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 17 sponsors, in the order they appeared:
One day after freaking out because Time magazine did not include the tea party protests in its memorable moments of the past year, Glenn Beck complained on his Fox News show that "Time magazine didn't even recognize them in any way, shape, or form of even existing this year."
But Beck's claim ignores the fact that Time did recognize the tea parties - one week earlier in its year-end list of the Top 10 Untruths.
Checking in at No. 7 on Time's list was the effort by tea party rally organizers to inflate the attendance level at its 9-12 rally in Washington, D.C:
When all was said and done, the point of the tea-party march on Washington on Sept. 12 was not to compare estimates on the number of attendees but to show that grass-roots anger about government spending could lead to a full-on demonstration in the nation's capital. But there were a few snags along the way. One problem was that a group that helped organize the protest, FreedomWorks (slogan: "Lower Taxes, Less Government, More Freedom"), vastly overestimated the number of participants. FreedomWorks president Matt Kibbe stated onstage at the rally that ABC News had reported that 1.5 million were in attendance. Later, when the network said it had made no such claim, Kibbe apologized on his blog for the erroneous attribution, which by then had been repeated in other reports. "With a dead iPhone, I had been shown tweets from a number of different folks behind the stage citing the ABC estimate," he said. "They didn't say it. I regret misrepresenting the network." Most other mainstream news outlets had been sticking to estimates of "tens of thousands" or "between 60,000 and 70,000." (To avoid political battles like the one that occurred in this case, Washington officials do not release estimates.) Meanwhile, the thornier issue was whether the grass-roots tea-party protests should be characterized as AstroTurf, i.e., a sophisticated campaign orchestrated by lobbyists. Tea-party participants denied the allegation.
Then again, if Beck were to acknowledge that Time called out the event organizers for vastly overestimating attendance at 1.5 million, he'd probably need to address his own dubious claim -- citing a university he could not recall -- that 1.7 million attended.
From Kenneth P. Vogel's December 17 Politico article:
Glenn Beck may be blowing off concerns that he's gotten too cozy with gold-sellers who sponsor his shows, but Fox News is taking the gold endorsement issue a little more seriously.
On Thursday, the network indicated it would ask Rosland Capital, a gold retailer, to remove from its website the logo for Bill O'Reilly's Fox show, the O'Reilly Factor, which Rosland features along with an audio clip of O'Reilly urging listeners to buy gold because "The U.S. Dollar is under attack!"
Fox's concern was that O'Reilly's endorsement of Rosland was specific to the radio show he no longer does, and Rosland is not a sponsor of his television show.
Rosland spokesman Steve Getzug said the company had not heard from Fox but was already "in the process of pulling the reference down as part of an overall update of Rosland's website." He called the O'Reilly endorsement "dated" and said "it's been a while since the company has updated its website."
Last week, Fox, which also airs Beck's television show, requested that Beck clarify his relationship with another gold retailer, Goldline International, leading the company to tweak its trumpeting of Beck's endorsement. Goldline removed an identification of Beck as a "paid spokesman" from its website, but left the rest of the site - which prominently features his endorsement, photo and a radio interview he did with the company's president Mark Albarian - intact.
In fact, Beck's critics have not suggested that he was actually influencing the price of gold, which had been rising steadily until this month, by encouraging his fans to buy coins from Goldline.
But some financial analysts and precious metals experts did tell POLITICO that potential gold investors would be wise to look into bullion or exchange traded funds intended to track the price of gold, rather than the coins sold by Goldline and a handful of other firms that advertise on Beck's shows and those of other conservative talkers. That's because those firms focus on collectible or antique coins, which they sell for many times the value of the intrinsic gold and promote as being exempt from a potential government seizure of gold like that which occurred under Franklin Roosevelt in 1933. Beck has suggested that gold coins are a good buy now because President Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats are steering the economy towards disaster.
And that feedback loop - Beck stoking fear of economic collapse, hyping gold as a hedge against collapse, and endorsing a company selling gold - prompted liberals from the watchdog group Media Matters to MSNBC host Keith Olbermann to Comedy Central's faux-news hosts Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart to allege a glaring conflict of interest.
Wow. Just wow.
Headline [emphasis added]:
Blizzard Dumps Snow on Copenhagen as Leaders Battle Warming
World leaders flying into Copenhagen today to discuss a solution to global warming will first face freezing weather as a blizzard dumped 10 centimeters (4 inches) of snow on the Danish capital overnight.
Any other big scoops Bloomberg reporters are working on?
I'm in the wrong line of work.
