Tag Archives: online media

AP, Seattle Times Blame GOP for Downing DREAM Act; In Truth, Five Democrats’ Votes Scuttled Cloture

Today liberal Senate Democrats failed to garner the 60-vote threshold to end debate on and move to a final passage vote for the DREAM Act. In covering the story, the news wire credited Republican opposition for “doom[ing]” the legislation, but the math doesn't work out when you look at the breakdown of the votes on the motion to end debate — also known as invoking cloture. [h/t reader Kevin Davis] read more

Continued here:
AP, Seattle Times Blame GOP for Downing DREAM Act; In Truth, Five Democrats’ Votes Scuttled Cloture

Media Emphasis on ‘Holiday Shopping’ Directly Contradicts Public’s Stated Preferences

There are many areas where the establishment press's terminology preferences are significantly out of sync with everyday usage by the general public. To name just two examples, the ever so PC press routinely replaces publicly favored and more informative terms such as “illegal immigrants” and “Muslim terrorists” with “undocumented workers” and “militants.” And of course, we can't forget the press's affection for “a certain late-term pregnancy-ending procedure,” when it's really “partial-birth abortion.” Though the disconnect I'm about to describe isn't as serious as the ones just noted, there is another area where press terminology is at wide variance with the public's preferences. That would be in how to describe the shopping season that occurs from Thanksgiving until the end of the year. For a while, the press's terminology choices seemed to be winning over retailers. But at least this year, that isn't so, as noted in an item at Advertising Age (HT to Tim Graham at NewsBusters, who tweeted on this about 10 days ago): read more

Continue reading here:
Media Emphasis on ‘Holiday Shopping’ Directly Contradicts Public’s Stated Preferences

Pity the Prez: NYT Blog Hauls Out the ‘Distraction’ Meme Again (Update: Press Treated NoKo as a Distraction in April 2009)

I heard Rush mention this Caucus Blog item at the New York Times on his program today. It seems that the Times's Michael Shear is disappointed that Dear Leader is yet again caught up in a “distraction” (“Pat-Downs Ensnare White House in New Distraction”) It's headlined in the item's browser window as “Pat-Downs Ensnare White House in New Controversy.” Interesting edit, don't you think? If it's a “controversy,” the President owns it. If it's a “distraction,” well, it's an unfair intrusion. Clever. Shear wrapped it in a narrative whose theme was that “It all felt vaguely familiar.” Well, yeah. What's more than vaguely familiar has been the press's tendency to lament the distractions our supposedly otherwise focused like a laser beam chief executive must endure. On April 9, 2009 (at NewsBusters ; at BizzyBlog ), I noted that “The words 'Obama' and 'distraction' have both appeared in 2,425 articles in just the past 30 days; excluding duplicates, it's about 450.” In his blog entry, Shear listed many other awful distractions the president has encountered. What's interesting are how many of them escalated because of Obama or people working directly for him: read more

See the article here:
Pity the Prez: NYT Blog Hauls Out the ‘Distraction’ Meme Again (Update: Press Treated NoKo as a Distraction in April 2009)

Searching for Christmas, and the Missing Layoff Stories

This is the sixth year I have looked into how the media treats these two topics:

WaPo Does It Right This Time: Hires Jennifer Rubin to Cover Conservatives

The Washington Post announced Tuesday that it has hired Commentary Magazine contributing editor Jennifer Rubin to write a blog on the conservative movement and the Republican Party. The move suggests that the Post has learned its lessons from the short run it gave blogger Dave Weigel, who resigned in June after emails surfaced showing him viciously attacking some prominent conservatives. The emails suggested that Weigel was hostile to large segments of the conservative movement, the beat he had been assigned to cover. read more

View original post here:
WaPo Does It Right This Time: Hires Jennifer Rubin to Cover Conservatives

Obama’s Cites GOP’s Intent to Cut Education Spending; Press Ignores Its Meteoric Current Year Rise

