Election

John McCain Worries That Al Qaeda Are Democrats

Posted by on March 14, 2008 at 4:52 pm. NO Comments :

According to the latest Republican spin, an Al Qaeda attack will help Republicans – except when it helps Democrats. Throughout the past five or six years, there were numerous occasions when Republicans either promoted or invented threats in order to bolster their campaign prospects or blunt good news for Democrats. The theory being that the elevated fear factor would induce voters to cling to the perceived security of hard-line right-wingers like Bush, and now, McCain. Keith Olbermann has documented this tactic in his ongoing series, “The Nexus of Politics and Terror.” [Video below]

However, when asked at a campaign event in Pennsylvania whether Al-Qaeda might step up its attacks to hurt his campaign, John McCain said:

“Yes, I worry about it. And I know they pay attention, because of the intercepts we have of their communications.”

Al Qaeda may be paying attention, but the press certainly is not. No one bothered to ask McCain why he thought such attacks would hurt his campaign. Why is he presuming that a more dangerous Iraq would be detrimental to Republicans; particularly in light of the historical exploitation of fear for which his party is well known. After years of selling Republicans as the party that will protect us from terrorists, all of a sudden Republicans are afraid that more terrorism will accrue to the benefit of Democrats.

Actually, McCain may be delivery a generous compliment. Perhaps he is finally admitting that escalating violence in Iraq would spur the American people to support Democrats because Democrats are trusted more with national security matters. He may have just realized that the public rates Democrats higher than Republicans with regard to managing the war in Iraq. Isn’t it wonderful that McCain now concedes the superiority of Democrats?

It’s too bad, however, that the media lets McCain get away with such blatant fear-mongering. The suggestion that Al Qaeda would increase violence in order to hurt McCain implies that Al Qaeda is rooting for Democrats. But that unconscionable falsehood is only trotted out when Republican strategists think they can use it to tarnish their opponents. Then, after having done so, the same strategists fabricate threats of increased violence to tarnish their opponents from the opposite direction. The logic just doesn’t gel. If Republicans really believe that increased violence by Al Qaeda will help Democrats, how can they also believe that the increased violence will help Republicans? Obviously, they don’t believe any of it. It is political gamesmanship of the most most cynical order. It would be nice if they got called on it by some enterprising and honest reporter.

The Nexus of Politics and Terror:

John McCain’s Opposition To Fair And Balanced Media

Posted by on March 12, 2008 at 12:21 pm. NO Comments :

The past several months have seen the rise of a variety of public discussions centered on the media. The Media Ownership Act of 2007 was introduced in the Senate. The FCC held their dog and pony hearings on consolidation, complete with the mischief of Comcast paying seat-fillers to prevent critics from attending the event. Byron Dorgan authored a resolution to nullify the FCC’s gift to Big Media. And the battle over network neutrality continued as Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T endeavored to violate it.

Despite this activity, media reform has not assumed a particularly visible role in the current election season. None of the remaining candidates have gone out of their way to highlight their positions on media issues. So we should be grateful that Ars Technica has done it for them. Here a few excerpts from the article:

“Democratic presidential rivals Barack Obama (D-IL) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY) have both co-sponsored the [Dorgan] declaration along with seven other Democrats and four Republicans. None of those Republicans include the GOP’s choice for the White House, Senator John McCain.”

~~~

“…on the big-ticket broadcasting/telecom issues, McCain plays to big media and the telcos. Along with 33 Senate Republicans and no Democrats, he’s a co-sponsor of the Broadcaster Freedom Act, which would permanently bar the FCC from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. As for net neutrality, he calls for minimal government regulation of broadband.” [News Corpse translation: Let Big Media do whatever the hell they want]

~~~

“McCain declined late last year to co-sponsor a Senate bill that would have put the brakes on FCC Chair Martin’s rush to change the Commission’s newspaper/TV cross-ownership rule. Martin got the change enacted after barely two weeks of public comment by a narrow 3 to 2 partisan majority.”

It should also be noted that the lobbyist identified in a recent New York Times article as having had a “relationship” with John McCain, was a telecom lobbyist.

