One of the reasons the right wing and the GOP have been successful in defining the issues of the day is that they have figured out that in today's sound-bite mentality they can lie and not be called on it.
On Larry King's show former President Bill Clinton said "Some of the right-wing Republicans -- Rush Limbaugh, a lot of the other talk show people -- immediately said he was murdered. It was -- it was a mad time where you could say anything you wanted about the president or anybody that had the misfortune to know me."
So on the CNN media watch show Reliable Sources, how did rightwing talk show host Laura Ingram respond to Clinton's statement?
"I never heard Rush Limbaugh say anything of the like. And I'm certain he didn't say that."
When pushed about it she said "It wasn't Rush Limbaugh. .. No, he didn't say anyone - that the Clintons murdered anyone."
So just what did Limbaugh actually say?
OK, folks, I think I got enough information here to tell you about the contents of this fax that I got. Brace yourselves. This fax contains information that I have just been told will appear in a newsletter to Morgan Stanley sales personnel this afternoon.... What it is is a bit of news which says...there's a Washington consulting firm that has scheduled the release of a report that will appear, it will be published, that claims that Vince Foster was murdered in an apartment owned by Hillary Clinton, and the body was then taken to Fort Marcy Park.
So is Ingraham correct, that Limbaugh didn't actually allege that Foster "was murdered" by just repeating someone else's story "that claims that Vince Foster was murdered" or was it a lie? To me it's a lie. And did Ingraham get called on this lie? No, host Howard Kurtz replied "We'll have to revisit that another time."
I'm sure Ingraham smiled, knowing she and her ilk got away with another one.
Monday, June 28, 2004
Thursday, June 24, 2004
Who's the Slimeball?
Former President George H.W. Bush said he had "total disdain" for Michael Moore and called Moore a "slimeball." Moore's new movie, Fahrenheit 9/11, is likely to open eyes and help the current join his father as a "former" president.
But considering the slimy presidential election campaign George H.W. Bush ran in 1988, he should be the last one to criticize someone else for sliminess (or does he believe it takes a slimeball...).
For anyone who has forgotten, Bush (along with his RNC Chairman Lee Atwater) led one of the most disgusting and dishonest campaigns in recent memory, utilizing questionable advertising and speeches. Following the election, many news organization instituted Fact checks of candidates advertising to prevent future politicians from benefiting from lies the way Bush 41 did in 1988.
As one media outlet put it, Atwater was a "protage of the late South Carolina segregationist senator, Strom Thurmond, and personal Machiavelli to George Bush Sr. He's the man credited with coining "wedge issue." On his deathbed, he apologized for saying of Dukakis that he'd "strip the bark off the little bastard" and "make Willie Horton his running mate." His repentance made good press at the time of his death from a brain tumor in 1991, but his methods are still a blueprint for how we the living can run and win a nasty campaign."
Maybe the lack of grace and ethics is a family thing. After the 1984 vice presidential debate which pitted Rep. Geraldine Ferraro of New York against George H.W. Bush, Barbara Bush said she could not say on television what she thought of Ferraro, but "it rhymes with witch."
This from a woman whose family's accomplishments included sons (Jeb and Neil) who were involved in savings & loans that went under, and sons (Jeb & George) who possibly stole a presidential election.
Yeah, George you've got real moral authority to call someone a slimeball...
But considering the slimy presidential election campaign George H.W. Bush ran in 1988, he should be the last one to criticize someone else for sliminess (or does he believe it takes a slimeball...).
For anyone who has forgotten, Bush (along with his RNC Chairman Lee Atwater) led one of the most disgusting and dishonest campaigns in recent memory, utilizing questionable advertising and speeches. Following the election, many news organization instituted Fact checks of candidates advertising to prevent future politicians from benefiting from lies the way Bush 41 did in 1988.
As one media outlet put it, Atwater was a "protage of the late South Carolina segregationist senator, Strom Thurmond, and personal Machiavelli to George Bush Sr. He's the man credited with coining "wedge issue." On his deathbed, he apologized for saying of Dukakis that he'd "strip the bark off the little bastard" and "make Willie Horton his running mate." His repentance made good press at the time of his death from a brain tumor in 1991, but his methods are still a blueprint for how we the living can run and win a nasty campaign."
Maybe the lack of grace and ethics is a family thing. After the 1984 vice presidential debate which pitted Rep. Geraldine Ferraro of New York against George H.W. Bush, Barbara Bush said she could not say on television what she thought of Ferraro, but "it rhymes with witch."
This from a woman whose family's accomplishments included sons (Jeb and Neil) who were involved in savings & loans that went under, and sons (Jeb & George) who possibly stole a presidential election.
Yeah, George you've got real moral authority to call someone a slimeball...
Wednesday, June 23, 2004
Never Mind - The Media as Emily Litella
A lot of people call journalism the first draft of history, unfortunately those first drafts are rarely changed and the public is left with inaccurate version of history. And the media is loathe to criticize itself on a real time basis.
So four years after the end of Bill Clinton's presidency, and after years of right wing inspired attacks, Time magazine (subscription required) finally came around to reviewing the media's coverage of President Bill Clinton and Special Persecutor Kenneth Starr.
