Tag Archives: media

Alan Shadrake picture

British author Alan Shadrake speaks during the launch of his book “Once a Jolly Hangman” in Singapore July 17, 2010. Singapore police have arrested Shadrake on charges of criminal defamation and contempt of court, a day after he launched a book on death penalty in the city-state. The arrest was made pursuant to a report that was lodged by the government#39;s Media Development Authority on Friday, the Singapore police said in a statement. Photo taken on July 17, 2010. British writer Alan Shadrak

See original here:
Alan Shadrake picture

Media That Accused Fox of Shilling for Bush Yawn at Zuckerman’s Ties to Obama

Days after Mort Zuckerman, the Editor-in-Chief of U.S. News and World Report,  claimed to be close to President Obama’s advisors, the national media have yet to express any interest. Of the few outlets that mentioned it, the White House’s denial was taken as gospel truth, and no more investigation was apparently warranted. What a difference when the sitting president is a Democrat. Under the Bush Administration, the media were obsessed with linking the White House to Fox News in an effort to accuse Republicans of spreading propaganda. Yet now that U.S. News is linked to Obama, suddenly such allegations are quickly dimissed. For a taste of the double standard, observe two different reports from Politico. First is a post on Tuesday concerning Zuckerman: Real Estate and media mogul Mort Zuckerman raised eyebrows all over yesterday with the claim on Fox that he “helped write one of [Obama’s] speeches,” and his subsequent refusal to go into it right now. Among those with reason to be puzzled, a White House source tells me, were Obama’s speechwriters, Jon Favreau and Ben Rhodes. Neither “has ever met or spoken to Mort Zuckerman” and the two have “been closely involved in every speech the President has given since 2005,” said the official. Zuckerman has met President Obama a few times and no doubt encountered other Administration officials, and he could well have suggested a theme to the president or another aide. But the question of what he “helped write”  remains a bit of a mystery. Those three small paragraphs comprise Ben Smith’s entire report. President Obama is denying the story, so that’s just that. Was that kind of trust extended to Republicans under President Bush? Not so much. Here’s Politico giving space to one Matt Stoller in 2007: First, we argued that Fox News is not a news channel, but a propaganda outlet that regularly distorts, spins, and falsifies information. Second, Fox News is heavily influenced or even controlled by the Republican Party itself. As such, we believe that Fox News on the whole functions as a surrogate operation for the GOP. Treating Fox as a legitimate news channel extends the Republican Party’s ability to swift-boat and discredit our candidates. In other words, Fox News is a direct pipeline of misinformation from the GOP leadership into the traditional press. So, we have a self-proclaimed fan of Obama working as Editor-in-Chief of a major newspaper, but Politico isn’t much worried about bias seeping onto his pages. But when Fox News is perceived as being in the tank for Republicans, it’s apparently okay to launch accusations against them. In 2002, the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward revealed that Fox News head Roger Ailes had written a letter to President Bush immediately after the attacks on September 11. Woodward portrayed it as improper contact between the White House and the press, but Ailes insisted it was nothing more than an emotional letter from a scared citizen following a terrorist attack. The media jumped all over the controversy with fervor. On November 21 of that year, PBS News Hour filed a report on the scandal, with host Terrence Smith asking bluntly “is that an appropriate role for a journalist,” which set up a nice tee for Woodward to reply “he’s not supposed to do it.” News Hour then provided input from Tucker Carlson: Roger Ailes is the editorial chief of fox news [sic], and this gives the appearance of partisanship. This is sucking up to power. Then CNN’s Arthel Neville: Does that shed new light on, “we report, you decide,” Jack? And of course an expert from Harvard: Mr. Ailes has had a very close relation with a number of Republican presidents. I doubt this is a letter — despite what he said in the Washington Post — I doubt this is a letter that he would have sent to [Democratic President] Bill Clinton. The current reaction to Zuckerman’s claim of advising public officials? Mostly crickets. Salon covered the incident if only to promptly insist “it is safe to say that this is not true” and Zuckerman’s rebuttal was “kind of sad.” A search for Mort Zuckerman on Google News reaps scant results, mostly from blogs, and certainly nothing like the accusations launched against Fox News. Curiously missing is someone to accuse Zuckerman of “sucking up” to Democrats. No one took to the airwaves of PBS to suggest he wouldn’t have offered speechwriting help to a Republican. And no one sat on the air at CNN asking if U.S. News & World Report could be trusted as unbiased news. Any news source that is perceived as being friendly to Republicans is presumed to be a propaganda wing for the GOP. Yet when a well-respected editor openly flaunts his support of a Democrat, the media’s reaction is a collective shrug. Americans will probably never get the truth about exactly how close Zuckerman is to the White House – and that’s the way the media want it.

