DOWNLOADS: (664)

PLAYS: (644)

Embed

Bill O'Reilly was all giddy last night about the news that in the wake of the seat-shuffling that followed Helen Thomas' departure from her front-row seat at White House press conferences, Fox News has managed to nab a front-row slot (the AP was awarded Thomas' coveted spot).

BillO even implied that he'd be coming down and making things rough on Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. Ho ho ho ho hah.

But as Lynn Sweet's report notes, Fox was awarded the spot over two other superb news organizations: NPR and Bloomberg. Indeed, both are at least legitimate news organizations and not the brazen propaganda outlet that Fox News has become.

If you want a clear example of just how openly Fox now propagandizes, check out the house ad it was running all day yesterday, touting speculation about what strategy is most likely to hurt Democrats and help the GOP:

DOWNLOADS: (466)

PLAYS: (919)

Embed

Fox has been able to get away with being a propaganda organ while pretending to do real "news" because of the cowardice of real working journalists, who have simply failed in their supposed role as the profession's "internal policing" mechanism.

This was exemplified, really, by the White House press corps' craven surrender to Fox's campaign to get that front-row seat, even though every working journalist in that room knows that at the end of the day, even a semi-decent guy like Major Garrett has to answer to Roger Ailes. Every one of them knows, too, that Fox churns out right-wing propaganda as a 24/7 operation.

But they will never do anything about it.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (1540)

PLAYS: (3903)

During MSNBC's 9AM/12PM news edition, David Shuster was talking to Andy Barr from the Politico about Sarah Palin's rapidly dropping Alaskan poll numbers. She was on the East Coast, touring with the Republican listening tour that's supposed to save the GOP.

Anyway, she was supposed to go to DC to be a guest at the White House Correspondents Dinner, but then cancelled.

Flooding in her home state has forced Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to cancel an appearance at the White House Correspondents Dinner

Palin told reporters Thursday that she would skip her planned East Coast trip so she could visit parts of Alaska that have been struggling with the most serious flooding in decades.

In addition to attending the dinner Saturday — a mix of Washington elite, White House press corps and Hollywood celebrities — the former Republican vice presidential candidate was scheduled to promote Alaska seafood at an appearance in New York.

What the AP failed to tell us was that Sarah Palin was invited to the dinner by FOX News. No seriously, FOX News invited her as a guest. They are trying to help her run for President in 2012.

Shuster: Why would she want to go to the White House's Correspondence Dinner to begin with, I think I know the answer, but I'll let you explain.

Barr: Well, she was an invited guest of FOX News. As you know the WH Correspondents Dinner is kind of THE event for all the A-Lister's in Washington and if she's going to be a national player , you know a lot of the other players are going to be there, so if there was nothing major going on home, this was something that definitely she could have come to and gotten a lot of attention for.

Shuster: You know Andy, you said something that caught me by surprise. I didn't realize, she was an invited guest of FOX News?

Barr: Yes, she was invited, that's correct. She was going to stay there. I believe Todd Palin is sitting in for her.

Shuster: Alright, I'm just going to keep my mouth shut on that one...

OK, it must have been Greta, right? And they still want to be called a news organization....

How dumb are the right wing bloggers and pundits? I don't have enough time to tell you, but this latest crazed outburst of supposed "media bias" over the treatment of George W. Bush is proof enough that they are suffering a deep and dark depression.

Patrick Gavin posts a very short video clip, all of twenty two seconds that's supposedly a complete media critique of the way the White House press reporters loathe George Bush and just fawn over Barack Obama. Hot Air's Allahpundit writes:

This one’s making the rounds but I’m not sure why. Isn’t this standard chivalrous behavior when you’re in love? If The One were forced to trod upon a muddy path, wouldn’t you expect Chuck Todd or Helen Thomas to lay their coats over it for him? Actually, there’s a more mundane explanation. Sort of.

--

Doesn’t that … basically prove the point of the video? Okay, fine, they’re not anti-Bush. They’re just really, really pro-Obama. Whew!

I know, I should have some pity on their poor souls, but how can I pity idiocy?

