DOWNLOADS: (427)

PLAYS: (8472)

Embed

Martin Bashir may be the most underrated show host on cable television. His show is consistently smart, loaded with facts and good discussion without the incessant screaming and fireworks of other cable news shows. His interview of Rep. Joe Walsh was masterful and yet, polite. Which is why when Bashir closes his Thursday show with a three-minute comment where he's clearly a bit angry, it gets my attention.

Mr. Bashir is frustrated with the constant drumbeat from Republicans about President Obama allegedly turning the US government into a "European-style government" and so he delivers an excellent argument for why they are wrong, and why the ones who are trying to point the United States in the direction of European-style governance are...Republicans.

Bashir targets the Republican fetish for austerity and spending cuts as evidence that they, not Democrats, are trying to transform the United States. At the end, he offers the results of Republican-style austerity measures in Europe, and what they haven't accomplished.

Well done, Mr. Bashir.

Transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (761)

PLAYS: (2634)

Embed

I know this is vacation time when everyone plays old shows to fill in the slots on cable TV. Still, it was kinda weird, here in August, to see Fox replaying one of the year's weirder moments -- from early April, when Jon Voight went on Mike Huckabee's show and read the following letter:

In one year, the American people are witnessing the greatest lie that is cleverly orchestrated by President Obama and his whole administration.

The lie is a potent aggression that feeds the needs of people who either have not educated themselves enough to understand the assault upon us all or the very poor and needy who live to be taken care of.

President Obama feeds these people poison, giving them the idea that they are entitled to take from the wealthier who have lived and worked in a democracy that understands that capitalism is the only truth that keeps a nation healthy and fed.

Now the lie goes very deep and President Obama has been cleverly trained in the Alinsky method and it would be very important that every American knows what that method is. It is a socialistic, Marxist teaching and with it, little by little, he rapes this nation, taking down our defenses, making new language for the Islamic extremists.

The world looked up to us as a symbol of hope and prosperity now wonders what will become of the entire world if America is losing its power.

The American people who understand exactly what is taking place have come together in the thousands, vowing to try to stay together as a unit of love and freedom for all men and women, from all walks of life, shivering to think that this once great nation will be a third world country.

This will be the first president to ever weaken the United States of America. President Obama uses his aggression and arrogance for his own agenda, against the will of the American people when he should be using his will and aggression against our enemies.

Every loving American for peace and truth and the security of our nation must come out and join the Tea Parties in their states. The opposition will continue their tactics; they will lie and plant their own bullies amongst us. Everyone must pay close attention to who stands next to them. We can weed out the liars and agitators. Let us all stay in God's light. Let no man put asunder. We can and we will prevail. God bless us all!"

Usually when we get summer reruns, the shows selected tend to be somewhat current. And indeed, given that this is now the Republicans' summer of racial resentment, replaying Voight's extraordinarily vicious and paranoid rant -- one that talks about a black president "raping" the nation -- in the current context gains a particular edge. A truly ugly and disturbing one.

I was also struck by Huckabee's reaction: He obviously was just fine with Voight's language. It tells you a lot about what we can expect from Candidate Huckabee in the 2012 race, doesn't it?

Now that the firestorm over Shirley Sherrod's firing is beginning to die down, it's worth looking at the specific statements Andrew Breitbart made on national cable TV to justify himself before the full video was released.

His appearance on John King USA on July 20th had a very revealing moment in it, one that's worth looking at in depth.

Every time Breitbart opens his mouth a lie flies out. Beginning at the beginning, and remember, this was before the full tape was released.

BREITBART: It has to -- this tape is about the NAACP. Its race (ph) on debt is about nondiscrimination and when Shirley Sherrod is talking there in which she expresses a discriminatory attitude towards white people, the audience responds with applaud -- with applause and the NAACP agrees with me and it rebuked her and the audience. So the entire conversation about race right now in this country is because the NAACP brought up without evidence, again, and including the false narrative that the "n" word was hurled at three black congressmen, this is asserting that the NAACP condoned racism and was caught on video. And the more video that we've seen that we haven't even offered, there's even more racism on these tapes. This is deeply problematic.

KING: I'm happy to look at those tapes, and I promise I will look at those tapes if you post them, but I want to come back to another -- you say context is everything. We believe facts are important, too --

(CROSSTALK)

BREITBART: If that -- if it is the case and it can be shown to me that the incident that she's talking about was done many years ago and not in her current context, but as a reporter you tell me how you confirmed that the incident that she's talking about was 24 years ago? You tell me as a reporter how CNN put on a person today who purported to be the farmer's wife?

