Media Diagnosed With ADD

A study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ) has confirmed what many observers have already suspected. The media suffers from a severe case of Attention Distortion Disorder.

“For the first time since this general election campaign began in early June, Republican John McCain attracted virtually as much media attention as his Democratic rival last week.”

Barack Obama’s tour of the Middle East and Europe generated a slew of press reports detailing the trip and documenting the speeches and meetings with foreign leaders. This was interpreted by pundits as an excess abundance of attention paid to the Democratic candidate at the expense of John McCain. What this analysis leaves out (as usual) is any context that incorporates the content of the coverage, much of which focused on criticisms that Obama was arrogant, presumptuous, and “too presidential.”

Nevertheless, the McCain camp whined that they were being slighted and responded by releasing a series of ads that addressed serious issues like Paris Hilton, Moses, and the alleged love affair the media has for Obama. Actually, the McCain campaign didn’t really release the ads so much as they announced their existence and then let the media air them repeatedly for free. Whatever the method, the strategy appears to have had some success. The PEJ’s study shows that McCain’s press time is now equivalent to Obama’s. And all he had to do was accuse the media of being infatuated with his opponent.

For McCain to suggest that Obama is the recipient of undue positive coverage in the press is laughable. McCain himself once described the media as his base. He jokes with them on his campaign plane and invites them to BBQs at his Arizona villa. He relies on the overwhelmingly complimentary image he enjoys, including the utterly false portrayal of him as a maverick.

What this teaches journalism observers is that if you bash the media for not paying attention to you, you can get them to pay attention to you. You don’t have to provide any substance or even demonstrate that the content of the reporting was unfair. Just complain about the distribution of minutes and let the guilty consciences of the press take effect. Hillary Clinton’s campaign did the same thing during the primaries with the same result.

Further evidence of the success of this strategy can be seen in the allocation of airtime on campaign coverage. The PEJ summarizes the impact of the media focus on advertising by noting that 10% of the “newshole” was devoted to campaign ads. But it doesn’t stop there:

“Advertising was the second-biggest campaign story line last week, filling 10% of the campaign newshole. And the ripple effects were felt throughout the week. The ad generated another narrative – whether McCain campaign was too negative – that filled 6% of the newshole. The tone of the campaign, and the new McCain ad, then triggered a third major story line. When Obama accused Republicans of trying to frighten Americans because he ‘doesn’t look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills,’ the McCain team responded by accusing Obama of playing the ‘race card.’ And that controversy, at 15%, became the biggest campaign narrative of all.”

In total, campaign advertising, directly or indirectly, drove 31% of the media coverage. The bulk of that coverage was centered on McCain or McCain’s criticisms of Obama. At least three McCain ads were replayed ad nauseum, but at most one Obama ad was given any analysis at all.

Since when was it the duty of the press to provide more coverage of candidate-produced commercials than to the actual issues around which campaigns revolve? The networks are making million dollar contributions to candidates when they broadcast their ads for free. Not to mention they are foregoing revenue that they might have earned had they required the candidates to actually pay for the ad time. What’s their incentive for this poor business judgment? Does it represent a political preference on the part of the media? Just take a look at the preponderance of McCain’s free media as compared to Obama’s and I think the answer is clear.

It is McCain with whom the media is in love. And they are putting their money where their heart is.

John McCain Claims To Be The One

On the heels of his ad mocking Barack Obama as a Messiah-like figure, John McCain has now anointed himself as “The One.”

This new ad declares that “Washington’s broken” and “John McCain knows it.” He admits that “We’re worse off than we were four years ago.” But without acknowledging the brazen hypocrisy, the ad asserts that McCain is “the only” candidate who can fix our broken nation. Then he goes further to seriously describe himself in the same manner he had sarcastically portrayed Obama:

One is ready to lead – McCain”

Here’s the ad:

Much of the last week was spent watching the media chew over McCain’s anti-Obama ad. With the pretense of engaging in substantive political discourse, they speculated as to whether Obama was too arrogant, and some even raised fears that he might be the anti-Christ. But McCain’s ad was a series of out-of-context snippets edited together to suggest that Obama said things that he never actually said.

Will the press take up the same debate now that McCain has made an ad where he is referring to himself in such reverential terms? Can the media possibly ignore that a just few days ago McCain was making fun of Obama as “The One” and now he is calling himself that in his own ad?

