Tag Archives: abc

MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer Lobbies U.S. Politicians to ‘Stand Up’ for Gay Rights

MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer on Monday appeared baffled as to why more U.S. politicians weren’t ‘standing up’ to demand the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” touting it as “a civil rights issue.” In the span of two hours, the cable network featured a gay member of the military and a conservative to discuss the issue. It was hardly a case of hearing two sides, however. Both guests favored allowing gays to serve openly. Talking to Richard Grenell , a former spokesman for Ambassador John Bolton, Brewer editorialized, ” It is a civil rights issue…Is it time for our American leaders to stand up for what’s right and no matter what public opinion polls say to have the leadership and the courage to take a stand on it? ” Earlier, Brewer cited a survey sent out to service members asking them questions such as whether they’d be comfortable showering with an openly gay individual. The cable host dismissed, “Now, substitute in the word black or Jewish and would that question to service members ever be okay?…Why aren’t more American leaders itching for a fight on gay rights?” At the end of the segment, Brewer read viewer e-mail on the issue. Two such messages favored repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. These she recited without comment. When she read a letter disagreeing with gay rights, Brewer could hardly disguise her opinion: “Carolyn Bramblett says, “Homosexuality is a sin issue, not a civil rights issue.’ Well, you know what Jesus said: ‘Let he who is without sin.'” In the 11am hour, MSNBC featured openly gay veteran Daniel Choi to dismiss the survey. Grenell is also gay. So, the network hardly sought out a variety of voices on the subject. A transcript of the segment, which aired at 12:43pm EDT, follows: 12:20 tease CONTESSA BREWER: Another traditionally safe [makes quotes marks] constituency for Democrats also angry, this time over a survey about the potential repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, many say has incendiary and homophobic language. The President said he wants Congress to repeal the law and Pentagon is in the process of studying the issue. But, a new survey sent out to service members asks questions that many find offensive. So, here’s the problem: Critics say the survey assumes a position of homophobia. For instance, here’s one of the questions: “If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are assigned to bathroom facilities with open bay showers with a gay or lesbian service member, would you take no action or use a shower at a different time?” Now, substitute in the word black or Jewish and would that question to service members ever be okay? This is a pivotal civil rights issue. My big question today: Why aren’t more American leaders itching for a fight on gay rights? You can share your thoughts on Twitter, Facebook. You can get me on e-mail. Contessa@MSNBC.com We’re going to have a lively discussion about this in the next half hour. 12:43 BREWER: A new Pentagon survey is stirring up the controversy because it asks very pointed questions about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Some groups even suggest the survey uses homophobic language. 400,000 members of the armed forces got the question via e-mail asking questions about living with gays and using the same showers and same-sex couples in military housing.  The Pentagon is defending the questions. Rick Grenell is a conservative columnist, former spokesman to John Bolton and three other U.S. ambassadors and believes Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell should be repealed. We knew that the survey would happen. Claire McCaskill, actually, Rick, brought up her concerns about how the questions would be framed. When public policy pollsters conduct surveys to gain credibility and validity they have to formulate truly open ended questions. Do you have a problem with these questions? RICHARD GRENELL: Well, I think the key to this is having questions at all for a civil rights issue. What’s most surprising is President Obama and Nancy Pelosi that they are actually trying to say that this isn’t a civil rights issue, because clearly by having a questionnaire, they’re not so sure themselves. And I think the troubling thing for me and for a lot of conservatives is that they campaigned on this issue, that it was a civil rights issue and they were elected, they would end this. You know, when Barack Obama was a senator, he spent a lot of time telling people that it should just be taken care of with an executive order. Now that he’s president, the executive order excuse goes away and he’s blaming Congress. So, I think it’s really a difficult issue for the Democrats and they campaigned like it was an easy issue. BREWER: So, to drive this point home and it’s the argument that I made further, that if you put in instead of same-sex or homosexual and used, say, black, here would be the way the sample question would read. “If a wartime situation made it necessary for you to share a room, birth or field tent with someone you believed to be- insert here black- service-member which are you most likely to do?” And goes on to how you take action. You’re right. That question to service members would never be considered. And, in fact, when they integrated the military, my understanding is there was no general survey taken to see how service members would feel about it. It was done because it was the right thing to do. That being said, after I asked my big question today, Rick, I got a bunch of E-mail responses in. And you have people, viewers here who are writing and arguing that it’s not a civil rights issue because being born black is not a choice but being born gay is. GRENELL: Well, look, what I would say there is I’m a conservative. I think it’s outrageous that we are spending so much money, $4.5 million alone on this survey to investigate someone’s personal life. Whether you believe this is a choice, whether you believe that someone is born gay, I think it goes to the question of why are we wasting so much money to go after someone’s personal life, to investigate? It’s a national security issue when you’re encouraging people to actually lie. I’ve held a top secret security clearance. They want to know everything about you. They want to know that you’re truthful. BREWER: Right. GRENELL: At the end of the day people have to remember that individuals in the military are already showering with gay military folk. BREWER: And, again, regardless of what you think about homosexuality as an issue, that is like arguing you get to choose what region you are as an adult and you still can’t discriminate on the basis of that. I agree with you fully. It is a civil rights issue. Let’s talk about the leadership here. Is it time for our American leaders to stand up for what’s right and no matter what public opinion polls say to have the leadership and the courage to take a stand on it? GRENELL: Well, I agree. I think, yes, the answer is a definitive yes. However, it’s outrageous to me that this has been dragged through the political sphere. The Democrats are raising money off this issue. They want it to be a political issue. They are making this a political issue. They are choosing to make this a non-civil rights issue. They want this issue to go into the fall. They want to raise money and they want to make sure that Americans are constantly talking about this issue. And I think that that’s outrageous. BREWER: Rick, thank you so much for joining us. I appreciate your time. I appreciate you weighing in. A lot of folks have been weighing in online about why our nation’s leaders aren’t embracing gay rights as is civil rights issue. Clinton Hancock responds, “The politicians are too fearful of their constituents. Sometimes you have to teach your constituents, not just listen to them. Carolyn Bramblett says, “Homosexuality is a sin issue, not a civil rights issue.” Well, you know what Jesus said: Let he who is without sin. Paul Heimsath writes, “It’s 2010, people. This should not even be an issue.” You can reach out to me. Let me know your thoughts.

