DOWNLOADS: (118)

PLAYS: (1810)

Embed

This had to be one of the most surreal and uncomfortable interviews in the history of the Sunday news shows.

Politico's Dylan Byers and NPR’s David Folkenflik took over the interviewing reins from Howard Kurtz on Reliable Sources to ask for his explanation and contrition over being fired by The Daily Beast this week.

They were not gentle to Kurtz, variously characterizing him as insensitive, slow to respond to corrections, and playing across the boundaries of journalistic ethics more times than a media journalist tasked to look at how the media does their jobs should do. Clearly feeling that more than his job was on the line, his reputation in tatters, Kurtz took his penance and apologized several times.

Kurtz's dismissal stemmed from his reporting on pro basketball player Jason Collins coming out this week. Kurtz initially insisted that Collins hadn't been forthcoming, and lied about having been engaged to a woman at one point in his life.

Mr. Kurtz was embroiled in a controversy over a blog post he wrote about the basketball player Jason Collins. Mr. Collins co-wrote a Sports Illustrated article that was published on Monday in which he acknowledged that he was gay. In a post this week, Mr. Kurtz criticized Mr. Collins for not admitting in the article that he had once been engaged to be married.

Mr. Collins, however, had written about his engagement to a woman. The error made it appear as if Mr. Kurtz had not read the material, and he became the target of gleeful bashing on Twitter. The Daily Beast retracted the post on Thursday.

When the Twitterverse pointed out to Kurtz that Collins had been open about being in a heterosexual relationship (why this matters has yet to be explained to me), Kurtz didn't immediately retract his post, but claimed that Collins had "downplayed" the engagement. I'm not sure how much more Collins needed to highlight it than writing this:

When I was younger I dated women. I even got engaged. I thought I had to live a certain way. I thought I needed to marry a woman and raise kids with her. I kept telling myself the sky was red, but I always knew it was blue.

But clearly, it satisfied everyone but Howard Kurtz. So after much scorn, both on Twitter and in the comments, the Daily Beast retracted the post fully and Executive Editor Tina Brown issued a Twitter statement that Kurtz and the Beast had mutually parted ways. It wasn't the only reason the Daily Beast wanted to be rid of Kurtz--reportedly, in addition to your basic Journalism 101 errors, they were troubled by the amount of time he spent promoting another site--The Daily Download--of which he was a freelance contributer--than the site that actually employed him.

Despite having his own show on CNN, Kurtz has dedicated much of his recent time to a new venture: a website called “The Daily Download,” where he regularly appears in video segments with the site’s founder and editor Lauren Ashburn. That preoccupation seems to have taken a toll on Kurtz’s attention span and focus. [..]

The decision to add “The Daily Download” to this list of responsibilities has confounded some of Kurtz’s viewers.

”What would I go to this site for? As another place Howard Kurtz does his able thing on the week’s media news? Okay, but why does he need that? And why do we? He’s got the Daily Beast and CNN: plenty of platform,” Jay Rosen, the New York University journalism professor, wrote in an email to POLITICO. “Daily Download resists understanding.”

Kurtz has written some incredibly sloppy posts in the last few years, which a self-professed media watchdog probably ought to have enough ethics and skills to avoid. It's now up to CNN if they still want to continue to prop up the hackery. Reportedly, his show is "under review" by CNN.

Crooked Timber reminded me that yesterday it was Krauthammer day!

It’s now been exactly a decade since Charles Krauthammer told us that

Hans Blix had five months to find weapons. He found nothing. We’ve had five weeks. Come back to me in five months. If we haven’t found any, we will have a credibility problem.

Charles Krauthammer has not only had that five month period, but twenty-three other five month periods after that first one, for weapons of mass destruction to be found. It’s news to no-one that no weapons have been found. It’s news to no-one that the reason they haven’t been found is because they weren’t there in the first place.

It’s news to no one that Charles Krauthammer is still a columnist at the Washington Post, a syndicated columnist across the US, and a regular talking head on TV. It’s news to no-one that Fred Hiatt, his then-boss and fellow Iraq bullshit artist is still the editor of the Washington Post’s editorial page. Or that Jackson Diehl, who I heard at the time from Washington Post people was even worse than Hiatt, is still there too.

