The worst analogy of the day, courtesy of Daily Caller contributor Ron Hart:
The "me, my and I" speeches Obama gives, in which he takes credit for his minor accomplishments and blames Bush for all else, no longer work. The economy has been under Democratic House and Senate rule since 2006. Obama taking credit for jobs "saved" is like the 9/11 hijackers taking credit for creating TSA jobs.
In January, Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz profiled the Daily Caller under the (print edition) headline "It's the Caller, not the Holler; Tucker Carlson and company say their site will maintain nonpartisan civility." Here's a taste:
The Fox News commentator launches his new Web site, the Daily Caller, on Monday. His partner is Neil Patel, a former Dick Cheney aide. His opinion editor is Moira Bagley, who spent 2008 as the Republican National Committee's press secretary. And his $3 million in funding comes from Wyoming financier Foster Friess, a big-time GOP donor.
As for his new partners, Friess says by e-mail: "Tucker and Neil present a huge opportunity to re-introduce civility to our political discourse. They are mature, sensible men who are very thoughtful and experienced with pleasant senses of humor and do not take themselves too seriously. They want to make a contribution to the dialogue that occurs in our country that has become too antagonistic, nasty and hostile.
Less than a year later, Tucker Carlson is publishing columns that compare the President of the United States to the 9/11 hijackers. So much for reintroducing civility to the political discourse.
Tucker Carlson has had shows on PBS, CNN and MSNBC. All were so successful that not a single one is currently on the air. And how can we forget his stint on ABC's Dancing With The Stars?
Perhaps that is why he's attempting a one-sided feud Keith Olbermann. He just couldn't stomach the fact that someone could make a show work on his former network home.
The more likely scenario is that he's looking for controversy to draw eyeballs to his next failed endeavor -- The Daily Caller, his factually challenged, misinformation pushing website.
Huffington Post notes:
Now he denies the very existence of a feud, though in doing so again laid into Olbermann, who he previously described as the most disliked person at MSNBC.
"I feel sorry for Keith," Carlson told Mediabistro. "What a sad old guy he is, a prisoner of his many phobias. I'm not feuding with him at all, as I tried to explain when I emailed him the other day from my new account, Keith [at] keitholbermann.com. He never responded. I hope he's okay."
By the way, TuckerCarlsonsNextFailedEndeavor.com is still available. Maybe I'll register the url so Tucker has a way to contact me.
Today, the front page of Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller blared the headline "Justice Sharia: Critics allege Kagan is sympathetic to Islamic law" over a large picture of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan.
The conservative media has been circulating this claim for months now -- though to be honest, we're more accustomed to it being paired with an image of Kagan in a turban, rather than one of her standing behind a podium.
Nonetheless, it's important to again set the record straight on this tired, Islamophobic attack, especially because The Caller has chosen to revive it just as the right is whipping up an anti-Muslim frenzy regarding the community center and mosque set to be built near Ground Zero.
The Caller reports that, according to some conservative critics (more about this merry band later), one of Kagan's "primary disqualifications" is the supposed "approval of Sharia" she demonstrated as the dean of Harvard Law School. The familiar laundry list of Kagan's alleged offenses includes "condoning the acceptance of $20 million from Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal -- who blamed the attacks of 9/11 on American foreign policy -- to fund programs on Islam," "spearhead[ing] the 'Islamic Finance Project,' a program aimed at mainstreaming Sharia-compliant finance in America," and "award[ing] the Harvard Medal of Freedom to the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, Iftikhar Chaudhry, who critics say is a promoter of Sharia."
None of these attacks is remotely accurate.
Check out this story on The Daily Caller's front page:
"Dems to Obama: Don't come to our districts - NYT"
Now, based on that, you'd probably assume that the New York Times had reported that at least two Democrats had told President Obama to stay away from their districts. You might even assume that the number was much greater than two, since the Daily Caller's phrasing implies the sentiment is common.
But that isn't really how right-wing "journalism" works. The New York Times article in question does not mention or refer in any way to a single Democrat, named or unnamed, who urges Obama to stay away. Not one. In fact, the bulk of the article is devoted to concerns on the part of Congressional Democrats that Obama isn't doing enough to help.
That's how right-wing "journalism" works: It takes an article in which not a single Democrat expresses any reservation about a visit from Barack Obama and twists it into a broad sentiment on the part of Democrats that Obama should stay away.
