Because as the story reads right now, the Washington Times, in its headline and article, reports that ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis, during an address at the National Press Club on Tuesday, claimed ACORN critics are "racist."
Slight problem: The WashTimes fails to include any quotes, any evidence, any anything, to support the "racist" angle; a specific word the daily uses three different times. Instead, it appears that the WashTimes' Joseph Curl just invented the explosive charge of racism.
The piece is relatively brief, so I'll paste it in full below. [Emphasis added.] If I'm missing the section where Lewis claimed ACORN critics are "racist," please point it out. But if I'm right, and the WashTimes simply concocted the allegation, which of course has caught fire in the right-wing fever swamps, than the paper needs to clean this mess up immediately, complete with a correction.
ACORN's Lewis suggests opponents are racist
ACORN's Bertha Lewis charged Tuesday that accusations about the embattled community organizing group are racist, alleging that a coordinated political effort started by former Bush adviser Karl Rove sought to stop the group from registering minority voters.
"For many years, there've been folks who've disagreed with our ideology or methodology that [have] gone after us," Mrs. Lewis, ACORN's chief executive officer, said in a speech at the National Press Club in Washington.
"I mean we, [going back] to 2004, we now see through e-mails from Karl Rove from the previous administration that ACORN itself was targeted, targeted to go after us so that we would stop doing voter registration because it was said that we were moving too many minorities to vote, changing the power dynamics on the local election and that we needed to be stopped."
She also labeled as racist the infamous videos that show ACORN workers advising a man and young woman posing as pimp and prostitute how to circumvent the law. "These new filmmakers, [James] O'Keefe himself, told The Washington Post, 'They're registering too many minorities; they usually vote Democratic; somebody's got to stop them,'" Mrs. Lewis said.
But Mrs. Lewis did not mention that The Post was forced to issue a later correction on the story, saying the quote attributed to Mr. O'Keefe was inaccurate.
The Huffington Post's Sam Stein reported this afternoon that the New York Post has confirmed that an "editor who spoke out against a controversial cartoon the paper ran comparing the author of the president's stimulus package to a dead chimpanzee has been fired from her job."
More from Stein's report:
Sandra Guzman was quietly dismissed from her position as associate editor last week for reasons that are being hotly debated by personnel inside the company. An official statement from the New York Post, provided to the Huffington Post, said that her job was terminated once the paper ended the section she was editing.
"Sandra is no longer with The Post because the monthly in-paper insert, Tempo, of which she was the editor, has been discontinued."
Employees at the paper -- which is one of media mogul's Rupert Murdoch's crown jewels -- said the firing, which took place last Tuesday, seemed retributive.
Guzman was the most high-profile Post employee to publicly speak out against a cartoon that likened the author of the stimulus bill (whom nearly everyone associated with President Barack Obama) with a rabid primate. Drawn by famed cartoonist Sean Delonas, the illustration pictured two befuddled policeman -- having just shot the chimp twice in the chest -- saying: "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill."
"I neither commissioned or approved it," Guzman wrote to a list of journalist colleagues shortly thereafter. "I saw it in the paper yesterday with the rest of the world. And, I have raised my objections to management."
The remark from Guzman was a rare instance of dissension within the halls of the paper making its way into the public domain. And sources at the Post now say it cost her a job.
WP has no plans to monitor tweets as far as I know, so there's no czar in charge. Grownups should just exercise a bit of discretion...
The obsession in question is over the controversy surrounding CBS' David Letterman of late. Check out the rest of her post for all the details on Kurtz's Twitter obsess...err "discretion."
Shameless Plug: You can follow me on Twitter @KarlFrisch. My obsession happens to be media accountability, not Letterman.
Conservatives have been all excited about right-wing investigative journalism coming from the likes of Andrew Breitbart. They're less excited, however, when the investigative eye is trained on one of their own.
Last week, we highlighted reporting noting that the record does not necessarily support Glenn Beck's longtime claim that his mother committed suicide when he was a teenager -- in fact, there is a possibility that her death may have been an accident. We made no editorial comment about it but merely noted what had been reported.
