Tag Archives: media

ABC’s George Stephanopoulos: Will GOP Landslide Be a ‘Blessing in Disguise’ for Obama?

Good Morning America’s George Stephanopoulos on Tuesday tried to find the upside to a possible Democratic landslide in November. Talking to Fox News host Bill O’Reilly, he wondered if major Republican gains could be ” a blessing in disguise for President Obama. ” [Audio available here .] Stephanopoulos touted the historical model of Bill Clinton losing the Congress in 1994, but being reelected in 1996.The host, who was a senior advisor to Clinton when the Republicans won the Senate and House in 1994, didn’t seem very happy at the time. In his book, All Too Human, he recounted with gloom: ” Our nemesis Newt Gingrich was now Speaker– two heartbeats from the White House. If Clinton really were a prime minister, he’d have been out of a job. ” [Page 322. Emphasis added] O’Reilly dismissed the comparison: “It’s a different world…Bill Clinton was like Martin Van Buren, I mean, as far as the media’s concerned. This is a hyper medium. Everything is blown up the second it happens on the internet and cable.” At one point during the interview, O’Reilly derided the President’s plan to let tax cuts for upper income groups expire as “class warfare.” He pressed the ABC host, “Would you agree with that?” The ABC journalist unsurprisingly quipped, “Not necessarily.” After O’Reilly described a tax rate of 40 percent as too high, the argumentative Stephanopoulos asserted, “That’s what the rates were under Reagan and people did pretty well.” (Of course, the top marginal tax rates under Reagan were actually going down, a point Stephanopoulos ignored.) A transcript of the September 14 segment, which aired at 7:08am EDT, follows: GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: For more now, we’re joined live by the host of The O’Reilly Factor on Fox News, Bill O’Reilly. Also has a brand new book: Pinheads and Patriots: Where You Stand in the Age of Obama. Welcome back. BILL O’REILLY: Hey, George. How are you? STEPHANOPOULOS: I’m doing great. Thank you. O’REILLY: George never looks tired in the morning. Can you get a close-up of George? STEPHANOPOULOS: Not too close. O’REILLY: Eight o’clock at night. Here’s George. STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, you’re my bedtime TV watching. I go to bed early. O’REILLY: I appreciate that. STEPHANOPOULOS: I want to talk about the book. Let’s get into the tax fight first. Because, I was struck by the Wall Street Journal this morning. They think that John Boehner, the Republican leader made a big bungle on Sunday when he said he would vote for the extension of middle-class tax cuts, even if all the tax cuts weren’t extended. O’REILLY: Well, I think he was caught in the tanning bed in the salon and he didn’t really hear what was going on. Look, the whole thing is class warfare. Would you agree with that? I mean- STEPHANOPOULOS: Not necessarily. But, go ahead. O’REILLY: No? But, really though, what the President is selling is he’s saying the upper tier are going to have to be responsible for the tax revenue, primarily. And the other people will get a tax cut. He’s saying, “Look. I don’t care about these people, who earn a lot of money. But, you know, I want to help you.” I think that’s class warfare. STEPHANOPOULOS: He’s saying we can’t afford it. He’s saying there’s $700 billion in costs there that we can’t afford. That’s his argument. O’REILLY: Yeah. And who imposed those costs? STEPHANOPOULOS: Who did? O’REILLY: George? He did. So, you know, look. I think 35 percent to the government is a fair deal. I think it is. And then, if you get over 40, which is where he wants to put it, that’s kind of punishing people. So, I don’t buy the tax cuts for the rich. STEPHANOPOULOS: No. That’s what the rates were under Reagan and people did pretty well . O’REILLY: Look, I don’t care whether it was under Reagan or George Washington. All right? I work hard for my money. Do I want to fork over 40 percent over to the feds and then pay property taxes and sales taxes and every other tax in the world? Come on. STEPHANOPOULOS: What do you think is going to happen? O’REILLY: I don’t know. You know, look, it’s going to be another brawl. Republicans will stretch it out just because they want to create, the