MSNBC's Chris Matthews has been on an all out assault on Sarah Palin this week with his Palin-Palooza coverage.
Norah O'Donnell reports on the white-ness of the Palin fans saying that there are almost no minorties in the crowd and Matthews then follows that up by saying it is monochromatic.
So all of a sudeen it seems that Matthews and MSNBC have decided that racial profiling ofg a book signing is necessary and appropriate. What if this had been Jesse Jackson and his audience had been almost entirely black? Would Matthews apply the same terminology to him? I doubt it.
Matthews like others in the liberal media see Palin as a real threat to the Democrats majority status in Congress and are bewildered by her success. But it seems the more they attack her the more popular she gets.
President Obama dropped by the Osan Air Base in South Korea and thanked the troops for making a pretty good photo op.
The joke comes in at about the 1:16 mark on the video and even though it was meant in fun one has to wonder if there wasn't some truth to it as the Asia trip accomplished very little.
After reports surfaced in the media that the Obama administration's much heralded job creation web site www.recovery.gov listed as many as 440 congressional districts receiving stimulus funds that didn't exist, the phantom districts are now classified as unassigned.
The 440 phantom districts found on the government’s stimulus tracking web site have been replaced.
Recovery.org has taken down all of the phantom districts–that is districts that received money without actually existing. The 12 phantom districts in Virginia, for example, have been consolidated into one category: unassigned congressional district. It appears that the administration, embarrassed by the fallout of New Mexico Watchdog’s discovery of these discrepancies, is now looking to retrace what actual districts received the $6.4 billion distributed to the phantoms.
This is a far cry from the response that Ed Pound, spokesman for the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, gave a Montana Policy Institute reporter on Monday. Pound told reporters that the problem would not be resolved until the next data collection cycle in January.
Luckily, Watchdog.org has preserved Recovery.org’s most recent data on the 440 UFD’s (Unidentified Funded Districts) of the stimulus package.
Go to the site to see the information.
The situation is so bad that David Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat and chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said, "When you cite the jobs created in congressional districts that don't exist, I think that strikes anyone from the White House on down as being more than stupid," He added, "In my judgment, someone who doesn't know which congressional district they're in doesn't have enough of a clue to receive taxpayer money in the first place."
Well Obama wanted bipartisanship and now that Obey has joined Republicans in criticizing the error riddled site. But that may not be the kind of change he was looking for.
What on earth was Sarah Palin thinking when she posed in a pair of teeny-tiny gym shorts for a photograph that ended up on the cover of Newsweek -- a cover she has called "sexist"? Perhaps she was thinking that her image would only appear in the magazine she was posing for, Runner's World, and nowhere else, at least not for months and months. If so, she had good reason -- since, as DailyFinance has learned, the photographer who shot the picture violated his contract by reselling them to Newsweek.
That photographer, Brian Adams, could not immediately be reached, and his agent, Kelly Price, declined to comment, saying, "I keep all of my clients' business private." But a spokeswoman for Runner's World confirms that Adams's contract contained a clause stipulating that his photos of Palin would be under embargo for a period of one year following publication -- meaning until August 2010. "Runner's World did not provide Newsweek with its cover image," the spokeswoman said. "It was provided to Newsweek by the photographer's stock agency, without Runner's World's knowledge or permission." The spokeswoman declined to say whether Runner's World intends to respond to Adams's breach of contract with legal action.
But while Newsweek's use of the photo violated the embargo, it's not clear to what extent Adams is at fault. A source with knowledge of the situation says multiple outlets, including Time, approached Runner's World after the photos first appeared on its website in July to inquire about obtaining the reuse rights. Those who inquired were forwarded to Adams. Editors at the magazine were aware of negotiations to resell the pictures, and were primarily concerned to see that Runner's World received prominent credit, says the source. In the event, Newsweek credited Runner's World right on its cover. Another source says there is some disagreement over whether the exclusivity clause in Adams's contract is meant to cover all magazines or only titles that compete with Runner's World. Meanwhile, a post on Adams's blog seems to suggest he didn't know about the resale to Newsweek until after Price concluded it.
