Tag Archives: networks

MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough Believes ‘Certain Networks’ Would Have Trashed Bush if He Echoed Obama’s ‘We’re Buying Shrimp’

Once again, the co-host of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” Joe Scarborough hinted that “certain networks,” (ahem, MSNBC) hold quite the double standard between Democrats and Republicans. When the subject matter was President Obama’s snub of an Iraq War question during his vacation at Martha’s Vineyard – he remarked “We’re buying shrimp, guys” – Scarborough pointed out that network coverage of Bush would have been far more negative. As NewsBusters reported last week, Scarborough also believes “certain networks” will “maul” Haley Barbour if he runs for President in 2012. The show’s co-host Willie Geist first opined that news coverage might have been different with President Bush. “I hate to make this point too often,” he said, “but imagine for a moment George W. Bush were on his sixth vacation, and he was asked about Iraq, and he said ‘I’m buying shrimp.’ You think that wouldn’t be a headline everywhere?” “You’re implying there’s a double-standard, Willie,” conservative guest Pat Buchanan snickered. Scarborough made it quite clear. “Can you imagine if someone asked [Bush] about shrimp – about Iraq, and he goes ‘We’re buying some shrimp here,'” he asked. ” I mean, they would, they would…they would kill him.” “It would be running on a loop. On certain networks,” Scarborough quickly added. Co-host and self-proclaimed Democrat Mika Brzezinski immediately changed the subject. Later in the segment, Joe and Willie were at it again. Joe and Mika entered a brief spat over whether the networks would have treated Obama and Bush differently on the matter. Mika, ever endeared to the Democratic talking points, dismissed any notion of a double-standard. When Pat Buchanan remarked that “they really would rip [Bush] to shreds here, I think,” Mika kindly retorted “I think you’re suffering from a very bad case of selective memory. I’m sorry.” A transcript of the segments, which aired on August 26 at 6:33 a.m. EDT and 7:12 a.m. EDT, respectively, is as follows: 6:33 a.m. MIKA BRZEZINSKI: The President is avoiding questions about Iraq this week, while vacationing on Martha’s Vineyard. Here he is yesterday, being asked about Iraq while placing his lunch order at Nancy’s. (Video Clip) President BARACK OBAMA: We’re buying shrimp, guys. (End Video Clip) WILLIE GEIST: Said “We’re buying shrimp, guys.” MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Okay. We’ll talk more about this later. Moving on with news. North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il made a surprise – (Crosstalk) SCARBOROUGH: That’s just kind of strange, isn’t it? We’re buying shrimp now, guys? GEIST: I hate to make this point too often, but imagine for a moment George W. Bush were on his sixth vacation, and he was asked about Iraq, and he said “I’m buying shrimp.” You think that wouldn’t be a headline everywhere? BRZEZINSKI: No, he was. In a golf cart. SCARBOROUGH: He actually said – GEIST: That’s my point. And noone’s lambasting President Obama for doing the – SCARBOROUGH: And George Bush said “Now watch me” – he answered the question, and said “Now watch me hit this drive.” In this case, of course, Barack Obama didn’t answer the question about Iraq. He said “We’re buying shrimp.” So your point is – PAT BUCHANAN: You’re implying there’s a double-standard, Willie. GEIST: Perhaps. (Laughter) SCARBOROUGH: Can you imagine – BUCHANAN: Isn’t that a bit of a stretch, Willie? SCARBOROUGH: Can you imagine if someone asked him about shrimp – about Iraq, and he goes “We’re buying some shrimp here.” I mean, they would, they would – BUCHANAN: It’d be on all the networks every night. (Crosstalk) SCARBOROUGH: They would kill him. It would be running on a loop. On certain networks. (…) 7:12 a.m. GEIST: We hate to go to this argument too often, because we say – imagine if this had been George W. Bush, the media would have treated him differently. But I mean, that would have been a – SCARBOROUGH: He would have been killed. GEIST: A signature moment. He would have been torn to shreds. (Crosstalk) ANDREW ROSS SORKIN, New York Times columnist: That was a Michael Moore moment. Remember, that was actually in the Michael Moore movie, sort of the iconic – GEIST: You’re asked about Iraq, talk about shrimp, you’re already criticized by some for being on vacation too much. It fits into this narrative. BRZEZINSKI: He gave a speech on Iraq on Tuesday. SCARBOROUGH: George W. Bush made speeches on Iraq all the time. Of course, what would happen is that they would have that response, and then they would cut immediately. News cast would cut immediately to dead Iraqi bodies in the street. We saw – BRZEZINSKI: Wait a second. You’re also taking out of context – it’s not like President Obama brought us in there. And there wasn’t the whole WMD – SCARBOROUGH: He’s commander – he’s Commander-in-Chief. BRZEZINSKI: A huge disgrace. I mean, there were a lot of reasons – SCAROROUGH: That’s all you got? That’s all you got? (…) SCARBOROUGH: You’re telling me that the left-wing wouldn’t shred this guy in a million pieces? BUCHANAN: They shredded even the ol’ man. Remember back there, when the ol’ man went out in his golf cart out there in Maine, during the build-up to Desert Storm? SCARBOROUGH: Tore him to shreds. (…) BUCHANAN: They really would rip him to shreds here, I think. BRZEZINSKI: I think you’re suffering from a very bad case of selective memory. I’m sorry.