"In retrospect, it is clear that there was no substance to the Whitewater allegations and the other White House scandalettes—the travel-office firings, the FBI files, the death of Vince Foster—except, of course, Lewinsky. It seems clear that Starr conducted an unseemly and irresponsible investigation filled with "abuses of power," as Clinton contends, illegal leaks to the press and barely legal coercive tactics against prospective witnesses. And it also seems clear that the press was way too credulous about Starr's allegations and didn't pay nearly enough attention to his methods."
As Emily Litella would have said, "Oh. That's very different. Never Mind."
While Time Magazine may have finally admitted what went on, it's difficult to imagine that the Washington Post's Susan Schmidt or the New York Times' Jeff Gerth (or the Wall Street Journal's Robert Bartely from the grave) will apologize for its biased coverage.
The next question is when will the press apologize for it's biased War on Gore coverage of the 2000 Presidential election. It is truly amazing that right wingers complain about the media when the MAIN reason George Bush is in the White House today is the biased coverage Gore received in 2000.
So four years after the end of Bill Clinton's presidency, and after years of right wing inspired attacks, Time magazine (subscription required) finally came around to reviewing the media's coverage of President Bill Clinton and Special Persecutor Kenneth Starr.
"In retrospect, it is clear that there was no substance to the Whitewater allegations and the other White House scandalettes—the travel-office firings, the FBI files, the death of Vince Foster—except, of course, Lewinsky. It seems clear that Starr conducted an unseemly and irresponsible investigation filled with "abuses of power," as Clinton contends, illegal leaks to the press and barely legal coercive tactics against prospective witnesses. And it also seems clear that the press was way too credulous about Starr's allegations and didn't pay nearly enough attention to his methods."
As Emily Litella would have said, "Oh. That's very different. Never Mind."
While Time Magazine may have finally admitted what went on, it's difficult to imagine that the Washington Post's Susan Schmidt or the New York Times' Jeff Gerth (or the Wall Street Journal's Robert Bartely from the grave) will apologize for its biased coverage.
The next question is when will the press apologize for it's biased War on Gore coverage of the 2000 Presidential election. It is truly amazing that right wingers complain about the media when the MAIN reason George Bush is in the White House today is the biased coverage Gore received in 2000.
Friday, June 18, 2004
Conservative Media Myth
Robert J. Barro must have been disappointed to see his column, promoting a study that purported to show a liberal bias in the media, was included in the June 14 issue of Business Week whose cover story asks “Does Your Vote Matter?”
The study Barro promoted determined whether a media source was liberal by coming up with a rating comparable to the ADA rating of a congressman’s voting record. Barro said the median ADA rating of U.S. House members of 39 “is a reasonable measure of a centrist position.”
The problem, as Business Week pointed out, is that gerrymandering of House districts has forced out moderates and made districts less representative. Business Week pointed out that Al Gore received nearly half of the votes in Florida in 2000 yet led in only 8 of the state’s 25 congressional districts.
With congressional districts drawn unrepresentatively, 39 is NOT a reasonable measure of a centrist position, and claiming a media source is liberal based on a score higher than 39 is questionable.
In addition, leaving editorial pages out of the study also skews the results. Will the Wall Street Journal, with its extremist editorial page, be classified as “moderate” because of its news pages?
The study Barro promoted determined whether a media source was liberal by coming up with a rating comparable to the ADA rating of a congressman’s voting record. Barro said the median ADA rating of U.S. House members of 39 “is a reasonable measure of a centrist position.”
The problem, as Business Week pointed out, is that gerrymandering of House districts has forced out moderates and made districts less representative. Business Week pointed out that Al Gore received nearly half of the votes in Florida in 2000 yet led in only 8 of the state’s 25 congressional districts.
With congressional districts drawn unrepresentatively, 39 is NOT a reasonable measure of a centrist position, and claiming a media source is liberal based on a score higher than 39 is questionable.
In addition, leaving editorial pages out of the study also skews the results. Will the Wall Street Journal, with its extremist editorial page, be classified as “moderate” because of its news pages?
Wednesday, June 16, 2004
Dishonesty Watch or Stupidity Watch
The Wall Street Journal's editorial (idiotorial?) page has a column called Best of the Web where they take cheap shots at Democrats through links to articles on other websites. Many times the headline the Journal slaps on their "analysis" of the item is "Stupidity Watch."
After reading Tuesday's Best of the Web, one wonders whether the Journal's column should call it column Stupidity Watch or Dishonesty Watch.
In a ridiculous and dishonest report, the Journal attempts to say that when Democrats bring up the disgusting, but successful, attempt by the GOP to question former Georgia Sen. Max Cleland's patriotism in his 2002 election then the Democrats are only making more people question Cleland's patriotism.
For background, the Washington Post has noted that "Cleland, 60, is still livid over a now-infamous TV commercial that Republican challenger Saxby Chambliss ran against him. It opened with pictures of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, then attacked Cleland for voting against President Bush's Homeland Security bill. It didn't mention that Cleland supported a Democratic bill that wasn't radically different.