Republicans do, an image of chaos for November. They want to say that President Obama just can’t govern. That’s what the end game is. STEPHANOPOULOS: How about these midterm elections? We’re seeing, a lot of these states, the Tea Party on the rise, on offense again. You write about the Tea Party in your book. You say- unfortunately, I hope we can put it up right now- “Unfortunately, some Tea Party people play into the bogus far-right stereotype by demonizing President Obama in crude ways. I admire what the President has accomplished in his life. Please, don’t tell Rush Limbaugh. And how he overcame a childhood that could have ruined him.” So, do you think on balance the Tea Party has been a net plus or a minus? O’REILLY: Well, there’s two separations. I say in Pinheads and Patriots that the Tea Party, primarily, patriots because they tell people what they believe and get involved. That’s patriotic. I don’t care, really, what your ideology is. If you’re out there, and you’re sincere and telling people this is the way I’m see my country and I want to improve it, you’re a patriot. Whether, you’re a liberal, a Tea Party person, whatever. Okay? However, if the Tea Party people basically attack President Obama personally, that diminishes their movement. STEPHANOPOULOS: You say, stick to policy. O’REILLY: If they say he’s a Muslim. If they say he was born in, where, Indonesia. This really hurts their overall message of “Get off our back.” The Tea Party message is “Get off our back.” That’s a good message. I mean, I don’t want the feds on my back. I don’t want them in my living room, George. STEPHANOPOULOS: That message has toppled some Republican establishment candidates. Bob Bennett. O’REILLY: Who are deemed to be wishy washy on that. Look, the tea party is a simple movement. They want local control. They want the feds not to have as much power. Whereas, President Obama wants this huge federal apparatus. That’s a good debate. STEPHANOPOULOS: Bottom line, do you think Republicans are going to take control of Congress? And if they do, is that a blessing in disguise for President Obama? O’REILLY: I have no idea. I don’t really do the party politics thing. Morris over- Dick Morris. He thinks they will. But he’s got, you know, he’s rooting for them. But I’ll tell you what. President Obama has got a leadership problem right now. He has got a leadership problem. If he gets whacked, if he loses the House, that’s going to get worse. This is a huge election for President Obama himself. He has a leadership problem. STEPHANOPOULOS: So, you think if he loses, that spells trouble for him in 2012? O’REILLY: Of course. STEPHANOPOULOS: Not the opposite, where for Bill Clinton lost in ’94, the Congress, it actually helped him. O’REILLY: It’s a different world. It’s a hyper world now. Bill Clinton was like Martin Van Buren, I mean, as far as the media’s concerned. This is a hyper medium. Everything is blown up the second it happens on the internet and cable. So, it’s no longer those rules. And the perception gets out there much quicker than it did. STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, you’ve been weighing in on the controversy over the Islamic center sown at Ground Zero. I was struck yesterday that the imam, Imam Rauf, went to the Council on Foreign Relations, seemed to back off a bit. Said that all options are open. He may even consider moving it. O’REILLY: Did you see the Factor’s exclusive last night? STEPHANOPOULOS: I did. O’REILLY: Rauf is now tied in with this Kahn who is a Truther. STEPHANOPOULOS: But, there’s no evidence that Rauf believes anything like that. O’REILLY: It doesn’t matter. It’s his pal! His pal! STEPHANOPOULOS: They served on a board together. O’REILLY: He’s formed the Muslim organization with him. And the guy, Khan, has been talking down at the Burlington Coat Factory building. I don’t know whether he got a free suit. But, this guy, Khan, says that al Qaeda didn’t do it. And Rauf goes in and says I’m a man of peace. He may be. But who are you hanging around with? And then when we asked Rauf for a comment, he runs and hides. STEPHANOPOULOS: We’re going to talk to him as well at some point.

Originally posted here:
ABC’s George Stephanopoulos: Will GOP Landslide Be a ‘Blessing in Disguise’ for Obama?

