Fox News Anchor Asks: Did Obama Campaign Threaten To Kill Chelsea Clinton?

This was picked up by Media Matters and represents another incident where Fox News continues to permit their employees to make abhorrent comments with impunity. In this case it was anchor Heather Childers who Tweeted “Thoughts? Did Obama Campaign Threaten Chelsea Clinton’s Life 2 Keep Parents Silent?”

Fox News

Childers question is referencing an article at a far-right blog that is neck-deep in Birtherism and other conspiracy theories. Media Matters has more screen shots of Childers’ Twitter feed where she initially defends her horrific comments. From Media Matters:

The post passes on suggestions from film producer Bettina Viviano about Obama associates threatening individuals to hide secrets about Obama’s eligibility. The post also forwards suggestions that the Obama campaign was involved in the murder of former head of the Arkansas Democratic Party, Bill Gwatney; threatened President Clinton; and “told him that his daughter Chelsea would be next if he opened his mouth.”

Childers insisted that she was only raising the topic for conversation. She repeatedly noted that she welcomes all sides in a debate. What’s offensive about this is that she thinks that an unsupported allegation about the President threatening to murder the child of a political opponent is a legitimate side and worthy of engaging in debate. Perhaps we could ask for “thoughts” on whether Childers is a crack whore who molests children. Hey, I’m just bringing it up as a subject for debate.

An update on the Media Matters page posts a comment from Childers’ boss Michael Clemente, that merely says that Childers “understands this was a mistake.” There was no indication of any punishment or consequences for her actions. And there was nothing that addressed at all a second Tweet by Childers that said “Thoughts: President Obama Channels Joseph Stalin and Attacks Supreme Court Justices.” So after speculating as to whether Obama was a murderer, she ups the ante and speculates that he somehow resembles a mass murderer.

And, as usual, Fox News tolerates this behavior and requires no penalty be paid. Not termination, not suspension, not even a public wrist-slapping. After so many similar incidents without punishment, the only conclusion is that this is behavior that Fox News encourages and very likely rewards.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Today Show Ratings Down With Sarah Palin As Guest Host

Sarah PalinYesterday Sarah Palin was the guest co-host of the Today Show on NBC. It was a desperation move on the part of NBC who was reacting to ABC’s booking of Katie Couric for the whole of this week. And apparently it didn’t do them much good.

The Today Show won the time period as expected. They have long been the #1 morning network news program with ABC’s Good Morning America coming in second. However, the ratings for Tuesday on the Today show were 5.497 million total viewers, and 2.209 million in the 25-54 year old demo. That’s down from their average for the February 2012 sweeps period (5.55 Total/2.47 Demo). So Palin obviously didn’t do anything to help out the program.

By comparison, Good Morning America was able to beat their February sweeps average in total viewers with the help of Couric. Tuesday’s program pulled in 5.141 million viewers with 1.917 million in the demo. That was an improvement in total viewers over their February sweeps averages (5.03 Total/2.05 Demo).

So if anyone were analyzing the benefits of the bookings for these programs, it is clear that ABC got more out of Couric than NBC did from Palin. That may seem to be a predictable result since America mostly hates Palin and Couric is America’s sweetheart. But Palin doesn’t help herself by appearing on NBC and twice referring to “the failed socialist policies” of President Obama. And I can’t believe that doing cooking segments with Tori Spelling do much to improve her image either.

The sooner the media (and Palin) realizes that Palin is old news and has nothing to offer, the sooner they can quit pretending that she has some sort of relevance that they can exploit. By all indications NBC might have done better in the ratings with Kim Kardashian or Octomom as a co-host.


Fox Nation Asks The Stupidest Questions

Today there are critical Republican primary elections being held in Wisconsin, Maryland, and Washington, D.C. There is a still raging controversy over the shooting of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed teenager in Florida. There is a tornado ravaging northeast Texas including the metropolitan areas of Dallas and Fort Worth. We have ongoing crises in the domestic economy and foreign affairs. And yet, the Fox Nation web site is featuring this story at the top of their page: Does the President Want to Be Emperor?