Read more here:
MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough Believes ‘Certain Networks’ Would Have Trashed Bush if He Echoed Obama’s ‘We’re Buying Shrimp’

Hype-brids: Networks Tout Green Vehicles, But Americans Buy Four Times as Many SUVs

If news outlets were fueled by bias, then ABC, CBS, and NBC would be Hummers. Over the past two years, the media have declared Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs) “dying” while celebrating the popularity of hybrid cars. Americans disagree. Data from Edmunds.com showed SUV market share has grown or remained stable whereas hybrid market share has declined. In July 2010 alone, SUVs outsold hybrids 4 to one. When gas prices were high in summer 2008, the media eagerly reported the demise of the SUV and wrote its epitaph, as CBS News’s Hattie Kauffman eloquently did on May 26, 2008: “Here lies the mighty sport utility vehicle, once a symbol of status and power, now collecting dust.” From July 2009 to July 2010, total SUV sales increased by 38.9 percent whereas hybrid sales have decreased by 32.7 percent. Large SUV sales alone have increased by nearly 40 percent. Yet back in 2008, the three networks all paid their respects to the “dying” SUV, with ABC’s Chris Cuomo jumping on the hybrid bandwagon before the SUVs body was even cold: “Everybody’s trying to sell their SUV, want to get into one of these new jobs, you know, the smart car, the hybrid, the high-mileage type vehicles, all these alternative cars.” The “everybody” Cuomo mentioned must only have included the hybrid owners and not the SUV owners. Despite the overwhelming numbers, since June 2008, the Business & Media Institute discovered the networks’ covered hybrid cars three to one over SUVs. Specifically, there were more stories about the Toyota Prius (37) than on the top 5 best-selling SUVs combined (24). Still, back in 2008 network reporters such as ABC News’s David Muir predicted a green upheaval as he erroneously reported on the SUVs demise. “American carmakers are looking for a revolution, too. The gas guzzlers so popular yesterday are no longer popular today,” Muir said on July 20, 2008. The only “guzzlers” are the media members who continually drink the liberal Kool Aid. In May 2008, the first month of high gas prices, hybrid models had 2.52 percent market share. The hybrid model market share in May 2010, two years into the “revolution:” 2.52 percent. Those numbers didn’t stop CBS’s Anthony Mason from ushering in the “electric era” on the April 1, 2010 CBS “Evening News:” “Well, it’s a real challenge, but Katie, we are at the dawn of the electric era,” Mason declared. That “dawn” may not be rising as fast as Mason hoped. According to the Market Data Center , the best selling vehicle in the month of July was the Ford F150, a pickup truck. Fortunately, for Kauffman, Muir, and Mason, as their network ratings crumble , there are plenty of “gas guzzling” SUVs around to carry their remains. Volt and Prius: A Media Love Story Despite pedestrian sales numbers and recalls, reporters at the big three networks continue channeling their inner Billy Mays, turning their segments into infomercials for eco-friendly cars. The media’s favorite green cars have been the new Chevy Volt and the Toyota Prius. The networks aired nearly twice as many Volt stories (42) as they aired on the top five selling SUVs combined (24). Further proof of network favoritism: Ford F150’s have outsold the Prius nearly three to one, yet the networks have covered the Prius over the F150 three to one (37 to 12). The Prius has established itself as an environmental symbol thanks to the media hyping its popularity with the liberal Hollywood elite, as CBS reporter Ben Tracy did on Feb. 11, 2010. Tracy interviewed actors Penelope Cruz and Orlando Bloom and concluded Hollywood star power “helped make the Prius a household name.” Being outsold three to one by a “gas guzzler” is an awfully big amount for a “household name.” The Chevy Volt, a plug-in electric car expected to hit the market in November, has also been popular with the media. Both NBC “Today” host Matt Lauer and CBS’s Mason took test rides in the Volt, with Lauer being the first non-GM person to actually drive it. Additionally, all three networks hyped the Volt in their coverage of the 2009 and 2010 Detroit International Auto Shows, nearly two years before the Volt was even expected to hit the market. Recently, some in the media were outraged when GM announced the Volt would be priced at $41,000. Of course, when challenged about the price in a July 29 press conference, Ron Bloom, Obama’s senior advisor to the Treasury Secretary for automobiles, distanced the government from GM. “We do not tell GM what to charge for cars,” Bloom said. “Most kinds of new technology are expensive.” Unlike batteries, which require positive and negative charges to work, the government only operates on positive charges, such as the positives touted by Obama in his July 30 visit to Michigan, but dismisses negative charges. The Obama Administration found plenty of positive charge in the network news reports, as all three networks praised Obama’s July 30 visit to GM where he test rode the Volt. ABC’s Karen Travers called it a “victory lap” and NBC’s Savannah Guthrie echoed Obama’s remarks that the “American auto industry [is] resurrected from the dead.” Since summer 2008, only ABC and NBC interviewed analysts skeptical of the green car business model. NBC’s Phil LeBeau interviewed Standard and Poor Equity analyst Efraim Levy on May 6, 2009, where Levy noted smaller, green cars would result in smaller profits but larger losses. “Smaller cars have