Go Home

media critic

6 documents found in 0.001 seconds.

Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (1287)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (5520)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

Howard Kurtz this weekend was only the latest media critic to pile on Lou Dobbs for his promotion of the Birthers' conspiracy theories on CNN. Like nearly everyone else, Kurtz dismissed the coverage of the story as "ludicrous," and his guests pointed out how profoundly irresponsible it was.

Indeed, Kurtz was a bit late to the story, as Jamison Foser observed:

Well, by the time Kurtz got around to addressing the issue on today's Reliable Sources, CNN President Jonathan Klein had weighed in, calling Dobbs' birtherism "legitimate" and denouncing Dobbs' critics as "people with a partisan point of view from one extreme." (Klein had earlier indicated that the story was dead and the birthers' claims baseless; his flip-flop raises the question of who is in charge -- Klein or Dobbs.)

... Had Kurtz addressed the Dobbs issue last week, when he should have, he might have been able to get away with not coming back to it. But by waiting until today, he put himself in a position where he had to either address Klein's comments, or shy away from criticizing the boss. He chose to keep quiet about Klein. And so we learned from Kurtz's unwillingness to criticize Klein that he likes having the job of media critic more than he likes doing the job of media critic.

As Eric Boehlert observes, the whole dustup has been overall a good thing:

But there was some good news last week, and it came from watching Dobbs' slow motion train wreck unfold on the airwaves. It came from seeing how eagerly -- how convincingly -- the birther claims were debunked, not only online by progressives, but within the mainstream press as well -- the same mainstream press that's often reluctant to show up high-profile media players such as Dobbs, no matter how badly it has botched the facts. And let's not forget conservatives, who dismissed and ridiculed the birther claims.

In the case of the birthers, though, Dobbs' corporate media colleagues were utterly relentless in their fact-checking. I still don't think Dobbs knows what hit him. And frankly, I'm not sure I've ever seen such a well-deserved media pile-on. It's hard to see how Dobbs' career survives the humiliation.

Of course, it's always dangerous when hateful and cuckoo conspiracy theories are ushered into the mainstream and right-wing critics are given a platform to peddle their hateful whodunits about Obama's nationality the way Dobbs did. But, in this case, I almost think it was worth running that risk in order to watch the tidal wave of media disapproval that Dobbs' fearmongering unleashed.

This is all true. It certainly is a heartening sign that Dobbs is finally facing this tidal wave for attempting to present as mainstream absurd rhetoric from the fringes of the far right -- because he has been getting away with doing precisely that for years.

Most of the time, this has involved his rantings about immigration, including his false claims that immigrants were bringing leprosy across the border and that they intended to take back the American Southwest for Mexico. As Alex Koppelman noted at the time, there was a consistent pattern even back then of Dobbs drawing on beyond-dubious far-right fringe sources for his "reporting."

Meanwhile, Dobbs has been overly generous in his dealings with right-wing extremists on his show. He's hosted Glenn Spencer of American Border Patrol without explaining to his audience that ABP is a longtime SPLC-designated hate group, and for good reason: they are unmistakably racist and white supremacist. He also hosted many leaders of the Minutemen movement (most notably Chris Simcox) on his programs over the years while hailing them as "a neighborhood watch" -- though he noticeably has failed to report it when the evidence becomes violently manifest that it is not anyone's idea of a civic-minded organization. More recently, Dobbs was one of the many right-wing pundits who attacked the Department of Homeland Security for its warnings about right-wing extremists.

That Dobbs has been permitted to operate in this fashion without facing the consequences among his fellow journalists has been one of the real ongoing media scandals that no one in the media wants to write about. So now it's out in the open -- and about time.

MM has put together a page where you can chime in on CNN's Lou Dobbs problem. Go make yourself heard.



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (2054)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (5542)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

If you want an example of how "centrism" is its own specially blinkered ideology, check out the rant from David Zurawik, the Baltimore Sun's media critic, yesterday on CNN's Reliable Sources with Howard Kurtz:

OLBERMANN: You saved no one, Mr. Cheney. All you did was help kill Americans.

In the name of God, go.

(END VIDEO CLIP) KURTZ: David Zurawik, what do you make of a cable culture where some of these anchors and hosts get really, really mad, or upset or emotional, and it seems to work for them?

ZURAWIK: Howie, they're speaking for a visceral response. And honestly -- I don't want to overstate this, Howie, and you know from time to time I do -- risk that. But it's really that path lies fascism.

I mean, what we need as a democracy is reliable information. This is the opposite of it.

And by the way, that clip of Olbermann just really, I think, encapsulates it. This is a bizarro world or cartoon version of Edward R. Murrow with the cadence and this arch rhetoric and all this, but he is saying madman stuff.

So, heated debate is the sign of fascism? Sounds like Zurawick has been reading Jonah Goldberg.

A clue for David Zurawick: Keith Olbermann may have been contentious and even tendentious, but there's a factual case behind his observations that Dick Cheney likely did not save any lives -- after all, 3,000 Americans died on his watch on 9/11, and there is simply no public evidence whatsoever that the measures he enacted afterward actually thwarted any serious terrorist acts -- and his actions in promoting the invasion of Iraq in fact cost thousands of American lives, and over a hundred thousand Iraqi civilians' lives.

