Tag Archives: online media

Investigation Clears Israeli Commandos of Wrongdoing; AP, WaPo Focus on ‘Mistakes’

The Israeli commandos who intercepted a flotilla bound for the Gaza Strip on May 31 were cleared of wrongdoing by a military inquiry into the matter. The same panel faulted the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) for “mistakes that were made in decisions, including some taken at relatively high levels,” according to retired Israeli Major General Giora Eiland . While we at NewsBusters have taken Reuters to task before for their biased coverage of the Middle East, the news wire actually broke from the pack a bit in its portrayal of the story , focusing on the conclusion that there was no wrongdoing by the Israelis in the now infamous raid. By contrast, the Washington Post and Associated Press opened their stories focused on the negative. Below are the lede paragraphs for the respective news agencies: JERUSALEM — An internal Israeli review of the navy’s raid against a Turkish aid ship faulted planners Monday for not formulating alternative plans and concluded that the agencies involved should have shared intelligence more efficiently before the operation.  TEL AVIV, Israel — Flawed intelligence-gathering and planning led to Israel’s botched and deadly raid on a Gaza-bound protest flotilla, with security forces underestimating the potential for violence, said the official report released Monday. Reuters noted as early as the fourth paragraph of its July 12 story that the Israeli commandos were found to have discharged their weapons in self defense. A few paragraphs later it noted that: Eiland said his inquiry found evidence that activists on the Turkish-flagged Mavi Marmara opened fire on Israeli commandos. “We found that there are at least four incidents in which the people who were on the ship shot at our soldiers, either by using the weapons that were stolen from the soldiers or a weapon that they had,” he said. “We do have evidence that there was at least one weapon on this ship before we arrived and there is good reason to believe that the first shooting that occurred was when our soldier, the second soldier that arrived on the deck from the very first helicopter was shot by somebody,” he added. The Washington Post’s Janine Zacharia also made reference to Eiland’s findings about the crew and/or passengers of the Turkish ship firing on the Israeli commandos and noted that “[t]he inquiry also found that passengers had cut off banisters from the ship to use as weapons against the soldiers.” By contrast, although Ian Deitch hacked out 25 paragraphs for his story, the AP writer found no room to elaborate on the findings other than this brief reference in the second paragraph: The report, however, praised the commandos who took part in the operation, saying they were justified in opening fire and killing nine after being confronted by violent pro-Palestinian activists on board one of the ships.

See the rest here:
Investigation Clears Israeli Commandos of Wrongdoing; AP, WaPo Focus on ‘Mistakes’