To be sure, the Democrats haven’t had a reliable advocate of media reform since John Edwards was driven out of the race by the media. Barack Obama co-authored an article with Sen. John Kerry that struck the right tone, but he has not given the issue much priority. Hillary Clinton, who counts Rupert Murdoch as a supporter, drifted even further from the pack when she agreed to break ranks and appear on a Fox News-sponsored debate.

There’s still time to get the candidates to refine and promote their positions on media reform, but it will be up to the people to press the matter. That means YOU! You have your assignment.

Update: SaveThe Internet just released a video of members of OK Go testifying (and playing) at a House committee hearing on net neutrality.

Spitzer Is To Clinton As Vitter Is To McCain

Posted by on March 10, 2008 at 2:03 pm. NO Comments :

New York governor Eliot Spitzer has blown it in a big way. Anti-corruption crusaders ought not to be dallying with call girls. Ordinarily I don’t like to assign much importance to personal and/or family matters. But when a personal act is both illegal and hypocritical, it becomes a hurdle that is very difficult to get over.

That said, the media is demonstrating its customary tunnel-blindness in reporting this story. The news is less than two hours old and I have already heard reporters on CNN, Fox and MSNBC asking about the impact on Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Why would this have any impact on Hillary Clinton’s campaign? It is unrelated to policy matters. It is not something she could have known. There is no connection to her whatsoever other than the fact that Spitzer had endorsed her.

Well, I haven’t heard anyone ask John McCain about whether he has the support of Sen. Larry “Wide Stance” Craig (R-ID). And Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), an admitted patron of Washington’s DC Madam, endorsed McCain just yesterday. Neither Craig nor Vitter have resigned their seats in the Senate.

I also have to wonder if Dick Morris, a frequent guest on Bill O’Reilly’s program, and the subject of his own prostitution scandal, will appear on the Factor tonight to discuss the Spitzer affair. While he obviously would have no moral authority to criticize Spitzer, he could at least speak from experience. Knowing Morris and O’Reilly, they would probably not even bother to disclose it.

Here’s your homework for today: Anyone who reads or hears a reporter ask Clinton about Spitzer should demand that they also ask McCain about Vitter.

Tucker Carlson’s Ethics Education

Posted by on March 9, 2008 at 1:09 pm. NO Comments :

In the thoroughly overblown controversy surrounding Barack Obama’s foreign policy adviser, Samantha Power, there is no shortage of hysterical lunacy.

Power, in a momentary lapse of judgment referred to Hillary Clinton as a “monster.” Clinton’s campaign then proceeded to act like one, calling for Power to be fired. It seems like an oddly inapt sanction for the first truly viable female presidential candidate to banish from the political theater another women who is a Pulitzer prize winning author, historian, lawyer and foreign policy expert. Clinton continues off the deep end by saying…

“I think that it is important to look at what she and his other advisers say behind closed doors…”

Presumably this means that Clinton will shortly release the transcripts of her private meetings and those of her advisers. Obama, for his part, should never have accepted Power’s resignation. It would be shameful to lose the talents of this brilliant woman over a trivial campaign dust-up.

But the supreme idiocy is, as usual, reserved for the media. On Friday, Tucker Carlson interviewed Gerri Peev, the reporter who published the fateful Power story. In the course of the discussion, Carlson inexplicably asserts that reporters have some obligation to grant all requests to take a subjects comments off the record. He then disparages the whole of British media by stating that their standards are “dramatically lower” than those in the U.S. Here’s the clip (and the full interview):

Tucker February 2008Hearing Tucker Carlson elucidate on journalistic ethics is like having Dick Cheney tutor you on honesty and open government. It was, however, nice to hear Peev put Tucker in his place. To cap it off, after Carlson insults Peev for doing her job, he has the gall to chastise her, saying…

“People don’t talk to you when you go out of your way to hurt them…”

You mean like when you declare that they, and all of their nation’s journalists, have low standards? I can’t think of many examples of American journalism’s standards that sink as low as Tucker. Seriously, when is this low-life, ratings loser going to be canceled?

Free For All: The Media’s Gift To Political Advertisers

Posted by on March 7, 2008 at 3:29 pm. NO Comments :

In the days leading up to the March 4 primaries in Texas, Ohio, Vermont and Rhode Island, millions of residents of those states (and of America) saw a now infamous advertisement from Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

However, the “Red Phone/3 am” ad was mostly seen by viewers of news programs that broadcast the commercial for free. In effect, the media is providing millions of dollars worth of in-kind contributions to candidates in the name of reporting on the content of their ads.

