See more of August Pollak's work here.
Glenn Thrush gets awfully creative in promoting the Right's attacks on Nancy Pelosi over her support for public funding for contraceptives.
It may seem like a nothing, but Nancy Pelosi is facing one of her biggest political threats of the 111th thus far over this birth-control-in-the-stimulus thing.
Wow, really? "One of her biggest political threats of the 111th" Congress? Sounds scary. Until you remember that the 111th Congress is about three weeks old. Then it begins to look like Thrush is breathlessly hyping "a nothing" into "a something."
Drudge, along with CNN and others, are trumpeting a House GOP talking point -- ridiculing Pelosi's support of a Medicaid waiver in the stimulus package to reimburse states for contraceptives. And they they think they have a winner, a classic gays-in-the-military, Honeymoon-killing wedge issue.
Nonsense. Thrush doesn't know what House Republicans and Matt Drudge "think." They might think, as Thrush says, that in 2009, support for contraceptives is as controversial as gays-in-the-military was in 1993. Or maybe they just think they can convince reporters like Glenn Thrush that it is. If the former, they are almost certainly wrong. If the latter, it probably turned out to be easier than they ever could have hoped.
Then Thrush explains:
Third -- and most dangerous to Pelosi personally -- it undercuts her carefully crafted image as a measured centrist, playing into the right wing caricature of Pelosi as a Bay Area liberal who will abuse her power to push her far left agenda.
Thrush provides no polling to back up his suggestion that support for public funding for contraceptives would "undercut" Pelosi's "image as a measured centrist" or that it constitutes a "far left agenda." To the contrary, The National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association says such policies are extremely popular. For example, "Eighty-six percent of voters and 85 percent of Catholic voters want the government to fund programs that provide contraception to women without health insurance." (That poll -- conducted by a polling firm headed by Republican Linda DiVall -- is from 2005. It seems unlikely that public support for public funding of contraceptives has dropped from 86 percent to "far-left" status in less than four years, but if Thrush wants more recent numbers, he can do his own research.)
Finally, Thrush seems to invent out of whole cloth the idea that Pelosi's support for public policy that House Republicans disagree with constitutes an "abuse of power."
UPDATE: Thrush has updated his post, acknowledging the high public support for contraception funding.
Via Climate Progress:
Must-read study: How the press bungles its coverage of climate economics — "The media's decision to play the stenographer role helped opponents of climate action stifle progress."
One of the country's leading journalists has written a searing critique of the media's coverage of global warming, especially climate economics.
How Much Would You Pay to Save the Planet? The American Press and the Economics of Climate Change is by Eric Pooley for Harvard's prestigious Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy. Pooley has been managing editor of Fortune, national editor of Time, Time's chief political correspondent, and Time's White House correspondent, where he won the Gerald Ford Prize for Excellence in Reporting. Before that, he was senior editor of New York magazine.
Continue reading the Climate Progress post and fascinating report.
Of course, the fact that the media has dropped the ball when it comes to reporting on climate change won't surprise progressives or regular readers of Media Matters.
Check out more from Media Matters on this important issue here.
The actor recently leveled a very detailed and convincing critique of the fawning, almost celebrity-like profile of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson in September. Attending an inauguration ball, Affleck outlined his critique to Politico's Michael Calderone:
"Newsweek, I feel like, is basically culpable for the first [$350 billion]," Affleck said. "They did like this hagiography on Paulson. Did you read that?"
He continued: "They did that and they made it very difficult—it was one of many factors that made it difficult for people to say, [inaud] hold on a second, what is the difference between now and a week from now? Why can't we examine this more closely? Can we talk about this? Why is it that we can't have more transparency in this piece of legislation?"
"It's the same kind of fear and demagoging that was used to authorize the Iraq War, was resurrected to authorize a piece of legislation which then squandered a lot of our tax dollars—tax dollars, in fact, that we don't have," he continued.
"Long and short of it is, Newsweek, in deciding to tell all of America that we all have to put our trust in Henry Paulson, that's like a mediaocracy," Affleck added. "It's presumptuous and it damaged us in some ways."
Newsweek responded this way.
Kudos to Ben for catching us in our tracks. We are responsible for the bailout. And before we apologize, we thought it'd be nice to admit all the other problems we've thrust on you this year. Enough with the posturing, and let's get started. This year, Newsweek was responsible for:
1) That whole Hudson plane crash thing. We should have gone with that cover on goose hunting, after all.
2) This awfully cold winter. As you make decisions about your heating bill or your NEWSWEEK subscription, keep this in mind.
3) Michelle Obama's white ball gown. If only our design team had sent along those sketches we promised.
Get it? Those are things Newsweek is not responsible for. Ha-ha. It's a joke. Newsweek's making fun of Affleck because he's an actor and everybody knows actors don't know anything about TARP, or journalism. That's why Newsweek didn't even bother to address the serious nature of Affleck's comments. Because he's an actor and nobody in the Beltway media take actors seriously when they discuss current events because celebrities couldn't possible understand all the important and complicated facts and figures that journalists do, right?
