Newsbusters' Carolyn Plocher thinks the broadcast news networks should have been quicker to suggest a religious motivation for last week's Ft. Hood shootings. And that's not all -- she's also upset that half of the news broadcasts that did bring up the shooter's religion "included a defense of the Islamic religion":
Until then, the broadcast networks had also downplayed his Islamic connections. From Nov. 5 through Nov. 10, all three evening news programs only identified Hasan as a Muslim one-fourth of the time (14 times out of 48 reports). And out of those 14 times, seven included a defense of the Islamic religion and expressed concern about a "possible backlash against Muslims in the military."
So Plocher's ideal news report would have immediately blamed an entire religion for the Ft. Hood shootings, and omitted any indication that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are peaceful. She doesn't want the broadcast nets to practice journalism; she wants them to wage a campaign against a religion.
First, it was News Corp CEO Rupert Murdoch concocting a phantom quote from Obama, claiming he had made a "very racist comment." Now its Murdoch's flak claiming his boss didn't really mean to suggest Obama was racist.
Just asking: Do they use a slightly different English language over there in Fox News world? Because there's simply no way to square what Murdoch said on TV and what his flak is saying now.
And if Murdoch is actually sorry he called President of the United States a racist on international television, than why doesn't the businessman apologize, instead of sending a minion out to try to spin it away by claiming Murdoch "does not at all, for a minute, think the president is a racist."
I'm sure Obama is quite flattered.
But again, the flak's comment completely contradicts what Murdoch--as plain as day--told a TV interviewer, which was that Obama had made "a very racist comment" and that Glenn Beck "was right" when he called Obama a racist.
Maybe to clear things up, Murdoch's paid point person can solve the key mystery and determine which comment Murdoch was referring to when he announced the president had made a "very racist" remark. If nobody inside News Corp can locate that quote, than Murdoch needs to publicly apologize to Obama. And not send his flak out to do the dirty work.
More problems with the dismal AP report on the latest Obama polling numbers. CF already highlighted the article's bizarre and condescending use of the phrase "novice commander in chief" to describe the president. But the piece is also riddle with other problems.
Question: How many paragraphs does it take the AP's Liz Sidoti to report what Obama's latest job approval rating actually is?
Answer: Nine paragraphs.
That's sort of all you need to know about Sidoti's report, which paints an almost comically bleak picture of the political landscape that Obama now faces. (It's like Jimmy Carter-meets-Herbert Hoover.) Why is the nine-paragraph delay telling? Because if Obama's poll numbers had actually gone done, than that information would have been included very high in the AP dispatch; likely in the second or third paragraph.
But because Obama's (healthy) poll approval rating remained unchanged Sidoti needed nine paragraphs to properly spin the polling data before conceding that, oh yeah, Obama still enjoys a robust job approval rating of 54 percent. (i.e. It's a job approval rating that his direct predecessor likely did not enjoy for his entire second term.)
Meanwhile, this AP passage seems monumentally misguided [emphasis added]:
Now, Obama's approval rating stands at 54 percent, roughly the same as in October but very different from what it was in January just before he took office, 74 percent.
Honestly, was there a political reporter in America who thought that Obama's sky-high job approval rating back in January was real? Didn't everyone pretty much concede that that rating was artificially high and reflected the country's exuberance with electing a new president? (It was like when president Bush's approval ratings soared into the high 80's immediately following 9/11.) So if that Inauguration Day number for Obama wasn't real, why would reporters like Sidoti now point to it as a benchmark for how far Obama has supposedly fallen?
I'm curious, did Sidoti ever write about Bush's approval rating when it hit bottom in the low 30's by contrasting that with his post-9/11 numbers? I certainly doubt it, because everyone knew those 2001 numbers were artificially high. But today you see reporters like Sidoti who all the time point to Obama's Inauguration Day numbers and pretend it's newsworthy that his approval rating isn't what it was in January.
Bottom line: For decades inside the Beltway press corps, the operating rule for assessing monthly approval ratings for the president was simple: Did the numbers go up or down from the previous month? And if they moved significantly than that might be considered news. But under Obama, that approach has been ditched in favor of Sidoti's AP style which is, have Obama's approval ratings gone down from eight months ago?
Like we said, Sidoti spins these numbers really, really hard.
From Ruth Marcus' November 11 column, "Health scare tactics":
I'm hoping, for your sake, that you didn't spend your Saturday night as I did: watching the House debate health-care reform on C-SPAN.