Maher: ‘I’m Against a Church Anywhere’

Comedian Bill Maher took his anti-religion, anti-conservative views off HBO and into the mainstream Sept. 13 during an appearance on NBC’s “Tonight Show.” Maher told host Jay Leno he’s against the Ground Zero Mosque, because he’s “against a mosque anywhere. I’m against a church anywhere, or a Hindu temple or a synagogue.” Maher declared that houses of worship are “places that people go to retell nonsense stories from a time before men understood what a germ or an atom was, or where the sun went at night. They try to telepathically communicate with their imaginary friend. These are places that fleece people, and scare people and they perpetuate mass delusion. We shouldn’t build any of them.” But Maher conceded that because the First Amendment protects freedom of religion, “they should be able to build them anywhere.” He also attacked conservatives and Sarah Palin, calling her an “evil dingbat.” Maher, 54, referred to the Tea Party as “the Pee Party,” describing members as “nativist bed-wetters who somehow control our national dialogue.” “They’re just, they’re afraid of a mosque being built inNew York,” he said. “They’re afraid of guns. You know, they think Obama, who like every other pussy Democrat, has never said a single word about gun control, but they’re very sure that he, he and his negro army are coming after, coming after their guns. You know what? If you think he’s coming after your guns, you need to get out of your chat room, and have your house tested for lead. He’s not coming after your guns or your Bible or your fishing pole or your chewing tobacco and there’s not a monster under your bed. That’s the ab lounger you ordered and never used.” Maher did acknowledge one difference between Christians and Muslims many in the media overlook. “They have nuts and we have nuts,” Maher said, talking about Muslims and presumably non-Muslims. “Their nuts are a lot more numerous and lot more violent. That mouth breather down inFlorida who was going to burn a Koran, what would have happened? Nothing. To retaliate, you know, they could have burned our most sacred book, ‘Eat, Pray, Love.;” No, they could have burned the Bible and nothing would have happened, okay? So you have to recognize that difference, too.”

Kanye West Is Singing About Himself In ‘Runaway,’ Fans Say

MTV News asks Jay-Z and Eminem fans at Yankee Stadium what they thought of ‘Ye’s VMA performance. By Mawuse Ziegbe Kanye West performs during the 2010 MTV Video Music Awards Photo: Kevin Winter/Getty Images NEW YORK — Kanye West drops some choice insults in his latest song, which he debuted at Sunday’s MTV Video Music Awards . “I always find, yeah, I always find something wrong/ You been putting up with my sh– just way too long/ I’m so gifted at finding what I don’t like the most/ So I think it’s time for us to have a toast,” ‘Ye rhymes in “Runaway.” “Let’s have a toast for the douche bags!/ Let’s have a toast for the a–holes!/ Let’s have a toast for the scumbags!” The chorus has nods to an array of “bags,” however, fans believe the MC is, in a very un-hip-hop move, taking swipes at himself. MTV News caught up with a bunch of hip-hop heads at Jay-Z and Eminem’s Home and Home Tour stop at Yankee Stadium on Monday night (September 13), and many felt that Jigga’s “little brother” was using the track to air out his insecurities. “That was a funny song,” Steve Bananti said. “I liked the song a lot. It was good. I feel like he was making fun of himself.” Jamal Hairston said Yeezy’s lyrics reference “the stuff that he does” including the Taylor Swift 2009 VMA controversy . “I don’t think he was trying to insult [Swift]. I think it was self-deprecating. He was maybe talking about himself,” Hairston said, adding that the track is “a toast for the people who mess up.” “[He’s] trying to find some redemption, maybe.” Brian Bennett, who didn’t like the track, said ‘Ye was simply dropping insults for shock value. “I just thought that he was trying to get the crowd going crazy because he said the word ‘douche bag,’ ” he said. “I just feel like he was trying to get the crowd stirred.” Todd Read said he wasn’t feeling the track at first but might get into it after a few listens. “I’m a big Kanye fan but … I gotta hear the track un-performed. Maybe I’ll like it then. His music grows on me like that,” he said. Read, however, did enjoy West’s performance: “I liked to see him playing with the MPC and everything. I see he’s bringing it back to the real hip-hop roots, so I appreciated that.” Christian Contreras agreed that ‘Ye’s VMA set, which was low on props but big on impact, was another singular moment from the Chicago superstar. “I actually liked the song. I [liked] the whole performance; it was different. It’s definitely something that I wasn’t expecting, but Kanye always comes out of left field with everything,” he said. “The little toast to the douche bags, it’s cool.” Contreras speculated that ‘Ye’s track was not merely about how he feels, but rather how he’s been perceived by the media and fans alike. “All those names that he said — douche bag, a–hole, all that stuff — people have actually made that connection with him,” he observed. “I’m sure he got those names called to him a couple times. Maybe it was a little stab to the industry, talking about himself and how he’s changed.” What do you think Kanye West’s new song is about? Let us know in the comments! The Moonmen have all been handed out and the stars have gone home, but there’s plenty of MTV Video Music Awards news, interviews, behind-the-scenes scoop, party reports and more still to come, so keep it locked on MTVNews.com. Related Videos VMA 2010: Performances VMA 2010: Most Talked About Moments Related Photos VMA 2010: Performers Related Artists Kanye West

