The item's based on the report from Variety that HBO has optioned Halerpin's 2010 campaign book about the 2008 election. But we can't help amplifying Gawker's tweak about Halperin sort of failing his way up the media food chain.
Consider this. His 2006 book, co-written by John Harris, was called The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008. The book was pitched as a Beltway insider's guide to the 2008 race and who had the inside track for victory. But guess whose name did not appear--was not referenced once--in the book about the upcoming 2008 election.
PROMISES, PROMISES: Is Obama dog a rescue or not?
And here's the lede:
Is Bo a rescued dog or not? Did President Obama keep or break a campaign promise in picking the purebred as the family's new pet?
A few paragraphs later:
Barack Obama and his wife Michelle said during the presidential campaign that they had promised their two girls a dog after the election.
The Obamas repeatedly said they wanted it to be a rescued dog such as one from a shelter.
Wait: the Obamas said they "wanted" a rescue dog? That sure doesn't sound like a "campaign promise" that they would get a rescue dog.
A little further down:
The Humane Society's Pacelle acknowledged that the Obamas never flat-out promised to get a dog from a pound or rescue group. And the society has kind words for Obama on its Web site: "Thanks, Mr. President, for giving a second-chance dog a forever home," it says.
So, there was no promise to get a rescue dog? The Associated Press just made that up in order to "ask" whether Obama had broken a campaign promise? A campaign promise that was never made?
Maybe the AP should spend a little less time worrying about who is quoting their work, and a little more time ensuring their work is worth quoting.
Ever wonder why your letter to the New York Times wasn't published? Editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal explains:
I'll be honest: Because of the nature of our readers, letter writers who defend Republican, conservative or right-wing positions on many topics have a higher shot at being published.
I'll be honest: That seems to say something about the nature of the New York Times, not the paper's readers.
And it reminds me of the Appleton Post-Crescent, which drew criticism a few years ago for an editorial that solicited pro-Bush letters to the editor.
Leave it to Politico to completely botch things up.
Yesterday, a three-judge panel in Minnesota officially declared Al Franken the winner in the U.S. Senate race between him and incumbent Norm Coleman, who's currently in month number five of his election appeals. Coleman's now going to appeal the judges' ruling to the Minnesota Supreme Court, and if he loses there, he might take his case to federal court, which could drag things out through for much of the year.
OK, that's the background. Here's Politico's priceless write-up [emphasis added]:
Even as the two sides were awaiting Monday's ruling, they were engaged in a message war - with Franken's allies amping up the pressure on Coleman to quit and Republicans blaming Franken for dragging out the process.
So not only won't Politico finally come out and call Norm Coleman a sore loser for adopting his rope-a-dope legal strategy, but Politico conveyor belts the GOP claim that it's Franken who's dragging the proceedings out.
"Did Obama Break a Pledge to Adopt a Rescue Dog?" asks the ABC News headline. The news org's crack staff is all over the the case, digging out a three-word utterance Obama made seven months ago when he suggested the dog his daughters were going to get would be a "a rescue dog." (The Obama's new puppy, Bo, is not a rescue dog.)
But then ABC notes that five months ago, Obama seemed to back off that notion, therefore, "It would seem that the president didn't ever make a 'promise' or 'pledge' to adopt a shelter dog," according to ABC.
End of story? Not quite. ABC reports, "Animal rights activists are chagrined with his decision." But are they? We learn that "Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO Humane Society of the United States, issued a statement congratulating the Obamas for 'taking in a second-chance dog. Bo is a Portuguese water dog who was apparently returned by the family that originally purchased him.' " [Emphasis added.]
Where's the chagrin? ABC claims Pacelle was "was clearly disappointed" (ABC's words, not Pacelle's). Why? Here's the proof. In his statement, Pacelle note that families:
"like the Obamas, who are interested in a particular breed of animal or have special circumstances such as allergies in their household, can turn to their local animal shelter or breed rescue group. About one-quarter of all dogs in shelters are purebreds, many surrendered by their owners like the new First Dog."
Seems that if the Humane Society's CEO were "disappointed" and "chagrined" about the Obama puppy pick, he would make those statements himself and reporters wouldn't have to interpret those conclusions on their own, yes?
In fact, in a Hill article, Pacelle is quoted praising the first family:
"Americans can follow this positive example by visiting their local animal shelter or breed rescue group, and giving another dog or cat a second chance at a loving home."
UPDATE: The AP is also doing due diligence, devoting more than 1,000 words to unraveling the riddle of whether Obama kept his "campaign promise" regarding his new dog. The AP's all excited about "the twists and turns" of the Obama dog, which "make for the kind of intrigue that political junkies" often "delight in."
Behold your press corps at work.
It's always interesting to see what the Newsbusters crew thinks the media should be paying more attention to. Today:
Bill Mann at HuffPost pulls back the curtain a bit and explains one of the reasons why Rush Limbaugh over the years has been able to line up approximately 600 radio outlets to carry his show, a number the media always use to tout the talker's influence.
Answer: Limbaugh and his syndicator give the show to some stations for free. Writes Mann:
Here's how a barter deal works: To launch the show, Limbaugh's syndicator, Premiere Radio Networks -- the same folks who syndicate wingnut du jour Glen Beck -- gave Limbaugh's three hours away -- that's right, no cash -- to local radio stations, mostly in medium and smaller markets, back in the early 1990's.
So, a local talk station got Rush's show for zilch. In exchange, Premiere took for itself much of the local station's available advertising time (roughly 15 minutes an hour) and packed the show with national ads it had already pre-sold.
