Media Matters for America - Altercation by Eric Alterman

Media Matters for America - Altercation by Eric Alterman http://mediamatters.org This link is for use by RSS-enabled software to retrieve the latest items from Media Matters for America. en-US Copyright 2008, Media Matters for America Slacker Friday http://mediamatters.org/items/200805090001 We've got a new "Think Again" column <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanprogress.org%2Fissues%2F2008%2F05%2Falterman_ignorance.html">here</a> called "The Costs of Enforced Sexual Ignorance." And I'll be speaking at a conference on the future of the media at Princeton on Wednesday. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Siva Vaidhyanathan Hometown: Left field The greatest baseball song of all time is Chuck Berry's "Brown-eyed Handsome Man." Say hey. Eric replies: Great song, but how far are we extending this? BEHM? Mrs. Robinson? Paradise by the Dashboard Light? Glory Days? Are these really baseball songs? These are important questions. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Elizabeth Hometown: Bavaria I worked for half a dozen years as an obstetrics nurse in South Texas, and I can attest to the appalling numbers of teen pregnancies. The lack of common sense behind "abstinence only" education was best summed up by a friend as, "sending your children to Mexico and telling them not to drink the water, but not telling them what to do when they get thirsty." <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Bill Ardis Hometown: Frisco, TX Eric, So Hannity is still trying to tie Ayers to Obama, which of course means (in Hannity's tiny little mind) that Obama is unqualified to be elected. Isn't Hannity somewhat of a hypocrite? After all, Hannity has associated (on a very friendly basis) with someone who has suggested killing supreme court justices. Ann Coulter acknowledged that she has previously suggested "putting rat poison in [U.S. Supreme Court] Justice [John Paul] Stevens' crème brulee"; suggesting people blow up the New York Times, saying: "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building"; and suggested killing Muslims or forcing them to convert. Doesn't that mean Hannity is unqualified to be (and I use the word loosely) a pundit? After all, what is the difference between what Ann Coulter said and what William Ayers said? If one is reprehensible and should be condemned, shouldn't the other? And using the guilt by association standard, Hannity is definitely guilty of the same condoning this behavior. Will Hannity be forced to leave Fox? Will the media at least call Fox on this hypocrisy? Because it is not only Hannity, O'Reilly has said the same types of comments (like about terrorists attacking san Francisco). <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Ralph Sommerer Hometown: Berne, Switzerland Dear Dr. Alterman, I've already found quite a while ago that I watch fake news shows like The Daily Show to get "real (U.S.) news" because they provide context of the sort that you'll never get on the MSM (perhaps "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" excepted). Where else can you actually witness the current administration officials' barefaced lies by simple being shown two video pieces side-by-side where they say one thing and then the exact opposite. Swiss Broadcasting Corporation, by the way, did this once in a news programme and were subequently being accused by a political party of attempting to "dismantle" their Federal Councillor. I haven't seen anything like it since in Switzerland on TV. "What liberal media" everywhere. PS: Are you having any plans of coming to Europe to give talks/book tours this year? Travelling to the U.S. has become sort of a hassle lately. Eric replies: Thanks for asking, but no. I am going to Israel in late June/early July in case anyone wants to set up a talk for me there... <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Beth Harrison Hometown: Arlington, VA Eric, you aren't being fair to viewers of "The Daily Show," <a href="http://mediamatters.org/altercation/200805080005#3">comparing</a> them (numerically) to the viewers of "Hannity & Colmes." I bet that you compared the "money" demographic (18-53), Jon Stewart would have more viewers than that joke of a program on Fox News (was that an oxymoron?). And TDS viewers need to know what Jon Stewart is talking about in order to get the satire. Unfortunately, "Hannity & Colmes" isn't satire -- they're deadly serious. Wasn't there a study somewhere several years ago that said that Faux viewers and Druggie Rush listeners were actually LESS informed after three hours? <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Dev Tobin Hometown: Rensselaer, NY Fox News shows like Hannity and Colmes get 2 million viewers, on their best night. O'Reilly is Fox's top draw, at just 3 million viewers. That's more than other cable TV political shows, but still a micro-minority of voters. In 2004, Bush/Cheney got 62 million votes. Fox viewership, at its best, is less than 5 percent of that. Fox News preaches to the micro-minority Bush/Cheney choir, and, therefore, has no real influence on anything. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Thomas Heiden Hometown: Stratford, CT Eric, So the Blue Dog Democrats are balking at the new GI bill because their fellow Dems will not offset the increased spending with new revenue sources or spending cuts. They seek fiscal responsiblity on the backs of our soldiers, but will always borrow money to continue the occupation of Iraq. If it is true that they need to do this to get re-elected, perhaps it's time for them to lead their consituents instead of trying to follow them in such irrational and immoral priorities. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Bill Strachan Hometown: Enfield, CT Oh how we rant and rave about the lawlessness, the anti-Constitution bias, the unconstitutional behavior, and the Administration's view that the Constitution is only a minor obstacle to their shenanigans. Well, since Bush has become so massively unpopular to the American electorate, a parting salvo to all of us -- especially the "Democrat" party -- I see a slew of pardons and clemencies on the near horizon. All members of his administration, both appointed and civil service hires, will be pardoned for any and all acts they have committed or will commit in the future for as long as they live. It will be signed by the President, Vice President, Secretary of State, Chief Justice Roberts & Justice Alito, and ruled OK fine by the Attorney General, and voted Constitutional by Justice Scalia. In this way they can easily negate any Statutes of Limitations and make sure the "Fix is In"! They will then return to Crawford and LOL as the nation erupts with outrage powerless to prevent it. The perfect ending to the "No Accountability" administration. I do smell it coming. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Ken Hometown: Cherry Hill, NJ In response to <a href="http://mediamatters.org/altercation/200805080005#10">Ed from Arlington</a>, I am truly sorry for your loss. Eric replies: As are we all. May he be among the last to die for this folly. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Brian Donohue Hometown: <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fdailyrevolution.net%2F" target="_blank">http://dailyrevolution.net</a> Last month, I argued that Obama left out a key element in the Joe Six Pack existential-crisis remarks that were so blatantly twisted in the media. He got guns and god in there, but forgot Grand Theft Auto. $500M in a <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.news.com%2F8301-13772_3-9938601-52.html%3Ftag%3Dnl.e703">week</a>, folks. Call me an elitist, then, but a society in which a computer game featuring exploding cars outsells anything Hollywood can make has got to have some serious growing up to do. I have to wonder how GTA IV might do in Baghdad ... hell, they're building Disney theme parks there. http://mediamatters.org/items/200805090001 Fri, 9 May 2008 12:36:24 EST Put me in, coach http://mediamatters.org/items/200805080005 <a name=" " title=" "></a>We've got a new "Think Again" column <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanprogress.org%2Fissues%2F2008%2F05%2Falterman_ignorance.html">here</a> called "The Costs of Enforced Sexual Ignorance." <a name=" " title=" "></a>It can be a depressing spectacle indeed watching the sideshow that is Hannity & Colmes as it goes into overdrive attempting to smear Democratic candidates, in particular Sen. Barack Obama -- note that in a one-hour show on Monday (5/5/08), there were 26 mentions or video clips of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and 33 mentions of former Weather Underground member William Ayers, according to Nexis. (Accounting for commercials, that's a combined rate of nearly 1.5 mentions every minute). One wonders, of course, what exactly is being seen -- is this journalism? An infomercial for conservatives or, rather, against liberals? Or, if you're not familiar with Fox News, you might wonder: Could this be satirical --- are these guys serious? Hannity & Colmes draws an average of 1.9 million viewers per night. Unsettling, until you find out that Comedy Central's The Daily Show gets about the same -- 1.8 million. The Daily Show also poses similar questions to viewers: Am I watching satire, or -- given the often political content and the nature of the jokes, which often puncture misguided dialogue like that of Sean Hannity -- am I watching a real bit of journalism? The Project for Excellence in Journalism has attempted to <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.journalism.org%2Fnode%2F10953">measure</a> some aspects of the show that go toward answering these questions. In examining The Daily Show for an entire year (2007), they found that: <ul><li> The program's clearest focus is politics, especially in Washington. U.S. foreign affairs, largely dominated by the Bush administration's policies in Iraq, Washington politics and government accounted for nearly half (47%) of the time spent on the program. Overall, The Daily Show news agenda is quite close to those of cable news talk shows. </li><li> The press itself is another significant focus on The Daily Show. In all, 8% of the time was made up of segments about the press and news media. That is more than double the amount of coverage of media in the mainstream press overall during the same period. </li><li> A good deal of the news, however, is also absent from The Daily Show. In 2007, for example, major events such as the tragic Minneapolis bridge collapse were never discussed. And the shootings at Virginia Tech, the most covered story within a given week in 2007 by the overall press, received only a cursory mention.</li><li> Republicans in 2007 tended to bear the brunt of ridicule from Stewart and his crew. From July 1 through November 1, Stewart's humor targeted Republicans more than three times as often as Democrats. The Bush administration alone was the focus of almost a quarter (22%) of the segments in this time period. </li><li> The lineup of on-air guests was more evenly balanced by political party. But our subjective sense from viewing the segments is that Republicans faced harsher criticism during the interviews with Stewart. Whether this is because the show is simply liberal or because the Republicans control the White House is harder to pin down.</li></ul> The Daily Show, of course, often advances a more serious political discussion than the allegedly news-centered Hannity & Colmes, and it serves as a good counterbalance in that way. Whether it roasts Democrats if they happen to take political control next year is, I suppose, still an open question -- but really, the target of the show's ridicule is essentially incompetence, which has no political stripe. It's just that one political party has owned the market share of incompetence over the past seven years, along with a good deal of the media. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Greg Mitchell at Editor & Publisher notes another disparity in coverage between The New York Times and McClatchy over Iraq, not unlike what was seen in the run-up to the war. He writes:<blockquote> Michael Gordon, the military writer for The New York Times who contributed several false stories about Iraqi WMD in the runup to the U.S. attack on Iraq in 2002, has written several articles in the past year about Iran's alleged training of Iraqi insurgents -- or supplying them with weapons to kill Americans. He produced another major report on this subject for today's Times - based solely on unnamed sources -- which is at odds with an account from McClatchy's Baghdad bureau.</blockquote> Note the list of officials quoted in Gordon's stories: <ul class="unIndentedList"><li> "An American official"</li><li> "But the Americans say"</li><li> "American officials"</li><li> "American officials"</li><li> "The Americans "</li><li> --"American officials"</li><li> --"An American official"</li></ul> More <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.editorandpublisher.com%2Feandp%2Fnews%2Farticle_display.jsp%3Fvnu_content_id%3D1003798525">here</a>. <a name=" " title=" "></a>McCain Suck-Up Watch: "The Associated Press' Libby Quaid wrote that Sen. John McCain "dismissed Democratic rival Barack Obama as having zero national security experience," quoting McCain as saying that Obama "obviously has no national security experience, and therefore that's reflected in his judgment on a number of those issues." Quaid did not challenge McCain's accusation, nor did Quaid note that Obama has been involved in several bills and initiatives related to national security." More <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200805060007">here</a>. <a name=" " title=" "></a>From TomDispatch: "Nineteen years ago," <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tomdispatch.com%2Fpost%2F174929">Michael Klare</a> -- author of the just-published book, Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet -- reminds us, "the fall of the Berlin Wall effectively eliminated the Soviet Union as the world's other superpower." Less than a month ago, Klare writes, the United States similarly lost its claim to superpower status. In a strikingly original analysis of where rising energy prices have put an oil-addicted America, he suggests that the United States suffered its own equivalent of the fall of the Berlin Wall when, last month, oil prices first surged over $110 a barrel, gasoline prices at the American pump crossed the $3.50 a gallon threshold, and diesel fuel soared over $4. The U.S. as a superpower, he concludes, is as all-over as the Soviet Union was in 1989. "The USA," he adds, "will no doubt continue to stumble on like the superpower it once was; but as the nation's economy continues to be eviscerated to pay for its daily oil fix, it, too, will be seen by increasing numbers of savvy observers as an ex-superpower-in-the-making." The rest of the startling piece is a sharp-as-tacks consideration of just how this happened, how a country whose wealth and strength rested on an abundance of cheap petroleum, was transformed into a "dry hole superpower." From Middle Eastern "sovereign wealth funds," stuffed with U.S. petrodollars and cherry-picking prime American assets, to a gas-guzzling Pentagon, Klare explores the bleak energy landscape of the former "sole superpower" -- as well as the irony that, as the U.S. sinks in a sea of oil, Russia has been refloated as an energy power of the first order. His final words: "As a result of our addiction to increasingly costly imported oil, we have become a different country, weaker and less prosperous. Whether we know it or not, the energy Berlin Wall has already fallen and the United States is an ex-superpower-in-the-making." <a name=" " title=" "></a>Correspondence Corner: Name: Victor Navasky, Christopher Cerf Hometown: New York City We were pleased to see your May 5 <a href="http://mediamatters.org/altercation/200805050004#1">comments</a> on expertology, but regret that you did not draw on the latest, and recently published, study of the Institute of Expertology, "Mission Accomplished! Or How We Won the War in Iraq: The Experts Speak" by Christopher Cerf and Victor S. Navasky. Had you done so, you would have been able to cite the failed expertise of half of the Op Ed "experts" the Times quoted. Example: "The only prudent and realistic course of action left to the United States is to mount a full-scale invasion of Iraq to smash the Iraqi armed forces, depose Saddam's regime, and rid the country of weapons of mass destruction." Kenneth M. Pollack, former Director for Persian Gulf Affairs, National Security Council, September, 2002. Christopher Cerf Victor S. Navasky Co-Founders, The Institute of Expertology Eric replies: Please don't fire me. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Brendan Keefe Hometown: Rochester, NY I enjoyed the <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.strandbooks.com%2Fapp%2Fwww%2Fp%2Ftv%2F%3Fvideohighlight%3D3384">video</a> of your talk at the Strand quite a lot. Thanks for posting the link to it. I miss seeing you on BloggingHeads.tv. I hope you'll reconsider your position about not going on there. Perhaps you could have Will Wilkerson interview you about your book on his "Free Will" series, rather than doing a standard debate-style diavlog. We could use a few people on that site who aren't afraid to say they're liberals. Eric replies: We're working on setting up one about the book. Thanks for asking. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: John B Hometown: Des Moines, IA I ask this question way too often these days, but why is <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.msnbc.msn.com%2Fid%2F24488811%2F">this</a> not the biggest story in Washington right now? When the person most responsible for PROTECTING whistleblowers is instead IGNORING or ratting them out to superiors we have reached a level of perverse criminality that is absolutely mind-boggling. Think back to the days when the incoming Bush administration mockingly promised "the most ethical administration in history." Even at the time it was obvious they were taunting the outgoing administration and had no intention of being held to that. It was creepy, ridiculous, maddening how the press let them get away with it -- without even straight faces. The MSM is still letting them get away with it. And we should respect the talking heads because of their oh, so serious, straight faces. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Ed Hometown: Arlington, TX One year ago, my cousin was killed by a sniper in Baghdad. Lord, how much longer ... <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: RuthAlice Anderson Hometown: Portland, OR In today's anti-Hillary column, Dowd wrote: "Obama is like her idealistic, somewhat naive self before the world launched 1,000 attacks against her, turning her into the hard-bitten, driven politician who has launched 1,000 attacks against Obama." I found the lack of agency in this sentence remarkable given that at least half those 1,000 attacks came directly from Dowd's own pen. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Chuck Hometown: Kansas City I also watched some coverage of the Indiana and North Carolina election returns, and was put off by the likes of Pat Buchanan and Bill Bennett giving advice to the "Democrat" party for the general election. Kind of like hiring the Fox as a henhouse security consultant, no? I've always thought the "genius" of Karl Rove is very simple. In a 2 person race, all you need to do is make the other candidate look worse than yours, preferably by a proxy smear. It worked against Gov. Richards in Texas, vs. McCain in 2000, vs. Kerry in 2004, and for Gov. Siegelman's opponent in Alabama. My hope is the Obama campaign will not hire the same consultants that have allowed this to happen to their candidates over and over. Or bet everything on Ohio or Florida again. And much has been made of Chris Matthews' comments on Limbaugh's Operation Chaos, calling it unpatriotic, but during the MSNBC coverage Tim Russert acknowledged the e-mails he's received complaining about McCain's free ride on his Iraq/Iran comments and support from Rev. Hagee may yet slow down the Straight Talk Express. After the primaries are over. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Alan Beckoff Hometown: Hollis Hills, NY I am the one who had the linked <a href="http://mediamatters.org/altercation/200805070003#3">exchange</a> with the NY Times' public editor last year about the disproportionate Yankees/Mets coverage. It may have evened up slightly this season, but I have to admit that the way the Mets are playing, most days I skip the sports section altogether. Eric replies: Hey, they win 12-1 and are still on the bottom of the page, below a Yankees loss. No justice, no peace ... <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Roger H. Werner Hometown: Stockton California Although I have lived in Stockton since 1981, I grew up in NYC and was an avid baseball fan until I moved to California in 1974. I recall that the NYC newspapers were always biased against the Mets (except for Newsday). Even when the Mets won the World Series against Baltimore in 1969, the Yankees received the greater total coverage. Back then I seem to recall that the most popular sports section of any New York paper was provided by the Daily News (probably due in part to Dick Young) but if one cared about the Mets, Newsday was the paper to read. The NY Times sports section was not popular in my circle of fanatical sports friends. It is interesting that after 40+ years, Yankee bias remains rooted in the NY Times and the remaining NY papers (except Newsday). Frankly, I can understand a Times bias but how can one explain bias at the Daily News or NY Post since they don't have a national reach? <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: john Hometown: Seattle How could you leave out the greatest baseball song of all? "Take Me Out to the Ballgame"! And while the Hold Steady may or may not do a fine cover, the only version that matters is the one belted out by the 7th-inning faithful. I'd also put "Mrs. Robinson" on the list. Eric replies: No and yes ... <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Jeff Weed Hometown: Little Elm, TX Dr. A, How about "Willie, Mickey & the Duke (Talkin' Baseball)" by (former Jim Croce producer) Terry Cashman? On the not-so-good side, after the death of Harry Caray, the Cubs paraded out a number of celebrities to lead the 7th inning stretch sing-along of "Take Me Out to the Ballgame" at Wrigley Field. Among the most hilariously awful of these were Mike Ditka and Ozzy Osbourne. Almost done reading <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.barnesandnoble.com%2FWhy-Were-Liberals%2FEric-Alterman%2Fe%2F9780670018604">Why We're Liberals</a> -- good work, Doc! Eric replies: Not a bad song, but I was going by their list ... <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Paul Goode Hometown: Redmond, WA What about Bruce Springstone's "Take Me Out To The Ballgame"? It's the B-side of the hilarious "Meet The Flintstones" parody. Eric replies: One of the great songs of all time, actually, both sides. And I heard it performed live, once upon a time. I think the guy died relatively recently, though. Speaking of Bruce, we all apparently missed <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.backstreets.com%2Fnews.html">this</a>. I would have sprung for the grand if it had been a better cause (and I hadn't seen him last week). I think I goofed, alas. http://mediamatters.org/items/200805080005 Thu, 8 May 2008 15:03:30 EST We are the world ... http://mediamatters.org/items/200805070003 The <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.barnesandnoble.com%2FWhy-Were-Liberals%2FEric-Alterman%2Fe%2F9780670018604">Why We're Liberals</a> talk I gave at the Strand can be seen on video <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.strandbooks.com%2Fapp%2Fwww%2Fp%2Ftv%2F%3Fvideohighlight%3D3384">here</a>. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Many in the Bush administration were eager to invade Iraq immediately following the September 11 attacks, regardless of who was later deemed to be responsible. This is well-known. What's gotten less attention are claims, made by Wesley Clark in 2003, that Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Somalia and possibly Lebanon were on the hit list as well. New credence has now been given to these claims -- credence that comes from examining passages in Douglas Feith's recent book War and Decision. In the book, Feith wrote of the September 30, 2001, memo from Rumsfeld to President Bush advocating "new regimes" in some states -- in quoting from the document, Feith mentions Afghanistan but deleted the rest of the list, putting "some other states" in brackets, seemingly as an irrelevant aside. So the enterprising historian Gareth Porter did what, apparently, nobody deigned to do: he simply <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipsnews.net%2Fnews.asp%3Fidnews%3D42241">asked</a> Feith what other states the Secretary of Defense proposed invading. Feith declined to say, for national security reasons, what the states were -- but the wily Porter pressed on, asking Feith what countries on Clark's list were in the document. Feith acknowledged, "All of them." (And this guy had a security clearance?) Keep reading:<blockquote> Rumsfeld's proposal called explicitly for postponing indefinitely U.S. airstrikes and the use of ground forces in support of the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance in order to try to catch bin Laden. Instead the Rumsfeld paper argued that the U.S. should target states which had supported anti-Israel forces such as Hezbollah and Hamas. It urged that the United States "[c]apitalize on our strong suit, which is not finding a few hundred terrorists in caves in Afghanistan, but in the vastness of our military and humanitarian resources, which can strengthen the opposition forces in terrorist-supporting states."</blockquote> Porter reports that the plan seemed to have full support of the uniformed military leadership, but obviously, was never approved in the Oval Office. But the question is: What if Iraq had gone well? <a name=" " title=" "></a>Intrepid reporter that I am, I decided on this crucial day of democracy to go after the big media story of the day -- make that the year: the continued imperialistic domination of the Yankees over the New York Times sports pages as if the Mets were chopped liver. Here's what our team discovered. <blockquote> You aren't the first baseball fan to send me this complaint. Last season, I asked Tom Jolly, the sports editor, why The Times covers the Yankees with greater prominence. <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fpubliceditor.blogs.nytimes.com%2F2007%2F08%2F28%2Ftwo-home-teams-one-front-page%2F">Here's what he had to say.</a> I sent Tom your message and reminded him that a lot has changed since last season -- neither team made the World Series, Torre and George Steinbrenner are gone, the Mets, after a monumental collapse at the end of the season, got baseball's best pitcher and made other moves to strengthen the team. Tom replied that the Yankees are still the bigger reader draw -- an international brand -- but that coverage so far this season has actually been pretty close to even. The Yankees have been on the sports front 20 times, the Mets 18 times.</blockquote> <a name=" " title=" "></a>George Zornick writes: The Project for Excellence in Journalism has quantified the media feeding frenzy over the Reverend Wright controversy: in the week following Wright's appearance on Bill Moyers and at two public events, there were more stories just on Wright's relationship with Obama (42 percent of coverage) than there was about Hillary Clinton (41 percent) or John McCain (14 percent). Obama was the significant or dominant newsmaker in 69 percent of the stories. What effect did this actually have on the elections? That's not easily told. The cable news networks would have us believe that there was quite an effect indeed - I risked my sanity last night and tuned into some coverage of the election, and hosts across the three channels were crowing an <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.salon.com%2Fwires%2Fap%2F2008%2F05%2F06%2FD90GEMIOM_campaign_exit_poll%2Findex.html">exit poll</a> saying that half of voters "said the focus on the Rev. Jeremiah Wright was a major factor in deciding whom to back." What I never heard, though, was any other facts that would actually make that a useful poll number. A "major factor?" Was it because it made them skeptical of Obama? Or was Obama's denunciation of Wright what they found important? Were these late-deciding voters, and did it change their vote? Were they mainly voters who already had been backing Hillary? Who knows? Not Brit Hume or Wolf Blitzer. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Another test of sanity is watching Karl Rove commenting on elections for Fox News on election nights (and, well, anytime). Think Progress is running a Rove Watch clock, currently sitting at <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fthinkprogress.org%2F2008%2F05%2F06%2Frove-watch-clock-91-days%2F">91 days</a> and counting, measuring the time since it was revealed that Rove has donated money to, and is <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politico.com%2Fnews%2Fstories%2F0308%2F8911.html">advising</a>, the campaign of Senator John McCain. Fox still hasn't disclosed this to viewers. Of course, anyone who thinks Rove is an objective analyst anyway probably just moved here from Madagascar, but it would still be good journalistic form to let people know about Rove's connections to McCain. <a name=" " title=" "></a><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200805060003">McCain Suck-Up Watch</a>: "On Special Report, Carl Cameron reported that on the issue of immigration, Sen. John McCain "announced that if elected, in January he'll begin finalizing border security, then immediately launch the guest worker program and path to citizenship that many in his party oppose." But Cameron did not note that McCain's current position that border security must be addressed first is at odds with his prior assertion that border security could not be disaggregated from other aspects of comprehensive immigration reform without being rendered ineffective." <a name=" " title=" "></a>Correspondence Corner: Name: Jon Weiner Hometown: Baltimore, MD Hey Eric. I saw your <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.barnesandnoble.com%2FWhy-Were-Liberals%2FEric-Alterman%2Fe%2F9780670018604">book</a> at the UMD book store on display a couple weeks ago and after spanning a couple pages of it I decided I had to buy it. I really enjoyed it and I wish you good luck in continuing to defend liberalism. Also, taking a point from your book, I've noticed lately that Sen. Hillary Clinton has been accusing Sen. Obama of being elitist. It's sadly funny that Clinton is following a key Republican strategy. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Mark Damico Hometown: Frederick, MD To answer <a href="http://mediamatters.org/altercation/200805050004#3">Mr. Sherman</a>, and many others who wonder why the Presidential Debates are not sanctioned by the League of Women Voters: I believe the LWV handles "Presidential" debates. The debates we have seen thus far are debates during the primaries. Thus, not handled by the League of Women Voters <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Janet Ward Hometown: Atlanta If you haven't heard Dave Frischberg do "Van Lingle Mungo" or "Dodger Blue," you owe it to yourself to give him a listen. Also, since Bull Durham, I can't hear "Sixty-Minute Man" without thinking of baseball. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Mark Richard Hometown: Columbus, Ohio Your list left out "Joltin' Joe DiMaggio" ('We want you on our team') by Les Brown and His Orchestra . . . Is that an anti-Yankees thing? Also Dave Frishberg's classic "Van Lingle Mungo." I guess Dizzy Dean's oft-sung versions of "The Wabash Cannonball" don't count, though his rendition associated it forever as a baseball song for me . . . Eric replies: See above. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Zach Schuster Hometown: Elgin, IL Eric, Are you familiar with Kenny Rogers' "The Baseball Song?" I know it is a product of the Gambler and thus a little on the hokey side, but it's a solid song nonetheless. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Thomas Beck Hometown: East Windsor, NJ "Right Field" by Peter, Paul and Mary. For all of us former failed Little Leaguers out there ... http://mediamatters.org/items/200805070003 Wed, 7 May 2008 13:18:23 EST Dark center of the universe http://mediamatters.org/items/200805060002 I'll be discussing <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.barnesandnoble.com%2FWhy-Were-Liberals%2FEric-Alterman%2Fe%2F9780670018604">Why We're Liberals</a> at the Strand, on lower Broadway in Manhattan, tonight at 7 p.m. Read all about it <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fnymag.com%2Flistings%2Freading%2Feric-alterman%2F%3Fom_u%3DAD13Ar%26om_i%3D_BIIFQSB7Q-Ko1F%26aid%3D388690249%26mid%3D2068050600%26time%3D1210078226%26issue%3D_BIIFQSB7Q-Ko1F">here</a>. The return of the "center": On May 3, Rep.-elect Don Cazayoux won a special election in a heavily Republican district in Louisiana -- a district held for decades by the GOP. Cazayoux favors expanding health care coverage, repealing the Bush tax cuts on wealthy earners, preserving Social Security, and so on. Yet, observe The New York Times' description of the race, as <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200805050005">noted</a> by Media Matters: "Mr. Cazayoux, a low-key member of the State House and a former prosecutor, fit the conservative model Democrats deployed successfully in the 2006 elections when they took seats from Republicans." Why the words "conservative model" are in a piece where the winning candidate is dramatically more liberal than both the retiring seat holder and his challenger -- well, as you may read in <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.barnesandnoble.com%2FWhy-Were-Liberals%2FEric-Alterman%2Fe%2F9780670018604">Why We're Liberals</a>, "When it comes to 'liberal' victories in American politics, there's always some other explanation available." <a name=" " title=" "></a>Fox ups the ante: As we wrote in our Think Again <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanprogress.org%2Fissues%2F2008%2F05%2Fpentagon_propaganda.html">column</a> last week, the major networks have been completely silent on the now-exposed ties between their purportedly objective military analysts and a well-crafted Pentagon propaganda program. (Note, they're <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200805020010">still</a> not saying anything.) But the Fox News network has seen their silence and raised them one -- they're still featuring the military analysts named in the New York Times expose! FreePress has <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Ffreepress.net%2Fnode%2F39000">observed</a> Fox airing, without any disclosure or reference to the Pentagon program, two of the exposed analysts -- Robert H. Scales and Thomas McInerney, in the days since the story broke. See their <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Ffreepress.net%2Fnode%2F39000">site</a> for the video evidence. <a name=" " title=" "></a>OK, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fthepage.time.com%2Fhalperin%25E2%2580%2599s-take-things-you-will-hear-most-often-on-cable-tv-through-Wednesday-depending-on-what-happens%25E2%2580%25A6%2F">this</a> is funny, from Mark Halperin at Time: Things you will hear on cable news tonight through Wednesday (evidence-less, speculative, made-up things, we'd add). Among others: "It was the fight over the gas tax that did it." "Look at how he did with white, working-class voters in the exit poll." "People are going to start telling her she needs to get out of this race." "Once again, he missed a chance to put her away." "She's a fighter." "He looks tired." "Could there be a dream ticket?" "This thing goes on and on." "Unbelievable!" "Reverend Wright really hurt him." "Reverend Wright really had no effect." There, we just saved you three hours to do something worthwhile with your lives ... <a name=" " title=" "></a>God and gossip: The FCC has <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.variety.com%2FVR1117985089.html">ruled</a> that celebrity-stalker show TMZ, along with Pat Robertson's The 700 Club, both qualify as "bona fide news casts." (Searching for joke ... Nicole Richie ... bony-fide news ... bah.) Anyway, this is important because that means both shows are now exempt from equal time requirements that apply to all non-news broadcasts. That TMZ is considered a news broadcast these days is probably more a poor reflection on our culture than the FCC, but The 700 Club classification is more troubling. Whatever pretension of fairness Robertson may have been felt in discussing the upcoming election has been negated. What is the real news value of a program that makes assessments such as <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804090011">this</a>? "I want to say it again, and again, and again: Islam is not a religion, it is a political system meant on -- bent on world domination, not a religion. It masquerades as a religion, but the religion covers a worldwide attempt to exercise power and to subjugate the world to their way of thinking." <a name=" " title=" "></a>Correspondence Corner: Name: Dale Collins Hometown: Corryton, Tennessee Hello Eric. In your book <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.barnesandnoble.com%2FWhy-Were-Liberals%2FEric-Alterman%2Fe%2F9780670018604">Why We're Liberals</a> you included some funny -- and sad -- quotes from the likes of Ann Coulter and Chris Matthews on Bush's "Mission Accomplished" dramatic fly-in. I just have to ask, don't these people understand what staged propaganda is? Couldn't they see how hokey that whole scenario was? Maybe they do -- but phoniness is of no importance to them when it comes to "heroes." Thanks for a wonderful book. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: VON BARGEN Hometown: Santa Monica with the Solar Powered Ferris Wheel! When I saw the list of "experts" I stopped reading. Today, after reading your comments, it occurs to me that "withdrawal" advocates would not fit the description of the focus of the exercise, which apparently is self-limited to options for "winning." I suppose that with that in mind, the choices that the NYT made aren't so out of line. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: William Gill Hometown: Moorestown, NJ On Sunday, Maureen Dowd returned to the "Obama's an elitist" narrative she's shown so much love for recently. She wrote about Obama: "Checking out what the vets were drinking, he announced, 'I'm going to have a Bud.' Then, showing he's a smart guy who can learn and assimilate, he took big swigs from his beer can, a marked improvement on the delicate sip he took at a brewery in Bethlehem, Pa." As you've showed us before Dr. A., Dowd's usual m.o. is evidence-less assertions against Obama, but this assertion actually has a kernel of truth. Obama sipped his beer in Bethlehem but it was because he was tasting a sampler of different beers! I've actually had this sampler before, and no one takes 'big swigs' of this beer. It's not how it's designed to be drunk. Alas, Dowd never met a distortion or outright lie that couldn't be squeezed into her preferred narrative of the likely Democratic nominee as an out-of-touch, effeminate, elite liberal. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Brian Donohue Hometown: <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fdailyrevolution.net%2F" title="http://dailyrevolution.net/">http://dailyrevolution.net</a> Here's a reminder to all the good citizens of Iran: if you just can't wait to be "obliterated" by Hillary, try signing up for an hotmail or Yahoo <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fcivilexpression.blogspot.com%2F2008%2F05%2Fno-iranians-for-yahoo-and-microsoft.html">account</a> -- you and your nation don't exist. But as many of us who work in corporate America can tell you, being a non-entity goes with the territory. Here today, obliterated tomorrow... <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Bill Dunlap Hometown: Lake Oswego, Oregon Eric: I'd like to nominate Frank Sinatra's song "There Used to Be a Ballpark" as one of the top baseball songs, not mentioned by Paste magazine. And once again, "Glory Days" is more about drinking than baseball. It's a classic Springsteen misdirect, like "Born in the USA." It sound like one thing, a happy remembrance of high school, but it's really a song about twenty- or thirty-somethings who are realizing their lives peaked at age 18, when one had a good fastball, one was good looking and the singer had a couple of popular friends. Now they just talk about those old days and drink a lot. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Larry Murray Hometown: Seattle, WA Eric, Another song for your list is folksinger Chuck Brodsky's "Letters in the Dirt," about Richie Allen (later known as Dick Allen). It's a thoughtful song about racism, hero worship, and childhood innocence. Brodsky released an entire album of baseball songs called The Baseball Ballads (which includes "Letters in the Dirt"). You don't want to miss his song about Dock Ellis pitching a no-hitter while tripping on acid -- a true story, by the way... <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: David Hometown: Tucson Don't forget Dave Frishberg's "Van Lingle Mungo"! <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Michael Herrmann Hometown: Concord, NH Well, it's not a great song, per se, but you can't really leave out Meat Loaf's "Paradise by the Dashboard Light," can you? Phil Rizzuto got a platinum record for his unwitting play-by-play of a young man "rounding the bases." Eric replies: It damn well is a great song, bub! http://mediamatters.org/items/200805060002 Tue, 6 May 2008 13:56:26 EST Expertology done right http://mediamatters.org/items/200805050004 George Zornick writes: The New York Times Week in Review section <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2008%2F05%2F04%2Fopinion%2F04precede.html">yesterday</a> dealt with the five-year anniversary of Bush's infamous flight deck victory speech by asking nine different experts to expound on "How to See This Mission Accomplished." Many of those surveyed were directly responsible for the current situation in Iraq -- either on the ground or as policy architects. That would be a Marine infantry officer who served in Iraq; a retired general who trained the Iraqi army; L. Paul Bremer, the former presidential envoy to Iraq; and Richard Perle, formerly of the Defense Policy Board. There were also two experts from the American Enterprise Institute, Frederick Kagan and Danielle Pletka, and a few others from the Brookings Institution and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public Affairs. None of the previously mentioned "experts" advocates any kind withdrawal for Iraq in their pieces -- that is, none of them reflects the position of the majority of the American <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pollingreport.com%2Firaq.htm">people</a> or the two Democratic nominees for president. The lone voice calling for withdrawal is Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International studies, whose <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2008%2F05%2F04%2Fopinion%2F04cordesman.html">proposal</a> for decreasing combat brigades from 15 to 5 "over the next few years" is still considerably less ambitious than what the people or the Democratic candidates are calling for. Do experts who advocate withdrawal -- experts who, by and large, have been right all along about the war -- have any place in the Times? The only redeeming bit about the spread is some unintentional self-satire from the assembled experts -- like when Perle <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2008%2F05%2F04%2Fopinion%2F04perle.html">castigates</a> those "whose knowledge of Iraq is often recent, shallow and wrong," or when Kagan <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2008%2F05%2F04%2Fopinion%2F04kagan.html">advocates</a> the continuing military occupation of a formerly sovereign country, but then says the idea of using Iraqi oil revenues to finance the occupation would introduce "a dangerous note ... into the discussion, a tinge of imperialism, in fact." <a name=" " title=" "></a>Great Baseball Songs (that aren't John Fogerty's "Centerfield"): "Catfish" -- Bob Dylan "Did You See Jackie Robinson Hit That Ball?" -- Natalie Cole "A Dying Cub Fan's Last Request" -- Steve Goodman "Say Hey (The Willie Mays Song)" -- The Treniers "Glory Days" -- Bruce Springsteen Lifted in part (but edited) from <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pastemagazine.com%2Faction%2Farticle%2F6947%2Ffeature%2Fmusic%2F10_best_baseball_songs">Paste magazine</a>. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Correspondence Corner: Name: John Sherman Hometown: Moorhead, MN I just read the Nation <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenation.com%2Fdoc%2F20080519%2Falterman">piece</a>. When were the presidential debates taken away from the League of Women Voters? And why? If we can't get Stewart and Colbert to host a debate, shouldn't they go back to the LWV? <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: ASullivan Hometown: Washington DC Eric, I read the Huffo piece you <a href="http://mediamatters.org/altercation/200805020001#2">linked to</a>, and I fear you are a tad touchy. The thrust of the piece is that Sid lards his email blasts with the most scurrilous right-wing attacks on Obama, the same sort of "journalism" he decried when the subject was the Clintons. That seems to be a fair critique. Just because you're listed in a very dense paragraph describing the wide variety of folks to whom the emails are or were sent says nothing about your objectivity. As to Col. Bateman's <a href="http://mediamatters.org/altercation/200805020001#4">defense</a> of the Pentagon program, I fear he, too, protests too much. Of course the commenters should have disclosed their conflicts of interest, and I'm willing to take his word on Gen. McCaffrey. The problem is that the Pentagon is not supposed to undertake a secret propaganda program aimed at the American electorate. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Thomas Heiden Hometown: Stratford, CT Eric, Every Friday or so, the inestimable Mr. Pierce cooks up an imaginative way of getting people's attention to tell them how much he loves New Orleans. We need his services in this capacity. Before I suffer an aneurysm or a breakdown or some other physical calamity born of intolerable exasperation, can he please advise the MSM that Barack Obama is running for President, not Reverend Wright? If this goes on until November, I don't think I'll be the only one they find picking straws from his hair and mumbling incoherently. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Grandjester Hometown: Meridian, ID Funny how all these pundits got all hot and bothered by Bush in his flight suit. My impression was more of John Larroquette playing with his army men in "Stripes." <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: John Royal Hometown: Houston, TX Okay, as much as it pains me to admit this, I like Indepedence Day, and I have seen it way too many times. And as much as this pains me to admit, but Joe Klein was <a href="http://mediamatters.org/altercation/200805020001#8">correct</a> -- Bill Pullman was a fighter pilot before becoming President -- I believe he was a hotshot in Iraq I. But he does suit up and take up one of the fighters in the climatic battle of ID4. That's what led to Randy Quaid's "Here I come, Mr. President" line. And I now hang my head in shame. <a name=" " title=" "></a>And Eric would like to offer personal thanks to Eric Behrens, if he is reading this, for his labor in sending so much great music and kind words. (There was no email or return address...) http://mediamatters.org/items/200805050004 Mon, 5 May 2008 16:52:28 EST Slacker Friday http://mediamatters.org/items/200805020001 We've got a new <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanprogress.org%2Fissues%2F2008%2F05%2Fpentagon_propaganda.html" target="_blank">Think Again column</a> called "Pentagon Propaganda and the Media Stonewall" and a new Nation <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenation.com%2Fdoc%2F20080519%2Falterman">column</a>, "Mickey Mouse Media." Also, I'll be speaking (and signing <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.barnesandnoble.com%2Fbooksearch%2FisbnInquiry.asp%3Fz%3Dy%26EAN%3D9780670018604%26itm%3D2">Why We're Liberals</a>) at the wonderful Strand bookstore on lower Broadway in Manhattan on Tuesday, May 6 at 7 p.m. <a name=" " title=" "></a><a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fpeter-dreier%2Fsidney-blumenthal-uses-fo_b_99695.html%3Fview%3Dprint">This HuffPo attack on Sid Blumenthal</a> strikes me as deeply misguided. The story of Sid's email list is an old one. I appear to have fallen off it when he joined the Clinton campaign, perhaps because he thought I would not be sympathetic, or perhaps because he reduced it to just close friends. But all that is happening here is that someone who happens to work for Hillary is continuing to send lots of emails to his friends regarding items he thinks will be of interest. He could have stopped for appearance's sake upon joining the campaign but that would have been just for appearance's sake. Nobody could have been under the impression that these were the work of the campaign. So what, really, is the big deal? That he kept doing it? Please, stop the presses. What's more, I am offended by the implication that because I was once on a list I have been keeping a secret. Plenty of people send me emails I keep secret. My private life is nobody's business ... <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Charles Pierce Hometown: Newton, MA Hey Doc -- "Someone's out to get your lady/A few of your buddies they sure look shady." Weekly WWOZ Pick To Click: "Ysabelle's Table Dance" (Charles Mingus) -- Once again, I have failed to develop a generator that can produce precisely the correct ultra-high frequency sound waves that will make Sean Hannity leap up onto the stage at Jazz Fest and pour a pot of etouffee over his head as a living memorial to how much I love New Orleans. Short Takes: Part The First -- Yes, this is, indeed, a <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fdailynightly.msnbc.msn.com%2Farchive%2F2008%2F04%2F28%2F953442.aspx">brilliant idea</a>. Now, B-Will, as the kidz with mad skillz call him, is a good friend of the NPR program on which I fool around. However, there is a serious flaw in this proposal. If we give the Dolphin Queen the Pulitzer, to which of the voices in her head do we award it? Seriously, this is like giving a Grammy to the guy who plays air-guitar in the park. Part The Second -- Anyone who missed Hardball on Monday night missed one of the great moments in political television. Ryan Lizza of The New Yorker tried to make the arguable case that the whole Obama-Wright affair was eight pounds of guilt-by-association bulls**t in a five-pound bag, and that the "journalism" being spouted about it was less than savory. You had to have seen the reaction of his co-panelists to believe them. Jill Zuckman of the ChiTrib got all fluttery and accused Lizza of being "high-minded." (Oh, yes, she did. I'm not making this up.) And Matthews? Well, he'd been drowning himself in sweaty honky outrage for the previous 40 minutes and he was not going to stop now. Lizza had sailed in from the Land Beyond Punditry. I swear to god, he looked like a missionary trying to explain the Trinity to a couple of freaking Aztecs. He's lucky they didn't rip out his heart and wave it at the sun. [...] Part The Fourth: Big fish. <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.whitehouse.gov%2Fnews%2Freleases%2F2008%2F05%2F20080501.html">Small barrel</a>. Part the Fifth: Arianna, dah-link, I feel <a href="http://mediamatters.org/altercation/200804300003#3">for you</a>. I really do. But if you're going to claim to be inventing a whole new media, you ought not to give a platform to people who did so much to deface the <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fmike-barnicle%2Fpennsylvania-and-the-anon_b_97656.html">old one</a>. Part The Last: As interim Altercation Sports Editor, I guess I'm supposed to have an opinion <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fdeadspin.com%2F385770%2Fbissinger-vs-leitch">on this</a>, which I watched in real time. First of all, the whole show was simply Bob Costas' ongoing effort to create a universe in which he can be king. (Mitch Albom, talking sonorously about the professional "standards" by which he's supposed to abide? At that point, my lips ate themselves.) More to the point, Buzz Bissinger is a serious and important voice in American journalism. Will Leitch is, well, not one. However, he's got to do better at defending what he does than to admit that, basically, yeah, he's just hocking loogies at folks. Bissinger's godawfully wrong about what "blogs" do, as any visit to Political Blogistan would tell him. (And Costas stupidly or dishonestly -- there's no third choice -- sat there conflating posts and comments.) There's no better political reporter alive than Josh Marshall, no columnist funnier than TBogg, no gumshoes more diligent than the Firedoglake crew. Let's not even discuss the transcendent brilliance that is the extended Alter-Family. There are sports blogs who do much the same thing. (Eric McErlain's hockey blog is the one that comes to mind most immediately.) If I can come up with this stuff on the fly, why couldn't Leitch, who sat there like the smuggest bump on the log and got buried under a pile of not entirely undeserved invective? Bad mojo. It's hard to know where to go with the Jeremiah Wright story, what with the law firm of Briggs, Stratton, and Husqvarna looking over my shoulder and all. What I do know is that some folks seem to have the thing backwards. He doesn't owe Obama anything. He was a minister, Obama was his congregant. He could have happily gone on doing the good works he'd done for three decades, and giving his sermons the way he had been giving them, nutty or not. Then Obama decided to run for president. AT THAT MOMENT, because of the campaign, and because of the combination of bad faith and puerility that is the hallmark of modern American political journalism, Wright became an "issue." (And don't be fooled. You could see it coming a mile off. Sean Hannity was frothing about this subject almost a year ago.) Since when does a guy's entire career go up for grabs just because one of his congregation decides to run for president? What's his affirmative obligation to a campaign narrative of which he did not ask to be a part? (I wait in vain for someone to explain to me how what Wright says bears in any way on whether or not Barack Obama should be president of the United States. All answers meeping vaguely about "judgment" are automatically disqualified.) He's not John Hagee, blobbing around on stage with John McCain, who'd flagellate himself to get Hagee's blessing. The narrative went out and found Wright, chewed him up, made the candidate perform in the traditional Kabuki theater of televised outrage, and otherwise made a dog's breakfast out of a 30-year ministry that by all accounts served its community well and faithfully. So, finally, Wright shows up in Washington and tells the nation's media to Cheney itself, and does so in a manner so indecorous that he sounded like John McCain talking to Rick Renzi, and people pronounce themselves shocked -- SHOCKED! -- that he would do so. He's entitled to defend himself, his life, and his ministry, as vigorously as he deems necessary. That right is absolute. He's under no obligation to consider the political ramifications of that defense at all. If it were me, I'd have shown up at the National Press Club with a firehose. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Bob Bateman Hometown: Washington, DC Eric and George, I think you're wrong on the Pentagon <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanprogress.org%2Fissues%2F2008%2F05%2Fpentagon_propaganda.html">story</a>, or at least partly wrong. But I've written about it over at my regular column over at the Committee for Concerned Journalists, so I'll just <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.concernedjournalists.org%2Fcare-and-feeding-military-analysts">link to that</a>. I wouldn't have piped up, but particularly in the case of McCaffrey, you're lumping the good with the bad. It was McCaffrey who has said, "Iraq is abject misery ... I think it's a terribly dangerous place for diplomats and journalists and contractors and Iraqi mothers. Trying to go about daily life in that city is a real nightmare for these poor people." In short, when he saw something good, he spoke about that, when he saw something bad, he spoke about that. (Same with a couple of the others the NYT story lumped together with some who truly were shills.) I thought the NYT story was sloppy. It had some *real* material in it (the business connections of some retired Colonels in particular), but buried the lede. But we can argue about it over scotch sometime, eh? <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Steve Zeoli Hometown: Brandon, Vermont What struck me about Williams' <a href="http://mediamatters.org/altercation/200805010002#6">response</a> to the "military analyst" controversy is his evident hero worship. He writes about his relationship with two of the military analysts in question, Barry McCaffrey and Wayne Downing, as if they were Tiger Woods and he was a 12-year-old golf fan: "They were tough, honest critics of the U.S. military effort in Iraq. If you've had any exposure to retired officers of that rank (and we've not had any five-star Generals in the modern era) then you know: these men are passionate patriots. In my dealings with them, they were also honest brokers. I knew full well whenever either man went on a fact-finding mission or went for high-level briefings. They never came back spun, and never attempted a conversion. They are warriors-turned-analysts, not lobbyists or politicians." Williams' drooling hero worship for these "warriors" couldn't be any more obvious if he French-kissed them on his news broadcast. These men somehow grow beyond criticism simply because they served in the military. No wonder Williams never questioned their integrity -- he was paralyzed by his own fawning obsequiousness. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Edward Furey Hometown: New York City Amid the collective stupidity recounted in the <a href="http://mediamatters.org/altercation/200805010002#2">comments</a> about the Mission Accomplished carrier landing five years ago, Chris Matthews' sneering reference to McGovern, who flew combat missions for real against real opposition, is especially idiotic. This bit of stupidity might have been acceptable if 30 years had passed since the 1972 campaign with little more public discussion about Sen. McGovern's military career. But in 2001, Stephen Ambrose published a best-selling book, "The Wild Blue," about George McGovern's wartime combat experiences as B-24 pilot. It was the last book I bought at the World Trade Center's Borders Books. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Don Hynes Hometown: Portland OR Thanks Eric for letting the words of Chris Matthews and the rest who drank the Kool-Aid for Bush on Mission Accomplished Day speak for themselves. Sarcasm really isn't appropriate is it, because this isn't about a film star or a movie, it's about tens of thousands of human beings dead or wounded and hundreds of thousands more who suffer because of the ignorance of a few well placed individuals and the money trough they feed. On that supposedly victorious day five years ago I stood on line at a local music store reminiscing about the President's actual military career or lack thereof and the sham of his appearance as a top gun. Next to me happened to be a man who took strong issue with my mocking words who had a son serving in Afghanistan at the time. I apologized for what it was worth, not for my comments about the President but for whatever insult it might have provided to him and his son's service. We had a long heartfelt talk actually and he said despite what may have happened in the past we needed to give the President a break, let his actions as Commander in Chief speak for themselves. It's five years later. I think the rest of the story now has been told, at least until this bitter anniversary. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Jesse Zander Corum Hometown: Portland, OR Your round-up of stupid, stupid things people said 5 years ago was great. Somehow Joe Klein managed to out-stupid Ann Coulter -- I don't think Bill Pullman's President in "Independence Day" was a pilot. I'm unwilling to go back and watch that waste of celluloid again, but I think it had jet fighters and a President and never combined them. Especially not BEFORE the aliens were defeated. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Sandy Volentine Hometown: Phoenix Regarding <a href="http://mediamatters.org/altercation/200805010002#8">this story</a>: Bill Moyers Journal profiles the fight the California Nurses Association (CNA) has been waging over universal health care. "There shouldn't be a double standard," says Rose Ann DeMoro, executive director of CNA. How can I send my tax rebate to the CNA? <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Carl Hometown: Muscle Shoals, AL Once upon a time in this country the government did great things; projects that were not directly focused on increased militarization. Also, in that land of long ago, there were Republicans who weren't joined at the wrist and ankle with Big Business. <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tvakids.com%2Fvideos%2F75th_video.htm">This video</a> is of a Holbrook/Twain-type performance of former Nebraska state senator David Landis as the Republican senator George Norris, who more than any other is responsible for the creation of the Tennessee Valley Authority. Norris opposed Henry Ford's offer to take Wilson Dam off the government's hands for less than 3 cents on the dollar. One has to wonder: what would happen today? <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Someone Redux Hometown: Somewhere M sends James Bond on a secret mission to heaven. When M doesn't hear from Bond for over a day, he gets worried and calls up heaven. The Virgin Mary picks up the phone and says "Virgin Mary speaking." M asks her if Bond has reached there yet. She replies that he hasn't. M waits another few hours and calls heaven back again. "Virgin Mary speaking," comes the response. "Is James there yet?" asks M. Again the answer is no. M is really worried by this time but he waits for a few more hours and then calls heaven back again. "Hello, Mary speaking." Eric replies: Who knew? A whole new genre ... http://mediamatters.org/items/200805020001 Fri, 2 May 2008 14:11:20 EST Who will be the last to die? http://mediamatters.org/items/200805010002 We've got a new <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanprogress.org%2Fissues%2F2008%2F05%2Fpentagon_propaganda.html" target="_blank">Think Again column</a> called "Pentagon Propaganda and the Media Stonewall," and a new Nation <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenation.com%2Fdoc%2F20080519%2Falterman">column</a>, "Mickey Mouse Media." <a name=" " title=" "></a>On the fifth anniversary of Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech, let's roll back the tape and recall the media's equally impressive performance on that day. From <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FWhy-Were-Liberals-Political-Post-Bush%2Fdp%2F0670018600">Why We're Liberals</a>, there's this: [G.Gordon Liddy to Chris Matthews:] "After all, Al Gore had to go get some woman to tell him how to be a man. And here comes George Bush. You know, he's in his flight suit, he's striding across the deck, and he's wearing his parachute harness, you know -- and I've worn those because I parachute -- and it makes the best of his manly characteristic. You go run those -- run that stuff again of him walking across there with the parachute. He has just won every woman's vote in the United States of America. You know, all those women who say size doesn't count -- they're all liars. Check that out." Much of the analysis of Bush in his phony flight suit focused on related issues that were barely less juvenile, but equally telling: <ul class="unIndentedList"><li> Chris Matthews: "That's the president looking very much like a jet, you know, a high-fl ying jet star. A guy who is a jet pilot. Has been in the past when he was younger, obviously. . . . He won the war. He was an effective commander. Everybody recognizes that, I believe, except a few critics. . . . Here's a president who's really nonverbal. He's like Eisenhower. He looks great in a military uniform. He looks great in that cowboy costume he wears when he goes West."</li><li> Chris Matthews: "We're proud of our president. Americans love having a guy as president, a guy who has a little swagger, who's physical, who's not a complicated guy like Clinton or even like Dukakis or those guys, McGovern. They want a guy who's president. Women like a guy who's president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president."</li><li> Ann Coulter to Matthews: "It's stunning. It's amazing. I think it's huge. I mean, he's landing on a boat at 150 miles per hour. It's tremendous. It's hard to imagine any Democrat being able to do that. And it doesn't matter if Democrats try to ridicule it. It's stunning, and it speaks for itself."</li><li> Brian Williams: "And two immutable truths about the president that the Democrats can't change: He's a youthful guy. He looked terrific and full of energy in a flight suit. He is a former pilot, so it's not a foreign art form to him. Not all presidents could have pulled this scene off today."</li><li> Morton Kondracke: "That was great theater."</li><li>David Broder: The president's "physical posture" communicated "authority and command."</li><li> Joe Klein: "That was probably the coolest presidential image since Bill Pullman played the jet fighter pilot in the movie Independence Day. That was the first thing that came to mind for me. And it just shows you how high a mountain these Democrats are going to have to climb."</li><li> Laura Ingraham: "Speaking as a woman, and listening to the women who called into my radio show, seeing President Bush get out of that plane, carrying his helmet, he is a real man. He stands by his word. That was a very powerful moment."</li></ul> <a name=" " title=" "></a>The surge is a success! The <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.latimes.com%2Fnews%2Fprintedition%2Ffront%2Fla-fg-iraq1-2008may01%2C1%2C7772480.story" target="_blank">death toll in Iraq</a> in April reached its highest level since late last year. The four U.S. soldiers who were killed yesterday increased the total military deaths in April to 50, a seven-month high. In addition, the Iraqi government reported that 969 civilians died last month, the highest since August. <a name=" " title=" "></a>The Media are a success: "The Wall Street Journal leads its world-wide newsbox with a poll that shows only 27 percent of voters view the Republican Party <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB120959262155757509.html%3Fmod%3Dtodays_us_page_one" target="_blank">in a positive light</a>, which amounts to "the lowest level for either party in the survey's nearly two-decade history." The interesting part of this is that despite these negative numbers, and the fact that a majority of voters would rather see a Democrat in the White House, Sen. John McCain remains in a statistical dead heat with the two Democratic contenders." If they can only keep the news that McCain is in fact a Republican, who voted with Bush 95 percent of the time in 2007, they can continue to Support the Surge! <a name=" " title=" "></a>Charlie Rangel <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2008%2F05%2F01%2Fnyregion%2F01cars.html%3F_r%3D1%26ref%3Dtodayspaper%26oref%3Dslogin">drives a Caddy</a> paid for by taxpayers so that his constituents in Harlem can feel good about themselves. Didn't I see this on The Wire? <a name=" " title=" "></a>George Zornick writes: In today's Think Again <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanprogress.org%2Fissues%2F2008%2F05%2Fpentagon_propaganda.html" target="_blank">column</a>, we note NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams' response, on his blog, to the Pentagon's propaganda program involving retired military officials. Williams wrote that the two military "analysts" featured on his program "never gave what I considered to be the party line," and were "tough, honest critics." Just for nostalgia's sake, let's look back to Williams' discussion with retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey five years ago today -- May 1, 2003, also known as "Mission Accomplished" day: <blockquote> WILLIAMS: Let's talk politics. And to be candid about it, you know of the war going on inside the Pentagon. Secretary Rumsfeld has always believed this military can do things faster, can be lighter on its feet, and I -- I'm quite convinced he will find this conflict as evidence to bolster his argument. Do you find merit in that? McCAFFREY: Oh, yeah, sure. No, look, the -- you know, each generation we have to look ahead and sort out what the next set of conflicts will be and what the technology allows us to do. At the end of the day, you go back to winning wars on the ground with soldiers and Marines and Rangers and Special Ops. But the way we fight these wars, first of all, it's situational. You know, if there's no trees and it's Iraqis, you go about it one way. If it's a million-man North Korean army, you go about it another way. But properly, transformation of the military services is something we're going to examine very closely, and hopefully the Congress will be actively involved in it. People like Senator Chuck Hagel, Congressman Rod Portman, Denny Hastert and others, who know what they're talking about, that's their role to define the future armed forces.</blockquote> Williams also mentioned that day "two immutable truths about the president that the Democrats can't change: He's a youthful guy. He looked terrific and full of energy in a flight suit. He is a former pilot, so it's not a foreign art farm -- art form to him. Not all presidents could have pulled this scene off today." What Williams didn't mention was that McCaffrey served on the "Committee for the Liberation of Iraq," and is "on the board of Mitretek, Veritas Capital and two Veritas companies, Raytheon Aerospace and Integrated Defense Technologies -- all of which have multimillion-dollar government defense contracts." The more you know ... McCain Suck-up Watch, this-is-really-getting-old edition: "The AP reported that 'Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton supported a 2006 bill, sponsored by Republican candidate John McCain, that offered illegal immigrants legal status on conditions such as learning English.' But the AP did not note that McCain has reversed his position on comprehensive immigration legislation and said in January that he would no longer support his own bill." <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804300009">Here</a>. And <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804300006">here</a>: "The New York Times' Carl Hulse reported that congressional Republicans 'worry just what a President McCain would portend for them come January, given their divergent views on big-ticket items like immigration, climate change and campaign spending.' But Hulse did not note that McCain has moved to the right on immigration to align himself more closely with his party's base, nor did he mention that McCain may be violating campaign finance laws by surpassing spending limits under the public financing system for the primary period." <a name=" " title=" "></a>This week in James Bond: I saw Goldfinger the other day at the Ziegfeld. I thought this was a pretty good line:<blockquote> BOND (waking up on private plane after being drugged, greeted by beautiful pilot): Who are you? BEAUTIFUL PILOT: Pussy Galore. BOND: I must be dreaming ...</blockquote> Then someone sent me a Bond joke. I didn't know they existed:<blockquote> 007 walks into a bar and takes a seat next to a very attractive woman. He gives her a quick glance, then casually looks at his watch for a moment. The woman notices this and asks, "Is your date running late?" "No", he replies, "I am here alone. Q has just given me this state-of-the-art watch and I was just testing it." The intrigued woman says, "A state-of-the-art watch? What's so special about it?" "It uses alpha waves to telepathically talk to me," he explains. "What's it telling you now?" "Well, it says you're not wearing any panties ..." The woman giggles and replies, "Well, it must be broken because I am wearing panties!" 