See the original post:
Media That Accused Fox of Shilling for Bush Yawn at Zuckerman’s Ties to Obama

Rick Sanchez & Roland Martin Slam Limbaugh, Beck as Illegitimate, ‘Racist’

CNN’s Rick Sanchez returned to attacking conservative talk radio on Wednesday’s Rick’s List program, lamenting that “a lot of people in this country…think that Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are legitimate news organizations.” Sanchez also brought on liberal CNN contributor Roland Martin to do the same: ” The Glenn Becks of the world…use the race-baiting…Rush Limbaugh and his racist language ” . The left-leaning CNN anchor brought on Martin and Memphis, Tennessee Tea Party founder Mark Skoda just after the bottom of the 4 pm Eastern hour to discuss the NAACP’s recently-passed resolution condemning the tea party movement’s “racism.” As you might expect, Sanchez singled out two isolated examples of racially-tinged signs at tea party rallies: a birther tea party protester who held a “sent Obama back to Kenya” sign while carrying a stuffed monkey, and a sign from the 9/12 rally in Washington, DC in 2009 that depicted President Obama as an African witch doctor. Martin treated Skoda in a confrontational manner from almost the beginning. The Memphis tea party leader brushed aside Sanchez’s citation of a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll which apparently found that “49 percent of Americans saying that they believe the tea party movement is based in some part on racial prejudice.” The pro-Obama contributor then pounced: “Well, actually, he didn’t actually answer your question. He danced around your question because I don’t- he obviously did not want to answer it . So I will let him have a second opportunity, Rick, to actually answer the question.” Sanchez agreed to Martin’s point and asked, “Would you like another chance to answer the question?” Skoda replied, “Sure, I’d be happy. First of all, I don’t know the statistics, and certainly, what the sampling size of this poll.” Both Sanchez and Martin interrupted at this point, repeating it was an ABC News/Washington Post poll, with the anchor adding, ” a very legitimate organization- very legitimate polling data .” The CNN anchor returned to the idea of the supposed legitimacy of the mainstream media versus conservative talk radio near the end of the segment as he and the pro-Obama contributor blasted Beck and Limbaugh: SANCHEZ: Roland, you get the last word. MARTIN: I…think part of the problem here is that when you look at the people who I think some tea parties- tea party folks look to, the Glenn Becks of the world, who say the President’s a racist, and they use the race-baiting, when you look at Rush Limbaugh and his racist language as well – that’s what you have here, and at the end of the day, if it’s about rights, fine, but reject the people who want to bring race into the rally, into the party. So, I salute those who do that. They’re the righteous folks. But not all tea party leaders are willing to do that, and I think the NAACP is simply saying, remove the racist elements from your existence because they’re the ones who are hindering your message. SANCHEZ: Well, unfortunately, there’s a lot of people in this country that look at legitimate news organizations like The Washington Post and scoff, and actually think that Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are legitimate news organizations . MARTIN: Well, they make up stuff. They’re not legitimate to me at all. SANCHEZ: Sad as that may be – gentlemen, we’ll have to leave it there. Martin also attacked Limbaugh during an October 20, 2008 segment with CNN’s Campbell Brown, using the cliched “fat idiot” insult against him. Earlier in the segment, the tea party leader noted that he and his organization had “repudiated racism at every chance,” and added a critique of the media’s coverage of the New Black Panther Party: “On the other hand, I didn’t hear too much being said when Shabazz suggested that white cracker babies and police should be murdered, and that is, far and away, extreme, versus a sign that might be carried at such an event.” Martin brushed aside this critique and attacked Fox News to the apparent amusement of Sanchez: MARTIN: Media Matters has an interesting take on that, and that Fox News has actually put the New Black Panther Party on the network more than anybody else in the past 10 years. So maybe they’re the ones pushing that story he’s talking about, so maybe they should answer why they are giving them a platform to espouse their views . (Sanchez laughs) That’s one thing they should answer…. CBS had a poll, as well, of tea party members where more than a quarter said they believed this president was doing more for blacks than anybody else – not based upon any real data, just simply a particular view. And so, I can understand why people hold a view. But the tea party should be saying, if you come with your racist rhetoric and your signs, you are not welcome- get out of here. That’s the right response. The CNN anchor then used a liberal talking point about the tea party movement in his next question to the tea party leader: “How much of this do you think, Mark, has to do with the fact that the tea party has come to fruition at a time when we have our first African-American president in the history of the United States, and it’s almost impossible to look at those two without seeing them together?” Sanchez has attacked conservative talk show hosts on several occasions. On July 9, the anchor hinted they were uneducated: “Many… don’t even have a college degree .” Earlier in 2010, the CNN personality repeatedly insinuated that ” crazy talk show hosts that are so right wing ” were to blame for ten congressman requesting extra security just before ObamaCare was passed. Back in 2009, Sanchez had to apologize for running a fake quote attributed to Limbaugh in October. Two months earlier, he accused anti-ObamaCare activists of spreading lies , attributing this to the protesters relying ” exclusively [on] right-wing media and right-wing television channels .” The CNN anchor also hinted on June 11, 2009 that the white supremacist who killed a guard at the U.S. Holocaust Museum, might have been ” motivated to move by right-wing pronouncements …on some TV and radio outlets.” Sanchez went beyond hinting during an April 8, 2009 segment about the murder of three Pittsburgh police officers: “That weekend tragedy involves a man who allegedly shot and killed three police officers in cold blood. Why? Because he was convinced, after no doubt watching Fox News and listening to right-wing radio , that quote, ‘Our rights were being infringed upon.'”