More here:
MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer Lobbies U.S. Politicians to ‘Stand Up’ for Gay Rights

NBC Offers Additional 35 Seconds to Story of Controversial Medicare Appointment, ABC, CBS Still Silent

NBC’s Nightly News with Brian Williams became the first evening news broadcast to cover the recess appointment of Donald Berwick to run Medicare. Anchor Brian Williams asserted that “Republicans are angry, claiming it’s antagonistic.” He also observed, ” Berwick has spoken about the need to ration medical care to control costs.” NBC has offered the most reporting on Berwick: 20 seconds during the Today show on Wednesday and 35 seconds on Thursday’s Nightly News. Those 55 seconds are still more than ABC and CBS’s morning and evening news programs. Their total remains at zero. Yet, the same morning shows (on July 7 and 8) devoted 52 minutes to the important topic of Lindsay Lohan’s sentencing. Although Williams blandly explained that Berwick has “spoken about the need to ration medical care,” he offered no quotes. While talking to a British audience in 2008, he promised, “The decision is not whether or not we will ration care, the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.” For more, see CNSNews.com . A transcript of the July 8 segment, which aired at 7:17pm EDT, follows: BRIAN WILLIAMS: In this country, a new political skirmish in Washington over health care. It’s about an appointment President Obama made while Congress was out for the July Fourth break, a so-called recess appointment naming Harvard professor Dr. Donald Berwick to manage Medicare and Medicaid, skipping the usual Senate confirmation process. Republicans are angry, claiming it’s antagonistic. One top Democrat called the recess appointment troubling, but the administration fired back, saying this was one of many appointments being blocked by the Senate. Berwick has spoken about the need to ration medical care to control costs.

