Tag Archives: article

Overwhelmingly White Media Criticize Conservative Rallies as ‘Overwhelmingly White’

If you thought media coverage of the Aug. 28 “Restoring Honor” rally hosted in Washington D.C. by Fox News host Glenn Beck seemed like just another attack on conservatives, you’re not alone. As noted by the Daily Caller’s Jim Treacher , much of the coverage had a common thread: describing the crowd as “overwhelmingly white.” While the term was certainly used in coverage of Beck’s rally, it’s not a new label. “Overwhelmingly white” is a prime example of the media’s groupthink on Beck, Tea Parties, and the conservative movement in general. Virtually every major “mainstream” media outlet has used the phrase in just the past year to describe conservative events. But even as the media criticize Tea Party and other conservative rallies for an apparent lack of diversity, they struggle to bring minority voices into their own operations. All three broadcast networks have described the Tea Parties as “overwhelmingly white.” So have CNN, MSNBC, NPR, the Agence France Presse, The Washington Post, The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, National Journal and US News & World Report. Many of those organizations are the very ones the news industry discusses as having failed to make diversity goals for staff.   Here are a few examples.  “The crowds turning out for the Tea Party Express rallies are overwhelmingly white.” – Ed Lavandera, CNN “American Morning” March 31, 2010. “The crowd is still overwhelmingly white.” – Jessica Yellin, CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360” April 15, 2010. “The crowd that greeted Palin did nothing to contradict the common description of Tea Party supporters as overwhelmingly white and mostly older.” – Ina Jaffe, NPR “Weekend Edition Sunday” March 28, 2010. “They are overwhelmingly white and Anglo …” – USA Today July 2, 2010. That doesn’t take into account other ways to say the same thing. In coverage of Beck’s rally, some outlets opted for the less aggressive “predominantly white” label, while others described the crowd as “nearly all-white.” As Brad Wilmouth reported on NewsBusters , ABC’s Tahman Bradley called the crowd “almost all white,” and suggested that presence of Martin Luther King Jr.’s niece, Dr. Alveda King, as a speaker was “an obvious effort to try to show inclusion.” The charge leveled at conservative demonstrators is especially ironic given the accusers. The media are notoriously “overwhelmingly white.” The American Society of Newspaper Editors reported in April 2010 that minorities total only 13.26 percent of newsroom staff, a decline from the previous year. The report found 465 newspapers have no minorities on their full-time staffs, a number that “has been growing since 2006.” The organization launched a program in 1978 that “challenged the newspaper industry to achieve racial parity by 2000 or sooner.” It failed. That goal has since been moved to 2025 because, “Over three decades, the annual survey has shown that while there has been progress, the racial diversity of newsrooms does not come close to the fast-growing diversity in the U.S. population as a whole.” Washington Post ombudsman Andrew Alexander in March reported on internal criticism of the newspaper’s diversity. “All told, journalists of color comprise about 24 percent of the newsroom, comfortably above the ASNE census average of roughly 13 percent in recent years.” However, he added, “Minorities are 43 percent of The Post’s circulation area, and a large part of the region is edging toward ‘majority minority’ status.” So how has the diversity-challenge Post handled the Tea Party? “But, [Tea Party rally attendee Jeff Link] says, looking at the crowd, which is overwhelmingly white and middle-aged, ‘it saddens me not to see this gathering more diverse.'” – Feb. 6, 2010. “The new poll offers a portrait of tea party supporters as overwhelmingly white, mostly conservative and generally disapproving of Obama.” – Feb. 11, 2010 “They are overwhelming white (94 percent) and conservative (73 percent).”- April 2, 2010 “Tea Party activists, like Perot voters, are overwhelmingly white.” – April 18, 2010 The New York Times reported in January that minority journalists appear to be suffering the most from newsroom cutbacks. But the report on journalism’s diversity issues wasn’t nearly as smug as a Feb. 16 report about Tea Parties: “Gazing out at his overwhelmingly white audience, Mr. Mack felt the need to say, ‘This meeting is not racist.'” Newspapers aren’t alone. The third annual Television Newsroom Management Diversity Census found that “persons of color” only make up 12.6 percent of staff in TV newsrooms. A 2007 survey by the Radio Television Digital News Association found that minorities make up 21.5 percent of the television news workforce – higher than print but still short of the 34.5 percent of the population. Only 10.2 percent of broadcast news directors are minorities. But that didn’t stop broadcast outlets from pointing the finger at conservatives.  “Do you have any concerns when you look out at the crowds and they’re mostly, well, overwhelmingly white people?” – Terry Moran, ABC “Nightline” Nov. 2, 2009. “You know, one thing to keep in mind about the Tea Party is that it is an overwhelmingly white movement.” – Ron Brownstein, NBC “Meet the Press” April 18, 2010. The long-running discussion over how to include more minorities in the news media, from introspective articles to industry-insider analysis and advice , seems to have produced less-than-impressive results. Maybe members of the media should recall the old adage about glass houses. Like this article? Sign up for “Culture Links,” CMI’s weekly e-mail newsletter, by clicking here.

