Archive for your liberal media at work

VIDEO: When Democrats try to make valid points on Sunday talk shows, this is what often happens

interrupt

How many times have you seen conservative guests on talk shows monopolize discussions, talk over the host and other guests, veer off onto tangential points of their choosing, avoid answering direct questions, and intentionally stray off the topic at hand?

And how many times have you seen Sunday talk show hosts allow that to happen? My answer: More often than not.

With that in mind, watch David Gregory cut off Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, former Democratic Lt. Governor of Maryland (Please note: Marriage equality is hugely important to me, and hosts do need to stay on point, but twice today, I noticed Democrats being cut off, not Republicans.):

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Kathleen Kennedy Townsend:

…Just to go back to the other issue, growth really could occur, as Keynes pointed out, by actually spending government money. You can see what has happened in England when everybody’s practiced austerity. The currency is going down. And the unemployment is worse. So I don’t know if the Republicans are really interested in growth if they’re not actually saying, “Let’s spend money now.” This is our biggest challenge.

David Gregory:

I want to stay on the gay marriage issue if I can…

Nobody could stop you, David, so of course you can, you’re the host. You control the conversation. And this conversation was inconveniently making a valid point that needed to reach a wider audience, your audience.

Now that won’t happen.

And anyone who still believes there’s such a thing as a “liberal media” needs to scroll through these posts.

VIDEO– Jay Carney to Fox host: “If you did a little reporting…”

so there

Carney:

Well actually, Jenna, again, if you did a little reporting, you’d know that the Easter egg roll is open for a lot of military families. It’s paid for by the sale of those eggs that come out as well as from donations on the outside. It’s a totally different budget. These are apples and oranges.”

snap12

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney had a Moment of Masochism and decided to appear on Fox News [sic]. “Happening Now” host Jenna Lee asked why the White House will still hold its annual “Easter egg roll” event but ended White House tours for “regular families.”

Yes, the geniuses at Fox are still fixated on the tours instead of how the sequester will affect millions of Americans all over the country. HuffPo posted a few examples:

More than 400 civilian contractors are going to be laid of at Tobyhanna Army Depot in Pennsylvania because of sequestration and the end of the Iraq War.

An audit agency that helped save the government $4.2 billion last year will be weakened by the sequester.

An Iowa school board is considering firing 17 teachers because of sequestration and budget woes.

Roughly 1,000 military technicians in Indiana are going to lose a day of pay every week for the next five months because of the sequester.

Yet this is what the “liberal media” has been obsessing on:

media coverage White House tours sequester

bias liberal media my ass smaller

VIDEO: “If these had been the rules… we’d have Pres. Romney.” Pundits blow story off; Scott Walker mulls scheme.

bias liberal media my ass smaller

Yesterday I posted Finally! WaPo front-pages election-rigging scheme. Plus, glimmers of hope in Virginia, Florida, and it got attention for good reason. Republican dirty tricks have been underway in several GOP-run states that want to circumvent our elections by creating their own version of the electoral college that would result in many more red states… despite the popular vote.

But for days the news media didn’t seem to be listening. Most of the corporate media ignored the story until Rachel Maddow literally insisted on her show, “This is going on in the states right now. Hey beltway, wake up!”

Then they woke up.

WaPo finally front paged it:

Republicans in Virginia and a handful of other battleground states are pushing for far-reaching changes to the electoral college in an attempt to counter recent success by Democrats.

In the vast majority of states, the presidential candidate who wins receives all of that state’s electoral votes. The proposed changes would instead apportion electoral votes by congressional district, a setup far more favorable to Republicans. Under such a system in Virginia, for instance, President Obama would have claimed four of the state’s 13 electoral votes in the 2012 election, rather than all of them.

That lovely little dirty trick would have changed the outcome of the election had it been in place.

 Today, per TPM, Scott Walker is now entertaining the idea:

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI) said on Saturday that his state may join an RNC-backed plan currently being contemplated in four other states that voted for President Obama in 2012 to rig blue state electoral votes in favor of future Republican presidential candidates.

There was some encouraging news, though. A few states appeared to have been embarrassed into rejecting that model, at least for now. But not Michigan:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Brian Williams:

“Seeing red: A push by Republicans to change the way we elect a president. If these had been the rules across the map in November, we’d have President Romney.”

Rachel Maddow:

“In Michigan they appear to be just warming up. Michigan is my bet for actually doing this thing that most of Republican America is now too embarrassed to go ahead with. Michigan is not like the other states any more. What will not work anywhere else, they think works there.”

Kinda scary, huh? But that didn’t appear to faze two MSNBC pundits that T.J. Holmes interviewed today. I didn’t catch their names, but when Holmes prodded them, neither seemed concerned and literally blew him off with (paraphrased), “Meh. The states you mentioned have already pretty much rejected the idea. No biggie. Next.”

The fact that so many states, that so many Republican governors and legislators considered stomping all over our democracy as seriously as they did– so seriously that it made the front page of the Washington Post and caught the eye of NBC’s Brian Williams– makes it a huge story.

