From the Desk of John Sidney McCain, R-POW
NBC Correspondent Kelly O’Donnell transcribes reports from the Straight Talk Express:
Advisors say if Obama gets “nastier” on [the 'how many houses'] issue that opens the door for them. Advisors say the “Rezko deal stinks to the high heavens.” They will be prepared to show McCain’s “home” in Hanoi by using images of his cell. They claim they have not overused the POW element and insist they have “underused it.”
Since O’Donnell is apparently angling for a lucrative new position as McCain campaign stenographer, I’ll happily do her current job for her and challenge the notion that McCain has ever been reluctant to play the POW card:
Dana Milbank and the Awesome Powers of Selective Quotation
Once again, we see how the responsible, professional journalists in the traditional media operate with respect to context and interpreting the meaning of a quote. Under the title “President Obama continues hectic victory tour,” Dana Milbank writes the following (emphasis mine):
On Misogyny, Racism, and the MSM
The Beltway as Bret Michaels
In 17 words, Gabriel Sherman unwittingly sums up precisely what is wrong with American campaign journalism:
[T]he press wants to put its love somewhere, and, right now, that love is up for grabs.
Fuck the public interest–it’s all about who’s ready to rock Adam Nagourney’s world!
h/t Atrios
On John Edwards ‘Love Child’
“Double standard!” cries Slate media critic Jack Shafer. “An elaborate cover up!” whines hacktacular OG ‘even the liberal’ blogger Mickey Kaus. ‘Liberal bias!’ wails the wingnutosphere (surprise, surprise).
All that self-righteous sturm und drang simply because the MSM hasn’t dove on recent reports from that bastion of responsible journalism, The National Enquirer, alleging that former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards cheated on his wife, Elizabeth, with a woman named Reille Hunter.
How to be on the “Far Left”, from the paper of record
According to the New York Times, an American is on the “far left” if they are angry over Obama’s support for the FISA bill. Or, in other words, if an American is vocal about defending their civil liberties, that puts them in the fringes of politics — the outcasts wandering around the hinterlands, forgotten and ignored because of their extreme views.
Nice.
Why don’t we see extreme activities which receive Republican support as being considered “far right”? Why isn’t the anti-immigration group the Minutemen ever considered far right? How come wanting to destroy social security isn’t from the far right? How come wanting to enforce religion by law (for example, by making gay marriage illegal) isn’t on the far right? How come using tax cuts to distribute more wealth to the greedy isn’t coming from the far right? I could go on — and I’m sure you could, too. Suffice to say, in today’s political discourse “far right” is defined as either God Hates Fags or Adolf Hitler; yet the “far left” consists of activists who dare to defend the Constitution.
Insert some witty cliche about the “liberal media” here. When this is the starting point defined by the mainstream, no wonder political discourse in this country is a joke.
Malkin keeps it classy
She called Obama’s campaign the “Jive Talk Express” not only on her blog, but as a title for her nationally syndicated column. So much for the post-racial campaign.
h/t raw story
Dear Washington Post Editors: Here’s where the story ends
Unless, of course, you can find some more corroborating facts after this point. But your story that Obama got a home loan discount should have never included this paragraph:
Supreme Court of Canada Unanimously Defrosts Libel Chill
The media should not live in constant fear of facing a libel suit every time a provocative commentary is published or broadcast, the Supreme Court of Canada said yesterday in a major ruling won by controversial Vancouver radio broadcaster Rafe Mair.
In a 9-0 decision that modernizes the defence of fair comment, the court found that Mr. Mair did not defame Christian-values advocate Kari Simpson when he denounced her stand on a book-banning controversy.
“An individual’s reputation is not to be treated as regrettable but unavoidable roadkill on the highway of public controversy, but nor should an overly solicitous regard for personal reputation be permitted to ‘chill’ freewheeling debate on matters of public interest,” Mr. Justice Ian Binnie said.
Judge Binnie said that the key to a defence of honest belief - particularly in an era when extravagant overstatement is common - should lie in whether an honest person could have held the same opinion.
“We live in a free country, where people have as much right to express outrageous and ridiculous opinions as moderate ones,” Judge Binnie said. “In much modern media, personalities such as Rafe Mair are as much entertainers as journalists.”
Score one for the chronically hyperbolic Canadian media personalities who live and die on the alter of outrageous and ridiculous opinions (ahem).
If Karl Rove said something in the woods, would it make headlines?
Seriously. I understand his comments are ridiculous, but who gives a crap what Rove thinks about Obama? Or anything? He’s out of the White House, he’s not running the country anymore.
This, though, is my favorite part of the short article:
With a sense of logic this bad…
One wonders if there’s any job David Brooks is more suited for than a hack news columnist.
Beyond Unacceptable (UPDATED)
For some reason, I simply didn’t see this coming. Maybe I should have, but not being much of a watcher of Fox News, my understanding of the channel was that its success as a catapult for right wing narratives stems from it’s veneer of respectability.
Again, forgive me for being wrong, I don’t actually watch the thing.
Bill Moyers Pwns O’Reilly Factor Producer Porter Barry
Ambush FAIL:
As Nicole Belle says, “watch it again and again, it just gets better.”
Gotham Town Hall - Can ABC Play Fair?
The big news of the day is the joint invite from NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg and ABC News to host the first town hall meeting of the general election. Now, I hope you will pardon me if I don’t show the same level enthusiasm toward this prospect that some seem ready to proffer. You see, it was less than a month ago that ABC News hosted what was arguably the most tabloid, partisan, hack-job of a debate in the era of modern politics.
Luttwak Has His Facts Wrong on Muslim Law
Back on May 12, the New York Times published an op-ed by Edward Luttwak, a military historian, which argued that, if elected president, Barack Obama would be a hindrance to improved relations with the Muslim world because of his personal and family religious background:
The Media Uses Pentagon-Prepped Military “Analysts” To Spread Disinformation on War
Whoops! I didn’t see that Dr. Gail had already posted on this before I did. Maybe she can keep me company on the fainting couch. — Kathy
David Barstow reports on how the media serves as a “message machine” for the Pentagon:
In the summer of 2005, the Bush administration confronted a fresh wave of criticism over Guantánamo Bay. The detention center had just been branded “the gulag of our times” by Amnesty International, there were new allegations of abuse from United Nations human rights experts and calls were mounting for its closure.
The administration’s communications experts responded swiftly. Early one Friday morning, they put a group of retired military officers on one of the jets normally used by Vice President Dick Cheney and flew them to Cuba for a carefully orchestrated tour of Guantánamo.
To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as “military analysts” whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world.
Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.
Are you surprised yet? I know; neither am I. You will also be shocked to hear that most of these military “analysts” use their Pentagon connections to steer lucrative projects to defense industry contractors they work for, as lobbyists, consultants, board members, or in various other capacities:
The effort … has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.
Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror. It is a furious competition, one in which inside information and easy access to senior officials are highly prized.
It’s a good thing I’m already sitting down; this is all making me feel very faint.
Glenn Greenwald has his usual trenchant commentary.