More than two days after the Daily Caller posted a column by Caller contributor Jerry Maldonado criticizing Democratic Rep. Joe Courtney, the Caller has finally admitted what we pointed out on Monday: That Maldonado is, in fact, the communications director for one of Courtney's Republican opponents:
UPDATE from TheDC: Mr. Maldonado serves as the campaign communications director for congressional candidate Janet Peckinpaugh, an opponent of Joe Courtney.
The Daily Caller did not explain why it passed off a column by a GOP staffer actively working against Joe Courtney as the work of a disinterested columnist, or what, if any, measures it has put in place to ensure that nothing like this happens again. Nor did the Caller apologize for passing off political propaganda as journalism. I can only assume they were too busy writing up their next lecture about ethical journalism, which should be good for a chuckle or two.
Two days ago, Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller published a column by contributor Jerry Maldonado that was devoted entirely to criticizing Connecticut congressman Joe Courtney. The Daily Caller identified Maldonado only as an author and columnist.
Almost immediately, Connecticut reporter Ted Mann pointed out that Maldonado is, in fact, the communications director for Janet Peckinpaugh, a Republican running against Courtney. I then highlighted Mann's report here.
Given all the hyperventilating the Daily Caller has been doing about purported -- but unsubstantiated -- "coordination" between liberal journalists and the Obama campaign, passing off a GOP campaign staffer's attacks on a Democratic opponent as the work of a disinterested columnist is not only deeply unethical, it is jaw-droppingly hypocritical as well.
And yet, two days later, The Daily Caller still has not disclosed Maldonado's work for the Peckinpaugh campaign. And while the Daily Caller's misleading attacks on Journolist have drawn heavy media coverage, its own grossly and undeniably inappropriate publication of Maldonado's column has been completely ignored.
UPDATE: The Daily Caller has finally admitted Maldonado works for Peckinpaugh.
The Shirley Sherrod case wasn't a one-off, not by any means. A lot of conservative misinformation -- often generated though wishful thinking or other dubious non-reporting techniques -- starts with blogs, often more obscure than Andrew Breitbart's Big Government, but then churns quickly to the top of the right-wing media and sometimes, like the Sherrod story, even bubbles over to the mainstream. There's been a lot of play over the last two days over a purported "confirmed" list of journalists involved in the controversial (more on that later) email list and discussion known as JournoList. The list has been published on the widely read conservative site Free Republic and linked to by right-wing A-listers like Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds.
You'll be shocked, shocked to learn that this virally spreading list is about as real as a $3 bill. since he found himself on the right-win "confirmed" list despite having nothing to do with it. I saw his article and -- based on the increasingly unhinged comments I've been getting on the JournoList lately -- thought I should check to see if I had been erroneously placed there as well. Of course, I was. It's 100 percent wrong. I was never on the now-defunct JournoList at any time during its history, nor was I ever asked to be on it. In fact, I was only vaguely aware of the JournoList -- thanks to one article I read about it, a while back.
It's flattering, in a strange way, that so many right-wingers assumed I was on the JournoList. Ironically, the reasons that in the real world I would be an unlikely candidate for the JournoList are pretty much related to the reasons that I did start writing this blog more than five years ago. I had a lot I wanted to say, but I also knew that I was well out of the main loop, thanks to being based here in Philadelphia and working for a newspaper that is wonderful and scrappy but also small and lacking a national staff or presence or clout. If I was going to have an impact at all, it would never have been through a private email list -- and why would I want that, anyway? When I have anything to say, I'll say it right here. In the open, For people to read and comment on and disagree with, as a persistent posse of readers seems inclined to do.
I do think I know why I've been mistakenly included as a "confirmed" member of the JournoList. It relates to something that happened in April 2008. I was here at the newspaper live-blogging an ABC News Democratic primary debate that was taking place right here in Philadelphia between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton -- and I was outraged. Not because someone was sending me an email telling me to be outraged -- but because of what I saw on a small TV screen with my own two eyes. Instead of asking the candidates about the issues that mattered -- three of the topics not covered, incredibly, were health care, climate change, and Afghanistan -- the ABC moderators Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos larded the debate, especially the first hour, with some of the most trivial dreck in the history of American journalism. Obama was pressed on his patriotism, on not wearing a flag pin and his reported association with 1960s-radical-turned-Chicago-constituent Bill Ayers, while Clinton was asked for the umpteenth time on what by then was a fading controversy over her trip to Bosnia. The one issue that seemed to animate millionaire Gibson was whether either candidate would raise capital gains taxes.
