Wall Street Journal: Sarah Palin Is An Idiot

Posted by on November 9, 2010 at 12:24 pm. 7 Comments :

Sarah PalinOK, the Wall Street Journal didn’t really say that Sarah Palin is an idiot, but they proved it in an exchange that leaves no other conclusion. The following tale of deceit is particularly interesting because both sides are members of Rupert Murdoch’s media family. The WSJ is the gem of financial newspapers, and Palin is the star of Fox News. So Palin is not being attacked by some “lamestream media” hack. This thwacking comes from the most respectable source that Murdoch commands.

The intra-News Corp cat fight began when prepared remarks Palin will make at a trade association conference were released by the National Review. Her speech will address recent actions taken by the Federal Reserve with which she takes issue. She orders Fed chief Ben Bernanke to “cease and desist” and oddly suggests that the U.S. should follow the economic lead of Germany. That’s odd because she and her rightist comrades generally portray anyone who offers European solutions to American problems as socialists and traitors. But here is where she proudly demonstrates her monumental ignorance of economic affairs:

Palin: [E]veryone who ever goes out shopping for groceries knows that prices have risen significantly over the past year or so.

There’s only one small problem with that statement. It simply isn’t true. It’s as false as death panels; as dishonest as $200,000,000 a day trips to India by the President; as unscrupulously fraudulent as “palling around with terrorists.” In other words, it’s just another day for Sarah Palin. Sudeep Reddy of the Wall Street Journal stepped up to correct the Tea Party Queen by presenting some actual facts:

Reddy: Grocery prices haven’t risen all that significantly, in fact. The consumer price index’s measure of food and beverages for the first nine months of this year showed average annual inflation of less than 0.6%, the slowest pace on record (since the Labor Department started keeping this measure in 1968). Even if you pick a single snapshot — say, September’s year-over-year increase in prices — that was just 1.4%, far better than the 6% annual increase for food prices recorded in September 2008.

Not content to leave dumb enough alone, Palin calls Reddy’s facts and raises some more lies. She took to her Facebook page to accuse Reddy of failing to read his own paper. Then she offers this quote from a recent WSJ story to support her position that food prices have risen in the past year:

Palin: The article noted that “an inflationary tide is beginning to ripple through America’s supermarkets and restaurants…Prices of staples including milk, beef, coffee, cocoa and sugar have risen sharply in recent months.”

Notice that ellipsis Palin inserted after “supermarkets and restaurants?” Here is the complete segment with the portion she edited out in bold:

WSJ: An inflationary tide is beginning to ripple through America’s supermarkets and restaurants, threatening to end the tamest year of food pricing in nearly two decades.

Prices of staples including milk, beef, coffee, cocoa and sugar have risen sharply in recent months. And food makers and retailers including McDonald’s Corp., Kellogg Co. and Kroger Co. have begun to signal that they’ll try to make consumers shoulder more of the higher costs for ingredients.

So Palin just happened to cut out the part that affirmed that price inflation has been “tame.” And she also excised the context of the staple costs that have risen, which the Journal story makes clear was at the producer level, not the prices consumers pay. The point of the article that Palin quoted was that prices may rise in the future, but they have not risen in the past year as Palin claims.

Palin went to great lengths to ridicule Reddy and the Journal for what she regards as shoddy reporting. But upon closer examination it is Palin (who supposedly has a degree in journalism) who is mangling the truth and deliberately misrepresenting the content of the articles she cites. On her Facebook page she notes that…

Palin: Ever since 2008, people seem inordinately interested in my reading habits. Among various newspapers, magazines, and local Alaskan papers, I read the Wall Street Journal. […] Now I realize I’m just a former governor and current housewife from Alaska, but even humble folks like me can read the newspaper. I’m surprised a prestigious reporter for the Wall Street Journal doesn’t.

Now Palin may be just a former half-term governor, a quitter, a ghost-written book hustler, and a current reality TV star, but even wealthy, narcissists like her can spew falsehoods and propaganda. Judging from the evidence above, if Palin can read a newspaper her comprehension skills (or her respect for the truth) are abysmal. And her attempt to malign “a prestigious reporter for the Wall Street Journal” has not only failed, but has blown back into her face.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

It’s Time For Some REAL Liberal Media

Posted by on November 8, 2010 at 7:03 pm. 1 Comments :

The American media landscape has long been dominated by giant, multinational corporations whose interests have never been aligned with those of the people they purport to serve. It doesn’t take a great mental exertion to observe the divergent aspirations of a population that is concerned with jobs, education, health care, and the welfare of their families, and a business enterprise that is concerned with profits, deregulation, protected markets, and returning value to shareholders. A corporate-managed news operation simply cannot represent the interests of their Wall Street board and their Elm Street audience at the same time.

