Right Wing Entitlement Culture: Pt. II - The Media

UPDATE: Somehow I posted the unchecked, raw version of this post the other day without noticing it. So, in the spirit of showing you that I'm not a dithering buffoon who doesn't understand grammar, here's the version that should have been posted.

---------------------------------------------

In the second installment of our series on Right Wing Entitlement Culture, we examine the singular aspect of the modern American landscape that the Right claims is largely against them - The Media.

While the Modern American Right continually blast the "Mainstream Media", it's interesting to note that they also love to blather endlessly about how Fox"News" enjoys a massive audience share that other outlets should be jealous of.

Admittedly, I do watch Fox"News" now and again, but not for the reasons that they claim most people do. More on that aspect of the Right and the media in America in a moment.

I thought I would start this off with what is likely the perfect example of Right Wing Entitlement machinations: a healthy dose of rank conjecture, conspiracy, and more than a sprinkling of insistence of victimhood.



Immediately Breitbart goes after his most prestigious foe - Media Matters. Not because they are explicitly wrong by using context and the precise and accurately accounted words of the Modern American Right and their Fox"News" masters, but because he has a metaphorical hard-on to see Eric Boehlert and company be proven false by any means necessary.

This is the first, and most shining example, of conservative framing - attack the messenger without merit.

In terms of O'Reilly's insistence that he and Fox"News" have proven that Media Matters is a sham operation funded almost exclusively by George Soros, he again references the demonstrably misleading chart of Soros's financial contributions to Media Matters - something Breitbart and Fox"News" have tried to do with NPR as well.

This is where Breitbart - accompanied by an easily convinced O'Reilly - start to make completely false connections with Media Matters, Daily Kos, and Anthony Weiner's staffers that is the perfect definition of "unfounded". What O'Reilly postulates is that simply because people question Breitbart's motives and sources, they are simply trying to "smear" him.

Here is where they actually got it wrong, though their instincts were right from the start.

Andrew Breitbart has been so eager to prove that his socio-political opposites are nothing but corrupt and immoral that he will distribute and champion material that he apparently doesn't properly vet. And for those that used this template as a rational for going after the story and it's credibility, they were wrong - this time.

Breitbart then tries to explain his specious and laughably poor "connections" by referencing the non-controversial Journolist story as if it were in any way controversial. But, to a Conservative or Libertarian, any way to besmirch media that you don't control automatically demands that you label it as controversial.

The pair then went full-on Beckian to insist that MSNBC, Media Matters, and the White House are in this together in order to attack Breitbart and Fox"News". Again, this is something that is not even provable or even in the realm of speculation. What Breitbart and O'Reilly are relying on is another piece of conservative framing - something that media outlets have decided to cover based on nothing more than the Right has said that it was true.

Certainly, Barack Obama has had meeting with bloggers and reporters that champion the Left, but he has be equally open to those on the Right. But, I suppose that O'Reilly and Breitbart think that since they have both not been invited to an exclusive "sit-down" with Obama that this means that there is some sinister plot to destroy them.

Immediately following, O'Reilly defends his network's easily probable track record - defending, championing, and even employing members of the Modern American Right - against attacks targeting them when Breitbart boasts it is simply "projection" by the Left. It's at this point in the "interview" that reality is completely turned on its head.

After Brietbart lambastes The Huffington Post for being a primary source for ensuring that conservative claims never see the light of day - something that simply doesn't happen - O'Reilly goes full on "you know they are going to try and kill you". And Breitbart is more than eager to embrace that meme. After all, conservative victimhood works to their advantage more often than most people are willing to admit.

With that said, I'm not going to state that people of any ideological stripe have not threatened Breitbart. But one has to question what those threats are and if they are real or just posturing. We have all seen where conservative rhetoric leads to.

So how does this "interview" express the very real aspect of Right Wing Entitlement Culture in relation to modern media?

Primarily, it demands that anyone within the Modern American Right never be accountable for their previous mistakes and favor a singular instance where they were correct. I'm reminded of the popular phrase that "a blind squirrel can find a nut every great once in a while".

Secondly, The Right demand on a daily basis that their framing be used as a primer for all media coverage. Unfortunately for those of Liberal/Progressive perspective, this is all too true - even though the opposition that makes these demands will never admit it. Just take a look at virtually all the Sunday Shows on all major networks and you will see this in action. The Modern American Right demand that all media push their narrative - regardless of its merit - again and again and again. This is where they get the term "Liberal Media Bias". If someone doesn't genuflect to their particular belief system then you are guilty of heresy of the highest order.

For classic examples of what Breitbart and O'Reilly are referencing, check here and here.

Let's get back to the notion that Fox"News" has such a large audience share because their "reporting" is accurate, yet they can't seem to embrace the idea that this would make them "mainstream".

