By Allie Duzett | November 20, 2009
“NBC gives new meaning to the phrase ‘green screen’ next week,” announced David Bauder of the Associated Press on Monday. Indeed, NBC will be exhibiting some “green” themes in five of its prime-time programs, including “30 Rock,” “The Office,” “Community,” “Heroes,” and even “The Biggest Loser.”
According to the AP, Al Gore will be guest starring on 30 Rock, the heroes of Heroes will be talking about recycling, and Dwight from The Office will act as the “Recyclops.” The AP reports, “trainers on "The Biggest Loser" will instruct their clients to buy organic produce and bring their own mugs to the coffee shop.”
The surface argument here is that going “green” is “something that is relatable and is something that a lot of people are doing.” At least, that’s how the actors involved are explaining it. Beth Colleton, vice president of the "Green is Universal" campaign, indicated that shows were not outright forced to include the themes. From the AP:
“We make sure we don't dictate to the show,” [Colleton] said. Producers decide the best way to absorb the message in a way that's appropriate for their audiences, she said.
However, it is noteworthy that NBC is actually owned by General Electric. And General Electric, in turn, is chaired by Jeffrey Immelt.
These are two significant facts. Both General Electric as a company and Jeffrey Immelt as a person have a lot at stake in the “green” movement.
In 2005, General Electric launched a new initiative called Ecomagination. The idea was to solidify their place as an eco-friendly company. Since, General Electric has created many enviro-central products, such as photovoltaic cells and water desalination machines. Obviously, selling these often expensive products requires a strong customer base. Such a base would necessarily be made up of eco-alarmists - because why would a global warming skeptic or denier pay for such expensive products when regular tap water or electricity from coal would do?
This issue is especially pressing today, when most consumers are increasingly skeptical of global warming. Add to that a growing economic crisis, and General Electric’s eco-friendly line could be in some serious trouble.
Jeffrey Immelt obviously has a lot hinging on the success of GE—in 2007, he made $14 million from the company. But he also has a lot invested in the success of President Obama’s agenda. Immelt is on President Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, and has been since February 2009. President Obama’s agenda includes “green” jobs and “green” initiatives—two things Immelt has been very supportive of in the past.
Immelt’s agenda is not just pushed through General Electric – it’s also pushed through NBC. But this coming week, we won’t just be seeing that agenda pushed through news programming and commercials. This week, the propaganda will be present in the TV shows, too.
It’s not the first time a political and economic agenda shaped a television show. In fact, many television shows were actually sponsored by cigarette companies looking for a new medium to sell cigarettes with. The danger is not necessarily politicized programming—the problem is politicized programming that viewers don’t realize is politicized.
And NBC’s programming? At least this week, consider it politicized.
By K. Daniel Glover | November 20, 2009
The liberal media's mission to destroy Sarah Palin in the heat of her ongoing book tour ensnared an unwitting a 17-year-old Palin fan in Grand Rapids, Mich. Norah O'Donnell of MSNBC set up the girl, Jackie Seal, by staging a confrontation with her over Palin's views on last year's government bailout of the financial industry because Seal was wearing an anti-bailout shirt.
First watch the encounter on YouTube, but then be sure to read Seal's report of her encounter with "one of the many faces of liberal media bias" (key excerpts below the video).
Seal "knew I was walking into hot water with MSNBC" but thought she was prepared. Off the air, O'Donnell asked Seals why she liked Palin. O'Donnell then noticed what Seal's shirt said -- "the U.S. government handed out $700 billion in Wall Street bailouts, and all I got was this lousy t-shirt" -- and decided to seize on that storyline for the live shot but without telling Seal in advance, after she had led the teen to believe the line of questioning would be about why she likes Palin.
I kept telling myself answer her question well, don't freak out. Well, I thought she'd ask me the same question. She asked the man beside me (who by the way is NOT my dad) the same question she had before we went on air. Myself on the other hand, not the same story. She had me read my shirt and then proceeded to ask me, "Did you know Sarah Palin supported the bailout"?
To be 100 percent honest, I was like, are you kidding me? She is trying to use my shirt against me. I was so shocked by the craftiness she had that I was truly stumped. I asked her where she got her fact, and she read her little note. Then she asked me what I liked about Sarah, and I talked about the Constitution.