Washington Whispers: Ted Kennedy an Innocent Chappaquiddick Victim

This is one story that U.S. News & World Report’s Washington Whispers might want to keep to a low whisper or risk even more ridicule than what they are already receiving. Paul Bedard, writing in Washington Whispers, quotes Kennedy’s biographer and former girlfriend who claim that Ted was really an innocent victim of the Chappaquiddick accident. Here is Kennedy biographer Burton Hersh making the case for Kennedy as merely a lousy driver: Now, a year after Kennedy died, his lifelong biographer Burton Hersh, armed with fresh interviews with Kennedy’s mistress at the time, tells Whispers that the whole July 1969 episode  should have been handled as a simple crash, leaving the senator’s legacy untainted. “It was a car accident,” he says. “Ted was a terrible driver. He never paid much attention to where he was going.” “He took a tremendous blow on the head,” says Hersh. In interviews following the crash, Kennedy displayed confusion and amnesia, he says. Wasn’t Ted married to Joan Kennedy at the time of the accident? No matter. Perhaps his biographer figures it is better to show that Kennedy was unfaithful rather then culpable in Mary Jo Kopechne’s death. In any event, loyal lifelong biographer Hersh continues to play a sympathetic note on his violin: “If the thing had been handled properly, the first thing they would have done is put him in a hospital. Then they would have said he was a victim of an auto accident and didn’t know what he was doing and couldn’t be held responsible for anything that happened really after that, which would have been a fair explanation,” says author-journalist Hersh, who knew Kennedy since they were classmates at Harvard. “But instead, he felt terribly guilty about the whole thing … tried to take responsibility and … just confused the issue.” Darn that mighty Ted Kennedy moral compass. That is what got him into so much trouble. Oddly enough, despite his laughable defense of Kennedy, Hersh admits that his type of woman is a…bimbo: As for Kennedy being interested in the straight-laced Kopechne, Hersh says that was highly unlikely. “She wasn’t Ted’s kind of babe. She was a long way from being a bimbo.” Most of the Washington Whispers readers don’t seem to be buying this bizarre rewrite of history judging from their posted remarks : If I had done the same thing I would have gone to jail for 4 years for manslaughter. Trying to rewrite Teddy’s shameful acts won’t cut it.  Read “Senatorial Privilege” published shortly after the accident and inquest. Provides an hour by hour investigatorial record. ‘Nuff said. I wish every reader of this article had a personal army of lackeys like the Kennedy’s do to come up with trash like this to protect them. Yeah, so confused he swims back to his hotel, goes to his room and gets some sleep before reporting the accident. He knew what he had done and what he was doing. Anyone with honor would have admitted his transgressions.  In my neighborhood, and absent political connections, we call this tragic event failure to render aid, driving while intoxicated, leaving the scene of a felony accident, and he should have been charged with murder.  And now the bonus comedy punchline from the article to explain away Kennedy’s dissolute activies: He also brushes off tales that Kennedy was a playboy more than a lawmaker. “Kennedy’s central project was accomplishing as much as he could in public life. And all of the things, including the drinking, the women, and the rest, were sort of supportive activities. They were amusements.”  Burton Hersh: historical airbrusher with the special comedic touch.