It didn’t begin with Clinton.
The most famous example of a “free media” bonanza is the Daisy Girl ad for Lyndon Johnson’s 1964 presidential campaign. Today it is one of the most notorious political advertisements in history despite the fact that it actually aired only once in paid media.
During the 2004 Democratic primary, a group called Americans for Jobs, Healthcare and Progressive Values produced an ad showing Osama bin Laden and accusing Howard Dean of not having the experience needed to fight terrorism. They spent only $14,000 to run the ad just 16 times in two small markets. However, it generated four days of attention from national news outlets.
Also in 2004, the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, a front group with funding from Republican partisans, spent less than a half-million dollars to run an ad for one week, in only three states, slandering Democrat John Kerry’s war record. The uproar resulted in more than three weeks of nationally televised rebroadcast and debate.
More recently, Gov. Mike Huckabee orchestrated a press conference where he showed an ad attacking Mitt Romney. He then announced that he had no intention of paying to air the ad. The event was merely a brazen attempt to garner some publicity for a spot without having to actually spend anything on airtime.

These tactics are now a routine part of campaign strategy. Politicians and interest groups know that they can manipulate news providers to do their work for them. Television, in particular, is susceptible due to its ravenous appetite for pre-produced video programming.

So what should be done about it? It would be unwise to implement some sort of legal mandate to regulate how news media cover campaign advertising. It is entirely legitimate to report on the content of political ads, their veracity, and their strategic goals. However, it wouldn’t hurt to apply some journalistic ethics to the editorial judgment. That means assessing the newsworthiness of any piece that includes such ads. Also, there is no need to broadcast them repeatedly to make a point. They know that the campaigns are manipulating them. Why do they let them get away with it?

Here are a couple of other measures editors ought to consider when confronted with this.

  • Don’t bother to report on any ad that has not exceeded a defined threshold of paid impressions. In other words, if the campaign doesn’t make a significant purchase of air time for their own ad, it isn’t news.
  • If the ad is shown it should be confined to a small percentage of the screen with a video watermark over the whole piece labeling it is a campaign ad. This would serve to blunt the promotional value of the airing and focus on the news value.

Implemented voluntarily, this would not infringe on journalistic freedom or civil liberties. Journalists should not allow themselves to be exploited by campaigns or interest groups. They have no obligation to assist in promotional activities. They need only to report what is actually newsworthy. By maintaining a professional detachment they will produce a better product and provide a better service to the public.

Chris Wallace Still Obsessed With Absent Democrats

Posted by on March 3, 2008 at 3:01 pm. 1 Comments :

Chris Wallace, the host of Fox News Sunday is still perturbed that he can’t get presidential candidates with a “D” after their name to come play in his sandbox.

Wallace has been particularly obsessed with poking at Democrats who have declined to submit to Fox News abuse. Reading this viewer letter is just another attempt to “shame” Democrats into appearing on his show. To equate the process of international diplomacy with that of face-time on a biased, third-rate cable news channel is beyond idiocy. But it is not beyond Wallace.

Democrats are right to shun Fox and should continue to do so. The strategy is working as evidenced by Wallace’s all-consuming attention to it. If it wasn’t hurting them, they would never mention it. And it is paying off in a couple of significant ways. First, it denies Fox the opportunity to cast more of its slime onto Democrats. Second, Fox misses out on the higher ratings and revenues they would receive from associating with the more popular Democratic candidates. (Fox News Sunday is consistently last amongst the Sunday news interview programs – behind Meet the Press, This Week, and Face the Nation)

Most importantly it maintains the premise that Fox is not a credible news entity and should not be treated as one. Let’s hope the Democrats have the stamina to keep it up throughout the general election.

The Myth Of Maverick McCain

Posted by on February 27, 2008 at 1:40 pm. NO Comments :

Myth of Maverick McCainJohn McCain’s image, as propounded by his spinners (aka: the Media) is that of a maverick who shuns political opportunists and slaps the hands of greedy, special interest self-promoters. It’s an image that gets projected repeatedly by pundits and lazy journalists whose writing seems to be on auto-pilot. They reason that if it was said it about him last year (or last century), it must be true this year as well. This flawed logic even extends to government watchdog groups.

