From Joseph Curl's July 29 Washington Times column:
Tuesday's vote on the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor was so far in the bag that minutes before the Senate Judiciary Committee took a roll call, Chairman Patrick J. Leahy was on his cell phone, chatting and smiling and having a grand old time.
The Vermont Democrat had already drawn laughter from the crowd in Hart 216 when he said, "I look forward to a bipartisan vote."
While Mr. Leahy is legally blind in one eye, the fourth-most senior member of the Senate surely had no illusion that Republicans would support the self-described "wise Latina woman."
And they didn't. All but one voted against the first Hispanic nominee to the high court, and several seemed miffed at President Obama and his so-called "empathy standard -- his belief that judges should mine their compassion in addition to having a deference to the Constitution.
From a July 29 post on the NBC News blog First Read by political director Chuck Todd, deputy political director Mark Murray, political researcher Domenico Montanaro, and Ali Weinberg:
*** On the Glenn Becks and Howard Beales: The White House doesn't want to give Glenn Beck a bigger platform or extra oxygen -- especially regarding his remark yesterday that the president has "a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture" -- so they won't comment, even off record. Beck, after all, is a radio DJ who somehow ended up getting a national platform to give his opinion on politics. What's most amazing about this episode is that what Beck said isn't a fireable or even a SUSPENDABLE offense by his bosses. There was a time when outrageous rants like this would actually cost the ranters their jobs. But not anymore; if anything, it's now encouraged. And all of this could turn ACTUAL journalists into the next Howard Beales. It's getting nuts that the folks who are creating the perception of an ideological/polarized media world are people who have never really spent their lives being journalists. Whether it's former political consultants-turned-TV execs or former radio DJs, or former California socialites, the folks helping to accelerate the public's perception of the media off a cliff made their livings trying to do other things. Of course, Beck's crazy language could have one unintended consequence: It could cost him bookings with any Republicans who want to be popular outside Beck's hard-core bizarro-land viewers.
In today's "Media Notes" column, Kurtz actually addresses the birther nonsense -- a breakthrough! But look at what he writes:
The folks who have been pushing the ludicrous claim that Barack Obama wasn't born in the US of A -- a fringe of a fringe -- have gotten way too much media attention. But it's been fascinating to watch how people on the right have handled this embarrassment.
And then Kurtz includes several paragraphs about the birthers, bringing the section to 491 words.
Not mentioned: Lou Dobbs or Jonathan Klein or CNN.
This is ridiculous. The most prominent of the "folks who have been pushing the ludicrous claim" is CNN's Lou Dobbs. CNN president Jonathan Klein defends Dobbs, and blasts Dobbs' critics. And the Washington Post's media critic is afraid to so much as mention them -- and, coincidentally, he draws a paycheck from CNN, too.
It's long past time for the Washington Post's ombudsman and editors to weigh in on Kurtz's behavior. The problem isn't just that Kurtz has a conflict of interest -- that has long been obvious, and the Post is obviously OK with it. But Kurtz's refusal to deal with this story appropriately shows that his reporting is affected by that conflict of interest.
From Lisa de Moraes' July 29 Washington Post column:
Sadly, TV critics mostly wanted to talk about Lou Dobbs, host of the news network's "I'm Lou Dobbs and You're Not," and his ongoing gasbagging about President Obama not coughing up his birth certificate.
Dobbs thinks that Obama should produce it to put to rest rantings and rumors that he's not actually a natural-born U.S. citizen and therefore not eligible to be president. Not producing the birth certificate looks pretty fishy, Dobbs has insinuated.
"There are two strands to this story," CNN/U.S. President Jon Klein began to explain patiently to the critics. "There are the facts and then there is the flap. What Lou, and everybody else at CNN, has done is very clearly report and run down the facts."
There is no doubt, Klein acknowledged, that Obama was born in Hawaii. "And Lou Dobbs has reported that over and over again."
Separate from that, Klein said, is the issue of people who believe it anyway. Dobbs, Klein explained, is merely "exploring those flaps."
"But it's a dead issue," he added.
Why give so much airtime to a dead issue? Glad you asked. TV critics did, too. More accurately, one asked: Why is so much airtime being devoted to "giving voice to this sort of idiocy on your network?"
