In a blog entry discussing Fox News' skewed coverage of President Obama's speech Wednesday night, the NY Times made this odd characterization of Special Report host Bret Baier:
Fox News did call upon Bret Baier, its decidedly un-opinionated Washington news anchor, and a pair of veteran Washington correspondents to handle coverage of Mr. Obama's speech and the Republican response.
Wow, "un-opinionated"? I'm wondering which Baier the Times is referencing?
Fox News hosts have recently fixated on the House's decision to terminate a pilot program to -- in the words of Bret Baier -- "kill the patriotic tunes callers hear when they're put on hold."
Stoddard, Baier agree that reconciliation "used to be called the nuclear option"
Fox News' Bret Baier repeated Sarah Palin's false assertion that the end-of-life counseling provided for under the House health care reform bill would, in Baier's words, "not be voluntary as the president says."
During the "All Star Panel" on the July 24 edition of Fox News' Special Report, host Bret Baier asked: "Is the president overexposed? Is he out there too much? He had 11 health care events in many as many days pushing the health care reform legislation."
Baier, Bream selectively cited Obama interview to claim he "may have contributed to the atmosphere of fear"
Wait, wait, just wait. Here is Bret Baier being "decidedly un-opinionated" as the New York Times describes him:
Fox's Baier describes Gore as a "global warming alarmist"
That's it. There you go. Parroting conservative misinformation and characterizations are the height of "un-opinionated". Definitely.
Maybe it was the snap polling that showed Americans overwhelmingly liked the speech and now support Obama's health care reform push. Or maybe it was the sad spectacle of watching Republican loud mouth Rep. Joe Wilson's unseemly bout of heckling, which was roundly condemned by both sides of the isles.
Whatever the trigger, some right-wing bloggers seemed to snap at having to watch a Democratic president regain control of the health care debate last night. Why else would Allah Pundit contemptuously refer to the President of the United States as "this jackass"?
And yes, these are the same conservative hypocrites who lectured liberals during the Bush years about not showing sufficient respect for the Oval Office.
UPDATED: Why do right-wingers hate the office of the presidency? Between the casual "jackass" insults this week, and insisting last week that school children needed to be sheltered from the President of the United States, when did the once-patriotic GOP Noise Machine decide that the Oval Office needed to be desecrated at every turn?
Of course, the rude heckling by Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) is being reported everywhere. And yes, his apology for the extraordinary outburst has been noted. But have you noticed what's been mostly left out from the dispatches? It's the fact that when Wilson called Obama a liar for claiming illegal immigrants would not be covered by proposed health care reforms, Wilson himself was lying.
What's been completely glossed over by the press is the fact that the "You Lie!" was itself built upon a lie. That the rude outburst was yet more GOP misinformation. Instead, too many in the press treat the exchange as a he said/he said. i.e. Obama claimed illegal immigrants won't be covered, and Wilson called him a liar. What are the facts? Which man was telling the truth? The press won't say.
From ABC News:
A Republican member of Congress interrupted President Obama's speech tonight on the floor of the House of Representatives to yell "You lie!" at the president, in reference to the president's assertion that his proposals wouldn't provide health insurance to illegal immigrants.
That's it. ABC never even tries to inform online readers which side was telling the truth.
I guess we shouldn't be surprised, since the press has spent the whole summer timidly looking away from the orchestrated, right-wing misinformation. What does a Republican have to do these days to get fact-checked by the press?
UPDATED: Politico's Glenn Thrush hailed Wilson's heckling as the night's "defining moment" in a piece headlined, "Wilson's rallying cry." But was Wilson's boorish accusation true? Did Obama "lie" when he claimed Democratic health care reforms would no offer up free care to illegal immigrants? On that count Politico remains politely silent.
As we've seen this summer, right-wing theatrics are far more important than facts.
UPDATED: Credit goes to Time's Michael Scherer, who included this in his "You Lie!" report:
The President's seemingly simple statement, that "the reforms I am proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally," is not hard to check. In the Senate Finance Committee working framework for a health plan, which Obama's speech seemed most to mimic, there is the line: "No illegal immigrants will benefit from the health care tax credits."
During President Obama's health care speech Wednesday night, Republican Rep. Joe Wilson yelled out "You lie!" -- an outburst Wilson later apologized for after blistering criticism (not to mention a flurry of online donations to his Democratic opponent.)