Fox Nation

With everything that is happening around the country and the world, the Fox Nationalists seem to think that this is a serious question that deserves to be featured in the most prominent spot on their page. What it is in reality is a disparaging assault against President Obama that the accompanying article doesn’t even make an attempt to support. The article begins by saying…

“In divide and conquer fashion, President Obama has recently launched blistering and some have said unprecedented attacks against the following perceived enemies… the Supreme Court, Rep. Paul Ryan, American oil and gas companies, Wall St traders, American insurance companies, families making over $250K per year, and those who question man-made global warming.”

That is not by any intelligible interpretation a bid to become emperor. In fact, all the President is doing is articulating established principles held by Democrats, and most Americans, just as any politician would. He did not attack the Supreme Court. He merely offered his opinion that the court would not rule against the Health Reform bill. And as for oil companies, Wall Street, and the wealthy, Obama has simply restated the same positions that got him elected by a landslide three years ago.

The Fox fabulists are attempting to spin the President’s opposition to extremist right-wing policies as akin to dictatorship. I’m sure that conservatives would prefer that the President never said a word, but that would only be considered democratic to the censorious martinets of the GOP. The president has both a right and a duty to enunciate his platform, and if the right doesn’t like it they should offer competing ideas that think would be better. Since the only ideas they have are the same ones that got us into this economic catastrophe four years ago, I’m not surprised that they chose instead to make absurd declarations about tyranny.

However, if the right wants to ask dumb questions, you might think they would reserve them for an appropriate place for such opinions. Instead they lead their news with this tripe and still expect to be taken seriously as journalists. This is the sort of puerile behavior that is the trademark of Fox News. And we can expect to see much more of it as the campaign progresses into the fall. In fact, expect it to get much worse as they become more desperate for having been saddled with a nominee that no one in their party can stomach.


Liz Trotta Of Fox News To Black Reporters: Expressing Yourself Hurts Your Credibility

Remember Liz Trotta? She’s the Fox News analyst who said a few weeks ago that women in the military should expect to be raped. And who can forget her accusation that Seal Team 6 was being used as political operatives when they rescued Americans held by pirates? And then there was the time that she dismissed acts of violence against Democrats by asserting that the victims were whining. She also famously used her Fox News platform to make a joke about assassinating President Obama.

Well now we can add another commendation for contemptuous commentary to her nauseating resume. This weekend Trotta took her place on Fox News to lambaste the media, and particularly African-American reporters, for covering the Trayvon Martin killing. Trotta complained that “NBC News did a show with a couple of their black employees,” including Lester Holt, who she said was her favorite anchorman of all time. However, she charged that Holt and his fellow African-American reporters…

“…had to agree to telling their experiences as a black person, how the cops would follow them, how security and departments would follow them. It was a sorry show. Where’s the objectivity of this? Why do you involve your black reporters and anchors in this kind of framework that can only hurt their credibility?”

Trotta never revealed where she got the idea that these reporters “had to agree” to express themselves as if they had no editorial discretion or free will. And she is curiously critical of the notion that African-Americans are even able to provide news commentary from a personal perspective (you know, the way white reporters do every day). In her remarks Trotta defined “unique perspective” as “reaching really far to make their liberal case without any evidence to black it up.” And yes, after repeated listening it seems to me that she actually said “black it up,” an interesting Freudian slip off the edge of a harrowing cliff. Then Trotta delivered an absolutely ludicrous closing that demonstrated her utter lack of knowledge of the law:

“Why must we convict George Zimmerman before he’s even arrested? The fact that he isn’t arrested, I open that to the court. But let’s not fry the guy before he’s even given a hearing. That’s what he’s getting now, is a hearing. It’s been a disgraceful show from the media.”


There is so much wrong in those comments that it’s hard to know where to begin. First of all, nobody is convicting Zimmerman before he’s arrested. However, he has to be arrested before there can be a full investigation that preserves and analyzes evidence, records statements, and interviews witnesses and experts. Secondly, it isn’t up to a court to decide whether he should be arrested. Why she’s leaving that “open” to the court I have no idea. Third, Zimmerman is not getting a hearing now, as Trotta claims. It’s the justice system that is getting a hearing from the public for failing to act responsibly. And finally, while Trotta, and others in the conservative media, are so concerned about the rights and reputation of Zimmerman, they are quick to smear Martin as a delinquent and a gangster thug.

