Ed Schultz on Tuesday falsely accused Fox Business Network contributor Charles Payne of recommending people on unemployment lines eat each other to survive. Such ironically occurred on the “Psycho Talk” segment of the “Ed Show” (videos follow with partial transcripts and commentary): read more
Read the original post:
Ed Schultz Accuses Fox Biz Analyst of Recommending Cannibalism for Unemployed People
Comments Off on Ed Schultz Accuses Fox Biz Analyst of Recommending Cannibalism for Unemployed People
Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News
Tagged each-other, economy, ed schultz, falsely-accused, fox business network, Hollywood, ironically-occurred, schultz, schultz-on-tuesday, the ed show, tuesday, unemployment
In the current federal tax debate, the media are “really helping out the liberals” just by choosing certain words over others, according to the Business & Media Institute. In an appearance on Fox Business Network Sept. 21, BMI’s Julia Seymour told host Charles Payne that the mainstream media – “particularly the cable primetime shows that we looked at,” had been framing “the debate as tax cuts, rather than tax increases.” Seymour was referring to BMI research showing that the media was using the language of the left and the Obama administration when reporting on the tax issue. MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann said on Sept. 13 that “Democrats want to cut everybody’s taxes,” despite the president’s stated intent to raise taxes on the rich. “It was 27 tax cut-framed stories, versus two tax increase stories,” Seymour told Payne. The media were thus 13 times more likely to put a positive spin on the Democrats’ intentions than to characterize the move as a tax increase. “Is it the case really that the media perhaps – the mainstream media – has been trying to shape it in a way that makes it, ah, seem better for the Democrats rather than the Republicans,” asked Payne. “Certainly,” Seymour responded. “The Obama administration has made it clear they want to increase taxes on the people they deem wealthy. But that’s not the way you hear the stories – you hear that Obama wants to keep middle class tax cuts.” She cited the “complete distortion” of MSNBC host Keith Olbermann’s tax assertions, and included CNN among the outlets spinning tax increases into a question of tax cuts.
See the original post:
BMI’s Seymour Tells Fox Biz Media Manipulating Tax Debate Terms
Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News
Tagged business, cable television, celeb news, charles payne, fox business network, julia-seymour, keith-olbermann, Obama, People, stars, TMZ
It seems that not even the truth can possibly overturn the narrative that President Obama and the Democrats in Congress have brought transparency to Washington. Last Wednesday I wrote about how the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory bill Obama signed into law last month contains a provision exempting the Securities and Exchange Commission from Freedom of Information Act requests. Such an exemption would surely have been grounds for a media outcry during the Bush administration, yet apart from The Wall Street Journal and CNN, only blogs have been following the developments. The latter opted simply to parrot the administration’s claims without challenge. Other media ouetlets, such as National Public Radio and MSNBC, completely ignored the controversy, in stark contrast to their extensive coverage of the Bush administration’s attempts to curtail the scope of the Freedom of Information Act. NPR’s Don Gonyea said “When conflicts arise over what should or should not be open, the administration does not hesitate to invoke the memory of 9/11. And while it’s true that 9/11 changed the security landscape, it’s also true that the administration was tightening the control of information much earlier . . .” Some journalists are simply accepting the official SEC double-talk at face value. Unlike The Wall Street Journal , which actually bothered to talk to people familiar with the SEC and the bill, CNN just repeated what Chairwoman Mary Schapiro said in her letters, starting off their story with: “The Securities and Exchange Commission was not seeking a blanket exemption from public information laws . . .” Contrast this “see no evil” approach with CNN’s coverage of similar controversies during the Bush administration. In August of 2007, CNN’s Jack Cafferty covered the Bush administration’s attempt to exempt the White House Office of Administration from FOIA, noting the administration’s claims that certain federal officers were exempt from the law. “What do you suppose is in the millions of missing White House e-mails that President Bush doesn’t want anyone to see?” Cafferty asked, rhetorically. And in March of 2004, CNN analyst Ron Brownstein hammered home the alleged lack of transparency in the Bush administration, as evinced by its stance on FOIA. “They’re [the Bush administration] very tough on executive privilege in general, and on the flow of information more broadly than that,” Brownstein claimed. “Everything from the Freedom of Information Act to the Cheney Commission on Energy.” But with Obama in office, CNN doesn’t seem to be particularly concerned about the SEC’s apparent disdain for transparency. All it’s doing is reprinting talking points, after all. MSNBC, another news outlet that has yet to devote a single word to the SEC exemption, was also far more concerned with openness during the previous