smaller price tags. So, therefore, you have less room to make the profits, and if a car’s not successful, the losses are even more painful,” Levy said. Case in point: the 1997 GM EV1, which was named one of Time magazine’s ‘ Worst Cars of All Time. ‘ The EV1, GM’s first attempt at an electric car, flopped due to disappointing battery power and a lack of demand . The EV1 retailed at $34,000, cost GM $80,000 per vehicle, and ultimately GM lost $2 billion on the EV1 program. The $2 billion is more than the $1.3 billion second quarter profit GM recently reported. Instead of the SUV, the GM EV1 is now the vehicle “collecting dust.” Cart Before the Horse On April 1, 2010, the big three network news broadcasts fooled their viewers with reports on fuel emission standards. ABC, CBS, and NBC evening news shows each aired stories about the new fuel emissions standards, which had been based on the 2007 Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) rules and championed by the Obama Administration. According to the new standards, by model year 2016 all cars and light trucks must average 35.5 miles per gallon. ABC and CBS sandwiched their reports between stories on – you guessed it – Toyota and the Volt, whereas NBC’s Lee Cowan devoted a full two minute report on the new standards. He actually noted the cost of lowering emissions will trickle down to the consumer: “But reaching that new efficiency level does come with a price, an estimated $52 million for car manufacturers to be paid by the consumer. About $1,000 per car may be added on to the sticker price,” Cowan reported. But Cowan still encouraged viewers to buy a green car, saying it will save them money in the long run: “Now, Brian, although these new cars will cost a little bit more, the government says that will be more than offset by your savings in fuel, they’re saying about $3,000 over the course of that new environmentally-friendly vehicle.” Cowan’s report was misleading. A 2006 study by Kiplinger’s Personal Finance Magazine discovered that of the top seven hybrids, only the Prius will save you money over five years compared to a non-hybrid vehicle. According to the study, three out of the seven hybrids will cost you over $3,000 more, the amount the government claims you’ll save. Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free market think tank, told BMI he thinks the new fuel emission standards will lead to more dire consequences than just hitting consumers’ pockets. “I think automakers will go bankrupt again,” Ebell said. “In order to meet the new standards, big cars will become expensive and they’re going to have to sell a lot of small cars. Detroit automakers have never figured out how to make a profit on small cars.” Ebell added that the 2007 CAFE standards “foreshadowed” the auto bailouts and that the bailouts have turned Chrysler and GM into “creatures of the Obama Administration.’ “The automakers are in worse shape than had they gone into bankruptcy,” Ebell said. “Bankruptcy would have broken the worst part of the union contract and they [GM and Chrysler] wouldn’t have to answer to the government.” Only ABC News interviewed anyone challenging the government’s boat-without-a-paddle auto policy and its relation to energy standards. On Jan. 11, 2009, ABC’s Bianna Golodryga interviewed Jean Jennings, editor-in-chief of Automobile magazine: “The government is on the wrong track because they are dictating fuel economy without an energy policy,” Jennings said. “And yet, they are forcing the car companies to spend billions of dollars in development costs for a technology that might be way ahead of what people want.” Yet the networks didn’t challenge the Obama Administration’s fuel emission demands for the auto industry. Ironically, for three networks that won’t cover SUVs, they’ve become SUVs for Obama’s auto plan: Steadily Urging Victory. End of the Road In “Home Improvement,” Tim “The Tool Man” Taylor often shouted “more power!” For the media, it’s worth shouting “less bias.” With SUVs alive and well, the network news shows remain committed to promoting green cars and cheerleading the Obama Administration’s auto policies. According to Michael LaFaive, director of the Morley Fiscal Policy Initiative at The Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a free market think tank, Obama’s auto praises are played out in the media like a “Rooseveltian victory lap.” “There’s no ribbon cutting ceremony for tax cuts like there is for opening a new battery factory,” LaFaive said. “The government has nothing to sell this as a way to stimulate demand.” Despite the unfavorable media coverage, SUVs are still in demand and rather than collecting dust, they’re making hybrids eat their dust. Methodology The Business & Media Institute examined news stories from ABC, CBS, and NBC from June 1, 2008, through July 15, 2010. June 1, 2008, was selected because it was after Memorial Day and in the thick of the high summer 2008 gas prices. BMI also examined the three evening news stories from Friday, July 30, 2010, the day Obama visited the Volt assembly plant in Michigan. Final numbers included 69 stories on hybrid vehicles and 19 on SUVs. Based on the June sales from AOL Autos, the top five best selling SUVs are the Chevy Traverse, Chevy Equinox, Toyota RAV4, Ford Escape, and Honda CR-V. Only stories longer than 100 words were counted. Recall stories were excluded because they focused on consumer safety as opposed to the actual cars. Data was provided courtesy of Edmunds.com, HybridCars.com, The Wall Street Journal Market Data Center and AOL Autos. Like this article? Then sign up for our newsletter, The Balance Sheet .

