Here is today's daily Red Scare Index -- our search of CNN, CNN Headline News, Fox News Channel, Fox Business Network, MSNBC and CNBC for uses of the following terms: Socialism, Socialist, Socialistic, Communism, Communist, Communistic, Marxism and Marxist.
Here are the numbers for yesterday, Tuesday, March 24, 2009:
Socialism, Socialist, Socialistic: 45
Communism, Communist, Communistic: 9
Socialism, Socialist, Socialistic: 3
Communism, Communist, Communistic: 4
CNN Headline News: 2
Socialism, Socialist, Socialistic: 0
Communism, Communist, Communistic: 2
Fox News Channel: 28
Socialism, Socialist, Socialistic: 26
Communism, Communist, Communistic: 2
Fox Business Network: 13
Socialism, Socialist, Socialistic: 11
Communism, Communist, Communistic: 1
Socialism, Socialist, Socialistic: 5
Communism, Communist, Communistic: 0
Socialism, Socialist, Socialistic: 0
Communism, Communist, Communistic: 0
The above numbers are the result of a TVeyes.com power search for these terms on these networks.
It isn't just the Daily News. The New York Times' Peter Baker and Adam Nagourney write under the header "In a Volatile Time, Obama Strikes a New Tone for Crisis":
Americans saw not the fiery and inspirational speaker who riveted the nation in his address to Congress last month, or the conversational president who warmly engaged Americans in talks across the country, or even the jaunty and jokey president who turned up on Jay Leno.
Instead, in his second prime-time news conference from the White House, it was Barack Obama the lecturer, a familiar character from early in the campaign. Placid and unsmiling, he was the professor in chief, offering familiar arguments in long paragraphs — often introduced with the phrase, "as I said before" — sounding like the teacher speaking in the stillness of a classroom where students are restlessly waiting for the ring of the bell.
Got that? Baker and Nagourney were bored out of their minds. Where were the jokes? The yelling? The seal bouncing a beach ball on its nose? All of this policy crap is just so dull.
But Baker and Nagourney weren't done:
Mr. Obama showed little emotion. He rarely cracked a joke or raised his voice. ... his voice sounded calm and unbothered... To a certain extent, Mr. Obama's demeanor could have been calculated ... The only time he seemed irritated ... perhaps his only joke of the night ... This was Mr. Obama as more enervating than energizing.
Chuck Todd's suggestion during last night's press conference that President Obama should ask the public to "sacrifice" -- as though lost jobs, health care and houses aren't enough -- drew immediate and widespread criticism online. And not just from progressives. At National Review's "The Corner," Ramesh Ponnuru implicitly criticized the question, noting that Obama "made a reasonable point about the way the economy is already forcing people to make sacrifices." Todd's question drew rapid criticism on Twitter, too.
Now, we know that the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz regularly reads National Review -- he quotes its content frequently. And we know he's an obsessive Twitter-user, and was Tweeting during last night's presser. So it's a little odd that his article about the press conference doesn't mention Todd's "sacrifice" question at all. It was perhaps the worst -- certainly the most widely-criticized -- question asked, and yet the nation's most prominent media critic didn't even mention it.
In fact, if you didn't know anything about the press conference other than what you read in Howard Kurtz's article, you'd think Todd simply asked whether those who were "irresponsible" should be helped by Obama's policies. Here's how Kurtz described Todd's question:
NBC's Chuck Todd said that "some of your programs, whether for Main Street or Wall Street, have actually cushioned the blow for those that were irresponsible."
And here's the part of Todd's question Kurtz left out: "Why haven't you asked for something specific that the public should be sacrificing to participate in this economic recovery?"
Also missing from Kurtz's article: the word "deficit." That's more than a little surprising, given that the journalists who questioned Obama last night were bizarrely fixated on the topic.
The New York Daily News' Kenneth Bazinet and David Saltonstall mistook last night's presidential press conference for a Broadway opening.
Headlined, "President Obama's Dull Delivery During Press Conference Fails to Inspire," the two theater critics announced:
President Obama feels your pain - and your anger - but that assumes you have any feeling at all after his less-than-electrifying press conference Tuesday night. Obama used his second prime-time news conference to acknowledge disgust over AIG bonuses, but mostly he somberly urged Americans to be patient and give his multipronged economic blueprint a chance to work.
Got that? In discussing his multipronged economic blueprint, Obama was too somber. Of course, this is the same Daily News that early this week mocked Obama for being too jocular during his 60 Minutes appearance.
Chuck Todd leapfrogs Marc Ambinder's potential question with this actual one: "Why haven't you asked for something specific that the public should be sacrificing to participate in this economic recovery?"
UPDATE: A little background: a few weeks ago, Howard Fineman claimed "The Establishment" is unhappy about President Obama's "failure to call for genuine sacrifice on the part of all Americans, despite the rhetorical claim that everyone would have to 'give up' something." As I explained at the time:
Obama has, of course, called for the very wealthiest of Americans -- those making more than $200,000 -- to make some sacrifices, in the form of higher taxes. So what Howard Fineman and the Establishment -- many of whom make more than $200,000 -- really mean when they complain that Obama isn't calling for sacrifice is that he isn't calling for sacrifice from the working class. If only Obama would demand higher taxes from laid-off autoworkers and middle managers and single mothers working two jobs, Howard Fineman and the Establishment would be euphoric.