Read more here:
Kanye West Is Singing About Himself In ‘Runaway,’ Fans Say

Trashing the Cat: Security Camera Theatre

The problem with the video of this seemingly harmless London woman trashing an equal harmless cat is that there's no sound to give us context. Thankfully, the cast of infoMania is here to tell you exactly how it all went down. infoMania is a half-hour satirical news show that airs on Current TV. The show puts a comedic spin on the 24-hour chaos and information overload brought about by the constant bombardment of the media. Hosted by Conor Knighton and co-starring Brett Erlich, Erin Gibson, Ben Hoffman, Bryan Safi and Sergio Cilli, the show airs on Thursdays at 10/9c on Current TV. Go to http://current.com/infomania for more, and make sure to check out our Facebook profile for special features at http://facebook.com/infomania . added by: infoMania

Windows Media Center Embedded walkthrough

By engadget

See more here:
Windows Media Center Embedded walkthrough

WaPo Implies U.S. ‘Islamophobia’ Emerges in a ‘Vacuum’ of Ignorance, Lack of Diversity

Washington Post religion reporter Michelle Boorstein is generally a careful reporter, not prone to outbursts of liberal bias. But the general liberal-media bias that ignorance breeds “Islamophobia” came through between the lines in a Monday story on the aftermath of the Koran-burning publicity stunt week in Florida:   In fact, like much of the country, Gainesville’s racial and religious diversity is minimal. Personal contact with Muslims is limited. Nationally, more than half of the respondents in a recent Pew poll said they knew little or nothing about Islam. In that vacuum, violence overseas in the name of Islam defines that faith for many. The implication is that truly learned people who have diverse human contacts have no logical reason to be concerned about the negative impact of Islam. (The story is not yet online.) It’s also a little odd to suggest that “violence overseas” defines negative views of Islam, when violence in the United States is more powerfully suggestive, from 9/11 to the Fort Hood shooting. There can be a great difference between questioning a mosque that seems peaceful and a mosque that spreads the “spiritual advice” of imams like Anwar al-Awlaki that inspires terrorism. But the Post and other media outlets can have trouble identifying which is which. What’s underplayed in stories about America’s tolerance of Islam is the question of how tolerant Islamic countries are of other faiths. Boorstein’s piece alluded near the beginning to how “more nuanced and franker conversations” are occurring after the Terry Jones stunt, such as “What was worse to see: churches torched in India or Nigeria or a few books in a remote exurban field?” That was the only sentence in the story that dared to imply that Islam is often not a tolerant faith when it dominates the state. Of course, it should seem somewhat obvious that if the public knows little about Islam, that perhaps might be the fault (in part) of the news media, which generally disdains covering religion except when something (or someone) blows up. For example, in a 2005 study of religion and the networks , Ken Shepherd and I found the networks couldn’t find the time to describe the theology behind the Sunni-Shi’ite “civil war” in Iraq:  “In all of their coverage of Iraq’s religious factions and their political aims, none of the broadcast networks ever gave a basic explanation of the key religious differences between these sects of the Islamic faith. For all their warning of impending civil war, they haven’t explained why their differences on matters of faith have proven a consistent source of conflict. ”