Probably. Remember that we are dealing with a thoroughly compromised press corps that is desperately trying to keep this race close so as to produce more drama and, hence, more viewers and advertising revenue.

The Negativity Of Fox News

For a network that has the word “news” in its name, Fox manages to routinely dwell on trivialities, distractions, and outright fictions. Well known for their obsession with missing white women, the so-called journalists at Fox are also consumed by negativity as documented by the Center for Media and Public Affairs. Their new study reveals that the press in general has been overwhelmingly negative when reporting on Barack Obama, but Fox News steps it up a level or two:

“Since the primaries ended, on-air evaluations of Barack Obama have been 72% negative (vs. 28% positive). That’s worse than John McCain’s coverage, which has been 57% negative (vs. 43% positive) during the same time period […] Obama ran even farther behind McCain on Fox News Channel’s Special Report with 79% negative comments (v. 21% positive), compared to 61% negative comments (v. 39% positive) for McCain since June 8.”

This rampant negativity, however, is reflected in their ratings, which have consistently underperformed compared to their competitors.

Fox showed declines in almost every time period and demographic group, but was particularly lower in the all-important 25-54 demo. This ratings performance may be a hopeful sign that the free market in television viewership (such as it is) may actually be working. At least with respect to viewers tuning out Fox’s brand of propagandistic drivel.

A recent example of the nonsense Fox peddles as news is a report based on a story published in the Wall Street Journal, another Murdoch entity. The Journal posed a question that is surely topmost in the minds of voters: Is Barack Obama “Too Fit to Be President?” In this allegedly serious study of electoral considerations, the Journal asks if…

“…in a nation in which 66% of the voting-age population is overweight and 32% is obese, could Sen. Obama’s skinniness be a liability? Despite his visits to waffle houses, ice-cream parlors and greasy-spoon diners around the country, his slim physique just might have some Americans wondering whether he is truly like them.”

By broadcasting its version of the Journal’s article, Fox pulled a twofer. First, they got to disseminate additional commentary that disparages the Democratic candidate. But they also got to further the utterly idiotic idea that a president must aspire to some notion of American Averagism. And apparently the general consensus of the press is that the average American is a fat, beer-swilling, uneducated, gun-toting, evangelical. Politicians who are too healthy or well-informed are only spotlighting how different they are from “ordinary” citizens and are, therefore, disqualified from public service.

That’s the real negative for America, courtesy of Fox News.

Diamonds On The Soles Of John McCain’s Shoes

John McCain has made Barack Obama’s alleged elitism a centerpiece of his campaign. In virtually every stop of the Doubletalk Express, McCain finds an opportunity to impugn Obama as out of touch with ordinary Americans. The press uncritically regurgitates this nonsense without even a hint of irony. They portray the wealthy McCain as an authentic man of the people despite the fact that the opposite is true.

Haven’t they noticed that it is McCain who is the son of privilege? His father and his grandfather were both Admirals. He left his first wife to marry a beer heiress worth more than $100 million. And he has lived off of the American people his whole life – first as a Naval officer, then as a Senator. Obama, on the other hand, is the son of a single mother. He worked his way through college and law school, and then eschewed the lucrative legal firms to dedicate himself to community service in South Chicago.

So how will the media handle the news that McCain has been caught gallivanting around the country in $520.00 imported Italian Ferragamo loafers?

Well, let’s see how they handled John Edwards:

  • Jonah Goldberg:[Edwards] gives new meaning to the term ‘poverty pimp.’
  • USA Today: “Edwards, most prominently, has undermined his passionate advocacy for ordinary Americans by seeming to be anything but ordinary himself. Expensive haircuts reinforce the elitist image of a wealthy trial lawyer…”
  • Bill O’Reilly: “Edwards is running a preposterous campaign. He lives like a sultan in a 30,000 foot North Carolina house […] I have no respect for him. He’s a phony and is in the tank for special interest to damage this country.”

McCain has upped the ante on Edwards’ haircut by $120.00. Plus, he has eight homes and a private jet. Does O’Reilly disrespect him or consider him a phony? Edwards and Obama share the experience of having had to work hard for their good fortune. McCain was born into privilege, and then marriage enriched him further.

The press really needs to be made to answer for their hypocrisy. What excuse could they have for the disparity in the coverage of these candidates? The reality is so obvious that the media cannot feign ignorance. It is past the time for excuses and neglect. It is time to force the media to be honest.