I would, however, have to agree with Trotta that some of the media reporting on this has been disgraceful, starting with Trotta herself and her colleagues at Fox News. The insult to reporters of color who contribute perspectives that only they are able to, is reprehensible. It’s also hypocritical since it was just that sort of personal observation that Fox News defended when they hired Juan Williams. Apparently Fox News thinks it’s OK for a black reporter to express his feelings when they insult Muslims, but it’s disgraceful and hurtful to their credibility if those feelings are sympathetic toward a murdered teenager.


Breitbart’s Zimmerman Defense Team Discovers Mysterious Shadow That Proves Trayvon Martin’s Guilt

The Breitbrats have been striving mightily to absolve George Zimmerman of any responsibility for Trayvon Martin’s death. Most recently they have posted a video that they claim shows a wound on the back of the head of shooter George Zimmerman. It is their contention that the presence of such a wound proves that Zimmerman was the victim in a scuffle wherein Martin was the aggressor.

It is a pretty long stretch to surmise that a 140 pound teenager decided to attack an armed man twice his size, but that’s the line that the right-wing is peddling. And no one does it with more bombastic zeal than Breitbrat Dan Riehl. In his article he claims to have acquired a new hi-def video that contradicts a police video previously released by ABC News.

“A new High Definition clip from the same video appears to make clear that Zimmerman had a gash, or wound of some kind on the back of his head. That would be totally consistent with his version of events on the night in question and opposite the impression ABC News gave its viewers.”

Notice that the Breitbrats are endeavoring to corroborate Zimmerman’s story. Why conservatives have chosen to align themselves with the shooter in this incident is mind-boggling. Are they just naturally sympathetic toward gunmen who kill unarmed kids? Why wouldn’t they be concerned about the fair and proper administration of justice wherein anyone who shot another person is arrested and investigated to determine if a crime had been committed? For the trigger-happy rightists this is just a political skirmish where they get to put on a phony bravado and spew NRA cliches.

And notice also that they contradict themselves within just a few sentences. First they assert that the video “make[s] clear that Zimmerman had a gash, or wound,” then, in the same paragraph, they declare the video inconclusive. And not just inconclusive, but shoddily and unethically so:

“Given analysis by Breitbart Media and the Daily Caller already performed, the ABC video appeared to be inconclusive, at best. […] any determination beyond the video being inconclusive is shoddy, if not intentionally unethical, Journalism – if not deceptive and misleading Journalism.”

How the Breitbrats can view an inconclusive video and conclude that a wound is clear is more than a little curious. The only shoddy, unethical journalism being practiced here is by Riehl and the Breitbrats. A viewing of the video they posted reveals their deliberate attempt to distort the evidence. Consistent with their history of deceptively misrepresenting videos, the Breitbrats have selectively focused on a single frame of this video to advance their dishonest argument. However, the frames before and after the one on which they focus tell a more complete story:

Click to enlarge.
Breitbart Zimmerman Video

As is obvious from this video, there was no injury on Zimmerman’s head. That is, unless the injury would appear and disappear every few seconds. What’s more, had there actually been an injury, and it was cleaned up at the scene by paramedics as claimed by Zimmerman’s camp, why are there no bandages over the wounds? These are wounds that were described as serious, such as a broken nose and a gash that would require stitches. But according to the Breitbart’s defense team, Zimmerman’s injuries healed completely (but for an alleged bruise) by the time he arrived at the police station within an hour of the incident.

The only thing that any of the critics of the police are requesting is that the normal course of justice be taken. No one is trying Zimmerman on television or pronouncing verdicts. But any decent citizen ought to agree that the circumstances of this incident require an investigation that can only occur with an arrest and the opening of a case. But that’s something the right is dead-set against. We can only wonder why.


April Fools? Sarah Palin To Co-Host NBC’s Today Show

As I was planning out an elaborate hoax for April Fool’s day, I came across this video and decided that NBC had beaten me to it: Sarah Palin Co-hosts TODAY on Tuesday.