Over the years there have been some heated debates about the absence of a media platform that represents real people’s issues, particularly from a liberal perspective. The right has had Fox News for 14 years, but nothing remotely similar exists for the left. To the extent that MSNBC comes close, it is still not equivalent. MSNBC never took the explicit role of advocating for party politics in the all-consuming way that Fox does for the GOP. Not that I would want a liberal media outfit to take up with the Democrats. I’m just noting the distinction.

The recent controversy over the suspension of Keith Olbermann for making a few donations to Democratic candidates illustrates the inadequacy of having to rely on another right-wing, corporate parent to satisfy our media appetite. And it magnifies the differences between Fox and MSNBC. Fox would never contemplate removing their most successful anchors from the air over something like that. Fox doesn’t even contemplate reprimanding their anchors when they brazenly lie, overtly incite violence, or call our president a racist. But MSNBC had no qualms about imposing a severe and embarrassing punishment on someone whose political leanings were already well known. As Sen. Bernie Sanders said about the NBC/Comcast deal:

“We do not need another media giant run by a Republican supporter of George W. Bush. That is the lesson we should learn from the Keith Olbermann suspension.”

In the past, I have not been particularly enthusiastic about the idea of building a liberal media enterprise. Not because I don’t think it’s important, but because it would be prohibitively expensive to do it right. Air America is a sad example of what happens without sufficient support and capitol. There are many additional reasons to be pessimistic about such an enterprise, i.e. it would be a risky venture that would require a long-term commitment. Rupert Murdoch deficit-financed Fox News for at least five years; radio and cable channel access is scarce and difficult to acquire; bona fide talent, both on the air and in the executive suites, is hard to recruit; and building any business from scratch is fraught with fiscal danger and obstacles.

However, we may have an opportunity today that has not been available in the past. Comcast, the nation’s largest cable operator is in the process of acquiring NBC/Universal. It is a merger that has raised red flags for many media watchdogs who are concerned about the concentration of power that has been getting progressively worse year after year. And Comcast is a conservative-run business that would further tilt the press to the right. Free Press and other reform groups are actively lobbying to oppose approval of the merger by federal agencies. And therein lies our opportunity.

Comcast wants very much to smooth the path for approval of their acquisition of NBC/U. So perhaps they could be persuaded to trade something of value for an agreement to drop opposition. What I would propose is that Comcast agree to divest itself of NBC News prior to the merger. Specifics of such a transaction would have to be worked out but would center around the divestiture of NBC’s news operations, the MSNBC cable network, CNBC, and the related Internet properties. Comcast would still get the NBC broadcast network, the lucrative USA cable network, Bravo, SyFy, and Telemundo. These networks form the basis of the syndication strategy for the NBC entertainment group. And, of course, they would also still have the NBC television station group and the Universal Studios and theme parks.

What makes this proposal viable is that the new media group splitting off is already a profitable business. It would not face the risks associated with building a business from scratch. It already has cable access to most of the country. And it is already staffed with proven talent and executives. MSNBC and CNBC are both profitable in their present form and would likely continue to be.

For this to work there would need to be an acquiring entity and financing. The money could come from a consortium that might include people like Ted Turner, Al Gore, George Soros, Steve Case, David Geffen, and/or Bill Gates. There’s no shortage of available billionaires. And ideally there would be an existing media enterprise that this could be folded into. Some examples might be Tribune, Gannett, or the Washington Post Company.

A requirement for agreeing to this would be a promise to appoint credible, progressive, experienced executives to run the news operations. It would be imperative that the management team be committed to quality, ethical journalism. It would have to be the sort of business that valued investigative projects and was unafraid of controversy. And it must be open to partnering with relevant and respectable media reform groups like Free Press, the Poynter Institute, the Schumann Center, the USC Annenberg Norman Lear Center, Media Matters, etc.

By forming a new company in this fashion we would benefit by producing honest, progressive news content; by establishing a baseline for journalistic ethics; by not having to suffer the indignities of hare-brained lackeys like Phil Griffin, the man who suspended Olbermann and is likely already sucking up to his future conservative bosses at Comcast; and by preventing another media merger that would have exacerbated the problem of concentrated power in the press. And as for Comcast, they would benefit by easing their path to the acquisition of NBC/U. There may never be a better opportunity to negotiate a deal that could produce a real liberal media outlet – for a change. And that wouldn’t be a bad name for the channel: Real Media: For a Change.

None of this will be easy. The proposed merger is already a complex arrangement that could fall apart if someone pulls the wrong thread. But it would be worth exploring. If MSNBC is presently the only allegedly liberal news channel on the dial, then it shouldn’t have to cower in the shadow of right-wing masters who can slap them down if they get too uppity. They should have the freedom to express themselves without fear of reprisal. And if that environment can be created through a spinoff of the NBC news division, then it may be worth it to let the rest of the Comcast transaction go forward.