More Kos-MSNBC Drama: Phil Griffin Bans Markos From Guest Appearances

When you’re too crazy for MSNBC… Markos Moulitsas, founder of the far-left blog Daily Kos, announced today that he has been ” blacklisted ” by MSNBC for taunting “Morning Joe” host Joe Scarborough. “I just don’t know how one could reasonably expect to be welcomed onto our network while publicly antagonizing one of our hosts at the same time,” MSNBC president Phil Griffin told Moulitsas. Griffin’s ostracism marks the second instance in recent days that a prominent MSNBC personality has spurned Kos or his blog. A couple weeks ago, Keith Olbermann accounced he would no longer be writing for the site. He returned a few days later. Still, there seem to be some reservations even at liberal MSNBC about the often crude, pugilistic style employed by so many of the Kossacks. What set off the most recent tiff? A tweet exchange, recounted below the fold. JoeNBC: The Sestak story is as unbelievable a cover story as Nixon throwing little Checkers under the bus. A farce on it’s face. Luckily for the White House, the media has been negligent on this story since Day 1. The press will let this laughable story slide. markos: Like story of a certain dead intern. RT @JoeNBC: Luckily for the White House, the media has been negligent on this story since Day 1. Markos: But if you want to talk about bullshit “scandals”, @JoeNBC, there’s this one about Joe Sestak and the White House you might’ve heard of. JoeNBC: @markos Unbelievable. You have a long history of spreading lies suggesting I am a murderer. This is the 3rd or 4th time by my count. Markos: @JoeNBC, I’ve never suggested you’re a murderer. I’ve noted media hypocrisy in going after Gary Condit. But he was Dem. You aren’t. JoeNBC: Anyone in media who interviews @markos, know that you’re extending your credibility to someone who regularly suggests that I’m a murderer. Markos: A bit touchy, @JoeNBC? Links for where I accuse you of being a murderer please. Moulitsas didn’t get any links, but he did get this message from Griffin: Markos, Blog if you must, but here is my on the record statement to you which I ask that you print in full: Yes, after I became aware of the ugly cheap shot  you  took at Joe on Twitter, I asked the teams to take a break from booking you on our shows for a while. I found the comments to be in poor taste, and utterly uncalled for in a civil discourse. I’m hoping this will be only temporary and that the situation can be resolved in a mature fashion, but until then I just don’t know how one could reasonably expect to be welcomed onto our network while publicly antagonizing one of our hosts at the same time. The DailyKos community has been among the most supportive of MSNBC, and we continue to appreciate that support. Markos thinks that Griffin responded the way he did in defense of the cable network’s “token conservative.” “I’ve criticized Chris Matthews before, sometimes harshly,” he whined, “and it never led to me being banned.” Moulitsas fails to grasp — as one Kos reader put it — that he didn’t go after Matthews like that… I mean don’t get me wrong, that tweet was some piping hot ether and I admire it from a trolling perspective, but c’mon. You were clearly taking a swing at Joe’s jaw with the “dead intern” line. You connected, his skull reeled like Balboa in Round 10, he winced in pain. You weren’t trying to make some larger point about media bias. You were looking to bust somebody upside they head. And that is the Kossack way. Just not the MSNBC way, apparently.

Link:
More Kos-MSNBC Drama: Phil Griffin Bans Markos From Guest Appearances

Cox Reporter Rips Right-Wing Luminaries for ‘Rumor’ About Offshore Drilling Plans in Cuba, Burns Herself

