Wall Street Journal Squelches Parody

Posted by on April 18, 2008 at 12:28 am. NO Comments :

A parody of the Wall Street Journal has the Wall Street Journal up in arms. When copies of the parody appeared at newsstands, so did a Journal operative who insisted on buying every last one.

“He grabbed them all, said, ‘I need to buy all of these,'” Mr. Laurence said. “He had been going around to different stands, buying them.”

Is this just another demonstration of Rupert Murdoch’s commitment to honest journalism and free expression? Or is Murdoch merely exercising his business reporting philosophy as told to his former editor Harold Evans (Good Times, Bad Times):

“What do you want this crap for, anyway? Two pages is plenty for business news.”

This is the man who just joined the board of the Associated Press.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Gibson And Stephanopoulos: The Keystone Flops

Posted by on April 17, 2008 at 6:31 pm. 3 Comments :

The Democratic debate in Philadelphia last night was dominated by a wall of stupid painstakingly constructed by ABC’s moderators, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos.

Their obsession with trivia and avoidance of substance submerged this affair from its opening introduction. It’s hard to say it much better than Washington Post critic Tom Shales who leads off by saying that “Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, turned in shoddy, despicable performances,” and then proceeds to say what he really thinks.

And he’s not alone…

Tom Shales (Washington Post) – “For the first 52 minutes of the two-hour, commercial-crammed show, Gibson and Stephanopoulos dwelled entirely on specious and gossipy trivia that already has been hashed and rehashed, in the hope of getting the candidates to claw at one another over disputes that are no longer news. Some were barely news to begin with.”

Will Bunch (Philadelphia Daily News) – “By so badly botching arguably the most critical debate of such an important election, in a time of both war and economic misery, you disgraced the American voters, and in fact even disgraced democracy itself.”

Greg Mitchell (Editor and Publisher) – “In perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years, ABC News hosts Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous focused mainly on trivial issues as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama faced off in Philadelphia.”

Andrew Sullivan (The Atlantic) – “The loser was ABC News: one of the worst media performances I can remember – petty, shallow, process-obsessed, trivial where substantive, and utterly divorced from the actual issues that Americans want to talk about.”

Joanne Ostrow (Denver Post) – “Wednesday’s televised candidates’ debate from Philadelphia, tape delayed in Denver, got around to issues eventually. But the first round- devoted to pettiness and word obsession and gaffes- was more revealing.”

Joe Klein (Time) – “The ABC moderators clearly didn’t spend much time thinking about creative substantive gambits. They asked banal, lapidary questions, rather than trying to break new ground.”

Michael Grunwald (Time) – “At a time of foreign wars, economic collapse and environmental peril, the cringe-worthy first half of the debate focused on such crucial matters as Senator Obama’s comments about rural bitterness, his former pastor, an obscure sixties radical with whom he was allegedly “friendly,” and the burning constitutional question of why he doesn’t wear an American flag pin on his lapel.”

Richard Adams (The Guardian) – “A stinker, an absolute car crash – thanks to the host network ABC. It was worse than even those debates last year with 18 candidates on stage, including crazy old Mike Gravel.”

Noam Scheiber (New Republic) – “The first half of the debate felt like a 45-minute negative ad, reprising the most chewed over anti-Obama allegations (bittergate, Jeremiah Wright, patriotism) and even some relatively obscure ones (his vague association with former Weatherman radical Bill Ayers).”

Daniel Rubin (Philadelphia Inquirer) – “We’ve revisted bitter. We’ve gone back to Bosnia. We’ve dragged Rev. Wright back up onto the podium. We’ve mis-spent this debate by allowing Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos to ask questions that skirt what in my mind is what we need to know now. What would they do about the mess they’d inherit? The war. Health care. The economy. Stupid.”

Cathleen Decker and Noam N. Levey (Los Angeles Times) – “With the moderators and Clinton raising assorted questions about Obama’s past for the first half of the debate, issues received relatively short shrift. Not until 50 minutes in was a policy issue — Iraq — asked about by the moderators. More than an hour went by before a question was asked about what Stephanopoulos called “the No. 1 issue on Americans’ minds” — the economy.”

