Stop Federal Funding Of Fox News

Posted by on March 21, 2011 at 1:44 pm. 24 Comments :

Defund Fox NewsA few weeks ago video pimp and propagandist, James O’Keefe, released a heavily edited and deliberately deceptive video that purported to expose an institutional bias at National Public Radio. It was quickly debunked and denounced as a fraud by analysts across the political spectrum, including those at Glenn Beck’s web site, The Blaze.

Nevertheless, partisans in Congress and agenda-driven conservatives in the press continue to behave as if the video were legitimate. The House of Representatives, on a party-line vote, passed a resolution to defund NPR – a purely symbolic gesture as the Senate is not likely to concur.

The latest attack comes from former NPR correspondent, and confessed bigot, Juan Williams, in an op-ed for The Hill. After first conceding that “NPR is an important platform for journalism,” Williams joins his conservative comrades in calling for federal defunding of NPR. But he also reveals his self-serving and vengeful motivation by slandering NPR in saying that…

“They’re willing to do anything in service of any liberal with money. This includes firing me and skewing the editorial content of their programming.”

Nowhere in the article did Williams support his contention that “liberal money” was behind either his termination or any of its reporting. This is nothing more than a personal vendetta on Williams’ part. He is merely using the funding debate to strike his own blows against a former employer for whom he obviously bears a deep resentment.

However, if the right wants to introduce the issue of federal funding of the media into the public debate, they should be prepared to see their own Fox gored. Fox News has been the beneficiary of government largess for years and it is time to stop it and make Fox pay its own way. As far back as 1999, there have been reports documenting how News Corp, Fox’s parent company, exploited loopholes in tax laws that permitted them to avoid levies that all other citizens have to pay. From The Economist:

“…News Corporation and its subsidiaries paid only A$325m ($238m) in corporate taxes worldwide. In the same period, its consolidated pre-tax profits were A$5.4 billion. So News Corporation has paid an effective tax rate of only around 6%. By comparison, Disney, one of the world’s other media empires, paid 31%. Basic corporate-tax rates in Australia, America and Britain, the three main countries in which News Corporation operates, are 36%, 35% and 30% respectively.”

The article goes on to describe how News Corp used a complex network of accounting dodges including as many as 60 shell companies that were incorporated in such tax havens as the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, the Netherlands Antilles and the British Virgin Islands. More recently, an investigation by the New York Times revealed that…

“By taking advantage of a provision in the law that allows expanding companies like Mr. Murdoch’s to defer taxes to future years, the News Corporation paid no federal taxes in two of the last four years, and in the other two it paid only a fraction of what it otherwise would have owed. During that time, Securities and Exchange Commission records show, the News Corporation’s domestic pretax profits topped $9.4 billion.”

When giant, prosperous, multinational corporations weasel out of their tax obligations, ordinary citizens are the ones who are forced to make up the shortfall. That is effectively a tax subsidy for the corporations funded by you and me and all of the indignant Tea Partiers who claim to oppose special interest favors for the elite.

What’s more, federal bailouts to corporations like General Motors and Citigroup provided them with billions of taxpayer dollars, some of which are eventually spent on advertising that appears on Fox News, in the Wall Street Journal, and other Murdoch assets. Additionally, financial institutions that receive bailout funds use some that money to acquire shares of News Corp and to finance and insure News Corp activities including billion dollar motion picture projects like Avatar and capitalizing mergers and expansions.

USUncut is mounting a campaign to expose this sort of corporate welfare. They should add News Corp/Fox News to their list. But why aren’t there more voices objecting to these handouts? Why aren’t Democrats in Congress drafting legislation to prohibit bailout and stimulus funds from being used to enrich partisan political operations like Fox News by funneling cash into their accounts disguised as advertising expenditures. Every time you see a commercial on the Fox News Channel for a Chevy Tahoe or a Citibank Visa you are watching your tax dollars flow into the pockets of Rupert Murdoch and his wealthy associates.