Continued here:
NBC Offers Additional 35 Seconds to Story of Controversial Medicare Appointment, ABC, CBS Still Silent

Evening News Watch: NBC Trick May Have Enabled Big 3 Nets to Avoid Going Below Combined 19 Million Last Week

Last week, Matt Robare at NewsBusters noted the fact that the Big 3 networks’ combined year-over-year audience fell by a bit more than 1 million during the second quarter. Last week’s showing appears to be to a slight pickup over the previous week, but it may have been much worse. Here, per Media Bistro, is how the the week of June 28 as reported by Nielsen compared to the week of June 21, the last reporting week of the aforementioned dismal quarter: June 21 — NBC – 7,190,000; ABC – 6,740,000; CBS – 5,230,000; Total – 19,160,000. June 28 — NBC – 7,800,000; ABC – 6,740,000; CBS – 4,970,000; Total – 19,510,000. So how did NBC attract over 600,000 additional viewers during the week of June 28, increasing its audience by over 8%? The answer, according to Media Bistro’s Kevin Allocca, is that the network probably didn’t: On Thursday and Friday, “NBC Nightly News” was coded as “Nitely News” in the Nielsen ratings (similar to last summer) and the newscast was therefore excluded from the average over those two lower-rated days heading into the holiday weekend while Brian Williams was out. ABC and CBS averages are based on all five days. Clever, eh? In his coverage of last year’s NBC similar trick during the week of June 29 — a week where the reported combined audience was 20,180,000 — Media Bistro’s Chris Ariens observed that “The practice, however, is within Nielsen’s guidelines.” Some “guidelines.” That’s like a baseball team getting away with excluding its worst two innings, or an NBA team unilaterally deciding that the second half didn’t count. Given that one of its competitors lost ground week to week while the other just stayed even, it’s reasonable to believe that NBC’s June 28 full-week performance was no better than June 21. If so, the total audience at the Big Three networks really fell below 19 million. Oh, how the formerly mighty in the statism-compliant establishment media have fallen, and continue to fall. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

View original post here:
Evening News Watch: NBC Trick May Have Enabled Big 3 Nets to Avoid Going Below Combined 19 Million Last Week

TV Bites: Alec Baldwin Talks Upcoming Retirement From 30 Rock

ABC’s George Stephanopoulos Hectors Netanyahu, Saddles Israel With Responsibility for Peace