administration. Mike Barnicle, guest-hosting Hardball in 2007, said in reference to Bush’s Office of Administration: “The White House says the Freedom of Information act doesn’t apply to the office that handles their e-mails, even though their Web site says it does. Are they breaking the law?” Meanwhile, Rachel Maddow claimed on the day after Obama’s inauguration that secrecy was “the hallmark of the Bush years, the thing that often made Bush administration law-breaking possible because nobody knew it was happening. The best tool that we, the people, have to break through government secrecy is often the Freedom of Information Act. It was treated as an annoyance, an obstacle to be overcome by the Bush administration.” Again, these are a concerns this cable network has yet to extend to the SEC. Chairwoman Schapiro has written letters to Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Ct) and Rep. Barney Frank (D-Ma) explaining that the law doesn’t really exempt them from responding to FOIA requests. She asserted that entities regulated by her agency under the new financial “reform” legislation must “be able to provide us with access to confidential information without concern that the information will later be made public.” Schapiro claimed in her letter that the provisions in question are “not designed to protect the SEC as an agency from public oversight and accountability.” The mainstream press has apparently decided to take her word for it. How nice of them. It’s not like federal bureaucrats have ever failed to follow their agency’s guidelines . . . This press’s attitude, of course, stands in sharp contrast to just a few years ago, when members of the media were outraged by Republican attempts to restrict FOIA requests. Many in the media have, like NPR, decried the Bush administration’s use of 9/11 to curtail transparency, but thus far no one has criticized the current administration’s use of financial reform for the same goals. The double standard is telling.
Read the original here:
SEC Claims Information Opacity, But Media No Longer So Concerned With Transparency
per·ni·cious pər-‘ni-shəs adj .: highly injurious or destructive : deadly Sounds like a pretty harsh word to describe something, right? So whatever the word pernicious is describing must be pretty bad. But leave it to The New York Times editorial board to throw this lingo around like it’s no big deal. In a July 8 over-the-top editorial , the Times ripped the Arizona anti-illegal immigration law over its constitutionality. “The Obama administration has not always been completely clear about its immigration agenda, but it was forthright Tuesday when it challenged the pernicious Arizona law that allows the police to question the immigration status of people they detain for local violations,” the editorial said. “Only the federal government can set or enforce immigration policy, the government said in its lawsuit against the state, and ‘Arizona has crossed this constitutional line.'” Video Below Fold The editorial goes on to whine that the Arizona legislation interferes with the federal government’s ability to enforce immigration law, as if everything is operating so swimmingly under the Obama administration’s direction. But a July 7 post from the Heritage Foundation’s The Foundry blog explains the unconstitutionality claim “nonsense”: First, the Justice Department claims that Arizona is unconstitutionally interfering with the federal government’s authority to set immigration policy. This claim is nonsense. Arizona is not interfering with the federal government’s immigration policy as it is set in the laws passed by Congress. Arizona is simply complementing and helping the federal government enforce its immigration laws. On the other hand, states that give illegal aliens drivers licenses and sanctuary cities like San Francisco that help illegal aliens violate immigration laws do interfere with federal law, but, as evidenced by the lack of federal lawsuits in those cases, this Administration has no interest in suing to stop that kind of interference. The Obama Administration thus appears to only be interested in stopping enforcement of federal law, not its violation. But the Times editorial suggests the Obama administration act against the Arizona government by restricting their ability to enforce the new law. “In the meantime, there are steps President Obama can take,” the editorial said. “He can deny Arizona access to federal databases of immigration status and refuse to allow the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency to cooperate with state officials in handling people detained under the law. The government should end the misguided program allowing local deputies to enforce immigration law after taking an educational course.” On the Fox Business Network’s July 8 broadcast of “Imus in the Morning,” Newsweek and National Journal contributing editor Stuart Taylor, of all people even criticized the Times for its “overheated hysteria.” ” It struck me the exact same way when I read The New York Times as usual this morning and yeah, that word [pernicious] jumped off the page at me and it is typical of The New York Times, overheated hysteria, I think ,” Taylor said. “I tend to agree the law has got problems and is troublesome and that it may be unconstitutional and I think it’s going to be a close call how the courts handle it. But it’s also, a law where you can certainly understand why the people of Arizona think it is a good idea. They’re being overrun by illegal immigrants and their hospitals are full of them. Their schools are full of them. They’re drug dealers in the house next door sometimes. And so the state decided they needed to do something about it. The federal government is not doing much about it but, there are problems with how the state’s law would operate and there are problems of what you call federal preemption that would interfere with federal immigration law. But pernicious is overkill. ”
