Deleted scenes from Sicko (2007) showing the health care system in Norway.

Ever wonder why the single most sensible, economical and democratic way to provide health care to every person in the US was never really mentioned in the rhetoric whirlwind of public options, opt-outs, co-ops, triggers and free market embracing?

Part of the reason why is that the media refused to mention it:

The media analysis group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) issued an action alert September 22 titled "NYT Slams Single-Payer" that described lopsided reporting in a New York Times article about "Medicare for all," a form of a single-payer health care system. FAIR noted that the article, titled "Medicare for All? ‘Crazy,’ ‘Socialized’ and Unlikely", laid out a list of arguments against single-payer while failing to include any balancing responses from the option's supporters.

Yeah, those nutty Norwegians, not to mention Canadians, Danes, French, Brits, Swedes, etc. etc. They're all just crazy for treating health as a human right, instead of a corporate profit opportunity. FAIR continues:

It's worth noting that thousands of doctors have voiced support for a single-payer system (see, for example, Physicians for a National Health Program's letter to Barack Obama), in part because they believe they spend too much on the administrative costs associated with private insurance companies. A survey of physicians published in the Annals of Internal Medicine (4/1/08) found that 59 percent supported government-sponsored national health insurance.

Seelye also wrote that Medicare for all "would almost certainly mean a big tax increase on the middle class," before noting in parentheses: "Supporters argue that a tax increase would be somewhat neutralized by the elimination of premiums that people pay now to insurance companies." Actually, single-payer advocates argue that a payroll tax on businesses (many of which currently pay for private insurance for their employees) and a small income tax increase that would likely amount to less than what most citizens currently pay out of pocket could fund a single-payer program. By calling a "big tax increase" a near-certainty and treating the savings on insurance premiums as a claim made by advocates, the Times told readers which side it was on.

Seelye cited Stuart Altman--identified as "a Brandeis economist who specializes in health care and who advised Barack Obama in his presidential campaign," but not as a director of a managed-care company that offers health insurance plans (WhoRunsGov.com)--to make a similar point about potential tax increases, and then went to "the other end of the political spectrum" to quote Robert Moffit of the conservative Heritage Foundation: "I don't see popular support for it beyond liberals.... It's a philosophical question: Do you want to give the government that kind of power?"

Of course, one might point out that public polling for years has demonstrated that support for single-payer is much broader than merely a liberal sliver of the population (FAIR Action Alert, 3/12/09); a July 2009 tracking poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation found 58 percent support for Medicare for all. But a piece detailing the deficiencies of a "crazy" single-payer system is an unlikely venue for that.

FAIR is asking that you contact NY Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt as to why they would run such an unbalanced and factually-challenged piece that hurts Americans by lying to them about their health care options.
CONTACT:
New York Times
Clark Hoyt, Public Editor
public@nytimes.com
Phone: 212-556-7652

Poor, poor old Pat Buchanan thinks that Fox News has "objective" reporters... like Chris Wallace... and that the White House was completely unfair "to say that the Fox News reporters sittin' in there are the Republican opposition". Chris Wallace huh? Have you even watched his show Pat? For that matter have you turned their station on lately as I unfortunately have?

I have watched Wallace's show on Sunday just about every stinking week for the last several years since I've been helping Mr. Amato out with video at this site, and the words "objective" or "reporter" are not what come to mind for me when watching Chris Wallace in action. Hack, partisan, corporate lackey and Republican shill are some of the kinder terms that come to mind for the likes of Wallace and his buddies over at ClusterFox.

Since Pat would probably be more comfortable in a chair at Fox rather than MSNBC which is trying to paint itself as a "liberal" network, his response is not surprising. Of course the rest of the panel chimed in that this smack down by the White House of Fox was just terrible for them. Heaven forbid they might eventually say something about what has happened to all of the rest of our sorry excuse for "news" shows which have been turned into info-tainment instead of something designed to inform their viewers.