What did you do to find out whether or not that was the actual farmer's wife? I mean there -- if you're going to accuse me of a falsehood, tell me where you've confirmed that this incident happened 24 years ago. This is Shirley Sherrod trying to save her job when her problem is with Vilsack (ph) and the USDA and the NAACP, both which have rebuked her and forced her to leave her position.

KING: I think she has legitimate questions as do we for Secretary Vilsack (ph), the NAACP, the Agriculture Department and perhaps even the Obama White House. But did you reach out to her when you posted this to ask her -- I have this tape. I think it shows what I -- what you believe to be damning conduct or questionable conduct. Did you reach out to her and say what incident are you talking about? When did this happen?

Now, when King starts pressing, Breitbart starts squirming.

Continue reading »

Here's a suggestion: if you're one of the many C&L readers who come here for news coverage as an alternative to paying for cable TV, find out how much cable costs for a month and throw half of that amount in the C&L hat. If you depend on C&L to catch the important stories and priceless clips you might otherwise miss, show us what your time is worth. This blog needs YOUR help, it's a bargain, and we are very grateful. Thanks.

DOWNLOADS: (678)

PLAYS: (2229)

Embed

Well, you'd think Bill O'Reilly would at least be a little embarrassed that Fox News Channel was the only news entity on cable TV not to broadcast last week's "Hope for Haiti" concert.

But no. Instead of apologizing or even mentioning some kind of lame excuse why Fox didn't air it, on his show last night O'Reilly actually went on the warpath against the benefit and its organizers, demanding "transparency" and a full accounting of where all the money's going.

What really got his dander up? The benefit's organizers "wouldn't or couldn't" provide a spokesman to come on his show and explain himself.

In my dreams, the answer O'Reilly's people got when they called was this: "WTF? You want us to find someone to take time out of the hard work we're doing here just to satisfy Bill O'Reilly's ego? Get stuffed! If one of the participating channels wanted transparency, we'd be delighted to open the books for them. But we don't owe Fox News Channel a goddamn thing. Good-bye."

DOWNLOADS: (2148)

PLAYS: (8724)

Embed

I've posted a lot of clips with Jane Hall on The O'Reilly Factor. She often was paired up with the uber-right winger Bernard Goldberg and usually BillO would wind up yelling at her because she didn't agree with his point of view. Her demeanor has always been gentle so I always found it upsetting that BillO would scold her. I mean, he even cut off her microphone once, which was odd for such a mild mannered speaker. She left FOX recently and I did wonder why.

Howard Kurtz tackled the "Should have the Obama administration called FOX News the opposition?" question in his Sunday "Reliable Sources" segment on CNN, and although Hall thought it wasn't a smart move by the administration, she let it out that she quit FOX because they stopped debating the issues. She cited Glenn Beck's "scary" presence as a reason why she left. It kinds of makes the arguments moot at this point by the mainstreamers who are sticking up for FOX. Can't they handle the truth?

Another big problem I have is the way cable TV uses pundits, and it's not just FOX. They constantly will pair up a right-wing opinionator with a journalist who they just assume is a liberal. The journalist usually will go on TV, but isn't in love with this because it puts their "neutrality" at issue. Hall also expressed her displeasure on that front.

KURTZ: Did you feel like you were being used to give Fox a certain degree of legitimacy, coming on as a media professor?

HALL: No, I didn't. The reason I left was in part because they've had less debates than they used to. Is it a fair point to say how much debate is there on MSNBC? How many Republican strategists? We have a bifurcation of the media.

KURTZ: Wait a second. The reason you left is because you feel they have less debate than they used to. In other words, it used to be "Hannity and Colmes," now it's just Hannity. It used to be Bernie and Jane. Now it's just Bernie.

HALL: I think there's less debate than there was. And I'm also, frankly, uncomfortable with Beck, who I think should be called out as somebody whose language is way over the top. And it's scary.

KURTZ: Was that a factor in your decision to leave Fox?

HALL: Yes, it was.

You can see that she didn't go on gunning to attack FOX; Kurtz simply caught a remark and seized on it. Then, as usual, Howie had to defend FOX News, but in so doing, he admitted that Lou Dobbs is an offensive right-winger, just like Beck, in his own commentary about the dispute.

KURTZ: Let me give you my two cents here. This is also polarizing. You either have to take the position that Fox is a courageous news organization or a threat to western civilization. I have criticized things that O'Reilly has said, that Hannity has said. Certainly, on this program, I told Glenn Beck that he was being offensive with words that he had for a Muslim member of Congress. At the same time, I don't think an entire organization should be judged by a few commentaries, any more than I think it is fair to judge CNN by the things that Lou Dobbs says. Look at some of the people at Fox.