Read more here:
Washington Whispers: Ted Kennedy an Innocent Chappaquiddick Victim

Shock at CNN: Banks Doing More than Obama for Homeowners

To the surprise of CNNMoney.com’s Tami Luhby, the market is doing something more efficiently than a government program . While this isn’t news to many, at CNN, it’s a revelation. It seems “banks are doing nearly twice as many modifications under their own foreclosure prevention initiatives than under the Obama administration’s signature Home Affordable Modification Program, known as HAMP,” Luhbi wrote in her Aug. 30 article. Banks made 644,000 “proprietary permanent modifications” in the first half of 2010, almost twice the 332,000 under HAMP. Loan modifications are an alternative to foreclosures, in which the debtors usually receive “interest rate and principal reductions.” The HAMP program, according to Luhby, “lowers monthly payments to 31% of pre-tax income.” Luhby’s surprise stems from her assertion that: “Banks have long come under fire not doing enough to help troubled homeowners, particularly when the mortgage crisis started spinning out of control in 2007. Many loan servicers initially addressed the problem by tacking on the missed payments, which only increased strapped homeowners’ monthly burden.” So banks were at fault for operating on the creditor-debtor model that has existed almost since there’s been money: a creditor provides a loan expecting repayment plus (reasonable) interest; a debtor repays according to a set schedule, and failure to pay brings penalties or foreclosure. However, market conditions changed and banks have changed with them. As Luhby wrote, “Banks have realized that foreclosing on home after home after home may not be in anyone’s best interest – least of all their own.”  But banks aren’t off CNN’s hook, since they still are trying to get the most favorable terms for the business that they can. “Before homeowners rejoice, they should take a close look at the terms of their bank modification offers, consumer advocates say. Many may not be as good as HAMP, which lowers monthly payments to 31% of pre-tax income.” Luhby had no trouble finding mortgagee to complain about a proprietary modification. Ida Ward, an Atlanta middle school teacher, had her monthly payment cut nearly in half in a HAMP trial modification. When she received her permanent modification from Chase, the reduction was about half as much as under HAMP. “‘These banks should be ashamed of the terms that they are giving to borrowers,’ said Ward, who said she had no choice but to accept the offer. ‘The loan modification process is flawed and deceptive to borrowers.’” No mention in the article of the “flawed and deceptive” loan origination process that put borrowers in homes they couldn’t afford, or the shame of borrowers who can’t meet the terms they agreed to when they contracted with the bank.

Go here to see the original:
Shock at CNN: Banks Doing More than Obama for Homeowners

Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post Twisting Words of Julian Assange’s Son Daniel Assange

Looks like producers for Dr. Phil and Montel might be waiting awhile if they think they have a celebrity dad-hating story in the making. Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post seemed to have obtained a scoop yesterday rising to the level of Dr. Evil/Scott Evil proportions, excerpting a FaceBook quote from Daniel Assange, 20, that appeared on its face to fuel the growing personal attacks against his father, embattled WikiLeaks founder and director, Julian Assange: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s own son thinks he’s a nightmare when it comes to women. “That man does have a way of making a lot of female enemies,” Daniel Assange, 21, said about his embattled dad. Daniel made the Facebook posting after two Swedish women came forward with allegations that led to rape and molestation charges against his dad. Daniel also wondered about his father’s claim that the accusations were part of a Pentagon “smear campaign.” “Interesting to see whether this is the result of a government plot or personal grudges,” he wrote. But later on Friday, Daniel, under the moniker Somnidea on a website called The Sleepy Lammata lashed out at the newspaper, calling the story “godawful sensational tripe”: I’d just like to note here that the comments in question were very tongue-in-cheek and never intended to be made public like this, much less support the conclusions of the article. The NYP did not interview me or otherwise attain my consent in any way for their publication. I have much respect for my father and his cause, and these ridiculously ill-handled allegations of sexual abuse serve only to distract from the audacious awesomeness that he has actually done. added by: toyotabedzrock

