"Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser
| This Week: |
As if anyone needed more proof that the political media can and will say anything about the Clintons, no matter how baseless, insulting, or far-fetched, The Washington Post's Dana Milbank came through with a handy reminder.
In his January 17 "Washington Sketch" column, Milbank wrote about the postponement of a press conference scheduled for the day before in which Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), Rep. John McHugh (R-NY), and Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) were scheduled to discuss Iraq. The press conference was delayed for a day because McHugh fell ill during the trio's trip to Iraq and stayed behind in Germany to recover.
Milbank, however, suggested that the delay occurred so Clinton could avoid speaking on the day that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) announced the formation of a presidential exploratory committee. Milbank also mocked a Clinton spokesperson's explanation for the delay in announcing the new press conference, writing: "And we lost the phone number. And the dog ate my homework. And I think I hear my mom calling."
As if it wasn't bad enough that Milbank suggested that the press conference was delayed because of Obama's announcement when Milbank knew the delay was because of McHugh's illness, Milbank's "dog ate my homework" snark wasn't even original.
On January 16, Time.com Washington editor Ana Marie Cox wrote in response to Clinton's office's explanation for the postponement: "Also, the dog ate their Iraq report." The next day, after the press conference occurred, Cox added:
The only small bit of unplanned levity was Rep. McHugh's confirmation that his "illness" yesterday was, in fact, exhaustion due to "dehydration," otherwise known as "Lohanitis." They're not even really trying to make this sound credible, are they?
So, Cox suggests a conspiracy theory involving a Republican member of Congress faking illness so that Hillary Clinton can avoid ... what? Holding a press conference the day Barack Obama announced he might run for president? As conspiracy theories go, that's both more unlikely and lamer than most.
(Interestingly, the Swampland bloggers have been quick to dismiss others as nutty conspiracy theorists. Washington bureau chief Jay Carney responded to Josh Marshall's posts at Talking Points Memo about the Bush administration's purging of U.S. attorneys with a dismissive "Of course! It all makes perfect conspiratorial sense!" And Cox herself derided as "the prerogative of conspiracy theorists everywhere" our contention that the rash of sophomoric news reports about the similarities between the names "Obama" and "Osama" contribute to people -- consciously or otherwise -- associating "Obama" and "Osama." Criticizing "conspiracy theorists" while floating your own such theory -- that's the kind of thing a Swampland blogger would probably describe as the prerogative of hypocrites everywhere.
Not to be outdone, New York Times reporter Anne Kornblut suggested -- without bothering with such niceties as evidence -- that Clinton went so far as to fake a cell-phone conversation in order to avoid questions about Obama:
Brushing past reporters in the Senate, Mrs. Clinton -- conspicuously talking into her cell phone; whether there was anyone on the other end of the line, or not, could not be confirmed -- went into the chamber to vote, then posed for an all-ladies photograph with Diane Sawyer and female senators.
That's where we are: The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Time, in a desperate race to the bottom, simply making things up about a leading potential presidential candidate in order to mock her.
As Bob Somerby explains, crediting Atrios (our own Duncan Black) for the insight: "Under 'the Clinton rules of journalism,' you can say any goddamn thing you want -- as long as you say it about the Clintons. This [sic] rules have already begun to affect the way Campaign 08 is covered."
Indeed, the "Clinton rules of journalism" aren't just for the Clintons.
Not when ABC runs segments asking, "Just who the hell is Barack Obama? And why, in these dangerous times, should he be entrusted with the most powerful job on Earth?"
Not when Fox News host John Gibson devotes a segment to pointing out that Obama "is -- get this -- a cigarette smoker. The point is: What else do we not know about Barack Obama?"
Not when John Solomon, formerly of the Associated Press and now at The Washington Post, offers the latest in a continuing series of shoddy hatchet jobs on prominent Democrats. (More on that below.)
Simply put, you can say any damn thing you want about progressives.
Glenn Beck can publicly fantasize about killing Michael Moore and call Katrina survivors "scumbags" -- and be given a television show by CNN. (He was also recently hired to be a regular commentator on ABC's Good Morning America.)
Ann Coulter can publicly suggest assassinating a sitting president and say she wishes The New York Times building had been blown up -- and end up on the cover of Time.
Rush Limbaugh can call a teenage girl a dog, suggest a sitting president and first lady are responsible for the murder of their close friend, and generally behave like an all-around jerk -- and get hired by Disney-owned ESPN.
But worse than any of that, journalists employed by The New York Times, The Washington Post, ABC and more -- the nation's most respected and most powerful news organizations -- can peddle a nonscandal like Whitewater for the better part of a decade, lie about Al Gore in order to call him a liar, belittle him for wearing Polo shirts and brown pants, call him crazy, call Howard Dean crazy, call John Kerry French, compare Barack Obama to dictators and terrorists because he has an unusual name and sometimes doesn't wear a necktie -- no, really, we aren't making this up: this is the garbage you see on CNN.