I wrote down some names here. Major Garrett used to work at CNN. Bill Hemmer used to work at CNN. Greta Van Susteren used to work at CNN. Chris Wallace used to work at ABC and NBC. Did they all drink the Kool-Aid when they went there? Sometimes, Fox's reflexive opposition to Obama bleeds into its news coverage, as you were saying, Nico. But I don't think it's fair to tar everyone with the same brush. You want to take that on?

Look, Howie, Ailes sets the agenda. Even if certain people working on Fox haven't been drinking the "Kool-aid" (*cough*Shep*cough*Smith*cough) the cable network is a propaganda arm. If you don't like Obama saying so, fine, but the truth is the truth.

PITNEY: I think you paint it a little too moderately. Take their flagship news program "Special Report With Brett Baier." George Mason did a study, 80 percent of the coverage is negative.

KURTZ: Toward Obama?

PITNEY: Toward Obama.

KURTZ: Is that on the opinion round table?

PITNEY: No. Just the first 30 minutes.

Says it all.

DOWNLOADS: (1014)

PLAYS: (4859)

Embed

[H/t Media Matters]

Brian Kilmeade put on a classic display of the way today's right-wingers cling to old half-baked notions of race and eugenics yesterday morning on Fox and Friends, discussing a Scandinavian study of the benefits of marriage:

Kilmeade: Leave it to the Finns and Swedes to come up with something. Because that's a -- we are, we're a, we keep marrying other species and other ethnics and other --

[Crosstalk]

Kilmeade: I mean the Swedes -- the Swedes have, uh, pure genes. Because they marry other Swedes. Because that's the rule. Finland -- Finns marry other Finns, so they have a pure society. In America, we marry everybody. So we marry Italians and Irish and --

Dave Briggs: OK, so this study does not apply.

Kilmeade: It does not apply to us.

Other species? We marry other species? Since when? What, is this the man-on-dog sex that Rick Santorum was on about?

And what the hell do "pure genes" -- whatever those are -- have to do with marriage behavior?

It's astonishing, really, the level of complete and utter idiocy that passes for professional news talk on our cable TV these days. Charles Pierce is right.

DOWNLOADS: (5043)

PLAYS: (8434)

Embed

Scott Roeder issued a warming. More violence is on the way. I think it's time that the entire pro-choice movement, including groups like Planned Parenthood, NOW and NARAL, vow never to appear on The Bill O'Reilly show again. His vile treatment of Dr. Tiller along with his staunch opposition to a woman's right to make her own reproductive choices should make it clear that you will never get a fair shake from him.

I love the Washington Post article last week by Mary Alice Carr called: Why I Turned Down O'Reilly:

The first time I appeared on "The O'Reilly Factor," in 2004, I sat across from Bill O'Reilly in awkward silence while he shuffled papers and took notes.

Finally, he glanced up and acknowledged my existence. "Thank you for coming on," he said. "Most people don't have the guts." I said, "Well, you are one of the most-watched new shows on cable." He swiftly retorted, "The most-watched news show on cable TV." Let's face it: Bill O'Reilly is not only aware of his power and his reach, he's damn proud of them.

So I went on his show, time and again, even though many other progressives discouraged me. I went because I know what O'Reilly knows: It's the most-watched show, and I thought it was imperative that his audience also hear our viewpoint. I also know that when you have a bully pulpit, you need to be held accountable for what you preach.

O'Reilly is being incredibly disingenuous when he claims that he bears no responsibility for others' actions in the killing of Dr. George Tiller on Sunday. When you tell an audience of millions over and over again that someone is an executioner, you cannot feign surprise when someone executes that person.

You cannot claim to hold no responsibility for what other people do when you call for people to besiege Tiller's clinic, as O'Reilly did in January 2008. And this was after Tiller had been shot in both arms and after his clinic had been bombed.

O'Reilly knew that people wanted Tiller dead, and he knew full well that many of those people were avid viewers of his show. Still, he fanned the flames. Every time I appeared on his show, I received vitriolic and hate-filled e-mails. And if I received those messages directly, I can only imagine what type of feedback O'Reilly receives. He knows that his words incite violence.

That is why I made a personal pledge to no longer sit across from him after he called for people to converge on Tiller's clinic. I realized that appearing on the show with him would only legitimize his speech and that no good would come of my efforts.