The video is posted on the NBC News YouTube channel, so it isn’t a product of Saturday Night Live or The Daily Show. There is, however, no indication of it being a joke. Nevertheless, there are reasons to be suspicious.

First and foremost, why on earth would any allegedly credible news enterprise employ Sarah Palin as a host? Sure, she fits right in as a political analyst at Fox News because their prerequisite for political analysts is to be either ignorant or dishonest. Palin has both of those criteria covered. And she can assume hosting duties of an Alaskan travelogue where she spends her time hurling dead fish across the deck of a boat (or maybe not since that show was canceled after the first season with steadily declining ratings). But hosting a news program, even one that is jammed with trivialities and traffic reports, seems above her capabilities.

Secondly, Palin is still under contract to Fox News. Her exclusivity has been exercised on a strict basis, keeping her from appearing on most other media, even for an interview. She has appeared only once on one of the non-Fox Sunday news programs in this election cycle. When she made her announcement that she was not going to be a candidate for the GOP presidential nomination on Mark Levin’s radio show, her boss, Roger Ailes, exploded with rage saying that “I paid her for two years to make this announcement on my network.” It seems unlikely that her appearance as a co-host on a competing network (especially their nemesis, NBC) would be permitted under the circumstances.

Of course the primary reason that Palin doesn’t do other media is that she is unable to form a coherent thought and knows that she would embarrass herself by attempting to do so. Any news anchor other than a friendly Fox colleague would stump her mercilessly by asking gotcha questions like “What do you think about that, Sarah?”

I have no evidence that the promo for Palin’s Today Show stint is anything but genuine, but I still can’t shake the feeling that it’s a prank. If it is real then it’s a depressing devolution of integrity by the mainstream media (if that’s possible). There is simply no justification for elevating Palin to this role when she has no experience or talent for it. It could be considered a desperate ploy for ratings, but the Today Show is already #1 and, thus, not desperate (perhaps CBS should have tried to snag her). The only thing this booking serves to accomplish for NBC is to provide conclusive proof as to who the fools are this April. One way or another.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Fox Nation vs. Reality: Global Warming And The Media

The anti-science, faith-based zealots at Fox Nation examined the results of a Gallup poll on global warming and concluded that the headline revelation from the survey was that “42% Of Americans Feel The Media Exaggerates Global Warming.”

Fox Nation

Confident that their readers would never bother to look up the Gallup data themselves, the Fox Nationalists blatantly misrepresented the polls results. A full reading of the survey’s results would have revealed that 55% of respondents regard media coverage of the seriousness of global warming as either correct (24%) or underestimated (31%). That’s a clear majority that is 13 points higher than those who believe that the seriousness is exaggerated.

What’s more, the Gallup poll shows that those who regard the coverage as exaggerated are predominantly Republicans (67%), while a minority of both Independents (42%) and Democrats (20%) share that view. Additionally, a majority (53%) believe that global warming is caused by pollution resulting from human activities, and 58% correctly observe that most scientists affirm the existence of global warming. When asked how much they personally worry about global warming, 55% say a great deal/fair amount, four points higher than last year. And again, those numbers include majorities of Independents and Democrats with Republicans and conservatives bringing in the rear.

No wonder the source to which Fox Nation links to support their article is a trifling right-wing blog called Weasel Zippers, rather than to the Gallup poll itself. That’s consistent with their mission to keep their audience as ill-informed as possible.

It’s actually pretty encouraging that most Americans still recognize the risks association with global warming despite the massive campaign by right-wing media (led by Fox News) to belittle it. But it is nonetheless disheartening that any American buys into Fox’s lies. Every time it snows in Connecticut in the dead of winter, some Fox anchor uses that as evidence that global warming is a hoax, but they never report on significant heatwaves and droughts (as in Texas) or that the planet has been recording the hottest temperatures on record for the past decade.

If it weren’t for the concerted effort on the part of conservative media (and their corporate allies) to distort the truth about this issue, there would be an even bigger majority with rational positions on global warming that aligns with the consensus view of the worldwide scientific community. And then we might even be able to do something to resolve the problem, prevent predictable sickness and death, and preserve the viability of the planet as a habitat for life. But then is that really more important than oil company profits and the economic growth of multinational corporations?