007 taps, taps his watch ... and says "Damn thing must be an hour fast."</blockquote> <a name=" " title=" "></a>This week on Moyers: Bill Moyers Journal profiles the fight the California Nurses Association (CNA) has been waging over universal health care. "There shouldn't be a double standard," says Rose Ann DeMoro, executive director of CNA. "We, as the public, pay for Dick Cheney's care ... why is the government not providing the same type of care to all Americans?" Also on the program, five years after the president declared the end of major combat operations in Iraq, Bill Moyers interviews Victor S. Navasky and Christopher Cerf about their latest book, Mission Accomplished, described as a "hilarious but depressing compilation of experts who were in error about the war in Iraq." Media and politics expert Kathleen Hall Jamieson analyzes the latest from the presidential campaign. And Bill Moyers reflects on Jeremiah Wright. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Correspondence Corner: Name: Will Hometown: Chicago Number of days CNN.com has featured the story of the Austrian incest family: 4 Number of people affected by this story: 3 Number of stories in CNN.com about the Pentagon using generals to bamboozle the American public: zero Number of people affected: over 3,000 dead US soldiers and tens of thousands injured. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead or injured. That's our librul media in perspective. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Ben Miller Hometown: Washington, DC Mr. Alterman, When running for president, candidates need to be aware and worry about people they are connected to in any way. Obama's connection to Rev. Wright has caused a lot of problems for the Senator. Maybe it shouldn't, but it has. But since the media is so intense on examining a candidates connection to someone who might not be very popular nation wide, why not start examining Maverick's connections with the current president. I seem to remember the Straight Talk Express doing a great deal of campaigning for President Bush in 2004. Maybe start there. Certainly a candidates ties to an unpopular president, and his aid in making sure this unpopular president was able to serve 8 years and not only four, is more telling of the type of person a presidential candidate is then what someone's reverend might have said. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Virginia Hometown: Falls Church, VA. <a href="http://mediamatters.org/altercation/200804300003#11">Randy Jewett</a> has a great idea for Obama to wear a Liberty Bell lapel pin. As good or better would be a reproduction of the first page of the Constitution, emphasizing those bold words "We the People." I've argued for years that we should scrap the silly, meaningless Pledge of Allegiance and replace it with that beautifully succinct recital of America's purpose, the Preamble of the Constitution. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Rob Stafford Hometown: San Diego Eric -- The Heartland Institute list of 500 scientists with documented doubts about Global Warming? Turns out it's <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.desmogblog.com%2F500-scientists-with-documented-doubts-about-the-heartland-institute">fake</a>. I love reality & its well known liberal bias. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Elizabeth Hometown: Bavaria Absolutely Arianna is right about the <a href="http://mediamatters.org/altercation/200804300003#3">boycott</a>, and if you saw her on Real Time on HBO, you would understand why. She kept driving in the message: and she was not for a minute distracted by Gary Shandling's embarrassing commentary; he came across as a dolt, sadly, while Arianna was polite and articulate, and informed. Those simpleton proponents of flag-lapel-pin-wearing-controversy haven't a chance against her. http://mediamatters.org/items/200805010002 Thu, 1 May 2008 12:36:14 EST Regrets, I've had a few... http://mediamatters.org/items/200804300003 <a name=" " title=" "></a>Well, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/opinion/30dowd.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all">this</a> is interesting. In doing her usual dime-store psychoanalysis of Barack Obama, Maureen Dowd reverses decades of her usual m.o. and actually provides some evidence. She writes:<blockquote> But in the end, it was Wright showing "disrespect" by implying that Obama was a phony that sparked the candidate's slow-burning temper. "What I think particularly angered me," he said, "was his suggestion somehow that my previous denunciation of his remarks was somehow political posturing."</blockquote> Perhaps she's right. Still, it's not the tack the Obama campaign can possibly wish the media to take. This is -- or ought to be -- about disrespecting America, not disrespecting Obama. It's his Farrakhan-like fantasies that make this preacher beyond the pale, not his feelings about the candidate ... Still what interested me is the fact that Dowd does not seem to notice that she contradicted one of her earlier, typically evidence-less assertions about Obama, one that, at the time, struck me as racist. Remember, she wrote in <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2008%2F03%2F05%2Fopinion%2F05dowd.html%3F_r%3D1%26hp%3D%26oref%3Dslogin%26pagewanted%3Dprint">this column</a>:<blockquote> With Obama saying the hour is upon us to elect a black man and Hillary saying the hour is upon us to elect a woman, the Democratic primary has become the ultimate nightmare of liberal identity politics. All the victimizations go tripping over each other and colliding, a competition of historical guilts.</blockquote> And I <a href="http://mediamatters.org/altercation/200803050003">wrote</a> then: "The entire column, however, is about Hillary. There is no evidence presented anywhere that Obama has said such a thing. And those of us who've watched the campaign, I imagine, have heard Obama say just the opposite. This is exactly the opposite of an identity politics campaign, which is why Bill Clinton fell so flat when he tried to liken it to Jesse Jackson's. But Dowd cares nothing about truth and even less about evidence. She has long felt free simply to <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenation.com%2Fdoc%2F20071001%2Falterman">make stuff up about Obama</a> (and John Edwards)." If Obama can get Dowd to do her due diligence and actually provide data to support his views, I'm guessing he can -- well, I'm not allowed to say ... <a name=" " title=" "></a>I see Arianna believes she is being boycotted by all NBC, CNBC, and MSNBC shows, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nypost.com%2Fseven%2F04302008%2Fbusiness%2Fziff_gets_a_big_lift_108828.htm%3Fpage%3D2">here</a>. I believe it too. This strikes me as a real boycott. Arianna and I (and David Frum and Dan Schnur) did an LA Times Festival of Books panel, and we filled an 1,100-or-so-seat hall. I don't think that was me or David or Dan that was filling that room. This woman is big. (And by the way, she looks incredible. Who does your hair, dahlink?) But anyway, the fact that she hurts Tim Russert's feelings and is therefore apparently barred from all of NBC demonstrates how simultaneously thin-skinned and insecure people are even at the top of the media, and how irresponsible they are to the public's right to know anything at all if it conflicts with their own sense of ego. (Can you imagine George Stephanopoulos or Charles Gibson being forced to defend their questioning of Obama and Clinton on the basis of just how well did they help citizens make informed decisions about the candidates' positions on the issues? I would pay whatever I make in one of their precious capital gains tax cuts to see that.) Anyway, from my own experience, I'm pretty sure Arianna was right. When I published my first book 16 years ago, before I was well known for criticizing everyone in the media for their bias and carelessness, I was booked on the Today show, The Tonight Show, Nightline, Larry King, All Things Considered, Terry Gross' Fresh Air, C-SPAN's prime-time book interview show, etc. Over the years, whenever I did a book, I would be a regular on some of these shows, as the rest would fall off. For What Liberal Media?, I got, as I recall, Charlie Rose, Fresh Air, Talk of the Nation, O'Reilly, The Daily Show, John Gibson, Joe Scarborough, plenty of C-SPAN, and the book was reviewed everywhere. For <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.barnesandnoble.com%2Fbooksearch%2FisbnInquiry.asp%3Fz%3Dy%26EAN%3D9780670018604%26itm%3D2">Why We're Liberals</a>, however, aside from Colbert and a few book reviews, I've been ignored in all of the national media. No network show, no national NPR, no MSNBC, no CNBC, no CNN, no Fox, no PBS, not even C-SPAN. And it's not as if Viking is some fly-by-night publisher. Now I know that there are few things in life more distasteful than the sight (and sound) of authors complaining about how little attention his or her book is receiving. In some, perhaps most, of these cases, the decision was made on the basis of what would constitute entertaining programming. In others, I'm sure it was the fear of appearing sympathetic to a "liberal" author and therefore giving ammunition to right-wing efforts to "work the refs." But I can also surmise that the hosts of these shows don't appreciate the criticism they've been receiving all these years, on this site, in this and other books, and elsewhere. (Believe me: You can date the moment Howard Kurtz became aware of my view that his conflicts of interest and ideological bias make him an untrustworthy media cop to the date that my name stopped appearing in his column.) I'm not actually complaining (much) here. I had a terrific time on Colbert, a great book tour, was happy to meet so many appreciative people, and I am well aware that my book received far more attention than do most, and in this awful cultural moment, I should (and do) consider myself fortunate for the hearing I received at all. But the fact is, many of the decisions made at the top of our media are made for capricious, self-interested reasons by people who are never forced to explain themselves. And I think NBC's boycott of Arianna -- who is, after all, one of the most important political voices in the discourse -- is proof of that. <a name=" " title=" "></a>George Zornick writes: Is the press redundant? To listen to Chris Matthews on MSNBC yesterday, one might think so: "If the topic is Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama loses. He has to change topics by tomorrow. If we are still putting this up as our main story of the day, that's bad news for him. If we're still saying it by Thursday -- that means the weekend news shows will talk about it." But is Matthews' network just a vessel through which trivial -- and politically motivated -- arguments flow, without the reporters and producers having any say? The answer appears to be yes, and Howard Kurtz surrenders the media's free will, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fwp-dyn%2Fcontent%2Farticle%2F2008%2F04%2F29%2FAR2008042900630.html">here</a>: "The more I hear the full context, the more I think the Illinois senator has a growing problem. For one thing, Wright seems to be savoring the limelight...meaning that the cablers and the pundits are debating black liberation theology, not Obama's jobs plan." Here's the <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chicagotribune.