Read the original post:
Hype-brids: Networks Tout Green Vehicles, But Americans Buy Four Times as Many SUVs

Producer Discusses Levi Johnston TV Bid For Mayor

Bill Simmons, a.k.a. The Sports Guy of ESPN fame, recently pondered if anyone with less talent has ever had a longer shelf life than Levi Johnston. He makes a fair point, and the baby daddy of Bristol Palin shows no signs of fading into the sunset anytime soon. Any possible PR is good PR, right? He’ll be putting that theory to the test with a new show, Loving Levi: The Road to the Mayor’s Office . Yup, he’s running for mayor of Wasilla, Alaska. The current office-holder doesn’t seem all that worried about a challenge from a 20-year-old high school dropout, but hey, you never know, right? The producers at Stone & Company Entertainment are excited to bring his bid for office to your TVs. Head honcho Scott Stone spoke to EW about … The current status : “We’re pitching the show as advertised, Loving Levi: The Road to the Mayor’s Office . We’re going up to Alaska to shoot for a couple of weeks. Once we have our story set up properly, we’ll start pitching it to the networks.” Is Levi Johnston ready for a career in politics? On who will air this nonsense : “I tend to do shows that could run multiple places. We will target the ones that are most interested first, and suffice to say we’ve gotten a ton of interest since the announcement went out yesterday.” On Levi’s reaction to the idea : “Levi’s a young guy, and running for office is a scary proposition and a big commitment. He thought about it, and then he came back and said, “I thought about it, let’s talk and see if we can do this.” On whether the Palins will be involved : “We went into this with zero expectation for any involvement from the Palins. If that changes, that’s purely their choice. We would welcome it, but it’s going to be the Levi Johnston show. On Levi’s political leanings : “Levi is well known all over the country, and you can be sure he’ll take advantage of it for his campaign. He’s already come out and said that he’s half-redneck and half-Hollywood. The Hollywood part isn’t going away.” Would you elect Levi mayor?