In New Mexico yesterday and probably in several other appearances, President Barack Obama criticized the House Republicans’ Pledge to America on several fronts. To me, only because I tend to look at the real numbers during most months, his most obviously off-base critique had to do with federal education spending (as carried at Jake Tapper’s Political Punch blog at ABC): Obama said the Republicans would to cut education spending by 20 percent in order to pay for some of the tax breaks, a charge House Republicans say is inaccurate. Tapper is one of the few establishment media reporters left who isn’t afraid to question liberal authority, but he missed a golden opportunity to dig into facts that might have left him wondering why the Republicans are being so timid. According to the September 2009 Monthly Treasury Statement (go to Table 3 at the link), the Department of Eduction spent $53.4 billion during fiscal 2009. This year, projecting the August 2010 total of $81.6 billion for another month, it will probably come in at about $89 billion. Does anyone have any idea what marvelous benefits have come about as a result of the current year’s 65% or more increase in spending? Neither do I. Cutting this year’s spending by 20% next year would still leave the Department of Education spending about $70 billion per year — still over 30% above fiscal 2008. Again, for what tangible benefit? Jake Tapper and others in the press could easily have and should definitely should have checked out the numbers yours truly did, and didn’t. C’mon, people. Stop taking transcription and do a little work, why don’t you? Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

See original here:
Obama’s Cites GOP’s Intent to Cut Education Spending; Press Ignores Its Meteoric Current Year Rise

Time Interviewer Timidly Questions Daily Kos Founder’s Extremist Rhetoric About Conservatives

In his 7-question September 22 Q&A with Markos Moulitsas , Time magazine’s Ishaan Tharoor timidly challenged the left-wing blogger on his extremist rhetoric about how conservative Americans, particularly religious ones, are the “American Taliban.” Moulitsas was interviewed as part of his publicity tour for his new book, “American Taliban: How War, Sex, Sin and Power Bind Jihadists and the Radical Right” which “takes aim at what Moulitsas thinks is animating this right-wing revival,” Tharoor noted.   “You refer to a whole swath of U.S. conservatives as American Taliban. Is that really helpful?” Tharoor began meekly.    Moulitsas, of course, cranked it up to eleven and let loose with a boilerplate screed about how evil and subversive American conservatives are: Since 9/11, I’ve been hearing accusations over and over again that liberals like me want the terrorists to win. I have no love for fundamentalist Muslims — I think they’re basically hard-right Christians. There’s a shared intolerance. Liberals like me don’t want the terrorists to win just like we don’t want the American Taliban to win. I don’t think there’s any reason to say it nicer. It’s a two-word way to bring home just how dangerous these people are. In response, Tharoor then asked: But we don’t see these Americans blowing up statues of the Buddha or riding around in pickup trucks with AK-47s. More importantly, you don’t see Americans stoning adulterers or gays, but I see what Tharoor is getting at. Nonetheless, Moulitsas doubled down on his harsh rhetoric: The fact is that their movement is predicated on the notion that violence is a viable alternative. Abortion doctors have been killed; there’s an ammunition shortage across the country because some of these people are hoarding stores for the coming apocalypse. Sharron Angle [a Republican running for the Senate in Nevada] has warned that if voters don’t elect the right candidates, they may have to resort to “Second Amendment remedies.” The American Taliban may be more constrained by American society and laws than their Middle Eastern counterparts, but that’s not a function of tactics, more just the society they live in. Their goals are the same. This time Moulitsas gave a concrete example, fair enough, but one loopy statement by one candidate is hardly an accurate picture of the entire conservative movement. What’s more, Moulitsas unfairly associated all pro-lifers with the tiny violent fringe who are not representative of the peaceful pro-life movement.    All the same, Tharoor failed to suggest that Moulitsas might be more interested in writing a best-selling leftist screed than giving an accurate critique of his political opponents. Indeed, for the rest of the interview, Tharoor treated Moulitsas as a qualified expert to write on the conservative movement, including how Ronald Reagan would allegedly be treated as an apostate from conservatism were he alive and running for office today.    Complained Moulitsas: I also think it’s laughable that they keep on talking about Ronald Reagan as the patron saint of modern conservatism. I have sections of the book where I discuss how he would now be drummed out of the Republican Party because he was pro-amnesty, he met with our enemies, he wasn’t rabidly anti-gay, he raised taxes. He was a downright left-wing radical compared to the current bunch. Of course, various other lefty bloggers have been making similar complaints, namely Cenk Uygur, a recurring guest host on left-leaning cable news network MSNBC. But Tharoor failed to raise any skeptical notes about these talking points.   Photo credit: Alex Wong of Getty Images via Time.com website.