Then the debate ended, I stayed in the newsroom past 1 a.m. and wrote an angry, emotional screed of an open letter to Gibson and Stephanopoulos. My complaints were not partisan -- I believed that Clinton and Obama should have been asked tough or novel questions, which I personally tried to do when each appeared at the Daily News during the campaign. Notice that I wrote: "Question his policies, or question his leadership. because that is your job as a journalist. But don't insult our intelligence by questioning his patriotism.." Apparently, I was not alone in my disgust at ABC News. To this date, the letter remains by far the most widely read piece I have written over the five years of Attytood, and I received hundreds of emails as well, most in support.
A few days later -- it was 4:05 p.m. on April 18, 2005, to be exact, as I still have it -- I received an email from someone I've traded a few emails with over the years, a Columbia University professor, media critic and author named Todd Gitlin. (Now since I want to give the right-wing as much fodder as I possibly can, I should note that Todd is also...a 1960s radical...dah-da-da! He was president of the Students for a Democratic Society in 1964 and 1965 and organized the first protest against the Vietnam war; he also left SDS by the time a handful of loons proposed violent measures and in fact he's spoken out against violence his whole life, but I'm sure by tomorrow I'll be accused of paling around with a terrorist...but I digress).
Anyway, Todd asked me if I'd sign an open letter from journalists expressing outrage to ABC News. I said yes, because a) frankly, the letter was tamer than what I'd already written in the blog and b) I believe that committed journalists have an obligation to fight like hell every day for a better news media, and I felt it was important for ABC to know that other professionals -- and not just regular folks -- were among those angry over that performance. It was only last week that I learned that the letter that Todd forwarded to me arose from discussions on this JournoList that I did not even know existed in April 2008. But this is probably why I've been linked to the pseudo-scandal, while conservatives have used the open letter episode as an excuse to condemn media ethics.
Really? To this date, the only unethical conduct that can truthfully be linked back to that debate is on the part of...ABC News. For one thing, the moderators ran a video of a seeming average Pennsylvania woman-on-the-street posing a question to Obama about wearing a flag pin. They never disclosed on the air they went to great lengths to track down this specific woman because she's made a comment about Obama and the flag pin to the New York Times -- but the episode left viewers with the misimpression that this was a burning issue in the Keystone State. Likewise, the question that Stephanapoulos asked Obama about '60s radical William Ayers was suggested to him almost verbatim by conservative radio host Sean Hannity, and Stephanopoulos jumped on this with little regard over whether it was an important issue. (Hint: It wasn't.)
Yet now,. in some quarters, it is this JournoList, where reporters -- most, but not all, working for publications like the Nation with an openly liberal orientation, as well as academics and a few advocates -- discussed and debated issues and occasionally traded information, that has become at least in some quarters the major journalism scandal of the 21st Century. That's total baloney. I wasn't asked to be on JournoList, and generally I think list-servs can be something of a big time-waster, but I have no problem with JournoList and I would not have been ashamed or regretful if I had taken part of it.
This may come across as shocking, but there's a place right now where journalists and even some activists trade ideas right now, and I do take part in it. It's called Twitter, and for God sakes don't tell Tucker Carlson before he shuts that down, too. And here's the real irony -- long before there was a JournoList, there was a place where journalists got together and intentionally or not, conspired to create little political narratives, that Gary Hart was a bit of a phony or George W. Bush could relate to regular guys, and those places were the hotel bars of New Hampshire and Iowa. I'm not defending that, necessarily ...but journalists are human, and they communicate with each other. The only difference is there wasn't a creep in the Des Moines Holiday Inn with a mini-recorder sending cassettes of private comments back to Rush Limbaugh.
Were there things that some indivdiduals said on JournoList that were stupid or in a few cases hateful? Yes, but from what I've read the dumbest comments were either ignored or pushed back -- as you might expect. It was just free speech -- sometimes brilliant, sometimes dumb, often messy -- and the worst example of partisanship related to JournoList is what's happening now on the right, as some conservatives are twisting words and the facts to try and yet again bully the mainstream media into covering bogus scandals of the right, like the New Black Panther Party, or just to be afraid of actual tough journalism.