Immediately after the interview I said to my dad, "Oh man, I have so many great responses now about my shirt." I could have said, "Well, my shirt doesn't say anything about Sarah Palin supporting the bailout." Or, "Hey Norah, have you read the book? She talks about how during her debate prep she was handed a list of note cards that had questions and 'non-answers.' Of course they told Sarah Palin to support everything McCain did. Call me crazy but it would have looked pretty bad had Sarah Palin been against something John McCain was against while they were running together."
Seal later realized she was the victim of a typical media "gotcha" moment. (Remember, she is just a teenager.) But thanks to the power of new media, she turned the "gotcha" moment on O'Donnell, not only reporting the context of what happened on the scene but also exposing an intentionally misleading factual error by O'Donnell.
In responding to alleged "lies out there" about her report, O'Donnell said on Twitter that Seal is not 13. That much is true. But O'Donnell also said Seal "voted in 2008." Seal is only 17 now, so she didn't vote last year. "And I don't live in an ACORN district, so I didn't have a chance to even register illegally," she added on her blog.
As of this morning, O'Donnell has not yet corrected the record on Twitter.
By K. Daniel Glover | November 19, 2009
NBC Evening News anchor Brian Williams, who just won the Walter Cronkite Award for Excellence in Journalism at Arizona State University, is nostalgic for the days of NBC hero given tribute in the name of the award.
Williams also isn't a big fan of the Internet, proving that he is as much a news dinosaur as Cronkite. In his acceptance speech for the award yesterday, Williams lamented the rise of blogs and Twitter as signs of "all things civic ... being replaced by all things narcissistic."
He acknowledged that the Web is occasionally home to "deep, sometimes brilliant work" that informs people. But Williams seemed far more concerned with the "way too much material" online that he compared with "words written on a subway wall."
"There's journalism, and there's everything ending in "LOL," he said only half-jokingly.
Here is a transcript of that section of Williams' acceptance speech:
I won't today deliver a homily or a lecture or a screed about our business because we all know what's happening in the news business -- and that is that we have no idea what's happening to the news business. One hundred seventy-five thousand blogs are created every day -- 175,000 new blogs. We have 113 million to date. Twitter will have ... 26 million users years by the year 2010.
... All things civic, it seems some days in this country, are being replaced by all things narcissistic -- one of the changes in the times since Walter Cronkite ruled the airwaves and came into our homes. We have confused in many cases tonnage with knowledge, and while we aren't learning more there is generically more out there.
Facts matter less. Throw experience in there, too. We're all finding it's a heck of a lot easier to voice an opinion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan than it is to go and report back home on what you find.
On the Web, there is way too much material, way too much, with the heft and the value and the impact of words written on a subway wall. And at the same time, there is also deep, sometimes brilliant work being done.
It's all out there if you're able to find it. And it's all there if you know the difference. There's journalism, and there's everything ending in "LOL."
Williams is right that much of what passes for information on the Internet is useless. But like so many of his "professional" colleagues in the media, he is misguided in his criticism of the Web and the new media outlets it has spawned.
His comments reminded me of my behind-the-scenes visit to the Newseum for bloggers just before it opened. Robert Cox, president of the Media Bloggers Association was there, and I interviewed him in front of the "Sex! Crime! Scandal!" display that highlighted some of the historical the flaws of old media.
"I don't see any bloggers up here on this wall," Cox said, "so I can tell you maybe it's the traditional media that's been doing that."
Some bloggers undoubtedly will be immortalized for journalistic transgressions in the future. But while the emergence of new media tools has amplified the flaws of the media, the problems have existed for a long time. In fact, the shortcomings of old media, including their longstanding liberal bias, help explain the success of new media.
One Accuracy in Media fan on Twitter noted the irony of Williams' lament about the current state of media. "So when 'the people' turn our attention away from journalists, we are narcissistic?"
Not at all. Rather, we are discerning listeners who are thrilled that we now have access to both the news wheat and chaff. We trust ourselves to separate it better than Walter Cronkite, Brian Williams and the narcissists of media past ever have.