Rush has spent a considerable portion of today’s broadcast ripping into this article by Christine Stapleton of Cox Newspapers, and rightly so, for the first three of the four opening paragraphs that follow: Despite the warnings of Dick Cheney, George Will, Rush Limbaugh and Fox News, the Russians are not drilling for oil off Cuba. Neither are the Chinese. In fact, no one — not even Cuba — is drilling for oil off Cuba. The pesky and persistent rumor, bubbling back up with the Deepwater Horizon disaster, is still nothing more than a pesky and persistent rumor — aired in 2008 by former Vice President Cheney (who got the misinformation from conservative columnist Will), repeated on Fox News and recently revived by conservative radio commentator Limbaugh, who told his listeners 10 days after the spill: “The Russians are drilling in a deal with the Cubans in the Gulf. The Vietnamese and Angola are drilling for oil in the Gulf in deals with the Cubans.” However, as oil from BP’s exploded well continues surging from the Gulf floor and washing onto Panhandle beaches, the rumor is poised to become fact. Repsol, a Spanish company, expects to begin drilling off Cuba in 2011, according to published reports and oil-industry analysts. Companies from at least 10 other countries, including Russia and China, are negotiating or already have signed lease deals to drill off Cuba. It’s as if Cheney, Limbaugh, and Will have been making things up out of thin air all along, nothing at all has happened until now, and they’re all of sudden just getting lucky. Horse manure. Stapleton’s comeback would more than likely be, “I’m right, because no one is drilling right at this very moment.” Well, ma’am, if you’re going to get that technical, I will too. This Wall Street Journal story notes that Repsol did some drilling in 2004, and then stopped after results were disappointing. So the Spanish company isn’t about to “begin” drilling, it’s going to “resume” doing so. And while we’re at it, Ms. Stapleton, a person doesn’t issue “warnings” about what is happening, they do so about what’s coming. So when you try to claim that the conservative trio was claiming that substantial drilling was already occurring two years ago, anyone reading and listening in context knew that they meant that the Russians, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Angolans — and for that matter, Petrobas , the Brazilian-owned oil company in which George Soros has hundreds of millions of dollars invested (how did she miss that?) — are attempting to work out and in several cases have worked out arrangements with the Cuban government that would or will lead to drilling operations. The linked article also notes that: Cuba’s portion of the Gulf of Mexico (Click image at top right to enlarge — Ed.) has been divided into 59 blocks, of which 17 have been contracted out to companies including Spanish oil giant Repsol and its partners, Malaysia’s Petronas, Brazil’s Petrobras, Venezuela’s PDVSA and PetroVietnam. Shazam! They already have contracts (for what that’s worth in dealing with Fidel Castro’s communist workers’ paradise). Rush also pointed to this Associated Press item from July 2006 carried at the Washington Post. From here on out, say a growing chorus of experts, America will pay a price for maintaining its 45-year trade ban with the communist nation — a strategic and economic price that will have negative repercussions for the United States in the decades to come. What has changed the equation? Oil. To be more specific, recent, sizable discoveries of it in the North Cuba Basin — deep-water fields that have already drawn the interest of companies from China, India, Norway, Spain, Canada, Venezuela and Brazil. This, in turn, has reheated debate in the U.S. Congress and the Cuban-American community on an old question: Has the time finally come to shelve the embargo — given America’s need for more sources of crude at a time of rising gas prices, soaring global demand and the outbreak of war in the Middle East? Thus, there has been interest in Cuba’s oil for four years. This, along with the contractual arrangements cited above, makes the existence of plans to drill in Cuba far more than the “pesky and persistent rumor” Ms. Stapleton cited. Ms. Stapleton should have put a hold on the bashing and stuck to reporting the relevant facts. Instead she chose to insult informed readers’ intelligence by taking cheap and ineffective shots at people who have been proven right time and time again — including this time. Your loss, ma’am. Graphic found at the Palm Beach Post . Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

The rest is here:
Cox Reporter Rips Right-Wing Luminaries for ‘Rumor’ About Offshore Drilling Plans in Cuba, Burns Herself

Time: Obama Avoiding ‘Nasty Confirmation Fight’ of ‘Unabashed’ British Health Care Enthusiast Berwick

Last night the White House announced a recess appointment for a man who’s gone on record praising Britain’s one-size-fits-all single-payer National Health Service to head up the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Covering the development, Time magazine’s Adam Sorensen cast the appointment of Dr. Donald Berwick ( pictured at right ) as a blow to “hyperbolic” Republicans who hoped to make political hay out of the Harvard professor’s confirmation hearings, yet Sorensen failed to carry any criticism of the Obama administration for the “unusual” maneuver or to examine how the move might bode poorly for Democrats given the public’s concerns over the impact of ObamaCare on the health-care system. Here’s the item in full from Sorensen’s July 7 “Morning Must Reads” digest on Time.com’s Swampland blog (emphases mine): Obama plans to use a recess appointment to get Donald Berwick in at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, avoiding what was sure to be a nasty confirmation fight in the Senate. In its spin , the White House makes at least two good points: CMS has been without a permanent chief since 2006 and the Harvard professor is well qualified for the post. But there are a few unusual things about the appointment. Berwick had not finished answering pre-confirmation questionnaires from the Senate, no hearings were yet scheduled and the short July break is not so often used for recess appointments. It looks like the White House made a calculation that Berwick’s unabashed admiration of Britain’s National Health Service was too tempting a target for hyperbolic Senate Republicans and that his cost-cutting expertise — precisely the reason they think he’s right for the job — could be used against them politically . Their anxieties are apparent in the title of communications director Dan Pfeiffer’s announcement : “Moving Forward to Protect Seniors’ Care.” Republicans, who were spoiling for a fight over Berwick, are upset . As reporter Matt Cover of NewsBusters sister site CNSNews.com reported in May , Berwick is terrified of market-oriented policies to reform health care and urged the British in 2008 to resist any attempts to introduce market reforms to the National Health Service’s thoroughly socialistic scheme: Dr. Donald Berwick, nominated by President Barack Obama to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the agency that runs Medicare, published an article in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), advising leaders of Britain’s socialized health care system: “Please don’t put your faith in market forces.”   The article, published in the July 26, 2008 issue of the BMJ, compared the U.S. health care system unfavorably to the British system, which Berwick said he was “romantic about.”   The article included a list of 10 suggestions for Britain’s National Health Service (NHS). One of these suggestions was: “Please don’t put your faith in market forces [emphasis in original]. It’s a popular idea: that Adam Smith’s invisible hand would do a better job of designing care than leaders with plans can. I find little evidence that market forces relying on consumers choosing among an array of products, with competitors fighting it out, leads to the healthcare system you want and need. In the U.S., competition is a major reason for our duplicative, supply driven, fragmented care system.”    Berwick also outlined his 10 suggestions for Britain’s National Health Service at a speech he delivered in Wembley, England, on July 1, 2008. In the speech, Berwick said that the health care choices made by “leaders” will be better than the choices that individuals make for themselves. Photo of Berwick via the Harvard University School of Public Health website.

