Its big, Drudgy, anti-GM scoop is that lots of GM employees drive "foreign cars." In fact, Radar launched an "exclusive investigation" (complete with photos!) to snoop around employee parking lots and oh my, what it found:
BMW. Toyota. Honda. Acura. Nissan. Those are just a few of the foreign cars that RadarOnline.com discovered filling the parking lot at the GM Technical Center in Flint, Michigan.
Here's where the whole misplaced, 1979 angle comes in: I'm pretty sure BMW, Toyota, Honda, Acura, and Nissan all make cars in America. (Y'know, by employing American workers.) So the whole buy-American angle is lamely out of date.
If the point was to show that not every GM worker drives a GM car, that's one (irrelevant) thing. But Radar's angle that GM workers are thumbing their noses at a taxpayer bailout by buying "foreign" is just plain dumb.
The Washington Post has this backwards:
During his campaign, Obama consistently played down connections to Islam, rarely mentioning his middle name, Hussein, or his childhood years in an Indonesian state school. The tactic helped fuel false Internet-driven rumors that Obama, a Christian, had once been Muslim.
Ah, no. The false rumors may have led to Obama downplaying his connections to Islam, but to say that the rumors were fueled by Obama playing down his connections is nuts. Does the Post think the rumors would have died out for lack of "fuel" if Obama had played UP his connections to Islam?
The bottom line is quite simple: Dishonest and malicious people lied about Barack Obama, and the Washington Post is blaming Obama for it.
We admit we don't read every print issue, and we can't possible read every dispatch posted online, but we're having a tough time remembering the last time the conservative National Review, which practically gave birth, many decades ago, to the whole you-can't-trust-the-liberal-media mantra, profiled a member of the mainstream Beltway press corps, and that profile contained no substantial criticism of his/her work. Rather, the entire point of the piece was to heap adulation on the Beltway reporter. (NR cover line: "ABC's Jake Tapper isn't afraid to go against the grain of the liberal consensus in pursuit of a story.")
Seriously, I think this might be an historic occasion and one that needs to be documented and honored. Maybe up until now NR just couldn't find a subject as deserving as Tapper, who NR really, really admires. (Paging Jeff Gerth....) They're not alone of course; it was Tapper who was recently singled out by Rush Limbaugh for avoiding the "butt boy bubble" of the White House press room. (Phew, no anal poisoning for him.)
Did we mention, NR really hearts Tapper?
He's one of the last remaining journalists in America who take the responsibilities of their jobs seriously, and thus place a premium on their credibility.
And that's just the second paragraph. NR's Mark Hemingway can barely contain his admiration for the hard-driving Tapper:
No mainstream journalist was tougher on Obama during the campaign. Considering the fact that much of the media gave Obama the kid-glove treatment, Tapper's reporting was essential.
The Beltway reality check though, comes courtesy of blogger DougJ at Balloon Juice:
Of course, being the subject of a fluff piece from a right-wing publication increases Tapper's professional status. Similar treatment from a left-wing one would be a career killer.
You were expecting something else? You were expecting a journalist from a glossy mag or major metro newspaper to even hint within a Beck profile that his embrace of paranoid, often irrational anti-Obama rhetoric might somehow be problematic?
Sorry, that's not how the press treats right-wing media figures: the hate speech is never to be addressed in detail. So New York dutifully goes through the motions. Beck's a "populist"? Check. (Apparently he's the pro-AIG big bonus type of populist.) Beck's a self-described "rodeo clown"? Check.
Here are a couple nuggets that New York absolutely, positively could not include in its Beck puff piece:
--Beck claims Americorops bill "basically indoctrinates your child into community service though the federal government."
--Beck claims "the government is a heroin pusher using smiley-faced fascism to grow the nanny state."
--Beck claims Obama "is so clearly" a socialist. "He's surrounded himself with Marxists his whole life."
--Beck claims the U.S. is on course to make the same "mistakes that Germany made during the Weimar Republic."
--Beck suggests the federal government might be building concentration camps inside America. (A claim Beck could not "debunk.")
But all of that goes down the memory hole at New York. Not a sentence, or even a phrase, to give readers a sample of Beck's unhinged rhetoric.
In 2007, the Washington Post brought on National Review senior editor Ramesh Ponnuru to write a "Right Matters" column and run an online forum "to discuss issues of interest to conservatives."
Here's Ponnuru's take on the Iowa Supreme Court decision allowing gay marriage:
Iowa's supreme court has ruled that its constitutional guarantee of "equal protection" for all people requires the state to recognize same-sex marriage. The court overturned a law passed in 1998.
In a democratic system such as ours, it can be perfectly appropriate for courts to set aside laws. Constitutions reflect the permanent will of the people, which trumps the temporary will of the people as expressed in ordinary statutes (if a court is forced to choose between these sources of law to decide a case).
But nobody can plausibly claim that Iowans meant to ratify same-sex marriage when they approved a constitution including equal-protection language. Nor can anyone plausibly claim that Iowans meant to authorize judges to decide such matters as marriage policy when they approved that language.
The court's ruling thus has no democratic or constitutional legitimacy. Whether or not same-sex marriage is a good idea, the decision by Iowa's court to impose it on the state is an outrage.
This is such nonsense, it's hard to know where to begin.