Because this is not an isolated incident. The totally contrived JournoList scandal is the latest in a very alarming trend -- one that reminds me of what we've seen happen in parts of the Middle East in recent decades, that rather than deal with the difficulties of modernity -- in the case of journalism, that would be the Internet and the rise of a class of smart, edgy and passionate young writers -- there has been a disturbing plunge into a warped brand of radical fundamentalism. Inside the mosques of that old-time journalist religion -- the Washington Post springs to mind -- there is a kind of Taliban in charge this days, encouraging journalists to wear opinion burqas and a follow a kind of newsroom Sharia law in which reporters must be pure in their words, their opinions and even their associations, and there is an angry mob of right-wingers in the city square, urging on this unholy purity crusade and the ritual stoning of any infidels.
The new Taliban ignores the unalienable fact that journalists should largely judged in one simple way, by the character of their content. A writer can hold strong opinions or even make an occasional intemperate remark and still be a great journalist whose work is hard-hitting, fair and, dare I say it, accurate. In recent weeks, we've seen successful careers ended over one comment, like Octavia Nasr of CNN, and a journalism icon like Helen Thomas destroyed by one (admittedly pretty dumb) remark, and a promising young journalist like Dave Weigel leaving the Washington Post not because of his work -- which is outstanding -- but because of a few comments he tossed out on Twitter and the dreaded JournoList (Weigel was hired today by Slate, a glimmer of hope). Now, JournoList is becoming the place where the Taliban discovers the joys of McCarthyism.
If you want to judge journalists, it's not hard to do. Don't look at whether they're on some obscure list. Just look at what they write.
On Monday, The Daily Caller reported that Sen. Barbara Boxer, at a campaign event over the weekend, "seemingly equated being a politician to serving in the military." The Daily Caller included a 34-second audio clip of Boxer's comments that was posted on YouTube by "Veterans Against Boxer" and quoted a press release from the Veterans for Carly Coalition attacking Boxer over her remarks, which was posted on her GOP opponent Carly Fiorina's website.
Predictably, right-wing blogs ran wild with The Daily Caller article, attacking Boxer for her comments. But just how did Boxer "seemingly equate being a politician to serving in the military" in the audio clip? Here's what The Daily Caller actually reported she said:
"We know that if you have veterans in one place where they can befriend each other and talk to each other. You know when you've gone through similar things you need to share it. I don't care whether you are a policeman or a fireman or a veteran or by chance a member of Congress," the California senator said. "[Democratic Rep.] Maxine [Waters] and I could look at each other and roll our eyes. We know what we are up against. And it is hard for people who are not there to understand the pressure and the great things that go along with it and the tough things that go along with it."
Pretty innocuous, right? Boxer seems to be discussing the importance of camaraderie among those who share similar experiences, which certainly isn't controversial. Boxer didn't single out the military, and she certainly didn't say that serving in Congress is just like serving in the military.
Of course, if you're a right-wing blogger, you take this 34 seconds of audio, toss aside any sense of context, and launch an attack.
The running theme to the series of Journolist stories from Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller has been that the many-hundreds-strong email listserv was Ground Zero of the evil liberal media conspiracy, a hive of scum and villainy from which left-leaning journalists and academics cackled and twisted their Snidely Whiplash mustaches as they plotted to attack Republicans and conservatives and protect progressives and Democrats. Many former Journolisters, including founder Ezra Klein, have complained that the Daily Caller omitted key details and quoted selectively in establishing this theme, and said that Journolist was actually "a long-running argument between people who had different views and different interests."
Now, having long since run out of material they could twist into misleading and scandalous headlines, the Daily Caller has published an article letting us know that not all the members of Journolist were bad guys, and some were actually "heroes" for expressing "admirable integrity or civility." Most infuriatingly, the latest Daily Caller describes Journolist as follows: "But the 400-member listserv, like any community, was a complex arrangement comprised of many individual voices."
It was exactly that sort of perspective that Klein complained was lacking from the Daily Caller's Journolist coverage. And now that they've spent the better part of a week smearing the journalists and academics on the list with a broad brush, they've suddenly decided that it's time to add the proper context to their reporting and make known the key nuances. By highlighting the "heroes" of Journolist, they're essentially admitting that they misled everyone with their earlier reporting, but are also trying to appear magnanimous in process.