If either the Democrats or the Repulicans cared at all what's happened to our media in this country, they'd be doing something to break this up. When six companies control the majority of what most people watch on the television, see at the show, read in the newspaper and listen to on the radio, we are no longer a democracy. Buchanan and his ilk are just a one part of a bigger problem we have, which is something that is allowed to pass itself for "news" is designed keep the American public dumbed down, ill-informed and more worried about the latest celebrity gossip than anything that will affect their daily lives.

(h/t David N.)

When news came that Obama had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, I looked at my husband and said, "just watch, the wingnuts will lose it over this." And sure enough, I was right. But what threw me for a loop was how nakedly partisan CBS's Chip Reid was in attacking Obama for having the audacity to win the Nobel Prize, something even the great St. Ronnie didn't do:

REID: I mean, most Democrats have praised it, and most Republicans have said, you have got to be kidding me -- Ronald Reagan didn't get one, but Barack Obama, nominated 12 days after he was sworn in, gets a Nobel Peace Prize. And the fear among some, even some Democrats, is that this is going to widen the partisan divide and make things even more difficult to accomplish on every front.

Really? Even more difficult than reflexively fighting *every* *single* Obama agenda item now? How is that possible?

It's touching, isn't it, to hear Chip Reid's concern that this will widen the partisan divide? After all, past winners have included Al Gore and Jimmy Carter...obviously the Nobel committee loves them some Democrats.

But here's the thing that all these insulated Beltway Villagers continually forget: Outside of DC, life is more than Republican vs. Democrat, something that Gibbs gently tries to suggest to Reid:

GIBBS: I'll leave the pundicizing to the pundits. The notion that somehow this is going to more greatly divide America, you know, I think it should be mandatory that pundits spend a certain amount of their days each year outside of the friendly confines of the viewership of the Washington, D.C., media market.

Of course, that goes right over Reid's head. For Reid, this is all about dismissing the Nobel committee -- in Norway, mind you, and not subject to the mind-numbing partisan reduction that Reid seems to breathe as oxygen -- as some liberal organization. He just can't get his head wrapped around the fact the Ronald Reagan -- the man who ended the Cold War! -- was never awarded the Peace Prize. As my friend, Steve Benen says:

A few thoughts here. First, when White House correspondents from major news outlets start sounding like members of Grover Norquist's "We Love Reagan" fan club, it's not a positive development.

Second, the notion that Reagan "helped bring the Cold War to an end" is, at best, a dubious proposition.

Actually, I think Chip Reid is unintentionally letting us into his psyche more than he realizes. He's continually been a go-to guy for Republican talking points for years. He routinely criticizes Democrats for things he lets pass by Republicans and uncritically passes on Republican attacks without context or fact-checking. And here again, he mouths the GOP mentality.

But think about it: if the Nobel Peace Prize only supports liberal causes, isn't Chip Reid admitting that peace is liberal? Then we need never look to conservatives again, because they will never bring peace. Right, Chip?

Transcript below the fold

Continue reading »

This too funny. Apparently Bill-O isn't happy with the way Jon Stewart has taken Fox to task for its "news coverage" and thinks he's "off the rails" for his treatment of his network. Truth hurts, doesn't it Bill? Bill tried to qualify his use of the word "loons" when it comes to liberals by cherry-picking one segment featured on the Daily Show, ignoring the fact that he throws the slur out there about every time he uses the word liberal. I'm sure the Great Orange Satan Markos Moulitsas or the good folks over at Media Matters that make Bill-O's head ready to explode on at least a weekly basis can attest to that.

Bill wraps this one by being worried that too many people think that Jon Stewart is "presenting an accurate picture of this country on his program". The propagandist doth protest too much about the court jester doesn't he? Sadly Bill, most people who watch The Daily Show are a whole lot more well informed than the ones who watch your show or your network, and the informed ones are well aware they're watching satire, and not "news".

Bill Moyers did an excellent segment with Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Drew Altman on health care reform, and in this segment they discuss how the polling and narratives being driven by the mainstream media and the 24 hour "news" cycle are actually preventing there from being an honest debate on health care reform.

BILL MOYERS: Kathleen, what's playing out here?

