From his live chat at WaPo [emphasis added]:
It is amusing, especially since as you point out, Obama himself is opposed to gay marriage. So it's a little much to hyperventilate over Rick Warren. To answer your question: The left hates traditional Christianity. That's the real complaint.
A simple question for WaPo, does Carlson actually get paid to participate in these live chats? Because if somebody like Tucker gets paid to write the following (even for a vacuous WaPo live chat), then we begin to understand why media companies are facing financial woes:
Somebody needs to write a book about why the radical left is so much more interesting and open-minded than your garden variety lifestyle liberal. Whenever I meet a lefty who smokes, or who buy groceries at Safeway rather than Whole Foods, I know we're going to get along.
Whatever you say Tucker.
To trumpet the release of the Obama report regarding Blago contacts, CNN went into hyperventilating mode.
The on-screen graphic [emphasis added]: "Breaking News: Team Obama Reveals Secret Report".
Simple question for CNN, what's secret about the report?
NPR reports on Dan Rather's ongoing court battle with CBS over Memogate. As CF recently detailed, Rather's lawsuit has shed new light on just how far CBS went to make sure its "independent" panel investigating the matter made conservative critics happy; to make sure its principals would "mollify" the right. (CBS considered including Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh on the "independent" panel.) In other words, CBS kowtowed.
NPR asked Andrew Heyward, who was president of CBS News at the time, about the network's desire in 2004 to skew its investigation:
"This was my view of what we needed to do to cauterize the wounds and have a credible result across a broad spectrum, including our harshest critics," Heyward says. "I would do the same thing today."
Walter Robinson, the Boston Globe reporter who first broke the Bush National Guard story in 2000, remains dumbstruck by the CBS kowtowing. He tells NPR:
"It's inexcusable that CBS would attempt to rig the panel...The idea that a serious news network would consider Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh to pass some sort of fair-minded judgment on something — it's mind-boggling."
Somebody should write a book about the press coverage Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has been able to manufacture for herself over the last eight years. It's really quite amazing how she managed to sail through the demolition derby that was the Bush administration--and have her fingerprints all over some of its biggest failings--and come out smelling like a rose inside press rooms.
Not only has she managed to escape unscathed from the press, the Beltway press actually adores her and has remained absolutely committed (especially the TV talking heads) to never asking her an uncomfortable question and never, ever asking a pointed follow-up. As we mentioned recently, it's literally become media game: The TV hosts ask innocuous questions to Rice about Iraq. She responds with misleading information knowing full well that her host is never going to call her on it. And then the two dance onto another topic.
So it makes perfect sense that MTP's new hosts David Gregory broke in his chair over the weekend with a "pillow soft" interview with Rice, as Crooks and Liars put it. The display (see it here) really had nothing to do with journalism and everything to do with Gregory subscribing to Beltway social customs.
The daily this week published a full-throated anti-union opinion piece (screed?) that attacks Labor Secretary nominee, Congresswoman Hilda Solis. It was written by Bret Jacobson. Who's he? Here's how the LA Times describes Jacobson at the bottom of his op-ed:
Bret Jacobson is founder and president of Maverick Strategies LLC, a research and communications firm serving business and free-market think tanks.
Sounds rather innocuous, right? Not quite. Blogger Matt Browner Hamlin fills in the blanks. Bottom line:
The most important piece of Jacobson's biography - his professional connection to one of the biggest anti-union groups in America - is left out of a column that specifically pushes [an anti-union] agenda.
Seems if the Times wants to allow Big Business surrogates to denigrate unions and their workers in the pages of the daily, than the Times ought to at least be upfront about who's doing it.
Mike Allen preps the release of the internal Obama report regarding contact between his staff and Blago's re: filling his U.S. senate seat. The press has been hyping the issue, and the pending report, beyond recognition, with all sorts of claims the new Democratic team has become ensnared and that dark clouds have descended.
Reporters now, it seems, don't even bother to offer up evidence when suggesting Obama has been tainted by the soggy story. Here's Allen [emphasis added]:
The complaint against Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, whose conversations had been secretly taped by federal investigators, tested the smoothly running Obama transition, with some Democrats fretting that the case presents a distraction that could last into the new administration.
Number of Democrats quoted or mentioned in the article suggesting the Blago "distraction" could drag on? Zero.
Number of Democrats even quoted or mentioned in the entire article, period? Zero.
Neat trick, right?
First, what's the nation's most pressing issue? On Matthews' weekend syndicated show, the first topic up for discussion was Obama's relations with the press. Because, as Crooks and Liars noted, "it's all about the media, dontcha know?"
Second, that's where Matthews compared Obama to Nixon and Bush. Both Republicans displayed an open contempt for the media (with Nixon, it was more of an unhinged hatred), and Matthews suggested Obama (aka "this guy") was going to be just like them.
Third, it's curious that Obama hasn't even taken office yet and already Matthews was harping on the president-elect's press relations. I'd sure be interested to see, during Bush's eight years in office, how many panel discussion the Chris Matthews Show hosted to complain about how Bush treated the press. We doubt there were many during the Lapdog days.
It's a way for the WaPo's Kurtz to mock journalists who he thinks write overly positive things about the new Democratic, president-elect.
Note that in 1992, The New Republic ran its "Clinton Suck-Up Watch," in order to mock journalists the magazine thought wrote overly positive things about the new, Democratic president-elect.
Note who's missing from these journalism watches? The Republican, of course. In 2001, president Bush was rewarded with soft, loving press coverage. But we don't recall reading running installments at TNR or the Post that mocked journalists for writing overly positive things about the new Republican president. Did we just not see them at the time, or is fawning coverage of a Republican not considered to be a big deal?