Category Archives: Media

Who Really Cares About Weiner’s Wiener?

Posted on by

Okay, enough already! We all know Congressman Anthony Weiner did something dumb and distasteful. But enough is enough! Yes, he tweeted pictures of the little wiener to a few adult women on Twitter. Yes, he got married after the exchanges began. And, yes, he lied about his indiscretion after Republican hit man, Andrew Breitbart (purveyor of false claims against ACORN, Planned Parenthood and Shirley Sherrod), made the photos pubic…er, public.

But for more than a week, the Weiner story has dominated the news. The story has pushed aside debates over the federal debt limit, Medicare, and jobs programs. Can you for a moment imagine Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite, Eric Sevareid and David Brinkley reporting this story daily?

Where is the media’s sense of fairness and proportionality?

What Congressman Weiner did was show his body to a few women in what is supposed to be a private medium. He didn’t distribute the photos to the masses (Mr. Dumbart and the media did that). He didn’t have a physical relationship with those women. And though he may have intellectually cheated on his wife, he didn’t have a physical affair (as former Republican Senator John Ensign did). He didn’t hire prostitutes (as current Republican Congressman David Vitter did). He didn’t use the Internet to solicit sex (as former Republican Congressman Christopher Lee did). He didn’t dump his wife as she was fighting cancer (as former Democratic Senator John Edwards and former Republican Congressman Newt Gingrich did). And though Congressman Weiner lied to cover the truth, he didn’t have his mother write a $96,000 check as a bribe for silence (as former Republican Senator John Ensign has been accused of doing).

Yes, Congressman Weiner’s actions constitute a legitimate news story or two. But more than a week? It’s as if Lindsay Lohan had just been elected to Congress!

With the exception of media coverage of John Edwards, stories of indiscretions of all the other ethically-challenged elected officials combined haven’t equaled the media attention of Weiner’s wiener. And when is the last time you saw a story of Congressional corruption receive this kind of coverage?

One has to ask the question, Why? Does the public really regard the Congress-man’s behavior as that egregious? (According to polls in the Congressman’s district, the answer appears to be no.) Was his behavior worse than the aforementioned perpetrators’? (The answer has to be that cybersex between adult individuals does not rise to the level of actually breaking the law or physically cheating on one’s spouse.)

So why the non-stop media frenzy? I submit that the lazy and sensation-driven media have, once again, been manipulated by Breitbart and Fox News Channel. And in their rush for damage control, Democratic leaders have, once again, fallen into the conservatives’ trap by piling on with their own calls for Weiner’s resignation.

To put an end to the story, Congressman Weiner should tell the media that he will announce his resignation the day after Congressman Vitter resigns and after both Democratic leaders and sanctimonious Republicans censure all of those who have done worse.

That ought to shut them up.

What Happened To Journalism?

Posted on by

No recent event has better exemplified the utter collapse of journalism in the U.S. than coverage of President Obama’s speech on the Middle East. The headlines following the speech all reported the “outrage” of Republicans, the Jewish community, etc. as the result of the President’s statement that a return to the pre-1967 borders is a condition for peace.

There was only problem with those news stories. The President’s statement wasn’t news. The U.S. position on peace talks has always been based on the pre-1967 borders!

Now you may ask, how could the media be so wrong? In a word, laziness. A few minutes searching for the truth would have yielded information that would have led to a more accurate interpretation. But none of the media seem concerned with reporting the truth. They seem much more interested in reporting controversy and reactions from the President’s political opponents. In other words, they’re willing to sacrifice the truth for a bunch of irrelevant “facts.”

However, one news source did report the story correctly – Real Time with Bill Maher.

So this is what journalism has come to? A comedian provided a more accurate report on a major policy speech than established news organizations! Small wonder that some surveys have listed another comedian, Jon Stewart of The Daily Show, as America’s most trusted newsman.

Left Without A Voice.

Posted on by

Last Friday, Keith Olbermann announced that he and MSNBC had decided to end Countdown.  As a result, progressives have lost their strongest voice.  Although MSNBC will continue to feature commentators such as Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, Lawrence O’Donnell and Chris Matthews, none of them, with the possible exception of Schultz, are fire-breathing liberals.