The Austin American- Statesman reports that McCain is circulating a letter from Public Citizen that attests to his commitment to good government:

“We are compelled to note something that has been lost in the recent criticism of Sen. McCain’s association with lobbyists: Regardless of how many lobbyists are working on his campaign or raising money for him, John McCain fought for 14 long, hard years for reforms that seriously limit lobbyists power.”

The “recent criticism” mentioned is probably a reference to the New York Times article detailing McCain’s relationship with Vicki Iseman, a telecommunications lobbyist. Unfortunately, the blowback on the article has been focused on the salacious shenanigans instead of the more substantive financial ones. Still, Public Citizen is articulating a surprisingly positive assessment of a man that scored only 15% on their most recent congressional voting scorecard. What’s more, WhiteHouseForSale.org, a Public Citizen spinoff, ranks McCain as the candidate receiving by far the most contributions bundled by lobbyists.

McCain Lobbyists Bundlers

Yet Public Citizen still praises McCain for his past efforts while dismissing his present indiscretions. I suppose that, once upon a time, Public Citizen would defend the Unabomber because he was once a respected mathematics professor at Berkeley. For his part, McCain dodges charges of hypocrisy by stating simply that his lobbyists are different, they’re better:

“These people have honorable records, and they’re honorable people, and I’m proud to have them as part of my team.”

Media Matters has compiled an extensive profile of the McCain team, and it is littered with political and corporate glad-handers who stand to gain much via their relationship with McCain. This is true whether or not McCain becomes president. He is still a member of the Senate and sits on powerful committees including Commerce and Armed Services.

The presence of such a large contingent of lobbyists on McCain’s payroll raises some troubling questions. These are people who don’t do anything without expecting something in return. Indeed, they have clients who are paying them to produce returns and thus have a fiduciary duty to deliver. Is the press asking that question? And what happens when these staffers go off payroll, as has occurred in the course of McCain’s fiscally-strapped campaign? When lobbyists are working for nothing to advance the interests of a powerful politician, doesn’t that at least suggest an appearance of impropriety? Given that these lobbyists earn hundreds of thousands of dollars, isn’t their unpaid work as principal managers of McCain’s campaign also an unreported contribution? Has the press addressed that issue?

The right-wing criticism of the New York Times story seems to have effectively inoculated McCain from such inquiries. Even though the critics targeted the Iseman affair, their impact has sunk down into any topic covered by the story, including the accurate assertions of McCain’s coziness with lobbyists. McCain’s initial response to the Times displayed an indignant belligerence that promised that, “We’re going to go to war with them now.” But the very next day he changed his tune saying:

“I had a press conference yesterday morning and I am moving on and am talking about the big issues […] I addressed the issue. I addressed every question that was addressed to me. And I do not intend to discuss it.”

Well, that war was much shorter that the 100 years he would have us in Iraq. However, the press must not accept his refusal to discuss the issue of lobbyists attached to his campaign. This is one of the primary arguments he makes for his candidacy, and it is at the center of the image he wants to project to voters. It must, therefore, be at the top of any journalist’s list of issues to raise with the Senator. And if it isn’t, then the press should file it’s own declaration of an in-kind contribution to John McCain and his campaign folklore.

The Pocket Barack-itizer

Posted by on February 26, 2008 at 8:53 am. 15 Comments :

To hear the press tell it, Sen. Barack Obama just completed his first term as high school class treasurer and is trying to parlay that triviality into a bid to become Leader of the Free World. Innumerable pundits, most notable for how often they are wrong, are incessantly yammering about Obama’s allegedly slender resume. Had they bothered to do a little homework themselves, they would know that he has a stellar academic history, has unselfishly toiled for non-profit, public interest groups, and has ten years of legislative experience in the Illinois and U.S. Senate.

It occurred to me that pundits, and the citizens they misinform, might benefit by having convenient access to some basic facts about the man who may be the next President of the United States of America.