Rather, I'm on the wrong side in my line of work, because it's becoming increasingly clear that one can be a fairly successful conservative media critic without having to bother with honesty, consistency, or respect for one's readership.
In spite of my better judgment I clicked over to NewsBusters this afternoon and read through Lachlan Markay's attack on a Pennsylvania cross country skier who was quoted in the Wilkes-Barre Times-Leader blaming climate change for the poor skiing conditions in his state. After ticking off a variety of higher-latitude areas that have received huge amounts of snowfall this year, Markay observes:
The problem with scary climate models is that every aberration in weather patterns is taken as evidence that there is something seriously wrong with the climate, and humans are to blame.
The Times-Leader might have looked into whether this trend was widespread enough to proclaim it an indicator of global temperature trends. And the paper certainly should have thought twice before offering one man's experiences on his cross country skis as proof that "global warming is happening."
Markay has a point here -- it's irresponsible for newspapers to take isolated weather occurrences as proof, one way or the other, of climate change. In fact, I made this same exact point two days ago when Markay's fellow NewsBuster Noel Sheppard mocked the idea of climate change by observing that it's cold in Copenhagen, where the United Nations climate change conference is taking place. And my colleague Jamison Foser also made this same exact point eight days ago when Sheppard suggested that a December snowstorm in New England undermines the scientific consensus on climate change.
And this isn't the first time Markay's high-minded tut-tutting has put himself at odds with his colleagues. On December 8, Markay attacked the White House for denigrating the "reputable polling organization" Gallup and their daily presidential tracking poll, even though NewsBusters has a rich and storied history of denigrating "reputable polling organizations," frequently accusing them -- Gallup included -- of cooking their numbers to achieve pro-liberal results.
As I wrote at the time, it's improbable that the NewsBusters don't read their own blog, so the more likely explanation for this blatant hypocrisy is that they just don't care.
You'd think Politico would have something more important to splash across their front page than a write up of some new book nobody cares about. But no:
Now, first of all: by "Monica's back," you might assume Politico means Lewinsky has written a book, or launched a speaking tour or something. No. Politico means that several months ago, Lewinsky gave a written comment to the author of a book that is coming out soon. Uh ... a little less "newsy" when you put it that way, isn't it?
Next, you may wonder how something can be the "first definitive history." How can there be more than one definitive history?
But then, if you're silly enough to read the article -- as, unfortunately, I was -- you see junk like this:
Confirmation of a long-rumored romantic affair between Clinton and McDougal, an Arkansas woman who spent 18 months in jail for refusing to answer questions from Starr's prosecutors before a grand jury, and later received a presidential pardon from Clinton. Gormley writes he is now certain "some intimate involvement did occur," though he will not say precisely how he knows it to be true.
Uh, Politico? That's totally not what the word "confirmation" means.
It gets dumber from there, with Politico breathlessly revealing that Robert Ray wanted to indict Bill Clinton (we already knew that) and that Ken Starr's office prepared a draft indictment of Hillary Clinton (knew that, too) and ... Well, who cares, really?
If the article has any redeeming feature, it is this:
Clinton retorts: "They were disgraced and he [Hyde] knows it. They ran a partisan hit job run by a bitter right-winger, Henry Hyde, who turned out to be a hypocrite on the personal issues....Yeah I will always have a asterisk after my name but I hope I'll have two asterisks: one is 'They impeached him," and the other is 'He stood up to them and beat them and he beat them like a yard dog.'"
The "them" in question has, of course, has always included the media that fanned the flames of impeachment. And they're still not over it.
Headline [emphasis added]:
Tea Party Movement Now More Popular Than Dem or Republican Parties
And the intro:
The Obama-Pelosi-Reid socialist democrats now rank lower than the Republican Party and the Tea Party Movement.
Got it? According to Gateway Pundit, Democrats rank lower than the GOP and the Tea Party; it's less "popular." Except that, according to the poll Gateway Pundit linked to, Democrats do not rank lower than the GOP.
The Republican Party maintains its net-negative favorable/unfavorable rating in the poll, with 28 percent viewing it positively and 43 percent seeing it in a negative light.
For the first time in more than two years, the Democratic Party also now holds a net-negative fav/unfav, at 35-45 percent.
By comparison, the NBC/WSJ poll shows the Tea Party movement with a net-positive 41-23 percent score.
Isn't it clear that according to the NBC/WSJ poll, the Republican Party is less popular than the Democratic Party in the poll, because the GOP favorable rating is 28 percent, and the Democratic Party's favorable rating is 35?
But in the world of Gateway Pundit, the GOP's 28 percent means it's more popular than the Dems' 35 percent.