It's flagrantly dishonest and cowardly in the extreme. Also, I'm not sure that anyone from the Daily Caller really has the standing to critique the journalistic integrity of others, given their own recent lapses.
Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller has spent the past week excoriating liberal journalists for purported ethical lapses like … um … not like Sarah Palin. Meanwhile, the Daily Caller has taken to running opinion pieces criticizing Democratic Rep. Joe Courtney without noting that the author is the communications director for one of Courtney's Republican challengers!
Ted Mann of the New London, CT newspaper The Day explains:
Also on Monday, I received a Google news alert directing me to the Daily Caller, for an opinion piece that criticizes Rep. Joe Courtney, D-2nd District, primarily for having been the subject of media reports about how much money he has raised for his reelection.
The piece, by Jerry Maldonado, is headlined "Is Joe Courtney worried?"
Here's how Maldonado is identified, in a handy disclaimer for Caller readers: "Jerry Scott Maldonado is the author of 'Columns, Quotes & The American Dream.' Tate Publishing Group, due out October 2010. He is a featured columnist for The D.C.G Network of news sites: Sundaynewscape.com, Onequestionnews.com, and Imperialvalleynews.com. Jerry's work has also been featured internationally."
Here's what they don't tell you about Jerry Maldonado: He's the communications director for Janet Peckinpaugh, one of the three Republicans running for Congress against Joe Courtney this fall.
And it's not the first time her campaign spokesman has taken to the Daily Caller's site to talk up Peckinpaugh without disclosing his connection to the campaign.
I wonder why the Daily Caller would leave that connection undisclosed. And I wonder why anyone would waste time reading hand-wringing dispatches on journalism ethics from a publication that would do so.
UPDATE: Here's a July 26 Maldonado Daily Caller column criticizing Courtney. Here's a June 3 Maldonado Daily Caller column praising Peckinpaugh. Here's a July 21 Peckinpaugh press release listing Maldonado as her communications director. And another from July 20.
UPDATE 2: This is kind of hilarious. Here's how Maldonado ends his July 26 Daily Caller column: "I'm Jerry Maldonado and I approve this message." That, of course, is a reference to campaign disclosure laws that require candidates for political office to stand by their ads. Maldonado, in other words, is mimicking the language of transparency in a Daily Caller column that hides the fact that he is employed by a candidate in the race he's writing about.
Despite having clearly run out of any material that could be considered interesting, Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller continues to bang away at the Journolist email archives, publishing yet another story this morning under the sensationalist headline: "Journolist debates making its coordination with Obama explicit." In what's become a hallmark of their Journolist "exposés," the story itself does nothing to bolster the headline's provocative claim.
Here's the extent of the "debate," as it was laid out in the Daily Caller article:
[Harpers' Luke] Mitchell replied: "Fair enough! But it seems to me that a concerted effort on the part of the left partisan press could be useful. Why geld ourselves? A lot of the people on this list work for organizations that are far more influential than, say, the Washington Times.
"Open question: Would it be a good use of this list to co-ordinate a message of the week along the lines of the GOP? Or is that too loathsome? It certainly sounds loathsome. But so does losing!"
Ezra Klein of the Washington Post, the founder of Journolist, quickly jumped in: "Nope, no message coordination. I'm not even sure that would be legal. This is a discussion list, though, and I want it to retain that character," he wrote.
Mitchell replied: "Fair enough, Ezra! The list is great at as it is and I didn't mean to suggest anything out of bounds. I am still curious about the reluctance of the left media to organize, though. The message discipline on the right seems to be one of its key advantages."
David Roberts of Grist seemed to scold Roberts for his idea: "Just read past messages on this list, Luke. Everyone here is a /journalist /or an /independent analyst/. Their job is to /say what they think/, not to support Obama. Suggest that they focus on more electorally helpful -- and equally true -- messages, and they will bridle."
That's it. Mitchell poses the question. Klein immediately and unequivocally shoots it down. Mitchell assents. Roberts points out that the idea wouldn't work due to the integrity of Journolist's members. Moreover, as Klein's response makes clear, the "debate" was with regard to something they would never be allowed to do. So the story has, quite literally, no point.
Whatever impact the Daily Caller might have had with their first salvo of Journolist stories was already undone by their slipshod journalism and persistent dishonesty. Now they just look ridiculous in continually going back to the already-dry well and trying to convince everyone they're still pulling up water.