The right wants to defund NPR despite the fact that they have utterly failed to demonstrate any journalistic bias on the part of NPR. On the other hand, Fox News has been documented to be brazenly one-sided over and over again, yet they receive hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer financed subsidies. Well, no more.

Stand Up! Fight Back! It is time to end the federal funding of Fox News NOW!

[Update 3/28/11:] And finally there is some media attention on the fact that there are many U.S. corporations brazenly shortchanging the country. MSNBC via Daily Beast.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

How To Build A Fox News Narrative

Posted by on March 20, 2011 at 6:53 pm. 8 Comments :

For much of the past week Fox News has been complaining that President Obama has not done enough for the people of Libya. Most of these stories castigated the President as a weak leader who was ignoring massive suffering on the part of people who are fighting for their freedom against a brutal tyrant. As the story unfolded Fox Nation posted items with headlines that constructed a dramatic story of incompetence and neglect.

The Fox Nationalists painted a picture of a “President Gone AWOL” who “Bows the the UN” that “Authorizes No-Fly Zone” so that allies “Declare Military Action” while “Obama Outsources the War to the French.” So obviously the story climaxes with…


“Serious Doubts Raised About Obama’s War In Libya.” That’s right – it’s now Obama’s war. A military action that Obama was supposedly to indecisive to start, and too much a follower to lead, is now declared to be a full-fledged war that belongs solely to Obama. When did Obama return from being AWOL? When did he assume ownership from the French? When did it become a war?

In truth, there are legitimate reasons to raise doubts about this affair. While the Libyans are certainly in dire need, and the action was supported by the UN as well as the Arab League, the United States is not particularly well situated for sinking into another potential mid-east quagmire. But that’s exactly why this action should not be led by the U.S. Ceding a more prominent role to the French, the British, and regional players not only prevents the U.S. from bearing the bulk of the military and financial responsibility, it weakens the inevitable accusation that this is just another imperialistic adventure on the part of the United States.

However, for Fox to mischaracterize the course of events so deceitfully is – well, actually it’s just the way Fox operates. Before the military action Obama was indecisive and compassionless. In the formative stages he was weak and lacked leadership. Now, during the assault, when we and our troops are at the most risk, Fox chooses to focus on doubts expressed by the President’s political opponents.

It’s safe to predict that after the action is completed and Qaddafi is awaiting trial in the Hague for crimes against humanity, Fox will lead with “Obama Bows to the Netherlands in Qaddafi prosecution.” Or maybe “Kenyan President of U.S. Hands Libyan Dictator Over to Dutch Dope Smokers.”


James O’Keefe Invokes The Punk’d Defense

Posted by on March 17, 2011 at 10:37 am. 6 Comments :

James O'KeefeSerial liar and video manipulator, James O’Keefe, is taking an odd approach to his his defense on charges of making unlawful, recordings. The charges were filed in California in a case involving former ACORN employee Juan Carlos Vera, who was falsely portrayed in a heavily edited videotape as assisting O’Keefe’s phony prostitution ring when, in fact, Vera was skeptical from the start and notified the police immediately after O’Keefe left his office.

Now O’Keefe’s lawyers are claiming that he was within his rights to surreptitiously record the conversations citing MTV’s Punk’d as a precedent. This is so stupid that I have to wonder if Ashton Kutcher is providing O’Keefe’s legal defense team.

A team of four lawyers is defending O’Keefe on a pro bono basis in the suit filed by one of O’Keefe’s targets, and they’re citing everything from the writings of James Madison to Ashton Kutcher’s MTV show ‘Punk’d’ to a Woody Allen segment on ‘Candid Camera’ to claim O’Keefe’s ACORN sting is protected by the First Amendment.

Do O’Keefe’s lawyers know that Punk’d was an entertainment program that deliberately misled its victims with the intent of embarrassing them for the shock value? Perhaps they do because that’s a pretty good description of what O’Keefe’s Project Veritas does.