Conservatives and neocons attacked Hans Blix and every other Iraq war cautioner and dissenter with as much ink, talk and hatred that they could muster up and they didn't have to worry about any consequences for their actions because of their media accomplices. Atrios brought us the Friedman Unit after his laughable time tables.

The term is in reference to a May 16, 2006, article by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) detailing the repeated use by columnist Thomas Friedman of "the next six months" as the period in which, according to Friedman, "we're going to find out... whether a decent outcome is possible" in the Iraq War.[4]

So how many F.U.s have gone by so far since we attacked Iraq? What shall we call all those who fall into Krauthammer's paradigm?

Back in the good old days, when there were only three evening network news shows or you had to wait until morning to get the paper, journalists had the luxury of time to confirm information and get it right. That's why, for the most part, people trusted the news. But now, in the age of 24 hour cable stations and the internet and social media, news organizations don't think they have that luxury. The need to be first trumps the need to be right. That's why you'll see such ludicrous things as cable news "professionals" checking their cell phone Twitter feeds on air just to have something to report, accuracy be damned.

The advent of citizen investigative journalism on sites like Reddit and Twitter haven't helped. These usurpers aren't necessarily any more accurate (the floating that one of the suspects was actually missing college student Sunil Tripathi originated with a high school friend who thought she recognized him from the initial fuzzy photos released by the FBI). But they do prove a competitive thorn in the side of an industry that already suffers from a plethora of choices.

Nevertheless, there were some massive failures on the part of the media this week that were absolutely inexcusable and the death knell to the credibility of those outlets. With no independent confirmation, outlets like CNN and NewsCorp pointed fingers at and published pictures of innocent bystanders and even impeded investigations by having their social media people tweet out information gleaned off the police scanner, even after the FBI expressly asked them not to, because the information was chaotic and inaccurate.

Now one would think that the criticism and mocking these outlets have taken might be a point of some soul searching, some rethinking of the way information is disseminated. But not if one is Jeff Zucker, new boss of CNN and Rupert Murdoch of NewsCorp.

Zucker actually sent his underlings a "you're do a heckuva job" memo in the midst of them getting so very much wrong.

At the end up one of the busiest news weeks in recent memory–for CNN and every other major media organization–Jeff Zucker delivered his gratitude to his CNN staff in an internal memo obtained by POLITICO’s Dylan Byers.

Beginning with the declaration, “What a week,” Zucker goes on to praise his team for their “exceptional work.” He wrote, “It was important to see CNN, CNN.com, HLN and CNNI all shine this week,” and let the full staff know, “you have shown the world what makes us CNN.”

Zucker dismissed the criticism levelled at his organization as so much "jealousy". Uh huh. Sadly, Rupert Murdoch offered a similar, albeit more abridged defense of his multiple news platforms:

Rupert Murdoch belatedly came to the defense of his newspaper, tweeting: "All NYPost pics were those distributed by FBI. And instantly withdrawn when FBI changed directions." Murdoch did not go into detail about how exactly a newspaper can "instantly withdraw" a front page already published, although perhaps that would have taken more than 140 characters (and harnessing the power of the space-time continuum) to explain.

Among the mistakes the Post made this week: they inaccurately reported 12 people had died in the blast (three did); they claimed a Saudi man was a "suspect" in "custody", when he wasn't; and most prominently, they plastered the photos of two "suspects" on the front page with the headline "Bag Men." They didn't outright say these two people were the bombers, but they did everything they could to insinuate it. Of course, it later turned out that neither men were really suspects, and one was a high school student who went to the police on his own to clear his name.

As Murdoch referenced in his non-apology tweet, the Post cited an email law enforcement officials sent among themselves that read: "the attached photos are being circulated in an attempt to identify the individuals highlighted therein. Feel free to pass this around to any of your fellow agents elsewhere." Post editor-in-chief Col Allan issued his own statement Thursday in which he also defended the paper's publication of the photographs: "We stand by our story. The image was emailed to law enforcement agencies yesterday afternoon seeking information about these men, as our story reported," he wrote. "We did not identify them as suspects." These were photos, mind you, that no other major publications saw fit to print on their front pages. Other publications—such as the NY Times—were able to control themselves and wait for more definite reports before running such stories, despite being presented with the same information.