And to make it worse, nobody on the broadcast, not even Holmes, brought up Michigan… which, again, is Rachel Maddow’s “bet for actually doing this thing that most of Republican America is now too embarrassed to go ahead with. Michigan is not like the other states any more. What will not work anywhere else, they think works there.”

Yet, at least today, MSNBC ignored that part of the story.

Liberal media my ass.

Did I hear this correctly?

I flipped on MSNBC and caught this Moment of WTF from Chris Jansing (slightly paraphrased):

“I know I shouldn’t say this, but is Bill Clinton President Obama’s Donald Trump?”

You’re right, Chris, you shouldn’t have said it.

No matter what similarities Jansing was referring to, if any exist, the premise is so faulty that she should have known better than to take it seriously enough to go against her own better judgment and ask that truly idiotic question.

The obligatory response:

Comparing a popular former Democratic president to a right wing shill was unnecessary and over the top. Clinton is admired and continues to contribute and be honored for his work both nationally and globally. He is clearly intelligent, a terrific communicator, and is highly accomplished.

He also has, you know, credibility.

Trump is a whackadoodle birther, an embarrassing laughingstock, a self-promoting buffoon, “the Pied Piper of American racism,” whose current claim to fame is being a reality TV host with a bad comb-over who gets off on firing people.

In fact, his association with Mitt Romney is not exactly helping the GOP nominee’s cause, whereas Clinton is generally a plus for Team Obama.

Come on, Ms. Jansing. You’re better than that. Or are you?

“The Republicans are the problem… Compromise has gone out the window.”

Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and guess what? They’ve never seen it this dysfunctional in all that time, and expand on the point in their WaPo opinion piece.

You’re right, this is not the least bit surprising, but it’s still nice to get some validation from Mann and Ornstein… as if we needed any, right?

As John Dean tweeted, this op-ed is so important given the sources, and it deserves some real attention. Their premise is, of course, that “the problem lies with the Republican Party” and that when one party is so off the charts ideologically, then coming together with the other political party to work through and resolve the nation’s problems is nearly impossible:

The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition. [...]

While the Democrats may have moved from their 40-yard line to their 25, the Republicans have gone from their 40 to somewhere behind their goal post. [...]

Today, thanks to the GOP, compromise has gone out the window in Washington. In the first two years of the Obama administration, nearly every presidential initiative met with vehement, rancorous and unanimous Republican opposition in the House and the Senate, followed by efforts to delegitimize the results and repeal the policies. The filibuster, once relegated to a handful of major national issues in a given Congress, became a routine weapon of obstruction, applied even to widely supported bills or presidential nominations. And Republicans in the Senate have abused the confirmation process to block any and every nominee to posts such as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, solely to keep laws that were legitimately enacted from being implemented.

As for how Democrats behaved when George W. Bush was in the White House, “the difference is striking.” That’s right, the Dems actually provided crucial votes that got some controversial legislation passed, like tax cuts, No Child Left Behind, and the 2008 financial bailouts. (Not that they should have passed some of those laws…)

That was then.

Their advice to the press:

[S]top lending legitimacy to Senate filibusters by treating a 60-vote hurdle as routine. The framers certainly didn’t intend it to be. Report individual senators’ abusive use of holds and identify every time the minority party uses a filibuster to kill a bill or nomination with majority support.

Their advice to voters: “Punish ideological extremism at the polls.”

My advice to Mann and Ornstein: Shout ”The problem lies with the Republican Party” from the rooftops.

Thomas E. Mann is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and Norman J. Ornstein is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. This essay is adapted from their book “It’s Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism,” which will be available Tuesday.

Note: Edited.

“MSNBC’s Ed Schultz: A rare liberal success in broadcasting”

I usually glaze over while trying to muddle through the Business section in my L.A. Times, but today my eyes and brain snapped to attention when I saw an article about Ed Schultz… a big article.

What must they be thinking, including such a lengthy piece about a Kenyan liberal French commie socialist TV host like Ed? Why, the very idea gave me the vapors as I reached for my fan and smelling salts and collapsed on my fainting couch!

The article explains how he went from being a Republican (he was until 2000) to a very vocal liberal who consistently stands up for the middle class, unions, and the unemployed. His wife, Wendy, is a psychiatric nurse, and she took him to a homeless shelter on their first date. According to the Times, that “helped open his eyes to progressive causes.”

Here are a few excerpts, starting with why we don’t see more progressives represented in the media:

Part of the problem is that corporate advertisers are leery of buying space on liberal broadcasts that often attack corporate interests, noted Jeff Cohen, an associate professor of journalism at Ithaca College. In 2006, a leaked internal memo from ABC Radio Networks revealed a list of corporations that requested their commercials never be placed on Air America. [...]

Schultz, however, isn’t content with anemic ratings. He’s presenting himself as the one true advocate for the working man. [...]