The Stupidest Man On Fox News Is Spooked By George Soros

Posted by on November 8, 2010 at 1:11 pm. 9 Comments :

Steve DoocySteve Doocy, unquestionably the stupidest man on Fox News (which is no easy achievement), expressed his astonishment that George Soros might be executing an insidious plot to Jiu-Jitsu Fox News by turning its own wealth against them. Here are excerpts of an exchange this morning between Doocy and right-wing crank/author Ron Arnold:

Doocy: Did you know that George Soros made over $2.3 million by investing in News Corp, which is our parent company? So, is he using those profits to attack Fox News? Some people are wondering that.

By “some people” Doocy means himself and his producers. Arnold took up Doocy’s question and responded precisely as he was expected to when they invited him into the studio:

Ron Arnold: That’s absolutely true. Over a period of about four years the Soros Fund Management had about $4 million at one time, ended up with about $2.3 million when they sold it off. And now they’re simply using the cash to try to get rid of News Corp’s Fox News. And that’s exactly what’s happening.

Just to be clear, Soros is being accused of parlaying a $4 million bit of a $20 billion fund (that’s 0.002%) into a windfall with which he could blow away Fox News. That’s not much more than a rounding error. The accusation also implies that the fund itself is bankrolling the Fox attacks and not Soros personally (who could write a million dollar check on his own account like most of us pick up a Venti Latte with extra foam). There is no evidence that Soros’ Quantum Fund, or any other investment, has engaged in any such partisan expenditures, and probably would not be permitted to do so. What’s more, the $2.3 million cited as the proceeds from the sale of News Corp stock appears to represent a loss of principle, not a profit as Doocy stated. But Doocy’s Fox & Friends have no use for trivialities such as facts while they are trying to fabricate a scandal. Doocy continues…

Doocy: It looked like George Soros was trying to control the media.

Saints preserve us! An international billionaire financier might actually be trying to wield tyrannical control over our free press. I wonder if Doocy has ever met his boss, Rupert Murdoch, an international billionaire who actually does run a media empire and sits on the board of the Associated Press. Soros, on the other hand, has no management interests in any media concern. He has made some charitable donations to NPR and Media Matters, but has no executive role or even a seat on their boards. However, even if he did, is it Doocy’s contention that NPR and Media Matters constitute a mortal threat to News Corp, AP, and the rest of the Corporate Media cabal? Apparently so.

Arnold: Well, he certainly was. And you’ve got to remember he’s got a very good friend in the Tides Foundation’s CEO whose name is Drummond Pike. They go back a long way, Soros and Pike. And I’m pretty sure that the only reason that that million dollars went to Media Matters was because Drummond Pike stepped in. Because Media Matters has been trying to get money out of Soros for years. He said no.
Doocy: It just seems incredulous [sic] that he would be making money in News Corp stock and then turning around and taking the money to try to run a division of News Corp out of business.
Arnold: Yes, it does seem incredible but you have to remember, cash trumps hypocrisy. It’s all about the money as far as he’s concerned.
Doocy: That is a crazy story.

Now follow this logic: Soros didn’t even want to fund Media Matters. He was persuaded to do it by his pal Drummond. Yet he is still portrayed as seeking to control the media despite his lack of interest. And while Doocy and Arnold find it incredible, they explain it away by asserting that “It’s all about the money,” which contradicts their whole theory as to Soros’ obsession to dominate the media. That is indeed a crazy story.

Of course I didn’t expect any of this to make sense from the beginning. Doocy’s Olympian ignorance pervades every subject he approaches. The truth is that this just a teaser for Glenn Beck’s upcoming “Puppetmaster” special on Soros. Fox News is a focused and effective marketing machine and they always go to great lengths to promote their own phony stories. Doocy is like the teaspoon of Aspertame before the full-on dose of poison that Beck will dispense tomorrow.


BROKE: Glenn Beck’s “PLAN” To Collapse The System

Posted by on November 7, 2010 at 9:50 pm. 12 Comments :

A year ago this month Glenn Beck announced that he had a “Plan” that he promised to unveil at public event to be held at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC. It is a 100 year plan to restore America to what Beck imagines it was a hundred years ago, before the progressives came along and convinced everyone to eat some forbidden apples. The big event would be the launching pad for his “Plan” and a book by the same name.

In the intervening year Beck fundamentally transformed the purpose of his rally into something that resembled the old Holyroller Roadshows and Salvation Emporiums. He had completely abandoned the book launch and the mysterious “Plan” in favor of an open air revival meeting and the witnessing of a miracle flock of geese.

However, as it turns out the book wasn’t shelved. It was repackaged, retitled, and released a couple of weeks ago.

Glenn Beck - BrokeBROKE: The Plan to Restore Our Trust, Truth and Treasure, is now available with a new emphasis on the country’s fiscal woes. This isn’t exactly a new theme for Beck who has been predicting (craving) an American economic calamity for several years. The irony is that his “Plan” now places the blame for our dilemma on the American people:

“Once you see what we’re really up against, it’s much easier to develop a realistic plan. To fix ourselves financially, Glenn argues, we have to fix ourselves first. That means some serious introspection and, ultimately, a series of actions that will unite all Americans around the concept of shared sacrifice.”