The media was more hostile to Al Gore than to George W. Bush in 2000, Mark Halperin and John Harris told us in The Way to Win -- an obvious statement, but not one expressed often enough. "Not every election is a fair fight," they conclude.
Then, Halperin announced that the media had to "prove to conservatives that we understand their grievances" and that "[i]f I were a conservative, I understand why I would feel suspicious that I was not going to get a fair break at the end of an election. We've got to make sure we do better, so conservatives don't have to be concerned about that. It's just -- it's not fair."
Until progressives convince the Mark Halperins of the world that they have to prove to us that we're going to get a fair break, this isn't going to change.
In a 1,100-word article co-written with political reporter Lois Romano and inexplicably placed on The Washington Post's front page, John Solomon suggestively reported that former Sen. John Edwards recently sold a home for $1.4 million more than he had paid for it. A sweetheart deal designed to line Edwards' pocket? That certainly seemed to be Solomon's implication -- he noted in the lead that the house was sold after it "had languished on the market." And that's how the folks over at RedState.com chose to interpret it, comparing the Edwards sale with the scheme of a defense contractor who overpaid for former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham's house as a means of funneling money to him.
But in order to establish that Edwards was the beneficiary of a sweetheart deal, you have to show that the house sold for more than it should have -- that the $1.4 million difference between Edwards' purchase price and selling price was anomalous.
Solomon doesn't even try. His article omitted any mention of the appreciation of the Georgetown real estate market between 2002, when Edwards bought his house, and 2006, when he sold it. That context is crucial to understanding what the $1.4 million figure means; absent context, the number tells us absolutely nothing. It's just a gaudy-seeming number that doesn't do much to aid our understanding of the transaction.
Why not? Why would Solomon omit such a crucial piece of information?
Better yet: Why would he do it twice?
In October 2006, Solomon -- then at the AP -- wrote a similar hit piece on Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid. In that article, he reported that Reid "collected a $1.1 million windfall on a Las Vegas land sale."
Windfall.
Sure sounds shady, right? Sounds like that $1.1 million was the result of some sort of sweetheart deal in which Reid was paid more than market value for his property. And that's what Internet gossip Matt Drudge thought, hyping the story as a "sweetheart land deal." But, as with the Edwards article, Solomon omitted any mention, at all, of the increase in Las Vegas-area real estate values that occurred over the period in which Reid owned the land.
Twice in three months, Solomon has written an article in which he makes much of a real estate transaction in which a prominent Democrat appears to have made a million-dollar profit. Twice in three months, Solomon has hyped the gaudy number without placing it in context. In both cases, that context showed the profit to be far from atypical.
The context -- a simple assessment of the performance of the real estate market in question over the time in question -- is easy enough to include. It's essential to the story. And yet, Solomon omitted it. And, in both cases, including the context would have diminished the implication that the Democrat in question benefited from an improper transaction.
Solomon -- and his editors -- owe their readers an explanation for why this information was omitted.
But Solomon's omission of any comparative information with which to assess the sale price of Edwards' house wasn't the only problem with the Post article.
Solomon reported: "Edwards has run into controversy once before on a house sale. In 2002, he reached a deal to sell a Washington house to a U.S. lobbyist for Saudi Arabia and then refused to give back the lobbyist's $100,000 earnest money when the deal collapsed."
But there is no explanation of why Edwards' refusal to return the earnest money would be controversial. The whole point of earnest money is that it is nonrefundable: It is money a buyer pays a seller to demonstrate seriousness; the only way that works is if the buyer does not get the money back if s/he backs out of the transaction. Put another way, earnest money is paid as part of a contractual agreement. If there was a contractual reason why Edwards should have returned the money, the lobbyist was free to take legal action -- and Solomon was free to report that reason. But Solomon didn't do so; he just called Edwards' apparently proper decision to keep the earnest money "controversial."
Finally, Solomon's article seemed to suggest some impropriety related to Edwards' decision to sell the home to an LLC owned by Paul and Terry Klaassen. But the nature of that purported impropriety is unclear at best. So unclear that fellow Post reporter Jonathan Weisman wondered what the big deal is:
I for one was looking for more of a connection between the Edwards and the buyers. I didn't see it. Frankly, I bought a house from some people named Buckmaster DeWolf and Rosemary Ratcliffe. I love their names but I met them for about 15 minutes as we signed our papers. So what?
Insofar as Solomon's article explained the problem with Edwards selling a home to the Klaassens, he dwelled on the fact that Edwards is seeking support for his presidential campaign from unions that don't much like Klaassen.