Of course, whenever reporters like Dana Milbank note such boorish behavior by a Republican, they must quickly include something some Democrat did so they seem "balanced," even if the Democrat's actions aren't even remotely comparable. Sure enough, here's Milbank:
And, in truth, there were provocations from the Democratic side. Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.), sitting on the Republican side, insisted on making a victory sign with his hand and waving it at Obama.
Yeah. That's the same. (And "insisted upon"? Really? Was there some effort to prevent Pascrell from doing so?)
Milbank, continuing directly:
Rep. Al Green (D-Tex.), also on the GOP side of the aisle, felt the need to pound his fist in the air and make what looked, awkwardly, like a fascist salute.
Um ... What? "Fascist salute"? What does that even mean?
Milbank doesn't say. But it does dovetail nicely with the Right's overheated comparisons of Obama to Hitler and Mao.
Amid the furious coverage of Sen. Max Baucus' effort in the Senate Finance Committee to produce a bipartisan health care bill, the media have missed one important fact: there is already a Senate health reform bill.
For instance, describing the status of health care reform in Congress during a recent NPR special report, Robert Siegel described the Senate's "progress" as "glacial," pointing only to negotiations among the Finance Committee's Gang of Six:
SIEGEL (host): Congress adjourned with things in a muddle. Both chambers failed to meet President Obama's ambitious timetable: one bill in each house before they left town. There was some progress. In the House, three committees approved revised versions of the original bill, H.R. 3200 America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. The three bills have to be merged into one, with floor debate and a vote possible this fall. Over in the Senate progress was glacial. The Gang of Six, three Democrats and three Republicans on the Finance Committee met daily through much of July to craft a bipartisan compromise. They left town without reaching an agreement.
In their September 8 Washington Post article, Paul Kane, Ben Pershing and Perry Bacon, Jr. wrote that the Senate "has been stalled all summer" on health reform.
Many Democrats do not want the House to act until they know what will happen in the Senate. That chamber has been stalled all summer as a bipartisan group of six senators on the Finance Committee has tried to reach a compromise that does not include a public option, costs much less than the $1.2 trillion House version and does not include a surtax on the wealthy.
If the Senate bill does not include a public option, many House Democrats will not want to vote for it in their version, because it would be unlikely to survive a House-Senate conference on the two measures.
Contrary to the media narrative that the Senate has "been stalled" and that its "progress" been "glacial," there is in fact a Senate health bill. The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee passed a bill in mid July, The Affordable Health Choices Act, which then-Chairman Ted Kennedy praised:
"I could not be prouder of our Committee. We have done the hard work that the American people sent us here to do. We have considered hundreds of proposals. Where we have been able to reach principled compromise, we have done so. Where we have not been able to resolve our differences, we have treated those with whom we disagree with respect and patience," Chairman Kennedy said. "As we move from our committee room to the Senate floor, we must continue the search for solutions that unite us, so that the great promise of quality affordable health care for all can be fulfilled."
The HELP bill includes a public option, employer mandate, and subsidies that people making up to 400% of the poverty line can use to purchase insurance. Combined with an expansion of Medicaid (which the HELP committee lacks the authority to include in legislation), 97% of Americans would be covered under the bill.
This is not a simple, technical oversight on the part of NPR and The Post. Disappearing the HELP bill is a problem because it creates the false impression that the Finance Committee alone speaks for the Senate, and that House and Senate Democrats are not on the same page about what health reform means -- all of which baselessly boosts the importance of whatever the Finance Committee eventually produces.
In reality, the bill that Finance will drop, which Baucus' legislative framework indicates will exclude a public option, is the congressional outlier, not the standard-setter. Indeed, like the House bill that has moved through three committees in that chamber, the HELP bill includes a public option. Baucus' framework has not been scored by the Congressional Budget Office, but, like the House bill, the HELP bill has been scored -- twice. And Baucus' framework at best only represents the work of six of 23 senators on his committee. By contrast, both the HELP and House bills were actually voted and passed by full committees, and before the August recess at that.
So in the media's continuing coverage of the machinations of the Finance Committee, maybe they could provide this fact-based perspective to their listeners, viewers and readers. It doesn't make for the sexy, conflict-based narrative that they do so love, but it does make for real journalism.