See? We are the problem. And to fix it Beck has suddenly adopted the notion of shared sacrifice, a concept he previously regarded as abhorrent and a product of the socialistic ideology that he believes diminishes individual freedom and responsibility. Furthermore, his own philosophy is one that advocates allowing our economic system to crash and burn. Again, a concept he previously reviled as the Cloward/Piven strategy. He asserts that we are beyond the point of no return and must abandon all measures to stimulate growth and create jobs. Let the bottom fall out, cower in your bunker with your Survival Seeds and gold coins. Cling to your God and guns and, if your faith is strong enough, you will be redeemed by some miracle from above.

I don’t plan on reading Broke any time soon because … well because reading Beck’s books falls somewhere below bobbing for Ebola on my to-do list. And what I’ve read of his in the past has always been just a rehashing of the tired lies and disinformation that he spews on TV and radio.

However I can’t help but comment on the nauseating image he has chosen for the cover. To place himself, a man of prodigious wealth, behind a banner proclaiming destitution, with empty pockets and an expression of distress and defeat, is an insult to the millions of families who are truly suffering and struggling to maintain some semblance of comfort and security. This is a man who extorts sums exceeding $100.00 from his humble disciples for the privilege of hearing him blame them for the mess that greedy conservatives, like those Beck admires, have gotten this country into. This is a man who preaches a brand of economic isolationism that will bring misery to millions, but leave himself unscathed – hardly broke. That cover is as dishonest as everything else that Beck does and says.

The unmitigated gall of this self-centered, Randian, populist impostor, pretending to have something in common with hard-working Americans, is repulsive in the extreme. Consequently, I have come up with a couple of alternative titles and covers for his book:

Either of these is a better representation of the scoundrel Beck is and the immorality for which Beck stands.


Rachel Maddow On Keith Olbermann: Here’s The Larger Point…

Posted by on November 6, 2010 at 11:24 am. 23 Comments :

Keith Olbermann’s suspension from MSNBC for making a couple of political donations without getting prior approval from the network bosses has set media tongues to wagging. However, the real story here is not what Olbermann did, but what other hosts and networks (i.e. Fox News) do regularly without shame or consequence. Rachel Maddow summarizes it nicely:

Here’s the larger point, though, that’s going mysteriously missing from the right-wing cackling and old media cluck-cluck-clucking: I know everyone likes to say, “Oh, cable news, it’s all the same. Fox and MSNBC — mirror images of each other. But if you look at the long history of Fox hosts not just giving money to candidates, but actively endorsing campaigns and raising millions of dollars for politicians and political parties — whether it’s Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck or Mike Huckabee — and you’ll see that we can lay that old false equivalency to rest forever. There are multiple people being paid by Fox News to essentially run for office as Republican candidates. If you count not just their hosts but their contributors, you’re looking at a significant portion of the entire Republican lineup of potential contenders for 2012. They can do that because there’s no rule against that at Fox. Their network is run as a political operation. Ours isn’t.


The deep collusion between Fox News and the GOP is there for all to see if they just open their eyes. The sad thing is that most of the audience, even Fox fans, are aware of this cozy relationship. In fact, Fox’s audience actually approves of it, insists upon on, and takes pride in it. It’s the media that is willfully and woefully blind.

Much of the old-school press goes out of their way to defend Fox as if it were a credible source of news. They did so after former White House Communications Director Anita Dunn correctly called Fox “the communications arm of the Republican Party.” They did so after a false allegation was raised regarding Fox being denied access to a White House event. They did so when controversy erupted surrounding the seating arrangements in the White House briefing room after the departure of Helen Thomas.

When will the Conventional Media recognize that Fox is NOT a news network? When will they report the truth about the collusion between Fox and their partisan pals in the GOP? When will they wise up to the fact that while they are propping up Fox, Fox is slandering them? I previously wrote an article that asked the question: Who’s Afraid Of Fox News? (The answer: The Rest Of The Media!). Fox regularly smears their competitors in the most hostile terms yet rarely has to take a return punch. Their very slogan, “Fair and Balanced,” is an insult that implies their rivals are unfair and biased.

So when do they fight back? To date they have exhibited the courage of a flock of ostriches. The “larger point” that Maddow raises has been looming over the mediasphere for years and it is far past time for them to defend themselves, to defend ethical journalism, and to advance the interests of the public they purport to serve. If the Olbermann affair can shine a light on the brazen politicking of Fox News and incite an uprising of truth-telling with regard to it, this whole messy melodrama might actually end up being worth it.


Phil Griffin: MSNBC’s Embeded Fox News Groupie

Posted by on November 5, 2010 at 6:58 pm. 3 Comments :

I was reminded of an article I wrote last May by a Twitterer who apparently knows my work better than I do. Below are a few choice excerpts that paint a clearer picture of the man that just put Keith Olbermann on suspension.