Good Morning America’s George Stephanopoulos on Wednesday repeatedly berated Benjamin Netanyahu as to what the Israeli Prime Minister will do for the peace process. Focusing almost entirely on Israel, while excluding the U.S. and the Palestinians, he hectored, “What are you prepared to do? More security autonomy for the Palestinians on the West Bank? Prisoner releases?” Stephanopoulos did highlight the contrast between April’s frosty meeting with President Obama and a more friendly visit at the White House, Tuesday. In the tease for the show, he wondered, “President Obama and Israel’s Prime Minister all smiles at the White House. But, is the friendship as solid as they claim?” Yet, the former Democratic operative failed to ask a single question as to what Obama could do to make the relationship stronger. Instead, he seemed to suggest that since this meeting went better, the burden was now on the Israelis side: “And I guess you couldn’t have asked for a warmer reception from President Obama yesterday. There was the private meeting in the Oval Office. Pretty effusive displays of friendship from the President and the First Lady to your wife, Sara.” Stephanopoulos then pressed as to “what’s going to come” of the visit. He dismissed, “One analyst said, this is a false con. Suggesting that you can’t or won’t deliver what President Obama is calling for in the peace process. So, what concrete steps are you prepared to take?” Although the morning show host did note Obama snubs from the April meeting, such as when the President kept Netanyahu waiting for hours while he ate dinner, he asked no questions on the subject and didn’t ask if this offended the Prime Minister. A transcript of the segment, which aired at 7:13am EDT, follows: 7am tease GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: President Obama and Israel’s Prime Minister all smiles at the White House. But, is the friendship as solid as they claim? Will it create progress towards peace. Prime Minister Netanyahu joins us live in a GMA exclusive. 7:13 GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: We’re going to turn now to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu He met with President Obama at the White House Tuesday, after a series of disagreements and diplomatic gaffes, plunged U.S./Israeli relations into their chilliest period in years. The last time they met in April, there were no public photographs. And President Obama kept the Prime Minister waiting for hours while he ate dinner. Not yesterday. It was smiles all around. And here for his first interview since the meeting is the Isreali Prime Minister. Good morning, Mr. Prime Minister. Thank you for joining us today. PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: Good morning. STEPHANOPOULOS: And I guess you couldn’t have asked for a warmer reception from President Obama yesterday. There was the private meeting in the Oval Office. Pretty effusive displays of friendship from the President and the First Lady to your wife, Sara. But, I guess the big question, is what’s going to come of it? One analyst said, this is a false con. Suggesting that you can’t or won’t deliver what President Obama is calling for in the peace process. So, what concrete steps are you prepared to take? NETANYAHU: I think it was a warm reception. First of all, it was very warm in Washington. Still is. Even for that climate, an unusually warm reception. And my wife and I appreciated it. And the state of Israel appreciates it. We’ve had disagreements. It’s natural between two allies. But in recent weeks and months, we’ve come closer and closer together on a number of important things. How to open up Gaza for civilian traffic and keep the arms blockade. How to make sure to clarify to the world that America’s policy regarding the NPT, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, that policy, stands firm in the way that it’s always stood. All of this was clarified in the course of these discussions. But the main thing, George, that came out of these very good discussions I had with the President is that we want to advance peace. And the simplest way to advance peace is to put aside all the grievances and all the preconditions and all the excuses that have been put up to prevent me and President Abbas of the Palestinian authority from sitting down. I say I’m ready to sit down with him in Jerusalem, in Ramallah, that’s ten minutes away from my office, to discuss peace without preconditions. And if we do it, we can defy the world. STEPHANOPOULOS: I know that’s your position, Mr. Prime Minister. But even yesterday, you did say you were prepared to take concrete steps to advance this process. You know the Palestinians need to see that. What are you prepared to do? More security autonomy for the Palestinians on the West Bank? Prisoner releases? Are you willing to extend the settlement freeze past its deadline of September? NETANYAHU: Well, we’ve done a lot of bit in relaxing hundreds of roadblocks and checkpoints that’s facilitated the West Bank economic boom. I’ve talked about my vision of peace about a demilitarized Palestinian state that recognizes the Jewish state of Israel. We adopted a moratorium seven months ago for the Palestinians to enter the talks. They haven’t so far done that. I think all these things, in word and deed, show that we are interested in launching this peace forward. Now, rather than pile up more preconditions, even though there are more things we’re prepared to do. STEPHANOPOULOS: What are they? NETANYAHU: The important thing is the Palestinians- Additional easing of movements. Some questions of economic projects. There are quite a few. And the point is, we’re prepared to do them. But what we want to see, finally, is one thing. We want President Abbas to grasp my hand, get into a room, shake it, sit down and negotiate a final settlement of peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Believe me, George, it’s hard. The risks for us, for me, also for my country, will have to have very strong security arrangements so that the areas that we vacate do not turn into Iranian strongholds for firing rockets, sending terrorists against us. That’s happened before in Lebanon and in Gaza. So, we have some very clear requirements. The Palestinians will have very clear requirements. The only way that is going to mesh together is if we sit down together, so we can live in peace and security, side-by-side, together. STEPHANOPOULOS: How about extending- How about establishing the settlement freeze? The President said yesterday he hopes there will be progress in the peace talks for the freeze to be extended past September. What exactly do you need to see from the Palestinians in order to extend that settlement freeze past the deadline in September? NETANYAHU: We discussed the concrete steps that need to be taken in the next few days, literally in the next few days and weeks to finally begin direct negotiations for peace. I think once we get there, realities may change. But I think the most important reality is that we don’t stick on, as we negotiate our historic peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, we don’t stick on requirements and grievances. STEPHANOPOULOS: So, you’re open to extending the freeze? NETANYAHU: I’m open to beginning peace negotiations now. And that’s what I want to do. And by the way, I’ve been open for the last year and a quarter. I think we wasted a lot of time with these kinds of excuses, preconditions. All sorts of things that are packed in the way of a simple action. You know you’ve seen these pictures of peace conferences that are- let’s put it in the Middle East as a peace tent. We’re sitting in the tent. We’re waiting for Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, to sit on the other side, across the table, in the tent. And the Palestinians say, we won’t even enter the tent before the tent or the one before that tent, as well. I said, just fold the tents, get into the main arena. Engage in negotiations. Let’s not waste our energies on ancillary things, on minor things. Let’s try to absolve the issues of security, territory, refugees, water. These are huge issues. I think, I’m confident, that I- I’m convinced that our security needs are met, I think I can bring the peace that the majority of the people of Israel will support. And what we’d really like to see is the Palestinians understand that we expect them to end the conflict. That the state that they will receive will not be a platform for additional conflicts against Israel. But an end to the conflict with solid security arrangements. STEPHANOPOULOS: I’m afraid that’s all the time we have, Mr. Prime Minister. I’m sorry for that. But, thank you for joining us this morning. NETANYAHU: Well, don’t be so skeptical. Raise your hopes. It’s summer time. We can perform miracles.