But that was too much for some. At NewsReal, the group blog at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, Kathy Shaidle was unhappy that we committed such a horrible act, going on to falsely suggest that we claimed "Glenn Beck is modeling his life and career on that of fellow Washingtonian... Kurt Cobain." (Shaidle also asserted that "billionaire leftist" George Soros "bankrolls Media Matters." He doesn't.)
Meanwhile, NewsBusters' Jeff Poor uncritically repeats Beck's "impassioned plea to stop looking into his past," noting that "the McClatchy-owned The News Tribune of Tacoma, Wash. and the left-leaning Salon.com ran stories questioning whether or not Glenn Beck's mother, Mary Beck committed suicide. It was later propagated by the left-wing storefronts." The "left-wing storefronts" remark links to Media Matters. Doesn't that make Poor's employer, the Media Research Center, a "right-wing storefront"?
Poor seems to be missing the point. Isn't a person's demand that the media stop looking into him a red alert that the media should be looking even more? If Beck has nothing to hide, why is he acting like he does? And why don't conservatives want anyone to know?
So far, 80 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 October 6 sponsors, in the order they appeared:
It's to the point where you can't even make it through the first paragraph of one of the fringe pub's posts without running into massive, skyscraper-like misinformation:
Why is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi so quiet about Kevin Jennings? Jennings is in the news because he is the Obama administration's Safe Schools czar, in bureaucratese the assistant deputy secretary of the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools inside the Department of Education. And because he has now admitted that when, as a teacher, he was sought out by a 15-year-old boy asking for advice about an affair with an older adult male, Jennings suggested wearing a condom.
As anybody who's been following the Kevin Jennings Witch Hunt knows, the boy in question was at least 16 years old, the legal age of consent in Massachusetts where the incident occurred. This has been known for days. The Spectator however, just doesn't like that fact, so it opts for its own version of the truth.
Meanwhile, love that opening line:
Why is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi so quiet about Kevin Jennings?
The Spectator pretends the radical right's Kevin Jennings Witch Hunt demands the attention of our nation's leaders. Interesting notion. Let's turn the tables and ask, why is Sen. Mitch McConnell so quiet about Kevin Jennings? And why is Rep. John Boehner quiet about Kevin Jennings. Indeed, why is the entire GOP leadership so quiet about Kevin Jennings? (Could it be because they just don't care?)
I'm sure the Spectator, with its ace reporting skills, can get to the bottom of this political whodunnit.
UPDATED: Parallel Universe Alert! In the comment section of the Spectator piece, a reader notes that the boy is question was 16 years old, not 15, and wonders if the Spectator ought to correct the story.
Here's what author Jeffrey Lord wrote back:
Remember that the source for this story is Kevin Jennings himself. He has, as noted, said he should have handled this differently. Something he presumably would not believe if the student were of legal age. I am aware of no statement by Jennings that the boy was of a legal age. If Jennings provides that fact and can document it we will be happy to correct.
ColorOfChange.org has confirmed that 19 new companies whose ads aired recently during Fox News Channel's Glenn Beck program have asked Fox to stop their ads from running or pledged to not to run ads on the show going forward. The latest additions -AmMed Direct, Citrix Online, Concord Music Group, Diageo, Eggland's Best, Equifax, Eulactol USA (producer of Flexitol), GetARoom.com, Hoffman La Roche (maker of BONIVA), Metropolitan Talent Management, ooVoo, Overture Films, Scarguard, Schiff Nutrition (maker of Tiger's Milk and Fi-Bar), Seoul Metropolitan Government, Subaru, Toyota-Lexus, Waitrose and Woodland Power Products, Inc. - bring the total number of companies that have distanced themselves from Beck to 80. This after Beck called President Obama a "racist" who "has a deep-seated hatred for white people" during an appearance on Fox & Friends.
The news comes on the heels of stories that broke throughout British newspapers on Monday, reporting that advertisers seen during Beck's program in England are feeling the heat as well. Diageo - a London-based alcohol company that makes Guinness, Tanqueray and many other brands of spirits - joined Waitrose - a popular British supermarket chain used to supply groceries to the Royal Family - and cut their advertising ties with Beck. Waitrose, along with the U.S.-based Metropolitan Talent Management, adds to a growing list of companies who are not only taking a stance against Glenn Beck, but against Fox News Channel.
