Click here for WMP

Dana Milbank appeared on Keith Olbermann last night and pointed out most of the problems that the bloggers have had with Jeff (whatever his name is) Gannon having access to the White House. He gives a hat tip to World O' Crap as a source of information. Listening to Milbank talking about the much more serious issue of Jeff "G" as a shill for the White House after hearing Howard Kurtz completely glaze over the story on Blitzer, shows you the difference in reporting that can go on between "columnists from the same paper.

Milbank: As of Monday I saw whatever-his name-is waiting outside there at the White House, in fact he would probably be allowed to continue doing this as of now if their weren't some website called of all things "World O' Crap" that had gotten into all those personal allegations. It was Jeff's decision or whatever his name's decision to uhh step down. He wasn't kicked out of the White House at all. That's really where all the scandal lies in this whole thing.

The NY Daily News gets into the story and names John Aravosis of AMericaBlog as a source:

"The issue here is whether someone with connections to male prostitution was given unfettered access to the White House and copies of internal CIA documents. For a family values administration, that's pretty creepy," said John Aravosis, one of the bloggers chasing the story."

DOWNLOADS: (670)

PLAYS: (1894)

Embed

Howard Kurtz had to twist like a pretzel for this, and it's truly ironic to see Politico's Roger Simon step up and set Howie straight.

KURTZ: Now, Rush Limbaugh also loves to stir controversy by design. And this week, he talked about the president and made a bit of news. Let's take a listen.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: That's exactly the same thing you could say about Obama. He wouldn't have been voted president if he weren't black.

Somebody asked me over the weekend why does somebody earn a lot of money, have a lot of money? I said because he's black. If Obama weren't black, he'd be a tour guide in Honolulu or he'd be teaching Saul Alinsky constitutional law or lecturing on it in Chicago.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

KURTZ: Of course here we are talking about Rush.

But did you find those comments to be more than just the usual Limbaugh rhetoric?

SIMON: You mean did I find them to be racist and repugnant? Yes, I found them to be racist and repugnant.

KURTZ: Why racist? Can't a case be made just on part of this that if Obama was a white freshman senator, he wouldn't have beaten Hillary for the nomination?

SIMON: I think anyone who beat Hillary for the nomination had something going for him besides race. And let's be fair. His race was not going for him. We only said that after he won.

He had to win in states where there was almost no black population. If he had lost in Iowa, the first Democratic contest, he would have been through. There are no black people in Iowa. He convinced white people that he really was an agent of change.

KURTZ: That's a good point.

First Howie tells us how Rush was just stirring controversy, that he didn't really mean it, but was just stirring it up for the sake of having a discussion. And when that doesn't work he tries really, really hard to convince the audience that there's some grain of legitimate thinking behind Limbaugh's amazing racist nastiness.

This goes beyond any attempt at "objectivity", and really, there's no real reason for any serious reporter to even try and be "objective" about Rush Limbaugh anyway. Objectivity should not apply when the subject is clearly wrong. What happened to pointing out the Emperor's nakedness?

Let's get serious for a minute, Howie. Any argument that starts with "If Obama were a white freshman senator..." is a racist argument. Period. It marginalizes any skill Obama has in favor of his race, status and position.

With each day that passes, CNN is sinking lower into the abyss. The idea of Howard Kurtz hosting a show called "Reliable Sources" is, well...laughable.

Howard Kurtz has an interesting piece today about how some Fox News employees seem to think Glenn Beck taints their brand. Isn't this sort of like the madam in a brothel worrying about her reputation for virtue? The real shock in this story is that there are people at Fox News who still consider themselves "journalists" - funny, considering how they must already work within the ideological confines of Roger Ailes' famous daily memos:

In just over a year, Glenn Beck's blinding burst of stardom has often seemed to overshadow the rest of Fox News.

And that may not be a good thing for the top-rated cable news channel, as many of its staffers are acutely aware.

With his celebrity fueled by a Time cover story, best-selling books, cheerleading role at protest rallies and steady stream of divisive remarks, Beck is drawing big ratings. But there is a deep split within Fox between those -- led by Chairman Roger Ailes -- who are supportive, and many journalists who are worried about the prospect that Beck is becoming the face of the network.

By calling President Obama a racist and branding progressivism a "cancer," Beck has achieved a lightning-rod status that is unusual even for the network owned by Rupert Murdoch. And that, in turn, has complicated the channel's efforts to neutralize White House criticism that Fox is not really a news organization. Beck has become a constant topic of conversation among Fox journalists, some of whom say they believe he uses distorted or inflammatory rhetoric that undermines their credibility.