Read more:
Time: Obama Avoiding ‘Nasty Confirmation Fight’ of ‘Unabashed’ British Health Care Enthusiast Berwick

Examiner’s Byron York: The NASA-Muslim Outreach Story ‘Has Not Made the Cut’

At the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog  (HT Instapundit ), Byron York documents the results of some Lexis Nexis searching: Total words about the NASA Muslim outreach program in the New York Times: 0. Total words about the NASA Muslim outreach program in the Washington Post: 0. Total words about the NASA Muslim outreach program on NBC Nightly News: 0. Total words about the NASA Muslim outreach program on ABC World News: 0. Total words about the NASA Muslim outreach program on CBS Evening News: 0. As a supplement, here are the results of a search on “Charles Bolden” (not entered in quotes), NASA’s Director, done at 9:00 a.m. ET at the Associated Press’s main site: Additional AP site searches on ” NASA ” and Bolden’s last name only return nothing relevant to the controversy described at this Monday Fox News story (bolds after headline are mine; internal links are in original): NASA Chief: Next Frontier Better Relations With Muslim World NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said in a recent interview that his “foremost” mission as the head of America’s space exploration agency is to improve relations with the Muslim world. Though international diplomacy would seem well outside NASA’s orbit, Bolden said in an interview with Al Jazeera that strengthening those ties was among the top tasks President Obama assigned him. He said better interaction with the Muslim world would ultimately advance space travel. “When I became the NASA administrator — or before I became the NASA administrator — he charged me with three things. One was he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, he wanted me to expand our international relationships, and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science … and math and engineering,” Bolden said in the interview. The NASA administrator was in the Middle East last month marking the one-year anniversary since Obama delivered an address to Muslim nations in Cairo. Bolden spoke in June at the American University in Cairo — in his interview with Al Jazeera, he described space travel as an international collaboration of which Muslim nations must be a part. For all the new media controversy Bolden’s outreach remarks have generated — which, by the way amounts to about 130 items in a Google News search on “Charles Bolden” (in quotes) done at 9:20 a.m. ET — this later paragraph in Fox’s report is in its own way even more offensive: He said the United States is not going to travel beyond low-Earth orbit on its own and that no country is going to make it to Mars without international help. Apparently, that would be too “unilateral” or something. Maybe one of the early “beyond low-Earth” missions will be to the moon to remove that offensive American flag that Neil Armstrong’s crew planted there. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

Continue reading here:
Examiner’s Byron York: The NASA-Muslim Outreach Story ‘Has Not Made the Cut’