The Wall Street Journal: Rupert Murdoch’s Bitch

Today’s Wall Street Journal published an editorial castigating FCC chairman Kevin Martin. Normally, that would be an unexpected and pleasant surprise. Martin’s tenure at the FCC has been a gift to Big Media, allowing them to consolidate at will and presiding over a deregulation fest that has benefited everyone but consumers.

However, the reasons for the Journal’s pique are more typical of their reputation for greed and self-interest. The FCC is reportedly prepared to rule against Comcast for blocking legal access to the Internet. At Save the Internet, Craig Aaron has nicely documented Comcast’s violations and laid out the myths versus the realities of Network Neutrality. But that’s not the end of the story.

For the Journal to take up this issue now, they are treading deeply into some serious conflict of interest. Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. purchased the Journal last year. The center of News Corp’s universe is Fox News – a cable network. Cable networks depend on carriage from cable operators like Comcast. Murdoch also owns a new cable operation, the Fox Business Network, which is gasping for viewers largely because they lack carriage on enough cable systems to stay afloat.

Now the Journal is coming to the rescue of Comcast. Is Murdoch attempting to curry favor with Comcast, and the cable industry in general, in order to secure more channel space? Does a pimp want to get paid? The ferocity of the Journal’s attack on an otherwise uber-loyal Republican appointee tells the story. The column starts out swinging:

“Bad personnel decisions have haunted the Bush Administration, and one of the bigger disappointments is Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin. In his last months as Master of the Media Universe, he seems poised to expand government regulation of the Internet.”

That’s the sort of rancid rhetoric that the Journal usually saves for Democrats. On that measure, the Journal doesn’t disappoint. Delivering what must be the ultimate insult to a right-wing toady, the Journal suggests that Martin is “greasing the skids for a potential Barack Obama Administration.” Remember, we’re talking about a man so devoted to the rightist agenda that he was over-ruled twice by Congress. He never saw a merger he didn’t like. He got his job as a reward for helping Bush steal the Florida election in 2000.

Martin is not the typical target of the Journal’s scorn. But if it means consolidating more power, and making more money, Murdoch will use his house organ to achieve whatever ends he desires. Even if it means beating up one of his prized whores. It’s hard out here for a pimp.

The Myth Of The Liberal Media II

One of the most persistent fallacies in media culture is that there is a leftward bias in the “Mainstream” Conventional Media. That mantra is sung from every sector ranging from the expected misinformers like Bill O’Reilly to the button down suites of CNN. It has never been true, and is even unreasonable on its face. Why are so many people ready to accept the nonsense that giant, conservative corporations like Time Warner (CNN) or General Electric (NBC) are thick with liberals?

The Los Angeles Times has now published a story on a new study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) at George Mason University that confirms that the liberal bias myth is just that. The CMPA conducted a study that was more than the shallow query as to the quantity of coverage or whether viewers and reporters were considered to be liberal or conservative. They did a content analysis to assess what was actually being broadcast. They found that…

“…ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign.”

The content breakdown revealed that 28% of the on-air statements about Obama were positive and 72% were negative. Compare that to McCain for whom 43% of the statements were positive and only 57% negative.

This is consistent with previous studies that measure content. The Project for Excellence in Journalism did a study that showed that, while there was more time spent on Democrats, it was time spent mostly disparaging them:

“…nearly two-thirds of the election coverage (61%) was specifically about candidates vying for the Democratic nomination. This was nearly three times those that focused on Republican candidates (24%). Another 13% dealt with both parties. […] conservative talkers, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Michael Savage were the most Democratic focused of all – 75% of their time … and only 13% focused mainly on Republicans.”

So while there was more “coverage” of Democrats, that extra focus really only translates into more time bashing them. It was conservative programs that were the most heavily weighted toward coverage of Democratic candidates, and they weren’t saying nice things.

It’s good to see some authoritative reporting on the disparity of ideologies in the news, but the Times author, James Rainey, found himself unable to resist propagating another myth about the media propensity for bias:

“Such pronouncements, sorry to say, tend to be wrong since they describe a monolithic media that no longer exists. Information today cascades from countless outlets and channels, from the Huffington Post to Politico.com to CBS News and beyond.”