Read more:
Time Interviewer Timidly Questions Daily Kos Founder’s Extremist Rhetoric About Conservatives

‘Morning Joe’ Actively Pushing Moderate Candidates?

MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” has recently delivered some strange messages of bipartisanship and moderation to its viewers. These included lecturing would-be Koran-burner Florida pastor Terry Jones on loving one’s neighbor before cutting him off without opportunity to answer, and showcasing a “Bipartisan Health Challenge” – a group of politicians and journalists walking three kilometers around the National Mall to promote fitness and bipartisanship. The MSNBC morning show featured a slightly odd segment Monday – which Newsbusters’ Mark Finkelstein first reported on – echoing New York City Mayor Bloomberg’s efforts to support moderate political candidates and combat angry political messages from fringe candidates. The “Morning Joe” crew seemed to fully endorse Mayor Bloomberg’s message,attacking “political extremists who are dominating the airwaves.” Of course, the extremists the brew crew has in mind are conservatives such as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich who compared putting a mosque near Ground Zero with a Nazi sign displayed near a Holocaust memorial. “You know, according to the Times, Bloomberg’s going to be helping candidates who aren’t bound by rigid ideology, and that’s the message we’ve been trying to emphasize here,” co-host Joe Scarborough stated. So what kind of candidates is the show actively endorsing? Are they simply endorsing conservatives and liberals who are trying to work with each other, or are they endorsing more centrist and moderate candidates? Among the candidates Mayor Bloomberg is extending a hand to are Sen. Harry Reid (D), former RINO senator and current independent Rhode Island Gubernatorial candidate Lincoln Chafee, and California gubernatorial candidate Meg Wittman. These aren’t exactly the specter of conservatism or liberalism, aside from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Later, Scarborough continued to make an active push for a certain type of candidate. “Now we’re going to continue like we’ve done for three years – to encourage viewers and guests to resist the pull of those people on the far Right and the “Professional Left” who seek division.” To be fair, Scarborough has expressed his approval in the past for conservative stars Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi and Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, and he is a self-described old-style conservative. He may not have been advocating centrist candidates as much as conservatives and liberals who promise to reach across the aisle. Even so, Scarborough and company’s message seems fuzzy as to who and what exactly they’re endorsing – and why they were taking time to endorse them in the first place. A transcript of the segment, which aired on September 20 at 6:37 a.m. EDT, is as follows: MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Welcome back to “Morning Joe.” New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg making news over the weekend with his extensive interview with the New York Times. The front page interview raises new speculation about his possible Presidential ambitions. JOE SCARBOROUGH: You think he’s going to run? BRZEZINSKI: I’m thinking. In the interview, Bloomberg confirms he is trying to pull politics back to the middle by helping candidates across the country – Republicans, Democrats, and Independents – fend off the Tea Party. The candidates include Meg Wittman, the Republican running for Governor of California, and Lincoln Chafee, a Republican-turned-Independent, running for Governor of Rhode Island. He also plans to host a fundraiser in Manhattan for Democrat Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader facing Tea Party candidate Sharron Angle, who’s being backed by Sarah Palin. Now in the interview, the mayor says this, Joe. “Look, people are angry. … Their anger is understandable. Washington isn’t working. … Anger, however, is not a government