By Allie Duzett | November 19, 2009
CNN just keeps on slapping objectivity in the face. This time, CNN’s Jim Acosta went out of his way on November 18 to insult and marginalize the Oath Keepers.
The Oath Keepers describe themselves as a “non-partisan association of currently serving military, veterans, peace officers, and firefighters” who swear to “support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God.” The Oath Keepers routinely send care packages to American troops overseas and speak out in favor the supreme law of the land. However, it would appear that Jim Acosta disagrees with these actions and goals—which makes sense, given that Acosta has in the past misrepresented Rush Limbaugh in defense of Barack Obama, and attacked those who disagree with leftist health care “reform."
During the segment, Acosta interviews Mark Potok, a leftist who, in Acosta’s words, “monitors extremist groups with the Southern Poverty Law Center.” Acosta goes on to remark that Potok has said “Oath Keepers are exploiting false rumors found on fringe websites.” “Many of the Oath Keepers and people who believe that martial law is about to be imposed at any moment,” Potok says.
However, Potok is far from unbiased—even if Acosta leaves that part of his biography out. The Southern Poverty Law Center is made up of a group of agenda-driven radicals who “monitor organized hate activity” from what they deem to be the extreme right. Potok doesn’t “monitor extremist groups,” he monitors groups he vehemently disagrees with—like the Oath Keepers. And why wouldn’t he? The Oath Keepers stand up for freedom under the Constitution, and the Constitution technically prohibits the federal government from interfering in situations of alleged “hate.” As Confederate Yankee reported, “The truly pathetic thing about Potok is that "news" organizations know very well that Potok is a former journalist with an ideological axe to grind.” Using Potok as a commentator in any serious story is a joke for any self-respecting news organization.
Acosta also interviewed noted leftist Brian McGough, a pet of Media Matters who was once featured in an anti-Rush Limbaugh commercial. McGough has since become something of a spokesperson for VoteVets.org. VoteVets.org is a left-wing group of veterans who focus their time on attacking John McCain—but never Obama—for skipping Senate votes while on the 2008 campaign trail; supporting “clean” energy; and demanding the “truth” about torture. McGough is another interviewee who is far from objective, and it is embarrassing for any news organization with hopes for objectivity to allow him to critique a conservative organization. Especially a conservative organization that involves members of the military.
Acosta did show some clips of his interview with Stewart Rhodes, the founder of the Oath Keepers. Acosta asked Rhodes if the Oath Keepers were a “militia” group, and seemed fixated on the idea that men and women in the armed forces would want to protect Americans from ever having to go to detention camps (as is stated in the Oath Keepers’ oath).
“Do you think that President Obama is plotting to build detention camps in this country?” Acosta asked.
“I don’t know. Do you think President Bush was plotting to do that?” Rhodes replied. A reasonable response to a man who will fawn over President Obama without shame, and whose network once employed the infamously biased Susan Roesgen.
Acosta was also painting other patriotic groups as radicals earlier this week.
By Allie Duzett | November 18, 2009
New York’s Daily News is notable this week for nothing so much as its relentless attacks on Sarah Palin. There seems to be no end to the list of cruel articles meant to tear Palin apart this week.
Daily News writers Amy Diluna and Jacob E. Osterhout write about Palin’s interview with Oprah, criticizing her look (“We get that the RNC isn’t footing the bill for this one — but while you were in New York, might we have pointed you toward an H&M?” they ask), her voice (“a nasal nightmare”), and her family life. They even manage to diss Palin’s fashion AND about half of America in one fell swoop: “In a sharp blue power suit (hey, the red-staters are already going to buy her book), black stockings and artfully tousled hair, she locked eyes on Oprah and didn’t waver,” they write.
Michael Mcauliff had more to add: “In case all the publicity around her new book is going to her head, Sarah Palin is receiving some sobering news in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll: She's not all that popular,” he writes.
Daily News staff writer Sherryl Connelly used her platform as an ostensible reporter to call Palin the “complainer in chief” who is “a chronic complainer.” “The news from the book has already spilled, and it is essentially this: John McCain’s senior aides were mean to her. Katie Couric was mean to her. Her critics, who are by definition supposed to be mean, were mean to her… Palin has no insight whatsoever into the fact that to much of the nation, she was a natural joke, not a scripted one,” Sherryl writes.
