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

DOWNLOADS: (1189)

PLAYS: (3674)

Sarah Palin thinks she's got it covered now in explaining why she did so badly when interviewed by actual journalists in her failed vice-presidential campaign last year. She went on The O'Reilly Factor last night and told BillO that a simple foreign-policy question like Charles Gibson's query about the Bush Doctrine was just a "gotcha technique" by the liberal media (instead of a routine question intended to ascertain her bearings on foreign policy).

And Katie Couric? That was just a reaction to Katie's snotty questions:

O'Reilly: Katie Couric's a different story. Katie Couric asked you an easy question and you booted it, governor.

Palin: I sure did.

[Plays video]

COURIC: What newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this — to stay informed and to understand the world?

PALIN: I’ve read most of them again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media —

COURIC: But what ones specifically? I’m curious.

PALIN: Um, all of them ...

O'Reilly: Why did you boot it? I mean, if somebody asks what do you read, I say I read the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, I could reel them off in my sleep, you couldn't do it.

Palin: Well, of course I could. Of course I could.

O'Reilly: Well, why didn't you?

Palin: It's ridiculous to suggest that or say I couldn't tell people what I read. Because by that point already, although it was relatively early in that multi-segmented interview with Katie Couric -- it was, it was quite obvious that it was going to be a bit of an annoying interview with a badgering of the questions. It seemed to me that she didn't know anything about Alaska, about my job as governor, about my accomplishments as mayor or governor, my record. And a question like that, though, yeah, I booted it, I screwed up, I should have been more patient and more gracious in my answer, it seemed to me the question was more along the lines of -- Do you read? How do you stay in touch with the real world?

O'Reilly: See, that was your inexperience.

Palin: It was my inexperience with having to deal with a condescending, badgering line of questioning. No -- no reflection at all on my inexperience in terms of administrative record or accomplishments or vision for America.

Pardon me while I call b-llsh-t. "What kinds of things do you read?" is a stock question of the political journalist when querying candidates, particularly those new on the scene. And as you can see from watching the clip that O'Reilly shows, there was nothing high-handed or suggestive of "Do you read?" in Couric's question.

You can watch the longer clip of this portion of the interview here. Palin is not bridling at Couric's arrogance -- she's drawing a blank and reaching for straws.

But in Palinopia, of course, she's just being "human." And I guess that's right, to an extent -- since prevaricating and dodging and making up lame excuses is part of the human condition too. Just not a very attractive or inspiring one.

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

DOWNLOADS: (1111)

PLAYS: (1327)

Lou Dobbs claimed on his radio show this week that the evil people who have targeted him for removal from his CNN anchor's seat are now taking shots at him and his wife in their home:

"But I want to tell you, when you talk about what they've done - they've created an atmosphere and they've been unrelenting in their propaganda," Dobbs said. "Three weeks ago this morning, a shot was fired at my house where I live. My wife was standing out and that followed weeks and weeks of threatening phone calls."

Dobbs detailed the event, the notification of law enforcement and threatening phone calls he had received after the fact.

"And, as I told the state patrol, and by the way, the New Jersey State Patrol is absolutely terrific - they responded instantly. But this shot was fired with my wife not, I don't know, 15 feet away and we had threatening phone calls that I decided not to report because I get threatening phone calls," Dobbs continued. "I now - it's become a way of life - the anger, the hate, the vitriol, but it's taken a different tone where they've threatened my wife. They've now fired a shot at my house while my wife was standing next to the car. It's become something else."

The CNN host later took a shot at the "national liberal media," which he claims has taken a side on the immigration issue and has created this sort of reckless environment.

Naturally, not only did Newsbusters sucker for this story, but so did Bill O'Reilly on his Fox News show last night, tut-tutting the incident as "a very serious matter."

The only problem: It was almost certainly a stray shot from a hunter's rifle, as Andrea Nill at ThinkProgress reported yesterday, well before O'Reilly's broadcast:

While Dobbs and his anti-immigrant supporters were quick to jump to conclusions about the motive of the shooting, Sgt. Stephen Jones confirmed to ThinkProgress this morning that the New Jersey State Police are stilling “looking at all the possibilities” and that a hunting-related accident has not been ruled out.