Perhaps this Newsweek commenter put it best:
Your snarky comments didn't really address Affleck's point. Now I wouldn't say that I completely agree with him, but he isn't exactly coming out of left field with this. I haven't seen much in the way of real, critical, responsible journalism in quite a while, and having some hipster [...] rail against the comments of some celebrity doesn't really break the funk.
"This is William Kristol's last column."
UPDATE: The Times' garbages becomes the WaPo's treasure? Kristol's heading to the Post. (Although he'll do less damage, appearing just 12 times a year.)
UPDATE: Scoot Horton at the Daily Beast details the Kristol/Times divorce:
A source close to the Times familiar with the decision not to renew Kristol's contract makes clear that his neoconservative ideology and viewpoints were not a problem...The problems that emerged were more fundamental. Kristol's writing wasn't compelling or even very careful. He either lacked a talent for solid opinion journalism or wasn't putting his heart into it. A give-away came in the form of four corrections the newspaper was forced to run over factual mistakes in the columns, creating an impression that they were rushed out without due diligence or attention to factual claims.
Here's the lead [emphasis added]:
The Gallup Poll on Saturday released the first job-approval rating for President Obama, based on interviews during his first three full days in office: 68 percent.
Now that he's in office, Obama's approval ratings are starting to normalize, as partisan back-and-forth picks up. Just a week ago, Gallup found an astonishing 83 percent approval of how he has handled his transition, showing he had even won over most Republicans...
Gallup's initial job approval ratings were President John F. Kennedy, 72 percent; Dwight Eisenhower, 68 percent; Jimmy Carter, 66 percent; Richard Nixon, 59 percent; Bill Clinton, 58 percent; George W. Bush, 57 percent; and Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, 51 percent.
Fact: As Obama begins his first term, his job approval rating is the second-highest in modern American history, tied with the World War II hero when he was sworn into office. How does that make Obama's rating 'normal'?
In his book, A Slobbering Love Affair, Bernard Goldberg publishes the transcript of an interview he conducted with Rush Limbaugh, including the following:
LIMBAUGH: Bernie, I honestly believe the following: I believe that I, Rush Limbaugh, am responsible for the mainstream media's behavior today because they think I am the one who destroyed their monopoly beginning in 1988 when I started my show. Back then, we had the three nets, CNN, and the big papers. They owned what was news and what was not news. They owned commentary. Now they don't. I believe the creation of the New Media has made the mainstream media now openly competitive with the New Media, which is why they are so open now about choosing sides.
This is not my ego speaking, Bernie, but since I started in 1988, look at what has happened. There were 125 talk stations in 1988. Now there are over 2,000. Right-wing blogs have sprung up. FOX News prime time is simply talk radio on TV. So all this New Media pisses off the mainstream media. They are in open competition with us and as such have now been forced to openly declare what they used to hide behind their so-called objectivity: and that is their liberalism. [pp. 55-56]
Because honestly, what other prominent conservative blogger delivers unintentional hilarity as consistently as she does? (Talk about a crowded field of contenders.) She's a treasure for the funny bone.
Her latest bout of comic relief is here. The gist is that while visiting a random bookstore she spotted a display put out during inauguration week of a bunch of books and magazines featuring Barack Obama. But--and this was the newsworthy part, according to Althouse--there were not swarms of people crowded around the table. And she posted pics to prove it!
"Despite shrines to Obama, bookstore was nearly empty," read the side-splitting headline.
Ah, right-wing blog logic. Borders Books, which is in the amidst of an economic free-fall by the way, put out a lots of Obama-related products. But when Althouse stumbled into a store in January (a traditionally dead time in the publishing industry), on a Friday night at dinnertime, there weren't many shoppers around.
So Althouse, naturally, suggests the media interest in Obama is misplaced. That people don't really care, or maybe don't even like him. Actually, Althouse seems to suggest Obama is causing people to stay away from bookstores. That he' s responsible for the downturn in shoppers because before the Obama shrines, bookstores were packed with people. (I told you she's comedy gold.)
Her bookstore visit was all the proof Althouse needed to prove her point.
She ignores Obama's sky-high approval ratings.
She ignores the record-breaking number of people who turned out in D.C. for the inauguration.
She ignores the nearly 40 million people who watched the swearing-in on TV.
She ignores the new online-traffic records set during the inauguration.
She ignores the fact that newspapers geared up for historic inauguration press runs in order to meet demand for Obama news.
None of that matters people, because Ann saw what she saw. And conservatives wonder why their end of the blogosphere isn't taken seriously?
Oh, speaking of. Ann, did you ever figure out who slipped that listening device into Obama's ear during the prez debate last autumn? Just checking....