Stephanoupolos defended himself by saying that voters are concerned with

“…experience, character [and] credibility. You can’t find a presidential election where those issues didn’t come into play.”

The problem is that you can’t find a but a trace of questions in this debate where those issues did come into play. The moderators had obviously decided that they were going to chase petty controversy and ratings by focusing on tabloid trivialities. Their cynical smugness and conceit are a sad commentary on the state of journalism and politics.

MoveOn has started a petition to ask the media to “stop hurting the national dialogue in this important election year.”

FAIR is urging citizens to write to ABC: netaudr@abc.com


Right-Wing Media Label Obama A Marxist

Posted by on April 14, 2008 at 11:01 pm. NO Comments :

The media has gone haywire (again) ever since Barack Obama had the temerity to tell the truth about economically struggling small town Americans.

Obama: “You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

For some reason, many news analysts believe that people who are getting shafted by economic policies that devastate their communities and burden their families are never bitter or have no right to be. They believe that the only proper characterization of these folks is as noble, hard-working, optimists who never complain.

But it gets even worse. The evolving theme that the press is embracing is not just that Obama is an elitist, a charge that makes no sense given both his personal history and the substance of his comments, but that he is a Marxist:

William Kristol put it this way in the New York Times:

“It’s one thing for Karl Marx to assert that ‘religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature’ and another for Barack Obama to claim that we ‘cling to … religion’ out of economic frustration.”

The Washington Post says:

“I find Senator Obama very smart, but that comment struck me as sort of stupid — the kind of half-baked Marxism that might be expected to appeal to a Bay Area audience.”

When asked if Obama is a Marxist, Sen. Joe Lieberman told Andrew Napolitano:

“Well, you know, I must say that’s a good question.”

Rich Lowry of the the National Review says:

“Versions of Obama’s insight have been expounded by a world-famous 19th-century economist (Karl Marx)…”

And Brit Hume of Fox News twice said on air that Obama has a Marxist view of religion.

Let the propaganda smears begin…


The Daily Show Tribute To Fox News

Posted by on April 12, 2008 at 9:40 am. NO Comments :

The Daily Show’s John Oliver provides a searing summation of the past twelve years of Fox News; twelve years of flaming flagism; twelve years of fairly unbalanced tele-pundits; twelve years of warmed over Bush-worship; twelve years of Patriopathic™ zeal.

The past twelve years on Fox News has been a blur of journalistic ignominy. Looking back on just makes me want to cry out, “Please…Don’t remind me.”


Progressive Media vs. Freedom’s Watch

Posted by on April 11, 2008 at 1:57 am. NO Comments :

The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy™ is revving up its media machine in response to news that Democrats intend to run a campaign for president against Republican John McCain. What gall! Unable to tolerate such impudence, Republicans, and their patrons in the press, are brewing a full-scale whine with a pungent aroma of fear and a nose for hypocrisy.

The object of their dread is the announcement of a new fund created in part to counter the media’s love affair with McCain. Progressive Media USA (PMUSA) was revealed in an article by Politico and described thusly:

“Wealthy Democrats are preparing a four-month, $40 million media campaign centered on attacks on Sen. John McCain. And it will be led by David Brock, the former investigative reporter who first gained fame in the 1990s as a right-wing, anti-Clinton journalist.”

As evidence of the trepidation with which the GOPress has received this news, here is a sampling of the headlines generated since the story broke this afternoon:

Politico: David Brock, Dems plan $40M hit on McCain
Fox News: Dems Plan $40 Million Anti-McCain Ad Blitz
USA Today: “$40M hit” to be aimed at McCain
UPI: Democrats planning for new McCain attacks
CBS News: Democrats Plan $40M Hit On McCain

Without exception, the headline writers all adopt a negative tone that focuses on the group’s alleged mission to attack McCain, despite the fact that the group’s organizers have laid out a much broader, issues-oriented agenda.