Sgt. Jones, a spokesperson for the New Jersey State Police, confirmed that a bullet was found which struck the siding of Dobbs’ house. However, he pointed out that Dobbs’ residence is located in a “very rural” area. “With hunting season starting up,” such incidents are “not at all uncommon,” Jones told us.

CNN had even more details:

"State Police Sgt. Steve Jones said Thursday that his department received a call from Dobbs' wife, who heard a shot and said a bullet hit her house. Jones said she had been outside her house with "an employee who worked with Dobbs" at 10:25 a.m. October 5.

Jones said a bullet struck the section of the house where the attic is but didn't penetrate the dwelling. He said the bullet fell to the ground and was recovered. Dobbs' wife saw damage to the siding, Jones said.

"The bullet was taken by our detectives and turned over to our ballistics unit for further analysis," Jones said. "At this point, all I can say is that it appears to be a long gun, not a handgun or shotgun."

..... Police aren't saying for now that the shot was fired at the house but only, as Jones said, that it struck the house. A stray shot from a long gun would not be a "totally uncommon occurrence because of the hunters and target shooters" in the region, Jones said.

Jones couldn't give his opinion on what kind of shooting this might be, and he said the incident is being investigated "further past a stray hunter's bullet" because of Dobbs' "public persona." Police have conducted interviews and patrolled the area, Jones said."

A shot fired deliberately to terrorize the Dobbses would have been fired from a distance close enough to penetrate the house siding. The fact that it fell off the siding tells you this shot was fired from very, very far away.

We take violence seriously, and any actual incident of anyone taking a shot at Dobbs, his wife, or even his home would be a terrible thing.

But crying wolf -- and especially trying to blame his critics for such an incident -- that's a whole 'nother ball game. One that invites nothing but contempt.

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

DOWNLOADS: 30

PLAYS: 15

(I.F. Stone and friend - even in 1958 the Liberal Media was a myth)

Our news media has gone through countless changes since this interview was conducted in 1958. It was before the days of "breaking news" 24 hour news cycles, Satellite feeds, cable and instant access. It was also the days before media conglomerates, info-tainment and reality TV.

But even in 1958 there were problems. Newspapers at the time were still the main source for getting news, with radio a close second. Most major city newspapers published twice a day. But even with that, a lot of stories just weren't covered. A lot of news items were downplayed and only given cursory mention, usually towards the back of a paper with one or two lines.

This program, part of the Open Mind series featured interviews with prominent newspaper figures of the time. Herbert Brucker, who was chairman of the Freedom of Information Committee of the American Society of Newspaper Editors. William J. Miller, chief Editorial writer for the New York Herald Tribune, and I.F. Stone, publisher of I.F. Stone's Weekly. . .

I.F. Stone: “I think the three things wrong with the American press, a very good press I think. Better than that of most countries, except perhaps England. They have a very good press. The three things wrong with it are these – first of all, as soon as you get away from the Eastern seaboard, there are very few papers in this country that run enough news matter to make possible a considered judgment on public affairs. The average city daily does not run enough news, that’s the first big criticism of it. Second thing is the newspapers, and to a greater degree radio and television are adjuncts of advertisers. Advertisers object to ideas that might disturb anybody. So there’s a tendency, not to spread wicked ideas or bad ideas, but no ideas. So as not to upset any possible customer. And the third thing is, that since it takes a lot of money to own a newspaper, except a small one like mine, most publishers are Republicans.”

So even in 1958 all was not rosy with the media. And the factors in that discontent seem to be the same, despite protests to the contrary.

Journalists are often surprised when they see themselves criticized because they think that they are above it all, but when you see something like this come up in print it makes you just shake your head. Howard Kurtz' newest column portrays Paul Krugman as an Obama cheerleader now being lost over his handling of the health care debate.

A president is going to be smacked around from the moment he takes office and the uplifting rhetoric of campaign rallies meets the gritty reality of governing.

But the criticism of Barack Obama has turned strikingly personal as some of his liberal media allies have gone wobbly on him. After playing a cheer-leading role during the campaign, some are bluntly questioning whether he's up to the job.