There are, however, a couple of significant differences between Punk’d and Project Veritas. For one, there was no malice or harm intended on the part of Kutcher & Co. They even included friends and family of the subjects in the ruse. Also, Punk’d always obtained signed releases from their subjects giving permission to release the videos prior to broadcasting anything. That’s a step O’Keefe conspicuously neglected.

Perhaps the most notable assertion in this line of defense is that it is an admission that O’Keefe is not a journalist, as he likes to portray himself. That is, not unless he thinks Ashton Kutcher is following in the footsteps of Edward R. Murrow. By aligning himself in sworn legal documents with a comedy show that features purposeful deceit, O’Keefe is undercutting any claim he may have had to First Amendment protections for the press.

Nice work punk.


FOR SALE: Republican National Committee

Posted by on March 17, 2011 at 2:16 am. 6 Comments :

If you’re in the market for an antique political party that, despite having a great deal of wear, has had millions of dollars invested in it by its previous owners, you’re in luck:

“The Republican National Committee is considering sanctioning the GOP presidential primary debates and then selling the broadcast rights to news outlets.”

This is wrong on so many levels. First of all, it reduces the electoral process to a consumer product. If you thought that campaigning was like selling soap before, you aint seen nothin’ yet.

This repulsively misguided proposal turns the debates into profit centers for the party. How exactly do they market them? Do they sell exclusive rights to media organizations they favor? Do they license the program to all takers who will pay the fee? Do they post it on eBay and sell to the highest bidder? Perhaps they could go the infomercial route and partner with retailers who can sell campaign buttons, t-shirts, and commemorative plates during the breaks.

Would the fee include the right to designate debate moderators? Would the licensee be able to write the questions for the candidates? What other privileges come with the broadcast rights? Could the they compel the candidates to do promotions? Could they program the debate as the lead-in to a their new Shelley Long sitcom or CSI: DC?

How would the party and the broadcaster account for the payment? Would it be considered a political donation? If so, there are Federal Election Commission limits as to how much can be exchanged. And what’s to stop a partisan media conglomerate from offering to pay a license fee for multiple stations, papers, and Internet sites, in an effort to funnel cash into the party?

What’s next? How about “naming rights” like sports arenas? Maybe the “Citibank Republican Party” or the “GO ‘Daddy’ P.” Perhaps they could sell product placements or get the candidates to make testimonials. Burger King could give away tickets to the debate with every Whopper in a cross-promotion with what Republicans fill their stump speeches with.

Even better, why not just sell the party outright? I’m sure Rupert Murdoch would love to add it to his corporate empire that already owns notable Republican businesses like Fox News and the Wall Street Journal. Although based on their current business relationship, that may just be redundant. After all, Murdoch already employs multiple prospective GOP presidential hopefuls, as well as former House Speakers and Cabinet secretaries.

If the RNC goes through with this they will be affirming their distaste for ethics and their affinity for corruption. They will be ending once and for all any argument that they are not shills for corporate cronyism and greed. Only today’s modern, tea-stained, Republican Party could even contemplate such an asinine plan. I can’t wait to see what they come up with next.


IDIOT ALERT: Dick Morris Predicts Obama Loss In 2012

Posted by on March 16, 2011 at 4:54 pm. 5 Comments :

It is simply mind-boggling how some people continue to get attention from the media despite being consistently wrong about everything they discuss. Prostitute toe-sucker, Dick Morris, is the epitome of just such a loser. For reasons that are incomprehensible, The Hill has published an incoherent screed by Morris wherein he asks…

“Will Obama get reelected? No way! In the teeth of the economic catastrophe that is shaping up, his chances are doomed.”

Doooomed, he portends. To lead off his logic-deprived argument, Morris describes how a “consumer confidence scale,” invented by the ultra-partisan Scott Rasmussen, fluctuated from 81.7 in December, to 88.3 in January, to 84.5 in February, to 73.1 in March. According to Morris, this wild ride in a brief four month period is evidence that Obama cannot be reelected 20 months from now.