Ratings suggest the tactic is working. This year through early February, Schultz’s nightly viewership has averaged 608,000, a 60% increase from his ratings during the same period in 2010, according to Nielsen. He’s surpassed Cooper, who airs in the same time slot, though he has more than a million fewer viewers than O’Reilly, who also airs at 8 p.m.

Michael Harrison, the publisher of Talkers, a website and magazine that follows talk radio says that “there’s a rise in ‘liberal’ broadcasting because there are more poor people looking for someone who talks to them.” Or as I like to call them, sane, caring people.

I don’t believe the increase is limited to poor people, but that more Americans are hopping on the bandwagon, thanks to the Occupy movement, for one.

One woman, Kelly Wiedemer, is a 99er (someone who has surpassed 99 weeks of unemployment benefits) who says that Ed was one of the only people she heard talking about long-term unemployment. She speaks for a lot of people, apparently:

He was our voice,” she said. “He really did make a difference” in getting groups such as the Congressional Black Caucus interested in the 99ers and putting forth legislation to extend benefits.

Hey L.A. Times, how about an article like this about Rachel Maddow, since you’ve previously covered Keith Olbermann and now Ed? She’s one of the brightest, most thorough, astute hosts out there and covers topics that nobody else touches.

That said, it was gratifying to see a major newspaper shine the spotlight on Ed today.

Ed and I follow each other on Twitter. I suggest following him at @EdShow and @WeGotEd. The Ed Show handle is his TV show account, and We Got Ed seems to be used for his radio show tweets. You can also use #EdShow or @EdShow to tweet during his TV show where they air as many tweets as they can in real time, then recycle them once or twice. I’ve had a few of mine appear, and many, many of my Twitter pals’; it’s a nice way to get your voice out there.

You can read the whole Times piece here.

FCC finally kills off Fairness Doctrine

First, some background:

Wiki:

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission’s view, honest, equitable and balanced. The FCC decided to eliminate the policy in 1987, and in 2011 the Fairness Doctrine was effectively eliminated.[1]

The 1949 Commission Report served as the foundation for the Fairness Doctrine, since it had previously established two other forms of regulation onto broadcasters: to provide adequate coverage of public issues, and to ensure that coverage fairly represented opposing views.[2] The second rule required broadcasters to provide reply time to issue-oriented citizens. Broadcasters could therefore trigger Fairness Doctrine complaints without editorializing. [...]

The Fairness Doctrine should not be confused with the Equal Time rule. The Fairness Doctrine deals with discussion of controversial issues, while the Equal Time rule deals only with political candidates. [...]

The main agenda for the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints, and in 1969, the United States Supreme Court upheld the FCC’s general right to enforce the Fairness Doctrine where channels were limited. But the courts did not rule that the FCC was obliged to do so.[4]. The courts reasoned that the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum, which limited the opportunity for access to the airwaves, created a need for the Doctrine. However, the proliferation of cable television, multiple channels within cable, public-access channels, and the Internet have eroded this argument, since there are plenty of places for ordinary individuals to make public comments on controversial issues at low or no cost. [...]

When asked by John Gizzi of Human Events, “Do you personally support revival of the ‘Fairness Doctrine?’”, the Speaker [Nancy Pelosi] replied “Yes.”[25] [...]

Former President Bill Clinton has also shown support for the Fairness Doctrine. During a February 13, 2009, appearance on the Mario Solis Marich radio show, Clinton said:

Well, you either ought to have the Fairness Doctrine or we ought to have more balance on the other side, because essentially there’s always been a lot of big money to support the right wing talk shows.

Clinton cited the “blatant drumbeat” against the stimulus program from conservative talk radio, suggesting that it doesn’t reflect economic reality.[30] [...]

Opposition

The Fairness Doctrine has been strongly opposed by prominent conservatives and libertarians who view it as an attack on First Amendment rights and property rights. [...]

On August 12, 2008, FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell stated that the reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine could be intertwined with the debate over network neutrality (a proposal to classify network operators as common carriers required to admit all Internet services, applications and devices on equal terms), presenting a potential danger that net neutrality and Fairness Doctrine advocates could try to expand content controls to the Internet.[34] It could also include “government dictating content policy”.[35]

Now for the reason for this post, via Politico:

The FCC gave the coup de grace to the fairness doctrine Monday as the commission axed more than 80 media industry rules.

Earlier this summer FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski agreed to erase the post WWII-era rule, but the action Monday puts the last nail into the coffin for the regulation that sought to ensure discussion over the airwaves of controversial issues did not exclude any particular point of view. A broadcaster that violated the rule risked losing its license. [...]

Monday’s move is part of the commission’s response to a White House executive order directing a “government-wide review of regulations already on the books” designed to eliminate unnecessary regulations.

So there you have it. The monopoly of right wing propaganda in the media continues, gargantuan conservative corporations control most of what we see and hear, and ClusterFox et al continue to lie with abandon, while those on the left struggle to maintain a minimum number of outlets through which to get their message out.

And just for good measure:

Maybe we need a Truth Doctrine.

H/t: @raymedeirosshow