Originally posted here:
Rick Sanchez & Roland Martin Slam Limbaugh, Beck as Illegitimate, ‘Racist’

Most Nets Skip Over Their Advocacy of Broadcast Profanity; Newspapers Downplay Critical Voices

Most networks skipped over the story of their own corporate advocacy of broadcast profanity last night when the Second Circuit Court of Appeals shredded the FCC’s broadcast decency regulation. (All the networks signed on, with Fox in the lead). NBC’s Brian Williams offered 94 words, but erred in claiming “When a curse word has slipped out in the past, the FCC has imposed heavy fines on networks.” There were no fines for NBC when Bono said “f—ing brilliant” at the 2004 Golden Globes, nor were their fines for Fox when Cher and Nicole Richie for profanity at (respectively) the 2002 and 2003 Billboard Music Awards. ABC and CBS aired nothing. Fox News had no story in the transcripts offered to Nexis for searching. Fox’s corporate brethren at The Wall Street Journal had a story, but reporters Amy Schatz and Jess Bravin wrote a 727-word article with absolutely zero space for critics of the judges’ decision (including the Brent Bozell-founded Parents Television Council). The story did make explicit that Fox “led the case against the FCC and that “Fox is a division of News Corp., which also owns The Wall Street Journal.” Other newspapers offered small scraps for anti-profanity groups. The Washington Post’s front-page story by Cecelia Kang offered 50 words out of 771, in paragraph eight: The Parents Television Council called the decision a “slap in the face,” and Concerned Women for America, an advocacy group for indecency rules, urged the agency to appeal, lest broadcast television be open to the sexually explicit content and language of cable programs such as “The Sopranos” and “True Blood.” The New York Times story by Edward Wyatt put the anti-profanity spokesman in the very last paragraph (of a 17-paragraph story), with just 75 words out of 940: Ted Lempert, president of Children Now, said that while the court’s decision was troubling, it also emphasized the need for clarity about broadcast standards. ”It’s of concern because the F.C.C. has been a critical protector of children’s interests when it comes to media,” he said, adding that he expects that the commission will try to construct a more targeted approach to keeping indecency off the airwaves at times when children are likely to be watching. National Public Radio reported the story on Tuesday night’s All Things Considered by getting a rundown and analysis of the court case from legal reporter Nina Totenberg, but she offered zero reaction to the decision from anti-profanity groups. But on Tuesday’s Morning Edition , NPR offered another story on FCC regulatory policy – on the proposed NBC-Comcast merger – and NPR found air time for several critics gainst the media companies on the antitrust front. (And Totenberg did a story in that program on the Supreme Court year in review , with former Totenberg intern Tom Goldstein insisting there are not really any liberals on the court.) The networks are obviously terrible at covering themselves when they were brazen enough to go to court and argue that they should have the right to broadcast profanities of any kind at any time of the day. That is the effect of the 2nd Circuit’s decision. At the very least, they ought to be willing to air critics of ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox (and CW, if anyone cares). Censoring the story and the dissenters is a cowardly act. Remember this the next time they bray about the “public’s right to know.”

Link:
Most Nets Skip Over Their Advocacy of Broadcast Profanity; Newspapers Downplay Critical Voices

Glenn Ong Su Kar profile

Glenn Ong was once suspended from broadcasting for two weeks by MediaCorp after being fined by the Media Development Authority of Singapore due to inappropriate content on the show, Five Guys And A Girl which he hosted with co-host Rod Monteiro. Glenn Ong was the radio voice in the film The Teenage Textbook Movie. Glenn Ong Su Kar#39; (simplified Chinese: 王舒佳; pinyin: Wáng Shūjiā) is a popular DJ at MediaCorp#39;s Class 95FM, a Singapore English radio station, hosting the country#39;s #1 rat

See the article here:
Glenn Ong Su Kar profile

Rush Limbaugh Calls George Stienbrenner a "CRACKER" That Fired Whites & Made Blacks Rich..

Rush Limbaugh calls George Steinbrenner a 'cracker,' says icon 'fired a bunch of white guys' Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/07/13/2010-07-13_rush_limbaugh_cal… As New Yorkers mourn the loss of Yankee icon George Steinbrenner, right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh offered his own inflammatory version of a eulogy. “That cracker made a lot of African American millionaires,” Limbaugh bellowed on his morning show Tuesday. “And at the same time he fired a bunch of white guys.” In the clip, posted by Media Matters for America, Limbaugh offers his rambling thoughts on the passing of the New York legend, saying “What a man he was. What a feature and a character he was in major league baseball.” Limbaugh's rant might be the pundit's colorful way of saying goodbye to New York. He just sold his Upper East Side condo for a cool $11.5 million. Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/07/13/2010-07-13_rush_limbaugh_cal… added by: keithponder

Bozell Column: Obama the Gipper?