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: People who are angry and frustrated and not necessarily well informed in part driven by people who are on the other side of the reform effort. And it's driving into news evocative visuals that are leading the public, I think, to overgeneralize the extent to which there is principal, reasoned dissent from health care reform.

DREW ALTMAN: It's part of our democracy, but I think it's actually kind of sad because the left, doesn't like this legislation a lot. They're not really enthusiastic about it. They would prefer a single-payer approach with more government. And on the conservative side, they're not crazy about it either. They would like a market approach, people getting vouches or a tax credit and just shop in the marketplace. This is down-the-middle legislation. And yet we see these fears and concerns as if this were a radical approach. It's not a radical approach. It's just a down-the-middle approach.

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: But you're also seeing something else. In your clip you see a woman who says, "Is it coming out of my paycheck?" She's raising a legitimate question. But when people are shouting at each other, the answer doesn't get through. And when you're impugning the integrity of the person who's answering the questions, the member of Congress, that person's response isn't going to be believed if it is able to be articulated and isn't simply shouted down.

And so it's not creating context in which misinformation on both sides can be corrected. And that's the problem. We don't have a deliberative process here taking place in public to inform public opinion.

Instead, we're potentially distorting it.

Continue reading »

You know, I've been doing this Sunday morning shift for a few years now and I'm feeling a lot of sympathy for Bill Murray's character in Groundhog Day. Every morning I wake up, and it's the same ol' participants and the same ol' conversations and the same ol' media bias. Look at this line up: Sen. John "I didn't get elected POTUS, but I'll get the Sunday shows!" McCain on State of the Union; former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan on This Week (not to mention the ever-unbalanced and factually-challenged Michelle Malkin as part of the roundtable); National Economic Council's Larry Summers on both Face the Nation and Meet the Press and Senators Jim DeMint and Mike Pence on Fox News Sunday. Most egregiously, Tweety poses the question whether overt and extremist racism might actually help the Republicans. I can hardly stand it. Balance? A liberal perspective? Some journalistic integrity? Ha!

Doesn't it sound eerily familiar to pretty much every Sunday?

ABC's "This Week" - Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner; former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan.

CBS' "Face the Nation" - Lawrence Summers, director of the National Economic Council.

NBC's "Meet the Press" - Summers; former Reps. Harold Ford Jr., D-Tenn., and J.C. Watts, R-Okla.

NBC's "The Chris Matthews Show" - Panel: Eugene Robinson, Norah O'Donnell, Jennifer Loven, Howard Fineman. Topics: Why is President Obama losing public support for health care reform? Could racist talk from extremists help mainstream Republicans in elections? At the end of 2009, will Obama be viewed as a change agent? YES: 8 NO: 4; Will a handful of Senate Republicans vote for the final health care bill? YES: 11 No: 1.

CNN's "State of the Union" - Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz; Christina Romer, head of the Council of Economic Advisers.

CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS" - Will a new president help to stop the deadly downward spiral in Afghanistan? Fareed interviews the two candidates with the best shot at unseating President Karzai in this month's Afghan elections. Plus, is the U.S. government interfering in Iran? Spying? Supporting the opposition? Sending in radio and tv messages? All of the above?

"Fox News Sunday" - Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y.; Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C.; Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind.

Luckily, I got you babes to let us know what you see this Sunday morning. Leave your tips in the comments.

Connecting.the.Dots: The politics of personality disorder

Young Republican Voter Fraud Candidate

Whiskey Fire: True media bias is towards eyeballs, profit, and getting ahead according to the  strange rules of elite insider journalism.

Alternate Brain: Galloway on McNamara: Reading an obit with great pleasure

thump and whip: Thugs in Massey Coal shirts invade Keeper of the Mountains July 4th celebration and try to bust heads

Contextual Criticism: Answers in Genesis -an evil organization

In a yet another completely tone-deaf move hailed by GOP sycophants as cagey, Sarah Palin complained about the mean ol' bloggers chasing after her and sic'ed her lawyer after them, threatening lawsuits. Palin's lawyer, in point of fact, put out a four page letter (.pdf) outlining the "defamatory" charges against his client that would embarrass a first semester law student.