If Obama is losing Paul Krugman, can the rest of the left be far behind?

Really, this is who he picks as a cheerleader? Paul Krugman has been analyzing President Obama's choices ever since the primaries began and he was often critical of the then Senator all the way through to his winning the election. Krugman took a lot of heat when he criticized Obama's initial health care plan and he's been outspoken ever since on all issues economic including writing that he thought the stimulus wasn't big enough, but Howard makes it seem like Krugman was an Obama cheerleader right from the start.

Dean Baker caught this earlier today.

Those of you who remember Paul Krugman's often harsh criticisms of Obama during the election campaign might be surprised to read Howard Kurtz's media column which puts him first among the disappointed former Obama cheerleaders. Krugman has certainly been critical of Obama's performance in office, but this is only news for Kurtz, not people familiar with Krugman's writings.

All Villagers aren't wrong in everything they write obviously, certainly not Kurtz, but this latest error is laughable. I can understand if it was a matter of interpretation, but come on Howard, this one wasn't even close to being on the mark. (h/t Atrios)

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

DOWNLOADS: (816)

PLAYS: (4017)

Poor little old innocent Lou Dobbs. That big, bad "left wing" media is attacking him for "simply asking questions". Oh...so that's what you were doing? So saying he had a "document problem" wasn't meant to imply he's an illegal alien, right Lou?

I'd say rather than the "left wing" media, it's more just anyone who isn't insane and calls you out for what you're doing, which is feeding the crazies with this birther nonsense, but who am I to quibble? If you want to continue to implode on national television night after night and make an utter fool of yourself, don't let me stop you.

Although Dobbs admits that he thinks the President is a citizen, he still thinks this is a subject worth carrying on about, which Roland Martin does a pretty good job of taking him to task for. He beat back Rep. Ted Poe's nonsense over the validity of what the State of Hawaii has given as proof of Obama's birth as well. I'm actually surprised Martin didn't say something back to hot head Dobbs when he told him he needed to keep his cool. Dobbs has no room to talk about anyone else losing their temper after his nightly rants on illegal immigrants or whatever topic du jour has him baring his teeth in rage.

Roland Martin has it right here. If Dobbs admits there is no question about whether the President is a natural born citizen of the United States, why does he feel the need to keep saying there's a controversy? Dobbs knows full well what he's doing but could care less what the ramifications are.

DOBBS: President Obama promised transparency and openness in his administration. Yet, he's chosen not to release his original birth certificate or a copy of it.

And a number of Americans are asking, why not? The left-wing media has attacked me because I simply asked the question. Meanwhile, the state of Hawaii says it can't release a paper copy of the president's original birth certificate because they say the state government discarded the original document when the health department records went electronic some eight years ago.

That explanation, however, has not satisfied some critic.

Joining me now, Roland Martin. He's CNN contributor, syndicated columnist. And joining us as well, Congressman Ted Poe.

Before we get started, I want to be clear where I stand, because the -- the left-wing media kind of forgot to leave out -- kind of left a few things out. It was inconvenient to their stories.

Just -- just one statement, very quickly, if you will. Play that.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP, JULY 21, 2009)

DOBBS: I think the president of the United States is a citizen. But what I don't understand is why he hasn't just produced it to get this -- this noise out of the way.

I believe Barack Obama is a citizen of the United States, folks. Don't you? But I do have a couple of little questions, like you. Why not just provide a copy of the birth certificate? That's entirely within the president's power.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

DOBBS: Why not? That's the question, Roland Martin. What's the answer?

ROLAND MARTIN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, first and foremost, he's produced the document he received from the state of Hawaii.

Now, you are saying, where's the original? According to the state of Hawaii, that is the document that establishes where he was born. So, what is the issue?

DOBBS: So, you don't think...

(CROSSTALK)

DOBBS: So, you don't think the president has a copy?

Continue reading »

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

DOWNLOADS: (1258)

PLAYS: (1897)

On Monday night, Glenn Beck completely ignored the murder of Dr. George Tiller on his hourlong program, despite it being the nation's top story. Apparently he -- like his heroine, Sarah Palin -- doesn't see abortion-clinic violence as terrorism. And goodness no, Bill O'Reilly had no hand in this!