The Political Left is in a meltdown. There’s no way to sugarcoat the calamity. It is falling apart. It sees the tide has turned and a possible tsunami is building, ready to crest and explode in November, washing all their dreams away. How could this be happening to them? Could it be that trillion dollar disaster otherwise know as the “stimulus,” that emergency measure needed to save the economy by creating millions of jobs except it’s accomplished absolutely nothing except putting our grandchildren yet another trillion dollars in debt? Or the auto company takeovers, something no one wanted and Congress never authorized as part of the TARP bailout fund? Or the appointment of one radical after another to nanny-state us all, including now the just recess-appointed Dr. Donald Berwick to oversee ObamaCare, a Marxist who proudly calls for the redistribution of wealth and who absolutely adores Britain’s onerous National Health Service, rationing and all? Or any one of a thousand other radical ventures proposed/discussed/enacted by this radical leftist regime? Nah. Thom Hartmann, one of the top munchkins along the Yellow Brick Road of Radioland, told his handful of listeners last week that it’s ludicrous that any conservative would conclude Obama’s a socialist. “As a guy…me, who calls himself a democratic socialist, Obama’s no socialist! He’s a middle-of-the-road Democrat, what in the 1950s was called an Eisenhower progressive, or a Republican, for that matter.” This recalls the early Clinton years, when Bob Woodward quoted Bill Clinton yelling at his staff that they were all just like “Eisenhower Republicans”….as they attempted to pass 1,300 pages of socialist Hillarycare. Government spending and regulations are thoroughly out of control but Hartmann the socialist still sees Republicans destroying democracy in the near term, never mind that the GOP is completely out of power. “I think that the Republican endgame for a small group of ideologues who have an outsized influence, the neocons within the Republican party, is to basically do away with small-d democracy in this republic, and in fact do away with it being even a republic, and turn it into basically an aristocracy.” Lord William Kristol. You have to admit it does have a ring. The dismay was even more grandiose on MSNBC last week, when the executives handed over “The Dylan Ratigan Show” to a man named Cenk Uygur, host of “The Young Turks” radio program. Put your food and drink down. He contends that Obama was more conservative than … ready?  Ronald Reagan. Here’s his formulation: 1. Obama said during the presidential primaries that he would meet with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, or North Korea without conditions. But “Republican hawk Ronald Reagan actually did it in March, 1985. At the height of the Cold War, Reagan invited newly-appointed Mikhail Gorbachev, leader of the ‘Evil Empire,’ for a summit in Geneva without preconditions.” 2. Reagan “cut and run” from Lebanon in 1983. Now compare that to Obama and his troop surge in Afghanistan. 3. Obama “refused to raise taxes for anyone making less than a quarter of a million dollars,” but Reagan had “four significant tax increases” after his original tax rate cuts. 4. Reagan was “the first to host an openly-gay couple at the White House for an overnight stay?…So which President is the real conservative here?” Luckily for the small flock of strange people viewing MSNBC at home, both of Mr. Uygur’s guests told him he was all wrong. Frank Donatelli, one of President Reagan’s political director, was deliciously blunt. “That’s the silliest thing that I’ve ever heard….It’s an incomplete and distorted picture of everything.” Donatelli calmly related that Reagan cut taxes overall, negotiated with Gorbachev after the little precondition of a complete defense buildup, and he won the Cold War, while “Obama hasn’t won anything.” Even David Weigel, the Palin/Limbaugh/Drudge-insulting commentator beloved by the likes of Keith Olbermann, dismissed the Uygur stupidity. “He’s not a conservative. Come on!” Leftists may be delusional in thinking Barack Obama is some kind of Reaganite. But if that’s delusional, how does one describe Janeane Garofalo? As always, her nuttiness is in a league (institution?) of its own. On The Huffington Post, she groused of conservatives that “They own the media and they dominate the media and they dominate the conversation. But of course liberals are proud. They have everything to be proud of. But they just don’t have much say. You know, they don’t have networks and huge radio networks and megachurches and seats in Congress.” Liberals don’t have the seats in Congress? Garofalo isn’t just wrong, she’s in meltdown.