I have stated many times that accurate reporting and ratings-share are mutually exclusive creatures and to state that one equals another is a complete fabrication. This equivocation is another form of Right Wing framing. If this were true, then it should cross over into all forms of communications to audiences: The film AVATAR would have been more factually accurate than The Hurt Locker, as more people saw the former at theatres than the later.

Also, employees of Fox"News" have also claimed that America is a nation that is "Center-Right", yet that flies in the face of the fact that a plurality oppose the views that Fox and their compatriots champion.

The job of the American Media is to report the events of the day. When those events are beginning to be largely shaped by Right Wing ideology - and the media doesn't accept that premise - those that are attempting to shape it consider themselves being attacked by those they are attempting to control. This is the very nature of Right Wing Entitlement culture in relation to media.

Essentially, they are spoiled children being told that they can't have all that they want all the time. The reality is that their socio-political opponents are not in control the way they are being presented as.

Palin, History, And Conservative Framing

I've been watching, with great interest, how The Modern American Right have been doing the utmost in damage control in light of Sarah Palin's ignorance of American History that she claims to hold dear.

What troubles me about this the most is that it's not Palin's ignorance, nor that of her sycophants, that will ultimately gestate within certain cross-sections of children in our country, but that far too many people are willing to accept conservative "framing" of American history and allow that to be the basis of their response.

As the father of two young girls - one that just recently got an award of excellence in History - I often wonder what teachers are doing in relation to media exposure of people like Sarah Palin. Do they teach class in conjunction with conservative posturing? While this may sound familiar to some of my more Right leaning readers - as they are want to claim that the modern public school classroom is a breeding ground of far-left thought - I have seen a great deal of textbooks that are used in classrooms today that are more akin to far-right ideology.

Should we honestly have to counter Palin's idiocy simply because it is there?

Should we have to digitally grapple with the likes of Fox"News" and their ilk because they place Palin, and her ignorance of American history, on a pedestal?

The answer isn't so simple, but the results would yield dividends for Liberals/Progressives.

I believe that it's time that we take on the issues that matter to all of America, and not what The Modern American Right believes "America stands for". I say let Palin look idiotic on her own while we tackle the real issues. I say let Fox"News" and their easily lead compatriots twitch and chatter all they want while we make this country stronger.

It's time we end the reign of conservative framing.

NPR, O'Keefe, and Complicit Actions

A brief word on what scam artist and criminal James O'Keefe has accomplished - again.

While the Modern American Right crow like Peter Pan on Crystal Meth - complete with a whine-fest from a disgruntled former employee - one thing should be pointed out:

NPR's Board Of Directors are just as much to blame for what is happening right now.

Actually, the remainder of American media fails in this regard as well.

Are they so weak that they can't stand up to the edits and distortions of O'Keefe and his pimp Andrew Breitbart? Apparently not, as this is not the first time they have enjoyed a certain amount of "success".

Let's not kid ourselves - the Southern Strategy is very much alive in America; and the Tea Baggers are more than willing to swallow it whole and parrot it without fear of reprisal - whether it be in "dog-whistle" fashion or in blatant racism. And from what I have seen here in Western Kentucky, it's becoming more and more apparent and unchallenged.

And speaking about that was, from my perspective, the catalyst that gave CEO Vivian and Ron Schiller the boot. But why?

The reason is that the bulk of America media seem to be more than willing to kowtow to Right Wing attacks, seem to be all to eager to not push the stories that they should.

Of course, this isn't to say that they should adopt the same tactics that their Far Right compatriots do, but that they should report and expose what is there, and do it honestly and openly. In that regard, I would say that there should be more "Maddows" on television every night.

But as far as NPR is concerned, I'm guessing that they pushed out Vivian as more of a procedural move, and Ron was on his way out anyway. But the fact remains that NPR has come off as the weaker one in this story. But they shouldn't have - or is this more of an example of how their reporting has morphed. Dave Neiwert takes on this aspect of the story far better than I could.

There's actually a 2-hour unedited video of the Schiller encounter that I am going to watch and blog about that O'Keefe thinks will absolve him of any wrong-doing - as "context" is something that the Modern American Right are struggling with - but I'm guessing that this has more to do with the fact that their original intent of showing how NPR will accept money from The Muslim Brotherhood failed, and that Schiller voiced his "individual opinion" regarding the Tea Baggers........but more on that later.

Make no mistake, this is not "nu-journalism" as much as it is deception dressed up as reality. But then again, NPR fell for it just like the bulk of the media fell for the ACORN distortions. But there is a downfall to this - it doesn't address the real failures of government funding - which is the alleged point of all this O'Keefe/Breitbart hysteria.

At the end of the day, NPR dropped the ball and made themselves look as foolish as O'Keefe and Breitbart intended them to.

