think long and hard on that question.
Goldberg seems to think he's won some sort of rhetorical point against Sotomayor by inviting readers to consider whether they would want her to preside over their hypothetical lawsuit against a hypothetical "Puerto Rican organization."
In fact, Goldberg has inadvertently made the case for diversity in the courts. After all, Goldberg's question can easily be re-phrased: Would Judge Roberts or Alito be your first pick in a lawsuit against an organization run by white males if your livelihood was on the line?