Bill O’Reilly joined the chorus by devoting a major chunk of his program to the story including his Talking Points Memo, an interview with Politico reporter Jim VandeHei, and an extended segment with Stepford Pundit Laura Ingraham. His long-time obsession with Brock and PMUSA backer George Soros explodes all over the screen. He repeatedly calls Brock, president of Media Matters, a “vile assassin” and, when VandeHei suggests that the right has similar groups, O’Reilly says that he’s not aware of any (more on this lie below). He pretends to ask VandeHei to provide more info, but then just continues his non-stop ranting without providing an opportunity to do so. In the course of his coverage O’Reilly describes the Soros/Media Matters connection as…

“…the most frightening thing I have ever seen in American politics.”

Really? More frightening than the election debacle of 2000? More frightening than Watergate? More frightening than the McCarthy Hearings? More frightening than the assassinations of John and Bobby Kennedy, and Martin Luther King? Does O’Reilly really believe that an organization that demands honesty from the media is evil, as he says on the Factor? Does he really fear a wealthy individual who has given hundreds of millions of dollars to promote democracy around the world? More likely he is afraid of being repeatedly shown to be a lying gasbag who is more aligned with theo-corporatism than traditional American liberty.

Earlier in the day, Election HQ on Fox News brought in Republican propagandist Frank Luntz (who is identified only as a pollster without affiliation) to offer his analysis. Luntz argued vociferously that any move by Democrats to attack McCain would fail. He looked straight into the camera to make an impassioned plea that they abandon such plans or suffer at the polls. It was heartwarming to see Luntz display such empathy for his Democratic rivals. Who knew that he was so concerned about the electoral welfare of the party he has fought against his entire career.

The most stunning assertion by Luntz in this interview was his response to a surprisingly reasonable question from Megyn Kelly. She asked Luntz whether the Democrats’ plan was an appropriate reaction to all the favorable press McCain receives. Luntz seemed astonished that Kelly would suggest such nonsense. He disputed her premise and went further to declare that it was Barack Obama who was the press darling. He actually said aloud that:

“The most negative story that they can use on Obama is that he can’t bowl. Give me a break.”

Apparently Luntz has been a coma for the past few months. If the idiocy of this comment were able to generate light, you would be able to see it from space. Anyone with a television has seen the attacks on Obama that range from accusations that he is a Muslim to casting doubt on his patriotism to belittling his experience. And always, always his association with Rev Wright, criticisms of whom could populate their very own cable network. In fact, the segment immediately following Luntz’s interview with Kelly was yet another story about Rev. Wright.

Amidst this conflagration of outrage over the Democrats’ desire to actually mount a campaign, the media is missing a minor development that just might have some relevance to the stories they are advancing. They might want to look into the fact that Republicans are also engaging in this thing called politics. Last year a group of Republican insiders corralled their biggest donors and created Freedom’s Watch (FW). The New York Times trumpeted their arrival:

“Founded this summer by a dozen wealthy conservatives, the nonprofit group is set apart from most advocacy groups by the immense wealth of its core group of benefactors, its intention to far outspend its rivals and its ambition to pursue a wide-ranging agenda.”

At its launch the group announced that they intend to raise $200 million – five times the goal proposed by PMUSA. FW was co-founded by former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, who is now its spokes-liar. FW’s new chief is Carl Forti, a former communications director at the National Republican Congressional Committee, and known for his unscrupulous dishonesty. FW is well off and well connected. And unlike PMUSA, its management is directly tied to Party operatives. Even Bill O’Reilly, who said he was unaware of any such organizations, was, in fact, well aware of FW. He interviewed its founding president Bradley Blakeman just four months ago.

Now the media is aghast at the thought that Democrats are coming to the field prepared to play. But not one of them has reported that the Republicans started this conflict, seeded it with more money, and even now are using it to escalate the propaganda war. Email from the McCain campaign has already gone out pleading with supporters to dig deeper.

“We need to be able to answer whatever smear campaigns the liberal left throws at us. Please help as we combat this base demagoguery with a donation of $50, $100, $250 or even $1000 today.”

It will be interesting to see if any of our observers in the 4th estate ever bother to fairly present the facts in this matter, or even to put it into context. But given the way they’ve misrepresented it thus far, I wouldn’t hold out much hope.

Update: In response to Obama’s request that third party groups not produce anti-McCain ads, Progressive Media USA has become Progressive Accountability. The new group will conduct research and tracking of the McCain campaign, but will not produce ads.