Networks Skim Over White House Oil Claim: ‘Vast Majority’ of Spill is Gone

A president with close ties to an oil company helping hide the magnitude and damage of an oil spill would be big news, if he were a conservative. But it seems even when the environmentalists and the left are upset over President Obama’s handling of the Gulf oil spill, the national news media barely notice. On Aug. 4, Obama administration energy adviser Carol Browner said, “The vast majority of the oil has been contained, it’s been burned, it’s been cleaned.” Officials said that 75 percent of the oil had been “captured, burned off, evaporated or broken down in the Gulf of Mexico,” according to CBSNews.com. That night two of the three network evening shows reported the widely disputed claim without question. Only NBC “Nightly News” included any people skeptical of the White House claim. The networks have only aired a few reports about scientists disputing the claim, and have ignored liberal outrage. “[T]onight on these beaches some good news and relief,” Matt Gutman told “World News” viewers. “A new government report says that 75 percent of that oil has been cleaned up either by man or Mother Nature. And it now seems this war against this oil is coming to an end.” Gutman’s report on the success of the oil cleanup included President Obama and Browner, but not a single person who disagreed with the White House claim. The Boston Globe reported Aug. 20, that Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution mapped a 22-mile-long underwater oil plume back in June. Other scientists at University of Georgia estimate that 70 to 79 percent of the oil from the leak remains, contrary to the White House assertion. Even if 75 percent of the oil had disappeared, the White House comments made it sound like the remaining problem is a small one – but one-fourth of the total spill would still be 53.5 million gallons of oil. CBSNews.com said that is more than four times greater than the Exxon Valdez spill. But rather than criticize Obama, CBS “Evening News” took the opportunity to subtly attack the previous president. On Aug. 4, Katie Couric teased Mark Strassmann’s report saying, “The White House made it clear today it is not declaring ‘Mission Accomplished’ yet in the Gulf of Mexico.” Strassmann followed her remarks with his story about the static kill operation to seal the well and cited the government report that “most of what has leaked, an estimated 205 million gallons, has vanished.” CBS included two Coast Guard official quotes including Admiral Thad Allen’s. Networks Ignore Left-Wing Anger over Oil Spill, Barely Include Skeptics Many people – even those on the left – have criticized the administration for its handling of the Gulf disaster. And now some of them are calling the White House’s 75 percent oil cleanup claim untrue. Left-wing news blog, The Huffington Post, called it a ” public relations coup ” for the White House, and characterized it as spin. Liberal filmmaker Spike Lee called the oil cleanup claim a “lie” and called for journalists to find the real story in an Aug. 7 meeting of the Television Critics Association. Politicians on both sides of the aisle argued the announcement came too early. On Aug. 19, Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., called Obama’s announcement premature and warned that it could be wrong. Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., also criticized the administration for “another in a long line of examples where the White House’s pre-occupation with the public relations of the oil spill has superseded the realities on the ground.” A Yahoo News blog reported that the White House and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) haven’t released the data that supposedly proves their claim. “Two weeks after it touted a report painting a rosy picture in the Gulf of Mexico in the wake of the BP oil disaster, the federal government has yet to release any of the supporting data used to reach its conclusions,” Brett Michael Dykes wrote for Yahoo. Dykes also mentioned a new scientific study from researchers at the University of Georgia who found almost the opposite: that up to 79 percent of the oil is still in the Gulf. Those researchers warned that massive plumes of oil remain in deep water. In fact, scientists at the prestigious Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution published a peer-reviewed study in Science describing their June discovery of a hydrocarbon plume roughly the size of Manhattan , more than 3,000 feet below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico. On Aug. 19, CBS “Evening News” and NBC “Nightly News” used a meager 180 words combined to mention Woods Hole’s findings of that huge plume. According to Nexis, since the White House made its claim on Aug. 4, the network morning and evening shows have aired 61 stories mentioning the oil spill. But only six reports on the broadcast morning and evening news shows included anyone skeptical of the assertion (Gulf fishermen, scientists or others). A couple of additional stories mentioned doubt about the numbers, but without quoting sources. Obama Claims to be Running Oil Cleanup, Media Blame BP for Lack of Press Freedom From beginning to end, networks coverage of the oil spill has been more like cover for the Obama administration than serious reporting. ABC, CBS and NBC started by failing to scrutinize the administration’s response to the BP spill for four weeks . Then they ignored the federal fingerprints on the lack of press access to the oil spill area, even when CBS reporters were ordered away from a soiled beach by Coast Guard and BP contractors. After the oil spill, many news outlets complained about lack of access for reporting the oil spill CBS, Associated Press, Mother Jones and The Times-Picayune all claimed that local and federal authorities and British Petroleum workers inhibited their reporting. But even with Obama’s history of managing the press, the media blamed BP almost entirely. Mother Jones, a left-wing magazine, called it a “corporate blockade at Louisiana’s crude-covered beaches.” “It’s a running joke among the journalists covering the story that the words ‘Coast Guard’ affixed to any vehicle, vessel, or plane should be prefixed with ‘BP,'” Charlie Varley told Newsweek. “It would be funny if it were not so serious.” It’s also not funny that many in the news media and on the left would rather blame BP for controlling federal agencies like the U.S. Coast Guard and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) than recognize the similarities between limited media access in the Gulf and Obama’s previous actions controlling the press. Obama also has a long-standing pattern of micromanaging press coverage, sometimes to the point of blocking access. So when many reporters were complaining of access problems, it was surprising how little blame had been directed at the administration. During the campaign, Obama had three reporters from publications that had endorsed John McCain kicked off his plane. Since then he has openly attacked his detractors (including Rush Limbaugh) and was once criticized by a couple reporters (Chip Reid and Helen Thomas) for stage managing a town hall meeting. Another reason to think the White House was blocking the press is that they claimed to be calling the shots for the Gulf clean up. Browner said on “Meet the Press” May 30, “the government’s been in control from the beginning … don’t make any mistake here, the government is in charge.” ( Watch video ) Obama told AP the same thing, saying that BP had to get permission from Washington for all the clean up. So it stands to reason that the White House wouldn’t have trouble telling BP to allow the media unfettered access to report on the oil spill if it wanted to. Like this article? Then sign up for our newsletter, The Balance Sheet .