That means there is no longer anyone in the media to offset the hateful rantings of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, etc., etc., etc.

It’s a sad day for progressives and for fairness in media.

What’s Wrong With Calling For Civility?

Posted on by

Following the Tucson shooting, Pima County Sheriff Dupnik stirred up the proverbial hornet’s nest by suggesting that our rancorous political climate may have contributed to the violence.  And his statements about Arizona’s insane gun laws fueled even more anger from the right.

How dare the good Sheriff ask for more civility in our public discourse!  How dare he try to keep guns away from the mentally unstable or even the deranged!

Never once did he point fingers at a particular party or individual politicians and radio hosts.  Yet following his statements on national TV, right wing radio hosts and right wing politicians went on the attack.

Certainly the right wingers were not responsible for the shooting.  Still, Sheriff Dupnik made some valid points.  Statements such as Sharron Angle’s threat of “2nd Amendment remedies” and “taking out” Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid most definitely could inspire another unblanced individual to act.  Tea Party members carrying guns to Presidential appearances can only be viewed as a threat of violence to President Obama.  Tea Party  signs reading “Next time, we’ll come armed” can only be seen as a threat to elected officials.  And maps of Congressional districts in the crosshairs of a gunsight most certainly present a violent image.

But right wingers claim that the violent implication of these statements and images is a misinterpretation of their intent; a fabrication by the left.  For example, Rush Limbaugh said that liberals were the ones truly responsible for the Tucson shooting.  Half-term Governor Palin defended her Mama Grizzly approach to politics by claiming she and other right wingers are the victims of “blood libel.”  Even The Arizona Republic got into the act by printing an editorial calling for Sheriff Dupnik to “remember his duty” and “to recall that he is elected to be a lawman.”

In other words, right wingers have the right to state opinions in any manner they please.  But if someone on the left takes issue with those opinions, they should remember their place and shut up.

Meanwhile, how have political commentators on the left responded?  Have they displayed similar angst at the suggestion their discourse may have contributed to the shooting (despite the fact that they’ve never encouraged violence)?  No.  Instead of defending themselves, they seem to have taken the Sheriff’s suggestion to heart.  Indeed, Keith Olbermann has announced that he will be acutely aware of language from now on.  He’s even stated that he is dropping his show’s segment “World’s Worst Persons.”

The difference in reaction couldn’t be more revealing.  Either the right is feeling some sense of shame and guilt over the Sheriff’s comments.  Or they are so determined to win at all costs, they simply don’t care if their actions and words lead to more senseless violence.

Personally, I’m betting both of those motives are true.

Republican Leaders Provided Fertilizer For The Seeds Of Hate.

Posted on by

We don’t yet know why an armed lunatic chose to shoot Congresswoman Giffords.  But we do know that the seeds of violence have, for years, been sown by commentators such as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and their ilk.  Moreover, we can be certain that those seeds were well-fertilized in the 2008 presidential campaign, most especically at the Republican National Convention.

I watched both national conventions gavel to gavel and was shocked by the vitriol prominently displayed in every speech by Republicans.  Rather than focus on policy, Republicans chose to focus on personal attacks.  From the snarky comments by Sarah Palin to the snide diatribes of Senator McCain, the conservative venom was unrestrained.  We were treated to derisive questions about President Obama’s citizenship and his service as a community organizer.  By contrast, I heard no such attacks from speakers at the Democratic National Convention.

And when the results were in, Republicans suggested that they didn’t lose the election, ACORN helped the Democrats “steal” it.

Since then, the ugly rhetoric from the right has only gotten worse.  Republican leaders have used every conceivable legislative trick to block Democratic initiatives.  They railed about the “big government takeover.”  They talked about “death panels.”  And they howled about Democrats trying to “push through their liberal agenda.”  Then, leading up to the mid-term elections, we were treated to the sight of Tea Party demonstrators carrying signs portraying President Obama as Hitler and as the Joker.  We were also forced to witness demonstrators bringing guns to rallies and threatening to “exercise their 2nd Amendment rights” if Republican Tea Party candidates didn’t get their way.