Indeed there are more sources for news than in the past, but most of them are still owned by, or otherwise affiliated with, the Monolithic Media Rainey says no longer exists. The truth is that most Americans still get the majority of their news from five multinational coprorations with conflicts of interest bulging from their seams. Until that issue is examined and resolved, the remaining myths will continue to be spread and believed.

John McCain’s Summer of Love American Style

In 1967, John McCain was shot out of the North Vietnamese sky, crash landed in a lake, taken prisoner, and held in captivity for … 41 years, so far.

No one can dismiss the unimaginable agony of enduring six years in an enemy prisoner of war camp. It is surely a brutal experience both physically and mentally. It is the sort of experience that never leaves you and, indeed, it seems never to have left John McCain. His entire post-POW frame of reference is shaped by what he went through, and also by what he missed as a consequence of his incarceration.

The tenor of his candidacy is quagmired in history, and that is not a reference to his age. It is his policy proposals that harken back to the past. And it is a vision of the past that is still very much alive in McCain’s mind. His arrest in Vietnam simultaneously arrested his growth as an observer of politics, foreign affairs, and diplomacy.

It’s hard to tell lately if McCain is running to succeed President Bush, Gen. Petraeus, or perhaps Gen. Westmoreland. The persistent theme that McCain has adopted with regard to Iraq is identical to the 1970’s era military establishment and Richard Nixon’s “Peace With Honor” contrivance. Nixon also promised to stay the course and bring our troops home when victory was achieved, despite overwhelming agreement, even amongst his advisers, that nothing recognizable as victory was likely to result in Vietnam.

Now, McCain accuses Obama of preferring to lose a war in order to win a political campaign. But it is McCain who is pursuing a political goal at the expense of America’s interests. McCain is crafting an election scheme that parallels Nixon’s in 1972. Win the office by assuring voters that America is always right and thus, invincible. Then worry about proving it later. Unfortunately, the post-election scenario would also mirror Nixon’s, with an eventual withdrawal from Iraq that fails to achieve any objective articulated by Bush or McCain. And like Nixon’s mis-adventures in Laos and Cambodia, McCain’s Iraq exit could include a detour through Iran. But McCain doesn’t concern himself with these realities because he is too fixated on prevailing politically. And that’s exactly what he is hypocritically accusing Obama of.

As further evidence of McCain’s confinement to the past, consider his recent advertisement titled “Summer of Love.” It begins with images of colorful Hippies at protests, and music festivals. The announcer declares it a time of “uncertainty, hope and change,” skillfully associating uncertainty with two words that have become iconic within Barack Obama’s campaign. It then proceeds to insult an entire generation by asserting that McCain had “another kind of love – of country,” thereby implying that young Americans in the 60’s and 70’s were less than patriotic. As one of them I can assure you that it wasn’t because we hated our country that we dedicated ourselves to peace, civil rights, and free expression. Are those unpatriotic aspirations?

This is not the first time that McCain has attacked the Woodstock generation. In fact, he even opposed modest funding for a museum that commemorated the era and the event. Some may agree with McCain that…

“The Woodstock Museum is a shining example of what’s wrong with Washington on pork-barrel, out-of-control spending.”

Personally, I think that an event that drew nearly half a million people, featured some of the most popular and creative artists in the world, and emerged as emblematic of one of the most significant cultural movements of the century, deserves a small facility for remembrance and study. In addition, the Bethel Woods Arts Center, as it is called, is a working contemporary venue that enriches the community both creatively and financially.

The fact that McCain cannot recognize the importance of that era, and the contributions of citizens who lived through it, is representative of a larger problem for him. The time he spent in captivity was a defining time for those of us back home. There were so many socially profound events that altered just about everyone who lived through them. John McCain was not one of them. The history that shaped millions of Americans, McCain only heard about secondhand, after the fact. For example:

  • The first heart transplant.
  • The assassinations of Martin Luther King and two Kennedys.
  • Watergate and Richard Nixon’s resignation.
  • The Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision.
  • Click here for a more comprehensive list.

So it may not be so surprising that McCain is trapped in a time warp, unable to relate to a country and world that shared these tumultuous experiences, but from which he was excluded. It may explain his hostility to a generation that was arguably more engaged in public service and community activism than any generation before or since. It puts into perspective the persistent pessimism expressed in the ad above that ends by saying to voters “Don’t hope for a better life.”