Phil Griffin Of MSNBC ♥’s Roger Ailes Of Fox News
 

Roger AilesPhil Griffin, president of MSNBC, was interviewed by the Chicago Tribune and provided an outstanding example of the sort of clueless, illogical, journalistic myopia that is rotting away the American press. When asked about his rival Roger Ailes at Fox News, he gave an almost fawning response that makes one wonder if they are really rivals at all.

“He’s changed media. Everybody does news differently because Roger’s changed the world. Roger early on figured it out and was brilliant.”

Indeed. Roger Ailes changed media – for the worse! His “brilliant” idea was to transform the news into a rancorous, talk-radio style, shoutfest that manufactured conflict and spun every story as far to the right as their ideological wheel could turn. The inspiration behind Fox’s brand loyalty is talk-radio, soap operas, and tabloid news vendors like the National Enquirer.

[…]

If Griffin really believes that his mission is to emulate Fox from the opposite end of the political spectrum, he will only succeed in further debasing the media. In addition, he will miss the opportunity to effectively compete in the cable news marketplace. He needs to realize that, not being a news network, Fox is no more his competition than is Nickelodeon (which I’ve said before is a better source than Fox for news and plays to a smarter audience).

[…]

If Griffin were to apply basic fundamentals of entertainment to a more journalistically ethical approach he could attract a much larger and more loyal audience. He needs to give news consumers a little more credit for being discriminating, skeptical, curious, and capable of understanding the issues that bear directly on their lives. The last thing we need is more of the cheapening of journalism that Ailes has proffered. And we certainly should not be honoring him for the damage he has already done.

Why does MSNBC have a president who idolizes Roger Ailes? He should not be a role model for anyone who reveres journalism and public service. If there is any justice in this world Olbermann will be back on the air next week and Griffin will be suspended for incompetence and a debilitating lack of vision.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Keith Olbermann Suspended For Acting Like Fox

Posted by on November 5, 2010 at 3:41 pm. 4 Comments :

MSNBC released this notice today regarding their primetime host, Keith Olbermann:

“Msnbc TV host Keith Olbermann was suspended indefinitely on Friday for making campaign donations to three Democratic congressional candidates, apparently in violation of NBC News ethics policy. “

Upon learning of Olbermann’s contributions MSNBC took swift and decisive action to reprimand the talk show host. Some people may argue about whether the punishment is too severe, but I have to commend the network for maintaining a strict policy of ethical conduct. If Olbermann worked for Fox News he would be getting a bonus for this.

No matter what your political leanings (forward or otherwise), you must be accountable for your actions and you must adhere to the standards established by your employer and the journalism community. For the record, here is the policy MSNBC has for its staff:

“Anyone working for NBC News who takes part in civic or other outside activities may find that these activities jeopardize his or her standing as an impartial journalist because they may create the appearance of a conflict of interest. Such activities may include participation in or contributions to political campaigns or groups that espouse controversial positions. You should report any such potential conflicts in advance to, and obtain prior approval of, the president of NBC News or his designee.”

Olbermann apparently did not obtain the required approval for his contributions. Of course, it is difficult to see how his donations would have “jeopardize[d] his…standing as an impartial journalist,” in as much as he has never portrayed himself as either impartial or a journalist. What’s more, MSNBC has not been consistent in the execution of their policy as they have permitted Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan to continue working despite having made numerous political contributions.

Nevertheless, MSNBC chief Phil Griffin suddenly feels compelled to make an example of Olbermann. MSNBC personnel simply cannot be allowed to behave as if they were on Fox News. Unless, that is, they actually ought to be on Fox News like Scarborough and Buchanan. If you are contributing to Republicans, Griffin has no problem with it. Perhaps he is kissing up to his new bosses at Comcast in advance. For the record, here is the policy Fox has for its staff:

“The prohibitions and limitations on political contributions outlined above relate only to the use of corporate funds and services and are not intended to discourage employees from making personal contributions to candidates or political parties of their choice. Personal involvement in political activity is permitted as long as the activity does not interfere with or impair the performance of the employee’s duties for the Company. In addition, any employee who becomes involved with a political group must make it clear that his or her activities are being conducted purely in a personal capacity and not on behalf of or in connection with the Company.”

So at Fox there is virtually no barrier for employees who wish to donate time or money to political concerns. And dozens of them take advantage of that freedom every day. Even worse, Fox personnel from Sean Hannity to Dick Morris to Greta Van Susteren and more actively solicited donations for their pet GOP candidates and causes. Glenn Beck came right out and asked his viewers to donate so much to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that it would become their biggest fundraising day ever. And we know that the corporation has no barriers either as News Corp was caught making multimillion donations to GOP organizations. The last thing we need now is for other media figures to adopt the standards (or lack thereof) of Fox News.

For that reason it is important to insure compliance with strict standards for ethical behavior. Olbermann is being held to those standards even if other MSNBC personnel are not. Such inconsistency would make Phil Griffin a candidate for Olbermann’s “Worst Person in the World.” Lucky for him that Olbermann has been suspended (and Olbermann also recently suspended that segment).