Staff writer Lia Eustachewich takes apparent pleasure in quoting Levi Johnston, father of Palin’s grandchild:
"I think she's going out and talking, and she's just digging a bigger hole for herself," said Johnston, who claimed he was disgusted by Palin's interview. "It's almost funny, that she's like, 46 years old, and she's battling a 19 year old, and I'm winning. And I'm telling the truth. She's lying and losing."
Palin went on to publicly invite Johnston to Thanksgiving dinner, which he declined in his Playgirl interview, saying that it would be "awkward" and that Palin is "full of it."
Staff writer David Hinckley writes of Palin dripping with sarcasm and disdain:
As with Oprah Winfrey yesterday, Palin played the schoolgirl waiting by the phone when it comes to her future. Why, she hardly has any plans at all, she suggested, but so many wonderful opportunities have popped up in her life that gosh, nothing would surprise her. She could be asked to play point guard for the Lakers. She could be asked to run for President. Who knows?
Her interview with Walters, which is running in multiple parts, was in many ways a condensed and thus improved version of her hour with Oprah Winfrey yesterday.
Polite and balanced, don’t you think? Hinckley wrote another article about the Oprah interview calling Oprah a great hostess, essentially for putting up with Sarah Palin.
Richard Cohen writes that Palin has been “clearly seen as an empty vessel who could be controlled by her intellectual betters.” He calls Palin a “demagogue” who is “not…very responsible,” and accuses her supporters of being “irrational.”
The most balanced article by far was by Lauren Johnston, about Palin’s first day on tour with her book; another decent and relatively unbiased article was by David Saltonstall. A runner up for balance was by political correspondent Michael Saul, discussing Palin’s future. But Saul made up for this shocking balance by writing in another article that Palin was “continuing the feud” between herself and Levi Johnston. Of course, it was Palin who invited Johnston over for Thanksgiving, and Johnston who said that Palin was “full of it,” but Saul hardly points that out. Saul also includes multiple quotations in defense of Johnston’s nude poses for Playgirl, as if to imply that Palin is so stupid she doesn’t even understand that "Playgirl, Playboy, most of those magazines, they are not porn.” However, I know for a fact that many people in America consider Playboy a porn magazine.
The Daily News website also includes a fun “Palin-tology” quiz that asks such kind and unbiased questions as:
3. Which of the following colleges did Palin NOT attend?
a. University of Idaho
b. Hawaii Pacific University
c. North Idaho College
d. Harvey Mudd College
e. Matanuska-Susitna College
6. Which book did Palin ban from the Wasilla Library when she was mayor?
a. Huckleberry Finn
b. Lolita
c. Harry Potter
d. None
“D” is the answer to both of those questions, in case you were wondering.
The Daily News is responsible for some extreme bias when it comes to coverage of Sarah Palin—and the problem doesn’t appear to be with only one or two staff members. From the looks of it, many if not most of the staff on the paper is rabidly anti-Palin. This is interesting because many of the polls from the site show strong support for Palin. Why is the Daily News isolating its readers in this way?
Once again, there are two options here. Either the writers for the Daily News are unaware of their polls, which show that many of their readers support Palin, or they honestly don’t care about the leanings of their readers or their commitment to unbiased journalism, and are simply trying to stir up anti-Palin feelings. Either way, it doesn't say very good things about the Daily News.
By Allie Duzett | November 18, 2009
Twitter has taken the social media world by a storm with its innovative medium for microblogging; however, it turns out, not even social media is free from bias. Recently, Twitter announced that it would be eventually deleting its "suggested user" feature-because of its pro-Democratic bias.
The "suggested user" feature was originally meant to link new Twitter users to famous people, such as celebrities, athletes, and politicians. However, as the Associated Press reported, people on this feature were chosen by "company officials," all of whom apparently were staunch Democrats who saw no need for ideological diversity on the list. In California, only Democratic candidates for governor were placed on the list; Republican candidates, on the other hand, were only added after the Associated Press ran a story on the "perceived" bias three weeks ago. The additions to the feature saw some notable results, as the AP reported on Monday:
Former eBay chief executive Meg Whitman, who led the Republican field with 4,160 Twitter followers, jumped to nearly 61,000 followers. Former Congressman Tom Campbell went from 1,660 followers to 57,500, while state Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner's nearly 2,600 followers increased to 56,500.