strategy .. .It’s not a way to govern.” And that, of course Joe, has been the theme of this show for three years. SCARBOROUGH: I love that line, “Anger is not a government strategy.” And the mayor’s right. He really is. You know, according to the Times, Bloomberg’s going to be helping candidates who aren’t bound by rigid ideology, and that’s the message we’ve been trying to emphasize here, and also in my book – I mean, we’ve been doing it every day on “Morning Joe.” And what we try to do is encourage politicians and thought-leaders, and every American to follow the advice of an old British war poster that carried a very simple message: “Keep calm and carry on.” And, you know, that was a message, Mika, that FDR delivered to a battered nation in the depths of the Great Depression, when, you know, he declared to all Americans that all we have to fear is fear itself. It’s also the message that Bobby Kennedy delivered to a shocked nation on the night that Martin Luther King was assassinated. And I really do believe that’s the message Americans need to hear again today. Because today our nation is confronting a new war. And it’s a war of words. We’ve forgotten how to talk to each other. You’ve got political extremists who are dominating the airwaves and dominating the national debate. And you know, what the White House calls the “Professional Left,” as well as what we call the “Far Right,” now profit from division and hate speech but makes our political system weaker. And yet, isn’t it strange that Washington politicians seem to obsess on those angry voices on the “Professional Left” and the “Far Right,” instead of seeking out voices of people like you, rational Americans who show respect to their neighbors, who raise their families, who go to work, and who play by the rules. It’s time for you, you quiet Americans, to respond, and not with angry words or hateful commentaries, or setting your hair on fire, calling a Republican President a “fascist” or a Democratic President a “fascist.” But rather, to respond with reasonable voices in a rational debate. Now we’re going to continue like we’ve done for three years – to encourage viewers and guests to resist the pull of those people on the far Right and the “Professional Left” who seek division – we’re going to say resist that, and instead let’s keep focusing on the task at hand, ensuring that America’s greatest days lie ahead. BRZEZINSKI: And what we do here, and what we’ll continue to do is we’ll call out those who preach hate, and we’ll continue to celebrate civility and promote open debate for all voices. Voices on all sides are welcome. And as Joe and I try to show you every day – I think we do a pretty good job, except when you interrupt me – SCARBOROUGH: Except when you hit me – BRZEZINSKI: Well, there’s that – that you can disagree without being disagreeable. SCARBOROUGH: Yeah, and Mika, the mayor is right. Now more than ever Americans need to work together, they need to keep calm, and they need to carry on. I like the mayor’s message. Anger is not a governing message, and it’s not a governing message when Republicans are in power, it’s not a governing message when Democrats are in power. We need to keep it together. (…) 7:03 a.m. EDT JOE SCARBOROUGH: (On Newt Gingrich) I’ve said it before, Mika, I’ll say it again. He’s selling books. And unfortunately, as we said last hour – whether it’s the “Professional Left,” or in this case the “Professional Right,” people make extreme statements that may drive up ratings, may sell books, but they hurt America. They hurt America, they coarsen the debate, and hopefully we can move beyond that. (…) 7:45 a.m. EDT SCARBOROUGH: We’ve been talking for some time on this show – if you’ve seen it, you know – we constantly are calling out extreme voices on the Right, and extreme voices on the Left, and one of the reasons is because it makes people’s jobs so much harder in the Senate.

See the original post here:
‘Morning Joe’ Actively Pushing Moderate Candidates?

Newsweek’s Stuart Taylor a Bit Misleading in Article on Court Challenge to ObamaCare