Klein argued that CNN had spent a lot more time on health care, Afghanistan and Iraq, "but the spirit of your question is, why we devote any time," Klein said. (These news-network chiefs can be pretty patronizing.)
CNN viewers expect it to "do the reporting, present the facts and present a range of points of views" and then "viewers want to make up their own minds," Klein explained.
Which explains their upcoming documentary: "The World: Flat. We Report -- You Decide." Okay, we made that one up.
Not to be morose, but I'm happy that Walter Cronkite isn't around to see what's happened to television news in this country. And specifically, that the news legend doesn't have to witness the disgraceful performances this week from two leading television news executives who, when faced with painfully clear evidence that their anchors had crossed obvious lines of decency, refused to condemn those actions. Instead, they issued double-talk statements while rationalizing their team's deeply offensive, and even jaw-dropping, behavior.
The disturbing one-two this week by CNN's Jon Klein and Fox News' Bill Shine simply confirms that, at this moment in time at least, there appears to be no standards, no guidelines, of fairness or decency to which key cable news operators will adhere.
Klein's continued defense of Lou Dobbs' misguided adventure down the birther rabbit hole is like a train wreck that just won't end. It's now been several days since Klein decided to back Dobbs' "racist" birther crusade (that's what MSNBC's chief called it), and the damage being done to the network is now approaching the incalculable stage. The fact that both Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly have called Dobbs out for shoddy 'reporting' tells you all you need to know about the state of CNN today. Yet there was Klein appearing at the annual TV critics confab this week, continuing to pretend Dobbs hasn't been fueling the flames about Obama's birth place.
Meanwhile, at Fox News, Beck called Obama a "racist" on national TV. Sadly, this was a completely expected development from the radical right, which recently showed extraordinary comfort calling the most recent Supreme Court nominee a "racist." The far-right media in this country is making it quite plain that they're going to toss that label around with ease from here on out. (It's only a matter of time before the First Lady gets his with the tag, and I wouldn't rule out nuts like Beck going after Obama's kids as well.) It's conservatives who are going to play the race card whenever possible in order to divide Americans and foster racial hatred.
Still, Fox News likes to consider itself a news organization, so SVP Bill Shine took the time to issue a statement about Beck's obvious and odious race-baiting. And in that statement Shine insisted, basically, that Beck can say whatever he wants and Fox News takes no responsibility.
Like I said, I'm glad Walter Cronkite isn't around to see this.
UPDATED: And just to be clear about Klein's standard, if in the summer of 2002, Lou Dobbs had gone on CNN for several weeks and embraced the 9/11 Truther conspiracy theory, even though players on all sides of the political spectrum had debunked it, the head of CNN would have defended the anchor's choice to fuel that fire? The head of CNN would have stood by the anchor, issuing platitudes about how much he trusts his anchors to "to exercise their judgment"?
I don't buy it. I think there's an obvious double standard at CNN, among other places, for accepting irresponsible fear mongering when the target is a Democratic president.
Columnist Paul Krugman's July 28 post on his New York Times blog:
Bill O'Reilly explaining that of course America has lower life expectancy than Canada - we have 10 times as many people, so we have 10 times as many deaths.
I need a drink.
We noted this morning that on Fox & Friends, Glenn Beck said President Obama has "a deep-seated hatred for white people." Of the president, Beck went on to say that "this guy is, I believe, a racist."
Tonight, TVNewser posted the following statement from Bill Shine, Fox News' Senior Vice President of Programming in response:
"During Fox & Friends this morning, Glenn Beck expressed a personal opinion which represented his own views, not those of the Fox News Channel. And as with all commentators in the cable news arena, he is given the freedom to express his opinions."
Get it? Beck doesn't speak for Fox News, but we'll keep paying him to say anything he wants.
From a Los Angeles Times transcript of reporters' questions for CNN/U.S. President Jonathan Klein after the July 28 Television Critics Association press tour, and his responses:
Q: If Dobbs wanted to explore whether the British had won the Revolutionary War, would that be a legitimate topic?
A: It would not be legitimate for Lou or anyone else at CNN to explore whether Barack Obama is an American citizen. That's why he hasn't done that. And I think the people who are making noise about that have to look at closely what the discussions have been. It's all about the phenomenon of doubters.