DOWNLOADS: (856)

PLAYS: (4397)

Embed

Howard Kurtz did a segment on something I've wanted for a long time: Networks holding people accountable for what they say on our airwaves. A TV Ombudsman.

The more this idea gets out there, the more important it becomes to push it home -- although it would be a real miracle if it did happen. MSNBC did correct Giuliani's lie because it was a lie. Fox News ignored it because of partisanship. Kurtz should stop with the false equivalent comparisons. MSNBC does not promote an agenda for 24 hours seven days a week like Fox does, nor have they promoted a movement to overthrow a sitting president.

UPDATE: Michael Calderone got a response from David Gregory:

Over the weekend, I wrote about some recent criticism of the Sunday shows, along with suggestions such as running a fact-check online or mixing up the regular guests. And the piece prompted a few interesting responses, with more suggestions for utilizing technology better.

The Nation's Ari Melber noted that NBC didn't respond to Jay Rosen's fact-check suggestion that he addressed to "Meet the Press" EP Betsy Fischer a couple weeks ago, but David Gregory responded in a statement for my piece. "That's a big shift from refusing to respond at all," Melber wrote. "And while it's an improvement, it also shows how these programs tend to be more responsive to other members of the media than to their audience."...read on

UPDATE II: Nisha Chittal writes: What the Sunday Morning Shows Need Is A New Media Makeover

What troubled me the most was a quote in Calderone’s piece from Robert Thompson, a professor at Syracuse, who argued that the case for modernizing Sunday shows wasn’t that relevant because young people wouldn’t care enough to watch the shows anyway...

{}

I fully believe that the Sunday morning talk shows need a new media makeover, and I have a handful of ideas for how they can do so. I admit that I know absolutely nothing about what goes into the making of a political talk show. But what I do know is that my generation wants transparency, participation, and engagement in their political process – and their news. So here are my suggestions on how the Sunday shows might undertake a new media makeover that could finally usher them into the year 2010...read on

Nisha has a lot of nice suggestions, but without fact checking all these innovations are useless. It comes down to the truth. Sure, some things can be debated but not the core issue of a story. When Giuliani said America didn't have a domestic attack under George Bush that was a flat out lie and it needs to be cleaned up immediately and if need be, Rudy should be suspended from TV for a year. Do you think that would help things along? We need the media to do a better job. PERIOD.

CNN has the full transcript:

Kurtz: I talked on this program last week about whether all the Sunday shows and, indeed, all television programs should do more fact-checking of what guests say when politicians come and sit in those seats and make claims, some of which don't always bear that much relation to reality.

I want to play some sound. Senator Jim DeMint, the Republican from South Carolina, went on the "CBS Early Show," MSNBC's "Morning Joe," and he talked with Gloria Borger here on STATE OF THE UNION, making a charge about President Obama and the effort against terrorism.

Let me play that, and you're going to see this from Rachel Maddow's MSNBC program and how she took it on, on a factual basis.

Continue reading »

No More Mister Nice Blog: Things that normal people are opposed to on principle, conservatives are opposed to only when they are happening to the "wrong people" or done for the "wrong reasons."

Washington's Blog: The woman who invented credit default swaps is one of the key architects of carbon derivatives, which would be at the very center of cap and trade

The Liberal OC: Stay classy, wingnut

Bitter Lawyer: The Profane, Pornographic, Anti-Glenn Beck World of Marc Randazza

his vorpal sword: Pearl Harbor Day + 68

OFF THE BEATEN PATH: BTC News, plain view, Petulant Rumblings, bastard.logic

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: (2337)

PLAYS: (5634)

Embed

Do ya think? Not only did Anita Dunn take a really strong stand for President Obama over the Roger Ailes run FOX Noise Propaganda Network, she also called out the conservative-teabagger movement in its entirety.

Dunn: A week ago many conservative commentators had been rejoicing in the fact, celebrating in the fact that the United States didn't get the Olympics, one week later they seem to be somewhat bitter at the fact that an American President was awarded the Nobel peace prize. So I think people will draw their own conclusions abut the reflexive negativity on the part of some commentators regardless of what happens...

Dunn held back no punches and stated fact. That's nice to see.

Howard Kurtz was pretty comical with his questions, but he was trying to provide some pushback, I guess.

KURTZ: You were quoted this week in Time Magazine as saying of Fox News, it's opinion journalism masquerading as news. What do you mean, "masquerading"?

See what I mean? But he did have to ask that.

DUNN: Well, you know, Howie, I think if we went back a year ago to the fall of 2008, to the campaign, that, you know, it was a time that this country was in two wars, that we'd had a financial collapse probably more significant than any financial collapse since the Great Depression. If you were a Fox News viewer in the fall election, what you would have seen would have been that the biggest story, the biggest threats facing America were a guy named Bill Ayers and something called Acorn, when the reality of it is that Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party.