“The justices have not struck down a major piece of legislation, let alone a president’s signature initiative, as beyond Congress’s power to regulate commerce in some 75 years.” That’s how Newsweek’s Stuart Taylor Jr. today all but argued that, political ideology of the Supreme Court’s majority aside, a Supreme Court decision declaring unconstitutional the “individual mandate” of ObamaCare is quite unlikely. But while Taylor may be right  that no signature presidential initiative post-New Deal has been declared unconstitutional by the Court on the grounds that it violated the interstate commerce clause, he neglected to mention there are two key cases in the past 15 years where the Supreme Court did set outer limits to Congress’s exploitation of the commerce clause as a fountain of federal power. In 1995, a 5-justice majority in U.S. v. Lopez struck down a provision of the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990 that made it a federal crime to possess a firearm in a school zone. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote for the Court that “the possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have such a substantial effect on interstate commerce….  Nor is it an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated.” What’s more, Rehnquist noted (emphasis mine), “To uphold the Government’s contention that 922(q) is justified because firearms possession in a local school zone does indeed substantially affect interstate commerce would require this Court to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional Commerce Clause authority to a general police power of the sort held only by the States.” In other words, if the Court had accepted the government’s rationale in Lopez, it would paved the way to destroy what is supposed to be an enumerated, limited federal power into a broader “police power” that is reserved for the several states of the Union.  Similar arguments regarding ObamaCare are certain to be made before the Supreme Court should the case get that far. Five years later in United States v. Morrison , the Rehnquist Court drew on the precedent in Lopez to strike down a portion of the federal Violence Against Women Act — legislation championed by current Vice President and then-Delaware Senator Joe Biden — on the grounds that it was an improper application of the interstate commerce clause. Wrote Rehnquist for the Court (emphasis mine): The Constitution requires a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local , and there is no better example of the police power , which the Founders undeniably left reposed in the States and denied the central government, than the suppression of violent crime and vindication of its victims. Congress therefore may not regulate noneconomic, violent criminal conduct based solely on the conduct’s aggregate effect on interstate commerce. Both Lopez and Morrison were 5-to-4 cases, but they are relevant case law for the question of whether the ObamaCare individual mandate violates the interstate commerce clause by jury-rigging it into a police power-granting clause for Congress.

More here:
Newsweek’s Stuart Taylor a Bit Misleading in Article on Court Challenge to ObamaCare

Left Wing Nation Magazine: Schoolteachers ‘Exclude Progressive Ideas and Viewpoints’

The folks at the far-left Nation Magazine have finally figured out the problem that continues to plague the American education system: it’s dominated by right-wingers! Seriously. That’s what they think. Or at least what they’re claiming. A spokesman for the Nation whined to the Daily Caller’s Chris Moody about a supposed “tendency for classes to exclude progressive ideas and viewpoints.” Most people who have ever set foot in a classroom are now scratching their heads in confusion. Moody reported: “The real idea behind it is to bring the left perspective to issues to make sure students have both left and right available to them,” the Nation’s Vice President of Circulation Art Stupar told TheDC. “This is an opportunity for students to view what the progressive left thinks about a particular issue.” The liberal magazine sends online curriculum guides each week to teachers that include experts from the magazine, talking points about current events and suggested discussion topics for the classroom. The guides are a part of the magazine’s “learning packs,” which offer educators access to its archives dating back to shortly after the Civil War. “In this year of economic uncertainty and critical mid-term elections, the corporate-owned media will not be offering lessons about: our rigged political system; the conservative crusade against Muslims; the phony ‘panic’ over debt; vets abandoned by the VA; taxes and the Tea Party and much, much more,” read the magazine’s announcement for the new school year, which begins today for many students around the country. Let’s see. College professors give money to Democrats over Republicans by a greater than 7-1 margin . Ninety-six percent of teachers’ unions political contributions since 1990 have gone to Democrats. And this is the industry the Nation claims is suffering from a tragic deficit of leftist thought. Of course those numbers are not surprising to anyone who is, you know, paying attention. And those willing to acknowledge reality will not need to look at the NEA’s balance sheet to recognize the sheer absurdity of the premises underlying the Nation’s campaign. National Review publisher Jack Fowler, who called the Nation’s effort “laughable,” clearly has a firm grasp on reality. “We have no outreach to the three conservative professors that there are,” he told the DC.

Read more from the original source:
Left Wing Nation Magazine: Schoolteachers ‘Exclude Progressive Ideas and Viewpoints’