What a dolt! His own data illustrates that those numbers are unreliable projections of events far off into the future. Next month the index could be 63 or 91. And that says nothing about what it will be in six months – or twenty. He isn’t asserting a trend or taking into consideration current events now or later. Yet he still concludes that Obama is toast. Then he really goes off the rails:

“The tsunami in Japan, perhaps the greatest tragedy since 9/11, will further impede any prospect for economic growth. There will be a demand for spending to repair the devastation of the quake. But Japan is tied with China as the world’s second largest economy, generating 12 percent of the global GDP. With Japan neither producing nor buying for the foreseeable future, the drag on the global economy will be profound.”

Let’s begin with his assertion that the tsunami in Japan, with estimates of up to 10,000 casualties, is the greatest tragedy since 9/11. It is, without question, a horrific occurrence. But Morris’ diseased brain must have already forgotten the tsunami in Indonesia in 2004 (230,000 dead), the cyclone in Myanmar in 2008 (138,000 dead), and the earthquake in Haiti just last year (316,000 dead). Or maybe he thinks those weren’t great tragedies.

Then Morris, in the space of one short paragraph, contradicts his main point. He says that Japan will neither be producing nor buying, despite having said in the previous sentence that there will be a demand for spending to repair the devastation of the quake. So Japan will, in fact, be buying, and to a lesser extent producing, as they seek to rebuild. It is a sad reality that disasters can produce opportunities in reconstruction efforts. And because of the devastation at home, Japan is going to have to rely on foreign developers, including those in the U.S. So how exactly will that hurt the U.S. economy and Obama’s reelection prospects? Morris doesn’t say.

Next Morris offers his solution to America’s woes. But all it is is a reiteration of the Bush era policies that produced the financial calamities we are presently experiencing. For instance: rolling back regulations, canceling tax increases on the wealthy, reducing federal spending, repeal of ObamaCare, and of course, drill, baby, drill. Morris believes that…

“…the true legacy of the Obama years is likely to be stagflation and an entire decade wiped out by his policies, budget and programs. Long after he is gone in 2013, we will still be repairing the damage of his terrible decisions.”

So Morris is seeding the notion that even if a Republican president is elected in 2012, he will be hobbled by Obama’s mistakes for eight more years. But Morris is the same jerk who derides Obama for ever suggesting that we are still feeling the effects of Bush’s mistakes just two years hence. He accuses Obama of shifting blame to the past administration, but Morris is preemptively blaming Obama for imaginary economic troubles in 2020. He’s playing the blame game on steroids. Plus, he’s giving his prospective Republican president a pass for failing over two complete terms.

For the record, Morris also predicted that Obama would never be elected to begin with. His 2006 book, “Condi vs. Hillary,” contained his astute analysis of the upcoming election in the title. That didn’t exactly pan out for him, did it? From the introduction to the book:

[T]here is no doubt that Hillary Clinton is on a virtually uncontested trajectory to win the Democratic nomination and, very likely, the 2008 presidential election. She has no serious opposition in her party […]

The stakes are high. In 2008, no ordinary white male Republican candidate will do. Forget Bill Frist, George Allen, and George Pataki. Hillary would easily beat any of them. Rudy Giuliani and John McCain? Either of them could probably win, but neither will ever be nominated by the Republican Party.

So Morris got the Democratic nominee wrong, despite his conviction that there was “no doubt.” He also got the Republican nominee wrong, and the Republican who Morris said could win if he were nominated actually lost. Is there any way he could have been more wrong?

It is on the strength of this sort of analysis that Morris gets asked back to provide additional “insights.” That is just astonishing, and so very sad. Why would The Hill publish his irrepressibly misguided prognostications given his record? Why does Fox News feature him almost nightly? How often do you have to get things ridiculously wrong before people in the media decide to stop asking for your worthless opinions?