Petraeus Uses a Word the President Won’t Use to Describe Goal in Afghanistan

The first six words (bolded by me) of Deb Riechmann’s report from Kabul, Afghanistan for the Associated Press are refreshing: “We are in this to win,” Gen. David Petraeus said as he took the reins of an Afghan war effort troubled by waning support, an emboldened enemy, government corruption and a looming commitment to withdraw troops – even with no sign of violence easing. It would have been even more refreshing if Riechmann, who obviously felt compelled to tick off as many of the reasons Petraeus and the troops he leads may not meet the goal as quickly as possible, would have reminded readers that Petraeus’s boss, President Barack Obama, has been decidedly allergic to using the words “win” and “victory” in Afghanistan since his inauguration. One of her later paragraphs presented a perfect opportunity to remind readers of the president’s aversion. She passed; she shouldn’t have. Petraeus, thankfully, feels no need to hold back, as noted later in Reichmann’s report (bolds are mine): … “We are engaged in a contest of wills,” Petraeus said Sunday as he accepted the command of U.S. and NATO forces before several hundred U.S., coalition and Afghan officials who gathered on a grassy area outside NATO headquarters in Kabul. … “In answer, we must demonstrate to the people and to the Taliban that Afghan and international forces are here to safeguard the Afghan people, and that we are in this to win,” Petraeus said on the Fourth of July, U.S. Independence Day. Continual discussion about President Barack Obama’s desire to start withdrawing U.S. forces in July 2011 has blurred the definition of what would constitute victory. That coupled with the abrupt firing of Petraeus’ predecessor, a move that laid bare a rift between civilian and military efforts in the country, has created at least the perception that the NATO mission needs to be righted. … June was the deadliest month for the allied force since the war began, with 102 U.S. and international troops killed. … “After years of war, we have arrived at a critical moment,” Petraeus said. “We must demonstrate to the Afghan people – and to the world – that al-Qaida and its network of extremist allies will not be allowed to once again establish sanctuaries in Afghanistan from which they can launch attacks on the Afghan people and on freedom-loving nations around the world.” Petraeus suggested he would refine – or at least review – the implementation of rules under which NATO soldiers fight, including curbs on the use of airpower and heavy weapons if civilians are at risk, “to determine where refinements might be needed.” In a March 27, 2009 address at the Council on Foreign Relations, President Obama outlined a “Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.” The words “win” and “victory” or synonyms of those words do not appear. The closest he got was a promise “to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future.” Later, he said “to the terrorists who oppose us, my message is the same: we will defeat you.” Maybe that suffices for some, but then there was this incident, four months later, as reported by the Associated Press : President Barack Obama says he’s uncomfortable using the word “victory” to describe the United States’ goal in Afghanistan. He says the U.S. fight there is against broader terrorism and not a nation. … When Obama delivered a speech in March about his strategy on Afghanistan and Pakistan, he did not use the word “victory.” Obama spoke with ABC’s “Nightline” while traveling to Ohio and Illinois. A lengthier report at Fox News included this nugget:  “We’re not dealing with nation states at this point. We’re concerned with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, Al Qaeda’s allies,” he (Obama) said. “So when you have a non-state actor, a shadowy operation like Al Qaeda, our goal is to make sure they can’t attack the United States.” The only sure way to “to make sure they can’t attack the United States” is to kill or capture as many of their members as possible until the rest surrender or disband and permanently give up their terrorist ways — in other words, to win (i.e., achieve v-v-v-v … victory in) the unconventional war we are fighting against them. Rhetorical reluctance aside, one can only hope that President Obama will let General Petraeus do what must be done to win, even if he (Obama) will probably never acknowledge it when it occurs — just as he has never acknowledged the victory in Iraq (Petraeus, as shown here , more than likely has). Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

Read the rest here:
Petraeus Uses a Word the President Won’t Use to Describe Goal in Afghanistan