But, as blogger Greg Sargent pointed out at The Horse's Mouth, Solomon quoted a representative of one of the unions, SEIU, saying he didn't find fault with the transaction. Solomon didn't bother to include a comment from the other union, UFCW. Nor, according to Sargent, did Solomon even contact UFCW:
Well, I've just gotten in touch with an official from that second union, and guess what: The official told me that UFCW doesn't see anything whatsoever wrong with what Edwards did. What's more, the official said that Solomon didn't even contact the union at all for comment on the story.
[...]
In his story Solomon is using the fact that these unions are at odds with the buyer of Edwards' home in order to suggest that there was something untoward about what Edwards did. Yet he didn't even contact one of the unions to see if they had a problem with the sale.
There are two basic reasons why the Edwards house sale could be front-page news in The Washington Post: because Edwards sold it for greater than market value in a sweetheart deal, or because the transaction with Klaassen carries huge political significance. But Solomon didn't include a single piece of information that would suggest the house sold for more than market value, and he didn't bother to contact one of the unions that supposedly would view the transaction negatively.
But that's a front-page story for John Solomon and The Washington Post: John Edwards sold a house for what may or may not have been a reasonable price in a transaction with which unions whose support he is courting have no problem.
Lest anyone think that the Post's overhyping of this Edwards non-story is typical of its treatment of the finances of presidential candidates, we'll point out that, in all of 1999 and 2000, the Post devoted a mere 26 words to then-candidate George W. Bush's sale of Harken stock in 1990. Bush sold his stock while sitting on Harken's board of directors and audit committee -- and shortly before the company's stock tanked in the wake of damaging SEC filings. As we have previously explained:
In the months before the 2000 election, newly disclosed documents revealed that shortly before he dumped his Harken stock, George W. Bush had been told that the company faced a "liquidity crisis" and was "in a state of noncompliance" with lenders and that its plan to raise money was being abandoned. The documents revealed that the SEC -- which, at the time, was run by a close ally of Bush's father, then-President George H. W. Bush -- never bothered to interview Bush about his stock sale during its investigation of the matter.
During his presidential campaign, The Washington Post devoted 26 words to Bush's sale of Harken stock. The paper completely ignored the documents the SEC made public just months before Election Day. Completely ignored them.
But John Edwards' sale of a house for less than the asking price -- that's front-page news.
must the liberal media bias again. But of course all of the repugnant comments by the likes of Ann, Rush and Glenn were just humor folks! Lighten up. ;^} Conservatives make me sick. Traitors calling patriots traitors is all they are. Phooey.
when you can only conclude that people willingly have chosen to lie. such is the case with dinesh d'souza, who wrote an op-ed in yesterday's los angeles times. he pulls out all the right wing talking points in attempting to pin the blame for 9-11 on the clinton administration. among his outright falsehoods: "in 1993 islamic radicals bombed the world trade center. the clinton administration did little." the 9-11 report page page 72: "the fbi and the [clinton] justice dept did excellent work in investigating the bombing." "as a result of the investigations and arrests, the u. s. attorney of the southern district of new york prosecuted and convicted multiple individuals." where they remain in jail to this day. unlike bin ladin who bush says, well, he really doesn't think about him a lot. d'souza also brings up that tired old chestnut about the cole bombing: "again the clinton team failed to act." of course that happened at the very end of the clinton administration and it was not clear who did it until he was leaving office. but what did the bush administration do? nada. in fact, in her testimony to the 9-11 commission, condi rice said she did not think it was a good idea to respond to the cole because doing so would only "embolden the terrorists". if there was anyone who "did little" and "failed to act", it was bush and his administration. 9-11 report page 265: "he [ashcroft] did not ask the fbi what it was doing in response to the threats and did not task it to take any specific actions." "in sum, the domestic agencies never mobilized in response to the threat." we know both condi and ashcroft got warnings in july that a big attack was coming. their response? nothing from national security adviser rice. ashcroft proceeded to lease a jet and stop flying commercial. and the big guy himself, bush? well, he told bob woodward that before 9-11 he was "not on point" about bin ladin. he told a cia briefer who came to crawford to discuss the aug 6 pdb ["bin ladin determined to strike in the u.s."]: "you've covered your ass now". anyone trying to make a case that bush was worried about osama is uninformed or a liar. after all that has come out and given his position, d'souza has to be a liar. hopefully the l. a. times will provide a real rebuttal to this propaganda, which is in the same leaque as abc's phony "docudrama".
this intellectual darling of the right wing has proven himself stunningly misinformed. he dismisses the role that religion has played in mass killings, calling stalin, mao and hitler atheists. while it is true that communism is atheistic, the ideology was more political than religious. and as for hitler, it's hard to believe that anyone with the slightest amount of knowledge about nazism could write that. the churches in germany cooperated with hitler. he wrote in mein kampf: "by fighting off the jew, i am doing the lord's work." and what is all the fighting in iraq about now? it's people killing each other over what mohammed's grandson did or not say or do 700 years ago. it's the same religion and they're killing each other. in his book "the end of racism", d'souza also comes up with this charming statement: "the american slave was treated like property, which is to say, pretty well." there were slave owners that did treat their slaves "well" and even some that set them free. but that is missing the forest for the trees. these were people who were held against their will, working for nothing, denied education, families separated, and had no choice or control in their lives. thanks, i'd pass on that deal. d'souza is the type that used to be the fringe of politics, but now are given space in the los angeles times to spew their lies.