Read more:
ABC’s George Stephanopoulos Hectors Netanyahu, Saddles Israel With Responsibility for Peace

Matthews: ‘Media Will Try To Destroy Her’ But Palin Can Win GOP Nod

An unexpected prediction, and an even more surprising admission from Chris Matthews this morning . . . Appearing on Morning Joe, the Hardball host predicted that Sarah Palin would seek the Republican presidential nomination, and painted a path to victory for her.  In a moment of candor, Matthews admitted that “the media will try to destroy her, of course.” Matthews made his comments in the course of a pre-taped Mojo Midterm Exam segment that aired on today’s Morning Joe. Matthews saw a scenario in which evangelicals would sweep Sarah to victory in the Iowa GOP primary. She would lose New Hampshire, but put in a respectable-enough showing to move on to South Carolina, where her game-changing endorsement of Nikki Haley would pay dividends.  The fight would then move to Michigan, where Matthews says Palin “beats the hell” out of Mitt Romney, whom he curiously described as “not a politician.” Then came Chris’ flight of frankness. CHRIS MATTHEWS: [Palin] maybe gets an early knockout.  That’s how I see her winning. An early knockout’s the way she can win. The media will try to destroy her of course, but if she goes early, wins early, I think she can win it before anyone can stop her. Note Matthews’ blase “of course” appended to his observation that the MSM will try to destroy Palin.  He takes it as a given that everyone knows the liberal media have it out for her. Question: does Matthews envision himself participating in the media effort to “destroy” Palin?