Keith Olbermann And Current TV Part Ways: Statements By Current And Olbermann

Current TV’s founders, Al Gore and Joel Hyat, have released a letter to viewers announcing that their relationship with Keith Olbermann has come to a end. This news will be regarded by some as a shock and others as an affirmation of Olbermann’s volatile personality. Either way it is bound to have an impact on the cable news marketplace as the dust settles.

Current has already secured a replacement for Olbermann in former New York governor Eliot Spitzer who will be hosting a new program called “Viewpoint” beginning today. The letter by Gore and Hyatt follows:

To the Viewers of Current:

We created Current to give voice to those Americans who refuse to rely on corporate-controlled media and are seeking an authentic progressive outlet. We are more committed to those goals today than ever before.

Current was also founded on the values of respect, openness, collegiality, and loyalty to our viewers. Unfortunately these values are no longer reflected in our relationship with Keith Olbermann and we have ended it.

We are moving ahead by honoring Current’s values. Current has a fundamental obligation to deliver news programming with a progressive perspective that our viewers can count on being available daily — especially now, during the presidential election campaign. Current exists because our audience desires the kind of perspective, insight and commentary that is not easily found elsewhere in this time of big media consolidation.

As we move toward this summer’s political conventions and the general election in the fall, Current is making significant new additions to our broadcasts. We have just debuted six hours of new programming each weekday with Bill Press (“Full Court Press, at 6 am ET/3 am PT) and Stephanie Miller (“Talking Liberally,” at 9 am ET/6 pm PT).

We’re very excited to announce that beginning tonight, former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer will host “Viewpoint with Eliot Spitzer,” at 8 pm ET/5 pm PT. Eliot is a veteran public servant and an astute observer of the issues of the day. He has important opinions and insights and he relishes the kind of constructive discourse that our viewers will appreciate this election year. We are confident that our viewers will be able to count on Governor Spitzer to deliver critical information on a daily basis.

All of these additions to Current’s lineup are aimed at achieving one simple goal — the goal that has always been central to Current’s mission: To tell stories no one else will tell, to speak truth to power, and to influence the conversation of democracy on behalf of those whose voice is too seldom heard. We, and everyone at Current, want to thank our viewers for their continued steadfast support.

Sincerely,

Al Gore & Joel Hyatt
Current’s Founders

Olbermann’s response indicates that there will be some animosity and litigiousness between the parties before this is over. Here is what Olbermann had to say via extended Twittering:

My full statement:

I’d like to apologize to my viewers and my staff for the failure of Current TV.
Editorially, Countdown had never been better. But for more than a year I have been imploring Al Gore and Joel Hyatt to resolve our issues internally, while I’ve been not publicizing my complaints, and keeping the show alive for the sake of its loyal viewers and even more loyal staff. Nevertheless, Mr. Gore and Mr. Hyatt, instead of abiding by their promises and obligations and investing in a quality news program, finally thought it was more economical to try to get out of my contract.

It goes almost without saying that the claims against me implied in Current’s statement are untrue and will be proved so in the legal actions I will be filing against them presently. To understand Mr. Hyatt’s “values of respect, openness, collegiality and loyalty,” I encourage you to read of a previous occasion Mr. Hyatt found himself in court for having unjustly fired an employee. That employee’s name was Clarence B. Cain. http://nyti.ms/HueZsa

In due course, the truth of the ethics of Mr. Gore and Mr. Hyatt will come out. For now, it is important only to again acknowledge that joining them was a sincere and well-intentioned gesture on my part, but in retrospect a foolish one. That lack of judgment is mine and mine alone, and I apologize again for it.

I can’t begin to speculate as to what the core issues are that lead to this divorce, but there have been prior reports of tensions and Olbermann was frequently absent from the show for the past few months.

What this means for Current is unknown. Olbermann was an enormous force who put the network on the map when he signed up. But now the benefit of that have been realized and it is entirely possible that the remaining personalities can hold their own with viewers. The Young Turks have had their own loyal following since before Cenk Uyger’s promotion to television. And Spitzer and Jennifer Granholm, both ex-governors, have the inherent credibility and respect afforded to executive officeholders. In their new morning lineup Current recently debuted simulcasts of radio talkers Bill Press and Stephanie Miller. So even as Olbermann is fading out, the network is firming up.