Original post:
Networks Skim Over White House Oil Claim: ‘Vast Majority’ of Spill is Gone

Welcome to American Politics, Tea Party. You have now officially arrived.

After turning the crank on my soon-to-expire laptop 3 times, my computer finally caught first gear and made past the blue zone to my cluttered laptop. Within seconds, like it does every day, Yahoo! Messenger blasted me with what it thinks is news. Simultaneously, my taskbar lit up with blue rectangles, half from conversations I didn't properly end yesterday; half from my college buddies clamoring to square away plans for this weekend's Fantasy Football draft. I was already behind. So when I went to close them all with a single click, you could imagine my surprise when I saw that there was actually a meaningful article sandwiched between a story about the Best Pancakes in the U.S. and the latest installment of Tigergate. “Message in GOP victories: Primaries reveal tea party weakness” Aside from being instantly irritated with the lack of proper grammar (all of us that were paying attention in 2nd grade know Tea Party is a proper noun and should be capitalized) the title was enough to entice me to want to know what the other guys were up to given the result of yesterdays elections. Maybe it is the cynic in me, but I really never gave any of these guys a legitimate shot. Wyoming, Utah and Idaho, aside. I am not sure if it is in the water, or just because they are so insignificant, but crazy grows wild in those isolated regions. But after suffering though the badly written prose, I couldn't help but think, “This is gonna sting come November.” I know this for a fact. I know this because, as a Liberal Democrat, I have been voting the lesser of 2 evils for years; while Republicans – my mortal enemies – have been unified under one elephant. I realize that Ross Perot helped split the vote in favor of the good guys in '92 and '96. And, I am still sincerely grateful. But comparing the commonsensical Texan, to the racist and bigoted followers of Palin and Beck, is not only unfair, it is just plain wrong. So even though the real story in this story never actually made it into the article, come November, Tea Party supporters will actually have – gasp – something in common with me. They will have to vote for the candidate they don't really want to not get the candidate they really don't want. Welcome to American Politics, Tea Party. You have now officially arrived. added by: greendiggler

A Day After ABC Highlighted Sarah Palin’s Political ‘Losing Streak,’ Her Candidate Closes in on Stunning Win