and a nod to jaun williams. bill kristol was going into his "the democrats want the enemy to win" routine, and williams pointed out that all the right wing predictions and posturing has been for naught. which took that smirk off kristol's face for a few seconds and had him sputtering mad. and brit hume was talking about giving the surge a chance, to see if it can reduce the violence and bring the militias under control in baghdad. and chances are that could happen, but the problem is, unless it's an unending committment, it will only be for x amount of months. what happens at x plus one day? because as much as we hear about "no plan" from the critics, what has happened in this conflict to think anything will be different if we withdraw in a month or five years? the only thing different will be a lot more dead americans and iraqis. also, on with stephenapolous today, discussing his presidential bid, senator sam brownback. doing the usual rewrite of history. he came to congress in 94 and said the gop wanted a balnced budget but clinton was "standing in the way" of that. of course, the exact opposite is true. it was clinton's 93 program that set the stage for balanced budgets. the republicans were unable to pass their tax breaks for the wealthy because of the threat of a clinton veto. and then bush comes into office, the republicans pass those tax cuts, and back come the deficits.
Remove the hate speech, the lies, the liars, the thieves and scoundrels - all in that single stroke. If there were larger numbers of independent outlets, and stringent limits on the reach of any owner, there would be far less uniformity in the inane - and/or false - prattle of the "press". There might even be room for an honest progressive somewhere in each outlet, who might be more than a stenographer for the administration (either of the nation, or the owner.)
a bit of Hannity & Colmes tonight- Some totally unprepared Democrat was on as the proponent of the Fairness Doctrine.
First Colmes argued with him that we should be trying to get away from the government interfering with free speech.
Then just as the guy seems like he's got his thoughts collected and is going to talk, Hannity comes on and starts shrieking out a list of print and TV news outlets, asking the guest if he thinks they're "fair and balanced".
Hannity wraps it up by whining about the liberal media.
surreal.
I also caught a little something about resurrecting the "fairness doctrine" on a cable broadcast... the Democrat was Mr. Kucinich of the House, and he was being interviewed by lou dobbs, and lou was obviously defensive about this "fairness doctrine"... a "doctrine" I don't know anything about, as yet, but I'm going to know just about all there is to know about it, shortly, thanks to the Internet Wire... but I didn't need to know what it was about, to know what Mr. Kucinich was referring to (and what had lou so defensive):
Oversight of the FCC.
Which as everyone who regularly visits MMFA knows, is an oversight long overdue... and if something called the "fairness doctrine" is anything at all of use, in correcting a crooked "media" (and lou's defensiveness indicated to me that it is), then good, let's know more about it.
Let's know more about the "Fairness Doctrine" Mr. Kucinich... let's learn about it, during the hearings in the House, on the oversight of the FCC...
...an oversight long overdue.
"Dominance of the radio airwaves by the political Right would not have been permissable under the Fairness Doctrine. With that protection removed in 1987--in an action engineered by right-wing activists, politicians, and judges--radio stations were free to program as many hours of one-sided right-wing talk as they wished and to eliminate competing views at will. The newly powerful right-wing hosts were able to say anything--to misrepresent, distort, and lie without challenge or rebuttal."
David Brock - "The Republican Noise Machine"
Go to Ed Schultz.com, click on link about Ed's recent comments on the Fairness Doctrine.
At the end, he just drills Sean Hannity.
It's a great moment in radio broadcasting.
The basics:
[link to www.museum.tv]
Look at those dates closely. This was enacted at a time when radio was growing. When the fairness doctrine was first conceived, only about 3000 radio and 100 television stations existed. By the time the 90's rolled around there were over 10,000 radio stations and close to 1,400 television stations. I bet those numbers have almost doubled now. Factor in how many people own radios and tv's now as compared to then and you can see how this "doctrine" will never hold water in today's world.
Now if you threaten a broadcaster with legal repercussions to "balance" any controversial material where will we be? How would you balance a Howard Stern? How would you balance Andy and Opie or even Jon boy and Billy? This would be stepping back in time. Do we really want to open that box?
What you will end up with is bland 60's and 70's era talk soup radio shows and hours and hours of the Grand ol' Opry (not that there is anything wrong with some Bluegrass!) , but you get my point.
This is a left wing knee jerk reaction to Rush and his imitators. No thought is going into what the repercussions of enacting this "doctrine" will bring about.