When are people going to realize that scams like this are so transparent?

The Conservative Minor League

Looks like John Roberts is getting "called up" from CNN to join Fox"News".

No, really....

Former CNN “American Morning” anchor John Roberts is expected to join FOX News Channel as a senior national correspondent, based in Atlanta.

He will be reporting on major domestic and international stories for the network.

In December, CNN announced that Roberts would be departing “American Morning,” and would instead be moving to the network’s Atlanta headquarters to be closer to his fiancee, CNN dayside anchor Kyra Phillips.

While Roberts will be in Atlanta, he will not be with CNN.

While Roberts had the ability to be a straight news reporter and leave his bias behind on virtually every occasion, one has to wonder why Fox would consider him for a "senior correspondent" position, as Fox's desire for ratings trumps their need for accuracy and honesty since Roberts' show "American Morning" had a massive decline in viewership over the last year.

What's the angle being played here? You know there has to be one.

One has but to look at CNN's recent history and you'll notice that they are giving a complete pass to conservative's hyperbolic rhetoric and generally ignoring any opportunity to hold those same people accountable.

Hell, they hired right-wing reactionary hack Erick Erickson for fuck sake.

Is Roberts going to be used as a pawn in the "people are fleeing liberal media outlets" meme that will surely be bolstered from this? More than likely, yes.

There is most certainly a bizarre logic behind this job placement that will ultimately only benefit those that write the talking points memos for Fox on-air personalities and the top executives - as there will likely be enough John King supporters out there that will tune in to see his first "field reports" to see how he differs from his CNN persona.

And that ultimately begs the question, doesn't it - is John King going to be a new man of his own desire once within the confines of Fox"News" payroll or his he going to be told that he has to be one?

The Sorry State Sarah's In

In this truncated clip from Hannity, Sarah "I Have A Communications Degree But Have Yet To Use It" Palin is still bitterly clinging to that grudge against Katie Couric for asking her what she reads.



Despite the fact that conservatives are framing this as "media outreach" since she's obviously going to be running for President, I'm wondering if she really wants to start talking about "cleaning up" media. Conservatives have a well recorded history of late in calling everyone but Fox"News" nothing more than "state run media". Is this what Palin is talking about doing? I think it falls just short of that and well within the confines of an approach somewhat akin to to inverse of The Fairness Doctrine. By that, I mean that Palin is wanting more people within various media platforms to essentially play patty-cake with her and her ilk rather than asking relevant questions.

Financial Disclosure : UPDATED III

Who else is thinking that this is going to not be just a none-to-clever angle on the "donation disclosure" debate that conservatives are going to exploit in favor of of the realities of how the Citizens United ruling played a massive role in this weeks elections? Moreover, is this really the approach they want to take, considering their own media masters handy work in more than a handful of victories Tuesday night?

Would it shock anyone to know that Keith Olbermann donated thousands of dollars to three Democrats in the midterms? Two House incumbents from Arizona and Jack Conway, the Senatorial candidate fro Kentucky who lost after running the notorious “Aqua Buddha” attack ad, received the maximum donation from Olbermann in the final days of the general election season, a fact discovered by Politico when reviewing FEC filings. The donations violate NBC’s stated ethics code for its journalists, and it may apply even more since one of the recipients appeared on Countdown at the same time Olbermann made the donation

What Morrissey is clearly doing is providing much needed covering fire for people like Glenn Beck, and most notably, Sarah Palin. The former because of his "singular money bomb" to the US Chamber of Commerce and the later because of how her PAC unblushingly supported Republican candidates across the US. Both of these were done for clearly partisan reasons while in the employ of a network that is, despite Morrissey's and all conservatives assertions, more partisan than any channel on cable.

Make no mistake, journalists of all stripes who have the liquidity to do so are going to make campaign contributions if they feel they should. And that most certainly includes those that mask themselves as "fair and balanced". I'm not even going to pretend to be naive enough to think that Fox"News" frowns upon people like Beck, Palin, O'Reilly, or Hannity donating thousands to people like Marco Rubio or Carl Paladino. With that in mind, how much did the entire staff at Fox give to the McCain/Palin campaign in 2008? Does it really matter, considering Palin was hired by the network not long after the Republicans lost that election. But also, does that excuse Fox from any "ethics" violations? Now those are two words you should never use together - "ethics" and "Fox".

But back to the point at hand - if there even is one coming from Morrissey.

I don’t think that Olbermann’s contributions mean too much on their own. We all know from watching his broadcasts that he dislikes Republicans and cheerleads for Democrats, so these contributions do nothing for his credibility in any direction. The question here is whether NBC will hold MSNBC to its ethical standards, and the hypocrisy of shrieking about Fox’s contributions while donating his own.