Think Gold Bond Medicated Powder.
These days, the WashPost columnist thinks it's a bad idea to investigate any law-breaking that might have gone on during the Bush years, that it's best to look forward, not in the past:
I understand the reluctance to open a wide-ranging probe of past practices. It seems to me we are better off focusing on cleaning up the policies and practices for the future than trying to settle scores for past actions.
In doing so, Broder signs off on the beloved Beltway narrative that it's nuts to hold former administrations accountable for their actions, that only zealots want to drag out those kind of partisan witch hunts. Except that digging through the archives I can't find any examples from 2001 when Broder tsk-tsked the endless congressional investigations that were launched by a Republican Congress to investigate the last-minute Clinton pardons and gifts received.
In 2001, it made perfect sense to hold exiting administrations accountable. Today, the notion seems cuckoo.
From Howard Kurtz's article about Politico today:
When some Democrats were urging Hillary Clinton to get out of the presidential race last May, she told South Dakota's Argus Leader that "we all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June." Harris told his reporter to quickly post an item -- which had already been picked up by the New York Post -- , but later wrote that it was a "deflating experience" when he watched a video of the matter-of-fact comments 90 minutes later.
That's all Kurtz wrote about the matter. Why was it a "deflating experience" when Harris watched the video of Clinton's comments? Kurtz won't say.
Well, according to the very Harris column Kurz referred to, it was deflating because Harris and Politico had hyped the Clinton comments in a misleading fashion, as the video made clear. Here's Harris:
The RFK remarks were deep in a 20-minute clip of an otherwise routine conversation. Then, once we actually got to the relevant portion of the video, it was hardly an electric moment.
Clinton does indeed mention the Kennedy assassination, speaking in a calm and analytical tone: "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California."
Martin and I both thought we saw a slight twinge in Clinton's facial expression, as though she recognized she had just said something dumb. Whether she recognized it or not, she had.
But it was also clear that Clinton's error was not in saying something beyond the pale but in saying something that pulled from context would sound as if it were beyond the pale.
It would be a big story if Clinton said something like this: "Hey, I know it looks bad for me now. But, think about it. Obama could get shot and I'd get to be the nominee after all."
It is a small story if Clinton said something like this: "Everyone talks like May is incredibly late, but by historical standards it is not. Think of all the famous milestones in presidential races that have taken place during June."
It seems pretty obvious that the latter is what Clinton meant, and not too far from what she actually said. It was not surprising that the Argus Leader's executive editor, Randall Beck, put out a statement saying, "Her reference to Mr. Kennedy's assassination appeared to focus on the time line of his primary candidacy and not the assassination itself."
Reading John Harris' version, you can't help but conclude that Harris and Politico (along with, to be fair, many other news organizations) were guilty of pulling Clinton's comments from their context and making them look worse than they were.
But reading the version Howard Kurtz provides this morning, you would have no idea of any of that. You wouldn't even know that Politico had posted the story before watching the video. Indeed, Kurtz's version reads as though Politico reviewed the full video, and killed their post as a result.
For weeks, the right-wing activists promoting the so-called "tea party" tax protests have been complaining that the media isn't paying enough attention to their stunt. They must be thrilled with the puff piece in today's USA Today.
The USA Today article begins by portraying the "tea parties" as the work of ordinary, apolitical Americans who have had enough:
Jenny Beth Martin remembers the day she became a protester.
Her husband's business had gone under, and the two were cleaning houses in Atlanta to stay afloat. That was when they heard about a tirade against President Obama's mortgage bailout scheme by a financial news analyst calling for a modern-day Boston Tea Party revolt.
"We had just lost our house and had ... moved into the rental house," says Martin, 38, whose husband Lee's temporary-employee firm had 5,000 workers before it went down in the recession.
"I didn't want other people paying for my mortgage, and I wanted to prevent that in other places," she says.
It isn't until 19 paragraphs later that USA Today gets around to telling us that Martin is a "former paid consultant for local Republican candidates."
Actually, it isn't clear that "former" is accurate. On the "About" page of her blog, Martin says she is currently a Republican political consultant:
But USA Today continued to portray the protests as a spontaneous grassroots uprising:
Bridgett Wagner, director of coalition relations at the conservative Heritage Foundation, sees a possible reprise of the tax revolt of the 1970s and '80s, when a California movement to slash and cap property taxes led to successful ballot measures from the West Coast to Michigan and Massachusetts.
"These movements in the past have shown that when people have finally had enough, even the politicians at some point have to listen," says Wagner, calling it a "bottom-up" phenomenon.
USA Today didn't bother to include a contradictory view, or any facts that might undermine the "bottom-up" assertion (more on that later.)
Here's another example of the "'bottom-up' phenomenon" USA Today provides:
Dawn Wildman of San Diego, who is organizing four tea parties, says lawmakers should not be dismissive.
"We're seeing how you vote," she says. "You're not paying attention to your constituency. We put you there, and we can take you out."
So who is Dawn Wildman? If you have ten seconds and an Internet connection, you can pretty quickly find out that she is a Republican activist affiliated with the "Neighborhood Republican Club."
Meanwhile, USA Today didn't make any mention of Fox News' role in the "tea parties," or the role played by conservative groups like Freedom Works (Chaired by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey) and Americans for Prosperity (run by a former partner of Ralph Reed.)
It's easy to portray the "tea parties" as grassroots uprisings if you ignore the roles played by the likes of Fox News and Dick Armey, hide the fact that the organizers you quote are Republican activists, and don't include any comments critical of the events.