"From the beginning of our campaign, we promised to continue to put pressure on anyone who supports Beck's race-baiting rhetoric," said James Rucker, Executive Director of ColorOfChange.org. "Seeing our efforts resonate in another country gives our members a renewed sense of hope that we can rally together and stand up against racial demagoguery in America."
Yesterday, we brought you news that El Rushbo himself, Rush Limbaugh, has confirmed his interest in buying the NFL's St. Louis Rams:
Almost six years to the day after radio host Rush Limbaugh resigned in disgrace from his brand-spanking new gig on ESPN's Sunday NFL Countdown for, as CNN reported at the time, "his statement that Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb was overrated because the media wanted to see a black quarterback succeed," El Rushbo confirmed today that he's interested in buying the St. Louis Rams.
This could get interesting. According to an OpenSecrets.org review of Federal campaign contributions between 1989-2009, the Rams are the bluest team in the NFL giving 98% of its contributions to Democrats. (H/T to S.L.)
Now, Michael Roston over at True/Slant now brings us, "Limbaugh's 10 awesomest terriblest remarks about pro football that I found while watching the Steelers beat the Chargers on Sunday night."
01. Rush compared black football players on the field to fighting gang members.
02. Rush can't let go of his enmity with McNabb and the Eagles.
03. Limbaugh thinks Michael Vick's dog murder is funny.
04. Rush will surely attract scores of female fans to the Edward Jones Dome.
05. Rush will help promote the NFL's youth health initiatives.
06. Rush has a strong knowledge of sports gambling.
07. Rush will not welcome liberals at Edward Jones Dome.
09. Rush is ready to liquidate a couple of NFL teams.
10. Rush has compared other football owners to rapists.
Be sure to head over to True/Slant and read the details behind each of the top ten hits. It's insanely, ummm humorous? Depressing?
Here's MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell, interviewing Time's Karen Tumulty moments ago:
Karen, let me ask you one other thing. There was an event with doctors at the White House at the Rose Garden yesterday. And I have to pursue this more, in more depth, but do you know anything about this photo opportunity when they were told to bring their white lab coats, and those who forgot and came in, in business attire were handed lab coats by White House staff members so they would look like doctors for the photo op?
After Tumulty noted that this is "not such a huge deal" because the people were in fact doctors and do in fact "support the basic bill," Mitchell haltingly replied:
Well, again, it is an interest group, Doctors for America, but it was certainly, uh, assisted by White House staff. It just seems like a lot of choreography for a White House which claims to be doing things authentically. [Smirking, shaking head] It just, you know.
It just, you know.
Well, no, I don't.
Here's a free tip: When you're unable to articulate what's wrong with an action more eloquently than saying "It just, you know" while scrunching up your nose and shaking your head, its probably because there's nothing wrong with it.
Look: These were actual doctors. If they were not doctors, and the White House dressed them up to look like they were, that would be problematic.
But that isn't what happened. They were doctors. There was nothing misleading about asking them to wear lab coats so people would know they were doctors rather than, say, insurance company executives.
(By the way: handing someone a lab coat is not "a lot of choreography." It takes about two seconds.)
Now, why did Mitchell feel she had to ask Tumulty about this? Why does she think she has to "pursue this more, in depth"? How much "depth" is there to pursue?
Mitchell can't articulate a reason why it matters, but the right-wing is up in arms, so she thinks she has to "pursue" the Great Doctors Wearing Lab Coats Scandal of Ought-Nine in more depth.
UPDATE: According to Tommy Christopher at Mediaite, the controversy is not only dumb -- it isn't true. Under the header "Why Was The NY Post Alone in Reporting 'White Coat-gate? Because It's Not True," Christopher writes:
The picture bothered me, because I didn't recognize the staffer who was handing out the white coats.
I checked on it, and a White House source told me that the White house did not provide the extra lab coats. Doctors for America paid for and brought the extras. OOPS!
I wonder if Mitchell's in-depth pursuit of this crucial story has turned up that little detail yet.