More here:
Matthews: ‘Media Will Try To Destroy Her’ But Palin Can Win GOP Nod

Dude, Where’s My Discrimination? Jake Tapper Notes Lack of Discrimination Charge in Arizona Lawsuit

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. — Thomas Jefferson, The United States Declaration of Independence. Oops! So what happened to all that discrimination and violation of civil rights that the Arizona immigration law was supposed to cause? Apparently the federal government decided it was so lacking that they didn’t include it in their lawsuit against the Arizona law. Jake Tapper of ABC News notes the distinct lack of a discrimination charge in the federal lawsuit: As widely anticipated, Attorney General Eric Holder today filed a lawsuit against Arizona and Gov. Jan Brewer over the state’s immigration law. The suit seeks a preliminary injunction to stop the law from being implemented. The court filing states that Arizona law is pre-empted by federal law and therefore violates the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution. The filing makes no assertion that the law is discriminatory or risks being applied in a discriminatory fashion, as the president and other officials said they feared would be the case. Interestingly, this suit makes no civil rights charges against the Arizona law. Huh? So what was all that liberal thunder about how discriminatory the Arizona immigration immigration law supposedly is? Apparently the U.S. Justice Department was unable to find such discrimination to use in its lawsuit. Instead, the federal government is taking the King George III approach when the states attempt to enforce laws neglected by the Crown, oops, I mean the Obama administration. The Associated Press also notes the embarrassing lack of a discrimination charge in the federal lawsuit: PHOENIX — The federal lawsuit against Arizona’s tough new immigration law focuses heavily on a question that has been in the spotlight repeatedly the past decade and dates back to the Founding Fathers: The right of the government to keep states from enacting laws that usurp federal authority. The lawsuit filed in Phoenix federal court on Tuesday sidestepped concerns about the potential for racial profiling and civil rights violations most often raised by immigration advocates. Experts said those are weaker arguments that don’t belong in a legal challenge brought by the White House to get the measure struck down. Weaker arguments? You can bet that if discrimination could have been detected in the Arizona immigration law, it would have been front and center in the federal lawsuit. So how are other MSM outlets handling the very notable lack of a discrimination charge in the federal lawsuit against Arizona? Very gingerly. The Washington Post article on this lawsuit is an example. The embarrassing absence of any discrimination charge is only mentioned towards the end of the story: Although the lawsuit cites potential “detention and harassment” of U.S. citizens and immigrants who do not carry identification documents, it declines to make a legal argument that the law would lead to racial profiling. But a senior Justice Department official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that if the law takes effect, “we will monitor it very, very closely, and if we become aware of any racial profiling or civil rights violations, that’s something that we would take action on.”  Shh! Let’s not focus on the lack of a racial profiling charge in the federal lawsuit against Arizona.

The rest is here:
Dude, Where’s My Discrimination? Jake Tapper Notes Lack of Discrimination Charge in Arizona Lawsuit