That leaves the questions of whether anyone at Newsweek knew that Adams was not contractually free to sell the photo, and whether the promised embargo was a factor in Palin's decision to pose for Runner's World. Spokespersons for Palin and Newsweek have not yet responded to inquiries from DailyFinance. Update: A Newsweek spokesman says, "We purchased the photo from an agency and were not aware of any issues with it."
As for whether the Newsweek cover is, as Palin says, sexist, editor Jon Meacham addressed that accusation Tuesday: "We chose the most interesting image available to us to illustrate the theme of the cover, which is what we always try to do," Meacham said. "We apply the same test to photographs of any public figure, male or female: does the image convey what we are saying? That is a gender-neutral standard."
Newsweek may have been exonerated from charges that they knowingly purchased an embargoed photo, but it doesn't explain fully why they chose to use the picture compared to one that would have been more neutral in appearance.
Newsweek created a media firestorm of sorts for choosing a picture of Sarah Palin in running shorts for its cover this week and has been struggling to explain why the photo isn't demeaning or sexist.
First it was editor Jon Meacham saying that the magazine was looking for the most interesting picture and that it applies the same standards to everyone and that they were gender-neutral. Now according to The Gaggle Newsweek's managing editor has chimed in with this response;
This morning, on the Today show, NEWSWEEK Managing Editor Daniel Klaidman further explained the editorial choice. “Since [Sarah Palin] has been on the national stage, there have been these questions about her gravitas and her seriousness. Sarah Palin has cultivated this image of a down-home, folksy, outdoorsy woman. And I'm not suggesting it's not authentic, but there is a sense in which she understands that it resonates politically,” Klaidman told Today host Matt Lauer. “There are a lot of people who would see that image and say 'that’s Sarah Palin, that’s why she connects with people, there’s that authenticity.' I don’t think this is an image that is taken out of context, especially when you consider what the point of the story was: to raise these questions about her seriousness."
So which is it? An interesting photo that is chosen based on a gender-neutral policy or one that displays her in a less serious manner because Klaidman doubts her seriousness and that they were looking for a picture to throw doubt into the public's mind about Palin?
For such supposedly media savvy guys like Meacham and Klaidman this effort to explain their actions has only made them look worse and Palin look like a victim of the liberal media which was surely not their intent.
The mainstream media may not like former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin nbut they can't deny she's good for business as evidenced by the big jump in ratings for her appearance on Oprah.
Oprah Winfrey’s interview with former vp candidate Sarah Palin scored the talk show host her highest rating in two years.
Monday's episode of "The Oprah Winfrey Show" drew a 8.7 household rating and 13 share -- the best since Winfrey had the entire Osmond family on the show in 2007.
That means Palin also topped Winfrey's heavily viewed interviews with Whitney Houston at the start of the season.
Palin is making the rounds to promote her new book, "Going Rogue," which came out Tuesday.
Winfrey began the interview by asking Palin if she felt snubbed at not getting an invitation to appear on the show last year. Winfrey said she didn't have any candidates on her Chicago-based show during the campaign because of her support for President Barack Obama.
Palin said she didn't feel snubbed and told Winfrey, "No offense to you, but it wasn't the center of my universe."
Palin said in another interview broadcast Tuesday that a 2012 presidential bid is "not on my radar," but wouldn't rule out playing some role in the next presidential election.
"My ambition, if you will, my desire is to help our country in whatever role that may be, and I cannot predict what that will be, what doors will be open in the year 2012," she told Barbara Walters.
When asked whether she'd play a major role, the former Republican vice presidential candidate replied that "if people will have me, I will."
Palin's popularity continues to exasperate the media and despite their best efforts to demean her as Newsweek did with their cover story this week she has not only survived but thrived.
The media is unlikely to stop the attacks but Palin has proved she is more than up to the task of dealing with the liberal bias of the press.