By comparison, Attorney General Jerry Brown, the presumed Democratic gubernatorial candidate, increased from 960,000 followers to 1 million during the same three-week period.
Clearly, this bias in the favor of Democrats has made a difference-three weeks on the "suggested user" list can get a candidate tens of thousands of followers, and up until recently, Republicans were de facto banned from the list. Of course, having many followers doesn't automatically translate into political success, but it is clear that Twitter's "company officials" were hoping that it would. If they wanted an even playing field for members of both parties, they clearly would have included Republican gubernatorial candidates instead of only Democratic ones.
These biased "company officials" at Twitter, though, had good reason to ignore Republican candidates. A higher percentage of Republicans use Twitter in the national political sphere: 22.3 percent of congressional Republicans use Twitter, while only 8.5 percent of congressional Democrats do. As of September 2009, Republicans in Congress were out-tweeting Democratic representatives; 64 percent of congressional tweets came from Republicans, as opposed to the Democratic Party's embarrassing 36 percent. The White House celebrated its one millionth follower on Twitter back on August 30-but John McCain had passed that point six weeks before. Top Conservatives on Twitter (#tcot) is widely popular among conservatives; but the Top Progressives group for tweeting libs (#topprog) has not done nearly as well (despite claims of its "instantaneous" popularity). Even now, months after Top Progressives' Twitter infancy, a cursory glance at the #topprog page shows tweets from as far back as three hours-as compared to the #tcot page that tracks recent tweets by half-minutes. While I was examining the two pages, I missed 87 new tweets from the Top Conservatives page, and zero (0) new tweets from the Top Progressives page. And while President Obama may have over 2.6 million followers on Twitter, he recently announced that he has never actually used Twitter in his life.
So perhaps the "company officials" believed they were performing some sort of political affirmative action for wannabe Democratic governors, who according to statistics like that are comparatively bad at using Twitter.
However, Twitter co-founder Biz Stone told a different story at a recent conference in Malaysia. Huliq News reports:
At the present time Stone and other company employees choose the people who are featured on the list. The list is based on users "who show that they provide value by posting often and engaging with their followers."
This suggests that Stone believes something contrary to current statistics: that Democratic hopefuls "provide" more "value" by "posting often and engaging with their followers." But again, as of September, this did not hold true in the national political sphere, and the chances are slim that it holds true in California.
This leaves two options for Stone. First, he was seriously unaware that Republicans tend to tweet most often and engage followers most, and had simply never bothered to compare the Republican and Democratic candidates in California. If Stone had bothered to compare them, he may have noticed that even in California, Republican candidates out-tweet Democratic ones. For example, as of 10:03 AM on Tuesday morning, leading Republican Meg Whitman had tweeted 191 times; leading Democrat Jerry Brown had only tweeted 170 times. It would appear that at least superficially and based on numbers alone, Meg Whitman deserves to be on the list more than Jerry Brown.
The second option is that Stone didn't care that Republicans provide more "value" on Twitter when he was compiling the list of names to go on the feature. Which do you feel is more likely?
At this Malaysian conference, Stone announced that the old feature would be deleted eventually, and replaced with "that is more programmatically chosen, something that actually delivers more relevant suggestions." This is good news for everyone who supports balance in social media.
By Allie Duzett | November 18, 2009
Recently Charles Gibson of World News had some things to say about the “news business” and its customers. From the Media Research Center:
World News anchor Charles Gibson admitted on Tuesday [November 10], “I worry about the lack of objectivity and the future of the news business.” According to the Boston Herald, the ABC host spoke before the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce and said of Fox News and MSNBC: “I don’t like the fact that they’re delivering news based on the conviction of its viewers.” He also derided some viewers who “watch news that plays to their own prejudices.”
These are strong words coming from a guy who only has a job because of “prejudiced” viewers.
