It’s Beat Sarah Palin Day!

Posted by on December 8, 2009 at 11:12 am. 2 Comments :

A little over a year ago Barack Obama was elected to the presidency of the United States of America. It was an historic event that made headlines around the world and will forever be remembered as milestone in American politics.

No one deserves more credit for this achievement David Plouffe, Obama’s campaign manager. He orchestrated a brilliant strategy that emphasized hope and change, and the result was a remarkable victory over both the entrenched Democratic Clinton dynasty and the wealthy Republican Grand Old Machine of Washington.

Now the winner of this contest has a book out that is competing with the second banana of the loser’s ticket. It is a contest that pits Sarah Palin’s book, “Going Rogue,” that was ghost written for her from the perspective of defeated candidate, and is chock full of the ideology that contributed to her defeat, against a book written by a modern master of politics with insight into the winning philosophy and strategy.

The Audacity to Win: The Inside Story and Lessons of Barack Obama’s Historic Victory
David Plouffe, Audacity to Win

David Plouffe not only led the effort that put Barack Obama in the White House, but he also changed the face of politics forever and reenergized the idea of democracy itself. The Audacity to Win is his story of the groundbreaking achievement, taking readers inside the remarkable campaign that led to the election of the first African American president.

In this extraordinary book, David Plouffe unfolds one of the most important political stories of our time, one whose lessons are not limited to politics, but reach to the greatest heights of what we dream about for our country and ourselves.

For some reason, the loser is winning this book race. I’m not sure what this says about the America’s book consumers, but there is a disturbing message in there somewhere. Well, Plouffe is not taking it laying down. He has launched “Beat Sarah Palin Day,” an effort to sell more copies of his book, “The Audacity to Win,” in one day than Palin’s collection of fables and self-indulgence. This no easy task, as Palin’s disciples are motivated and hungry for more of her shallow platitudes and liberal bashing. Plouffe describes her book and his impression of her in the video below saying…

“Her book obviously talks about an agenda that was completely rejected November 4, 2008, by the American people, and I think would take us in the completely wrong direction. So the truth is, I hope her book tour goes on for a long time because I think having her out there, and her message, as the kind of opposing viewpoint to what the President is trying to do, could not be more helpful.”

I agree. Palin is the best thing to happen to Democrats in decades. Republicans like to demonstrate how popular she is by citing polls that show 60-70% of the GOP want her to run for president in 2012. I bet if they polled Democrats the number would be 100%.

Today is our opportunity to give Sarah a big smackdown. We can show that we are out here too, and we’re not buying her garbage. To be clear, the results of this contest don’t really have a great deal of meaning in the big picture. It is more for the fun of it. Book sales are not an accurate barometer of electoral strength. Just as right-wingers like to believe that Fox News’ ratings validate their superiority, the truth is that that is a poor gauge. It is always better to win at the ballot box than at the idiot box, which is what we did in 2006 and 2008, despite Fox’s ratings. And the same holds true for publishing. Especially when the rightist propaganda engine skews the numbers by purchasing tens of thousands of books that they give away or offer as premiums for joining their organizations or subscribing to their magazines.

So if you are interested in reading a true account of a brave campaign, today is the day to buy Plouffe’s book. If you are looking for a gift for family or friends, this would be an excellent choice. If you just want to stick it Palin and thumb your nose at the Tea Baggers lining up at Barnes & Noble, here is your chance. Plouffe says in the video that if you weren’t already planning to buy his book, that you shouldn’t do so for this event. But I disagree. If you’ve got $15.00 that you don’t need for rent, this is a great way to use it. Not only do you get an enlightening literary experience, you also get to poke Palin. And on top of that, $1.00 from every book sold today will be donated to child and adult literacy programs.

So now is the time to take up the challenge. Let’s BEAT SARAH PALIN today. And then every day thereafter. What could be more satisfying – and fun?

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

NPR Asks Mara Liasson To Reconsider Fox News

Posted by on December 7, 2009 at 7:58 pm. NO Comments :

Now that it has been established that Fox News is not a legitimate news network, the question arises as to whether reporters from other news enterprises who appear on Fox are merely pawns in Fox’s game of alleged balance. I have long argued that such appearances serve no purpose other than to validate Fox’s brand of propaganda. Lately, there have been others who share that view, as illustrated in this article at Politico:

According to a source, [NPR’s Mara] Liasson was summoned in early October by NPR’s executive editor for news, Dick Meyer, and the networks supervising senior Washington editor, Ron Elving. The NPR executives said they had concerns that Fox’s programming had grown more partisan, and they asked Liasson to spend 30 days watching the network.