Q: Are you distinguishing from what he said on his radio show?
A: Oh, yes, absolutely. We have no control over what he says on his radio show. It's not a CNN radio program so he does what he does on the radio separate from what he does on our air. So we ask you and anyone writing about this, to look at what he says on CNN. It's the only thing we control.
Q: Are you concerned, though, that it will damage your credibility?
A: I hope not. All we can do is do great reporting about the facts on this and every other story that we cover.
Q: But if he goes on his radio show and contradicts your reporting and then raises the same issue on the air, isn't there some need for somebody to balance that?
A: What he does on the radio is separate and apart from what he does on our air. On our air, he has said very clearly and repeatedly that Barack Obama is an American citizen. Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. Of that there is no doubt. He must have said it 10 times the last time he did the story. So he couldn't be clearer about that. Now, a couple of times he's hosted panel discussions about this phenomenon: Why do some people doubt it still? That's what those discussions are about. There's a real distinction. Does that make sense?
Q: But he also asks: Why haven't they produced the documents when they have, in fact, produced the documents?
A: That's why I sent that note the other day -- to clarify. We had our guys ask that question. It turns out, he can't. It's not up to him. It's not the president's choice. Lou has now stated that. What he then turns around and does on his radio show is not within our purview.
Q: Is it a topic you'd rather see him drop at this point?
A: I would rather all of our leading journalists rely on their best judgments and instincts and our guidance about them. We believe in the editorial compass of all of our people. It's going to be different according to the individual. But that just makes us a more interesting and vibrant place. Lou is listening to a certain segment of the population all day long on his radio show so naturally that's going to inform some of the decisions that he makes. But, again, to be clear: He is not exploring the question of whether Barack Obama is an American citizen. That is settled. It is a dead issue as far as CNN is concerned.
Jonathan Chait points out that today's Washington Post includes an op-ed in which Martin Feldstein claims President "Obama has said that he would favor a British-style 'single payer' system in which the government owns the hospitals and the doctors are salaried but that he recognizes that such a shift would be too disruptive to the health-care industry."
That, as Chait and Paul Krugman note, is altogether untrue. False. Wrong.
Obama has never said that he favors a British-style health care system. Britain does not have a single-payer system. It has a socialized system, where the government directly employs all health care providers. Indeed, if you follow the link in Feldstein's own column, it says, "A single-payer system would eliminate private insurance companies and put a Medicare-like system into place where the government pays all health-care bills with tax dollars." Does Medicare own hospitals and pay doctors government salaries? No. Professor Feldstein, please stop writing about topics you know nothing about.
Single-payer, as anyone who has paid the least bit of attention to the health care debate knows, means a system like Medicare, in which the government pays the bills. It absolutely does not mean a British-style system — and Obama definitely didn't advocate anything of the sort....[I[f I misstated the facts like this in the Times, I'd be required to publish a correction. Will the Post require that Feldstein retract his claim?
Last night, we learned you don't have to know much about politics to write for Politico -- or to be a guest on Hardball. Tonight, we're reminded that Hardball's host also doesn't know as much as you might think, as Matthews discussed Richard Nixon's press conference after his 1962 campaign for governor ended in defeat:
CHRIS MATTHEWS: As we all know, that was not Richard Nixon's last press conference. In fact, ten years later, actually it wasn't ten years later, it was six years later, he was elected president in a landslide.
In fact, Nixon won the 1968 popular vote by a mere 500,000 votes; he won the presidency with only 31 electoral votes more than he needed. Matthews' guest, Pat Buchanan, did point out that the victory was no landslide, which may be the first time Buchanan has ever actually added value to an MSNBC broadcast.
Obviously, it doesn't really matter all that much if Chris Matthews tells viewers that Richard Nixon won the '68 election by a landslide when in fact he won a relatively narrow victory. But it is another reminder of a point I've made several times in the past: the problem with media coverage isn't just the focus on politics rather than policy; it's that they're lousy at the politics part. No matter how much they pretend, they aren't experts, and they rarely have genuine insight -- they're just people who convince themselves and each other that they're experts because they all repeat the same conventional wisdom.
(Here's another recent reminder from Chris Matthews.)