Gibson might be “worried” about “lack of objectivity” in the news, but that sure hasn’t stopped him in the past from editorializing on supposedly objective news. Consider his coverage of Sarah Palin in comparison to his coverage of President Obama as one example. From Common Ground Politics:
Even the camera angle was designed to be prejudiced against Palin. She is filmed from the side and slightly with her back to the camera. Although there are close ups of her face the long shot shows her back to the camera. It seems filming her with her back to the camera was meant to make her appear less likeable. In contrast, the film crew placed the long shot camera facing Obama so at all times when he is speaking the camera looks him in the face rather than looking at his back.
Gibson’s questions to Obama included such hard-hitters as “Is the hardest part of all this behind you or ahead of you?” and “What did you think of the Clinton speech?” He really pried for answers when he asked, “Has the joyfulness of [the presidential nomination] hit home yet? Do you take joy from it?”
In contrast, check out the first few interactions between Palin and Gibson during their interview together:
GIBSON: Governor, let me start by asking you a question that I asked John McCain about you, and it is really the central question. Can you look the country in the eye and say "I have the experience and I have the ability to be not just vice president, but perhaps president of the United States of America?"
PALIN: I do, Charlie, and on January 20, when John McCain and I are sworn in, if we are so privileged to be elected to serve this country, will be ready. I'm ready.
GIBSON: And you didn't say to yourself, "Am I experienced enough? Am I ready? Do I know enough about international affairs? Do I -- will I feel comfortable enough on the national stage to do this?"
PALIN: I didn't hesitate, no.
GIBSON: Didn't that take some hubris?
Interesting. For Obama, the toughest question Gibson can come up with is “are you happy about winning?” For Palin, Gibson just has to ask if hubris drove her to accept the Republican vice presidential nomination.
But Gibson’s bias has not only extended to Sarah Palin. As the Media Research Center’s Newsbusters pointed out, when President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize, Gibson raved about "the Nobel Committee feeling that he has inspired a new sense in the world”—and also mentioned how “humble” Obama was in his acceptance of the award.
However, in reality, perhaps the most “humble” thing President Obama could have done was turn the Peace Prize down, and allow it to go to someone who actually deserved it. The Peace Prize doesn’t just come with prestige, after all; it also comes with over a million dollars in prize money. Other nominees for the Nobel Peace Prize this year included an African gynecologist treating victims of sexual terrorism, and a woman who risks her life daily for the schools she created to educate girls and women in relatively misogynistic (and formerly Taliban-ruled) Afghanistan.
Is it really “humble,” as Charles Gibson claimed, for the President of the United States to accept a prize—and the money and prestige that goes with that prize—when compared with other nominees? I would love to see a serious argument that Obama has done more for individuals in the world than Dr. Denis Mukwege, who has treated over 21,000 victims of sexual violence and torture in Congo. While President Obama has yet to tell the world where his $1.4 million in Peace Prize winnings will go—as recently as October 27th, people were still trying to get their hands on the money—I think it is safe to say that by now, Dr. Mukwege would have put that money to good use helping the thousands of women in central Africa who are sexually terrorized and tortured every day. Perhaps it would have been more “humble” for President Obama to at least donate the money to Dr. Mukwege’s efforts.
A final example of Gibson’s bias (although there are countless more, to be sure) would be his complete avoidance of the ACORN story broken by Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe. As the Media Research Center explained:
On September 15, 2009, five days after a massive story about ACORN and corruption broke, the anchor was interviewed on a Chicago radio station and asked about lack of coverage.
He laughingly dismissed, "I didn’t even know about it. Um. So, you’ve got me at a loss. I don’t know. Uh. Uh. But my goodness, if it’s got everything including sleaziness in it, we should talk about it this morning."
Gibson is just another liberal whose bias extends to his reporting, despite any claims of objective journalism. He ignores major stories, favors pet interviewees, demonizes those he disagrees with, and lovingly fawns over President Obama at the drop of a hat. For a man who is so “worried” about the future of the news business, perhaps he should look at his own “lack of objectivity” first.
By Allie Duzett | November 17, 2009
The New York Times has long supported both unions and high taxes—but at last, the once-great newspaper is forced to recognize reality: that unions and high taxes are anything but good for business. On November 12, 2009, the Times announced that it would be moving 25 staffers from the newsroom in New York to The Gainesville Sun’s newsroom in Florida. Why?