Read the original post:
Producer Discusses Levi Johnston TV Bid For Mayor

Spitzer Boosters at Boston Globe Hail Client #9 Show As Sign of CNN’s Stand for ‘Traditional News Values’

Why is The Boston Globe sucking up to CNN? In an unsigned staff editorial on Tuesday , the Globe warned TV critics to “back off” CNN for hiring “fresher voices” like Eliot Spitzer, the disgraced ex-Governor of New York and pseudo-conservative Kathleen Parker. They strangely claimed that somehow Spitzer won’t be partisan, but he will be “candid” — like in his political career?? He’s “forever marred” by his transactional sex, but also a superior host because of it?  Yes, Spitzer will forever be marred by his use of prostitutes, but the demise of his political career has freed him up to be far more candid than the average moonlighting politico. Parker, a voice of common-sense conservatism, is notable for her willingness to break with the GOP herd; in 2008, she wrote that Sarah Palin lacked important qualifications for national office. Another Crossfire this won’t be: Spitzer and Parker will probably be unpredictable and sometimes contrarian. They might even agree on some things — an entirely welcome development. Throwing ideological chum to the partisan masses will always draw ratings, but it rarely leaves viewers better informed. Anyone who thinks Client #9 isn’t going to be a partisan Democrat isn’t watching his recent TV appearances, attacking the GOP as the “party of nihilism.” But the Globe mourns how Fox News and MSNBC are ruining the political culture, while CNN is a PBS-style oasis by comparison: The fate of CNN is of more than casual interest, because it is the lone holdout on cable news promising in-depth reporting and non-ideological analysis. Its rivals, Fox and MSNBC, have chosen to preach to the converted, fueling a culture of outrage and denunciation. Their effects on American political dialogue have been widely noted, and widely condemned. CNN is the best hope for a revival of traditional news values on cable . This is a weird stance coming from the Boston Globe, better known for partisanship that traditional objectivity. Please recall Brent Baker on the April 2009 column by Peter S. Canellos, the paper’s Washington bureau chief, titled ‘ In a Stroke of Brilliance, Obama Defies Easy Caricature .’ A year ago, Baker found an article lamenting anti-Obamacare protesters in “ Foes’ decibels replace debate on healthcare: Protesters’ yells at meetings frustrate Democrats’ push .” Reporter Lisa Wangsness rued: “This summer, the Rockwellian ideal of neighbors gathering to discuss community issues in a neighborly way is gone, replaced by quarrelsome masses hollering questions downloaded from activist websites”. The Globe also loves ABC’s new choice of Christiane Amanpour and her new America-bashing internationalist version of “This Week” on Sunday mornings:  Broadcast TV is far less culpable for the coarsening of public dialogue, but like all media, it has some ingrained bad habits of its own. The broadcast equivalent of the highly ideological cable host is the super-inside political reporter — someone who betrays no opinions but reliably relates the Beltway consensus. It’s a useful perspective, but a limited, almost willfully stunted one.Thus, it was a breath of fresh air to see Christiane Amanpour, the legendary foreign correspondent, move into the anchor chair of ABC’s “This Week,’’ single-handedly broadening the perspective of the Sunday-morning interview shows. Of course, she, too, was swatted down by some capital critics, led by Tom Shales of The Washington Post, for lacking the proper political chops. Spitzer, Parker, and Amanpour represent a legitimate attempt by TV news executives to sell substance and offer fresh perspectives. More than just ratings are riding on their success.

See original here:
Spitzer Boosters at Boston Globe Hail Client #9 Show As Sign of CNN’s Stand for ‘Traditional News Values’

Variety Columnist Accuses FNC of Racial Motivations, Provides Zero Quotes from Actual Programming

Variety Magazine TV critic Brian Lowry – formerly a reporter for NPR and the Los Angeles Times – surely was not a member of JournoList. But he sure writes like he was. Lowry took a page directly out of the Spencer Ackerman Guide to Dubious Racism Accusations in his most recent column , claiming the Fox News Channel caters to racial fear and resentment to sell its brand. Lowry provided no examples to back up his claims. He did not give voice to any opposing views. The only evidence he offered to back up his accusations were quotes from “thoughtful conservative” (read: not-so-conservative conservative) David Frum and liberal Washington Post blogger Greg Sargent. In true JournoLista fashion, Lowry cited Fox’s coverage of the New Black Panther scandal at the Justice Department as evidence of the channel’s attempts to “delegitimize Obama” by stoking racial fears. Just as Ackerman advocated with the Jeremiah Wright scandal, Lowry cried racism in order to avoid any actual discussion of this administration’s strange affinity for racialist radicals – or any of Fox’s actual coverage of the scandal. Networks cater to all kinds of demographics. But overlooked amid recent hand-wringing over racial politics and the separate debate over whether Fox News merited a front-row White House briefing room upgrade is the main ingredient in the channel’s stew: fear. With Barack Obama’s election, Fox has carved out a near-exclusive TV niche, while having plenty of company in radio: catering to those agitated (consciously or otherwise) by having an African-American in the White House. Yet a broader secret of its success — preying upon anxiety in general — hasn’t really changed since the Sept. 11 terror attacks. As the original home of the “news alerts” (which usually aren’t alerting us to breaking news), Fox News under CEO Roger Ailes has been adept at tapping into deep-seated concerns. And in order to powerfully connect with core viewers, it’s not enough to disagree with President Obama’s policies; rather, they must be couched as an existential threat to U.S. society. Lowry goes on to single out Glenn Beck (of course), and to cite a couple of commentators who he apparently considers experts on Fox’s alleged “fear and racism” strategy. Thoughtful conservative commentators have cited the dangers in such overheated rhetoric. Former Bush speechwriter David Frum has become one of the most articulate, writing after passage of healthcare reform, “Conservative talkers on Fox and talkradiohad whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or — more exactly — with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?” Frum added that talk hosts operate “responsibility-free” — playing a different game than Republican politicians, since perpetuating frustration and outrage boosts their ratings… For all the invectives hurled at Bill Clinton and George W. Bush in the three-cable-news-network era (which didn’t begin, unbelievably, until halfway through Clinton’s presidency), the most egregious attempts to delegitimize Obama are both distinct and not particularly subtle. The latest theme — illustrated by Fox’s crusade regarding the New Black Panther Party — hinges on fear of racial bias where whites are the aggrieved party. As the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent noted, Fox’s eagerness to “drive the media narrative … simply has no equivalent on the left.” Still, the most ruthless liberals — those more committed to partisan advantage than accuracy — have inevitably drawn lessons by observing, and will retaliate whenever Republicans regain power. Since its inception, Fox has emulated the “If it bleeds, it leads” mindset of local news, garnishing its presentation with snazzier graphics and more urgent production values. The canny post-Sept. 11 adaptation has been, “If it scares, it airs.” As mentioned above, David Frum is of course presented as the “even some conservatives don’t like Fox” commentator. And of course Lowry things Frum is “thoughtful” – if he were more conservative, he wouldn’t be deserving of that label. Frum is not given space to criticize Fox because he’s thoughtful. He’s thoughtful because he criticizes Fox. As for Sargent, Lowry readers who don’t know the WaPo blogger are left without any indication of his political leanings. Lowry presented Sargent as a media critic noting what he claims is a simple reality, but did not mention that the blogger is on the opposite end of the political spectrum from Fox’s prime time talkers. So Lowry’s only substantiation for his sweeping theories about the root of Fox’s success comes from a left-wing blogger, and a conservative who makes a living ripping on other conservatives. And Lowry has the temerity to criticize Fox’s journalistic practices.