Read more:
‘Overheated Hysteria’: New York Times Editorial Goes All-Out to Attack Arizona Immigration Law
Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News
Tagged business, constitutional, editorial, fox business network, Hollywood, kathryn-bigelow, new-york-times, police, politics, stuart taylor, times, TMZ
We all know the BP oil spill is a huge mess. It’s going to be costly to clean up – but just how much? And while some outspoken critics are calling for BP to eliminate its dividend, they probably aren’t realizing the residual effects. On the June 10 broadcast of Fox Business Network’s “Bulls & Bears,” Fadel Gheit, a senior analyst at Oppenheimer & Co., offered a huge estimate. But, he explained what is done is done and that going after BP with harsh penalties, as in elimination of the BP stock dividend, now will hurt a lot of American retirees. “Couple of things – I mean, it is water under the bridge, it is over and you will have to live with it,” Gheit said. “BP will have to live with it. We have to remember one thing — BP bought 10 years ago, Amoco, Arco, a very large American corporation with a lot of people working for BP today. And the retirees are pensioners from the Amoco and Arco days. So by cutting the dividend we’re penalizing completely innocent people that worked very hard for many years. And now, the dividend is the way they support themselves. So, I don’t understand.” And he suggested a compromise – not the total elimination of the BP’s stock’s dividend but that something should come down in the middle. “Yes, I understand clearly that we have to set the money aside to clean up and all those things but we have to reach a compromise and not throw [out] the baby with the bath water,” Gheit continued. “So there has to be some balance between my view here, BP should cut dividend by at least 50 percent. And I think they will have the financial feasibility to clean up the mess they created.” But over time, the spill would be cleaned up he explained. “Eventually it will be cleaned up,” Gheit said. “It will cost more” How much more? A lot more, he said. “I estimate it will cost about $60 billion,” Gheit said. This figure was a bit of a shock to “Bulls & Bears” co-host David Asman: “Wow! $60 billion.” And although BP (NYSE: BP ) has a market cap of roughly $100 billion, Gheit explained it won’t come in one lump sum but over 10 years. “But it’s not going to be in a day or a week or a year,” Gheit said. “Might take about 10 years. So, that the present value of the $60 billion is pretty manageable.”
See the rest here:
Analyst: BP Oil Spill Clean-Up Will Have $60-Billion Price Tag; Dividend Elimination Hurts Retirees
Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News
Tagged amoco, bp gulf oil spill, fadel-gheit, fox business network, from-the-amoco, gheit, Money, pollution, stock-market, video
There are a lot of people angry at BP for causing huge damage to the Gulf of Mexico. As a way to vent some of this emotion, some are volunteering their help to clean up where the oil has washed ashore. Others are petitioning lawmakers to clamp down on oil companies to ensure this doesn’t happen again. However, there’s one option that has proved to be pointless according to Penn Jillette, half of the famed Vegas duo Penn & Teller. On the June 8 broadcast of the Fox Business Network’s “Imus in the Morning,” Jillette said the first thing that amazed him about the entire oil spill catastrophe was the notion of a Facebook group geared toward boycotting BP. “Well, you know, I don’t know there’s many different takes to take on it,” Jillette said. “I mean, it’s just a horrible disaster and a catastrophe. What amazes me about it is on Facebook, they just, they put this thing up, you know, ‘Boycott BP.'” Aside from hurting only local station owners, as Jonathan Berr pointed out for AOL’s Daily Finance on June 2 , Jillette explained this would likely be the least of BP’s worries considering the current circumstances. “A Facebook thing to boycott BP?” Jillette said. “And all I could think is, you know, 11 people dead, a corporation being destroyed, the biggest natural ecological disaster in American history and I picture these people on Facebook going, ‘But, this will get ‘em.’ And BP will be going ‘Oh no, now they’re boycotting us on Facebook.'” Jillette suggested these people take a step back and realize how their anger could not remotely come close to the emotions of people suffering from effects of the spill. “I mean, the idea that whatever punishment or anger people could have towards BP could come anywhere near the horror and misery of being part of that is just amazing to me,” Jillette said. “It’s amazing to me that people think that attacking a corporation is the way to get out of this. No one knows more about stopping this than they do and unfortunately, it’s not enough.”
More here:
Jillette Mocks BP Boycott Try: ‘Oh No, Now They’re Boycotting us on Facebook’
Breaking Sports Video
Pac-12 NCAA Sports
Justin Bieber Fan Site Breaking News