Joe Scarborough held up a copy of TheNew York Times. It was Monday, Nov. 16, and earlier in the morning TheTimes had published a piece about Newsweek, which had recently laid off 13 staffers. Quarterly ad revenue at the newsweekly was down 48 percent versus last year. That said, according to TheTimes, things were looking up. In the third quarter, TheWashington Post’s magazine division, largely comprised of Newsweek, lost only $4.3 million, a major improvement over the first half of the year.
Mr. Scarborough put down the newspaper and looked over at Jon Meacham, the editor of Newsweek, who was sitting across the table in the Morning Joe studio. “It’s a very positive article, congratulations,” said Mr. Scarborough. “I know it’s a rough time for everyone in print right now.”
Mr. Meacham nodded. The Times article, said Mr. Meacham, was a vote of confidence for everyone in the news business, like Newsweek and Morning Joe,
who was fighting the good fight and producing serious journalism. Mr. Scarborough agreed. He was committed to the mission. Hard news, politics, intellectual rigor. MSNBC had made a bet, said Mr. Scarborough, that audiences would reward them for steering clear of tabloid fodder. “We don’t dumb down here,” said Mr. Scarborough.
On Monday’s program, one similarity between Newsweek and Morning Joe was left unspoken—namely, that both are catering to significantly diminishing audiences. Newsweek has lowered its rate base twice in the past two years and will do so again in January. Likewise, Morning Joe is struggling to hang on to viewers. So far this fall, from Sept. 1 through Nov. 13, according to The Observer’s analysis of Nielsen numbers, Morning Joe has averaged 357,000 total viewers and 124,000 in the 25- to 54-year-old demographic—down 35 percent and 43 percent, respectively, from the same time period last year.
Of course, Morning Joe is hardly the only cable news show to suffer a steep decline from last year’s election high. But over the past eight months, Morning Joe has been slipping not only in overall ratings, but also relative to its competition. Not long ago, Morning Joe—like MSNBC’s prime-time lineup—was seemingly well poised to push past CNN into the No. 2 position in cable news (Fox News’ Fox & Friends maintains the top position by a wide margin). To wit: In March of 2009, MSNBC executives announced that Morning Joe had topped CNN’s American Morning in the demographic for the entire month—the first such victory for the network’s morning programming in more than seven years. At the time, MSNBC press releases regularly referred to Morning Joe as “the fastest growing cable news morning show.”
These days, it looks more like the fastest shrinking.
The first two weeks in November have been particularly rough. Morning Joe, during this stretch, has averaged just 315,000 total viewers and 102,000 in the 25- to 54-year-old demographic—and while the show remains competitive in total viewers, it is now regularly finishing in fourth place in the demo, not only behind American Morning (397,000 total viewers; 149,000 in the demo) but also behind Headline News’ Morning Express with Robin Meade (303,000 total viewers; 190,000 in the demo).
“We want higher ratings, and we’re going to get them,” MSNBC’s president, Phil Griffin, told The Observer on Tuesday morning. “It ebbs and flows with what’s going on in the world. But I think 2010 is going to be great for us.”
The morning cable show isn't the only one struggling for ratings. Scarborough's radio program was pulled last month in Washington, D.C. from WMAL which is owned by his syndicator Citadel Communications.
Scarborough will survive for now because MSNBC doesn't have anything better to offer in the morning slot, but his days could be numbered.
It isn't often that I get to compliment the mainstream media for doing something right but Abc News' Jonathan Karl gets props for his report Monday night on the bogus stimulus jobs listed on the administration's website www.recovery.gov.
Arizona "created" 30 jobs at a cost of $761,420 in the 15th Congressional district.
$34 million spent in Arizona's 86th district. There are only 8 districts in the state.
Connecticut"created" 25 jobs at zero cost in the 42nd district. It doesn't exist.
The same goes for jobs in other states and U.S. territories where jobs are listed in non-existent districts.
Karl reported that the administration "chalks it up to human error, " and that "the mistakes were most likely made by grant recipients who filled out their forms incorrectly and may not have even known what congressional district they live in." Despite these glaring errors the administration told Karl that the overall jobs numbers are still accurate.