A day after highlighting Sarah Palin’s political “losing streak,” Good Morning America’s Jon Karl on Wednesday  acknowledged the stunning turn in Alaska’s Senatorial primary race: “But Joe Miller is a Tea Party candidate who had Sarah Palin’s support. He, now, is ahead.” Karl on Wednedsay didn’t mention anything about the former governor’s “losing streak” ending. Instead, co-host Robin Roberts spun the results as a “GOP family feud.” She also questioned the effectiveness of the grass roots organization, wondering, ” So, is the Tea Party getting stronger?Weaker? ” (Roberts’ evidence was John McCain’s victory in Arizona. However, he, too, was supported by Palin.) On Tuesday, Karl highlighted: “But, lately, Palin’s been on a losing streak. Over the last five weeks, Palin-endorsed candidates have lost in Georgia, Tennessee, Kansas, Colorado and Washington State. Palin’s candidate in Alaska is a hard-line Tea Party conservative.” He also made sure to point out, “Miller has also been known to attract assault weapon-baring weapon supporters at his political rallies.” On Wednesday, Karl acknowledged, “And look at what Sarah Palin tweeted just a little while ago. Clearly giddy about the results so far, she said, ‘Keeping fingers crossed, powder dry, prayers upward.'” A transcript of the August 25 segment, which aired at 7:02am EDT, follows: DAVID MUIR: And this morning, primary shakeup. Sarah Palin and the tea party rally in Alaska. Threatening a long-time senator. But the establishment prevails in Arizona as John McCain cinches another nomination. We have overnight results coming in. 7:01 MUIR: Just coming in, these results from overnight. And a real split decision for the voters. ROBIN ROBERTS: Yeah. And we’re also seeing that it’s being described as a GOP family feud , looking at the results. As Republicans fight over Sarah Palin’s Tea Party candidates. And nothing highlights the internal battle more than Tuesday’s primary in Alaska where the Tea Party support led to a stunningly tight race. But, in Arizona, you see, anti-Tea Party sentiment led to a sweeping loss. So, is the Tea Party getting stronger? Weaker? We’re going to take a closer look. 7:02 ROBERTS: But, we begin with results in Tuesday’s key primaries. In Alaska, Lisa Murkowski struggled to keep her job in a tight race with Tea Party candidate Joe Miller. Backed by Sarah Palin, he was. In Arizona, Senator John McCain easily won renomination against another tea party candidate, J.D. Hayworth. And in a Democratic race in Florida, Representative Kendrick Meek beat newcomer Jeff Greene. So, what does it all mean? Well, senior congressional correspondent Jonathan Karl joins us now with more from Washington. And, Jon, a lot of eyes still on that race in Alaska this morning. Very tight. KARL: Robin, this is the story of the day. It’s still way too close to call. But we may be witnessing a colossal upset in the making. Lisa Murkowski is a member of the Republican leadership in the Senate. She was supported by virtually the entire Republican establishment. Had way more money. But Joe Miller is a Tea Party candidate who had Sarah Palin’s support. He, now, is ahead. But this may take weeks to actually count. And look at what Sarah Palin tweeted just a little while ago. Clearly giddy about the results so far, she said, “Keeping fingers crossed, powder dry, prayers upward. But Joe Miller just tweeted, ‘What’s moose hunting like inside the beltway?'” ROBERTS: Stay tuned. All right. That’s the situation right now in Alaska. In Arizona, no real surprise that John McCain was renominated. Though he had to spend $21 million in this campaign, which is more than all of his previous Senate races combined, going back to 1986. But the real surprise here is Ben Quayle, the son of Dan Quayle, going for a congressional seat. And he was very aggressive in his ad campaign. Take a look, Jon. BEN QUAYLE: Barack Obama is the worst president in history. ROBERTS: Very strong tactics that seemed to work, Jon. KARL: It sure did. He was really behind going into this. And he was attacked for allegedly contributing to a pornographic website. But the other thing in that race, Robin, is that his parents, Dan and Marilyn Quayle, in the home stretch, came to his aid. Sending out letters to supporters. Defending his honor. Defending his integrity. ROBERTS: Yeah. They were hot under the collar about that. All right. One more race to talk about. Down in Florida, surprises there, too, Jon. KARL: Yeah. And the big thing there is you had Kendrick Meek, Democratic congressman, decisively win the nomination to run for Senate, beating back a multimillionaire named Jeff Greene, who had vastly outspent him. But, now, you’re going to see one of the marquee, most important, toughest, expensive Senate races in the country, in Florida, that will pit Meek, against Republican Marco Rubio, and former Republican, now independent, Governor Charlie Crist. That’s going to be a big race.