No big deal, people. Move along, move along.

But then last night, Beck went on Bill O'Reilly's program to back up O'Reilly's claim that the tragic murder of a military recruiter in Arkansas by a Muslim man angry about the American invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan could just as easily be blamed on the liberal media, NBC in particular.

Beck read on air the letter he wrote to NBC's Jeffrey Immelt:

Instead of focusing on attacking Bill O'Reilly, your journalists should focus on getting their facts right. If I applied the reasoning of your networks to their natural end, we'd all live in a world where someone couldn't express their opinion against infidelity -- because by your standard, you'd blame that person for every husband who killed his cheating wife. The government couldn't alert a family whenever a pedophile moved into their neighborhood, because by your network's standard, they'd be responsible for someone attacking that offender. Your network couldn't say that global warming was a danger to the earth, because by your network standard, you'd be responsible every time ELF burned down a housing development or a car dealership.

This is, of course, pure obfuscation. Outside of the pedophile example, Beck is describing discussions of policy and issues as causing various acts of violence. But that causal connection is tenuous at best.

On the other hand, there is a very clear causal connection between the overt demonization of people and violence that occurs against them. Bill O'Reilly held an individual up for extreme demonization, describing him not merely as someone he opposed but as a "baby killer" and "mass murderer". This kind of demonization in particular is guaranteed to produce violence, because of course the chief means of stopping a wanton killer is the use of deadly force, and O'Reilly in fact openly suggested that such force might be applied to Dr. Tiller.

Continue reading »

  After a mini-rant about how the "liberal media" has lost all sense of objectivity this election cycle, Lou Dobbs invites media "critic" Howard Kurtz on to "set him straight." As anyone who has watched/read Kurtz over the years knows, he couldn't agree more.

Download | play   Download | play   (h/t Heather)

DOBBS: It is, I think, a fairly safe assertion to put forward that the national media is liberal, it's biased and this year, at least to me, and as an advocacy journal, I can say these sorts of things here on CNN, I think they're missing a lot under the veil of objectivity and the impulses of something less than objective, at least in my view.

Let me turn to you first, Howard, just as a matter of straightforward fact, I believe, the fact of my opinion, anyway, I believe that the national media has revealed a lack of objectivity unprecedented in campaign coverage.

KURTZ: If you look at the last year and a half, Lou, I've never seen so much coverage and so much positive coverage of a presidential candidate as Barack Obama has gotten up through the overseas trip where some of the coverage was just gushing. In recent weeks, I think there's been a little more skepticism in the coverage, not because of any ethical re-assessment but because the race has tightened which makes poll-driven journalists wonder well what's he doing wrong. Why isn't he leading this race in a democratic year by ten points?

You're right, Howard: I can't even begin to imagine how many voters Obama picked up while having to defend himself from accusations by the media of being a secret Muslim who hates America and won't say the pledge of allegiance. Is this guy freaking serious?

Glenn has a great post up about the "liberal media," which he sums up thusly, borrowing a line from Duncan:

"Your liberal media: no liberals allowed."

Recommended reading on Kurtz at "The Daily Howler".

KURTZ JUMPS INTO THE TANK: Howard Kurtz is deep in the tank as he begins today's report. You'll rarely see a reporter recite a political party's line quite the way Kurtz recites the GOP line as he opens: 

From the moment Sarah Palin stepped onto the national stage, she was mauled, minimized and manhandled by an openly skeptical media establishment.
That lasted six days. By Thursday morning, after a speech in which she chided the journalistic elite, the previously obscure governor of Alaska was being hailed by many of the same media gurus.

The media's tattered reputation has not fared as well, not after the frenzy over Palin's mothering skills, her baby and her pregnant teenage daughter. 

Truly, that's quite a statement-and it's the straight Republican line. Palin was "mauled and manhandled by an openly skeptical media establishment," Kurtz says. But go ahead! Just try to find Kurtz's support for that remarkable statement...read on