See the article here:
WaPo Implies U.S. ‘Islamophobia’ Emerges in a ‘Vacuum’ of Ignorance, Lack of Diversity

Dan Rather Smacks Down Entire Matthews Panel Over Media Hyping Koran Burning

Dan Rather this weekend smacked down the entire panel of the syndicated “Chris Matthews Show” over the press hyping Pastor Terry Jones’s threats to burn Korans on the ninth anniversary of 9/11. “Media in general bear some responsibility here by running so hard with this story so early and putting such comments as you just said not only on the air, but high on the air, giving it play,” Rather said. When everyone on the set – including Matthews, Katty Kay of the BBC, Andrea Mitchell of NBC, and David Ignatius of the Washington Post – disagreed with him, Rather pushed back, “We do have a responsibility, however you want to describe us, as gatekeepers.” He continued, “We could do a better job of putting it in perspective, putting it into context” (video follows with transcript and commentary):  DAN RATHER, HDNET: That’s a very important point. And let’s not forget here that the press, and it–media in general bear some responsibility here by running so hard with this story so early and putting such comments as you just said not only on the air, but high on the air, giving it play. We have a lot to answer for on this, as well, and I think we’ve all learned something out of this. You know, the message that–if we consider–if we allow it–the air to get out that we think all Muslims are enemies, then we’re going to have them all as enemies. We have to be very careful about that, and particularly this happening in the roll up to 9/11 when we should be in remembrance, in reverence and in resolve, to get caught up in this small thing, we’ve all got a lot to answer for. After some largely irrelevant discussion, Mitchell chose to disagree with Rather’s view:  ANDREA MITCHELL (NBC Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent): I was going to say that in this current atmosphere, the viral nature of this, the blogosphere, there’s almost no way to contain this kind of conflagration, even if it is one minor… CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: If the big networks… Ms. MITCHELL: …ridiculous…(unintelligible). MATTHEWS: …even if the big networks conspired together, which they don’t do, and you got together a meeting of four or five top people in the news organizations… Mr. RATHER: (Unintelligible) MATTHEWS: …that wouldn’t keep the kid with the cell phone from going down… KATTY KAY (BBC Washington Correspondent): They are hearing it out in Afghanistan. Ms. MITCHELL: We have to also remember… Ms. KAY: They are hearing it in Afghanistan and responding. Ms. MITCHELL: …the way it is perceived because overseas, there is no sense that well, there’s freedom of press, there’s a First Amendment, the president of the United States can’t order this man off the stage. MATTHEWS: What did you make of Maliki saying to the president of the United States, `You have to put out this fire’? Doesn’t he get it? Ms. MITCHELL: No. If he got it, we would have a government in Iraq six, seven months later. MATTHEWS: David, don’t they get the fact that the president of the United States, despite all the talk in this country about socialist dictatorship and all this, there’s an awful lot of freedom in this country. DAVID IGNATIUS (Columnist The Washington Post): That’s precisely what they don’t get. I mean, if President Mubarak was angry about somebody saying something… Ms. MITCHELL: Yeah. Mr. IGNATIUS: …that person would be in prison… Ms. KAY: Right. Mr. IGNATIUS: …the next–the next hour. Ms. KAY: And President Mubarak would never come out and say something. Mr. IGNATIUS: So, you know, people–I think that’s what–because around the world, if a president is unhappy about something, it stops. MATTHEWS: OK. Mr. IGNATIUS: And I think they had to show that that was the case here. You know, the point that–to the point that Dan was making, our ability to act as a gatekeeper, you know, in the big media networks, newspapers… Ms. MITCHELL: It’s over, right? Mr. IGNATIUS: …it’s over. Ms. MITCHELL: Right. Mr. IGNATIUS: I mean, this is a viral world. MITCHELL: Right. Mr. IGNATIUS: This got around not because the, you know, the big press churned it, but because it went out on the Internet. Ms. KAY: This, Chris, it does… Mr. RATHER: I agree with that, David, however, we do have a responsibility, however you want to describe us, as gatekeepers. We could do a better job of putting it in perspective, putting it into context. MATTHEWS: Yeah. Mr. RATHER: Raising questions of OK, there’s a lot of talk of what’s patriotism and what is not patriotism. Is this an anti-patriotic act? That can be a role that we can perform better. I quite agree, once it goes viral, nobody can even conspire to say let’s keep this thing down. Ms. KAY: And in a sense… MATTHEWS: First question to you… Mr. RATHER: But we can put it in context and perspective. Context and perspective indeed. For instance, how about reporting the rarity  of hate crimes against Muslims in this country. In the midst of this media campaign to summarily accuse Americans of being Islamophobic, how many so-called journalists referred to FBI statistics dispelling this notion? And how about making it clear that not only was Jones a fringe religious player in Florida, likely the overwhelming majority of Americans didn’t support what he was doing and wanted him not  to carry out his deplorable, attention-getting stunt? This certainly would have added some context and perspective if media would have done so with every report on this subject. Unfortunately, as Rather pointed out despite the protests from everyone else on the set, this wasn’t what happened last week. Not by a long shot.