Arianna Huffington Whines When PolitiFact Doesn’t Support Her Half-Truth

In today’s “Careful What You Ask For” segment, liberal publisher Arianna Huffington is crying at her website because the folks at PolitiFact didn’t back up her statement that Halliburton has defrauded American taxpayers of hundreds of millions of dollars in Iraq. Making this most delicious, Huffington asked to be fact-checked by the group! For those that have forgotten, the former outspoken conservative was a guest on ABC’s “This Week” on June 6 when she get into the following squabble with Liz Cheney (video and transcript follow with commentary, relevant section at 7:30): ARIANNA HUFFINGTON: Right here, we have the poster child of Bush-Cheney crony capitalism. Halliburton involved in this, and we haven’t said about that. They after all were responsible for cementing the well. Here’s Halliburton, after it defrauded the American taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars — LIZ CHENEY: Arianna, I don’t know what planet you live on, but that’s not — HUFFINGTON: — it’s involved again. I’m living on this planet. You’re living in a planet that is — CHENEY: — it’s — Arianna, what you’re saying — HUFFINGTON: — continuing — CHENEY: — has no relationship to — HUFFINGTON: It is completely — CHENEY: No relationship to the effects — HUFFINGTON: — Halliburton was involved in this. How can you say it is not? TAPPER: Well, Halliburton was cementing the pipe. HUFFINGTON: How can you say Halliburton has no relationship? CHENEY: Her assertion that Halliburton defrauded the U.S. government — HUFFINGTON: It did. It did. CHENEY: It was Bush-Cheney cronyism is the left talking point — HUFFINGTON: It was — hundreds of millions of dollars in Iraq. CHENEY: Arianna, is absolutely not true. It is absolutely not true. HUFFINGTON: OK, I’m so glad Politifact is going to be checking this. I’m so glad. CHENEY: Good. On June 9, PolitiFact acceded to her request: In evaluating Huffington’s statement, we’re most bothered by her use of the word “defrauded.” Some of the overbilling in Iraq appears to have been done from haste or inefficiency, or even in a desire to please military officials in the field without regard for cost. Whether the waste in contracting constitutes fraud is still being examined. “It’s a lot money being spent in a region of the world where we don’t have a lot of infrastructure for accounting for how the money is being spent. It will take years before we fully determine how we spent the money,” said Todd Harrison, a senior fellow for defense budget studies at the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. In ruling on Huffington’s statement, we find much in the public record to support her statement, most notably the Justice Department lawsuit. Certainly there have been hundreds of millions of dollars that Halliburton’s KBR attempted to charge the government that have been denied. Government audits of KBR’s work in Iraq will likely continue for some time, and we do not expect a final accounting on these fronts anytime soon. Huffington glossed over some of these points in her back and forth with Liz Cheney. There’s also much evidence that makes us believe that hundreds of millions of dollars were lost to waste and inefficiency, not deceitful fraud. So we rate Huffington’s statement Half True. Almost a month later, Huffington is whining about it at her website: Whenever I speak about the future of media, I get the most positive reaction when I talk about the urgent need to create an online tool that makes it possible to instantly fact-check politicians and commentators as they speak (a bubble pops up, containing the actual facts supporting or contradicting what’s been said). Truth 2.0. That’s why I had such high hopes when it was announced that PolitiFact.com, the Pulitzer Prize-winning fact-checking project of the St. Petersburg Times, was going to evaluate the truthfulness of statements made each Sunday an ABC’s This Week. It wasn’t going to be instant, but it was a step in the right direction. Then my dust-up with Liz Cheney on the show last month was given the PolitiFact treatment — and I saw firsthand why the pursuit of Truth 2.0 is going to be harder than we think. PolitiFact’s finding that my statement that Halliburton had defrauded American taxpayers of “hundreds of millions of dollars in Iraq” was “Half True” — after first documenting example after example of why it was completely true — was an object lesson in equivocation, and a prime exhibit of the kind of muddled thinking that dominates Washington and allows the powerful to escape accountability. Despite the ludicrousness of the Half True rating — and since I was in the final throes of finishing my new book — I let it stand, feeling that the absurdity of PolitiFact first making my case for me, then falling back on the safety of a split-the-baby conclusion spoke for itself. Then, over the weekend, I read this entry detailing PolitiFact’s readers’ reaction to the Half True finding. Rummaging through its Mailbag, PolitiFact quoted three readers who said I was right (while castigating the site for “rhetorical tap-dancing” and “falling victim to the ills of pious fairness”), one who said I was wrong, and one who thought Half True was “right on.” Because this kind of hedging-your-bets thinking runs rampant in our media and political circles, and allows the corrupt no-accountability status quo to continue wreaking havoc on our country — and with my book at the printers, and a long weekend on my hands — I’ve decided it’s worth returning to the scene of the crime to do a little CSI exam of the evidence and see what we can conclude from PolitiFact’s head-scratching conclusion. After equivocating her case, Huffington concluded: Which is why I’d like to borrow two of the busiest letters of the day, and take this BP: Beyond PolitiFact. In the end, this is not about me, or Liz Cheney, or even Halliburton. It’s about our accountability double standard. It’s actually not that complex, nor is it ambiguous. It’s plainly obvious and the American people know it. And the refusal of our political and media leaders to acknowledge it is contributing to the widespread anger and cynicism sweeping the country right now. As long as we allow truth backed up by a mountain of evidence to be, in the name of “pious fairness,” downgraded to Half True, that’s the way the planet we’re all living on is going to continue to operate. And that’s a fact. I guess she’s no longer “so glad Politifact is going to be checking” her!  In the end, Huffington asked PolitiFact to access the veracity of her statement. They complied, and came to the conclusion that she was only half right. And like a true liberal, she whined about it claiming that it’s an example of everything that’s wrong with the world. Don’t you love how the mind of a liberal media elite works?