At a follow-up meeting last month, Liasson reported that she’d seen no significant change in Fox’s programming and planned to continue appearing on the network, the source said.

Liasson’s assertion that she doesn’t see any significant change in Fox’s programming is a bit of a dodge. It could easily be argued that Fox’s programming has not changed – it has always been partisan, dishonest, and factually challenged. In which case, she should never have agreed to appear on the network in the first place. However, Fox’s rightist slant has become noticeably steeper. So much so that it has even been noticed by people associated with Fox.

Just in the past couple of months, longtime Fox News contributor Jane Hall left the network citing the extremism of Glenn Beck as part of her reason. Also, former Fox anchor Eric Burns emerged to declare that he is grateful that he no longer has to “face the ethical problem of sharing an employer with Glenn Beck.”

While Fox News has indeed been solidly right-wing since its inception, recent changes have cemented their already hard-core partisanship. They hired Mike Huckabee and Glenn Beck. They parted ways with Alan Colmes. In fact every recent announcement from their editorial management took them farther to the right.

If Liasson can’t see this and admit that her ties with Fox are damaging her reputation and that of NPR, then perhaps her NPR handlers should take it upon themselves to cut ties with her. They previously had a similar situation with Juan Williams, an NPR contributor who also appears on Fox and sometimes fills in for Bill O’Reilly. Williams was ordered to stop identifying himself as an NPR reporter when he appeared on Fox’s opinion programs (which is most of them). NPR could go no further than that as Williams is not a full time employee.

As for Liasson, her blindness ought to yield some sort of consequences. NPR is not commenting, but Fox took the opportunity to demonstrate what a bunch of sanctimonious jerks they are by releasing this statement:

“With the ratings we have, NPR should be paying us to even be mentioned on our air.”

Any journalist who works with Fox News must be held accountable for that decision. It should follow them throughout their career and tag them as the disreputable hacks that they are. They should be regarded professionally as being in the same category as reporters from the National Enquirer. If Liasson wants the attention she gets from the Fox family, she will have to live with the scorn she receives from everyone else.


Fox Nation Finger Bangs Obama

Posted by on December 7, 2009 at 2:49 pm. 3 Comments :

Alas, technology has not yet developed a measuring device strong enough to gauge the stupidity of the Fox Nation, its partners, and the community it hosts.

Obama FingerFeatured today on Fox Nation is a story asking whether President Obama gave the finger to a guest in the audience. This controversy was triggered by video of the President scratching his head. To the Fox Nationalists this is a cryptic, Da Vinci coded gesture of disdain. Apparently Fox is now forming strategic political direction by watching episodes of Seinfeld. Thank goodness Fox Nation was there with their secret decoder rings to capture the incident.

The Fox Nation story linked to a post on the uber-rightist Breitbart web site where the FingerGate scandal has blown up into near Balloon Boy proportions. This is not simply an itchy eyebrow at issue. It is a covert master plan to flip off America and impose a tyrannical dictatorship, or something. And you’ve got to “hand” it to the Fox Nationalist/Breitbart/Tea Bagger crowd for turning this into a racial cesspool and a platform for (once again) advocating assassination.

This is becoming more and more representative of the level of discourse from this pathetic throng of losers. They have already tried to make federal cases out of phony death panels, presidential bowing scandals, child indoctrination via stay-in-school speeches, White House guest lists, and how many pages a bill contains. The ever more lame content of their complaints reveals just how desperate they are to come up with something about which to bitch.

There is an obvious evolution of lameness on the right. In the old days they employed the primitive flag lapel pin gambit. Then they tacked to the War on Christmas. And there is the always popular idiocy of “Who would you rather have a beer with?” But now they have shattered all previous records if idiotic asininity with the ticklish temple tactic.

Next on the Republican scandal agenda: How often does Obama floss? I probably shouldn’t give them any ideas.


The Case For The Comcast/NBC Merger

Posted by on December 5, 2009 at 1:19 pm. 3 Comments :

There has been, and will be, much discussion about the proposed merger between entertainment giants NBC/Universal and Comcast. Now that an agreement has been formally entered into, the discussions will likely become even more heated. Media reform advocates like FreePress are already organizing opposition to the deal. Free market capitalists want it to go through without interference from the government.