So on Tuesday morning, when an O'Reilly producer called and asked me to come on the show to "discuss the reasons why women have late-term abortions," I held fast to my pledge. I told his producer what I thought: that I had had that conversation on air with O'Reilly five years earlier and that he agreed with me at the time that the decision was between a woman and her doctor. That O'Reilly then went on to pretend we had never talked about it and continued condemning women and doctors. That the nation and those of us in the pro-choice community are reeling from the murder of a doctor who helped women. That we hold O'Reilly responsible for helping to create a climate in which hate was allowed to fester. That I refused to dignify his irresponsible behavior, not to mention his deplorable reaction to Tiller's shooting.

---

But then I realized I just couldn't. Because if the murder of a man in a house of worship wasn't enough to make Bill O'Reilly repent, what hope did I have?

The writer is vice president of communications for NARAL Pro-Choice New York.

Good for Mary for finally realizing that Bill O'Reilly uses people in the pro-choice arena to further his agenda. He's very good at what he does and by nature is against the pro-choice movement, so the efforts to appear there to get your point across are completely wasted. He has little respect for any of the pro-choice groups, so why help his show? Why appear on The Factor? How does it serve the movement? And Bill O'Reilly's behavior towards Dr. Tiller was unconscionable.

I'm asking Cecile Richard, who is the head of PPFA, Nancy Keenan of NARAL, and Marcia Pappas of NOW to help get the word out. If Bill O'Reilly is unwilling to admit that the vitriol he spews as well as many from the anti-choice movement at the expense of women has a profound negative effect, then he shouldn't get the benefit of their presence. He does not deserve what he does not respect.

Please join me and contact every pro-choice group you know and ask that they boycott Bill O'Reilly to show support for woman's rights all across the world. It's time to take action because as Scott Roeder just proclaimed, more violence is on the way against a woman's right to choose what she does with her body.

When they announced yesterday that the Department of Justice was beefing up the antitrust division, the first likely target I thought of was cable TV. How about it, guys? We can't take much more of these monopolies' skyrocketing prices:

Last month, the nation's No.2 cable company Time Warner Cable announced plans to test a new billing system known as "metering" that charges Internet customers depending on how much they download. Customers who exceed their limit--say, by viewing online videos--would face steep penalties on top of their subscription rate.

Time Warner Cable's usage penalty would take the unlimited service we enjoy today (albeit slow compared to other nations), and make Internet more like cell phones, where you get overcharged by companies making record profits. It is the latest version of the Net Neutrality debate: should the companies that deliver Internet be allowed to block it, slow it down, or in this case, overcharge for it?

Here's why this issue threatens the Internet as you know it: Cable companies Time Warner and Comcast, and phone giants AT&T and Verizon sell the vast majority of high-speed Internet service in the United States. Phone and cable companies like these have no other competition in 97% of US markets, thanks to corrupt policies passed by the Bush Administration at the companies' behest.

Continue reading »

If you're into this, the RBC committee will be meeting in the morning to render a decision on how they to treat both Michigan and Florida. We all know by now that they both were stripped of 100% of their delegates for moving up their primary to an earlier date. Here's some info on what's happening. Here's the DNC Statement on RBC Meeting from Yahoo.

"The analysis maintains that the RBC did have proper authority and jurisdiction in imposing the 100% sanction. The RBC had wide latitude in that decision.

"The document also examines the 50% automatic sanction and how to implement such a sanction: Under this scenario, one option would be to reduce the total number of delegates by half; the second option for consideration by the RBC would be to reduce the delegation's votes by half, so that each delegate gets a half vote.

I'm not a rules guy myself. The reason I received from the DNC for their decision of stripping away 100% from both states instead of the usual 50% was to send a message to any other state considering trying to circumvent the process. In my opinion, if they had left it at 5o%, there would have been primaries there and we wouldn't be having this discussion now or the big Saturday meeting. Anyway, they are both important states to the general election.

And I feel especially bad for Florida because it was the Republican legislature that forced the move instead of the Democratic party. I mean, it's Florida after all. There's a very popular Republican Governor running the show and we all know what can happen there after the 2000 debacle.

Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean and Harry Reid have made it clear that they want the SD's to declare ASAP. Do you think they will flood in after the primaries have finally concluded? It's being covered by cable TV with all the talking heads out to play starting at 9 am EST. I hope I haven't confused anyone on this and I got it right. Please be kind in the comment section.

Update: Watching some of the meeting today, I forgot to mention how passionate MI is over this issue and how frustrated the voters have been. Are you tired of Iowa and NH setting the agenda and almost always picking the nominees?