In my view, Current’s biggest problem is not talent-related. They need to work their cable affiliates to get better placement on more systems. There are plenty of dynamic liberals who can be called upon for hosting chores, but if the channel is not easily available to viewers it doesn’t do much good.

Keith OlbermannIt will be interesting to see what happens to Olbermann. The publicity surrounding this departure, and his previous breakup with MSNBC, could make him appear to be a risky bet for other broadcasters. I hope that’s not the case. Somewhere there must be a good fit for him (perhaps the Internet), and his voice is well worth hearing. There’s one network where he almost certainly will not be turning up, however, I think it would be a marketing bonanza if the parties had the guts to actually do it. But don’t worry, they won’t.

So as they say in TV Land…stay tuned.


Breitbart Whitewashing Zimmerman, Blaming Obama For Trayvon Martin Crisis

The folks over at Breitbart’s joint are feverishly striving to exonerate Trayvon Martin’s shooter, George Zimmerman. Their web sites are plastered with stories that either defend Zimmerman or shift the discussion to other persons or subjects.

In one article, Breitbrat Dan Riehl makes the inane argument that ABC News was “reckless” in their decision to release a police videotape showing Zimmerman arriving at the police station for questioning. The video is significant in that it contradicts prior assertions that Zimmerman had been beaten and bloodied by Martin. There is no evidence of any injury to Zimmerman in the video.

Nevertheless, Riehl advances rebuttals that sound as if he is working for the Zimmerman legal defense team. He begins by suggesting that the video was too low quality to reveal anything conclusive. Then, contradicting himself, writes, “True, there appears to be no blood on Zimmerman’s shirt.” Then Riehl invents scenarios wherein Zimmerman was allowed by police to change his allegedly bloody clothes before arriving at the station, which would be a severe violation of procedure and ethics. What’s more, it makes no sense because a bloody shirt would be evidence of a struggle during which Zimmerman could claim to have felt threatened. Why would police suppress evidence that would have justified their decision to release Zimmerman?

Riehl’s account is blatantly biased and incoherent. And he tops it off by blasting ABC for releasing the video saying that the network “should be ashamed of its reckless highlighting of a non-story.” So apparently Riehl is of the opinion that ABC should have kept the video a secret. That’s how Breitbart’s BigJournalism practices the craft of journalism.

Another article, this time by Joel Pollak, editor of Breitbart’s BigGovernment site, seeks to tie President Obama to the Martin story. Pollak’s theory is a nearly incomprehensible mashup of Martin, Obama, and Derrick Bell, the subject of Breitbart’s failed attempt to expose the President as a college radical.

Pollak’s article is titled, “Critical Race Theory and the Trayvon Martin Case.” Critical Race Theory (CRT) is a legal/academic concept that Bell had written about and studied. It holds that there is more to racism than just the attitudes held by individuals, that it is also ingrained in society via traditional economic and judicial hierarchies. Pollak simplistically and falsely begins his narrative by defining CRT as “characterized by white supremacy–an idea Obama invoked by insisting that Americans ‘examine the laws’ that supposedly led to Martin’s death.” To be clear, Pollak is referring to the comment Obama made in response to a reporter’s question:

“I think all of us have to do some soul searching to figure out how does something like this happen. And that means that we examine the laws and the context for what happened.

“And I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this, and that everybody pulls together — federal, state and local — to figure out exactly how this tragedy happened.”

I’m not sure how any fair person could object to that. Yet that’s the statement that Pollak regards as an evocation of white supremacy. If anything, the Martin tragedy supports CRT by demonstrating the flaws in the judicial system. This is a case where after an unarmed black teenager was shot and killed, his body was tagged as a “John Doe” and tested for drugs. The shooter, on the other hand, was never tested for drugs or alcohol and was released by police with his weapon and no plans to investigate or indict him for any crime. If that isn’t reason enough to examine the laws than what on earth would be?