However, the government has a legitimate role to play to insure fair competition and to advance the interests of the public. Hearings will be held by the FCC, the FTC, and several congressional committees over the next year before the marriage can be consummated. Opponents will make the argument that a combined Comcast/NBCU would dominate access to entertainment programming and news on both cable and the Internet. Estimates show that Comcast, already the largest US provider of cable service and Internet access, would control up to 25% of all content. Comcast, on the other hand, will promise not to abuse their market position. If you’re naive enough to take their word for that, you might not think it’s such a bad deal. Unfortunately, Comcast has not been a particularly conscientious steward of the power they already have. And approving the merger would surely propel competitors to similarly bulk up to face the new, more scopious Comcast.

Ordinarily, I am a knee jerk opponent to any kind of media consolidation. The scope and reach of the Five Families of media (GE, Disney, Viacom, News Corp, and Time Warner) already wield far too much influence over everything we see, hear and read. I have long advocated breaking up these anti-competitive conglomerates and re-introducing real competition, independence, and diversity into the media marketplace. I still believe that deconsolidation is an achievable objective, though fairly far off on the time line.

In the meantime, what does this merger present to the current marketplace? Is Comcast really a worse partner for NBCU than GE, the world’s biggest defense contractor? Conflicts of interest in program content and distribution cause considerable harm, but is it any less harmful than conflicts that involve the production of military goods and weapons? GE’s reach extends even further into consumer products, financial services, information systems and health care technology. That’s a pretty broad scope for potential conflicts.

The Comcast merger offers some opportunities if implemented responsibly. Regulatory agencies can impose restrictions to prevent market abuse that would apply to all players, not just Comcast. They could mandate open access to airwaves and cable lines. They could codify network neutrality. They could promote localism to enhance the community service obligations that networks routinely ignore.

Comcast is already making noises about how they want to be better corporate citizens. They contend that they will comply with reasonable conditions set for the merger by the FCC and others. They promise that the corporate office will not influence news reporting at NBC or MSNBC. They vow to keep their content available to competing services like DirecTV. They have even taken a position in support of health care reform, explicitly repudiating the position of the US Chamber of Commerce, of which they are a member.

Of course, These may all be tactics designed to curry favor with the administration in hopes of clearing a path for approval of the merger. If so, that could also be an opportunity. The agencies and congressional committees reviewing the matter could extract significant concessions and make them binding for all of the monopolistic media enterprises.

Another somewhat more amusing benefit is the new relationship that would be forged between Fox and the NBC News unit. Bill O’Reilly and others at Fox have taken great pleasure in demonizing NBC and its current parent GE. For the most part they go after the executives because they are afraid to utter Keith Olbermann’s name aloud. O’Reilly has called GE’s CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, “a despicable human being” and has spewed impotent threats, saying…

“That Immelt man answers to me. . . . That’s why I’m in this business right now, to get guys like that.”

Um, OK. If you say so. So who will O’Reilly bash now? If he were to go off on Comcast CEO Brian Roberts, he might find himself regretting it. Comcast may decide that Fox News would be better off on a more expensive, upper tier, cable package. That could significantly reduce the number of homes that Fox would reach. Such a move would impact their ratings as well as their revenue from both advertising and cable subscription fees. Comcast might also decide that its new asset, MSNBC, would be a better fit on their basic cable packages, which it is not currently on in many markets. That obstacle to access has been a longstanding impediment to MSNBC’s ratings performance.

Like all bullies, O’Reilly is likely to keep his fat mouth shut about Roberts and Comcast. When there is really something at stake, he will cower in the corner and stick with his War on Christmas shtick. O’Reilly would never send Stuttering Jesse Watters to ambush Roberts. He’d rather stay comfy in his studio holding hands with Dick Morris as they demonstrate how little they know about any subject they address. And Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch would probably bury O’Reilly if he were to damage their relationship with the nation’s biggest cable operator. So maybe O’Reilly might actually have to confront Olbermann man to man. Although he would certainly lose that contest too.

In conclusion, I can’t get excited about another merger of big media megaliths. But I can’t really muster a great deal of antagonism about this one. I don’t see it as worse than the status quo, and I do see an opportunity to tighten regulatory oversight for the whole industry. That is, if the regulators and the administration have the will. Stayed tuned.