One of those in Palin's crosshairs is blogger Shannyn Moore. Shannyn has one message for Palin: Bring it on.

On the Fourth of July, when Americans everywhere were celebrating our most sacred national holiday with parades and barbeques, Governor Sarah Palin was busy having me, Shannyn Moore, declared an Enemy of the State.

In a rambling quasi-legal letter, the most powerful person in this state accused me of defaming her for pointing out the fact that there have been rumors, -rumors- of corruption, rumors that have been around for years.

When Sarah Palin gave her three-weeks notice to the people of Alaska, aborting her term as Governor, a lot of people wondered why she quit. Mid-level managers turn-in their notice, not elected public officials. It didn’t make sense. It still doesn’t. People have been trying to guess why she really quit, and everyone in Alaska has been playing the guessing game. They’re rumors. There are a lot of rumors. And with all the corruption we’ve had here in Alaska, of course we wonder what’s really behind her resignation.

Governors don’t just quit. But Governor Palin did.[..]

Sarah Palin is a coward and a bully. What kind of politician attacks an ordinary American on the Fourth of July for speaking her mind? What’s wrong with her? The First Amendment was designed to protect people like me from the likes of people like her. Our American Revolution got rid of kings. And queens, too. Am I jacked-up? You betcha. Sarah Palin, if you have a problem with me, then sue me.

You gotta love this woman.

Hat tip for this video to Shannyn's fellow Alaska blogger Gryphen at The Immoral Minority, who points out,

"Do you know the difference between a Shannyn Moore press conference and a Sarah Palin press conference? Shannyn's made sense."

(h/t David)

Oh poor, put-upon Bill O'Reilly. Those mean old "liberals" in the media are just itching to blame him for the assassination of Dr. George Tiller. Never mind that the only "liberal" cited is Olbermann, who flatly rejects the label and those who did actually call attention to the inciting rhetoric of O'Reilly in regards to Tiller were bloggers like C&L, who of course, were not invited by Howard Kurtz to give their point of view.

Kathleen Parker has the unenviable job of defending O'Reilly, though it's made easier by Kurtz's framing, which shows clearly where his sympathies lie:

KURTZ: Some liberal commentators couldn’t wait to accuse O’Reilly of inciting the violence that led to George Tiller’s murder. Fair or unfair?

PARKER: Irrelevant. I mean, yes, of course, it’s unfair. You can’t blame anyone for a crime except the person that commits the crime. Clearly, people on the far left are always looking for an excuse to attack Bill O’Reilly. And Keith Olbermann and O’Reilly tend to bounce off each other a good bit. So I’m not sure who this argument is really between.

Um, news flash to Parker, you absolutely CAN blame someone who incites violence, even if they don't actually commit the act. Ask Charlie Manson.

Parker's viewpoint is a little morally troubling, as she tries to play false equivalencies in the abortion debate and pooh-pooh the violent rhetoric as an "all's fair as each side tries to defend their stance":

KURTZ: What George Tiller was doing was legal, although many people did not like what he was doing, but I also want to mention he was shot in 1993 when there was no “O’Reilly Factor”, like there was no Fox News. Do you think, Kathleen, that the people pointing the fingers at O’Reilly with varying degrees of fervor are politicizing this tragedy?

PARKER: Well, of course they are. This is…this is the Topic du Jour anyway, because of Obama’s recent address to Notre Dame. It’s on everyone’s mind. And you know, any opportunity for the pro-choice people to make their case more strongly is going to be taken advantage of, and same…and vice versa. I mean, we’re always listening to the extremes on either side. They’re the squeakiest wheels, the loudest voices and they get the attention.

So denouncing organizations that foment violence like Operation Rescue is the equivalent of shooting women's health providers? Defending the rights of women to make a legal choice is an extreme position? Really? Ugh, the morality of the "Moral Majority" is enough to make you sick.