The rest is here:
Variety Columnist Accuses FNC of Racial Motivations, Provides Zero Quotes from Actual Programming

Wyclef Jean’s History With Haiti: From Birth To Presidential Bid

Throughout his career, former Fugees leader has been an outspoken advocate for his homeland. By Gil Kaufman Wyclef Jean Photo: Steve Mack/ Getty Images Wyclef Jean officially announced his bid for the presidency of his native Haiti on Thursday’s (August 5) “Larry King Live.” Word began to surface last month that he was considering a run for the position . The job comes with a five-year term that would likely keep him out of the music game until 2015. If news of Jean’s political ambitions caught anyone by surprise, they clearly haven’t been paying attention to the former Fugees leader’s non-musical efforts for the past 15 years. While Wyclef — who was born outside the country’s capital, Port-au-Prince, and raised in Brooklyn, New York — was one of the first celebrities to call for assistance for his Caribbean homeland in the wake of January’s devastating earthquake, the 37-year-old has been at the forefront of Haitian relief for much of his career. Back in 1997, when the Fugees — whose Pras Michel and Lauryn Hill also are of Haitian descent — were still riding high, the trio headlined a benefit concert in Port-au-Prince. The six-hour homecoming show drew more than 70,000 fans as it raised funds for Haitian refugees and artists. (MTV News followed the band to the island for the show, which you can relive here and here .) Although there were accounting problems with the money raised from the benefit concert, they were mostly ironed out, and ‘Clef was honored for his work helping underprivileged kids through the Wyclef Jean Foundation two years later. In the following years, Jean continued to raise funds for his foundation and frequently reminded his audience about the troubles affecting his homeland, from AIDS and poverty to political corruption. In 2004, Jean started the Yele Haiti foundation, which distributed more than 3,600 scholarships to Haitian children in its first year and, at one point, announced plans to build a Wyclef Jean School of the Arts and a cultural center on the impoverished island. That same year, as Haiti suffered from a violent uprising against the government, ‘Clef voiced support for Haitian rebels and called for the resignation of embattled President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. ‘Clef also addressed the country’s AIDS problem and promised, through education and prevention, to help the nation’s children avoid contracting the HIV virus. The singer was named a roving ambassador in January 2007, charged with improving the image of the island, which is perennially tagged as the poorest in the western hemisphere. He and Akon closed out the year in Haiti with a fundraising concert dubbed the Yele Festival . After Hurricane Ike hit Haiti in 2008, Yele delivered food and assistance to those impacted by the storm, and in October 2008, ‘Clef performed with Carlos Santana in San Francisco to raise funds for the foundation. It was in the early hours after January’s earthquake that Jean really became Haiti’s favorite son, when he issued urgent pleas for help though his Twitter account and in multiple TV and radio interviews. Within days, Yele had raised more than $2 million for Haitian relief via text message, as ‘Clef continued to keep the topic at the forefront of the news with interviews about the devastation and his offer to co-anchor MTV Networks’ “Hope for Haiti Now” telethon alongside George Clooney. Bringing some of his Creole background to his performance with “Yele,” Jean also gave a moving performance of the reggae classic “Rivers of Babylon,” before returning to the island the next morning to help with recovery efforts. He also pitched in on the 25th-anniversary remake of “We Are the World,” which benefited Haiti relief as well, and helped anchor BET’s “SOS Saving Ourselves: Help for Haiti,” alongside Mary J. Blige and Drake. What do you think about Wyclef’s decision to run for president of Haiti? Share your thoughts in the comments. Related Photos Hope For Haiti Now | Live Event Coverage Related Artists Wyclef Jean

See the article here:
Wyclef Jean’s History With Haiti: From Birth To Presidential Bid

ClimateGate ‘Whitewash’ Helps ‘Clear’ Scientists, U.S., International Media Claim