But according to the men that helmed the organizations, these two "news" giants did wonderfully well.

I think we might need to establish bloggers ethics panel to teach the news media how to do their damn jobs.

Chris Hayes' opening segment on All In was superb. He very clearly and precisely said what we all thought on Wednesday when CNN claimed a suspect had been arrested in Boston and that suspect was 'dark-skinned.'

Since 9-11, CNN has really changed, and not for the better. When I worked there, they were far more concerned with being right over being first. But that standard has been shattered, along with any pretense of objectivity. Hayes gives it a name:

This wasn't just some abstraction happening on cable news that no one was paying attention to, and I understand people make mistakes, but the bungling of the story today mattered. This is video outside the courthouse in Boston after all that frenzied, inaccurate reporting this afternoon. A crowd has gathered. To be sure, a lot of these people are reporters and media folks, but they are people who show up in hopes of seeing a suspect brought in.

Among them were likely anguished, angry people whose city has just been through a terrible trauma who wanted to see with their own eyes someone suspected of being responsible for it, a suspect who would not even exist yet but were told by the news was already in custody. And the one thing people knew about the suspect, the only thing they thought they knew for sure, thanks to CNN's reporting was the following descriptor:

It was described to me as a dark-skinned male individual.

I was told by a source that was a law enforcement official that this was a dark-skinned male. Source had been briefed on the investigation, I should say, that the suspect was a dark-skinned male.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (111)

PLAYS: (833)

Embed

I felt obligated to watch the FreedomWorks webcast Monday afternoon, if only to capture a few golden moments with star videographer lying liar James O'Keefe. O'Keefe was sharing his secrets of successful videography with the FreedomWorks crowd, while tossing in an occasional pitch for that bastion of integrity, the Franklin Center and their MediaTrackers project.

I took the liberty of editing the video to save you seventeen minutes of O'Keefe's peculiar brand of smirk-laced bravado, but I think I caught the essence of what he was trying to say in just under five minutes.

Here are O'Keefe's Five Rules, summarized:

1. Force a consequence: A different way of saying this is "Be the story." When O'Keefe addressed the criticism he's gotten for the editing he did to create a false narrative, he didn't deny he did it, but justified it by saying laws were changed after he released those videos. He failed to note that the consequences of the 47 percent video weren't forced, but were the quite natural consequence of seeing Mitt Romney, up close and unscripted.

Continue reading »

(h/t Dave at VideoCafe)

I've been covering the Sunday news shows for almost eight years now. I've mocked; I've cajoled; I've thrown shoes at the television. True to the name of the site, we document the talking points, the evaded questions, the lack of follow up. And thanks to you readers, we've carved ourselves a successful little niche in the blogosphere.

But sometimes, only comedians can show us the truth by holding up the mirror to the ridiculousness that passes for news media today.

On Current TV's Viewpoint, comedians John Fugelsang and Frank Conniff (TV's Frank of MST3K fame) re-enact, right down to the orange of Boehner's skin, the travesty of the John Boehner/David Gregory interview from last Sunday's Meet the Press. It was a simply brilliant parody of two Beltway denizens, comfortable with their respective lack of accountability, uninterested in offering solutions and oblivious to both the disgust and the pain of anyone outside their cocktail circuit:

"Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask you some very tough questions, followed up by some very limp follow ups," Conniff said as Gregory.

In character as Boehner, Fugelsang asserted that Senate Democrats had not passed plant to avert automatic spending cuts in the so-called sequester, part of a 2011 deal Democrats made with Republicans cut $85 billion and raise the debt ceiling.

"Well, this is where I should bring up that Senate Democrats tried that and got filibustered, but instead, I'm going to ask about revenues," the Gregory character remarked.