Not that I need to link to something that explains away this lunacy, but I will anyway.

John Dickerson:

A video, put together by Politico's Patrick Gavin, is making the rounds showing two presidential visits to the White House briefing room. In one, George Bush arrives for a press conference in February 2008, and the press remains seated. In the second, from last Friday, Barack Obama surprises the press by appearing in the midst of the daily briefing. They stand to greet him. (Given that the press is supposedly in the tank for Obama, shouldn't critics be happy they didn't kneel?)

This may seem silly, but it's symbolic: The discrepancy in treatment is all the proof a Republican needs to show that the press shows special deference to the new Democratic president. It's a distorted picture, though. We stood all the time for President Bush. Reporters customarily do so to show respect for the office of the presidency. In the East Room of the White House, we stood not only when the president came in but to ask questions. Some reporters said thank you to the president even before asking their questions. This practice continues under President Obama....read on

I would tell Allahpundit to just hold his breath until he turns blue whenever he sees media bias when there isn't any, but he might forget to breathe altogether.

Tbogg finds some more.

DOWNLOADS: (2044)

PLAYS: (3561)

Embed

A pretty good barometer of Republicans' utter desperation these days is just how farflung from reality their attempts to characterize President Obama are getting to be.

Newt Gingrich, who's clearly preparing for a 2012 White House run, was interviewed yesterday on Fox by Greta Van Susteren. Gingrich has been trying desperately to smear Obama as a weak leader, while cozying up to the GOP's tea-bagging populist wing.

So he hit on a way to hit both sweet spots in one swell foop: Smear Obama as an incipient authoritarian.

The subject was Obama's press conference earlier this week. First in the order, of course, he had to blame Obama's popularity on the media: "I think the Washington White House press corps has taken such a pathetic dive with this president that they ought to just be part of his PR firm!"

But then he there was this exchange:

Van Susteren: Well, you know, Fox News Channel got, quote, punished -- Fox News Channel didn't get a question the other night -- Major Garrett, our White House correspondent -- because the Fox broadcast, not the Fox News Channel, but the Fox broadcast decided not to air the press conference.

Gingrich: Right. Which should tell all of you about the abuse of power inherent in this administration. They now control General Motors, they basically control Chrysler, they control Citibank, they control AIG, and they are prepared to punish people.

I think that's very dangerous, to have a president who thinks he should get up in the morning and punish Americans. You know, appease foreigners, bow to the Saudi king, embrace the Venezuelan dictator, and punish Americans? I think that's a very dangerous attitude.

Gingrich is clearly counting on the public to be like Fox News anchors: They have a convenient case amnesia about the previous eight years of wiretapping, screw-the-public Republican rule.

But notice the underlying meme here: Obama is an incipient dictator who will punish his enemies and rule with an iron fist. Which, of course, is exactly what we're hearing from the growing militia contingent.

And then conservatives get all bent out of shape when someone like the DHS accidentally points out the growing similarities between them and right-wing extremists. Huh. Gee, wonder how that could happen.

First, to paraphrase Mahatma Gandhi: You're either with us or you're with the torturers. I thought God was clear on this "torture debate," folks. Apparently not. Fresh news cycles of "Is Waterboarding Torture?" are upon us. Brad Jacobson of MediaBloodhound here - and if this disturbing debate makes you madder than a neocon spotting a baby's smile, pull up a chair:

No money in the cure...or the prevention: "The Checklist" saves lives but Big Pharma can't profit from it. (If you're unfamiliar with Collateral News, this and this are two more examples of its exceptional reporting - it's what 60 Minutes should be.)

"Three Against a Thousand": The arrested development roots of neocon foreign policy.

Maybe they hate us for more than our freedoms.

Dana Perino as Bud Abbott. The White House press corps as Lou Costello. In the modern-day retelling of "Who's on First?"

Tom Engelhardt interviews Jonathan Schell.

The animated story of Mormonism that's received over half a million hits on YouTube. It reminds me of this less creepy, satirical take. (Disclaimer: I'm no scholar on Mormonism, yet I'm fairly sure it's not the only religion that incorporates myth and metaphor and demands blind faith.)