My suggestion would be; get a good host, develop a market, and expand. It took the right years to make the gains they did. It will take the left just as long.
By the way the FCC can bring the FD back without congressional approval if they wanted. I wonder why they haven't? Read the last paragraph of the link for the answer.
Only ensures balance in news coverage. It's not censorship and never was. We got along great with it for decades. Our media was light years better, more informative and balanced than it is now. We never should have abandoned it and it's another glaring example of the failure of conservatism and faith in "free markets."
BVGordon posted:
"[The Fairness Doctrine]Only ensures balance in news coverage. It's not censorship and never was. "
The FD never stipulated balance in "news coverage", only in coverage of "controversial material". Now you can make the argument that that most likely would fall under "news", but the way it was written was meant for editorializing especially in a political slant.
I never said and for that matter have not seen any sites that claim the FD is censorship. Not sure if you are attributing those words to me. If you are then you're wrong on that point also.
I do stand by my post that if the FD is implemented it will water down the debate, not stimulate it. As for the free market economy working in media, look up the numbers for yourself. There are more radio and tv stations now and it gets bigger every day. If the system were broke, this would not be taking place.
"As for the free market economy working in media, look up the numbers for yourself. There are more radio and tv stations now and it gets bigger every day. If the system were broke, this would not be taking place." - hogprint
What does the data show about independent ownership? It is not a free market which allows corporations to increase their share of the market at the expense of entry-level individuals. It is crony capitalism. Do not conflate the two, and in the process, defame free market principles.
correct, and also correct that they are owned by a much smaller amount of companies. and nbc was not owned by general electric, one of the biggest defense contractors.
there was not anywhere near the concentration of media ownership you have now. and many stations now just put on an out of the can national program that is essentially pablum. once again, stations are granted licenses because they supposedly are serving the public good. the same public that owns those airwaves. i was driving through mississippi [beautiful state] a few years ago and on a m radio you had a choice of farm reports, gospel, and two stations with rush. should rush be taken off? absolutely not. should there be at least a small amount of time to provide a balance. i think so.
The words are: "Concentration of Media Ownership."
This is what undermines any chance of "Fairness" in the media.
I not going to pretend I'm an expert, I'm not. But I'd be willing to make a pretty large wager: follow the money, and we'll see why liberal voices are shut out.
Listen to Ed Schultz, Sam Seder, Rhandi Rhodes. These people Kick Right-Wing Ass. All they need is decent signals and they'll kick more Right-Wing Ass.
Color coded posted:
"Listen to Ed Schultz, Sam Seder, Rhandi Rhodes. These people Kick Right-Wing Ass. All they need is decent signals and they'll kick more Right-Wing Ass."
As I posted above, get a good host, market, and then expand. Shultz, Rhodes and Seder very well may be the best hosts in the nation and if they are then lefty radio will prosper.
It will not happen overnight though. It takes time, literally years. That's just how radio biz is. You seem to imply that they haven't been given a chance, weak signals and the like? This isn't some conspiracy theory, it's just the free market at work. If they're good and sell product then they'll get big. If not they wither on the vine.
Their hurdle will be, are people going to buy what they're selling ;)!
ps
Do some research on Dr. Kathleen Hall Jamieson. Dr. Jamieson is Dean of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania. She has written extensively on this subject.
You do sound reasonable and I respect your opinion.
but neither of us has answered a critical question: What is the concentration of ownership on the radio airwaves? As I said, I'm not an expert. And it sounds like you aren't either.
And, moreover, does the current level of concentration produce an environment where voices can be easily excluded?
Until we deal with this question, then I guess our debate can't go much farther.
Maybe you can add more? :
AOL Time Warner, Disney, General Electric, News Corporation, Viacom, Vivendi, Sony, Bertelsmann, AT&T and Liberty Media
These are the parent companies of ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, etc...
I know there are others for radio, Clear Channel is one example, but not sure if they have a parent company...
Seems like a small number at face value, but what we don't know is how much local programming is included within a certain market? I can guarantee it's in the ten of thousands country wide.
It seems you're onto the beginnings of answering our question.
I will add this from David Brock's "The Republican Noise Machine": "The largest radio station owner in the United States, and the chief beneficiary of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, is Clear Channel Communications, a Republican-controlled company with more than 1,200 stations nationwide. Before it was allowed to go on a buying spree, Clear Channel owned only forty stations. Through its syndication arm, Premiere Radio Networks, Clear Channel syndicates Rush Limbaugh, Dr. Laura Schlessinger, Matt Drudge, and other right-wing talkers to its own stations and others."
1,200 radio stations is a lot. In addition, we have to ask: How many of these 1,200 stations are the "choicest stations," with the most powerful and preferred signals? I don't know.