"Spending is out of control and I was born in a tavern," Fugelsang quipped. "This president spends like me at Georgetown Applebee's at Happy Hour."

"This is where I'm not going to mention that you raised the debt ceiling seven times for George W. Bush," Conniff noted, lampooning Gregory.

"If you don't change the subject then I'm going to keep saying 'sequester'," Fugelsang grumbled. "If you ask a follow-up question, I'm going to say the word 'Benghazi.'"

"David, haven't you learned by now, you can have information or you have have access," the Current TV host added in his Boehner voice.

After eight years of doing this, this is EXACTLY what I hear when I watch the Sunday shows.

Please vote for Obama. Do it for the country -- and do it for revenge.

Revenge against who, you say? Well, just for starters, there's the always trite Byron York.

A seemingly offhand utterance from President Obama has turned into a major point of contention between the two campaigns, as Team Obama tries to explain what the president meant when he told a crowd of supporters that “Voting is the best revenge.” It happened in Springfield, Ohio Friday as Obama was discussing the economic policies of the 1990s. When Obama referred to “a Senate candidate by the name of Mitt Romney,” the crowd booed his opponent’s name — certainly not unusual reaction at political rallies of both parties.

Then Obama said, “No, no, no — don’t boo, vote. Vote. Voting is the best revenge.” It was an ugly and small-minded moment, especially for the end of a campaign when candidates usually try to stress larger, optimistic themes. Romney incorporated the “revenge” line in his speech in Ohio Friday night, saying that while Obama advises revenge, he, Romney, wants people to vote “for love of country.”

A vote for Obama is a vote for revenge against Byron York, whose meandering articles like the above excerpt makes any rational person's head hurt for a week. Vote for revenge against the Beltway villagers who are engaged in a process of stripping away benefits for working class Americans like Social Security and Medicare in their demands for a grand bargain. A bargain that will have no effect on them.

Vote for revenge against Leon Cooperman and the 1%ers, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Ron&Rand Paul, Rupert Murdoch, Koch Brothers, Roger Ailes, Mark Halperin, David Broder, Jonah&Bernie Goldberg, Rush Limbaugh, Donald Trump, Grover Norquist, Ralph Reed, Todd Aiken, Pat Robertson, Karl Rove, WSJ, Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney.

Please add to the list in the comment section.

DOWNLOADS: (160)

PLAYS: (2778)

Embed

I wrote a post last week calling out the RMoney/Granny Killer team for promoting six bogus studies that they claim back up their faulty economic plans. I made a point to say that President Obama should use this in Tuesday's debate: Obama Should Slam Romney On His 'Six Studies' Falsehood Over Tax Plan

Well, it didn't take long for someone to take my advice, but it turns to be a person you might not think would use it so soon: Chris Wallace berated Ed Gillespie on Fox News Sunday about Romney's invisible specifics on his policies, and then cited the same points I raised soon after. Ed tried to use the old partisan/non-partisan con, but Wallace wouldn't have it.

WALLACE: But you’re not explaining – because there are a lot of question from independent people – how do you pay for it? And you refuse say how you’re going to pay for it.

GILLESPIE: What we have said is that we are going to pay for it with these, by limiting deductions and loopholes – and, by the way, making sure for the middle class, that protecting the home mortgage deduction and other important deductions for them, but at the high end you would eliminate deductions and, you know, a lot of special interest loopholes that would allow you to bring down the rate 20%. Six different studies have said this is entirely doable.

WALLACE: Those are questionable, some of them are blogs, some of them are from the AEI, which is hardly an independent group.

GILLESPIE: These are very credible sources…

WALLACE: One of them is from a guy who is – from a blog from a guy who was a top adviser to George W. Bush. These are hardly nonpartisan studies.

GILLESPIE: Well, Chris, I think if you look at Harvard and AEI and other studies, they are very credible sources for economic analysis.

WALLACE: You wouldn’t say that AEI is a conservative think tank?

GILLESPIE: I would say it is a right-leaning think tank. That doesn’t make it not credible.

WALLACE: Chris: It doesn’t make it nonpartisan.