Unfortunately, we do not seem to have reached that threshold yet, because Morris is still getting invitations to opine on subjects about which he knows little to nothing. And the worst part is that he isn’t the only one. Isn’t anyone keeping score?


Why Does Fox News Keep Glenn Beck Around?

Posted by on March 16, 2011 at 10:43 am. 10 Comments :

In a discussion on the fairness and balance of Fox News, the network’s CEO Roger Ailes famously told Barbara Walters that, “I’m not in politics. I’m in ratings. We’re winning.”

If we are to take Ailes at his word, then we have to wonder why he keeps Glenn Beck on the schedule. The program has been shedding viewers like a mongrel with a scalp condition for months. His year-to-year numbers dropped 40% in January and another 32% in February. He is sinking faster than any other program on cable news. A couple of weeks ago Rachel Maddow drew more viewers than Beck for the the first time ever. Over 300 companies have declined to advertise on his program due to offensive content like his anti-Semitic rants against George Soros and his bloodthirsty allusions to having to “shoot them [radicals] in the head.”

Last week Beck was on vacation and Fox Business host Andrew Napolitano filled in for him. The result was the ratings barely budged. And on Tuesday Rachel again drew more viewers than Beck’s program with its guest host. This is fairly conclusive evidence that the audience for that time period is constant regardless of who is on the air. Consequently, Fox could replace Beck at any time (as some speculation suggests is under consideration) without suffering any ill effects in the ratings.

So why don’t they? They could certainly fill that hour with another conservative mouthpiece that would cost them far less to employ. They could make much more money by recovering the A-List advertisers who have previously abandoned the program. And they would not have to endure the embarrassment of being associated with Beck’s delusional conspiracy theories that are lately drawing criticism from even the most stalwart advocates of conservatism.

The only reason that a so-called “news” network would continue to employ someone whose analyses and assertions are so distant from any sane definition of journalism, and so reviled by more rational observers, is because the network approves of, and agrees with, his inane proclamations of doom and his determination to transform political discourse into a feast of demonization and personal destruction.


The lesson from Beck’s absence last week is profound. If after learning that their ratings would remain constant in a post-Beck world, Fox News elects to keep him in the lineup anyway, we must conclude that Ailes and his boss Rupert Murdoch, are on board Beck’s crazy train. That’s the answer to the question in the headline. Ailes and Murdoch cannot disassociate themselves from the Beck Doctrine. They obviously regard Beck’s contribution to their mission as more important than either money or respect. So the next question is: What the hell is their mission?

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

The Fox Follies: March 14, 2011

Posted by on March 15, 2011 at 1:42 am. 5 Comments :

When Fox News isn’t bastardizing the truth or shilling for right-wing billionaires and Tea Baggers, they can be surprisingly entertaining – if you find gross ignorance and deception funny. For instance…

Fox News is already intimately associated with at least one delusional conspiracy theorist and fear monger (Glenn Beck). Now Fox Nation is advancing to the next level by promoting news obtained from Super Conspiracator Alex Jones (who thinks Beck has been ripping off his shtick anyway):


By the way, despite the foreboding headline, the article merely speculates as to the risk of fallout reaching California with experts saying that they regard it as unlikely. But why should that stop the Fox Nationalists from bluntly asserting that we are in the path of radioactive fallout?

A few weeks ago Rachel Maddow was lured in by a satirical article that she mentioned briefly in an eight minute segment. She discovered the error and owned up to it the same day. Still, Fox Nation ridiculed her with a featured story. Today Fox Nation posted an item about Islamic objections to padded bras. Guess what?


It’s as fake as they come. It was the work of a Pakistani version of The Onion. Did Fox Nation then follow up by ridiculing themselves? Did they even own up to the mistake? Nope. They just scrubbed the story and pretended it never happened, creating innumerable broken links by gullible FoxPods on Facebook. (Here’s the Google cache).