While many of us who went through the 60’s and 70’s have assimilated those experiences and included them as we’ve grown over time, McCain has remained stagnant and, in many ways, ignorant in the procession of time. That’s why, for us, the Summer of Love will always be remembered with an equal measure of frustration and pride that reflects the reality of that historic time. But McCain will only recall a combination of frightening changes and an idealized portrait of a sitcom utopia. That’s not a vision for the future that offers much hope. It’s not a vision of the future at all.
Contine reading

Fox News: Racism Is Their Marketing Plan

A press conference will be held today at 2:30 outside of the offices of Fox News in New York. The purpose of the gathering is to deliver a petition with over 600,000 names to network executives calling for an end to the racist attacks against black Americans including Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle. The petition is the work of Color of Change and MoveOn and asks Fox News CEO Roger Ailes to respond to the allegation that…

“Fox has developed a pattern of airing racially offensive attacks, then apologizing only after controversy erupts. Forced, half-hearted apologies do not demonstrate good faith when the larger pattern of offensive rhetoric continues.”

Examples of Fox’s intolerance abound, but for a brief recap of a few that occurred just this year:

  • Obama’s Baby Mama
  • Terrorist Fist Jab
  • Knock Off Osama …uh… Obama … Well, Both If We could
  • Lynching Party Against Michelle Obama
O'Reilly Lynching Party

The coalition delivering the petition will include rapper, Nas, who has had his own problems with Fox News. Last August, Nas was scheduled to appear at a memorial concert for the victims of the Virginia Tech shootings. Bill O’Reilly condemned the booking as an atrocity. Nas responded by saying that…

“Everybody has a marketing plan; his marketing plan is racism […] I wouldn’t honor anything Bill O’Reilly has to say. It just shows you what bloodsuckers do: They abuse something like the Virginia Tech [tragedy] for show ratings.”