But here's where it gets funny. After denouncing the media for going after Bill O'Reilly, Parker actually agrees with all those liberal talking heads (seriously, someone point out to me where these multitudes of liberals are, I need to do some DVR programming) that this tragic event should illustrate how important it is not to broadcast such violent rhetoric:

PARKER: I would love for the outcome of this to be that O’Reilly—and all of these talking heads who become so completely over the top so many times—just to say look, this is a teaching moment. We’re not gonna do this anymore. We’re not …we’re gonna make our cases as strongly, we’re going to be passionate, but we’re going to tone down the rhetoric. I mean, wouldn’t that be a great result?

Well, yes, it would, Kathleen...and that's why we're saying that Bill O'Reilly should take responsibility for that kind of violent rhetoric. Is that so hard to understand?

PARKER: The media followed the fire, clearly. You know, wherever the heat is, that’s where—and I’m part of the media, I know how this works, I’ve done this for a long time—where the action is. But there is, I think, the media are always going to defend the pro-choice position. They’re less likely to portray sympathetically the pro-life position, that’s just a fact.

Damn, and just when I thought you were getting it, Kathleen. The media (which is neither monolithic nor particularly liberal-leaning) is not defending the pro-choice position, you nimrod. That's the law of the land, whether you like it or not. Violating laws--like murder and terrorist acts--and trying to disrespect civil rights of others is not a sympathetic position for anyone to advocate.

Well, folks, they've done it again. Cable news has now elevated Dick Cheney to a place as high as our new commander in chief.

WTF is wrong with these people? When Al Gore gave speeches after a few years, they would be broadcast on CSPAN because the Bushies were in charge, but obviously the networks want this to be the tale of the Duel Between Dick Cheney and Barack Obama. One is a disgraced former vice president, a torture lover who lied us into two wars and has a lower approval rating than people who identify as Republicans, vs. President Barack Obama, one of the most popular leaders of the free world and the man in charge of cleaning up the mess Cheney and Bush left in their wake.

Greg Sargent:

Looks like Dick Cheney’s big national security speech at the American Enterprise Institute tomorrow is going to get wall-to-wall cable coverage — giving a major assist to those who hope that his speech will be seen as “dueling” with the one that Obama is planning to give on the same topic tomorrow.

Both CNN and MSNBC will be carrying Cheney’s speech live tomorrow, in addition to carrying Obama’s, spokespeople for both networks confirm to me, barring the intrusion of some major news event. Fox News will certainly be all over the Cheney speech tomorrow — a major cataclysm couldn’t tear them away from such a big moment. So that means roadblocked cable coverage for Cheney.

Obama is set to deliver his big speech on national security at 10 A.M. Cheney’s is set to follow at 10:45. Politico framed the story of tomorrow’s speeches in advance in a piece called: “Barack Obama, Dick Cheney plan dueling speeches.”
This, naturally, raised some hackles on the left, where people pointed out that Obama is the Commander in Chief, meaning his national security views have real-world significance, while Dick Cheney is a private citizen who only has his reputation at stake.

In other words, goes this argument, their speeches will only be “dueling” if folks in the media make the decision to present them that way. Republicans, meanwhile, hope that coverage does proceed along these lines, helping to elevate Cheney and taking down Obama a peg or two.

Greg Sargent does a wonderful job as usual. Looks like the cable newsmen have already made the call.

Cheney's speech is a side show at a carnival act because the Republicans would rather try to rebrand the Democratic party as socialists while President Obama's words impact the entire world, but the media heads are only looking for their favorite selling point: "Conflict"
Yes, that sounds about equal. They want this to be Frazier and Ali, but it's about a liar and a sadist getting free airtime to attack a president who is trying to restore the country's footing after eight years of "compassionate conservatism." Wars, death, torture, wiretapping, loyalty oaths and moles planted in every department of the government which includes the OLC (the arm of the government that the Bushies used to try and give them legal cover for the crimes they committed) are part of Cheney's legacy. Isn't this just what the country needs? To hear a man trying to repair a record of death and destruction with blood dripping from his hands. To be continued....