The past year has been rough for climate alarmists, with Americans’ growing skepticism about the threat of global warming and a series of scandals that appeared to show a potential conspiracy to distort science. A March 2010 Gallup poll found 48 percent of Americans think the threat of global warming is “generally exaggerated.” That was the highest in 13 years, according to Gallup. That’s all in the past, according to journalists . Recently the news media have reported that the scientists accused of unethical or illegal behaviors have been “vindicated” by Sir Muir Russell’s investigation. USA Today, The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN and many other U.S. and international media outlets reported that the most recent British inquiry “cleared scientists of any misconduct.” Despite that, left-wingers who complained that the media hasn’t covered the report enough have banded together to urge news outlets to report the investigation’s findings, which they say ” completely disprove ” the ClimateGate scandal. But the news media have covered Muir Russell’s conclusions. “The British scientists involved in a controversial scandal over global warming are cleared of any dishonesty,” Lisa Sylvester stated on CNN July 7. She went on to say that the “independent” report found that scientists “did not exaggerate threats of global warming as critics alleged.” The July 8 Washington Post also reported the “independent commission,” but without mentioning who commissioned the report. A Chicago Tribune editorialist even used the Muir Russell report to claim that ClimateGate itself was “something of a hoax.” The Post and many other outlets didn’t mention crucial indications that the so-called “independent” investigations were a “whitewash.” Cato Institute Senior Fellow Pat Michaels wrote an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal July 12 cautioning people, “Don’t believe the ‘independent’ reviews.” Michaels, who was a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia (UVA) from 1980 to 2007, pointed out that Muir Russell’s panel named “The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review” was in fact “commissioned and paid for by the University of East Anglia (UEA), the same university whose climate department was under investigation.” That would be like BP handpicking and paying a panel of experts to investigate its handling of the oil spill. Would the news media take that panel seriously if it “exonerated” BP? Not likely. But according to Michaels and others that wasn’t the only problem with the review panel. “Mr. Russell took pains to present his committee, which consisted of four other academics, as independent,” Michaels explained. “He told the Times of London that ‘Given the nature of the allegations it is right that someone who has no links to either the university or the climate science community looks at the evidence and makes recommendations based on what they find.'” But there were actually strong links between the reviewers and UEA. Michaels noted that one of the panelists, Prof. Geoffrey Boulton, had been on the faculty of UEA’s School of Environmental Science and CRU – the division accused of impropriety was established at the beginning of his tenure. Michaels isn’t the only one crying foul over the ClimateGate reviews. Competitive Enterprise Institute’s director of energy and global warming policy, Myron Ebell, also condemned the Muir Russell report as a “professional whitewash.” The report “does a highly professional job of concealment. It gives every appearance of addressing all the allegations that have been made since the ClimateGate e-mails and computer files from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Institute were released last November,” Ebell said in a statement to The American Spectator. “However, the committee relied almost entirely on the testimony of those implicated in the scandal or those who have a vested interest in defending the establishment view of global warming. The critics of the CRU with the most expertise were not interviewed.  It is easy to find for the accused if no prosecution witnesses are allowed to take the stand,” Ebell continued. In an interview with the Business & Media Institute, Ebell said that he thought such whitewashed “official” reports will actually “damage the alarmist position, because it is so obvious that there was wrongdoing here.” Labour MP Graham Stringer also found fault with the Russell inquiry, calling it “inadequate.” According to Stringer, Parliament was misled by UEA when conducting its inquiry. According to Andrew Orlowski of The Register, “Parliament only had time for a brief examination of the CRU files before the election, but made recommendations.” “MPs believe that Anglia had entrusted an examination of the science to a separate inquiry,” Orlowski wrote. But neither a previous investigation known as the Oxburgh inquiry nor Muir Russell delved deep enough into the science. Penn State also investigated and cleared its own scientist Michael Mann, the creator of the infamous, and ” comprehensively discredited ,” hockey stick graph of global warming. None of the investigations have been enough for Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who has subpoenaed documents ” pertaining to an alleged $500,000 giant fraud ” by Mann while he was at UVA.  Damning E-mails Not Refuted by Investigation, Read Me File Not Mentioned in Russell Report It’s difficult to see how the scientists could be “cleared” after e-mails appeared to show potential manipulation of temperature data, a willingness to destroy information rather than release it under British Freedom of Information (FOI) law and the intimidation of publications willing to publish skeptical articles. One particularly disturbing e-mail from CRU director Phil Jones to Penn State scientist Michael Mann (famous for his hockey stick graph of global warming) and two others said: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” A Melbourne newspaper, The Age, reported July 8 that Russell’s investigation “dismissed many of those accusations.” The paper even downplayed that “trick,” saying “Sir Muir found the technique used was reasonable as long as the procedures were properly explained.” Another embarrassing ClimateGate e-mail, from Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and lead author of three IPCC climate change reports, to Mann and others including NASA’s James Hansen and Princeton’s Michael Oppenheimer, said: ” The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.” Other exchanges asked people to delete e-mails rather than turn them over to Freedom of Information requests. Still others showed a desire to keep the public from getting their hands on raw data. Steve McIntyre, one of the people who helped discredit Mann’s hockey stick, has been combing through the Muir Russell report. He wrote on his website ClimateAudit that it was absurd for Russell to conclude they “have seen no evidence of any attempt to delete information in respect of a request already made,” since a May 29, 2008, e-mail from Jones expressly asked Mann and four others to “delete any emails you have had with Keith re AR4?…” “This is getting stupid,” McIntyre said. “Jones’ email came immediately following David Holland’s FOI request.” Christopher C. Horner, CEI senior fellow and author of the newly released book Power Grab , told the Business & Media Institute the investigators chose not to interview “skeptics” most knowledgeable about the allegations, including McIntyre. “And when speaking to those alleged to have done wrong, they chose not to ask them questions at the heart of the matter, like, did you destroy documents like you said?” Horner explained. “It’s pretty easy to claim no wrongdoing when you only speak with the accused, and then fail to ask them if they actually did wrong.” According to Horner, none of the investigations “specifically refuted or disproved that what the emails say was done was done.” Another scientist: Dr. Fred Singer, president of Science and Environmental Policy Project, also criticized the Muir Russell report saying “As far as one can tell, they consulted only supporters of anthropogenic [manmade] global warming (AGW), i.e., supporters of the IPCC.” “As a result, they could not really judge whether Phil Jones (head of the Climate Research Unit at UEA) manipulated the post-1980 temperature data,” Singer concluded. The 160-page Muir Russell report conclusions made no mention of the more damaging Harry_Read_Me.txt file that was leaked along with the e-mails. That 247-page file “describes the efforts of a climatologist/programmer” at the CRU to update an enormous database of climate data and temperature records that in his own words were in a ” hopeless ” state. The “Read Me” file included admissions to making up data, as well as references to hiding the temperature decline by using different data after 1960. CNN Offers Liberal Complaint of Lack of Coverage Left-wingers on Huffington Post and other blogs have complained that there has been little coverage of the most recent report that supposedly vindicates Phil Jones, Michael Mann and other scientists disgraced by ClimateGate. Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz offered a similar complaint July 11 on his “Reliable Sources” CNN program. Kurtz argued that there had been “scant” coverage of the exoneration. “A British panel this week cleared a group of scientists of the controversy known as ‘ClimateGate.’ This group had charges of hacked e-mails that they had manipulated their research to support their view on global warming. The British panel didn’t completely let them off the hook, but basically said they didn’t cook the books,” Kurtz said before asking his guest why there had been so little coverage. Kurtz credited The New York Times for putting the story on the front page, but lamented that most major papers “stuck it inside.” CNN did a full story on it, Kurtz said but there was little on cable and “nothing on the broadcast networks.” Kurtz might need to be reminded that the networks ignored the ClimateGate e-mail scandal for a full 13 days, before one network report was aired on the 14 th day. Even when they reported the scandals, the broadcast networks didn’t come down hard on accused climate scientists. In fact, more than 90 percent of “global warming” and “climate change” stories between the day the data was leaked (Nov. 20, 2009) and April 1, 2010, made no mention of the allegations. The few broadcast stories on ABC, CBS and NBC about the climate scandals often downplayed the threat to the credibility of those climate scientists and the global warming movement. CBS trivialized the e-mail revelations as “a series of gaffes” on Feb. 4, 2010. Reporters including ABC’s Clayton Sandell made sure to tell viewers, “The science is solid, according to a vast majority of researchers, with hotter temperatures, melting glaciers and rising sea level providing the proof.” Of course, ClimateGate wasn’t alone in stirring up concerns about the validity of global warming science. Moscow’s Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) reported that Russian temperature data at Hadley Center and CRU had been “cherry-picked” with a preference for hotter urban areas. In January 2010, a claim that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 was found to be “speculative,” and undercut the IPCC’s 2007 report. The claim had originated with environmental activist group World Wildlife Fund (WWF). In March, another claim about the impact of warming on rainforests was traced back to a WWF study and called “bunk” and “baseless” by The Register (UK). Other scandals followed, yet ABC, CBS and NBC barely devoted coverage to them. Instead of digging deep into the allegations, admissions and other problems, network reports swept them aside and sought to reassure the public that the “ClimateGate is a sideshow compared to one overwhelming fact.” The networks also rarely include voices that dissent from the so-called global warming “consensus.” A BMI study found that proponents of the global warming agenda outnumber those with other views by a 13-to-1 ratio . The lack of reporting on climate change scandals came as no surprise, given the networks’ long history of hype stretching back more than 100 years. The major news media in the U.S. have alternately warned of catastrophic warming and cooling periods over the past century. Like this article?   Sign up   for “The Balance Sheet,” BMI’s weekly e-mail newsletter.