That's called robust debate. Fascism, on the other hand, entails the antithesis of debate -- it argues for the elimination of the opposition, not engagement. And it acts accordingly. When we see Keith Olbermann organizing or simply encouraging street thugs to go out and beat up Dick Cheney and his supporters, then he might have a legitimate concern about fascism.

Moreover, there's nothing quite as overheated, as contentious and tendentious, as calling people fascists, is there? -- particularly when you use the term as carelessly and thoughtlessly as Zurawick does here. Hello, pot, meet kettle.

But the really bizarre aspect of this is that Zurawick is really most upset about MSNBC in general, who he attacked throughout the segment (he doesn't like their weekend fill-in programming, but exactly what kind of media critic tries to claim that fill-in programming is evidence that MSNBC doesn't staff its national bureaus? Besides an utterly ignorant one, that is?).

Moreover, Zurawick seems to think the MSNBC invented the ideologically leaning opinion-news format that has him so worked up:

Continue reading »



ROFLMAO

mark-williams.jpg ROFLMAO= "Rolling on Floor Laughing My Ass Off"

Jane has some observations about Mark Williams.

video_wmv Download (5760) | Play (6238) video_wmv Download (3719) | Play (3698) (h/t Scarce)

Hamsher: So let me do the dirty work and mention what the wonks won’t — this guy has a perfectly frozen forehead. Per. fect. ly. Watch the clip at Media Matters and look betwen his eyes and at his eyebrows. Absolutely immobile. No lift, no scrunch. Nobody of Williams’ age has that little movement without being shot to shit with Botox unless they’ve got some sort of neurological disorder. Watch him. He’s a preening, vain little trash talking popinjay and my guess is Matthews (or any other anchor) probably doesn’t want anyone delving too heavily into the subject of cosmetic enhancement on his show lest the floodgates open and everyone’s fair game.

You know?

Can we call him Botox Mark? Media Matters supplies the transcript and has video also:

WILLIAMS: I hope what we get is the truth from General Petraeus about every step forward on the ground being made by the military since we started this being ruined, and two steps backwards being taken on Capitol Hill, by the Democrats playing politics with this and plucking the pennies off the eyelids of the newly dead. Meanwhile, "Nancy Botox" is out there saying, you know, "We're leaving! We're running! We're gonna go away!"

MATTHEWS: This doesn't help me any.

MATTHEWS: You know, Mark, that doesn't help me any.

MSNBC needs to answer a simple question. Why is he on your network? Media criticism has aways been a big part of C&L....And you wonder why I've written about him for a few days...



Open Letter to the Media

via Liberal Oasis: Subject: Know Your (Blogging) Enemy-(excerpts)

...Which implies that there is something wrong with “both sides,” namely, liberal blogs and conservative blogs. As far you’re concerned, as far the media’s long-term survival is concerned, there is only one “wrong” side.

The side that wants you destroyed. The conservative side. When conservative blogs criticize reporters and media outlets, their long-term goal is to permanently wreck your credibility...read on

The goal of liberal media criticism is completely different.

At the risk of inappropriately speaking on the behalf of the liberal blogosphere, we don’t want to hobble you. We want to help you. We are customers begging for better product. We want a media that reports, not regurgitates. We want to know that you don’t need them. They don’t care about your well-being. We do.

He goes on to make some great points. Please read the whole letter and tell me if he isn't right on the mark.



Crooks and Liars Editors

Robert Shaw from the LA Times asks the question: Do bloggers deserve basic journalistic protections?

He writes: "When I or virtually any other mainstream journalist writes something, it goes through several filters before the reader sees it. At least four experienced Times editors will have examined this column, for example. They will have checked it for accuracy, fairness, grammar, taste and libel, among other things."...

I must admit that our editors "Sam" and "Babe" are a little lacking in their spell checking abiliies, as I am repeatedly made aware of all the typo's. So please when you have a problem with something that shows up on the blog, address it to my editors.

Digby writes: "LA Times Media critic David Shaw claims in today's paper that bloggers don't deserve the reporter's privilege because they are lazy, careless and inaccurate. In the process of explaining why, he makes a couple of whopping mistakes that one can only assume he makes because he is lazy and careless."

Atrios writes: I'm happy for people to make serious criticisms of the blugosphere, though when they do they should stop comparing bluggers to something which is only a very tiny part of what modern day "journalism" is. And, while they're at it, they could focus some more attention on something they've been ignoring for years -- talk radio....

Bloggers really have these guys rattled.

Happy Easter to all who celebrate.



Hannity has ties with Dem Bashing guest

via Media Matters
According to Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz, FOX News host Sean Hannity acknowledged that he "probably should have" told his viewers that he sits on the advisory board of frequent Hannity & Colmes guest Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson's Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny (BOND)....read on

Kurtz noted in his January 24 "Media Notes" column that Hannity did not disclose his connection to Peterson's organization during the reverend's most recent appearance on Hannity & Colmes January 17. Kurtz wrote: "Nor did he mention it on Peterson's 12 previous appearances on the program since 2002."