Read more here:
Arianna Huffington Whines When PolitiFact Doesn’t Support Her Half-Truth

Watch Make It Or Break It Season 2 Episode 2 – All Or Nothing

Watch Make It or Break It S2E2: All Or Nothing The latest installment of Make It Or Break It which is entitled “All Or Nothing” is the TV series’ 2nd episode of the 2nd season that aired 07/5/2010 Monday at 9:00 PM on ABC Family. Watch Make It or Break It 2×2(0202) Free Online Streaming Full Episodes Replay of the Latest Season and Video Clip Download Link:

More:
Watch Make It Or Break It Season 2 Episode 2 – All Or Nothing

CBS ‘Early Show’ Follows ABC’s Lead, Touts Kagan’s SNL-Worthy Humor

During the ‘Early Wrap’ segment on Friday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith discussed the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan with a panel of media pundits: “The almost unknown, practically under the radar, the Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan, before committees this week being funny. She was downright funny.” GQ Magazine’s Washington correspondent Ana Marie Cox agreed with Smith and added: “…a Saturday Night Live skit made live , in part because she looks exactly like Rachel Dratch. And it’s perfect because Al Franken is on the committee. And I kept on watching like waiting for someone to burst into song or Unfrozen Caveman Senator.” Radio host Jane Pratt chimed in: “Her joke was good, the Chinese food joke was good.” Smith remarked: “Very funny. Sunday night, and Christmas.”          On Wednesday’s Good Morning America on ABC, news reader Juju Chang noted Kagan’s “lively sense of humor” and later asked co-hosts George Stephanopoulos and Elizabeth Vargas “who is going to play her in the SNL skit?” Vargas replied: “I don’t think they could be as funny as Elena Kagan was!” While the Early Show touted Kagan’s comedic performance, neither Good Morning America nor NBC’s Today made any mention of the confirmation hearings on Friday. In addition, none of the evening newscast on Thursday made any mention of Kagan’s final day of testimony. Here is a full transcript of the July 2 Early Show exchange provided by NewsBusters’ Scott Whitlock: 8:20AM HARRY SMITH: The almost unknown, practically under the radar, the Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan, before committees this week being funny. She was downright funny.  MO ROCCA: Last Justice Standing. [All laugh] ANA MARIE COX: American justice. It’s funny. I actually thought she was funny, too.  SMITH: Right.  COX: I have to say, watching it immediately, I don’t know if I’m allowed to say SNL, but Saturday Night Live, a Saturday Night Live skit made live, in part because she looks exactly like Rachel Dratch. And it’s perfect because Al Franken is on the committee. And I kept on watching like waiting for someone to burst into song or Unfrozen Caveman Senator. I mean- JANE PRATT: Yeah. Right. I haven’t been able to watch it just because I feel like- like, I see Al Franken looking like he’s kind of falling asleep and I’m like, it makes me feel like I’m going to fall asleep and then I wanted to crack a joke. Her joke was good, the Chinese food joke was good. SMITH: Very funny. Sunday night, and Christmas. COX: She took the fifth on Team Edward vs. Team Jacob, which all women do. [They move on to other topics.]

See the rest here:
CBS ‘Early Show’ Follows ABC’s Lead, Touts Kagan’s SNL-Worthy Humor