Dean Baker points out that USA Today's profile of Henry Paulson touted his "history as a football player" and "presented the assessment of his personal friends" -- but didn't "mention the fact that The Hammer somehow managed to completely overlook an $8 trillion housing bubble and that he minimized the extent of the country's financial problems at every point over the last year and a half."
A New York City judge cleared the way for Rather's lawsuit against CBS. He filed it after getting shoved aside following the Memogate scandal during the 2004 campaign. Parts of the lawsuit had been previously tossed, but the judge ruled that the breach of contract dispute can proceed.
That's what Glenn Greenwald sees in Brooks' reassuring column today about how a "new establishment" is going to step in and safely steer the country out of crisis.
Fact: Between June and mid-September, 23 percent of American news consumers told pollsters that the economy was the story they followed closely each week.
Fact. Between June and mid-September, the mainstream media set aside just five percent of their news coverage for the economy; 31 percent for the campaign.
Oh, don't act surprised. The warblogging site has been part of the right-wing, stopped-watch brigade for years. (They're right twice a day, tops.)
Jawa was at the center of an overexcited right-wing blog launch Monday morning ("extensive research" was involved!) with a completely circumstantial report that basically accused somebody who may or may not have had indirect relations with the Obama campaign of posting an anti-Palin video on YouTube "aimed at discouraging people from voting for McCain/Palin." Period.
We know, it didn't make much sense to us either. We guess Jawa's point was that the Obama campaign was somehow trying to create the perception of a viral video when in fact the clip was professionally made. We're talking real above-the-fold breaking news, right?
Well, it turns out the Los Angeles-based public relations specialist who Jawa accused of being the Obama bag man on the YouTube clip, Ethan Winner, did in fact create the video. He did it himself and paid for it himself and the campaign was not involved in making or spreading the YouTube clip. (Even if the Obama team was involved, so what?)
Winner made this sort of glaringly obvious observation about the rise of user-generated media, which the right-wing bloggers just don't get:
Just like the thousands of Americans who have posted videos on the Internet regarding the current Presidential campaign, I produced this video as an expression of my right to free speech, which is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
Note that Winner pulled the YouTube clip in question because after JaWa published personal information about him, his family started receiving threatening and abusive phone calls and emails.
So really, just another day at the office for the can't-shoot-straight gang on the far side of the blogosphere, which is now reduced to analyzing audio snippets of the voice-over pro who helped with the YouTube clip because she apparently is the key to unlocking this (none) mystery.
Honestly, just once when right-wing bloggers claim to have the goods on some supposed blockbuster (Jamil Hussein, anyone?), couldn't they first line up some actual facts before going public with their half-cocked conspiracy theories and relying on hope-and-prayer language like, "If all of this is true...."? It would save us all a lot of time.
Then again, their adventures do produce lots of unintended merriment for us, so we're torn over whether we want them to stop or not.
The WaPo says its been 40 days since McCain took press questions. You'd think that would be a bigger news story by now.
When a high-profile conservative complains about media coverage, the response from journalists tends to be entirely predictable: they uncritically type up the complaints as the media embark on days if not weeks of self-flagellation over their purported bias.
We've seen that again and again during this campaign: the McCain camp complains about media coverage, and the airwaves and newspages then fill with reporters uncritically noting the claims -- and often adopting them as truth, no matter how thin the evidence.
Today, Politico's Ben Smith took a different approach: he fact-checked the examples offered by McCain's aides. And, finding them to be rife with falsehoods, he wrote an article that didn't buy into the McCain camp's framing that the media is out to get McCain, but that, instead, made clear that the campaign wasn't telling the truth. Here's how Smith began:
Sen. John McCain's top campaign aides convened a conference call today to complain of being called "liars." They pressed the media to scrutinize specific elements of Sen. Barack Obama's record.
But the call was so rife with simple, often inexplicable misstatements of fact that it may have had the opposite effect: to deepen the perception, dangerous to McCain, that he and his aides have little regard for factual accuracy.
I've been arguing for weeks that, even as they point out factual errors in McCain claims, the media often adopt those false claims as the framework for their reporting, rather than making the dishonesty of the McCain claims the frame.
Question: At what point are the McCain's camp's declarations of war on the press no longer newsworthy?
Let's just say that journalistically, the two form a perfect union. MMA's Terry Krepel spells it out at HuffPost.