Fox News Faux Pas: Gretchen Carlson’s Conflict Of Interest

Posted by on December 3, 2009 at 11:39 am. 4 Comments :

Last month Fox News was so disturbed by a string of journalistic mishaps that they had to issue a memo declaring a “zero tolerance” policy with regard to broadcast mistakes. Apparently the memo didn’t succeed in suppressing Fox’s proclivity for ignoring professional ethics.

On Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson conducted an interview with Yankee Derek Jeter that was more adulation than inquiry. This is her introduction:

“Derek, thank you so much for doing this interview. It’s always so great to sit down and talk with you. Especially today, because you’re the hottest athlete right now in the world. I’m looking at this list of awards you’ve had this year. You’ve broke Lou Gehrig’s all-time hit record for a Yankee. You won yet another Golden Glove award. The Hank Aaron award. The Silver Slugger. You’re captain of the team that won the World series. And now you’re the “Sportsman of the Year,” by Sports Illustrated.”

Jeter responded with the understatement that “It’s been a good year.” What was left unsaid was that Carlson’s husband is Jeter’s agent, Casey Close. This interview was such a transparent puff piece lauding Jeter’s current professional status that he should have paid a fee for it to be broadcast. But in the world of Fox News, conflict of interest is business as usual. A reputable news organization would not permit such a transgression, and would punish any employee who engaged in it. But Fox is already knee deep in ethical conflicts via their association with the Republican Party. Remember, they are the network that broadcast GOP talking points straight from the party’s own memo – typos and all.

It may be necessary for Fox to come up with a new tolerance policy that is even more stringent than zero. Especially for Gretchen for whom screwing up is one of the things she likes best about working at Fox:

“When we make a mistake reading the news headlines, whereas at a [broadcast] network you’d probably get fired, instead, we’re like, ‘Eh, we screwed up.’“

That just about sums up the Fox News commitment to journalistic accuracy.


Falling Out Of The Crazy Tree: Glenn Beck Loses Friends

Posted by on December 2, 2009 at 6:59 pm. 8 Comments :

“Please talk me out of the crazy tree, America.”
~ Glenn Beck, July 2009

It must be hard to be Glenn Beck. And not just because you would be perpetually burdened with nightmarish delusions of demons and communists conspiring against you. He must have abandonment issues on a grand scale. Perhaps it all goes back to having lost his mother to suicide when he was a teenager. His holiday story, “The Christmas Sweater” is largely centered on that relationship.

Exacerbating this problem, Beck is losing support from many of the folks he would ordinarily rely upon. For instance, Charles Johnson, the proprietor of the right-wing web site Little Green Footballs, just enumerated the reasons that he is parting ways with the right. Two of his top ten reasons explicitly cite Beck due to his support for anti-government lunacy, conspiracy theories, and hate speech. When you’ve lost LGF, you might really want to commence some serious self-examination.

Beck also lost Eric Burns, former host of Fox News Watch. Burns was a relative moderate on Fox News, which may explain why they fired him (watch your back, Shep). Burns has kept a low profile since leaving Fox, but now he opens up about his former haunt. And the first thing he wants to convey is his gratitude that…

“I do not have to face the ethical problem of sharing an employer with Glenn Beck.”

Ouch! Burns says that Beck is “an embarrassment” and likens him unfavorably to some rather unsavory characters from the past: Huey Long, Father Coughlin, and John Birch. Remember, these criticisms are coming from a former Fox News anchor. This is how far Beck has wandered from even conservative convention.

None of this, however, will phase Beck. He is confident in his confusion. He has knowledge that transcends the capability of mere mortals. He said so:

6:1) I’ve been talking for several years now – two in particular.
6:2) Because I know what our country is headed towards. I know the struggles that are ahead in my life and I know the struggles that are ahead in your life.
6:3) It’s not going to be pretty, but it’s going to be good.
6:4) We are going to again transform the world. We are going to have a miraculous rebirth. Things are all going to change.
~ More Beckisms in The Gospel According To Beck

Glenn Beck sees our future. His omnipotent vision will shield us from harm. Or at least it will be good harm. But when he speaks of miracles, I wonder if he is aware that Hitler also campaigned on a message of rebirth. It is also interesting to hear Beck say that “we are going to transform the world.” When President Obama said before the election that “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America,” Beck replayed the comment over and over again, insisting that there was something sinister in it. The same is true for his declaration that “Things are all going to change.” When Obama says the same thing, it is cause to hoard guns and ammo and gold and our precious bodily fluids.

