You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1253)

PLAYS: (2164)

I'd like to know why the producers of This Week thought it was necessary to bring Laura Ingraham on the show to defend Fox News? She had about as much to add to the conversation as Michelle Malkin did not long ago. The rest of the Villagers did a pretty good job of circling the wagons around Fox whether the likes of Ingraham was there or not. Ingraham's hackery became even too much for the rest of them to take when she started comparing the White House's view of Fox to that of "Islamic Jihadists".

STEPHANOPOULOS: Now the president did cancel the subscription, George, but then he kind of blew it off. Is it time now as President Obama faces down FOX News down for a JFK moment?

WILL: I think so. Look, no president in the history of this republic has less reason to complain about his treatment in the press than President Obama. Liberals have academic, they have a mainstream media, they have Hollywood. They’re all for diversity and everything but thought. And out here is this one channel, FOX, and they’re all up in arms because in the words of Ms. Dunn of the White House, it is opinion journalism masquerading as news, which some of us would say describes the “New York Times” and certainly MSNBC.

PODESTA: Well, we have partners in journalism in America for a couple hundred years. But I think FOX takes it a little bit to a different level. I think Bill Shein, the vice president for news at FOX came out and said, “We are the opposition.” You know, that I think, can you imagine David Westin going out and saying something like that? Anybody, really in the mainstream news organization, they’re organizing. And I think it seems to me they were overcome with that feeling of joy you get from telling the truth once in a while. And probably they may actually even regret going as far as they have.

INGRAHAM: Well as the FOX representative on this show, by the way, you’re all going to be banned from any future White House events from having me at this table.

Bill Shein said that and I know him well. He said that, because he believes that of all the networks, FOX was going to hold the administration the most accountable. Last time I checked, I thought that was the role of the press. I think and again, I might not be invited back George, but when Charlie Gibson didn’t know what the ACORN story was all about, that was a collective gasp you heard across the United States. Charlie Gibson is an esteemed journalist, how do you not know a story about a group where President Obama cut his political teeth that had been exposed to the extent that Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill were ready to pull the rug out from under them in their funding? That’s the kind of the story that the White House doesn’t want to have reported and repeated on other networks. That’s why they don’t like FOX News.

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (881)

PLAYS: (2463)

On This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Michelle Malkin tries to claim that the tea party movement is grass roots, and that it's 1993 all over again with health care reform.

Malkin: It's going to be a monumental month on the ground, and we've seen this percolating since February, and I've been covering the tea party movement, these counter-insurgencies on tax payer rights groups, and I think that this administration and the Democrats have vastly underestimated just how grass roots this movement is. And I think it's been, I think it's been comforting to think that it comes from the top...

Stephanopoulos: And it's a grass roots movement organized around what? What is the issue?

Malkin: Around larger government, reckless spending, and not only the redistribution of wealth, but now the redistribution of health. And I think that the White House has failed to counter the basic notion that people's health care "rights" or entitlements are going to be redistributed by social engineers. And we've seen these "town halls gone wild", that's the phrase now and I think as these law makers go back they're going to face the heat. These You Tube videos are viral, and to me it's actually very reminiscent of Hillary-Care fifteen years ago today. You probably remember this. When Hillary went to Seattle to sell the health care plan it was really a turning point when she was booed, directly, and I'm, I lived and reported in Seattle for three years. That was an extraordinary event. And we're going to see a replay of that.

The other guests go on to explain why these times have very little in common with 1993 when Hillary Clinton was trying to push health care reform.

Think Progress has the break down on how absurd Malkin's remarks are trying to claim that the tea bag movement is even remotely a grass roots one. Media Matters has some rebuttal on her new book: Malkin distorts Michelle Obama biography to attack her and her father as corrupt.

Attytood's Will Bunch brings two telling pieces of journalism news to our attention - first, that Andrew Rosenthal, the New York Times editorial page editor, admits that it's easier to get a slot on its letters-to-the-editor page if you are a conservative:

I’ll be honest: Because of the nature of our readers, letter writers who defend Republican, conservative or right-wing positions on many topics have a higher shot at being published.

And second, that Cynthia Tucker -- the Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial page editor of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution -- is being moved up and out of her slot in an apparent move to woo back conservative suburban readers. Will says:

[...] For the first time in generations, the state’s leading editorial page finally will have abandoned its mission as a progressive voice in favor of a carefully constructed mirage of “balance” — designed not to tell the truth, whether it’s unpopular or not, as much as to mollify conservative readers.

He lays out the case for why journalists have become far too accommodating to conservatives:

What's the one liberal value that journalists retain as we grow long in the tooth and rise up the salary ladder? Liberal guilt. Politicians have played on this successfully for 40 years, ever since too many newsrooms cowered from Spiro Agnew calling us "nattering nabobs of negativism." As I wrote about in my recent book "Tear Down This Myth," Ronald Reagan's "teflon presidency" was in good measure due to journalists fearful they'd be accused of liberal bias with a too aggressive posture.

At every newspaper, big and small, the short-term social and economic incentives are far too often weighted in favor of "mushy middle" journalism. Even if your editor backs you (and that's not a given), there's still the publisher - and he doesn't want to hear complaints about his paper's "liberal bias" at the next Chamber of Commerce luncheon.

Will points out something I've been saying for years about the so-called "liberal" media: They're usually social liberals, but policy conservatives. While it's rare that a journalist gives a damn about your skin color, who you sleep with or what you smoke, they're still mostly establishment types who don't want to rock the boat - or their 401(k)s. They believe far too fervently in the judgment of an elite class, because they see themselves as part of that elite.

That explains what he describes here:

Continue reading »

This time O'Reilly releases his flunkie on Pulitzer Prize-winning editor of the Atlanta-Journal Constitution Cynthia Tucker. Ms. Tucker's crime? Criticizing Bill O'Reilly for having a double standard when it comes to the teen pregnancies of Jamie Lynn Spears and Bristol Palin.

Download | play Download | play (h/t Bill W.)

O’Reilly guy: “Cynthia, in your column, were you comparing Bristol Palin to Jamie Lynn Spears?”

Cynthia: “In my column, I was criticizing Bill O”Reilly. And I stand by that.”

O’Reilly guy: “Bill pointed out that Jamie Lynn Spears was running around unsupervised. You know that. So you were saying that Bristol Palin was running around unsupervised.”

Cynthia: “If I said that, read that part. You’re holding the column (in your hand). Read where I said Bristol Palin was running around unsupervised.”

O’Reilly guy: “You inferred it.”

Cynthia: “I inferred O’Reilly is a hypocrite. And I stand by that. Good day, gentlemen. I’m going inside to finish my Saturday chores.”

Transcript via Kos, who writes:

Does O'Reilly really want to maintain that the difference between Jamie Lynn and Bristol is that the Spears daughter was "running around unsupervised"? Because if O'Reilly insists that Bristol, to the contrary, was supervised, then how exactly did she get knocked up? It would follow that ... yeah. Gross. And somehow, I really, really doubt that's what happened.

Bill O'Reilly is the ultimate coward. Not only is he incapable of admitting he's wrong when called on it, he sends his minions out to harass these people at their homes. How petty can this guy be?

Act now and you'll get Bill O'Reilly's Greatest Ambush Hits, including Rep. Wexler, Bill Moyers, Arianna Huffington, GE CEO Immelt, Scott McClellan, and Mark Cuban.

Also be sure to check out Amato's: Handy Tips To Defend Yourself Against The Falafel Guy Fatwa