"That was the biggest lie in America -- to put me up there with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and say I voted against homeland security!" he says, his voice rising in anger."
The reason the Journal brought this up again because the AP (and others) reported that Theresa Heinz Kerry said she left the GOP over the treatment of Cleland.
"Shame on the AP for repeating as if it were a fact the canard that Republicans "raised questions about Cleland's patriotism." In fact, it was Democrats who did this because they could not defend the man's voting record" the Journal spewed.
According to the Journal, Democratic complaints about GOP dishonesty only reinforces the dishonesty so Democrats shouldn't complain and try to make sure the public knows the facts.
Isn't it odd that a newspaper would be against informing the public. So is the Journal dishonest or just stupid?
After reading Tuesday's Best of the Web, one wonders whether the Journal's column should call it column Stupidity Watch or Dishonesty Watch.
In a ridiculous and dishonest report, the Journal attempts to say that when Democrats bring up the disgusting, but successful, attempt by the GOP to question former Georgia Sen. Max Cleland's patriotism in his 2002 election then the Democrats are only making more people question Cleland's patriotism.
For background, the Washington Post has noted that "Cleland, 60, is still livid over a now-infamous TV commercial that Republican challenger Saxby Chambliss ran against him. It opened with pictures of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, then attacked Cleland for voting against President Bush's Homeland Security bill. It didn't mention that Cleland supported a Democratic bill that wasn't radically different.
"That was the biggest lie in America -- to put me up there with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and say I voted against homeland security!" he says, his voice rising in anger."
The reason the Journal brought this up again because the AP (and others) reported that Theresa Heinz Kerry said she left the GOP over the treatment of Cleland.
"Shame on the AP for repeating as if it were a fact the canard that Republicans "raised questions about Cleland's patriotism." In fact, it was Democrats who did this because they could not defend the man's voting record" the Journal spewed.
According to the Journal, Democratic complaints about GOP dishonesty only reinforces the dishonesty so Democrats shouldn't complain and try to make sure the public knows the facts.
Isn't it odd that a newspaper would be against informing the public. So is the Journal dishonest or just stupid?
Tuesday, June 15, 2004
Just Desserts
Tom DeLay, called the "meanest man in Congress," and one who has been working on reducing the role of democracy and Democrats in America, apparently has been unable to completely install a one party (Soviet styled?) system of government in Washington.
According to the Washington Post, Rep. Chris Bell (D-Tex.) said he will send a complaint to the House ethics committee accusing the House's second-ranking Republican of soliciting campaign contributions in return for legislative favors; laundering illegal campaign contributions through a Texas political action committee; and improperly involving a federal agency in a Texas partisan matter.
To many people, it couldn't happen to a more deserving person.
Bell, a first-term lawmaker from Houston, lost his reelection bid in the March Democratic primary after his district was substantially redrawn in a contentious 2003 redistricting process backed by DeLay, according the Post.
Earlier this year the U.S. Supreme Court, on a 5-4 vote, decided that the shenanigans that DeLay and his ilk are pulling in several states are OK. In effect the Supreme Court ruled that democracy is messy and that fair elections are not necessary.
By sidestepping this case and deciding the Presidency in 2000, the court in effect said courts should only get involved when Republicans are harmed.
The Court may have been able to throw the 2000 Presidential election to the GOP and approved the dilution of voting rights for members of certain political parties, but until it is able to rig the entire system the GOP, and Supreme Court majority, must understand they are subject to the rule of the people.
While the day of rule by the people may be coming to an end, some rules remain. As a result, DeLay, also known as the "Hammer," may find a judicial hammer coming down on him.
But then again, just as George W. Bush escaped punishment for going AWOL and his questionable stock sale, there is always a good chance the system will give DeLay a pass.
According to the Washington Post, Rep. Chris Bell (D-Tex.) said he will send a complaint to the House ethics committee accusing the House's second-ranking Republican of soliciting campaign contributions in return for legislative favors; laundering illegal campaign contributions through a Texas political action committee; and improperly involving a federal agency in a Texas partisan matter.
To many people, it couldn't happen to a more deserving person.
Bell, a first-term lawmaker from Houston, lost his reelection bid in the March Democratic primary after his district was substantially redrawn in a contentious 2003 redistricting process backed by DeLay, according the Post.
Earlier this year the U.S. Supreme Court, on a 5-4 vote, decided that the shenanigans that DeLay and his ilk are pulling in several states are OK. In effect the Supreme Court ruled that democracy is messy and that fair elections are not necessary.
By sidestepping this case and deciding the Presidency in 2000, the court in effect said courts should only get involved when Republicans are harmed.
The Court may have been able to throw the 2000 Presidential election to the GOP and approved the dilution of voting rights for members of certain political parties, but until it is able to rig the entire system the GOP, and Supreme Court majority, must understand they are subject to the rule of the people.
While the day of rule by the people may be coming to an end, some rules remain. As a result, DeLay, also known as the "Hammer," may find a judicial hammer coming down on him.
But then again, just as George W. Bush escaped punishment for going AWOL and his questionable stock sale, there is always a good chance the system will give DeLay a pass.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)