DOWNLOADS: (1392)

PLAYS: (3111)

Embed

(h/t Heather at VideoCafe)

Granted, it's hard to hear because the voices speak over each other, but the graphics are pretty clear: this ad for Anderson Cooper 360 was meant to claim that Anderson Cooper challenges the status quo and goes beyond partisan spin. Whether the ad is true or not is arguable, but the fact that it mentions both the right and the left is not.

Which makes this op-ed in Time Magazine by Michael Scherer that much more puzzling:

White House Communications Director Anita Dunn appeared Sunday morning on Howard Kurtz's CNN show Reliable Sources to discuss her comments in my TIME magazine story this week. She continued her criticism of Fox News[..].

The ironic part came later, during the commercial break. All morning, CNN has been intermittently running a promo for Anderson Cooper 360, a show that has long billed itself as a classic straight news program with an investigative front man who digs "beyond the headlines" with "many points of view, so you can make up your own mind." The new promo, by contrast, consists of a woman's voice, pitching Cooper's show as, essentially, a liberal alternative to Fox News: "I'm a lifelong Democrat," she says, "and that's why I watch Anderson Cooper." Hmmm. The voice goes on to say that Cooper is the person she can turn to hold "right wing" conservatives accountable. Cooper is not exactly aiming for the political middle ground here.

But then who is? MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz are committed liberals, increasingly focused on the dual project of holding President Obama to a liberal line and attacking his detractors. Fox News, on the other hand, is, well, Fox News. Dunn, on Kurtz's show, made a point of criticizing Fox News Sunday's Chris Wallace for "fact checking" an Obama administration official but not its other Republican guests. So it goes.

Interesting. So Scherer thinks that Cooper is playing to the left like those other "committed" liberals on MSNBC. And lemming-like, here comes Dan Abrams, tweeting from his new gig at Mediaite:

UPDATE to WH-Fox 'Gloves off' post: CNN promo calls Anderson Cooper left's answer to FNC.

The only problem? There's no there there. Cooper wasn't playing to the left, as Scherer was forced to acknowledge in an update:

CORRECTION: Ahh, the pitfalls of technology. In the post below, I wrote about an ad that kept running Sunday morning on CNN, which I watched in the background as I scribbled away at my office. Several times, I heard an ad for Anderson Cooper's show that included a woman's voice talking about being a "lifelong Democrat" and watching Cooper because he called out the "right wing." But that's not the whole story. I was told Monday by CNN that I only heard half the ad, which was dubbed in stereo. (Apparently my television is mono.) The other half of the ad had a male voice saying he was a Republican who turns to Anderson Cooper because he holds accountable "left wing politicians." The two voices are recorded to be talking over each other, reaffirming CNN's place in the center of the cable news spectrum. This makes my subsequent analysis largely wrong. Cooper was not signaling a shift to cater to a left-wing audience. He was signaling that he wanted both a left-wing and a right-wing audiences at the same time. The CNN dream of post-partisanship, in other words, is still alive.

Actually, Michael, your analysis is not largely wrong, but completely wrong. As polarized as this country is now (a fact for which I hold the media mostly accountable), it is not the desire of the entire country to get their news filtered through ideological lenses, confirming their pre-conceived notions. Fox unapologetically fills a niche for a select few, who cannot stand to have their ideas challenged. But MSNBC, despite shows with Maddow (the only self-professed liberal listed), Olbermann and Schultz does not cater to the left. If they did, would they fill 15 hours every week (the same as Maddow, Olbermann and Schultz put together) with Scarborough?

And for what its worth, I actually watch Maddow not for a liberal slant, but because she strives to actually present the news, not propaganda. But that seems to be a dying breed in your industry, doesn't it?

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

We didn't have time this past week to say good-bye to the MSNBC program The Verdict, which will be replaced post-RNC by Rachel Maddow. Dan Abrams signs off on his program with one last Bush League Justice on the completely un-Constitutional signing statement.

Continuing his fantastic coverage of issues the rest of the media dare not touch, Dan Abrams last night went through John McCain's lengthy list of television and film credits to argue that McCain -- not Barack Obama -- is the real political celebrity in the race. It seems the only one on the panel who rejects this is Republican shill Brad Blakeman. What a shocker.

"In reality, isn‘t John McCain actually a bigger celebrity than Barack Obama? The John McCain who‘s made cameo appearances in “Wedding Crashers” and “24.” We‘ve got the tape."

Full transcript here.

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

You knew it was going to happen. For all his big talk about being happy to talk to the House Judiciary Committee looking into the conviction and incarceration of Don Siegelman, when push came to shove, you had to know that Karl Rove would never, ever freely respond to the HJC subpoena. CQPolitics:

Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, cited executive privilege as the reason that the former White House adviser would not appear before the Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee on July 10.[..]

"Mr. Rove will respectfully decline to appear before the Subcommittee on July 10 on the grounds that Executive Privilege confers upon him immunity from process to respond to a subpoena directed to this subject," Luskin wrote.

Luskin renewed an offer that would have Rove submit to an off-the-record, untranscribed interview or answer written questions about the Siegelman case, but not the broader issue of the politicization of the Justice Department.

Not even man enough to stand up for his actions. Hear that, Karl? Not even man enough. Dan Abrams brings NYU Law School Professor Michael Waldman and former HJC counsel Julian Epstein to discuss the latest in Bush League (In)Justice:

Abrams: Okay, Michael, let me start with you: it is clear, Karl Rove is not coming. I mean, the House Judiciary Committee can say as much as they want, we're still hoping, we're still encouraging him to come, we're still insisting that he come, he's not coming. So what do they do now?