Bill O’Reilly vs. The Race Hustlers

Posted by on April 9, 2008 at 3:31 am. NO Comments :

Bill O’Reilly’s campaign to inculcate racism into society is in full swing. A few days ago, after wondering aloud whether Martin Luther King despised America, he accused millions of African-Americans of hating their country. Today, in his Talking Points Memo, he advances his argument to attack anyone who has the temerity to suggest that racism actually exists:

“As we’ve been reporting, millions of Americans of all colors are fed up with race baiters and accusations of racism.”

Who these millions are, O’Reilly doesn’t say. But he does list some of their “victims.” Here are a few with some related commentary I’ve added.

  • George W. Bush: Will speak at racist Bob Jones University but not the convention of the NAACP (five years in a row).
  • Ronald Reagan: Declared in 1980 that the Voting Rights Act had been “humiliating to the South.” Plus he was a staunch supporter of apartheid in South Africa.
  • Don Imus: Of “nappy headed hos” fame.
  • Trent Lott: Who thinks Strom Thurmond’s segregationist agenda would have solved our nation’s race problems.
  • John Gibson: Pleads with whites to have more children to keep America from being overrun.
  • Glenn Beck: Views the predominately black victims of Hurricane Katrina as scumbags.
  • Michelle Malkin: A Filipina, wrote a book defending the interment of Japanese-Americans during WWII.
  • Sean Hannity: Benefactor of neo Nazi/white supremacist Hal Turner.
  • Rush Limbaugh: Whose racist ranting about Donovan McNabb got him booted from football broadcasting. And who could forget “Barack the Magic Negro?”

These are the people O’Reilly is defending against charges of racism. He thinks it is inexcusable to label such people and thinking as racist. It makes you wonder how far someone would have to go before O’Reilly would concede that some form of prejudice is present. Instead, he considers these people to be pillars of racial harmony who are unfairly tarnished by those he calls “race hustlers.” He clearly prefers that people refrain from any mention of racism. He insists that even raising the issue will “hurt minorities by inhibiting sincere discussion.” In other words, Shut Up! O’Reilly warns that dire circumstances await those who fail to heed his demand:

“The result of all this garbage is that millions of white Americans will no longer even think about discussing race with blacks. It is far too dangerous.”

Once again, O’Reilly doesn’t offer even a hint of who these millions are. But no matter, O’Reilly’s solution to racial discord is to never mention it. On this he is in agreement with William Kristol’s call for “benign neglect“ on matters of race. And just to be sure you don’t think he’s fooling around, he lays down this threat:

“…you race hustlers out there, you race baiters, you better watch it. We’ve got your number, and the gloves are off.”

O’Reilly loves to throw his weight around. Here are a few of his classic threats from the past:

  • “If you dodge us, it is at your peril.” – Directed at Democrats who decline to appear on his program.
  • “No one on this earth is going to block a shot from The O’Reilly Factor. It is not going to happen.” – Directed at anyone standing between his camera and some object of his infection.
  • “Every corrupt media person in this country is on notice, right now. I’m coming after you…I’m going to hunt you down.” – Directed at his legions of enemies in the press.
  • “There is a chance that before this presidential election year is over somebody is going to get hurt.” – Directed at presidential candidates.
  • “Every company in America should be on its knees thanking Jesus for being born.” – Directed at businesses that deign to wish their customers a Happy Holiday.

And then there’s this old favorite:

For the record, O’Reilly has now referenced Rev. Wright in 11 of the 14 Talking Points Memos he has done since the story broke a month ago. There certainly couldn’t be any racist intent in that. His repeated assertions as to the racism of Rev. Wright, and by extension, Barack Obama, don’t count in his campaign against calling people racist. Or perhaps it only counts when someone other than himself is doing the calling.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

American Idol Joins The Race For President

Posted by on April 8, 2008 at 3:26 pm. NO Comments :

American IdleOn Wednesday American Idol will present its second annual “Idol Gives Back” broadcast wherein viewers are asked to call in donations to benefit a banquet of charitable enterprises. This year will feature appearances by all three remaining presidential contenders, John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama. The taped segment by Obama says in part…

“I’d like to say a few words not just as the father of two young girls who are big American Idol fans, but as someone who cares deeply about what tonight’s show is all about. Whether it’s across the street or around the world, Idol Gives Back is proving that when ordinary people come together, they can do extraordinary things.”