Yep, that sums up FOX Noise. Then she delivered the knockout punch.

Think Progress writes:

Last month, President Obama appeared on five Sunday morning talk shows, including Univision’s Al Punto. He rejected Fox, however. Dunn revealed this morning that Obama did not appear on Fox because of its reflexive, partisan opposition to Obama. Obama will go on Fox in the future, Dunn said, but when he goes on, “he’s going on to debate the opposition.”

And then after Kurtz asked her if the president would go on FOX ever again, she said this too:

Dunn: That when he goes on FOX, he understands he's not going on, it really isn't a news network at this point, he's going to debate the opposition and that's fine.

The opposition, I loved that.

Howard asked someone from FOX to appear on Reliable Sources, but they refused and instead issued their usual statement. They'd rather have BillO speak to his audience than have anybody debate the facts -- especially, of course, on another network. FOX gives their usual argument that while they do have news, people really rely on their opinion programs. That's stunning really. MSNBC has their lefty hosts too, but during the day, you'll hear all the news and not MSNBC's opinion version of the news.

Kurtz did his best to find a few reporters that he thought weren't corrupted by Ailes so he mentioned Major Garrett. Do you think he's fair...Please say he's fair...Oh please oh please oh please. And Anita then calmly explained why they didn't go on Chris Wallace. Good for her.

And I told Major quite honestly that we had told Chris Wallace that having fact-checked an administration guest on his show -- something I've never seen a Sunday show do. And, Howie, you can show me examples of where Sunday shows have fact-checked previous weeks' guests, and I'd be happy to see those. We asked Chris, for an example, where he had done that to anybody besides somebody from the administration in the year 2009. And we're still waiting to hear from him.

She didn't stop there.

Dunn: Let's be realistic here, Howie. They are widely viewed as, you know, a part of the Republican Party. Take their talking points, put them on the air. Take their opposition research, put them on the air, and that’s fine. But let’s not pretend they’re a news network they way CNN is.

Kurtz did his best to try and get her to differentiate between the Beck's show and their little news nuggets, and she wouldn't back down. Where's the John Ensign coverage? she asks Howie. Hmmm, you won't see it much -- if at all -- on FOX. And that's only one example out of thousands.

Thought Crimes: This is how bad it is, and this is what a "perfeshunul jernelust" said 

Mondoweiss: Gambling With Conflict: How a neocon casino king from California funds the Israeli settler movement

The Washington Independent: Remember the Tancredo/ Buchanan aide who karate chopped a black woman and called her a "n*gger?"  Unsurprisingly, he also blogs at Clownhall! (h/t reader RepackRider)

Democurmudgeon: You're Fired! County GOP Chief's criticism of Limbaugh doesn't "represent the views of most members"

Where’s the Outrage?: Serious Healthcare Reform -Starting From Scratch

PERRspectives: Cheney and the asterisk Republicans

CNN is reporting, based on word from Hillary Clinton’s “inner circle” is pushing for some kind of “compromise,” and that “preliminary … formal talks” have begun about a Clinton exit strategy. TPM’s David Kurtz posted this video from CNN this morning:

Clinton, Malveaux reported, is “aware” of the formal discussions that have begun between the two campaigns, though officials in both camps have denied that any such talks are underway. Malveaux added that the talks haven’t exactly been going smoothly, describing them as “difficult.”

I'm afraid the CNN report raises more questions than it answers.

It's not surprising, then, that CNN is backing away from it's original report.

I have to give Howard Kurtz some credit because he hasn't backed away from the Military Generals scandal. He plays audio from one of the military analysts who was part of the propaganda scandal with the Pentagon and who lovingly praises Rumsfeld. It looks like O'Reilly was used in the same way that Dick Cheney used Russert in spreading their talking points to the American people. What say you, O'Reilly?

Download | play Download | play

Kurtz: The networks continue to ignore that New York Times story about TV's military analysts getting briefings and talking points from the Pentagon as they defended the Iraq war effort.

We reported twice on this program a huge batch of documents and e-mails show how cozy that relationship was. But now comes an audiotape of it, 2006 meeting between more than a dozen analysts and Don Rumsfeld, in which some of the retired military officers are giving the secretary advice on selling the war.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We would love for you to take the offensive and just go out there and just crush these people. You are the leader. You're our guy. You go on O'Reilly, and you've got him eating out of your hand because you're smart.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KURTZ: Eating out of your hand. And these men were presenting themselves to television viewers as objective military analysts.