I created this web-site-in-a-widget to address the mischaracterizations in the media about Sen. Obama’s experience and readiness to be Commander in Chief. It contains biographical information as well as useful links for donations, voting registration, etc. In addition to that, when you install this widget you will have a handy rotating display of headlines from the Obama Blog. And all of these features will also be available to all of your site’s visitors.

The widget is easy to install on your blog, web site, or social network page. Just click the “Get & Share” button at the bottom of the widget and select a service from those displayed. Or you can select “Embed” to get the code to paste onto your page. That’s it!

This widget is offered free of charge to anyone who wishes to use it. If you like this widget, you can get one made custom for your own business, web site or blog. For that there is normally an exorbitant fee that will likely send you spiraling into bankruptcy and despair. But, if you act now, the exorbitant fee will be slashed to a much more reasonable amount that will allow me to enjoy a nutritious lunch and perhaps a decaf latte.

Technology like this can enhance the ability of alternative media to grow and compete with the corporate-dominated Conventional Media. It can spread important messages to the many corners of the InterTubesâ„¢. Given the state of the media, we all need to explore new ways to multiply our voices, and the creative use of widgets is one way to do that.

Widgets can be used for a wide variety of purposes – from advertising and promotion, to information distribution and announcements, to artistic projects and displays. Be creative!

For more information, send an email with your questions and/or ideas.

See also the News Corpse Headline Widget.

Bill O’Reilly’s Lynching Party

Posted by on February 20, 2008 at 9:57 pm. NO Comments :

In what seemed to begin as a defense of Michelle Obama, Bill O’Reilly still manages to stick his foot in his fat racist mouth.

O'Reilly Lynching Party

A caller to his radio program started to offer some uncorroborated gossip about Ms. Obama’s personality. O’Reilly stopped her, saying that whatever she was about to say was unfair because it had not been checked out by, I suppose, him. He proceeded to detail the precise circumstances under which it would be acceptable to spread uncorroborated gossip. Then he let loose with this:

“I don’t want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there’s evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that’s how she really feels — that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever — then that’s legit. We’ll track it down.”

How is this not worse than what David Shuster said? O’Reilly is saying flatly that he wants to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama if he is satisfied with some vague notion of evidence of something or other. Of course, I don’t believe for a moment that he’s in his Long Island garage practicing tying nooses, but this comment is so repulsively insensitive that there is just no justification for it.

Will he be reprimanded by Fox News? Will he be suspended? Will Fox News even report on the remarks? I’m not holding my breath.

Update: O’Reilly smirked through a pseudo-apology last night. As usual, it was not an expression of regret for despicable remarks, but an excuse to placate those who were offended, as if it were their fault for being too sensitive.

The Clinton/Shuster Affair Winds Down

Posted by on February 14, 2008 at 1:16 pm. 2 Comments :

Word has it that David Shuster, who was suspended for using a common colloquial that is even featured in the title of a popular television show on MTV, will be returning to the air on February 22.

What’s more, Hillary Clinton, who has been railing about Shuster’s comment, and threatening to boycott MSNBC, has confirmed that she will participate in a debate on the network February 26 – the week following Shuster’s return. I always thought Clinton’s over-reaction was politically motivated, and I think this decision is as well. With her campaign teetering, she likely believes that the exposure of a nationally televised debate is more valuable than a few more days of righteous indignation.

Throughout this affair, Clinton has narrowed the scope of her rage to only MSNBC, despite the fact that Fox News has been a far worse offender. While she was considering whether to ditch the MSNBC debate, she had already accepted one on Fox (Obama did not accept and its originally scheduled date has passed).

C.U.N.T.It is unclear whether Shuster ever got credit for demanding that right-wing Republican dirty-trickster, Roger Stone, take responsibility for a profane anti-Clinton organization he founded called “Citizens United Not Timid,” or C.U.N.T. Their stated mission is to “Educate the American public about what Hillary Clinton really is.” Wow, those Republicans are really classy! Check out that logo.

Finally, Greg Sargent at Talking Points Memo has confirmed that Shuster was never really Clinton’s primary target:

“As dumb and clueless as Shuster’s “pimp” remark, this was never really about him. The Clinton campaign, while genuinely upset about what Shuster said, lashed out at the network because they were primarily irked by Matthews’ conduct…”

I still wonder when they will become irked by Fox News’ conduct.