CNBC throws a pity party for the TV nets because they have to air a primetime press conference from the White House tonight and have to adjust their "carefully designed" Tuesday lineups. And OMG, they won't be able to cram as many ads onto the airwaves tonight. And wouldn't you know it, it all couldn't come at a worst time!
We noted last month how the WashPost scolded Obama for having the gall to address the nation in primetime. This CNBC report is just more of the same nonsense; nonsense we never saw from the press when Bush took to the airwaves.
Today, next to AIG execs, it's hard to imagine who deserves less sympathy than television pros who use the public airwaves for free and set aside minuscule amounts for the country's good. Tonight's one such occasion and CNBC acts like the roof is caving in.
We especially liked the CNBC lament that Obama's presser will muck up TV ratings:
Tonight's press conference is on one of the most popular time slots on one of the highest rated nights in the week, and it's during the crucial sweeps' period where the nets set their ad rates.
Actually, this year's March ratings sweeps (they're usually in February) are something of an industry joke and nobody's really taking them seriously anyway.
So save it.
One Question I Might Ask Obama....
On politics and the economy: your administration has said that furor over the AIG bonuses is, while understandable, a quote-end-quote -- distraction - from the real issues. But weren't those embers stoked by your own administration...before the AIG issue.....attempting to shift the debate in Washington from fixing the economy to punishing Wall Street?
Are you concerned that your rhetoric about anger, and particularly, anger against Wall Street, helped enflame public anger and distract attention from the economy's real problems?
Wouldn't it be better to ask a question that focuses on "the economy's real problems" rather than one that distracts attention from them?
Because it's all about them. Even presidential press conferences. From Politico (of course):
Like athletes limbering up for the big game, White House reporters have been going through elaborate preparatory rituals as they bone up for tonight's prime-time news conference with President Obama, the second formal "presser" of his presidency.
How long before Politico starts printing up baseball cards featuring their fave Beltway reporters?
The beauty of the Internet: we say it here and comes out there.
Last week we were very critical of an A1 Post story that declared without the slightest bit of evidence that "the public" was abandoning the Obama White House over the unfolding bonus scandal. This week during his weekly online chat with readers, Kurtz was asked about the article from a questioner who used our CF post as the premise.
Kurtz defending the Post article by saying he "didn't think the piece was opinionated."
Hmm, Let's take a look:
President Obama's apparent inability to block executive bonuses at insurance giant AIG has dealt a sharp blow to his young administration and is threatening to derail both public and congressional support for his ambitious political agenda.
Post proof in the article that the AIG story was "threatening" to derail Obama's entire agenda? Proof as in quotes from independent experts, telling anecdotes, or polling data? None.
The populist anger at the executives who ran their firms into the ground is increasingly blowing back on Obama, whom aides yesterday described as having little recourse in the face of legal contracts that guaranteed those bonuses.
Post proof in the article that the AIG was "blowing back" on Obama? None.
Obama himself sought to channel the public's sense of disbelief yesterday.
Post proof in the article that Obama was simply trying to "channel" disbelief, rather than expressing his own actual disbelief? None.
But the bonus issue, in particular, is hounding Obama as he pursues his larger goals, in part because of the president's own repeated declarations of outrage -- offered again yesterday -- aimed especially at the firms that are feeding at the public trough.
Post proof in the article that the AIG issue was "hounding" Obama? None.
Post reporters last week knew exactly the tale they wanted to tell. The problem was they didn't even go through the normal motions of assembling quasi-evidence to back it up. Instead they wrote a news story that simply expressed how they felt the AIG story was playing; how they thought the "public" would react.
The Post's online reader was right: the piece belonged on the opinion pages.
UPDATE: Actual polling data now exists and we know the press was dead wrong when it claimed the public was blaming Obama. Not even close.
Here's what Mr. "Punch Drunk" told Howie Kurtz about interviewing the POTUS, just hours before Kroft's Obama interview aired on 60 Minutes Sunday night [emphasis added]:
"I think that interviews with presidents are different than almost anything else. They're sort of the last bastion of civility ... particularly when you're in the Oval Office. You're not supposed to wag your finger at him, and you're not supposed to get -- it's supposed to be civil. And so you always try and keep that in mind."
Keenly aware that Oval Office interviews are supposed to be especially civil, what did Kroft do? He inserted himself into the story--he manufactured news--by asking Obama the idiotic and disrespectful question about whether the president was "punch drunk."
Obama had smiled and laughed a couple times during the interview. Once was in response to an even dumber question from Kroft (see here). And in another instance, Obama used what he called "gallows humor" to acknowledge the fact that public support for bailing out the U.S. auto workers had collapsed. And from there, Kroft began lecturing Obama--figuratively wagging his finger at him--about laughing too much, and then he asked a juvenile question about being punch drunk.
As conservative Fred Barnes noted yesterday, Kroft's left-field query was "extremely disrespectful and rude."
So much for Kroft being "civil."