I suppose this is one way for Fox to get Obama to go on their network. Of course it is the Fox Entertainment Network, not the Fox News Channel. It is still a poke in the eye to Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday (which does air on FEN), whose juvenile Obama Watch is still counting down the days that Obama has not appeared on that program. Hang tough, Barack. Let Wallace run that Obama Watch clock up another 10,000 ticks.

Personally, I can’t stand American Idol. I think it trivializes art by pitting artists against one another. And I think the contestants are cliche cutouts who rely on theatrics and vocal bling rather than talent and originality. Idols are not created by game shows. They are adopted by fans who are moved by an artist with whom they connect emotionally.

That said, it is admirable that the wealth that flows to this program is being directed to people who are suffering and in need of advocates. Sure, it is also a big advertisement for the program, the network, and the sponsors who will claim credit for the event. But in the end there will be some relief provided for the recipients of the donations collected from this program. Unless, of course, there isn’t. From the New York Times:

“But even as ‘American Idol” and Fox Broadcasting prepare for their second annual star-studded ‘Idol Gives Back’ appeal on Wednesday, officials at the charity have declined to release a formal accounting of last year’s effort.”

The article goes on to say that most of the targeted charities have expressed satisfaction with the distribution of last year’s donations, but it would be nice to have some documentary evidence that they are successfully administrating these funds. Last year $76 million was raised, and estimates are that the figure will increase this year to $100 million. That’s a lot of money not to be fully accounted for.

Update: As it turns out, the jam-packed entertainment bonanza that Idol producers put on last last was so pressed for time that all three presidential candidates were cut out of the program. Thank God they made time for Celine Dion, Miley Cyrus, and Snoop Dogg.


Bill O’Reilly Asks: Did Martin Luther King Despise America?

Posted by on April 7, 2008 at 2:59 pm. 6 Comments :

In the event that anyone requires further evidence of Bill O’Reilly’s overt prejudice, he was kind enough to oblige last week with yet another example.

On the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Rev. Martin Luther King, O’Reilly distills the legacy of King down to one question. The question O’Reilly considers the key to understanding King’s life-long work is whether or not King despised America. And how does O’Reilly’s respond? “…that question is very difficult to answer precisely.”

There is nothing new about O’Reilly spewing vitriolic diatribes accusing his perceived enemies in the Culture War of hatred and treason. But choosing this occasion to sully King’s reputation sets a new low, even for O’Reilly. However, O’Reilly isn’t satisfied with merely smearing one of our nation’s greatest voices for freedom and equality, he also denigrates the whole of the population for which King fought and died. In discussing African-Americans and others who defended the reputation of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, O’Reilly used his Talking Points Memo last Friday to disparage the very people most harmed by the sort of prejudice that is still with us forty years after King’s death.

O’Reilly: “Now there is no question that millions of Americans do despise the USA. I hate to say it, but it’s true. And they see themselves as victims of oppression from a corrupt government and system.”

In context, there is no question that the millions to whom O’Reilly refer, who despise America and see themselves as victims, are African-Americans. These are the same Americans that surprised O’Reilly by how civilized they were when dining at Sylvia’s in Harlem:

O’Reilly: “I couldn’t get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia’s restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it’s run by blacks, primarily black patronship.”

O’Reilly has been hammering the Wright issue ever since it broke. Of the thirteen Talking Points Memos he delivered on the Factor since the pastor became news, Wright was raised in ten of them. That’s 77% of the signature essays he reads at the beginning of every program. Every other issue, from Iraq to health care to immigration to the election, etc., is subjugated to the national catastrophe of a few sermons by a Chicago pastor. This is a pretty good indicator of what O’Reilly thinks is important.

Obviously, what he thinks is important is repeatedly pouring salt into racial wounds and driving Americans further apart. This has become the recognized mission of the O’Reilly Fracture. And just when you thought he could sink no lower, he condemns millions of black Americans for hating their country. In the process he has the arrogance to speak for King. After showing a video clip of John McCain being booed for his opposition to a federal MLK holiday, O’Reilly asserts that…

“Dr. King, of course, would have forgiven John McCain.”