Here in Arizona, I have often been forced to bite my tongue as local Republican leaders referred to President Obama as “illegitimate” and Nancy Pelosi as “a disgusting pig.”  I have listened to McCain, Governor Brewer and State Senator Russell Pearce vilify latinos.  And, like most people, I have been the recipient of a seemingly endless variety of ugly, untruthful chain emails against our President and his supporters.

Now I know that those on the right will suggest that liberals are just as bad.  But any comparison of Rush, Beck or Fox News Channel with MSNBC is a false equivalency.  Certainly many on the left have contributed to the unpleasantness but, unlike their right-wing counterparts, I have yet to witness a Democrat talking about committing violent acts such as “taking out” an opponent.  I have never heard Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow or Ed Schultz call for Democrats to take weapons to rallies, or to “target” those with whom they disagree.

In any case, we all must change the way we discuss politics.  We must try to respect those with whom we disagree even when we disagree with their opinions.  We must try to separate the policies from the person.  And we must politely, but firmly, tell those who make outrageous statements that they are not acceptable.  We must refuse to vote for candidates who invoke hatred.  And when we hear political commentators make disgusting, violent statements, we must switch channels and inform the station or network that we will no longer tolerate the rhetoric of violence and hate.

If not, the event in Tucson is likely to be repeated across our nation.

News Integrity (And Fox’s Lack Thereof)

Posted on by

Since Spiro Agnew, conservatives have railed against the so-called liberal news media.  Indeed, half-governor Palin is fond of referring to any media other than Fox News Channel as “lame stream media.”  And conservatives proudly point to Fox News as the only place to learn the “real truth” about politics.

At the same time, they deride one of the most liberal news outlets, MSNBC, as partisan and dishonest.  Really?

If Fox News is so “fair and balanced,” why then does the network blatantly promote Republican candidates on air?  Why does it sponsor conservative rallies?  Why does the network make contributions to Republican candidates?  Why do its “news” hosts also dole out political contributions to conservative candidates?

And why does MSNBC suspend its most popular host for making contributions to 3 Democratic candidates?

Could it be that MSNBC and other networks have integrity?  And Fixed News doesn’t?

POLL: What’s The Biggest Problem With Polls?

Posted on by

A. Only a few are accurate
B. They may be easily manipulated in the way the questions are asked
C. The results may be used by politicians to support or “confirm” specious arguments
D. Their main purpose is to fill 24/7 news cycles
E. All of the above

If you watch Fox News Channel and CNN or visit on-line “news” websites, you are bombarded with polls. “Is the Obama administration doing enough to manage the BP gusher?” “Has the administration done enough to reign in government spending?” “Has the administration ignored job creation?” “Did Democrats go too far in passing health care reform?” “Has the Obama administration ignored illegal immigration?”

All of these questions may seem innocuous enough, but the very fact that the media is asking them, and the way they’re being asked, has a direct influence on public opinion. The questions, themselves, imply the desired answer. And the media know it. If they were really interested in public opinion most of those questions would be asked in a more objective way, and many of them would never be asked at all.

The inescapable conclusion is that the media, most especially Fox “News” Channel, are using polls in order to create controversy, fill airtime and shape public opinion. Moreover, politicians and their allies spout the results to reinforce their points of view regardless of the manner in which the polls are conducted. Objectivity, fairness and logic be damned.

A Look Back At The Shirley Sherrod Story.

Posted on by

After the fraud committed by a right wing blogger and his co-conspirators at Fox Noise Channel, there are lingering questions we should be asking each other.

Would the same thing have happened if it was a white woman accused of racism? Would the white woman have been fired? If she had been, would the Administration have been pressured to hire her back? Would any of the media cared?

My point is that discrimination against black, brown and yellow people takes place all of the time. They face discrimination with regard to the money allocated for education. They face discrimination with regard to property taxes (it has been proven that those in the inner cities pay a disproportionate amount compared to those in the exurbs). They have long been discriminated against by the police. They are discriminated against by the court system. (If you doubt this, look at the difference in sentencing for those using crack cocaine and those using powder.) And politicians have blamed them for nearly every problem our nation faces.