More:
ClimateGate ‘Whitewash’ Helps ‘Clear’ Scientists, U.S., International Media Claim

AP Video ‘Expert’: Being Here ‘Without Documentation’ Isn’t a Crime

One reason to hope that the Big 3 networks continue to muddle through their awful evening news ratings and somehow hang around is that there’s an alternative out there that would be much worse. If any of the networks ever considered outsourcing their nightly newscasts to the Associated Press, the likely result could be bad enough to make some long for the (relatively) good old days of Brian, Diane, and Katie. An object example of the AP’s pathetically one-sided, biased and completely not-transparent video reporting came last Tuesday when it covered the Department of Justice’s lawsuit against Arizona’s illegal immigration enforcement measure. The 1070 law tells police to verify citizenship status in “contact” situations (e.g., traffic stops and other routine matters) if they have a “reasonable suspicion” that the person or persons involved aren’t here legally. AP’s go-to “expert” acts as if it’s a given that the United States government has decided that being here illegally (“without documentation”) isn’t a crime. Seriously. During the 104-second report ( first go here , then type “Arizona immigration” in the search bar near the bottom, and select “Fed. Suing to Block Ariz. Immigration Law”), AP reporter Brian Thomas interviewed no one who defended the law’s constitutionality. Here’s the transcript: Brian Thomas, AP Reporter: The Obama administration is suing the state of Arizona over what the President has called “a misguided law.” Federal officials say the state’s new immigration policy tries to override the government’s authority under the Constitution. The measure requires police to question and possibly arrest illegal immigrants during the enforcement of other laws, like traffic stops. Steven Vladeck, American Univ. Law Professor: The federal government has long since decided that it’s not a crime to be in the United States without documentation. You can be removed from the United States, you can be deported, but you cannot be put in jail. And so the question is, “Do individual states, Arizona today, Maryland tomorrow, have the authority to decide for themselves to have a harsher regime?” Thomas: The Justice Department argues the state plan will lead to the harassment of American citizens and others who are authorized to be here. Tony Bustamante, Attorney in Arizona : Federal priority enforcement of immigration laws is to go after the criminals, the bad people who are causing havoc on society, not the gardeners and the landscapers and the cooks who make the economy go ’round and ’round. Thomas: Those who support the pending law have said the stringent rules are necessary to fight drug trafficking, murders and other crimes plaguing the border state. Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio: Maybe the federal government ought to ask for the help of local and state law enforcement to stop this illegal immigration situation. Thomas: The federal government is hoping its lawsuit will stop other states looking to follow Arizona’s lead. Vladeck: If the federal government can show the Arizona laws are inconsistent with federal policies, the federal government can, should, and will win. And I think it’s likely that they will do so. Thomas : The next step is for the case to be assigned to a judge who will decided temporarily whether to block the law from taking effect at the end of this month. A two-word, law-based response to Vladeck’s claim that “The federal government has long since decided that it’s not a crime to be in the United States without documentation” — Horse manure : Search 8 U.S.C. § 1325 : US Code – Section 1325: Improper entry by alien (a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. (b) Improper time or place; civil penalties Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of – (1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or (2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection. Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed. The “without documentation” portion of Vladeck’s statement is at best useless misdirection. If you aren’t here legally, you’re subject to the sanctions just noted. If you’re here legally and happen to be “without documentation” at any given moment, that’s a totally different situation, and I believe he knows it. The federal government (i.e., the executive branch) doesn’t get to “decide” what is and what is not a crime. To make illegal entry not a crime, the law has to be changed by the legislative branch. That hasn’t happened. Vladeck’s claim that “you cannot be put in jail” for being here illegally is objectively false, as bolded above in the excerpt from the law. Also note the use of the word “shall” (i.e., there is normally not supposed to be any discretion) as opposed to “may.” Arizona’s law is on target with the intent of federal law. Vladeck’s next bolded claim in the transcript above is tantamount to saying, “Policy becomes the law, no matter what the law says.” No sir. Of course there will always be prosecutorial discretion that will dictate the best and most appropriate use of an attorney general’s or county prosecutor’s resources, but that’s not what’s at play here. What Vladeck is saying it that because immigration enforcement officials have a policy of trying to avoid going after “non-criminals” (an illogical word, because you’re a criminal in this country the minute you cross the border illegally), that policy has in effect become the law, no matter what the law really is. Brian Thomas could have found dozens of people to make mince meat of Vladeck’s arguments, and chose not to. I wonder why? This is lazy, statist liberalism at its best: We don’t like a law, so we won’t enforce it, until that tradition of non-enforcement becomes the law. It’s the same bubble-headed logic that underlies the entire liberal mind-set towards the constitution: We don’t like it, so we’re going to decide that it means something other than what it clearly says, instead of going through the constitutionally mandated and deliberately difficult-by-design process of passing a constitutional amendment to change it to its desired meaning. Say what you will about whether or not the prohibition movement was misguided, but you have to acknowledge that they respected the constitution and the country enough to get their work done the right way. Contrast that with what the Clinton administration (and to an extent, the several administrations that preceded it) did to tobacco companies. From the “This was so predictable” Dept. — Vladeck’s views towards the executive branch powers are selection and arguably partisan, as you will see from the opening paragraph of his American University bio : Stephen I. Vladeck is a Professor of Law at American University Washington College of Law, where his teaching and research focus on federal jurisdiction, national security law, constitutional law (especially the separation of powers), and international criminal law. A nationally recognized expert on the role of the federal courts in the war on terrorism, he was part of the legal team that successfully challenged the Bush Administration’s use of military tribunals at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, Here’s another “This was so predictable” item, this time about “Attorney in Arizona” Tony (Antonio) Bustamante, from the far-left Phoenix New Times : For our (40th) anniversary, we gathered many — not all — of those who’ve been targets of Sheriff Joe Arpaio and former County Attorney Andrew Thomas. Some, like politicos Phil Gordon, Mary Rose Wilcox, and Don Stapley, are converts to the struggle. Others, activists, stood up to protect the most vulnerable amongst us: Mexicans seeking to be part of the American Dream; prisoners looking to survive. … 17) Antonio Bustamante: Phoenix attorney and activist who advises those who monitor Arpaio’s anti-immigrant sweeps and defends demonstrators arrested for protesting the sheriff. Brian Thomas didn’t think viewers needed to know anything about Vladeck’s or Bustamante’s background. How typically pathetic. Oh, I almost forgot: The picture at the top right of the Mexican flag appearing to fly about the Arizona flag is what viewers of the AP video get to see during the report’s final seconds. It looks like a childish “in your face” move to me. And I didn’t get to the matter of what other states, including Rhode Island , are doing that is at least as “harsh” as what Arizona is set to do. As stated earlier, we could do worse than the evening news shows NBC, ABC, and CBS are currently feeding us. If AP’s video reports really are the go-to alternative, we should hope that Brian, Diane, and Katie remain mired in mediocrity instead of disappearing entirely. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

Read the original post:
AP Video ‘Expert’: Being Here ‘Without Documentation’ Isn’t a Crime

Al Gore story goes mainstream – Redux

Seeing as how the original post got lost in a “memory hole” I'll put it back up here. The story of Al Gore’s alleged unwanted sexual advances toward a Portland, Ore., masseuse, which had been simmering since the National Enquirer first published the allegations last week, broke into the mainstream news cycle Friday after the Portland police announced they would reopen their investigation. Anderson Cooper did a segment on the story on CNN Thursday night. By Friday, it was all over network television newscasts, while the Oregonian had a front-page mea culpa by the Portland police chief saying his department had mishandled the investigation when it first surfaced in 2006. The story’s jump from the fringe to the mainstream compounds the problems for Gore, whose family spokesman, Kalee Kreider, has said that Gore “unequivocally and emphatically” denied making unwanted sexual advances. “Further investigation into this matter will only benefit Mr. Gore.” It also brought up by-now-familiar accusations of the media’s complicity in covering up the scandal when it first surfaced. The Portland Tribune, which was looking into the story in 2007 and 2008, has taken some heat for its decision not to go forward with the story. In a piece titled “Al Gore and the Media Protection Racket,” The American Spectator’s Jeffrey Lord argued that the existence of a police report involving the former vice president was news in itself, and the Tribune should have reported it as such. For the Spectator, it was d

Mexico dominates in early stages against South Africa in opening …

June 7th, 2010 SAfricans split on Mandela’s attendance at openingJOHANNESBURG — South African soccer fans are split whether Nelson Mandela should attend the opening ceremony of the World Cup . …. Munich 201011 Away SS Jersey | Onetop Soccer : When it comes to the international soccer scene, you’r… http://bit.ly/9LFCbx; gisuser Compete in the International Waze Worldcup right from your car for a chance to win a new iPad; mcgeneral Orb Networks Gives Sports Fans Live, …

Read more here:
Mexico dominates in early stages against South Africa in opening …