And my favorite:


Fox News displayed this graphic in a report on Japan’s nuclear power facilities. The problem is that there is no reactor in “Shibuyaeggman.” In fact, there is no Shibuyaeggman. Now that would be bad enough, but Media Matters investigated further and discovered that “Eggman is the name of a dance club in a trendy neighborhood of Tokyo called… Shibuya.” So unless there’s a reactor under the dance floor somebody has seriously violated Fox’s “Zero Tolerance” policy?

Finally, I find it interesting that Fox Nation has removed their “Search” box. They used to have one in case somebody wanted to find something on their web site. Now it’s gone. I think it’s because enabling research is contrary to the Fox mission of preserving ignorance. Either that or they don’t want to help people find evidence of prior mistakes they neglected to delete.

Shibuyaeggman everybody.


Whose Side Are You On? Reagan Or Hitler?

Posted by on March 14, 2011 at 11:00 am. 6 Comments :

The conservative extremists seeking to attack working Americans and bust unions in Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, and really everywhere, need to understand with whom their philosophy is shared. Then they need to decide if that is acceptable.


So choose a side:

“We must close union offices, confiscate their money and put their leaders in prison. We must reduce workers salaries and take away their right to strike” ~ Adolf Hitler, May 2, 1933

Or…

“Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.” ~ Ronald Reagan, September 1, 1980

It doesn’t seem like a particularly difficult choice to me. I was not a supporter of Ronald Reagan. In fact, I think he did considerable harm to the country. But he was the first and only union president to be elected to the presidency of the United States. The fact that his conservative credentials are so well established makes his views on unions all the more significant and non-partisan.

Unfortunately, the knee-jerk right-wingers who profess to idolize Reagan either dismiss his support for collective bargaining or they are too ill-informed to know about it. With regard to the latter, that would be an intentional result of the media they favor. Do you think that Fox News would ever broadcast these quotes? With regard to the former, it is still intentional in that they are willingly hypocritical and obedient to the special interests who have fooled them into thinking that the welfare of billionaires is superior to their own. Just look at what they regard as Shared Sacrifice:


At some point the rank-and-file Tea Baggers need to wake up to the fact that they are being used. Corporations want to end collective bargaining so that they have a free hand to exploit and abuse their workers. The politicians, who are bankrolled by those same corporations, want to disrupt fundraising and support for progressive candidates and policies.

None of this is accidental. And the people who will get hurt the most are those who are following the conservative disinformation blindly with the pathetic impression that it makes them patriotic. They should ask themselves if they are really advancing the cause of freedom. They should ask Ronald Reagan.


James O’Keefe’s NPR Sting Debunked By Glenn Beck Site

Posted by on March 12, 2011 at 9:32 am. 17 Comments :

It should come as no surprise that James O’Keefe is an unethical liar who produces deliberately deceptive videos to smear his political opponents. That’s been proven on many occasions. What’s surprising is that now even Glenn Beck’s web site, The Blaze, is confirming this after having analyzed O’Keefe’s latest videos attacking National Public Radio.

James O'KeefeScott Baker, Editor-in-Chief of The Blaze, published a fairly in-depth review of O’Keefe’s scam wherein he compared segments of the edited version to the original unedited source material. What he found he described in his conclusion as “editing tactics that seem designed to intentionally lie or mislead about the material being presented.” Here are some of the overt misrepresentations O’Keefe manufactured:

1) O’Keefe’s edited video portrayed NPR’s Ron Schiller as happily willing to take a donation from a Muslim Brotherhood front group. The long-form video downplays the connection to the Brotherhood, and discusses its current status as a moderate, non-violent organization.

2) The edited video portrayed Schiller reacting approvingly in a discussion of Sharia law. The long-form video shows that the response was actually to a different subject entirely. It was just edited in to make it appear as if he was responding the discussion of Sharia law.

3) The edited video portrayed Schiller as hostile to Republicans and conservatives. The long-form video shows him praising the GOP. Those remarks were completely cut out.