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 »

"Alice in Wonderland" Great Performances, 1983

During my little one's bedtime reading, it occurred to me that very clear parallels could be drawn from Alice in Wonderland to our Sunday morning get-togethers. In this scene, little Alice is alone, lost and looking for help in the form of information that will help her leave the frightening Wonderland woods (that threaten to be even more frightening as the darkness looms). She runs into Tweedledee and Tweedledum and pleads with them to help her. And what do they do? They ignore her plight. They chide her with a strangely smug form of false balance ("Contrary-wise,...") and then distract her with a song-and-dance that is all about deceptiveness and the mortal danger of trusting people who say they'll take care of you. When she asks again for assistance, they launch into a battle between themselves over some perceived slight that may or may not be true, leaving Alice to realize that they'll be absolutely no help to her finding her way home.

Clearly, Lewis Carroll lived far too long ago to have anticipated the media circus of today, but I see Tweedledee and Tweedledum as very apt symbols of our bobbleheads. The public is Alice, looking for information to help us make sense of our surroundings and getting nothing from the media but distractions, fear-mongering and bizarre logic and focus on the inane. We need only watch this week's schedule to know that they'll be no help to us again.

TweedleDavid Gregory will speak with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. Contrary-wise, he'll also speak with GOP also-ran John McCain (the mock turtle, crying mock tears?) on Meet the Press. Meanwhile TweedleGeorge Stephanopoulos will talk to Geithner as well on This Week, but will save the economic debate for Paul Krugman and that "expert" George Will during the roundtable segment. Contrary-wise, TweedleJohn King will focus on the Middle East, with Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Holbrooke on State of the Union. It makes you wonder if we'll ever see the right side of that looking glass again...

ABC's "This Week" - Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

CBS' "Face the Nation" - President Barack Obama.

NBC's "Meet the Press" - Geithner; Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

NBC's "The Chris Matthews Show" - Panel: David Ignatius, Kelly O'Donnell, Norah O'Donnell, Andrew Sullivan. Topics: Can Obama get what he wants on health care, energy and education? Does the president's new Afghanistan strategy get us in deeper? Meter Questions: Will Obama get the big money he needs for his health care and education plans? YES: 9 NO: 3; Does President Obama bear some responsibility for the sinking stock market? YES: 7 No: 5

CNN's "State of the Union" - Gen. David Petraeus, head of U.S. Central Command; Richard Holbrooke, U.S. envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan; Sens. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C.

CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS" - Fareed talks to President Lula about his recent meeting with Obama, his surprisingly bullish expectations for Brazil's economy, the AIG bonus scandal, and improving U.S. relations with Cuba and Venezuela.

"Fox News Sunday" - Defense Secretary Robert Gates; Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper; Edwin Feulner, president of the Heritage Foundation.

So what's catching your eye this morning?

I somehow missed this earlier in the week, but Ellen at NewsHounds and Jason Linkins at HuffPo caught Bernard Goldberg's being the classic conservative wanker that he is.

Goldberg, on Bill O'Reilly's show Wednesday, started out claiming, like Angela McGlowan, that Jackie Mason's use of the racial slur "schvartze" isn't "a bad word." Then Bill O'Reilly noted that his dictionary, quite accurately, notes that the word is frequently used as a pejorative:

O'Reilly: OK, but here's what the dictionary says. The dictionary says the word s-c-h-v-a-r-t-z-e -- "often disparaging and offensive."

Goldberg: Forgive my arrogance. The dictionary is written by some liberal person.

See, in Bernie Goldberg's world, even the dictionaries have a liberal bias.

Or, as Stephen Colbert puts it:

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias."

(part 1)
(part 2--Thanks to Heather for vids)

Seriously, is there anyone more annoying than Tucker Carlson? The least self-aware pundit on TV, still nursing his own bruised ego from the thorough spanking he received at the hands of a comedian that took down his show, cried that Jon Stewart is nothing more than a partisan hack in "attacking" Jim Cramer. Mr. "I'm an ideologue, not a partisan" repeats the favorite GOP meme that Cramer was only attacked because he dared to criticize Obama's budget. Hmm ... repeating GOP talking points ... but Carlson's not speaking on behalf of his party, no sirree.

