DefendGlenn.com on several occasions inaccurately reported that Color of Change called President Bush a "racist". We have confirmed that Color of Change did not, in fact, call George Bush a "racist" on its website and although we picked up that allegation from another website (NewsMax.com), that allegation is false and we apologize to Color of Change for this error.
We also accused Color of Change of lying regarding it's claims that certain advertisers agreed to stop advertising on Glenn Beck. While our previous comments were partially correct on the matter concerning the claims of Color of Change regarding the initial 20 advertisers, upon review, it appears that the accusation of lying was inaccurate. In at least one instance, DefendGlenn.com and Color of Change were given diametrically opposing statements by the same advertiser, and, in other instances, the statements given by the advertisers were consistent, but open to interpretation. It is now our understanding that Color of Change accurately reported on it's web site and in its press releases precisely what each of the advertisers told it. DefendGlenn.com also accurately reported on its website precisely what each advertiser told it. We apologize to Color of Change for erroneously accusing them of lying and have removed all such allegations from our website.
We have also alleged that Kayne West claimed that George Bush 'gave troops permission to go down (to New Orleans) and shoot us (black people) after Hurricane Katrina' and that Color of Change endorsed that hateful statement by selling T shirts that said "Kanye Was Right". We have since learned that Mr. West was apparently referring to Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco's authorization for troops to fire on the people of New Orleans during Katrina and not President Bush never gave such an order. A representative of Color of Change has informed us that the t shirts they are selling refer instead to Kanye West's much more widely publicized comment that George Bush "doesn't care about black people." We accept their representation in this regard and apologize for any misunderstanding that this has caused.
(hat tip: Daily Kos)
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 10 sponsors, in the order they appeared:
Los Angeles Times reporter -- and former Laura Bush flak -- Andrew Malcolm struggles with many aspects of his current career, but reporting on polls may give him the most trouble.
Lately, the erstwhile Bush aide has appeared to be auditioning for a gig with Sarah Palin by -- among other things -- repeatedly offering absurd apples-and-oranges comparisons of Palin's favorability rating with President Obama's job approval rating.
But Malcolm outdid himself today, shoe-horning in a sentence about Palin's favorability rating into a blog post about public skepticism that Obama has done enough to deserve the Nobel Peace Prize:
Almost nearly not quite one-in-five Americans believes that President Obama has accomplished enough to deserve the Nobel Peace Prize that he had to go to Norway in December to collect.
Doing the math from those numbers, that means that during the past eight weeks or so the proportion of fellow countrypersons who think the Chicago Democrat is undeserving of the global-peace-prize distinction has gone from an overwhelming 67% majority up to a gargantuan, ground-shaking tsunami landslide majority of 80%.
Perhaps having something to do with the same award-winning U.S. president having just ordered another 30,000 combat soldiers into the increasingly unpopular and peaceless battle for Afghanistan. A subject Obama might address in his address. (Text here later.)
Meanwhile, the favorability rating of Republican Sarah Palin, an unemployed itinerant author, have climbed back up to 46% from a summertime low of 39%.
So now Malcolm is comparing Palin's favorable ratings to the number of people who think Obama deserves the Nobel? That isn't apples and oranges, that's apples and ... I don't know, rattlesnakes, maybe. Or frisbees. Something very much unlike an apple, anyway.
Meanwhile, that Palin favorability rating Malcolm thinks is so darn impressive? It's 46 percent -- with a 46 percent unfavorability rating. Palin's unfavorable rating is just one point lower than John Edwards'. Her net fav/unfav is significantly worse than that of Vice President Joe Biden, who Malcolm mocks daily. Palin's numbers, in other words, are not good. Malcolm has to invent bogus comparisons in order to make them look good. (Well, that's not quite true: He could simply note that she has lower unfavorable ratings than Dick Cheney.)
Yesterday, The Washington Post published a falsehood-laden op-ed on climate change from noted climatologist...Alaska Governor...uh, social network celebrity Sarah Palin. In an interview with Editor and Publisher's Joe Strupp, op-ed editor Autumn Brewington explained how Palin's piece came to appear in the paper, and defended the decision to run it:
She said the newspaper received an e-mail from Palin Tuesday asking to write about the issue and it decided it should run Wednesday, before President Barack Obama was to head to the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen.
"If we were going to use it, we had to use it immediately," Brewington said. "It was a quicker turnaround than is often the case. But we made the decision based on news."