And, what share of the market do these 1,200 stations constitute? Does Clear Channed have an excessive or "Monopolistic leaning" power over the air waves? Do they own so much of the air waves that they can "shove voices out," to the detriment of Democracy?
These are the questions we have to answer.
We have an incredible educated class in America presently. We can get beyond the BushieCo bull and rise above, despite what the salivating media wants to bribe us with. We shall overcome.
But, if so, how would we EVER explain Bungle and his Boyz' depredations upon our nation and our souls over the past six years?
Nope, I can't explain the admiration for BushieCo, except a neocon job. I guess where I was going is that finally educated people are speaking out and exposing the BushieCo hypocrisy. I can hope.
It's a memo worth re-circulating...
And sometimes it's hard to see any trees at all, because of that big stupid forest being in the way.
But this Internet Wire (the People's own News Wire!) is the fix, and the solution, and the death of, that "media" that you speak of...
...that "media" that has so plagued us, and our Democratic processes, for several generations now, dating back at least to the "yellow" journals.
This Internet Wire is not only an infinitely better source of information (or "news"), but it is strangling the life out of that "media".
This week, Time Inc. (which includes not only a weekly rag by that name, but also People and Sports Illustrated) bled a little bit more, 300 hacks worth, on the way to their death (or the transmigration of their soul, if they have one).
Here is the headline as it appears in the NY Times online (another rag so terminally ill):
"Time Inc. Cutting Almost 300 Magazine Jobs to Focus More on Web Sites"
And included in that article, is this line:
"Like other publishing companies, Time Inc., the nation’s biggest magazine publisher and a unit of Time Warner, is trying to cope with the movement of readers and advertisers from print to the Web."
Think it affects only the rags, and not the stylized blowhards on ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN, MSNBC, and Fox?
Then let me ask you... are you still so addicted to your TV watching habits (developed in childhood) to still be waiting breathlessly for "news" at 6 or 7, or film at 11?
Still waiting for katie and brian and whoever else, to tell you what's going on... to tell you what to think?
It'd be OK if you answered yes... it's hard to break those old TV watching habits (developed in childhood).
But the folks, they're moving in droves over to the other, better, source of information and "news": The Internet Wire.
Lightning quick and 24 hours at your fingertips, instantly...
Not owned by anyone, least of all by the 6 broadcasters mentioned above (just 6... just 6 with all that power!)...
Yet the power (and audience and credibility) of those 6 is waning fast too, it's just that they're too scared and too defensive about it all, to report on it. The rags regularly run stories on the power of the Internet Wire, and their move toward it. The broadcasters, they're so threatened by that Wire, that they regularly run "stories" portraying it only as a place of porn and child molesters and terrorists and plans for bombs and meth...
...the broadcasters never mention the Internet Wire's ability to bring you the Senate and the House, the Congressional Record (online! Extraordinary!), all the Agencies and Departments of our government, State and Federal and otherwise...
...all the Universities, all the citizen's action groups, all the environmentally concerned (and informed!) action groups, all the watchdogs...
...and the "media" watchdogs, MMFA in particular.
Well, anyway, you get the memo... this is it, this Internet Wire... it's the fix and the solution and the death of, that "media" beast which has so plagued us for so long.
The rags are honest enough about it, and trying to adjust... the broadcasters are still frozen in a defensive posture, squirming about for a counter-attack of some kind...
...giving you katie, and hoping you're so TV addicted that you just can't tear yourself away from that "media".
(And I'd add: Once online, do you access those 6 broadcasters I mentioned... they have websites, do you go there for information and "news"? I don't. As a matter of fact, anytime I have visited their websites, for schlitz and giggles, I'm always struck by how heavy they are with advertising... most of it for the crap that they show on TV, for their crappy TV shows. Too funny! They're frozen by the threat, and they don't know what to do... except hack away at you, to get you back to staring at the TV set... too funny!)
I gather the subliminal message (so to speak) is that the anti-union lobbists are secretly bribing Edwards to stab his union friends in the back.
is that these fluff articles so full of insinuation and devoid of meaning or fact, will be referenced by cultic right-wing bloggers, websites and television shows all the way up to the election.
FPM will have articles insulting John "land deal" Edwards and it will link back to an article citing the original article which, if you bother to follow through on, is actually an empty husk...a construction of spite by some a*sshole reporter. This is the way they build their house of cards....
Do they mean to do it...ABSOLUTELY...these guys think only of "winning" the argument...even if it means lying. When Howard Dean was destroyed in a single day by EVERYONE on radio and TV making fun of him and SAYING he was destroyed....well I was stunned by the power of that. I thought it would backfire because it really just a tempest in a teacup...but alas..
The great thing about MM is that someone is finally pointing at the WAY they argue and calling it flawed...exposing it...instead of trying to argue against it. These "methods" of manipulation have got to be revealed to people.