Waldman: Well, it's really quite remarkable, as you say, you can just say no to a lawful subpoena from Congress. Congress has a bunch of tools they can use. They can, of course, throw him in jail. There's a jail in the basement of the Capitol. That's probably the extreme remedy. There's all kinds of other things. They can cut off funding, they can hold up nominations, they can bring a lawsuit as has been the case in the Miers...the Harriet Miers contempt case. But what Congress has to have when it looks in its toolbox is not any of these tools but some backbone. Congress is a co-equal branch of government and it needs to stand up for its rights in this.

Backbone in Congress? What's that? I'll believe it when I see the perp walk.

(h/t Heather)

On Verdict with Dan Abrams, Newsweek reporter Jonathan Alter was fed up with the ridiculousness of the continued smear of Michelle Obama over her "proud of her country" statement and accuses conservative talk show host Lars Larson of promoting an agenda that tries to paint Michelle Obama as an angry, black woman, noting that there was no such outrage for John McCain's repeated statement that he "didn't love America until (he) was deprived of her company".

ALTER: Yeah, you're saying...you're just talking trash and nonsense. And it's a slur, and it's really, it's frankly kind of appalling that you and others would stoop to this level, because it's not true. You don't know Michelle Obama; you haven't spoken to her as I have. To many of her friends: black, white, many different people...let me just quickly try to dispense with this. You're taking her out of context intentionally. You're trying to twist her words for your own political purposes. It's low and it's borderline racist.

On "Verdict" last night, former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura made the perfect case as to why same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue and that the federal government has no right to tell you "who you can fall in love with." I was just waiting for Buchanan's head to explode.

Download | play Download | play

VENTURA: "Well, first of all, I made a statement when I was governor and stand by it today. Love is bigger than government. Who the hell are we as a government to tell people who you can fall in love with? I think it‘s absurd that fact it‘s even being debated. "

I couldn't have put it better myself, Governor.

Full transcript below the fold:

Continue reading »

In his "Beat the Press" segment Wednesday night, Dan Abrams awarded all three dishonorable mentions to FOX News, which continues to prove itself as an utter joke.

Download | play Download | play

"It's not like we tune in to FOX for facts."

In his "Beat the Press" segment Tuesday night, Dan Abrams took FOX and CNN to the woodshed for their ridiculous "news" coverage.

Download | play Download | play

Download | play Download | play

On his new show, Verdict, Dan Abrams celebrates the court reversal on hearing Don Siegelman's appeal and his subsequent release from prison in Alabama on Friday.

Showing that he is undaunted by his time in prison, Siegelman apparently spoke to Dan Abrams by cell phone on his drive home and fingered Karl Rove as the man behind this political hit job. This appeal should be something to watch to see if Bush's Brain actually gets held accountable.

C&L Contributer Heather has put a longer version of Abrams' segment on Siegelman, with Rep. Artur Davis and journalist Scott Horton of Harper's up on YouTube.

Legal Schnauzer (h/t Scarce) brings up a point that should convince you of the power of the larger blogging community and grassroots efforts to effect change:

Siegelman's release is a testament to the power of alternative media. Without the work of blogger/journalists like Scott Horton of Harper's, Glynn Wilson of Locust Fork News, and Larisa Alexandrovna of at-Largely/Raw Story/Huffington Post/Hustler, Siegelman would have little hope of being released any time soon. Without the work of Pam Miles and her e-mail listees, Siegelman would have remained in prison for the foreseeable future. It's impossible to overstate the impact of CBS and its 60 Minutes story on the Siegelman case. But that "old media" story would not have happened without the work of folks working in the "new media."

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

With any luck, the attention that Dan Abrams has committed to bring to the Don Siegelman case will manifest itself into pressure on the Alabama State Attorney General to move towards examining this miscarriage of justice. On last night's show, Abrams spoke with former Arizona Attorney General Grant Woods, who was interviewed for the 60 Minutes piece and is one of the 52 current and former Attorneys General who have signed a letter raising concerns of politicization in this case. Woods again pointed out some of the red flags that have that bipartisan group calling for a special investigation:

I think our main point is there’s a million red flags on this case. And that doesn’t necessarily mean it will all come to something, but it means there’s just too much out there for it not to be investigated. For context, you should remember that the governor, when he ran for re-election, went to bed having been declared by everybody the winner, he was awakened a few hours later and said, “oh, um, you know, there was some…a foul up in a rural county and uh some votes were switched, so now you lost.”

Now we flash forward a few years, he’s going to run to try to get back into office and they bring charges against him and they go to trial. Pretty big deal, charge a former governor who is getting ready to run again. And the prosecutor gives his opening argument and the judge dismisses the case after the opening argument. That just doesn’t happen. That’s how bad that case was, and they still don’t give up. So they go after him again, and have now a different prosecutor, as you mentioned, the wife of one of the people who have been working for years politically against him and then I think Mr. Kilborn has said that they were all assured that nothing was going to come of it, that the charges were no good. All of the sudden there’s a top to bottom review and charges are brought.

If you would like to send Siegelman your support, his address is here. If you'd like to call for an investigation, you can contact the Alabama State Attorney General's office here. Larissa Alexandrovna has much, much more...