Because the Florida paper’s “newsroom is not unionized and has lower salaries.”
According to Reuters, “the New York Times Co informed non-union employees that it would stop contributions to their pensions at the end of the year. The company plans to instead contribute 3 percent of non-union employees' salaries each year to their 401K plans.” Reuters adds, “The New York Times Co has experienced declines in advertising and mounting debt that have forced it to cut costs and sell assets.”
Certainly, it would be foolhardy to expect anything but a decline in profits for the Times. All newspapers are struggling these days as a result of free news on the Internet; and the Times is now up against an ever-growing tidal wave of grassroots conservatism. As the number of progressives and the uninformed shrinks, so does New York Times readership.
But of course, the Times has never seen it that way. Take, for example, this article by Edward L. Glaeser. In this article, Glaeser argues that state taxes on millionaires are bad—but only because they make millionaires move to different states. Instead of state taxes on millionaires, the federal government should tax millionaires even more—because that way the “rich” can’t escape to a different state.
Glaeser writes, “Taxing the rich always has costs, like reduced entrepreneurship and hours of work, but those costs may be worth paying to achieve greater equality.” And also: “It is perfectly consistent to be in favor of soaking the rich at the national level but to be against such policies at the state or local level. If New York taxes its financiers heavily, it can be sure that Greenwich will grow.”
On October 12, 2009, David M. Herszenhorn and Robert Pear wrote an article about taxes on high-cost health insurance plans. In the beginning, they point out critics’ views, including that such taxes would hurt the middle class. But later on, they only cite one group of experts who happen to favor the higher taxes. They write, “The tax, a provision of the bill to be voted on Tuesday by the Senate Finance Committee, is one of the few remaining proposals under consideration by Congress that budget experts say could lead directly to a reduction in health care spending over the long term, by prompting employers and employees to buy cheaper insurance.” In fact, the article seems to favor the tax so much that it comes as a shock to read that this bill “Republicans and Democrats alike” support actually has a strong Democratic opposition: “At least 173 House Democrats, two-thirds of the party caucus, have signed a letter to Ms. Pelosi voicing opposition to the insurance tax.” Why wasn’t that at the beginning of the article, again? Herszenhom and Pear mention the opposition halfway through the article, and then go back to quoting all the nice things Max Baucus’ aides have to say about the tax.
In January of this year, Steven Greenhouse strongly defended both unions and Hilda Solis. In the article, Greenhouse implies that Republicans were guilty of harassing Solis, who “took pains to avoid any contention or debate,” “calmly deflected [Republican] jabs,” and “talked abut her humble roots and her ability to identify with struggling workers.” And why would the Republicans attack Solis? Well, Greenhouse writes, it’s because of her support for the Employee Free Choice Act, which Republicans hate “because it would enable unions to add millions of workers over the next few years and would largely eliminate use of the secret ballot to determine whether workers want a union… The bill would give employees at a workplace the right to gain union recognition as soon as a majority of them sign cards saying they want to join a specific union.” In other words, it’s because those evil Republicans hate it when nice Democratic women make life easier for the poor workers, right?
Throughout the article, the Times writer complains about Republicans seeking to “trip [Solis] up,” while also focusing on things like the Democrats who “invited her to praise labor unions for how they have helped lift wages and preserve the middle class.”
Also in January, Times writer Paul Krugman wrote glowingly of “public”—by that, he meant “government”—investment, stating “We need stimulus fast, and there’s a limited supply of ‘shovel-ready’ projects that can be started soon enough to deliver an economic boost any time soon.” He later on complains about those Republicans again, standing in the way of more taxes: “Make 40% of the package tax cuts, they’ll demand 100%. Then they’ll start the thing about how you can’t cut taxes on people who don’t pay taxes (with only income taxes counting, of course) and demand that the plan focus on the affluent,” he writes.
A March article by that same Steven Greenhouse praised unions again, calling the United Automobile Workers union “a much humbled but still proud union” that was “reluctant to ask others for help.” He quotes the UAW union president John Sweeney saying, “The way the U.A.W. has been treated is a disgrace,” and notes that once again, those meanie Republicans have been standing in the way of union progress.