Beck must feel awfully alone. Along with those mentioned above, he has lost upwards of eighty advertisers. And more recently, the Harlem Gospel Choir backed out of performing with his theatrical release of The Christmas Sweater. He is rapidly becoming segregated from the world of rational thinkers. He is devolving into a cartoon of himself. He already admitted that he is just an entertainer, a rodeo clown, and a worthless loser. And he beseeches America to talk him out of the crazy tree. In this self-appraisal he has a comrade:

“I have been laughed to scorn as a prophet; for many a year my warnings and my prophecies were regarded as the illusions of a mind diseased […] I appear in the eyes of many bourgeois democrats as only a wild man.”
~ Adolph Hitler, September 1936

We would be wise to remember history. Beck’s friends may be falling from the crazy tree like autumn leaves, but Beck is climbing to ever-higher branches that can’t possibly sustain his weight. He is going to come down from the tree, but not because he was talked down. Perhaps that is what he means when he says that “It’s not going to be pretty.”

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Rupert Murdoch: Media Vulture

Posted by on December 1, 2009 at 5:51 pm. NO Comments :

News Corp chairman Rupert Murdoch appeared today at a conference sponsored by the Federal Trade Commission. His address touched upon many of the issues he has been peddling recently regarding journalism’s future and the Internet.

Murdoch continues to make noises about locking up his content behind pay walls. That is as unlikely now as it was when he first proposed it. Few will pay for the disinformation he calls news. He still believes that Google is stealing his product and he repeats his threat to de-list it from the search giant. We’re still waiting, Rupert. And we’re still waiting for you to stop stealing the content of others on your Fox News and Fox Nation web sites, where you do exactly what you are accusing Google and other aggregators of doing.

Among the more intriguing remarks he made today were those associated with the government’s involvement, or lack thereof, with media. In Murdoch’s view the government ought to stay away from any effort to help the struggling industry. By this he means that anything resembling a bailout ought to be avoided. Let the weaker players fail. At the same time he is anxious for government to get involved with respect to reforming regulations. Particularly those that impose limits on cross-ownership.

What Murdoch wants is for the government to refrain from any initiative that might help shaky media enterprises because he is more than happy to see them fail. They are his competition. When they go under, his market share increases, at least potentially. And while many media firms are struggling financially, Murdoch has the resources to deficit finance his own operations until the economy improves. Then he can scoop up new business and failed businesses at bargain rates. Especially if he is freed from the ownership caps he hopes to be able to eliminate.

It is a cynical and cold-hearted strategy that feeds off of the misfortune of others. And it is quintessentially Rupert.


Glenn Beck’s Fear For Profit Paranoia Play

Posted by on November 30, 2009 at 1:59 pm. NO Comments :

Sitting through an episode of Glenn Beck’s program on Fox News, an emotional punch is delivered that is not much different in substance than a disaster movie like 2012. It is jam-packed with terror-inducing scenes of catastrophe, destruction, conspiracy, and death.

For example in Beck’s own words:

  • …there are people intentionally destroying our country.
  • It is time to prepare yourself for some tough times.
  • You’re gonna see a black and white world, man, that is nothing but destruction and ugly.
  • …creating the path to America’s destruction.
  • Find the exit closest to you and prepare for a crash landing.
  • They are taking you to a place to be slaughtered.

Beck wants you to “be afraid…be very afraid.” But this is not just a case of Apocalyptic fever. This is Glenn Beck’s marketing plan. The dramaturgy practiced by Beck is deliberately designed to manufacture fear and panic. It is not coincidental that Beck’s broadcasting company is called Mercury Radio Arts. It is a perverse homage to Orson Welles’ Mercury Theatre on the Air. The Mercury Theatre, of course, was best known for causing a nationwide panic with “War of the Worlds,” a radio broadcast of a fictional invasion by martians. For Beck to name his company after a theatrical enterprise notorious for fabricating an hysterical frenzy tells you all that is necessary to know about his motives. He is virtually admitting his intention to concoct phony spectacles of dread. Beck wants you to believe that we are at war. And while the enemy may not be Martians, they are still mysterious, secretive, and deadly. And, oh yes, aliens (i.e. Mexicans, Kenyans, Socialists, etc.).