See the original post here:
A Day After ABC Highlighted Sarah Palin’s Political ‘Losing Streak,’ Her Candidate Closes in on Stunning Win

NYT Accuses Mosque Protesters of Fomenting Muslim Extremism, Reveals Own Manhattan-Centric Snobbery

Still more slanted coverage in the New York Times of the controversy over a proposed mosque at Ground Zero: First in Saturday’s story by intelligence reporter Scott Shane, fretting that public opposition voiced to the speedy approval and building of a giant Islamic cultural center topped by a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero would somehow make radical Muslim extremists, who despise the very existence of America, hate the U.S. even more: ” Anti-Islam Protest in U.S. Bolsters Extremists, Experts Say ” (Note: This article was compiled from three separate articles prepared for Times Watch ). Some counterterrorism experts say the anti-Muslim sentiment that has saturated the airwaves and blogs in the debate over plans for an Islamic center near ground zero in Lower Manhattan is playing into the hands of extremists by bolstering their claims that the United States is hostile to Islam. Opposition to the center by prominent politicians and other public figures in the United States has been covered extensively by the news media in Muslim countries. At a time of concern about radicalization of young Muslims in the West, it risks adding new fuel to Al Qaeda’s claim that Islam is under attack by the West and must be defended with violence, some specialists on Islamic militancy say. For confirmation of his slanted premise, Shane went to an unlabeled center-left policy group, New America Foundation. “I know people in this debate don’t intend it, but there are consequences for these kinds of remarks,” said Brian Fishman, who studies terrorism for the New America Foundation here. He said that Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born cleric hiding in Yemen who has been linked to several terrorist plots, has been arguing for months in Web speeches and in a new Qaeda magazine that American Muslims face a dark future of ever-worsening discrimination and vilification. “When the rhetoric is so inflammatory that it serves the interests of a jihadi recruiter like Awlaki, politicians need to be called on it,” Mr. Fishman said. Shane even suggested former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was fomenting radicalism with his opposition to the mosque: Mr. Gingrich, the former House speaker and a potential 2012 presidential candidate, said in a Fox News interview that “Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust museum in Washington,” a comment that drew criticism for appearing to equate those proposing the Islamic center with Nazis. Asked about the view that such remarks could fuel radicalism , Mr. Gingrich sent an e-mail response on Friday that did not directly address his critics but said that “Americans must learn to tell the truth about radical Islamists while being supportive of and inclusive of moderate Muslims who live in the modern world, respect women’s rights, reject medieval punishment and defend American laws and the American Constitution.” He added that he believed “it is possible to be a deeply religious Muslim and a patriotic American.” Sigh. What doesn’t “fuel radicalism” these days, in the view of America-bashers? Besides, Gingrich isn’t the only prominent political name to come out against the project — several Democrats have as well. Yet the Times has made only muted acknowledgment of the inconvenient fact that prominent Democrats like New York Gov. David Paterson, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and former DNC chairman Howard Dean have come out against building the Islamic center so close to ground zero, with Dean calling it “a real affront to the people who lost their lives” on 9-11. Is Democrat Dean also “fueling radicalism”? Besides the knee-jerk fretting over “fueling radicalism,” there’s a healthy dose of Manhattan-centric snobbery in the paper’s attitude toward opponents of the mosque, who obviously have no clue about what’s really going on. About four minutes from the end of an August 19 ” Political Points ” podcast at nytimes.com, reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg took up discussion of the controversial plan to build a mosque near Ground Zero, explaining how the hicks in the sticks who disapprove of the plan, don’t know what’s going on, unlike sophisticated Manhattanites (who actually may not like it much either). Stolberg: “Here’s another reason for the disconnect. I think, in New York, especially in Manhattan, people realize that Muslims live and work in Lower Manhattan , in the area where they’re seeking to build this mosque and community center, which would also include a fitness center where young people could play basketball or swim or what have you. Out in the country, the news coverage has not been as intense, there are fewer details and it allows for the debate to be reduced to its essence, boiled down to a few words: Mosque at Ground Zero. And those words have become inflammatory around the country and I think the nuances is somewhat lost, frankly.” And a Tuesday column by metro writer Clyde Haberman in support (naturally) of the mosque included this unpleasant nativist sniffing: Obscured in the fog of this culture war are a few New York realities, perhaps not fully appreciated by outsiders like Mr. Gingrich of Georgia or Sarah Palin of Alaska . Two blocks may seem like nothing to a non-New Yorker. But anyone who lives or works in Manhattan knows that this distance can be significant. Two blocks is equivalent to several miles in other cities or in the suburbs. Your dry cleaner moves two blocks, and it’s so long, pal. He’ll never see you again. He might as well have relocated to Yonkers.