GILLESPIE: It does make it nonpartisan. It’s not a partisan organization, I can tell you, there have been many instances where there have been things that AEI has come out with and said, that I didn’t find to be necessarily helpful to the Republican Party.

Gillespie was flummoxed over these questions and rightly so, because Wallace is the first pundit on a mainstream-media show to openly criticize their bulls**t economic numbers, which are justified by more bulls**t.

Bill O'Reilly is mad that RMoney hasn't done his show yet and is hopeful he'll show up soon, although if a Democrat refused to go on The Factor for the entire campaign season, it would be his headline every day. Apparently Wallace is perturbed also.

Politicus USA believes that FOX doesn't trust Mittens and RMoney doesn't trust Ailes, but is more surprised than I am that Wallace took a strong stand on this.

It was also a bit surreal to see Chris Wallace do what most of the supposedly “neutral” mainstream media won’t do, by calling out Romney’s 6 studies statistic as completely bogus.

Let's hope more Villagers start demanding some specifics from Romney and denounce these studies instead of harping on the theatrical side of this election.
(h/t Heather for the video)

Dana Milbank said something very telling, for a change, to Howard Kurtz:

MILBANK: Exactly, that's when it should be done. The other thing that I think was going on here -- I was out there in Denver as you were. You know what was up on every reporters' screen that I looked at was Twitter.

Basically the reporters were having a conversation with themselves rather than watching the debate, and this idea gelled early on that Mitt Romney was having a big night, Obama was having a lousy night, which was generally true, but it accentuated it, and basically there was a groupthink going on there that was -- that was that this is a really big bad thing for Obama, and I think that we probably did our readers and viewers a disservice.

KURTZ: A groupthink, Amy Holmes?

HOLMES: It wouldn't be surprising and it wouldn't be the first time. I'm fascinated that reporters were looking more at Twitter than at the debate proceedings and what was happening on stage.

You know, clearly, the viewers, readers deserve a lot more than that, than what is it, 140 characters per tweet. And they expect the reporters to be watching and reporting what they are seeing, not having this internal conversation that then turns --

(The segment was about the B.S. video that Hannity said would destroy the world, but the video was a dud.)

I was on Twitter for awhile, and I had to shut it down because tweets were flying across the screen so fast that I couldn't keep up. I bet the media sets up lists and just follows their buddies. But it's a big problem.
Journalists should get off Twitter and watch the debate, without being influenced by their pals, and then report on what they actually saw instead of what the emerging narrative is. I imagine none of them wanted to dispute the narrative their colleagues were pumping out and risk being ostracized for having an independent thought. But Americans and their bosses are paying them to cover events and not to tweet it.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (168)

PLAYS: (1690)

Embed

Can we just call a stop to this practice please?

Fox News Channel opted to cover a high speed chase in Phoenix with the driver going as fast as 100 mph. To the growing horror of host Shepard Smith, who frantically called out to the control booth to dump the feed, the suspect in the pursuit got out of his car, shot himself in the head, committing suicide on the national broadcast of Fox News.

Smith later apologized on behalf of the channel and Fox News Channel VP Michael Clemente issued the following statement:

We took every precaution to avoid any such live incident by putting the helicopter pictures on a five second delay. Unfortunately, this mistake was the result of a severe human error and we apologize for what viewers ultimately saw on the screen.

Okay, fine and good. Fox News apologized for this one. Now can we please make the editorial decision to stop covering high speed chases at all?

First, there is no "news" value on a national level for covering it. Sure, on a local level, it would be good to know that something is happening on a highway you're about to take, but nationally? Nuh-uh.

Secondly, no good EVER comes from this kind of coverage. People are going to be hurt. It may be the suspect, it may be a police officer, or it could be an innocent bystander, but the danger of subjecting the viewership to graphic, violent images like this are more than likely.

Thirdly, it's beyond stupid for police officers to even engage in these high speed pursuits (for the reasons listed above), it's not helping matters when 24 hour cable news channels add it to their content fodder. All it takes is some officer to decide he wants to be a big hero for the cameras for something to go very, very wrong.

So stop already.