Beck’s entire program is a hoax that is comparable to recent notorious hoaxes like Balloon Boy and Sarah Palin. And it is reaching its intended market. Earlier this year Beck appeared on Fox & Friends and called President Obama a racist who has “a deep-seated hatred of white people.” In response, advertisers abandoned the program in droves. The ads that remain reflect the fear mongering tone of the show’s content. Rosland Capital and Goldline International are gold traders banking on the decline of the dollar and the economy. LifeLock and Consumer Debt Advocates peddle services aimed at people afraid of identity theft and collection agencies. The National Review, the Weekly Standard, and the Fox News affiliated Wall Street Journal, are all publications that preach gloomy prospects for the administration, and therefore, the country and the world. The remainder are a mix of old-age products for insurance, retirement, or cosmetics, along with advocacy ads that promote tea parties and bash health care reform.

The category of advertiser has remained at best second rate. These are not the sort of top tier enterprises that a highly rated program would be expected to attract. Procter & Gamble, GEICO, Wal-Mart, etc., were all advertisers prior to Beck’s remarks about the President. They have not returned despite predictions by some media analysts that the ad boycott would be short-lived. And contrary to Fox PR flacks, they have lost millions of dollars due to the anti-Beck campaign that was spearheaded by Color of Change.

This ad slump for Beck comes at a time when the industry is bouncing back from a long recession. Yet Beck is still compelled to not only accept lower tier ads, but he is also forced to personally shill for these services. The gold dealers get plugged by Beck during his program as he warns his viewers to get out of the stock market and stockpile gold and guns instead. He also pitches another advertiser, The Villages retirement community in Florida, by appearing there to promote his book and announce the commencement of his ludicrous and paranoid “PLAN.”

The point of all of this is to leave you depressed, discouraged, and desperate. It is a persistent message that permeates Beck’s program and continues through the commercial breaks. As a marketing strategy it has the benefit of producing viewers who are addicted to the rhetoric of hopelessness and the clannish appeal of membership in a club that regards itself as the only clear-eyed community of truth seekers. At the same time it creates consumers who cannot resist the products that promise them security and salvation. There is no more motivated buyer than one who believes his life is dependent on a purchase.

The sad part is that there are way too many people who are buying Beck’s snake oil. It is making him richer and his viewers, and the country, poorer. It is a strategy that brings a whole new meaning to the phrase Caveat Emptor – Let the buyer beware.


CNN’s Howard Kurtz On Glenn Beck, Fox News And Whores

Posted by on November 29, 2009 at 4:21 pm. NO Comments :

Today on CNN’s Reliable Sources, host Howard Kurtz raised an issue of obvious hypocrisy on the part of Fox News. The segment addressed an incident a couple of weeks ago when Rep. Alan Grayson referred to an aide to Fed chairman Ben Bernanke as a “K Street whore.” Fox News jumped on the comment and repeatedly criticized Grayson for making an insensitive and sexist remark. Grayson has since apologized.

A few days ago Glenn Beck used similarly offensive language when referring to Sen. Mary Landrieu. Beck said that Landrieu was “hooking” but “not cheap.” Kurtz took this opportunity to upbraid Fox News for being less than fair and balanced because they didn’t report Beck’s remarks or criticize him. Beck has not apologized.

I suppose I shouldn’t complain that Kurtz properly observed Fox’s hypocrisy. However, Kurtz left something out of the story that many people might consider relevant. You see, Mark Halperin, editor-at-large and senior political analyst for TIME, had something to say about Landrieu as well. He posted this modified photo of the senator on his TIME web site, The Page.

Why didn’t Kurtz take Halperin to task for a visual commentary that was just as offensive and perhaps more repulsive? Could it have anything to do with the fact that Kurtz’s employer, CNN, is owned by Time Warner, and so is Halperin’s employer, TIME? It is unlikely that Kurtz was not aware of the Halperin incident, as it caused such a ruckus he was forced to remove the picture.

Kurtz’s impartiality has been questioned on numerous occasions. Most frequently with regard to his role as a media analyst for both CNN and the Washington Post. Critics have complained that he cannot serve both masters and expect to be regarded as thorough and neutral, while he insists that he has always been tough on every news enterprise on which he reports. However, in this case, he blatantly lets his corporate cousin off the hook.

If Kurtz wants to be taken seriously, he needs to begin acting like an impartial observer. All that he accomplishes with this sort of hackery is to embarrass himself and the news bureaus that employ him. But on one level we can have a fair measure of confidence: When Kurtz reports on the behavior of whores, he knows what he’s talking about.