4) The edited video portrayed Schiller disparaging the Tea Party as racist. The long-form video shows that those remarks were actually the views of others that was describing.

5) The edited video portrayed Schiller demeaning the intelligence of conservatives. The long-form video shows both him and his NPR colleague defending the intellect of conservatives and even Fox News viewers.

6) The edited video portrayed Schiller asserting that federal funding for NPR was not necessary or desirable. The long-form video shows him going into detail about the necessity of those funds.

When Glenn Beck’s web site calls out a conservative for being unethical, there must be something seriously wrong. His lies must have been so egregious that they surpass the threshold for lying ordinarily maintained by people like Beck. Part of me worries that this whole critique of O’Keefe is a prank and that tomorrow The Blaze will reveal that they were just kidding to see if liberals like me would pick up the story. But for the time being it appears to be a legitimate thrashing of a corrupt propagandist.

Granted, The Blaze is not nearly as judgmental as I am, and much of their criticism was couched as questions, i.e. the article’s headline: Does Raw Video of NPR Exposé Reveal Questionable Editing & Tactics? Yes, it does! But they seem loathe to come right out and censure their ideological ally. Nevertheless, this damning analysis is a significant departure for a Beck enterprise. Perhaps there has been some influence from The Blaze’s new boss, Betsy Morgan, who once ran the Huffington Post.

The examples above are representative of the grossly deceptive practices that James O’Keefe, a convicted criminal, engages in repeatedly. They are further evidence that nothing he does or says deserves to be taken seriously.

This also demonstrates the crippling naivete of NPR for reacting so hastily in compelling the resignation of NPR chief Vivian Schiller. Have these people learned nothing from the Shirley Sherrod affair when an innocent person’s reputation was dragged through the mud based on fraudulently edited video? And are they oblivious to the very real harm they do by empowering jerkwads like O’Keefe?

The only attention that O’Keefe and his ilk should get when they release a video or publish a story is from the Weekly World News or Comedy Central. Responsible journalists should avoid these obvious fabrications like the plague. Why anyone in the media would afford this known liar any respect given his propensity for bastardizing the truth is beyond me. They only embarrass themselves by doing so.

And that goes for the targets of these phony stings as well. People on the left need to have much greater resolve to defend their associates and their principles in the face of vile and dishonest attacks from the right. Otherwise we are handing them unwarranted influence over the debate and cutting ourselves off at the knees. That has to stop NOW!


Sarah Palin Question Stumps Jeopardy Contestants

Posted by on March 11, 2011 at 10:05 am. 3 Comments :

For those who think that Sarah Palin is a serious candidate for president (or sewer inspector), they may need to adjust their perspective a bit. In addition to having dreadful approval ratings that have gone steadily downward since her debut in national politics, she is also such a trivial factor in American life that she is almost invisible.

On Monday, March 7, 2011, Jeopardy featured this question in the category Hearts: Her latest book is titled “America by Heart: Reflections on Faith, Family and Flag”

Not one of the contestants knew that the correct question was “Who is Sarah Palin.” And remember, to become a contestant on Jeopardy you need to be exceptionally intelligent with a well-rounded store of knowledge that includes history, science, popular culture, literature, and, yes, politics. Yet none of them had ever heard of this book. That’s a sign that Palin’s pop celebrity status is waning, and it’s a good sign for America.

The problem is that the media still drools over her like a Pavlovian mutt craving a moose bone. I think that when Jeopardy contestants are stumped as to the identity of this half-term governor, failed VP candidate, and vacuous purveyor of ghost written Twitter and Facebook posts, the press corps should be asking themselves the question that none of the Jeopardy players could come up with: “Who is Sarah Palin.”

Sarah Palin is a non-entity in American politics. To the extent that people pay any attention to her at all, it is to express their almost universal disgust. Continued coverage of this self-serving ignoramus is a combination of journalistic fraud, incompetence, and laziness. Just stop it already.