From the July 25 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources:
Loading the player reg...
From the July 25 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources:
Loading the player reg...
After a week of breathless, overwrought, and wildly misleading "exposés" about the now-defunct Journolist email listserv, Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller is slumping into the weekend with a dull, wet thud.
Daily Caller reporter Jonathan Strong's latest offering documents the fact that a few Journolisters were "offended" by MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and wrote critically of him.
The story is even more phenomenally uninteresting than it sounds, and you can tell from the lead paragraphs that Strong struggled mightily to find a hook:
If you were one of the 400 members of the listserv Journolist, perhaps one of the most vicious insults you could hurl at a colleague is: You're just like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity.
If the reader holds neutral -- or even positive -- views about the Fox News hosts, the insult may not sting. But in the cloistered world of liberal listserv enclaves, Hannityism is a cardinal sin. After all, Fox is a "dangerous," "deranged" "cesspool" that, possibly, the FCC should be investigating.
The feelings against MSNBC host Keith Olbermann, then, must run deep.
Ironically, the most revealing part of the Journolist saga is the fact that former Journolisters and other interested parties are now dismantling the Daily Caller's salacious reporting and revealing Carlson's sneaky, petty machinations. The general consensus seems to be that the Journolist archives never really offered much in the way of newsworthiness -- Carlson himself described them as "pretty banal" -- and the only way the Daily Caller could make them even remotely interesting was to quote emails out of context and outright lie about their contents.
The fact that, after just a few days, they're reduced to reprinting college professors' insults of Olbermann would seem to confirm that suspicion.
Daily Caller has come out with the second part of their big Journolist exposé, and it is even more ridiculous than the first. Yesterday, the big scandal they broke was the fact that liberal journalists and professors talked to each other before signing an open letter condemning a truly awful Democratic presidential primary debate. Today, they're trying to claim that "[l]iberal journalists suggest government shut down Fox News." And, yet again, their sloppily written story doesn't even remotely back up that assertion.
The only evidence the Daily Caller provides of "liberal journalists" suggesting the "government shut down Fox News" is actually an email from a lawyer, not a journalist. In fact, the suggestion actually meets resistance from a journalist cited in the exchange, who seemed absolutely appalled by the notion. The article claims that "Jonathan Zasloff, a law professor at UCLA, suggested that the federal government simply yank Fox off the air," and then offers a quote expressing just the opposite sentiment: "Do you really want the political parties/white house picking which media operations are news operations and which are a less respectable hybrid of news and political advocacy?" While the article appears to attribute that quote to Zasloff, setting up an epic battle between Zasloff and himself, the quote actually comes from Time's Michael Scherer. The article goes on to say that "Zasloff stuck to his position," and he and Scherer continued their debate. Then, it reports this:
John Judis, a senior editor at the New Republic, came down on Zasloff's side, the side of censorship. "Pre-Fox," he wrote, "I'd say Scherer's questions made sense as a question of principle. Now it is only tactical."
Yet, if you read Judis's email, I'm not sure it is reasonable to say that he came down on Zasloff's side. It seems that Judis was actually arguing that the White House should "out" Fox News as a partisan network, though without access to the full context of the email chain, it isn't perfectly clear. Here's the email. Judge for yourself whether Judis was "coming down on Zasloff's side":
Pre-Fox, I'd say Scherer's questions made sense as a question of principle.
Now it is only tactical. Fox, like the business/GOP thinktanks that began in the '70s, are taking advantage of an older Progressive era concept of disinterestedness and objectivity to peddle partisan coverage. It may be that it's counter-productive for the White House to out them, but it would not be unprincipled for the O adm to give precedence to the other networks, and to newspapers like the New York Times and Washington Post that try to adhere to, rather than exploit, the older standard.
Regardless, that's their big scoop.
It should be noted that the first half of the article had nothing to do with Fox News. Instead, it focused on a few people who saw comparisons between the rise of the tea party and the rise of the Nazis. I guess we're supposed to be outraged by the comparison, and indeed, it is inappropriate. But for the right to get upset at liberals invoking Nazis comparisons, seems a bit disingenuous to say the least. After all, Media Matters has documented countless instances when right-wing media figures have done the same. And, has Glenn Beck ever had a show where he hasn't called some progressive a fascist? I mean, get real.