I sent this e-mail and got this response from Romano:
My e-mail:
I am in the process of buying a house right now. I have never met the owner. They have never met me. I probably never will. Nor did it occur to me that either of us would be held responsible for determining each other's moral character before allowing this transaction to go through.
Turns out, there are some tax liens on the property because the owner owes child support and back taxes. Unlike Edward's buyer, I am actually paying the asking price, which is even more suspicious. Judging from his bookshelf, I also suspect that the person I am buying from has political beliefs far different from my own. He may have even worked for or contributed to candidates I did not support.
Is it now immoral of me to close on the house?
Romano's response:
Are you running for president too?
**************
So, it's not wrong to buy the house, but if I were running for President, a reporter can make false charges about it?
I sent this follow up to Solomon's collaborator on the Edwards article:
To: "'Lois Romano'" < Subject: Have to be rich to rule my world
Still trying to puzzle this story of yours out. Is your problem with Edwards that he's rich? Do you find it hypocritical for rich people to push policies that benefit the other 95 percent of the country? Are the elites ethically required only to look out for their own? If we want anything done in this country that benefits average Americans, can it only be supported by the poor people in Congress if they don't want to get attacked by the WP?
Let's say Edwards didn't like the buyer. Wouldn't he be required to pay the broker his fee if Edwards refused? Couldn't Edwards be sued and compelled to sell the house if he found a willing buyer and turned down the offer? What action could and should Edwards have taken here to make this story appear on page 14? And why, yet again, has it been left up to the people at TPMuckraker to place the phone calls you were either too lazy or unwilling to make? Did you not call the unions because their response might have undermined your whole fabricated thesis that there's some kind of rift?
I'm trying to be enraged. Really, I am. Can you give me some clue as to what I'm supposed to be enraged about?
Romano's response:
When $5 million in cash changes hands involving a presidential candidate and a secret buyer on the day before he announces, we think its newsworthy.
Lois Romano
My response:
I’ve done reporting for newspapers no where as prestigious as the WP, and this is the kind of story I might have looked into, but dropped or continued pursuing until I found something substantive. “Cash changes hands” sure sounds bad. It suggests money was given for something. From your article, that something appears to be... a house. Now perhaps the house is way under or over valued for the area, but you either don’t say, or didn’t report it to keep your story from evaporating. I don’t know if you’re a homeowner, but the fact that it’s gone up in value is not surprising. Nor is it surprising that it sold under the asking price. In fact, it would be unusual if it didn’t.
“A secret buyer” refers to the fact that it’s a Limited Liability Company, which is not unusual. I’ve had one for my freelance writing. It’s a matter of public record, so not “secret”. “The day before he announces” suggests he has something to hide. What? You don’t say.
John Solomon is the master of making quid seem like quid pro quo. My favorite is Solomon’s insinuation Reid sold his vote for comp tickets to a boxing match, without mentioning that Reid didn’t vote the way he was apparently bribed to do. You have a theoretical quid here, but what was bought? You don’t say. And what do unions have to do with it?
This reads like the kind of story you can’t drop because you’ve wasted too much time on a dead end and have a quota to meet.
the "comp" tickets were not a gift at all, but a requirement of his position?
...post any responses and follow-ups if you can. Thanks for sharing this.
To all the swell D.C. parties and blondes whether male or female,their sneering lazy minds can meet.
"Simply put, you can say any damn thing you want about progressives. "
The fact that MMFA complains about an article which says that someone may have been faking a cell phone call or made up an illness to avoid a press conference while conservatives (including the sitting president of the United States) have been called
*Murderers *Liars *Thugs *Digital Brown shirts *Evil *Greatest Terrorist in the World *Worse than Osama Bin Laden
is outright laughable....I'm literally falling out of mychair laughing at MMFA complaining about progressives being called names (like dog or scumbag) when they do the EXACT same thing except on a much grander and more vicious scale.
Seriously, talk about hypocrisy.....
"I'm literally falling out of mychair laughing at MMFA complaining about progressives being called names (like dog or scumbag) when they do the EXACT same thing except on a much grander and more vicious scale."
Progressives being called names like scumbag? The single reference to scumbag in the article above was Glen Beck's reference to Katrina survivors.
You literally took the article above and mashed it all up like a ball of dough to make it say when you want it to say. That's some serious cognitive dissonance, fella. Startling even.
*Murderers *Liars *Thugs *Digital Brown shirts *Evil *Greatest Terrorist in the World *Worse than Osama Bin Laden
You forgot to credit the reporters who you took these quotes from.Please give us sources, otherwise you may get people thinking that there's a conservative poster here who just makes things up.
or is there a handbook that tells you this garbage. I don't know who you are referring to in the media that has called conservatives brown shirts. Though it is an apt description. Cons being unable to think for themselves following along like little sheep.
GRHINO, Where in the Washington Post or any other reputable mainstream outlet have you seen conservatives called "murderers, liars, thugs, etc?