To his credit, Kurtz did challenge Jim Geraghty, the right-wing lip-servicer from the National Review, who tried to excuse Beck’s boorishness, by saying…

“Oh, I see, Grayson should be held accountable because he’s an elected official, and Glenn Beck is in the gasbag business, like many of us on television.”

That’s telling him – and yourself too.


Glenn Beck’s Sermon On Shared Sacrifice Will Make You Sick

Posted by on November 25, 2009 at 12:47 pm. 2 Comments :

There’s no doubt about it. The United States economy is still reeling from the effects of one of the worst recessions in its history. It is piling up massive debt and struggling to produce even modest growth and job creation. At the same time it is embroiled in two wars overseas that are costly on matters both fiscal and fatal.

In response, Congressman David Obey floated a proposal that a new tax on high income earners be imposed to cover the costs associated with any escalation of activities in Afghanistan. This sensible suggestion is an attempt to restore responsibility to wartime economics. If the nation is going to engage in an expensive adventure that puts its citizens lives at risk, it ought to be willing to ask those who remain at home to chip in and insure that the military and personal needs of our soldiers are met. It’s called shared sacrifice.

From Glenn Beck’s perspective, however, this is just another political maneuver by Democrats to hasten the socialistic utopia Beck imagines they are plotting. He insists that it is a continuance of President Obama’s campaign to redistribute the wealth. In a way, Beck is right. It is an initiative to redistribute wealth from chickenhawks like Beck to soldiers on the battlefield. And Beck will have none of that.

In his patented drool-dripping diction, Beck commences reasonably enough by declaring that war “should qualify as a shared sacrifice.” But then he veers into irrational demands that strain any effort to understand.

“What sacrifice are you willing to share? Shave your armpits, sign up for a tour of duty and share the sacrifice.”

Is he directing this exclusively to women? Or are all recruits expected to shave under their arms these days? It may be best to set that aside for the time being and focus, not on armpits, but on Beck’s call to arms. What is notable about Beck berating others to enlist is that he never did so. Not in his youth, nor for the current wars in which he claims to believe. Beck was 37 years old in 2001. He could have signed up after 9/11, and during any of the five years thereafter. But apparently shared sacrifice was secondary to seeking radio stardom.

Beck is not only opposed to sharing sacrifices by spreading the costs of war to all citizens, he believes that the sacrifice Americans ought to be making is in the area of their own well being. He argues that domestic initiatives like health care should be curtailed in favor of war funding. And his specific approach to this theory is particularly grotesque – and false:

“I don’t see Americans dying in the streets as they’re waiting in line to the hospital because they’ve been shot in Detroit. They get in to a hospital. You know where I do see them dying? Afghanistan. Nobody died because they didn’t have health care. Nobody!”

I’m quite certain that Beck is telling the truth when he says that he doesn’t “see Americans dying in the streets.” He certainly wouldn’t see them in the streets of his gated community in Connecticut. A media celebrity who earns tens of millions of dollars every year is not likely to encounter many shooting victims in urban Detroit. But even more egregious is his claim that nobody has died because they didn’t have health care. It would not have taken much research to discover this report published by Harvard Medical School just a little over a month ago:

Study links 45,000 U.S. deaths to lack of insurance
“We’re losing more Americans every day because of inaction … than drunk driving and homicide combined,” Dr. David Himmelstein, a co-author of the study and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard, said in an interview with Reuters.

Overall, researchers said American adults age 64 and younger who lack health insurance have a 40 percent higher risk of death than those who have coverage.

Glenn Beck is a wealthy, well-insured, elitist who has never served in the military. Yet he is comfortable lecturing everyone else on what it means to share sacrifice. He is content to allow thousands of Americans to die here at home – ten times the number every year than have died in Iraq and Afghanistan in eight years – so that he doesn’t have to pay a little more of his millions in taxes. And then he has the gall to belittle others for failing to show due consideration for the troops.

An equally disturbing aspect of this is that, in pursuit of his greedy selfishness, Beck will deliberately misinform his legions of deluded disciples about the facts related to health insurance deficiencies and abuses. With his proclivity for purposeful deception he joins his Fox colleague, Bill O’Reilly, who still insists that there are no homeless veterans.

The only lessons to be learned from Beck’s sermon on shared sacrifice are sadistic, shameless, self-serving, specious, and quite literally sickening.