Granted filling out government paperwork can be very difficult but even so using the Arizona example each of the 30 jobs was "created" at a cost of $25,380. No telling how many jobs were created with the $34 million the other bogus district.
One interesting note about the jobs number on the recovery.gov website is that they are calculated in fractional amounts like .04 or .12 etc... That seems an awfully bizarre method to calculate jobs for real people.
On Tuesday Karl reported on spending in real congressional districts and here are some of his findings;
9 jobs "created" in Campbellsville, Ky for $890 to make 9 pairs of boots for the Army Corps of Engineers
317 jobs in Augusta, Ga for $790,000 for a one-time pay raise for Headstart employees
When questioned by Karl, Chris Whitley the Fiscal Officer for Headstart said the recovery.gov's helpline told him to claim the raises as jobs.
If I'd known the government was allowing the money to be used for raises I could have applied a and "created" another 8 jobs.
This is just another example of why the stimulus was a bad idea to begin with despite the White House claiming exactly the opposite.
This isn't Karl's first foray into questionable government spending. Back in April he uncovered the cost of keeping the John Murth airport open even though it has few if any passengers.
While Karl has done a good job in this issue and the Murtha airport they are too few and far between considering the waste and fraud that exists in our government.
We need more investigative reporting by the media not less.
The Congressional Media Fairness Caucus led by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) awarded Newsweek magazine its "Lap Dog Award" for glaring examples of media bias.
In a speech on the floor of the House Smith cited the following examples of bias at Newsweek
Newsweek’s cover story featuring former Vice President Al Gore with the caption, “The Thinking Man’s Thinking Man.”
The previous Newsweek cover featured President Obama with the caption, ‘Yes He Can’ – a variation of his campaign slogan.
Before that it was Vice President Biden – ‘A Vice President to be Reckoned With.’
Newsweek’s latest cover features Governor Sarah Palin and says she is ‘Bad News.’
The Palin cover this week may be one of the most egregious examples of bias. Rather than use one of the hundreds of photos available of Palin where she is more dressed for success Newsweek chose to use a picture obtained from a Runner's World photo shoot where the former governor is wearing running shorts. Couple that with the headline of "How Do You Solve a Problem Like Sarah?" -She's Bad News For the GOP - And Everyone Else Too! and it becomes obvious that the story was more about capitalizing on Palin's sex appeal than good journalism. Even the lefties on "The View" thought the photo was sexist.
Newsweek has responded to the criticism of the photo with this statement;
Today, Newsweek's Editor Jon Meacham has responded to critics. "We chose the most interesting image available to us to illustrate the theme of the cover, which is what we always try to do,” Meacham said. "We apply the same test to photographs of any public figure, male or female: does the image convey what we are saying? That is a gender-neutral standard."
Somehow I doubt that we will be seeing Barney Frank or Nancy Pelosi in similar attire on the cover of Newsweek anytime soon despite the magazines's claim of being gender-neutral.
CNN Beijing correspondent Emily Chang was detained for two hours today by authorities in Shanghai for holding up a t-shirt that depicts Pres. Obama wearing a Red Army uniform.
Chang bought the t-shirt at a basement souvenir shop in Beijing and brought it with her to Shanghai as she covers Pres. Obama's visit to the city.
When Chang held up the shirt up for a live shot outside a Shanghai metro stop, she was approached by two security guards. "They scrambled towards us and tried to pry the shirt out of my cold, dead hands," Chang writes on the In the Field blog. "I didn't give in." Despite "a bit of yelling and quite a scuffle," the crew kept the shirt.
The front of the t-shirt says "Serve the People" in Chinese. On the back, it reads "Oba Mao" in English. The shirts have been seen in Chinese shops for months, but were "banned" ahead of Obama's trip.
The Chinese government didn't want to offend Obama during his visit but considering he has already been depicted on posters and t-shirts with equal if not worse links to revolutionaries it probably wouldn't have bothered the president too much and only underscores the how natural it is for people see his ties to these individuals.