Read the original post:
Dan Rather Smacks Down Entire Matthews Panel Over Media Hyping Koran Burning

In Search Of: People Of Color

For more than a year now, the mainstream media has demonized the Tea Party as a group of white racists. On September 12, 2010, we set out to see for ourselves if the Tea Party is as “monochromatic” as most of the media has steadfastly claimed to this day.

Go here to read the rest:
In Search Of: People Of Color

GLAAD Gets CNN Poll Spiked, Finds It ‘Troubling’ That an Opponent from MRC Allowed in CNN Story

The gay left hates debate – especially the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. They’re furious that CNN Headline News offered balance and came to the Media Research Center’s Culture and Media Institute for a negative opinion on homosexuality. That’s apparently beyond the pale. Mediaite reported that GLAAD succeeded in pressuring CNN into spiking an online poll that asked the question “Is the surge in gay TV characters ‘bad for society’?” On the GLAAD blog , Aaron McQuade found it was “troubling” for CNN to allow dissent: The report then goes on to give a troubling amount of airtime to anti-gay activist Dan Gainor from the Culture and Media Institute , who does believe that it’s “bad for society” to offer authentic depictions of the lives of LGBT people. He remarked that, “Hollywood has done a great deal of work causing acceptance in American culture for homosexuality.” Why would you object to this sentence? This happens to be as factual as asserting that the sky is blue. It also acknowledges GLAAD’s power to pressure Hollywood. The only answer is that Gainor seems to disapprove, and disapproval is not allowed. It’s a false “dualism” to allow debate: But CNN’s offensive poll and its attempts to manufacture controversy by granting a platform to so-called experts like Gainor follows an alarming trend of media outlets creating simplistic, predictable “pro-gay”/”anti-gay” dualisms that do a great disservice to viewers who are seeking information on the diversity of opinion and experience within our community. We will continue to challenge this type of coverage. That is, the “type of coverage” that allows anyone to disagree.

Here is the original post:
GLAAD Gets CNN Poll Spiked, Finds It ‘Troubling’ That an Opponent from MRC Allowed in CNN Story

Greed is Good by John Stossel

What do you guys think of this? I had to watch this in my economics class. added by: Jake_Leonard