Yet you seldom see reports of their abuse. And you almost never see the kind of furor generated by Fox. Why? To some degree, it can be explained by the theory that “dog bites man” is not news while “man bites dog” is. But a more troubling explanation is that those on the right, who generated the story of Shirley Sherrod, don’t care about discrimination of others. They’re merely ideologically opposed to our mixed race President and they’re pulling out every stop in repeated attempts to discredit him. In other words, they’ve pulled out the playbook used against President Clinton (with the accusations of “Travel-gate”, Whitewater, “Trooper-gate”, etc.).

Shirley Sherrod was simply a convenient pawn in their evil game.

© LaMaster Propaganda – All rights reserved.

Shirley Sherrod Story Reveals Much About Both Republicans And Democrats.

Posted on by

When a right wing blogger edited a speech by a USDA worker describing an event that took place more than 20 years ago, he made it appear that she had committed a racist act against a troubled white farm family.

Of course, Fox Noise Channel and other right wing media megaphones jumped on the opportunity to make yet another charge that the Obama Administration favors blacks over the long-oppressed white majority (sarcasm intended).

When confronted with the Fox Noise story, Secretary Vilsack immediately asked for her resignation. Even the NAACP censured her. However, one day later, the unedited video was released showing that Ms. Sherrod had simply (and graciously) been using the story of her long ago, racist reaction to make an object lesson that racism against any group has no place in our society.

So why not use Ms. Sherrod’s story as an object lesson for 21st century politics?
It is, after all, very revealing about our weaknesses. It reveals the mean-spirited and deceptive practices of the right wing. It reveals the lack of journalistic standards being practiced by Fox (and the much higher standards of CNN and MSNBC). It reveals the weak knees of Democrats whenever they are confronted by right wing charges. And it reveals the human tendency to believe the worst about someone even before we know the facts.

We should all vow to do better in the future.

Another Fox Feargasm.

Posted on by

Heard about the new “Black Panthers?” Have you heard that three members of the Black Panther Party allegedly tried to intimidate voters in one Philadelphia precinct in 2008; one with a police-style baton? Have you heard that the Department of Justice refused to press charges against the individuals involved and, instead, banned the individual with the baton from Philadelphia polling places until 2012?

Of course, the “fair and balanced” nitwits have gone ballistic. They claim that it demonstrates racism by President Obama and his administration. And they have the “news” story on a loop, repeating it hourly.

Nevermind that there are no accusations that these members committed acts of violence or kept anyone from voting. And nevermind that, for decades, white supremacists have intimidated African-Americans to keep them from voting. Indeed, in 2000, there were many reported instances of voter intimidation in Florida to keep African-Americans from voting for Al Gore. And as many as 10,000 registered voters were denied their right to vote in several Florida counties. Where was the outrage by Fox Noise then? Where were the indictments by the Bush administration? Where was the outrage by Fox when their viewers appeared at Congressional forums with threatening signs and assault rifles? And what if the Obama administration had indicted teabaggers for trying to intimidate Congressional representatives?

It appears that the Faux News treatment of the Black Panthers story is merely intended to create more fear toward President Obama amongst the uninformed, the misinformed and the unintelligent.

While the actions of a few people in Philadelphia are deplorable, they are nothing new. And they certainly don’t warrant 24/7 media coverage. But then, neither did the Fox Feargasm that led to the closing of ACORN.

Fox led its viewers to believe that ACORN had helped “steal” the 2008 elections and that employees of ACORN provided advice to a “pimp” and a “prostitute.” After several investigations, it’s now clear that the only prostitution was by the producers of the videos and the idiots on Fox who sold their integrity in order to attack an organization they viewed as a political opponent.

Based on Fox’s version of the news, one can only wonder when, or if, its audience will ever realize that the network that claims to be “fair and balanced” is neither.

© LaMaster Propaganda – All rights reserved.