Well said. But he’s not done. His new album “Untitled” (which just hit #1) features a track dedicated to Fox News called “Sly Fox,” that begins, “The Sly Fox, Cyclops, We locked in the idiot box,” and continues, “Watch what you watchin’, Fox keeps feeding us toxins, Stop sleeping, Start thinking, Outside of the box.” Here’s the whole thing on video:

~~~

Update: Fox News did not accept the petitions but made a statement in response that trivializes the 600,000 signers while taking a slap at Nas:

Fox News Racist“Fox News believes in all protesters exercising their right to free speech including Nas who has an album to promote.”

Nas had his own statement:

“Fox poisons this country every time they air racist propaganda and try to call it news. This should outrage every American that Fox uses hateful language to talk about the person that may be the first black president.”

After Fox refused to take the petitions, Nas took them to Comedy Central’s The Colbert Report. Once again, Comedy Central proves to be a better practitioner of Journalism than Fox News.

Link to Colbert Report’s Color of Change Segment
Link to Colbert’s interview of Nas
Link to Nas performance on the Colbert Report

John McCain’s Play For Free Media Love

Candy McCainJohn McCain’s campaign is floundering and desperate. He is bankrupt both financially and intellectually. And nothing illustrates this more than his pathetic attempts at self-promotion through media manipulation. Rather than present his policies and personal attributes to sway a skeptical electorate, McCain has opted to beg for attention from the press and hope they favor him with some attention.

Much of the time that Barack Obama has been overseas, McCain has been complaining that he is being ignored. He is whining that the three network anchors are ditching him to tag along with Obama. Never mind the fact that he isn’t making any news, he believes that his adventures in Kennebunkport and fundraising events warrant the same reception that Obama gets while meeting with world leaders in war zones.

McCain’s campaign reacts to all of this by manufacturing news. His staff punks Robert Novak into publishing a tip that McCain will name his VP pick this week. Now Novak suspects that it was never true and he calls it “pretty reprehensible.” But it bought him some free press.

Earlier this week, McCain submitted an op-ed to the New York Times as a putative response to a previously published op-ed by Obama. The Times rejected the piece as lacking substance or even relevance to Obama’s article. The McCain camp, along with most of the rightist rabble, giddily declared that this is proof of media bias. In fact, it is merely proof that respectable news organizations will not allow themselves to be exploited by wily campaign media hacks (sometimes). Since McCain’s op-ed was not responsive to Obama’s, and it offered nothing newsworthy of its own, it was nothing but fluff and undeserving of publication.

Now McCain is supposedly preparing to release a new ad (below) that portrays Obama as a media darling. The ad is titled “Love” and his website introduces it saying…

“It’s pretty obvious that the media has a bizarre fascination with Barack Obama. Some may even say it’s a love affair.”

I actually agree that the press is fascinated with Obama, although there is nothing bizarre about it. He is the first African American ever nominated for president by a major party. He is a relative newcomer to the national political stage. And he is generating more interest from voters than any other contemporary politician. McCain, on the other hand, has been in Washington for thirty years. He has run for president before. And from the public he is eliciting not much more than yawns, even amongst many Republicans. It would be bizarre if the press were not fascinated with Obama.

In addition, the new ad seems to inadvertently boost Obama’s profile. The intent of the ad is to show the quantity of positive references to Obama by various media figures. But the result is that it affirms that there is an abundance of positivity surrounding Obama. Many viewers will retain the impression that Obama is very well liked and forget any points made regarding media coverage. McCain’s previous ad (“Gas Pump”) had a similar effect. At the end, it asked who was responsible for higher oil prices, and answered the question by playing a recording of a crowd chanting “Obama!” Again, the audience will likely recall the display of adulation and not what question was asked.

However, the big problem with the new ad is that it will never appear on TV. The whole ad campaign is a fraud. Notice that it is just under 3:00 minutes long? That is far too long for broadcast. The only purpose of announcing it now is to get the media to report on the ad and have it broadcast as part of editorial coverage. McCain is angling for free media. Will the press allow themselves to be used this way? Probably. Especially the cable news nets who have an insatiable appetite for pre-produced video and lots of time to fill.

The bottom line is that McCain’s campaign has no momentum and nothing of interest to say that might generate coverage. So they are resorting to begging journalists to cover him instead of the guy over there in the Middle East. They are resorting to begging friendly reporters into printing fake news items. They are resorting to begging the New York Times for editorial space in which to publish their press releases. They are resorting to begging cable news networks to air stories on ads that they never intend to broadcast.

They are resorting to the only thing they have left: Begging for free media.

Update: As if to punctuate the analysis above, the McCain campaign has helpfully announced a pitiful response to Obama’s trip overseas. McCain has purchased ad time in American cities with the same name as the cities Obama is visiting (i.e. Berlin, WI, Paris, ME).

This is further evidence that McCain is still praying for free media as these are small markets that will have little impact on national trends. He’ll get some, of course, from Fox News. But this ad buy comes at the same time that Obama announced his $5 million purchase of air time during the Olympics. So while McCain is making penny ante, symbolic ad buys, Obama is going for the Gold. Nice juxtaposition.

Comic Relief From The Right

Cliff Kincaid is an editor at the rabidly conservative Accuracy in Media and the president of America’s Survival, an anti-United Nations group. He is also the author of one of the most dementedly hilarious articles I’ve read all year.

The article in question is a complaint that Matt Drudge and the Washington Times have refused to publish his advertisements. [Note to Vast Right-wing Conspirators: When Drudge and the WashTimes reject you, it’s time for in-patient care] The ads themselves are complaints that the Rightist Media is ignoring his allegations that Barack Obama was indoctrinated as a Communist while growing up in Hawaii (a fiction that Kincaid has been peddling for five months). But that’s not even the funny part. This is:

“…our $5000.00 ad buy was rejected by Drudge himself. This appears to be part of a leftward drift on the part of Drudge, who has a rather idiosyncratic background and links to the homosexual community and Hollywood.”

…and…

“At the same time, we have to draw attention to the continuing leftward drift of Fox News. Fox News sent a camera crew to our May 22 news briefing in Washington, D.C., where we released our two reports. But not one word has appeared on the channel about what we uncovered.”

Perhaps the reason that even neanderthal news nets like Fox won’t touch this stuff is because it doesn’t even rise to their sunken standards for journalism. Nah, that can’t be it. It must be because they’re all Islamo-fascists rooting for Obama.

The wheels are coming off the bus. When uber-conservatives like Kincaid start attacking the cornerstones of their own Rightist Media, you know that a severe psycho-mechanical failure is imminent. Next thing you know they’ll be denouncing Ann Coulter as a radical, pinko, feminist for telling Sean Hannity that she would support Hillary Clinton over John McCain. I hope they have their seat belts fastened.