Honoring the memory of James Baldwin: "I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually." A courageous, brilliant, gentle soul.

The End. For today. Send those post suggestions to mediabloodhound (at) yahoo (dot) com.

Chicago Dyke at Corrente has shared a conversation she had with a friend who is a member of the White House press corps. It's a very interesting insight into a job of which we have no little opinion (or criticism). One particular passage stuck out for me:

I can tell you what drives me nuts about some of the things I read - with the caveat that this is a silly exercise, because I'm about to paint a stereotype that doesn't apply even to a majority of bloggy criticism.

On the Right, I'm driven nuts by the notion that what my spouse does or did professionally means that my fair coverage of the current Something Bad for Bush is a biased hit piece, and the idea that because some percentage of reporters voted for Clinton in 1992 means, all reporting out of Iraq is really the hallucinations of Marxist seditionists. On the Left, I'm driven nuts by the notion that my failure to include Event X while writing about the current Something Bad For Bush is clear evidence of being a toadie for Karl Rove, and that my failure to jump up at a press conference and tell Bush he has blood on his hands means that I'm just another cog in the GOP machine. On both sides, it drives me crazy that people equate explaining with defending. On both sides, it drives me crazy to see plain-jane mistakes get dressed up as darkly motivated attacks.

What do you think? While it's clear that there are some in the media that inject their own biases into stories, and there are some flat out lazy journalists, is it dishonest of us to ascribe more malevolent motives when we don't see stories covered the way we think they should be?

Considering that Colbert's speech here at C&L was the second most linked to post of 2006, I think it's safe to say that we're not expecting a similar reaction from this year's Correspondents' Dinner.

WaPo :

The White House press corps last week found itself embroiled in controversy -- a controversy over its efforts to avoid controversy at an event whose guests include President Bush.
Stung by criticism that comedian Stephen Colbert went too far last year in his remarks at the White House Correspondents' Association annual dinner, the group announced last week that it had lined up a different kind of entertainer for its next dinner on April 21: impersonator Rich Little.

[..]The group's president, C-SPAN's Steve Scully, issued a statement saying: "The White House Correspondents' Association never dictates or censors the content of a press dinner entertainer's act . . . My advice to [Little's agency] when we booked [him] in December was to follow the time-honored Washington motto [of] the Gridiron Dinner: 'Singe, but never burn.' "

Admittedly, it's an old story, and Olbermann has already named them the "Worst Person(s) in the World" for this, but I want to put this out to you. Who do you think would have been a worthy successor to Stephen Colbert for the White House Correspondents' Dinner?

Tweety makes like McClellan and defends Cheney's delayed press notifications. There's more of Gregory and Scotty. Did Chris actually think that it would have been a walk in the park for Scotty today?

Download | play -WMP Download | play -QT (vid and transcript by David Edwards)

Kate O'Beirne says that the national media had their feelings hurt while doing her usual spin doctoring to apologize for the White House.

Download | play -WMP Download | play -QT

JABBS: O'Beirne's purpose was to rail against the White House press corps. The press corps, she and host Sean Hannity agreed, were unnecessarily angry and "had their feelings hurt" because Vice President Cheney allowed didn't reveal via an official statement that he had shot a fellow quail hunter on a ranch in Corpus Christi, Texas.

(Also noteworthy: National Review's John Podhoretz said today that the Cheney hunting accident was a "a very big deal," and that it was "disturbing as well that there was a news blackout that lasted nearly a day about this serious incident." Maybe O'Beirne considers Podhoretz a liberal?)...read on

Colmes did get Snappy to admit that Cheney should get out to the media, (it will be later today on Brit Hume) although she calls it a manufactured media event. The VP shooting his friend is manufactured?

Bilmon has a collection of Scotty and the Plame Game: "If the eunuchs in the White House press corps ever remember where they misplaced their professional courage, and decide to ask Scotty McClellan a few questions about Karl Rove's role in the outing of Valerie Plame, this digest of past statements on the subject might come in handy...read on"