Read the original here:
NYT Accuses Mosque Protesters of Fomenting Muslim Extremism, Reveals Own Manhattan-Centric Snobbery

Venezuela, more deadly than Iraq

CARACAS, Venezuela — Some here joke that they might be safer if they lived in Baghdad. The numbers bear them out. In Iraq, a country with about the same population as Venezuela, there were 4,644 civilian deaths from violence in 2009, according to Iraq Body Count; in Venezuela that year, the number of murders climbed above 16,000. Even Mexico’s infamous drug war has claimed fewer lives. Venezuelans have absorbed such grim statistics for years. Those with means have hidden their homes behind walls and hired foreign security experts to advise them on how to avoid kidnappings and killings. And rich and poor alike have resigned themselves to living with a murder rate that the opposition says remains low on the list of the government’s priorities. Then a front-page photograph in a leading independent newspaper — and the government’s reaction — shocked the nation, and rekindled public debate over violent crime. The photo in the paper, El Nacional, is unquestionably gory. It shows a dozen homicide victims strewn about the city’s largest morgue, just a sample of an unusually anarchic two-day stretch in this already perilous place. While many Venezuelans saw the picture as a sober reminder of their vulnerability and a chance to effect change, the government took a different stand. A court ordered the paper to stop publishing images of violence, as if that would quiet growing questions about why the government — despite proclaiming a revolution that heralds socialist values — has been unable to close the dangerous gap between rich and poor and make the country’s streets safer. “Forget the hundreds of children who die from stray bullets, or the kids who go through the horror of seeing their parents or older siblings killed before their eyes,” said Teodoro Petkoff, the editor of another newspaper here, mocking the court’s decision in a front-page editorial. “Their problem is the photograph.” Venezuela is struggling with a decade-long surge in homicides, with about 118,541 since President Hugo Ch

WaPo, Editorially a Proponent of Church/State Separation, Worries About Too Few Muslim Chaplains in Va. Prisons

Those familiar with the Washington Post know that the paper is a staunch defender of a very liberal vision of the separation of church and state. For example, the paper’s editorial board was heavily critical of the Supreme Court’s Mojave cross ruling. But when it comes to the supposed dearth of Muslim chaplains at Virginia prisons, Sunday’s Metro section went into full hand-wringing mode. “Inadequate Funds for Chaplains,” complained a subheader for the page B1 story by staffer Kevin Sieff. “In Va., most money goes to Protestant clergy,” another subheadline for the story “Support limited for Muslims in prison”* lamented. Of course, it wasn’t until paragraph 27 that Sieff noted that “[n]either Catholic nor Jewish chaplains have sought funding from corrections officials.” As Sieff explained early in his article, “a 200-year-old interpretation of the state constitution… bars Virginia from doing any faith-based hiring” and “is the only state where prison chaplains are contractors, not state employees.” Sure, “Muslim chaplains could visit correctional facilities to minister to Virginia’s 32,000 inmates,” Sieff explained, “but they received no funds from the state” until a $25,000 grant was given to Muslim Chaplain Services of Virginia last July. “The department [of corrections] has been living in the past. No other state in the country is so far behind the curve,” Sieff quoted the lament of one Larry Coleman of the American Correctional Chaplains Association. Yet nowhere in his 43-paragraph article did Sieff quote a defender of the Old Dominion’s approach to prison chaplaincies. What’s more, Sieff presented Virginia policy as an unwitting accomplice in homegrown terrorism. “In the absence of qualified Muslim religious service providers, inmates can become attracted to radical views and the politico-religious messages coming from other inmates,” Sieff quoted from a study by terrorism experts at George Washington University and the University of Virginia.  Of course, volunteer Muslim chaplains who are not on the state payroll may have more credibility as a moderating influence on Muslim inmates than those who may be seen as government stooges by virtue of their affiliation with the state, but Sieff failed to find anyone who would argue that point.  *The online version’s headline is slightly different, “Limited  spiritual support in Virginia prisons as number of Muslim inmates grows”

See original here:
WaPo, Editorially a Proponent of Church/State Separation, Worries About Too Few Muslim Chaplains in Va. Prisons