There is no indication from MSNBC how long the suspension will remain in effect. It could, however, be a thorny issue for them. Olbermann’s Countdown is the number one show on the network. He has almost single-handedly thrust MSNBC into the number two slot ahead of CNN. It would be in the interest of the network to keep the suspension short. They may also run the risk of alienating Olbermann who may find greener pastures elsewhere. CNN would very likely give him anything he wanted, including his present time slot that CNN is wasting with Parker/Spitzer. And can you imagine the success that MSNBC would have if they moved Scarborough into the 8:00pm slot?

The reactions to Olbermann’s suspension are already reverberating throughout the blogosphere. Some are calling for boycotts of NBC/MSNBC. That would be stupid. Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, and Lawrence O’Donnell had nothing to do with this.

The most likely reason for Olbermann’s suspension probably has nothing to do with ethics or political contributions. It is almost certainly related to Phil Griffin’s lust for power. With Jeff Zucker out as network CEO and Comcast looming on the horizon, Griffin sees this as an opportunity to elevate his status. Olbermann represents the 800 pound gorilla at MSNBC and Griffin gets to knock him down a peg by exerting this show of authority. That would explain why Griffin never demonstrated any concern for other MSNBC personalities who did the same thing Olbermann did. They didn’t have any of the heft that Olbermann has and thus it would serve no purpose to bother with them.

While Olbermann may have made a mistake by contributing to candidates when it is against company policy to do so, the punishment is far in excess of the crime, and it has been wielded in a grossly unfair manner. Griffin is revealing himself to be unethical and power mad (or at best a sycophant to his incoming masters).

NBC/MSNBC needs to set aside this unnecessary controversy that only benefits their competition. Fox, and their cultist followers, are reveling in this soap opera. They will get significant mileage out of asserting that MSNBC is unethical while remaining oblivious to their own infractions. That’s what makes this such a idiotic play even if there is some technical justification for it.

In the end it is terrible for business and the executives at NBC/MSNBC have a fiduciary duty to advance the interests of shareholders. So have your little suspension, get it over with, and put Olbermann back on the air by Tuesday.

You can help to resolve this mess by expressing yourselves to Phil Griffin and Co. here:

212-664-4444
phil.griffin@nbcuni.com

[Update:] Nice work, people. MSNBC/Griffin fold. Olbermann will be back on the air Tuesday, just as I demanded. Wow…I have more clout than I thought.


Will Fox News Be Happy When George Soros Is Murdered?

Posted by on November 4, 2010 at 3:11 pm. 22 Comments :

Fox News takes pride in its ability to destroy the lives of people it opposes politically. They had a hand in the assassination of abortion provider Dr. George Tiller, whom they labeled “the baby killer.” And several “lone wolf” nuts tied to Fox broadcasters have been thwarted prior to executing their plans to murder “enemies” of the Fox Nation.

The latest target of demonization by the Smear Squad at Fox News is billionaire investor, George Soros. Actually, they have been on Soros’ trail for months, but they have lately escalated the rhetoric and its overtly hostile tone. Several Fox presenters have portrayed Soros as a mysterious and dangerous character. They cast him as “foreign” and “secretive.” Of course, the truth is just the opposite. Soros is every bit as American as Rupert Murdoch, and his participation in public affairs is always disclosed openly, contrary to Murdoch whose recent funding of partisan GOP organizations was done in secret and only became known via third party disclosures and against Murdoch’s wishes.

Glenn Beck, the inspiration to many rightist would-be assassins, has scheduled a full hour of hate speech next Tuesday dedicated to Soros that Beck is promoting as “D-Day for George Soros.” Beck has called Soros the “puppetmaster” controlling all manner of evil in the world. From socialists to Nazis to the collapse of free-market capitalism, Soros is accused of being the invisible hand behind it all. Beck tagged Soros “the most powerful man in America.” That’s hard to grasp when he isn’t even in the top 25 of the richest, according to Forbes. By the way, the Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal (the second biggest shareholder of News Corp outside of the Murdoch family) and the oil-rich Koch brothers (financiers of the AstroTurf Tea Party movement) are all in the top 25. And somehow they are still less powerful than Soros according to Beck.


In advance of Beck’s special anti-Soros episode, Fox Nation has published a hit piece that declares “Soros [the] Big Loser After Tuesday’s Election.” The gist is that due to the poor showing of Democrats, Soros’ political donations went to waste. However, Soros made no donations whatsoever to Democratic campaigns or partisan committees this cycle. He even made a public statement to that effect asserting that he didn’t think his participation would stem the GOP tide. The article focused on Soros’ support for the Secretary of State Project, a 527 whose mission is to support candidates for Secretary of State who will advance voter access and participation. However, Soros didn’t contribute to that in this cycle either. His only support for it was $10,000 in 2008. Hardly a game changer.