The complaint is not that conservatives are calling progressives names. Conservatives and liberals call each other names all of the time. The complaint is that mainstream reporters feel free to imply motives without any basis in fact. Especially with Hillary Clinton, it appears they feel free to make any kind of accusation at will, with no need to back it up with facts. And the piece about Edwards is just plain bad reporting.
GRHINO, you need to comprehend what you read, and not just read it.
The Edwards article is WAY worse than you mention as right up top it says "The Edwardses paid $3.8 million in 2002 for the six-bedroom Federal-style house once owned by socialite Polly Fritchey, and they did substantial renovations."
I have friends who have renovated houses in Georgetown and "substantial renovations" rarely happen for less than $1M. Heck, it's even possible they took a LOSS on the house!
Again, no perspective is presented to discuss the average amount of money spent on renovations in Georgetown, the real estate market appreciation in that neighborhood, etc.
I can't wait to see Solomon's article on Rummy's big "windfall" when he sells his St. Michaels home!
When confronted with a thoughtful well written piece on how progressives get tarred in the press complete with fresh examples, the conservative rejects it as being ridiculous. Then proceeds to write some juvenile and ignorant retort that establishes they didn't read the thing they are complainging about. They call us hypocrites for the mere suggestion that liberal, left and progressive are said by talking heads with a sneer. So deluded our conservative friends are, still clinging to the absurd notion of the mythical liberal media bias. What a convenient excuse of theirs to avoid dealing with information that clashes with their narrow ideology. You guys are right. You are so smart and we are so dumb. We thought we could fool you with our hidden agenda. We were so close too. But hey you cons are just too well informed and well read you saw right through it. George Soro's can stop writing checks as the jig is up. Idiots.
you've got nuthin', nuthin'. That's the worst case of reading comprehension I've ever seen. Sad.
And HP, don't worry. Air America and its' amazing talent has already eroded some of the screaming rights power. And sites like MM, truthout and the daily kos are helping too. These things are already making a difference. Once people start getting a whiff of the truth, it's addictive.
The slaps at Ana Marie Cox seem a bit over the top, since in bot posts cited, she stated that McHugh was really ill.
This is the journo formerly known as Wonkette. She should neither be taken a face value nor seriously. I thought her sarcasm in this instance was directed at DC journalists, and not HRC.
This is just the beginning of the total freak show concerning the media smear of Democrats. I am truly appreicative that you, as well as others, take the time to completely dismantle these asshats!!! Keep it up, and pray that the Dems can get the Fairness Doctrine back into effect. Reagan brought so much incredible damage to our political discourse by killing the only law that protects Americans from blatant and damaging propoganda. Hopefully, more and more Americans will demand that these publications remove the offenders...and quickly!
I just want to thank Jamison Foser, David Brock and the staff at MediaMatters for staying on top of this critical issue of media politicization...and for doing it so brilliantly. THANK YOU.
speech about media reformation. He even mentions David Brock briefly. But you have to see this:[link to www.truthout.org]
Next, we're going to see Solomon on one of the network morning news shows...
The corporate media loves these irresponsible right wing noise bags.
If we're lucky, Rosie will bitch about him on The View or maybe Colbert will invite Solomon on and give him even more unneeded publicity.
Thanks, Jamison. Thanks alot. ;>)
If the best the democrats can come up with is Hillary,thne the republicans will be in the white house again starting in 09.Why is she so qualified.What has she done,except be the wife of a failed president.The same president that gave Nkorea nuke power.The same president that gave the chinese nuck guidence technology.whT buch of crooks and George Bush is the bad one.Give me a break
Reading all these indignant posts here would be amusing were it not so pathetic. Media Matters is doing good work in exposing the misinformation, omissions, distortions and apparent outright lies being belched forth from the mainstream media outlets BUT, what good do all your rantings do when only a tiny fraction of the media audience reads Media Matters?The power lies with the major media conglomerates, which, apparently are entirely behind the War on an Abstract Noun and the regressive policies of the Far Right benefitting the world's wealthiest entities.Nothing will change until protesters start targetting the media outlets at their source. And even that may do no good.
Those interested should review the Edward Luttwak essay "Dead End" in the current February 07 Harper's monthly in which he discusses, in part, the history of European liberal movements and the slaughter the proponents of those movements encountered by the very peasants they were ostensibly attempting to liberate. It turns out, historically speaking, peasants don't really want to be freed from their oppression, at least not by "foreigners" or people they do not know or trust. They have, historically sided with the wealthiest oppressors they knew rather than opted for a freedom they knew not.
A bit philosphical, but perhaps a warning to those of us who believe we can change people by using values of truth justice and equality to expose the oppression of a corrupt political situation. Some fools only respect brutal power.
on the other hand many media figures and outlets have made retractions or corrections.