Brewington did not regret giving Palin space, noting, "She is someone who stirs discussion and we are in the business of putting out opinion. She reached out to us."
A few things come to mind in response to this. Considering Palin's history of falsehoods, rushing her piece through the editorial process was probably not the best idea. As Media Matters research director Jeremy Schulman pointed out on Wednesday, not only were Palin's falsehoods contradicted by scientists and temperature data, but also by the Washington Post's own reporting.
Also, the idea that Palin's thoughts are worth publishing for no other reason than she "stirs discussion" suggests that The Washington Post is more interested in getting attention than informing its readers. Does Palin have an open invitation to write ill-informed pieces on newsworthy issues just because she "stirs discussion?" How about a piece about Barack Obama's birth certificate? Actually, I don't think I want to know the answer to that.
Yesterday, under the headline "Hard Questions," Josh Marshall framed the recent "Climategate" kerfuffle perfectly:
Who to believe on climate change mystery: scientists or conservative pundits? Any thoughts?
WaPo answers: That depends - how many clickthroughs will these "scientists" get us?
The NY Post seems to be following in the factually challenged footsteps of corporate sibling Fox News. At 10:19am EST today the NY Times Media Decoder blog noted that in a disclosure in the middle of a news story, the NY Post identified itself as the corporate parent of News Corp. Of course, the opposite is true: News Corp is the parent of the NY Post.
Six hours later (as of 4:38pm EST), the error remains.
Even better, the error is in the Post's "Media Ink" column.
Shortly after Media Matters for America posted a research item documenting that an Accuracy in Media blogger had smeared Department of Education official Jennings as a "pedophile" and falsely claimed that "[v]ideos have surfaced of Jennings teaching 14-year-old boys the dangerous sexual practice of 'fisting,' and discussing with them the particulars of oral sex," the AIM post was removed from its site without comment.
The anti-gay right's newest line of attack on Department of Education staffer Kevin Jennings is that he "knew" in advance about the content of a seminar held at his organization's 2000 conference, in which two Massachusetts Department of Education employees engaged in explicit discussion of sexual practices with a teen audience. But the evidence those right-wing sources are hanging their hats on is extremely thin - even for them.
WorldNetDaily and Gateway Pundit's Jim Hoft are both claiming that one of those instructors is on the record stating that Jennings knew. Both are pointing to a blog post by the anti-gay hate group MassResistance which states, "Of course Jennings and the Massachusetts Department of Education knew beforehand what the 'sexuality educators' would discuss with children at the 'fisting' workshop. The instructor Margot Abels said so herself."
But the statements MassResistance cites Abels reportedly making only indicate that her immediate supervisors in the Department of Education were aware of her work - not Jennings or other GLSEN officials. MassResistance emphasizes Rod Dreher's Weekly Standard report that "Abels fumed to the press that the education department had known perfectly well what she had been doing for years and hadn't cared until the tapes had surfaced." They also point to a report in the conservative Mass News, which states that Abels told the LGBT newspaper Bay Windows that "she had the support of state officials during her seven years at the state Department of Education," and quoted her statement that "Maybe David Driscoll [Commissioner of Education] didn't always know everything that we did, but certainly our supervisors did."
So no, Abels hadn't "said so herself" that Jennings "knew beforehand" the contents of her workshop.
The other piece of "evidence" MassResistance and their allies in the right-wing blogosphere are pointing is as follows:
Jennings, after all, worked hand in hand with the Mass. Department of Education from the beginning, as co-chair of the Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth education committee, which set up the statewide program, "Safe Schools for Gay and Lesbian Students" in the DOE. That is the program the fisting workshop instructors worked for.
In fact, as the bio on Jennings' website indicates, he left that commission years before the 2000 conference. Unless these people are alleging some massive conspiracy in which Jennings plotted out the details of the workshop discussion years in advance (and I suppose we can't really rule out that sort of logic from them), this line of reasoning falls apart pretty quickly.
For that matter, even if Jennings had been aware of the general contents of Abels' presentation (and there's no actual evidence to that effect), that still wouldn't in any way support the argument that he was aware of the specific discussion the right-wing finds so offensive before it happens. What we're left with is still that Department of Education officials held the seminar at GLSEN's conference, Jennings criticized them, and they were fired or resigned.
In short, the right is dredging up a ten-year-old instance that was widely reported at the time, and using innuendo and faulty logic to try to smear Jennings with it. But I guess we couldn't have expected any less.