Soros did make sizable donations to media organizations like Media Matters and NPR, and he supported the marijuana initiative in California. But he had no investment in the electoral arena, and that completely negates the whole premise of the Fox Nation’s article.

Ironically, the argument that Soros is a loser because Democratic candidates lost deflates Beck’s argument that he is the most powerful man in America. That title ought to go to the Koch brothers or Karl Rove or any of the other multimillion dollar entities that bankrolled the winning GOP campaigns. But I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for Beck’s special one hour anti-Koch episode.

So while we’re waiting for Beck to unveil his smear job on Soros next week, Fox Nation’s article provided an opportunity for the Fox Nationalists to weigh in on what they believe should become of Soros. And guess what they said (screen cap)…..

wilsonglock: Somebody needs to “find” this guy !!!!! He has created enough problems in America and around the world…..Are there any “bounty” hunters out there willing to get rid of this creep…???

theoutlawjoseywhales: Soros is a criminal, who has destroyed 4 countries, were number five, but we won’t go so easily. Soros, we’re going to hunt you down and have our justice for your crimes against us. Count on it.

texascherokee: George, a Small Consolation Gift will be arriving soon, from about 300 yards!

sam@yahoo: Someone put a prize on the pig’s head,let some patriots go on the hunt for that beast!

The Fox Nationalists are openly calling for assassination. I reviewed the website three hours after I first saw these comments (and flagged them for being inappropriate) and they were still there. There is nothing ambiguous about the intentions expressed here. It is utterly irresponsible for Fox to permit this sort of advocacy of criminal violence. Or maybe this is what they mean when they say “All Opinions Welcome” (although my comments are rarely posted).

For this to appear on Fox’s website so soon after a real life tragedy was narrowly averted is unconscionable. Just last July a deranged fan of Glenn Beck’s embarked on a mission to murder people associated with the ACLU and the Tides Foundation, a beneficiary of Soros’ donations. From Media Matters:

On July 18, Byron Williams, an ex-felon with a history of violent criminal behavior, was pulled over by California Highway Police on I-580. Williams, who was apparently intoxicated, opened fire at the officers as one approached his truck. […] Williams reportedly told investigators that “his intention was to start a revolution by traveling to San Francisco and killing people of importance at the Tides Foundation and the ACLU.

What are we to expect now from Beck’s hour long assault on Soros, whom Beck calls “Spooky Dude” (as if there could be someone spookier than Beck)? Despite his regular pleas that his disciples refrain from violence, Beck knows all to well that many believe he is just saying that to stay within legal boundaries. Beck himself even told his congregation that…

“I can only say certain things, and I haven’t lost all of the rights. But know that these things are true. And if you hear me stop saying these things, it’s because I can no longer say them to you. But hear them between the sentences. Hear them, please. I will be screaming them to you.”

Beck has also told his audience that Soros is trying to silence him. That is Beck’s explanation for Soros’ donation to Media Matters. And worse than that, Beck has implied that Soros wants to kill him. In one rant Beck pointedly looked at the camera and addressed Soros, warning him that he (Beck) has a bulletproof car.

So let’s put this puzzle together:

1) Beck accuses Soros of being a general threat to America and the freedom of all citizens.
2) Beck asserts that Soros is a specific threat to Beck’s personal freedom to speak, and even his life.
3) Fox Nation is packed with explicit death threats aimed at Soros.
4) Beck advises his listeners that they have to read between the lines to hear his real message.
5) Beck’s opus on Soros will debut Tuesday November 9, 2010, with an hour’s worth of sentences to read between.

This is about as close to a solicitation for murder as you can get. Beck has demonized his target and warned his faithful followers that he is need of their defense and/or vengeance. His followers have heard the call as evidenced on Fox Nation. And even if there is nothing controversial in Beck’s new Soros documentary (or more controversial than usual), the damage he and Fox have done already is sufficient cause for concern. He may merely repeat the same lies he has been telling about Soros for months. But the cumulative effect of the components of this campaign against Soros could have tragic consequences – again. And Beck, along with Fox News, must be held accountable. A movement has already begun to let Fox’s advertisers know that they bear some responsibility as well. Sign the petition here.

Despite Beck’s disingenuous pleas for peace, he knows the potential for violence that his words produce, Why else would he have to repeatedly admonish his viewers to be peaceful? Is there any other television host who feels it’s necessary to remind his/her audience to not kill people? I’m pretty sure Alex Trebek doesn’t have that problem. Oprah went 26 years without having to do it. But Beck has already produced violent actors yet he persists in fanning the embers of hate.

This makes it all the more important to persuade people of good will in the media and in the advertising communities to be responsible and disassociate themselves with Beck, Fox News, and any other enterprise that incites such violence.


Has Jon Stewart Ever Watched Chris Wallace?

Posted by on November 4, 2010 at 9:53 am. 4 Comments :

On last night’s The Daily Show, host Jon Stewart interviewed Chris Wallace of Fox News. The resulting veneration was cringe-worthy and wholly undeserved.