Poll Says Many Hispanics Are Against Amnesty

Groups pushing for illegal aliens to receive amnesty would try to have you believe that they represent the views of all Hispanics or Latinos in the United States, but there is a large portion of this country who are citizens and legal residents of Hispanic descent that do not agree with them at all. One such group, You Don't Speak For Me was founded years ago during the push for amnesty in 2006. Since that time many Americans of Hispanic descent have become very active in the community opposing illegal immigration. They are largely ignored by the media because they don't fit with their agenda. Most of the media will go to the National Council of La Raza or to some immigration attorney who happens to be of Hispanic descent to provide the “Hispanic view” when it comes to illegal immigration. One and all they spout that they represent the growing 44 million Hispanics in the United States and try to make sure it is understood that all Hispanics vote in a big bloc of voters. http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/003375.html added by: congoboy

WaPo Finally Runs Story on NASA Administrator Bolden: Eight Paragraphs On Page A13

In a June 30 interview with “Talk to Al Jazeera,” NASA administrator Charles Bolden revealed that President Obama had tasked him with “find[ing] a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering.” The media largely ignored the story, with a few exceptions, such as Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer .  Among the media outlets that blacked out the controversy was the Washington Post, which didn’t cover the Bolden controversy until today. Even then, the paper printed on page A13 a brief 8-paragraph item by the Reuters news wire : White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Monday that NASA administrator Charles F. Bolden Jr. was wrong to say that reaching out to the Muslim world was a top priority of the U.S. space agency. Bolden raised eyebrows in the space community and outrage among conservative pundits by telling al-Jazeera television recently that President Barack Obama had instructed him to work for better outreach with the Muslim world. He said Obama told him that one of his top priorities was to “find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math and engineering.” Improving relations with the Muslim world was a top foreign policy priority for Obama upon taking office last year, and he delivered a major speech on the topic in Cairo in June 2009. Last week, the White House sought to clarify Bolden’s comment, saying Obama wanted NASA to engage with the world’s best scientists and engineers from countries such as Russia, Japan, Israel and many Muslim-majority countries. That failed to end the controversy. Gibbs was asked at his daily news briefing why Bolden had made the comment. “I don’t think — that was not his task, and that’s not the task of NASA,” Gibbs said. The question was posed by CNN’s Ed Henry and can be found at 18:45 on the video linked here (transcript via WhiteHouse.gov ): Q    I wanted to ask you, there are some comments that the NASA Administrator, Charles Bolden, made a couple weeks back that drew some interest, specifically from conservatives who are wondering why we he said that one of the charges that the President gave him when he got the job was that he had to focus on outreach to the Muslim world.  Why is the NASA Administrator doing that? MR. GIBBS:  That’s an excellent question, and I don’t think — that was not his task, and that’s not the task of NASA. Q    So did he just misspeak? MR. GIBBS:  I think so. Q    Has the President spoken to him about that clear it up? MR. GIBBS:  No. Q    Anybody here at the White House? MR. GIBBS:  I’m sure people — people at the White House here talk to NASA all the time.

Follow this link:
WaPo Finally Runs Story on NASA Administrator Bolden: Eight Paragraphs On Page A13

NBC’s Chuck Todd Trumpets Flawed Election Poll, Parrots Democratic Talking Points