From Joe Scarborough's Twitter account:
More than 60 advertisers have reportedly dropped their ads from Glenn Beck's Fox News program. Here are his September 8 sponsors, in the order they appeared:
ColorOfChange.org today confirmed that six new companies whose ads aired recently during Fox News Channel's Glenn Beck program have pledged to not to run ads on the show going forward. The additions -- Aegon, Ashley Furniture, Humana, Luxottica Retail (retail parent of LensCrafters and Pearle Vision), United States Postal Service and Wyeth Consumer Healthcare -- bring the number of companies boycotting Glenn Beck to 62. ColorofChange.org launched its campaign against Beck last month after the Fox News Channel host called President Obama a "racist" who "has a deep-seated hatred for white people" during an appearance on Fox & Friends.
For months, Newsmax has been running a campaign to rehabilitate the reputation of Bernard Kerik, the former New York police chief and would-be Homeland Security secretary currently under indictment on numerous corruption charges -- indeed, Newsmax loves Kerik so much it made him a columnist. That campaign moved to an absurd level with an article in the September edition of its magazine, hyperbolically headlined "Bernie Kerik: The Trial of an American Hero." Newsmax thought so much of this piece that a PDF of it was created and posted on the Newsmax website. But writers Dave Eberhart and Jim Meyers hide facts in order to portray Kerik is the victim of "overzealous federal prosecutors."
Eberhart and Meyers allow Kerik's attorney to criticize "government tactics in this case, especially the recent third indictment in a new jurisdiction, Washington, D.C." But they fail to accurately explain why those charges were filed in the first place, repeating a claim in an earlier article by Eberhart that the dismissal of certain charges in the New York-based indictment against Kerik "apparently irked the prosecutors, who decided on May 26 to open up the new indictment against Kerik in D.C., including charging him with crimes [Judge Stephen] Robinson had dismissed."
In fact, those charges were dropped specifically so they could be filed in D.C. The judge essentially told prosecutors to do exactly what they did -- as Newsmax itself reported at the time.
Eberhart and Meyers also obfuscate about what exactly Kerik is charged with doing, selectively citing charges that they feel can be easily rebutted. There's no mention, for example, of what The Washington Post described as a $250,000 loan allegedly granted to him on an interest-free basis by an Israeli businessman that Kerik allegely failed to disclose on federal tax returns and when he was nominated by President Bush to be Homeland Security secretary in 2004. There's also no mention of Kerik's alleged failure to report $500,000 in income to the IRS or falsely claiming tens of thousands of dollars in tax deductions.
Eberhart and Meyers reference an inquiry into "whether he aided a New Jersey construction firm in gaining city permits in return for a lowball price on the home work" on Kerik's house without mentioning that, as the Post also reported, the construction firm in question was under investigation by four government agencies for ties to organized crime at the time it did the work for Kerik.
The writers also falsely suggest that one of the charges Kerik faces involves wiretapped phone conversations with then-Westchester County District Attorney (and current TV judge) Jeanine Pirro, who "asked him to conduct surveillance on her husband, whom she suspected of marital infidelity. According to published sources, the tapes indicate Kerik had tried to talk Pirro out of the surveillance." But since Kerik apparently did nothing wrong, he was apparently never charged in that particular incident; the recordings came to light as part of the corruption probe of Kerik.
(Just as Newsmax enthusiastically touted Kerik's DHS nomination at the time, it promoted Pirro's abortive Senate campaign against Hillary Clinton in 2005, declaring any and all unsavory claims against her -- and there were many, largely centering around her two-timing, out-of-wedlock-siring, tax-cheat hubby -- to be "old news" even though most people weren't aware of them.)
Eberhart and Meyers are much more interested in burnishing Kerik's credentials. For instance, they note that "Kerik worked for the Interior Ministry in Baghdad training police recruits," but not that, as the Post reported, the stint "has been widely judged a failure" because Kerik abruptly quit after two months -- or, as Sen. John McCain put it: "Kerik was supposed to be there to help train the police force. He stayed two months, and one day left, just up and left."
The writers cranked up the melodramatic aspect of Kerik's purported victimhood:
Today, Bernard Kerik is fighting for his innocence with a criminal guillotine hanging over his head. Cut off from most of his business and media access, his income has withered.
Despite depleting his entire personal wealth, Kerik is going into the final rounds a wounded, but not beaten, man.
In other words, Eberhart and Meyers aren't doing reporting -- they're writing a hagiography.