Stewart repeatedly praised Wallace as the lone representative of journalistic principle on Fox News, calling him their “news guy.”. This makes me wonder if Stewart has actually ever seen Wallace in action. If he had he would be familiar with how Wallace slants his reporting and cushions his interview subjects with praise, softballs, and leading questions, i.e.:

  • Asking the Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes “is it unfair to say that this is a president whose heart doesn’t seem to be into winning the war on terror?”
  • Asking Rush Limbaugh what Obama has done TO the country.
  • Awarding ACORN pimp, James O’Keefe, the “Power Player of the Week.”
  • Calling Democrats “damn fools” for declining to appear on Fox News.
  • Admitting that he “generally agrees” with Sean Hannity.
  • Jumping to the defense of George W. Bush after director Ron Howard suggested comparisons to Richard Nixon.
  • Declaring Sarah Palin to be a “new star in the political galaxy.”
  • Asking George Bush if he was “puzzled by all of the concern in this country about protecting [the] rights of people who want to kill us.”
  • In a criticism of Democratic health care plans, making the absurd observation that “people don’t even contemplate end of life until they’re in an irreversible coma.”

To be sure, Stewart got in a couple moments of clarity. For instance, when he noted that Wallace was hesitant to ask challenging questions of fellow Fox Newser Sarah Palin. Stewart was also on target when he congratulated Wallace and Fox News for “taking back control of the House of Representatives,” clearly associating the goals of Fox News with those of the GOP. Wallace assumed the tribute was for besting MSNBC and CNN in the ratings (all Foxies care more about ratings than reporting). However, Stewart properly corrected him. And then there was the exchange wherein Stewart zinged Wallace by saying…

Stewart: You have a very clear narrative.
Wallace: You mean the truth?
Stewart: [Laughing] No. You know which party you want to elect.

But overall this interview affirmed my long-held criticism that interviewing is not Stewart’s strong point. He often seems more focused on fawning over his guests than challenging them. That’s tolerable when he’s interviewing Hugh Grant about his next romantic comedy, but with political guests he should be at least as provocative as he is in the show’s earlier “funny” segments.

Stewart’s Daily Show is still the funniest and most biting satire on TV. But he should never let a guest get away with the sort of spin for which they would be mocked were they to have done it on another program. And the ingratiating tone he took with Wallace, who is as overtly partisan as the rest of the Fox roster, was a failure from both an informative and a humorous perspective.


Glenn Beck Hates America And Her People

Posted by on November 3, 2010 at 3:55 pm. 9 Comments :

It is time for Glenn Beck to give up his phony pretense of patriotism. What he regards as love of country is really more like a Patriopathic™ disease that infects his brain with a cult-like zeal for ultra-nationalism. Beck does not love America, in fact, he bitterly hates much of it – perhaps the majority of it. And this is not some lefty hyperbole, it is his own words and opinions that reveal his disdain for this country. In the wake of the election results last night, Beck had this to say:

I’m thinking about taking a shovel and digging Nevada out. I mean, seriously. We’ll dig all the way to China if we have to and there’s just a giant, Nevada-sized hole in the earth.

You know, California, I swear to you I’m gonna take the star off the flag. There’s gonna be 49. […] Can we kick a state out?


Beck should have his own wing in the Hypocrisy Hall of Fame. He pontificates feverishly about the people having their voices heard – unless they aren’t saying what he wants to hear. When Nevadans and Californians speak their minds they are not accorded the respect of citizens making a democratic choice. They are reviled as unworthy of their citizenship.

We’re talking about tens of millions of families, soccer moms, small business owners, and veterans who have sacrificed more for this country than Beck ever will if he outlives Methuselah. And their crime is nothing more than voting for a party other than the one Beck prefers. I’m not sure Beck knows what a democratic republic is.

This isn’t a new mode of attack for Beck. He frequently lambastes domestic targets whom he perceives as enemies. He would like to eliminate New York, Chicago, Vermont, New Orleans, Madison, and Seattle. He’s also not particularly fond of Austin, Hawaii, and parts of southern Florida.

Beck’s geographical bigotry extends beyond a mere disagreement with the values of a particular region. He actually regards them as so irredeemably un-American that they ought to be disjoined or destroyed. That’s the penalty for holding or expressing views that are contrary to Beck’s. Apparently the remaining portion of Beck’s Disunited States will not enjoy free speech.

The funny thing is that if Beck got his way, and the objects of his hatred were to actually separate from the union, the U.S. as he imagines it would be substantially weaker and poorer. The banished territories, on the other hand, would be exceedingly prosperous – even more so without having to support the sparsely populated rural states that lack the productive industries that generate revenue and trade.

How long will Beck get away with maligning his fellow Americans? How long will his phony patriotism fool people? I wonder when even his fans, who live in the dark corners of Beck’s anti-America, will become disgusted with his insulting and divisive rhetoric. Then again, I wonder if they even know they are being insulted.