Pollak continues saying that Obama “waded in, playing up the racial drama,” and then remarkably writes “Obama–the center of the crisis, and to some extent its intended beneficiary.” Obama is only the center of the controversy in the warped minds of extremist, right-wing provocateurs like Pollak. And where he gets the notion that Obama was the “intended” beneficiary is beyond comprehension. If Pollak actually believes that this crisis was conceived and executed to help the President, he is seriously in need of the psychiatric attention that is now available to him thanks to ObamaCare.

Pollak closes by saying that “To speculate that Zimmerman is guilty based on the available facts is one thing; to convict him based on his supposed race, and on Martin’s, is the classic definition of “prejudice.'” However, the people protesting the handling of this affair are not convicting Zimmerman of anything. They are merely demanding that the ordinary process of justice be observed.

Ordinarily after a shooting there is an arrest and an investigation, which could lead to a trial if the evidence warrants. But the Breitbrats are all fired up to whitewash this crime and sweep it under their racist rug. They load up their web sites with tangential stories about celebrity Tweets, and over-zealous protesters, and bogus accusations of media bias, and absurd connections to a conspiratorial White House that must have planned the whole thing.

All I can say is that it’s a damn good thing that Breitbart wasn’t around when Martin Luther King was assassinated. They would surely have defended James Earl Ray and blamed the whole thing on President Johnson.


Fox News Psycho Analyst Keith Ablow: Obama Has It In For America

Fox News’ resident psychiatrist, a member of the Fox News “A” Team, visited Lou Dobbs yesterday on the failing Fox Business Network. The two of them discussed the Trayvon Martin shooting in the unique manner that is typical of the leader in dishonest, uninformed, hyperbolic, right-wing media.

Much of the conversation focused on President Obama’s comments on the subject a few days ago in response to a question from a reporter. The crux of their criticism centered Obama’s personal reflection that “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.” Both Dobbs and Ablow were incensed that Obama expressed that personal reflection and accused him of turning the incident into a racial matter. They complained that the President should have sought to unite the country and address the shock that all Americans must feel after hearing about this tragedy. And, oddly enough, that’s exactly what Obama did. Preceding the personal part of his comments, Obama said…

Obama: I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this, and that everybody pulls together — federal, state and local — to figure out exactly how this tragedy happened.

Nevertheless, Dobbs and Ablow only heard the part of the remarks that they could misconstrue as racial. It is still mind-boggling how rightists can so cavalierly assert that Obama is hell-bent on disparaging white people – like his mother. And it’s rather disingenuous for conservatives like Dobbs and Ablow to portray the Martin incident as a tragedy that ought not to be limited by race, when the other half of the time they are discussing it, they don’t regard it as tragic at all, but simply a case of self defense from an aggressive black teenager.

As usual, Ablow distinguishes himself by making an absurdly remote diagnosis of the President, a man he’s never examined or even met. That is an explicit violation of the standards of ethics of the American Psychiatric Association, which Ablow need not worry about since he was forced to separate himself from the APA due to “ethical differences.” Ablow’s conclusion, on the basis of information he gleaned from a paranoid hallucination, is that Obama is an anti-American zealot on a mission to bring the empire to ruin.

Ablow: As a psychiatrist, there is a certain point, when you get a diagnosis, you say, OK look, absent something that refutes this, this is the diagnosis. A president who hangs around with Rev. Wright – whose wife said that she was never proud of this country – has an edge. He’s got it in for this country. And at moments when there’s an opportunity to fracture the unity, he does.

Setting aside the fact that Ablow is lying about Obama’s relationship with Wright and Michelle’s comments on pride, his assertion that Obama has “got it in for this country” is just plain lunacy. Does he really think that Obama raised himself up from a struggling single-parent home, worked through schooling to achieve honors from one the nation’s most demanding universities, applied his skills to both public and private enterprises, and put himself before a grueling campaign that resulted in his being elected president of the United States, all because he has a hankering to tear it all down?

Where do these nutjobs get these unfathomably ludicrous theories? Do all Fox analysts have to have lobotomies prior to going on the air? Any reputable news enterprise would be embarrassed by having someone like Ablow on their payroll. So it’s a good thing for Ablow that Fox News exists.