David Weigel Affair Reveals Just How Isolated Media Left Is from Conservatives

One emerging narrative from the tale of Dave Weigel’s resignation is the extent to which the journalistic left is insulated from opposing views. The two institutions involved, JournoList and the Washington Post, are exemplars of liberal epistemic closure . Ezra Klein’s now-defunct email list provided a forum for journalists to collaborate, as long as they were, in his words , “nonpartisan to liberal, center to left.” No conservatives allowed. The Washington Post, meanwhile, hired Weigel, perhaps two notches left of center, to cover the right, while relying on Klein, a full eight notches left, to cover the liberal movement. The scarcity of conservative views both on JournoList and in the Post demonstrate the insularity of political conversation among legacy media players. They apply intense scrutiny to conservatives, and fail in the most basic measures of introspection. That is one element of the whole situation that Weigel’s defenders seem to be missing: the issue is not his personal political views, per se, but rather the Post’s failure to provide balance in its blog-based political coverage. There is nothing inherently wrong with assigning someone hostile to certain views to cover a movement espousing those views. Indeed, that can be a very healthy way to challenge preconceived notions and political orthodoxy where it otherwise would be taken for granted. As Byron York wrote at the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog, There’s little doubt that the most interesting coverage of events on the left and right generally comes from journalists on the other side. Much of the time, the right sees things happening on the left, and connects them, in a way that the left doesn’t see, and the left sees things happening on the right, and connects them, in a way that the right doesn’t see. In opinion journalism, it’s a good thing to have each side examining the other. The Post doesn’t seem to understand that, even though it has jumped into opinion journalism with both feet. The paper hired a bunch of people from the left-wing blogosphere — Ezra Klein, Greg Sargent, Garance Franke-Ruta, and, for a short time, Weigel — who often write about the right, even though Weigel was the only one specifically assigned to it. But they haven’t hired any conservative to write about the left. It’s the worst kind of one-sidedness. Sure, Weigel could arguably serve a valuable journalistic function by scrutinizing the right more, perhaps, than a conservative would. But the Post did not do the same for the left. Klein is a rank and file liberal. So if the rationale for Weigel’s employment was that it is healthy to assign political reporters to cover movements they do not agree with or belong to, perhaps the Post should re-hire Weigel, fire Klein, and replace the latter with someone who is demonstrably hostile to, or at the very least openly skeptical of, the political left. Klein himself seems not to realize just how insular his own political conversations are. In his post-Weigel-resignation piece on his WaPo blog (linked above), he wrote that JournoList was meant to be An insulated space where the lure of a smart, ongoing conversation would encourage journalists, policy experts and assorted other observers to share their insights with one another. The eventual irony of the list was that it came to be viewed as a secretive conspiracy, when in fact it was always a fractious and freewheeling conversation meant to open the closed relationship between a reporter and his source to a wider audience. Klein extrapolates a “secretive conspiracy” from what is really just a secretive conversation among the center-left. No one is claiming a conspiracy – the use of the term is probably meant to discredit those skeptical of a forum where liberal journalists collaborate on the latest stories. That Klein calls JournoList “a fractious and freewheeling conversation” demonstrates his epistemic closure. He considers “fractious and freewheeling” a conversation that necessarily included nobody that openly espoused a conservative position as his or her own. Klein openly discusses his decision to exclude conservatives from the list, precisely so it would not devolve into a “debate society.” Could there have been significant disagreement among even the liberal members of JournoList? Undoubtedly there was. But Klein made a concerted effort to exclude conservative voices. How can such a list possibly claim to be adequately informing its members on the political goings on of the nation while excluding and entire school of American political thought? Media liberals seems to be trotting happily down this path of epistemic closure. Reporters continue to cover the right, as NewsBusters contributor Dan Gainor put it in discussing Weigel, as if they were “visiting a zoo.” Or, as New York Times editor Bill Kellor put it, “We wanted to understand them.” Yes, who are these strange creatures who call themselves conservatives?