NBC Political Director Chuck Todd cherrypicked a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll to dismiss the possibility that Republicans will regain control of Congress in the November election. He did this despite evidence within the same poll that the political landscape in 2010 resembles 1994, when Republicans picked up 54 seats to take control of the House. On the July 13 “Morning Joe,” Todd emphasized the finding that 72 percent of the country has either “just some” or no confidence at all in the ability of congressional Republicans to “make the right decisions for the country’s future.” “This wild card about this election cycle which makes it different from ’06, which makes it different from ’94, is this issue of the public’s view of the Republican Party,” insisted Todd. The poll is misleading for a number of reasons, none of which Todd acknowledged. First, measuring public confidence in President Barack Obama, congressional Democrats, and congressional Republicans, the pollsters grouped respondents who reported “a great deal of confidence” with “a good amount,” and “just some” confidence with “none at all.” This aggregation resulted in a higher percentage of Americans expressing some or no confidence at all in Republicans than in Obama. But grouping “just some” respondents with “none at all” respondents does not make sense because expressing some confidence is much different from expressing “none at all.” If the pollsters had grouped those who reported “a good amount” of confidence with those who reported “just some” confidence, Republicans in Congress would have received 61 percent support, 14 points higher than Obama. Second, Todd’s insinuation that the public preferred congressional Republicans to congressional Democrats in 1994 but not in 2010 contradicts the same poll he cited to advance the argument that Republicans will not maximize their gains in November. As of July 11, 2010, voters prefer congressional Republicans 47 percent and congressional Democrats 46 percent, a negligible difference. By contrast, on August 8, 1994, 49 percent of the public preferred congressional Democrats while only 42 percent of the public preferred congressional Republicans, a seven point edge. In fact, the public preferred congressional Democrats over congressional Democrats in every Washington Post-ABC News poll taken through the November election. MSNBC host Joe Scarborough challenged Todd on the preference issue, asking, “Aren’t these off-year elections really just an opportunity for Americans to vote up or down for the most part on the party in power, the party that’s running Washington?” Todd, seemingly uninterested in demonstrable trends, insisted that the White House and Democrats are capable of turning the election into something other than a referendum on their liberal agenda. An obstinate Todd continued to rain on the GOP’s parade. “Joe, I think it’s the difference between picking up 25 or 30 seats and picking up 40 seats,” he insisted. NBC’s chief political junkie was all too eager to report the results of a poll forecasting sobering prospects for Republicans without scrutinizing the data or researching relevant historical trends. A transcript of the relevant portion of the segment can be found below: MSNBC Morning Joe July 13, 2010 7:24 A.M. E.S.T. JOE SCARBOROUGH: Hey Chuck, let me ask you something. Of course let’s put up the polls really quickly again from the Washington Post and then I’m going to follow it up with some news you say may not as good for Republicans. First of all, let’s look at the polls. Sixty-eight percent of Americans have little confidence in Democrats; Seventy-two percent, Republicans. Of course we talk about 58 percent, Barack Obama. Now let’s go to the four reasons why you say Republicans may not take back the House in the fall. You wrote about this yesterday and it’s very fascinating. You said the favorable ratings the same as the Democrats. And you are exactly right. In fact, in this case it’s even worse for Republicans than Democrats. But I guess the bigger question is – and I want to get Mark’s thoughts on this as well – aren’t these off-year elections really just an opportunity for Americans to vote up or down for the most part on the party in power, the party that’s running Washington? CHUCK TODD, MSNBC political director: Most of the time they are, and for many voters, this will be the case. This wild card about this election cycle which makes it different from ’06, which makes it different from ’94, is this issue of the public’s view of the Republican Party. And the reason you have to sit there and not ignore it is look at what the message the White House is trying to drive. Look at the message that Democratic candidates in congressional races are trying to drive, which is saying, “okay, you may be mad at us, but look at them.” And look, when you already have 70 percent of the public having a negative view, you can sell that story – you have a better chance of selling the story. SCARBOROUGH: Does that work when Democrats – it’s a monopoly though in Washington though. I guess that’s why it’s so much harder to sell. Listen in ’94 the Republicans actually had a plan. We haven’t seen that yet from this group of Republicans. I guess the bigger question, Chuck is, can you beat something with nothing?    TODD: Joe, I think it’s the difference between picking up 25 or 30 seats and picking up 40 seats and 10 seats in the Senate. Do you see what I’m saying? I think the difference between having a good election night and the majority is somehow starting to improve their favorable rating, and starting to go out there and saying, “we have a plan.” And right now they don’t have that and I think that’s what’s keeping them from getting the entire enchilada here. –Alex Fitzsimmons is a News Analysis intern at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.

Here is the original post:
NBC’s Chuck Todd Trumpets Flawed Election Poll, Parrots Democratic Talking Points