Pathetic, I know. The outcome wasn't in doubt, and the arguments were as familiar as an old pair of slippers. Moral imperative! Government takeover! Long-overdue protections! Crippling mandates!
The falsehood-peddling began at the top, with Minority Leader John Boehner:
"If you're a Medicare Advantage enrollee . . . the Congressional Budget Office says that 80 percent of them are going to lose their Medicare Advantage."
Not true. The CBO hasn't said anything of the sort. Boehner's office acknowledges that he misspoke: He meant to cite a study from the Medicare actuary estimating that projected enrollment would be down by 64 percent -- if the cuts took effect. Choosing not to enroll in Medicare Advantage is different from "losing" it.
But Boehner wasn't alone.
Kentucky Republican Brett Guthrie: "The bill raises taxes for just about everyone."
Not true. The bill imposes a surtax on the top 0.3 percent of households, individuals making more than $500,000 a year and couples making more than $1 million.
Georgia Republican Tom Price: "This bill, on Page 733, empowers the Washington bureaucracy to deny lifesaving patient care if it costs too much."
Not true. The bill sets up a Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research "in order to identify the manner in which diseases, disorders, and other health conditions can most effectively and appropriately be prevented, diagnosed, treated, and managed clinically."
Are Republicans against figuring out what works? There's nothing in there about cost, and certainly nothing about denying "lifesaving patient care."
Price, again: "This bill, on Page 94, will make it illegal for any American to obtain health care not approved by Washington."
Not true. The vast majority of Americans get their insurance through their employers. The bill envisions setting minimum federal standards for such insurance, in part to determine who is eligible to buy coverage through the newly created insurance exchanges. This is hardly tantamount to making it "illegal" to obtain "health care" without Washington's approval.
Michigan Republican Dave Camp: "Americans could face five years in jail if they don't comply with the bill's demands to buy approved health insurance."
Not true. The bill requires people to obtain insurance or, with some hardshipexceptions, pay a fine. No one is being jailed for being uninsured. People who intentionally evade paying the fine could, in theory, be prosecuted -- just like others who cheat on their taxes.
California Republican Buck McKeon: "I offered two amendments to try to improve this bill -- one to require members of Congress to enroll in the public option like we're going to require all of you to do."
Not true. No one is required to enroll in the public option. In fact, most people won't even be eligible to enroll in the public option or other plans available through the exchanges.
Florida Republican Ginny Brown-Waite: "The president's own economic advisers have said that this bill will kill 5.5 million jobs."
Not true. Christina Romer, chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, has estimated that the bill would increase economic growth and add jobs. Republicans misuse Romer's previous economic research on the impact of tax increases to produce the phony 5.5 million number.
You have to wonder: Are the Republican arguments against the bill so weak that they have to resort to these misrepresentations and distortions?
They were more pessimistic about the direction of the country. They disapproved of Obama's handling of the economy a bit more than before. And, perhaps most striking for this novice commander in chief, more people have lost confidence in Obama on Iraq and Afghanistan over the last month. (emphasis added)
Perhaps the AP's Liz Sidoti can tell us about all those other Presidents who, in their first year in the presidency, were veterans at being commander in chief? As most people know, in the first year it's impossible to be a veteran commander in chief, because in order to be commander in chief you have to be elected to the presidency. They're all rookies in their first year.
Last April it was noted that Sidoti presented Republican presidential candidate John McCain a "treat" of donuts... with sprinkles.
Michael Calderone's November 10 Politico blog post:
News Corp. chief Rupert Murdoch has drawn criticism following an interview with Sky News Australia, where his comments were interpreted by some as being in agreement with Glenn Beck's view that President Obama's "a racist."
But News Corp. spokesperson Gary Ginsberg tells POLITICO that Murdoch did not intend to suggest that he had the same opinion as Beck.
"He does not at all, for a minute, think the president is a racist," Ginsberg said.
Murdoch, in the interview, said that the president "did make a very racist comment" and seemed to indicate he thought Beck was right in making the controversial claim. Media Matters, and others, quickly seized upon the interview as evidence that Murdoch shared the same view as the Fox News host.
Ginsberg said that's not the case, but did not comment further on the interview.
In his interview with Sky News Australia, Murdoch said of Beck's comment that President Obama is a racist, "that was something which perhaps shouldn't have been said about the president, but if you actually assess what he was talking about, he was right":
SPEERS: The Glenn Beck, who you mentioned, has called Barack Obama a racist, and he helped organize a protest against him. Others on Fox have likened him --
SPEERS: -- to Stalin. Is that defensible?