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fchi-wright-obama29apr29%2C0%2C2022690.story">Chicago Tribune</a> doing the same: "The latest Wright eruption renewed questions about how long the story will remain in circulation and whether it is -- or should be -- an issue Obama must address for the rest of the presidential campaign. The Wright story presents potential peril for Obama, increasing the urgency for the campaign to shift the focus." It seems like it should go without saying -- but isn't it the press' job to evaluate what the important issues are, and whether they should "stay in circulation?" Do they really have no choice but to give wall-to-wall coverage on topics they themselves acknowledge may be irrelevant, and the "focus" can only be shifted by politicians and their operatives? <a name=" " title=" "></a><a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fwp-dyn%2Fcontent%2Farticle%2F2008%2F04%2F29%2FAR2008042903532.html">This</a> will be good watchin':<blockquote> Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin J. Martin might be called to defend himself in a hearing on his leadership after a congressional investigation turned up complaints about the way he runs the agency, according to a memo obtained yesterday by The Washington Post. ... The memo to [Senate Commerce and Energy Committee chairman Rep. John] Dingell and [oversight and investigations subcommittee chairman Rep. Bart] Stupak said the investigation is ongoing and proposed holding hearings on the findings in June. According to the memo, more than 30 current and former FCC employees were interviewed, along with telecommunications industry representatives and private citizens. The memo was the first indication that the investigation, launched in December, has turned up material to support complaints against Martin.</blockquote> For more on the FCC under Martin and his predecessors, see our Think Again columns <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanprogress.org%2Fissues%2F2008%2F03%2Ffcc_vs_public.html">here</a> and <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanprogress.org%2Fissues%2F2007%2F11%2Ffcc_reruns.html">here</a>. <a name=" " title=" "></a>From TomDispatch: The RAND Corporation was the ur-think tank, the Cold War granddaddy of them all, and it's still with us. In the 1950s, nuclear war-gaming a conflagration for which the usual war games would have been ludicrous, it took the U.S. military into virtuality and science fiction long before there was an Internet to play with. (And it had a hand in creating the Internet, too!) In the 1960s, it helped several administrations plan and fight the Vietnam War, making antiseptic theory into an all-too-grim reality. And that's just the beginning of the work RAND did on a range of hot-button imperial issues. For a brief period in the 1960s, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tomdispatch.com%2Fpost%2F174925">Chalmers Johnson</a> was a RAND consultant. Now, reviewing a new book on the history of the RAND Corporation, the author of the prophetic pre-9/11 book Blowback, and, most recently, of Nemesis, The Last Days of the Republic, considers the think tank's role as "a key institutional building block of the Cold War American empire." RAND, he begins, "was instrumental in giving that empire the militaristic cast it retains to this day and in hugely enlarging official demands for atomic bombs, nuclear submarines, intercontinental ballistic missiles, and long-range bombers. Without RAND, our military-industrial complex, as well as our democracy, would look quite different." And then he explores just how all this came about, as well as the colorful cast of characters involved -- ranging from a bevy of Nobel Prize winning economists to Daniel Ellsberg, Donald Rumsfeld, Albert Wohlstetter, easily the best known of all RAND researchers, and that thinker of the "unthinkable" Herman Kahn, who was satirized by Stanley Kubrick in his classic film Dr. Strangelove. (Kahn demanded royalties from Kubrick, to which Kubrick responded, "That's not the way it works, Herman.") This is a fascinating yet sorry tale about what is surely one of the world's most unusual, Cold War-bred private organizations in the field of international relations. Johnson concludes: "While RAND has an unparalleled record of providing unbiased, unblinking analyses of technical and carefully limited problems involved in waging contemporary war, its record of advice on cardinal policies involving war and peace, the protection of civilians in wartime, arms races, and decisions to resort to armed force has been abysmal." <a name=" " title=" "></a>Correspondence Corner: Name: Tom Edmisten Hometown: Norfolk, Nebraska Somebody please remind that dingbat <a href="http://mediamatters.org/altercation/200804290001#2">Peggy Noonan</a> that anyone who would get misty eyed over Henry Ford would also do so over Himmler and Goebbels. Like them, Ford was a despicable anti-Semite. He did hate labor unions, though, and perhaps that hatred is what earns him his place in the dolphin lady's pantheon of patriotic chills, right up there with spotting Dutch's dogs resting on a hassock. That a dizzy hack like Noonan has a job is proof enough that any balloon juice about our having a liberal media is moonshine. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Bill Hometown: New York So I guess if Brian Williams or Peggy Noonan ever mediates a Democratic debate, the candidates will have to recite a laundry list of patriotic cliches in order to be credible. Remember Little Big Man, when a U.S. soldier is trying to kill him? "God bless George Washington! God bless my mother!" Or the Nazi in Saving Private Ryan? "Oh say can you see! Steamboat Villy, toot toot! Betty Grable! Nice gams!" This is what the debates will be reduced to. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Steve Zeoli Hometown: Brandon, Vermont I agree with 99.9% of what the great Charlie Pierce has to say, but I think his <a href="http://mediamatters.org/altercation/200804280003#11">defense</a> of Rev. Jeremiah Wright is a little off base. To say that Wright isn't under any obligation to Obama's campaign isn't true. No one... that is NO ONE would even know who this guy was, much less care about anything he had to say if it were not for his connection with Obama. It is clear after his performance in recent days that Wright does NOT care an iota about Obama ... and yet, what would help to alleviate the race divide more than a black president? If Wright were truly more concerned about the bigger issues of race in this country than his own personal agenda, he would take the spotlight off himself, instead of seeking it out. But I don't think that Wright's ego will let him do that. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Ian Hometown: Los Angeles Deadliest month in Iraq all year; president acknowledges he approved torture; economy getting worse as more people lose houses -- forget all that. Those pictures of Miley Cyrus, that's what matters. (Yes, and the out-of-context remarks of a black preacher, let's not forget to hammer those some more, oh people of privilege.) <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Randy Jewett Hometown: Gainesville, FL Eric, Here's what Obama should do: Find a lapel pin of the Liberty Bell and wear that. What's it a symbol of? Why American liberty, of course! You know, that thing liberals defend. You heard it here first. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: John Loehr Hometown: Free Union, Virginia Welcome to the Hook. I saw Bruce here in Memorial Gym in 1974 with Joe Walsh and about 1,000 other people. Both piano players, Clarence, the female Israeli violinist, but no Miami Steve, Bruce was the only guitar. Played for about 2 1/2 hours, and probably the best show I ever saw.... http://mediamatters.org/items/200804300003 Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:21:23 EST The Lonely End of the Rink http://mediamatters.org/items/200804290001 George Zornick here -- we're a little light today, since yesterday's <a href="http://mediamatters.org/altercation/200804280003">post</a> went up late and Eric is flying to Virginia for tomorrow's panel on "The Fall & Rise of American Liberalism: Media, Race, Religion..." at UVA (details <a href="https://etg07.itc.virginia.edu/eventcal/event/display?eventID=12075941340001">here</a>). McCain Suck-up Watch: Josh Marshall flags <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Ftalkingpointsmemo.com%2Fnews%2F2008%2F04%2Frnc_demands_networks_yank_mcca.php">this AP story</a> about a DNC ad that uses clips of John McCain's 100-year Iraq war statement. Here's how the piece begins:<blockquote> The Republican National Committee demanded Monday that television networks stop running a television ad by the Democratic Party that falsely suggests John McCain wants a 100-year war in Iraq.</blockquote> So, for the AP, not only must a story about the ad contain McCain's objection, it comes before readers even learn what's being discussed -- and the writer accepts the assertion that the ad is false, and writes that into the lead. As Marshall <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Ftalkingpointsmemo.com%2Farchives%2F191838.php">notes</a>, "[W]hat the McCain campaign is pushing for here is a standard in which any negative ad targeting McCain must be delivered with the McCain camp's own spin included in order to be within bounds -- a standard few politicians, to say the least, have ever been granted." <a name=" " title=" "></a>Brian Williams is frightened and confused. <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fdailynightly.msnbc.msn.com%2Farchive%2F2008%2F04%2F28%2F953442.aspx">Here</a>, the NBC Nightly News anchor notes the The New York Times' declining circulation numbers and connects them, with heavy disdain, to ... what appears in the paper's Sunday travel and style sections. "I must admit that on Sundays it becomes a tough paper to figure out." The stories he cites were about flea markets, newlywed gays, retro bars in Brooklyn, nudist camps, a wedding announcement where the groom wore sneakers, essays about dating, and parents buying a sex chair. You know, a style section in a New York-based newspaper. What, then, does he like to see in his Sunday paper? "On the other hand, one sparkling piece of journalism (which touched on a lot of themes frequent readers of this space will recognize) was by Peggy Noonan in this weekend's Wall Street Journal." Williams says Noonan's work "must be considered an early favorite" for next year's Pulitzer for commentary. The <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB120906741679842493.html%3Fmod%3Dopinion_columns_featured_lsc">piece</a> in question:<blockquote> Hillary Clinton is not Barack Obama's problem. America is Mr. Obama's problem. He has been tagged as a snooty lefty, as the glamorous, ambivalent candidate from Men's Vogue, the candidate who loves America because of the great progress it has made in terms of racial fairness. Fine, good. But has he ever gotten misty-eyed over ... the Wright Brothers and what kind of country allowed them to go off on their own and change everything? How about D-Day, or George Washington, or Henry Ford, or the losers and brigands who flocked to Sutter's Mill, who pushed their way west because there was gold in them thar hills? There's gold in that history. John McCain carries it in his bones.</blockquote> And I bet he hates nudist camps and Reeboks at weddings, too. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Correspondence Corner: Name: Lisa LaFlame Hometown: Los Angeles Dear Eric, Saw the LA Times Festival of Books panel Saturday afternoon -- if only the various televised presidential debates (I use that term loosely) were as insightful. You and Arianna Huffington did an excellent job of articulately and respectfully rebutting everything said by David Frum and Dan Schnur. It's amazing to me that despite all the evidence piling higher by the minute, nobody on the right will admit that this administration's policies are an utter failure, one with disastrous consequences. As Arianna said that day, sometimes there aren't two sides to a story. It's bordering on comedy except that with increasing numbers of dead troops and Iraqi civilians, it's absolutely not funny. I also have to say that I think you and Arianna are both right, as regards William Kristol. You said you didn't think he intentionally lied, while she did call him a liar. I think in the beginning, being such a True Believer of the neo-conservative doctrine as set forth by the Project for the New American Century, Kristol thought he was being truthful. However, these days, the guy can't actually still believe this junk he spews forth, so he just has to be lying. Also, Frum insulted the intelligence of the panel audience and every American in his smug insistence that even as we clamor for more dialogue on health care, jobs, ending the Iraq war, and the economy, what we're all actually concerned about is who wears a flag lapel pin. So disgusting. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name</strong&#