Leave it to Carlson to completely miss the point. Despite Stephanie Miller's and Baltimore Sun's David Zurawik's multiple attempts to reason with the petulant, whiny man-child Carlson devolves into, Tucker can never grasp that the whole event was precipitated by Rick Santelli's rant on the trading floor and that Stewart's focus was not Cramer so much as the responsibility CNBC holds in informing the public rather than giving corporations carte blanche to propagandize on their channel. He's more concerned that Stewart, in his attempt to speak on behalf of the Democratic Party (huh?) is losing 'teh funny,' and will go the way of Lenny Bruce. Double huh?

The best part of the whole segment is after Carlson's plaintive wails (who needs a nap?), Howard Kurtz airs the Crossfire segment where Stewart calls Carlson a "partisan hack", a nice little STFU in not so many words. Perrspectives has more:

Prior to making his case this morning on CNN's Reliable Sources that Stewart is a "sanctimonious, partisan hack" and an operative for the Democratic Party, Carlson on Friday denounced him to the Politico:

Carlson, reached Friday, described Stewart as "a partisan demagogue."

"Jim Cramer may be sweaty and pathetic--he certainly was last night--but he's not responsible for the current recession," Carlson told POLITICO. "His real sin was attacking Obama's economic policies. If he hadn't done that, Stewart never would have gone after him. Stewart's doing Obama's bidding. It's that simple."

Of course, Jon Stewart's weeklong diatribe against CNBC was initially triggered by the network's Rick Santelli slandering troubled home mortgage owners as "losers." And as it turns out, it is Tucker Carlson who has made a career out of doing someone else's bidding. That someone else is the Republican Party - and his father Richard.

The scandal surrounding the outing of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame and the subsequent conviction of Cheney chief-of-staff Scooter Libby provides case in point. Few voices on television were more strident in Libby's defense than Tucker Carlson. But throughout, he remained silent on his father's leadership of the Scooter Libby Legal Defense Fund.

From the beginning, Tucker Carlson aimed both barrels at Libby prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. In November 2005, he insisted Fitzgerald was "accusing Libby - falsely and in public - of undermining this country's security," adding, "Fitzgerald should apologize, though of course he never will." Reversing his past position in support of independent counsels, Carlson in February 2007 blasted "this lunatic Fitzgerald, running around destroying people's lives for no good reason."

Hey, Tucker "Pot" Carlson, guess what sanctimonious color you are!

John Amato:

At the end of the segment, Howard Kurtz give us his take and informs America that since Stewart is a comedian, he doesn't have to follow journalistic ethics for his humor and thinks Jon unfairly blamed CNBC for the entire economic meltdown. Using a wide brush to paint The Daily Show tries to diminish the impact Stewart had on CNBC because he didn't unfairly criticize them. Cramer's performance justified Stewart's concerns. That wasn't what Stewart was doing at all, but then Kurtz praises Stewart and says talking heads can learn a lot from him in their efforts to get at the truth from our politicians.

Kurtz: He has a way of cutting through the clutter and using clips to show when people were wrong. I think we need more of that.

Ya think?

Now that he has his bogus "documentary" about media bias in the 2008 campaign -- built on a false premise and laughably bad data -- all ready for sale to the wingnuttery-consuming public, John Ziegler has been making the rounds on TV -- mostly Fox News, because his appearances on other networks have been so unprofessional and contentious that they likely won't have him back.

He was on Bill O'Reilly's show Monday, and then popped up on Glenn Beck's program yesterday. It's really a prime display in complete wingnuttery, especially as Ziegler lets everyone in the country see what a complete and utter a-hole he really is.

But then, as Heather noted this morning, we knew that about Ziegler from his appearance on a dating show last year, thanks to the fine folks at Political Carnival:

Meanwhile, regarding that media bias thing:

'Liberal bias?' IU professors find network TV election coverage favors Republicans

A visual analysis of television presidential campaign coverage from 1992 to 2004 suggests that the three television broadcast networks -- ABC, CBS and NBC -- favored Republicans in each election, according to two Indiana University professors in a new book.

Continue reading »