MURDOCH: No, no, no, not Stalin, I don't think. I don't know who that -- not one of our people. On the racist thing, that caused a [unintelligible]. But he did make a very racist comment, about, you know, blacks and whites and so on, and which he said in his campaign he would be completely above. And, you know, that was something which perhaps shouldn't have been said about the president, but if you actually assess what he was talking about, he was right.
Last night, while watching the late night talk shows, I was reminded of what has become a staple segment of NBC's Late Night with Jimmy Fallon: Rush Limbaugh Karaoke.
For those of you who haven't caught the bit before, here are a few clips for your viewing pleasure... it actually makes listening to Limbaugh a bit easier if ever so slightly.
This exercises is becoming increasingly tedious and approaching pointless. If Andrew Breitbart uncovers any actual news in regards to the sad, forgotten tale of Kenneth Gladney, and specifically how the White House directly ordered his beating, than by all means post that information under yet another hysterical headline. But this garbage-in/garbage-out stuff that BigGovernment is now posting is just a waste of everyone's time.
But for the record, BigGovernment today thinks it's a big deal that Media Matters paid close attention to a police report in connection with the ACORN videotape in Philadelphia in September, but Media Matters (i.e. my blog post today) isn't nearly as interested in the police report BigGovernment posted in connection with the Gladney case.
Since Breitbart and company play dumb like it's an Olympic spot and can't figure out why one police report is more interesting/telling than the other, I'll spell it out. The report in connection with the Philadelphia story revealed new information. The Gladney police report, however, does not.
Quite a concept, right?
The Philadelphia police report, in and of itself, undercut the ACORN haters' claim that nobody at the office had a problem with the undercover pimp and prostitute shtick. The police report, in and of itself, revealed new information that added context to the then-unfolding ACORN story, which is why the police report, in and of itself was considered newsworthy. And that's why CNN reported on it, for instance.
The Gladney police report by contrast, doesn't add a single new fact to the already-dusty story. That's why, by definition, it's not news.
Question: Did anybody at BigGovernment ever practice journalism? Like even for their high school newspaper?
UPDATED: BigGovernment claims Gladney was the victim of a "hate crime." What's the proof for that? I assume Breitbart's minions understand that's a legal term. So what's the evidence a hate crime was committed since, y'know, nobody's ever been charged with a hate crime in connection with Gladney.
I think Breitbart's crew just like the one the phrase sounds, so they use it whether it's accurate or not.
UPDATED: Whatever happened to the civil lawsuit that Gladney was going to file against SEIU? Won't Breitbart pick up the legal fees for that Gladney adventure? And won't Andrew-I-am-Kenneth-Breitbart at least give Gladney some money so he can get his old martyr-like website back up and running, since it appears Gladney's attorney/agent won't pay the bills?
UPDATED: Priceless BigGovernment prose:
Let me guess: Some assaults are more equal than others.
Um, yeah. That's why we have what are called first, second, and third-degree assault charges, which is a way for law enforcement officials to differentiate the magnitude and severity of certain types of crimes. In the Gladney case, which BigGovernment now covers like it was the Kennedy assassination, two SEIU members were booked on the lightest possible third-degree assault charges, and could face 15 days in jail and a $500 fine.
Did I mention this exercise has become pointless?
UPDATED: To read a complete, detailed dismantling of BigGovernment's endless Gladney conspiracy theories, go here. Talk about a stinging smackdown. Ouch.
From Pamela Geller's November 10 Atlas Shrugs blog post:
Fox News contributor and talk radio host Laura Ingraham took to Fox & Friends today to declare that "Nancy Pelosi basically did everything except sell her own body" to pass the House health care bill. None of the hosts objected - at least one of them chuckled. So there you have it: to the conservative media, it is appropriate to declare the first female Speaker of the House almost - but not quite! - a prostitute.
Meanwhile, over on Fox Business, Frank Luntz was calling Pelosi ""living proof you get one shot at a facelift," adding, "If it doesn't work the first time, let it go"
It's hard to get outraged, mainly because this sort of gender-based attack on Pelosi from conservatives has been par for the course for years. Back in May, we put together a research item and video compiling various attacks on her looks -- conservative media figures, especially radio hosts, seem to love to stick "Pelosi" and "Botox" in the same sentence. Over a six-day period, they characterized Pelosi as being incapable of "human facial expression," referred to her "fashionable" "Botox shots," and called her a "hag."
Perhaps this is why the Politico is reporting that the Republican Party has a "women problem."