Read more here:
David Weigel Affair Reveals Just How Isolated Media Left Is from Conservatives

Slow Joe Biden’s Subpar Saturday: Part 2 — The Slippery Growth Assertion

As pathetic as Joe Biden’s thin-skinned “Why do you have to be such a smart-a**” comment to a Milwaukee-area custard shop manager was yesterday (covered at NewsBusters ; at BizzyBlog ), it wasn’t even the Vice President’s worst Wisconsin Saturday moment. A far worse moment, in terms of familiarity with the truth, occurred as Biden rewrote history and unilaterally revised economic growth upward in a speech to Democrats in support of Senator Russ Feingold’s reelection. In a CBS News online report by Stephanie Condon that I suspect will not make it to the airwaves Biden was dour and downbeat, while misstating economic reality: Biden: We Can’t Recover All the Jobs Lost Vice President Joe Biden gave a stark assessment of the economy today, telling an audience of supporters, “there’s no possibility to restore 8 million jobs lost in the Great Recession.” Appearing at a fundraiser with Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) in Milwaukee, the vice president remarked that by the time he and President Obama took office in 2008, the gross domestic product had shrunk and hundreds of thousands of jobs had been lost. “We inherited a godawful mess,” he said, adding there was “no way to regenerate $3 trillion that was lost. Not misplaced, lost.” … Biden said today the economy is improving and noted that in the past four quarters, there has been 4 percent growth in the economy. Over the last five months, more than 500,000 private sector jobs were created. I have no idea how Biden arrived at his $3 trillion figure; I’m guessing Ms. Condon doesn’t either. One very minor error: The Vice President’s claim that “more than 500,000 private sector jobs were created” is false, but barely. On a seasonally adjusted basis, it’s 495,000, per the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The big error: GDP growth has been nowhere near 4% during the past four quarters, no matter how you define “the past four quarters” (compounding was ignored for simplicity’s sake): The 2.5% estimate for 2Q10 is based on the assertion in this Friday Associated Press report that “Economists expect slower growth ahead” from 1Q10’s annualized 2.7%. Biden’s economic growth assertion is nowhere near true no matter how one interprets it. If 2Q10 growth comes in at an annualized 5.5% or higher, readers can come back and crow that Biden was really right. Good luck with that. Stephanie Condon should have known better than to blindly relay Biden’s false assertion. Does anyone else besides me think that she would have checked it out if Dick Cheney had said it instead? Photo at top right is at CBS link via AP. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

See more here:
Slow Joe Biden’s Subpar Saturday: Part 2 — The Slippery Growth Assertion

MSNBC’s Matthews Compares Conservative Candidates to Suicide Bombers

“Being a suicide bomber is the new political role model,” Chris Matthews told his Friday “Hardball” audience. “Just kill everything, destroy everything, blow it up, nothing gets done. You’re dead, but who cares?” he added, referring to conservative Republicans running against Democrats in the 2010 midterms. The comment came at the end of a segment featuring Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.) and Politico’s Jim VandeHei. Matthews had complained to the latter that the congressional minority Republicans were intent not merely on tinkering around the edges of the majority Democrats’ policy proposals but on “destroy[ing] the United States government every time it gets up in the morning” all to the applause of “its cheering section back home say[ing] good work, keep trying to destroy the government.” [MP3 audio available here; WMV video available here ] VandeHei didn’t agree with Matthews’s “destroy the government” rhetoric about the GOP, although he agreed that the GOP was intent on “destroying” policies that President Obama supports. For his part, the Politico writer argued that the political system as it stands now is just geared towards extreme partisanship because in part moderates had been “purged” from the GOP but also because “right now we have an entire system, we have a media system, we have a culture, we have technology that really rewards the incendiary, [that] rewards conflict.” Given Matthews’s hyperbolic invective about “The Rise of the New Right,”   VandeHei might unwittingly be on to something, at least when it comes to the incendiary media.

More:
MSNBC’s Matthews Compares Conservative Candidates to Suicide Bombers