It really is fitting that after all of this flagrant support for progressive tax and union policies, the Times has to move to Florida. Now the real test will be if the Times continues supporting all the policies that forced the move in the first place.
By K. Daniel Glover | November 17, 2009
The potentially bright future of conservative journalism has been on full display the past two days, as conservative journalists and citizen watchdogs have exposed both the deceptions and incompetence of the government in its reporting of federal "stimulus" spending.
The Washington Examiner did the country a service Monday when it mapped the lies of bureaucrats who falsely boasted that they had "created or saved" tens of thousands of jobs. And today, Watchdog.org, an online publication of the nonprofit Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, reported that the federal Web site tracking the stimulus expenditures shows that $6.4 billion was spent in House districts that don't even exist.
More than $2 million was given to the 99th District of North Dakota, a state which has only one congressional district. ... The stimulus revived eight recently retired congressional districts. Pennsylvania’s 21st District has received just under $2 million in funds. Mississippi’s 5th District and Oklahoma’s 6th received $1 million from the legislation, respectively. All three were eliminated by the 2000 census.
Many other recipients carried the banner for congressional districts that have been defunct for decades. South Carolina’s 7th took the cake, garnering more than $27 million in stimulus funds, despite being eliminated in 1930. And Virginia’s 12th District may have been written off at the start of the Civil War, but it must carry some sentimental value in Old Dominion -- it received more than $2 million, according to Recovery.gov.
The stimulus helped to create 35 congressional districts in Washington, D.C., and the four American territories, all of which have no congressional districts. These areas received $5 [billion] of the $6.4 billion distributed to the non-existent districts.
The Franklin Center has citizen watchdogs across the country, and the one in New Mexico first reported the disconnect between congressional reality and the government data. Reports from watchdogs in Kansas, Ohio, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire and West Virginia followed. The Franklin Center then pulled together the data from all states into one document by using the information on Recovery.gov.
Fox News cited the Franklin Center's work in a story that quoted an irritated David Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat and chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. "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," Obey said. 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."
The Washington Times and the popular blog Hot Air also credited the Franklin Center.
ABC News compiled its own report on the phantom congressional districts Monday. The network curiously touted the story as an exclusive even though the center's watchdogs were reporting the news independently the same day. ABC's data also is not as comprehensive as what the center released in its follow-up piece today.
Regardless of who ultimately gets credit for breaking the story, it's obvious that the Franklin Center played a key role into pushing the story into the mainstream. Couple that fact with the creative online aggregation work of the Examiner's investigative team and conservatives have two excellent case studies for how to shape the public discourse by producing quality journalism.
By Allie Duzett | November 17, 2009
CNN is now claiming that Nidal Malik Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter, is a conservative. On November 10, 2009, CNN Special Investigations Correspondent Drew Griffin called Hasan “conservative,” and now that talking point is being spewed again on today’s front page online story. The story, about Hasan’s search for a wife, discusses how two imams told CNN “about [Hasan’s] conservatism.” The story also mentions Hasan’s “conservative” clothing choices.
However—what exactly about Hasan is conservative?
Fact: Islamofascism is not conservative, in any way. Hating America is not conservative—conservatives tend to love their country. Wanting to blow up America is not conservative—again, conservatives tend to love their country. Hating people for their religion (or lack thereof) is not conservative—conservatives are not the ones trying to remove other people’s religions from the public sphere.
What Hasan did was not conservative. Murdering men and women in the armed forces is not conservative—conservatives are traditionally the ones most supportive of our men and women in the armed forces. Murdering fetuses is absolutely not conservative—conservatives tend to oppose abortion, and Hasan murdered a pregnant woman and her unborn child. And of course, wearing traditional clothing—even Islamic clothing—does not make you a conservative. While I don’t believe the story meant to imply that Hasan’s clothing linked him to a conservative ideology, I believe the writer could have picked a better word for it. Hasan may have been religious, but religiosity never makes one conservative, even if that person is a traditionalist within the religion.
This is just another case of CNN’s reporters creating a link to conservatism where there really is none.
Visit the complete
Blog - On Target archives.
