Full poll available here.
Matt Drudge posted a picture of President Obama in a context that suggested that Obama had laughed and pointed at comedian Wanda Sykes after her joke about Rush Limbaugh. However, a video that Drudge linked to of Sykes' remark about Limbaugh does not show Obama pointing at Sykes.
Loading the player reg...
Loading the player reg...
The Fox Nation featured the headline, "Sports Teams Welcome at WH, but Celebrating Prayer Ignored," which adopts James Dobson's recent criticisms of President Obama.
Loading the player reg...
Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and Mark Steyn criticized President Obama as an elitist because he ordered a burger with "spicy mustard" or "Dijon mustard."
Following The Washington Times' retraction of an editorial falsely alleging that "Americans have a lower approval of Mr. Obama at this point than all but one president since Gallup began tracking this in 1969," will Amy Holmes, Ann Coulter, and Jim Pinkerton also retract the falsehood?
Former Laura Bush press secretary Andrew Malcolm has spent the past several weeks using his position as reporter/blogger for the Los Angeles Times to portray Vice President Joe Biden as a do-nothing buffoon. Malcolm has taken to writing mocking posts about Biden's purportedly thin and/or trivial public schedule, complete with repeated use of a photo of Biden looking silly:
I say "supposedly light" because it's fairly silly to think that Biden doesn't do anything that isn't on his public schedule. But that's what Malcolm pretends: Biden isn't doing much, because there isn't much on his official schedule.
Well, in the past day, we've learned that Biden played a key role in Sen. Arlen Specter's switch from the Republican to Democratic Party. And the LA Times "Top of the Ticket" blog for which Malcolm writes features a post today about Biden's hands-on role in Specter's switch, and describes him as "Senate Arm Twister in Chief" in legislative negotiations. But Andrew Malcolm, who so enjoys mocking Biden's light schedule, didn't write this account of his effectiveness; his co-blogger Johanna Neuman did. Malcolm is probably busy scouring the 'net, looking for funny pictures of Biden to use in his next post about how Biden doesn't do anything.
As media figures prepare to recognize President Obama's 100th day in office, Media Matters has reviewed coverage since the inauguration and identified numerous myths and falsehoods about the administration and its policies.
Assessing President Bush's first 100 days, media figures and outlets repeatedly set a low bar -- which in some cases they explicitly acknowledged -- and then judged him as having cleared it.
Misconstruing a Politico article, Sean Hannity criticized the media for giving President Obama credit for authorizing the use of lethal force against Somali pirates.
Almost as bad as Jonah Goldberg! (I kid. Sorta.)
But that didn't stop National Review from running the former RNC chief's Ground Hog Day critique about how the news media are too liberal. (They're nothing if not persistent, right?)
The premise pretty much writes itself, but Gillespie commits a mortal media critic sin; he doesn't show, he tells. Like here:
When I joined the White House in June 2007, I was still naïvely hopeful that we could get an honest hearing from the MSM. It did not take long for the scales to fall from my eyes. The national press corps loathed the president — not personally, I don't think, but politically. Their reporting dripped with disdain, and their stories were frequently riddled with negative adverbs and adjectives. On issues like the Iraq War, the environment, and life, there was often little distinction between our treatment in liberal blogs and our treatment in major daily newspapers.
Well, that's certainly a sweeping generalization. But what did Gillespie offer in his piece to back up the claim? i.e. What were the reporting examples he cited that dripped disdain for Bush? Answer: He didn't. Gillespie took the lazy way out and just assumed everyone who read his piece would agree with his allegation. That's certainly true within the GOP echo chamber. But in the real world, not so much.
Elsewhere, Gillespie isn't so much lazy as he is loopy. Like when he dips into the Rush Limbaugh story that percolated within the Beltway about whether the AM talker was the de facto leader of the GOP. At one point, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, responding to Limbaugh's endless on-air taunts and hate speech, simply suggested reporters ask Republican members of Congress whether they agree or disagree with Limbaugh's comments.
Here's Gillespie's take:
Now, this is the kind of suggestion that operatives from both parties give reporters from time to time, but it's usually whispered at a campaign event, or after half a bottle of wine at one of those painful black-tie press dinners. President Obama's press secretary can say it right out loud from the White House podium. And instead of being insulted, or asking Gibbs whether it's proper for a public official paid with taxpayer dollars to say such a thing, the reporters carry out the hit.
Because apparently the First Amendment no longer applies to the White House? Because White House spokesmen are not allowed to mentioned Limbaugh's name without first being granted permission? Honestly, only a sap would think Gibbs' innocuous request represented a "hit," or would be insulted by the question, or would whine about taxpayer dollars.
But what was our absolute favorite part of Gillespie's very serious dissection of today's "biased" press and how unprofessional journalists insert their opinion into news reporting? No mention of Fox News. It doesn't exist in Gillespie's essay.
He laments that "too many reporters no longer report; they comment" and that "the lines between news and 'news analysis,' and between 'news analysis' and opinion, have been all but washed away." That's Gillespie's big beef with the press, yet he's stone-cold silent about Fox News.
Folks, playing dumb doesn't get much harder than that.
Since President Obama's inauguration, Rush Limbaugh has made numerous baseless and ominous claims warning of what will happen if the United States adopts either Obama's policies or those pushed by other progressives, often while invoking fears of rising socialism, communism, and tyranny.