Isn’t it wonderful that we have O’Reilly here to channel America’s martyred heroes? Especially those whom he believes might have despised America.


God Is Not Government … Yet!

Posted by on April 5, 2008 at 3:10 am. 1 Comments :

An organization called “God Is Not Government” is placing an ad today in Arizona’s Prescott Daily Courier. It is timed to coincide with a campaign visit by John McCain. The ad proclaims that Mitt Romney is “utterly unacceptable” as McCain’s running mate and that choosing him would be a “deal breaker” insofar as their support is concerned.

The funny thing about the God Is Not Government PAC is that the name does not mean what you might expect. It sounds like a declaration of principle but, if you look a little deeper, it actually appears to be a lament. Their website describes their mission as…

“…the election to Congress of men and women who hold conservative beliefs on both moral and economic issues.”

It goes on to state that they will not support any candidate who will not affirm that they are…

“…pro-life, pro-family and stand firmly against the unbiblical welfare state that is destroying the spiritual and economic greatness of our nation.”

In other words, they are an organization that is devoted to electing candidates who are committed to bringing biblical law to Washington, DC. So if God Is not government now, it will be by the time the God Is Not Government PAC is through with it. They even endorsed the only preacher to run in this campaign cycle, Mike Huckabee.

Some of the PAC’s member organizations include religious conservative stalwarts: Concerned Women for America, Faith2Action, Mission America, Republicans for Family Values, Defend the Family, Operation Rescue, and Paul Weyrich’s Free Congress Foundation. Weyrich had actually endorsed Romney earlier in the primary. Ironically, it seems that Romney’s endorsement of McCain has caused Weyrich to flip.

Despite all the tongue-wagging hyperbole, I see this whole charade as a face-saving effort on the part of the social conservatives. The less-than-cordial relationship between McCain and Romney already makes it highly unlikely that McCain would choose him as a running mate. With this show of false bravado, the theo-cons can claim victory when McCain chooses somebody else. Then they can pretend to support McCain as a reward for his acceding to their demands. It’s their way of justifying the compromise of their principles for supporting the candidate they have been railing against for months.

It’s groups like the God Is Not Government PAC that inspired the prayer, “Jesus, save me from your followers.”


The Media Make Terrible Tax Accountants

Posted by on April 4, 2008 at 6:52 pm. NO Comments :

Politico’s Ben Smith examines Hillary Clinton’s tax returns and finds this interesting:

The interesting part, of course, is the roughly $18 million that the summary doesn’t account for.

Jeez, I wouldn’t let him balance a ten year old’s checkbook.

Here’s the meat of the controversy. Financial guru Smith adds up these numbers from Clinton’s summary of her tax records for the past eight years:

  • Senator Clinton’s Senate Salary: $1,051,606
  • President Clinton’s Presidential Pension: $1,217,250
  • Senator Clinton’s Book Income: $10,457,083
  • President Clinton’s Book Income: $29,580,525
  • President Clinton’s Speech Income: $51,855,599

He comes up with $94,162,063. That’s about $16 million less than the $110 million her returns show. Smith’s first mistake is that his calculation shows an $18 million discrepancy instead of the actual $16 million. But beyond that simple math error, Smith is imagining a controversy where none exists. A quick look at the returns show that the Clinton’s earned $16.5 million dollars on capital gains and real estate investments. They were accounted for in the summary which was prefaced with “Including, among other items…” The summary never pretended to itemize every source of revenue.

Controversy solved! But not until after the media picks up this non-scandal and turns it into another prospective Whitewater. Dick Morris, in an appearance on Fox News, jumped on it about 30 seconds after the returns were made public. He went on to allege that the “missing” funds were connected to all manner of evil like phone scammers and the Emir of Dubai.

This article is not intended to defend Clinton, but to indict the media. This sort of ignorant, sensationalized, pseudo-analysis can and will be used to damage any candidate the press wants to disparage. It needs to be exposed and should never be tolerated.

When I (a lowly artist) can quickly and easily see the explanation that professional journalists, with resources to consult experts, cannot see, it is nothing less than shameful on the part of the press. This is why media reform should be at the top of every activists list of priorities.