Let's start here: By Ponnuru's logic, you could just as easily say "nobody can plausibly claim that Americans meant to ratify integrated classrooms when they approved the 14th Amendment, therefore the Supreme Court's ruling in Brown had no democratic or constitutional legitimacy." In fact, that would be precisely the same argument Ponnuru is making above. I presume Ponnuru would not agree with such an assault on Brown, though maybe he'll prove me wrong.
Now, Ponnuru says "Constitutions reflect the permanent will of the people," as opposed to "ordinary statutes," which represent the "temporary will of the people." Fine. For the sake of argument, let's stipulate to that. Amazingly, Ponnuru thinks that supports his anti-gay marriage argument. It doesn't. It undermines it.
Look: what principle did Iowans enshrine in their Constitution - the document that reflects their "permanent will," according to Ponnuru? Equal protection. And what did they codify via "ordinary statutes" -- the reflection of their "temporary will," according to Ponnuru? A ban on same-sex marriage. Permanent will trumps temporary will -- Ponnuru says that.
Newsbusters' Brad Wilmouth, April 5, 10:49 PM:
On Sunday's CBS Evening News, without providing a pro-gun rights view for balance, correspondent Randall Pinkston filed a report which featured the views of two public figures who support an assault weapons ban...
Newsbusters' Brad Wilmouth, April 5, 8:50 PM:
On Sunday's Good Morning America, ABC co-anchor Kate Snow interviewed New York University Professor Jim Jacobs, author of Can Gun Control Work?, as the show gave attention to the view that gun control has little effect in stopping criminals from obtaining guns. While it is to the show's credit that they allowed him to make his case as Snow presented a contrarian point-of-view, Snow did seem sincerely skeptical toward his presentation.
Got that? Wilmouth praised ABC for hosting only a gun control skeptic, then - just two hours later - blasted CBS for featuring the views of only gun control advocates. Looks like Wilmouth has a pretty imbalanced view of balance - he criticizes imbalance when he thinks the imbalance hurts his agenda, and actually praises it when it helps.
(Note that in both segments, the reporters in question presented some of the contrary argument.)
A couple weeks ago, Laura Bush's former press secretary used his perch as a reporter/blogger for the Los Angeles Times to hype the "tax troubles" of "Democrat[s] in Washington." Jumping off news that California Democratic Congressman Pete Stark saved nearly $4,000 in taxes by claiming his Maryland home as his primary residence, Andrew Malcolm wrote "taxes seem to be the problem de la saison for Washington Democrats." Malcolm then offered a laundry list of Democrats with tax problems.
Two days later, Roll Call reported that four House Republicans have been receiving the Washington, D.C., homestead exemption -- essentially the same tax controversy Stark faced. But, as I noted at the time, Malcolm ignored that news, perhaps because it was inconsistent with his portrayal of tax problems as unique to Democrats.
Now there's news that GOP Rep. Roy Blunt "may have erroneously received a homestead exemption for a $1.6 million residence in Georgetown."
But don't hold your breath waiting for Laura Bush's former press secretary to tell you about it.
One month ago, the Wall Street Journal editorial board complained that President Barack Obama had ruined the economy. As evidence, they cited the decline in the Dow Jones Industrial Average, which closed at 6763 on March 2.
"The dismaying message here is that President Obama's policies have become part of the economy's problem," the Journal concluded, as it blamed Obama for the Dow's overall decline of 25 percent in two months. The Journal also attacked Obama's proposed budget. "The market has notably plunged since Mr. Obama introduced his budget last week, and that should be no surprise," the editors wrote.
But today the news was different. After the Financial Accounting Standards Board revised the rules on "mark to market" accounting this morning, the Dow climbed over 8000, slightly higher than its close at 7949 on Inauguration Day. And this market rally comes on a day with bad economic news on employment.
Will The Journal Apologize?
So what will the Journal say now that the stock market has "rebounded"? Does this mean the market now loves Obama's policies? Will the conservative editorial board credit Obama for the rebound as it blamed him for the decline? And more importantly, will the Journal now apologize to the president?
An apology may be too much to expect, but if nothing else, the Journal should at least acknowledge that presidents should not be judged by short-term swings in the stock market.
Of course The Wall Street Journal wasn't alone in pinning the decline of the DOW on President Obama. I don't expect the Journal or any of the outlets who have attempted to blame the President for the DOW to offer apologies. That would require an acknowledgment that their reporting on the issue has been absolutely, 100 percent, certifiably stupid.
From its Friday night network newscast came this programming note from guest anchor Diane Sawyer:
And, also, a week from tonight, ABC News is going to bring you the results of a year-long exploration of this epidemic of mass shootings in America – why it is happening and what lessons there are about staying safe if it is happening to you. And that is one week from tonight.
The national press has been playing dumb about gun violence for years now. It will be interesting to see if ABC News takes off the blinders with its upcoming Friday-night special.
UPDATE: There was another mass murder over the weekend. This one in Graham, Washington, where police report James Harrison, 34, distraught over the fact that his wife was leaving him, shot and killed his five children and then killed himself. By my estimates, that's five mass murders in the last eight days in America, with nearly 40 people shot dead.
Question: Will others in the news media soon join ABC News and begin to connect the dots?