So Olbermann "lacks credibility" because of his political donations and the entire Fox"News" line-up is representative of "real Americans" because of theirs? Try wrapping your brain around that one.

Here's something that Morrissey, and all that will parrot this completely preposterous theory, clearly aren't considering - how many people in the employ of NBC donate to Republican candidates? Clearly that wouldn't mesh with the "liberal media bias" meme that has threaded itself through the modern conservative movement. Don't ever expect that a question like that will ever be asked.

But in terms of the "cheer-leading" that Morrissey and his easily led droogies think Olbermann participates in, let's take a look at reality:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Now, does that sound like a full-throated water carrier to you?

BREAKING UPDATE

Olbermann suspended without pay indefinately.

MSNBC has suspended star anchor Keith Olbermann following the news that he had donated to three Democratic candidates this election cycle.

"I became aware of Keith's political contributions late last night. Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay," MSNBC president Phil Griffin said in a statement.

This comes as a bit of a surprise to some, is apparently just posturing to Ed Morrissey, and actually is a rather expected move considering who just yanked Olbermann from the air.

In recent months, Griffin has taken several bold steps to declare his authority over the network and its sometimes unruly talent: he sent a stern memo warning hosts to not publicly fight with each other, he suspended David Shuster indefinitely for filming a CNN pilot, suspended Donny Deutsch, banned Markos Moulitsas from the network, and reprimanded Ed Schultz for threatening to "torch" the network

So how's that "liberal media bias" meme working out now.

And while NBC is tempering this decision by stating that Olbermann is not yet about to be fired, conservatives are likely to use this in conjunction with the notion that the entire American media - well, aside from Fox"News" that is - is in full temper tantrum mode.

Back to Little Eddie's hypothesis:

The more I think about this, the more ridiculous it gets. MSNBC offers the most ridiculously biased televion coverage of politics possible, crowning it with Election Night coverage that had people wondering if NBC needed to hire grief and anger counseling for the entire on-air staff. And now, because Olbermann contributed to three Democrats last month, suddenly Griffin suspends him because “these activities jeopardize his or her standing as an impartial journalist because they may create the appearance of a conflict of interest”?

Again, is Morrissey really wanting to go the route of "conflict of interest"? The complete lack of honest perspective from this man is staggering. By that, I mean, are we to assume now that Presidential hopefuls on the Fox"News" payroll are to be suspended as well?

I'm not about to say that we should expect breaking news that Palin has been suspended from her duties at Fox"News", but if she even comments on this issue, the gods of hypocrisy would surely be ready with swift retribution. Oh, wait, I forgot that doesn't happen on their side.

UPDATE II

Seems that mine, and other's assumptions about Fox"News" policy on political donations are founded in reality:

Fox News is alone among the four major TV networks in placing no restrictions on campaign contributions. According to Open Secrets, Sean Hannity has given almost $12,000 to Republican candidates since 2005. Adam Serwer writes, "If FOX instituted an MSNBC-like ethics policy, would they actually be able to continue operating?"

UPDATE III

So why is Griffin letting Scarborough and Buchanan get away with exactly the same action.

From that Griffin banned because of "Morning Joe's" whining - Morkos Moulitsas

Real smart, Phil! Olbermann isn't just MSNBC's highest rated show, but it's the only one that breaks Fox News' stranglehold on the top 10 cable news shows.

Of course, this is par for the course for Griffin -- letting his lowest-rated host Joe Scarborough call the shots, to the point where Scarborough has dictated Olbermann's guest list by blackballing me from the network. As Atrios pointed out on Twitter, Pat Buchanan gave five political contributions between 2005-08, and he keeps his permanent cot in the MSNBC green room.

CNN's ratings are in the gutter. I'm sure they could use the boost in the ratings that Olbermann would provide.

This even furthers the point that MSNBC doesn't have the completely unhinged "liberal bias" that conservatives claim it does. And more to the point, I recall how Olbermann - the man Griffin is attempting to make an example of - was tasked with replacing Phil Donahue simply because he was against the Iraqi invasion just a little too much.

Media Perceptions

A recent Gallup poll shows that "trust" in the "media" is at an all-time low.

For the fourth straight year, the majority of Americans say they have little or no trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly. The 57% now saying this is a record high by one percentage point.

The 43% of Americans who, in Gallup's annual Governance poll, conducted Sept. 13-16, 2010, express a great deal or fair amount of trust ties the record low, and is far worse than three prior Gallup readings on this measure from the 1970s.

Trust in the media is now slightly higher than the record-low trust in the legislative branch but lower than trust in the executive and judicial branches of government, even though trust in all three branches is down sharply this year. These findings also further confirm a separate Gallup poll that found little confidence in newspapers and television specifically.

Nearly half of Americans (48%) say the media are too liberal, tying the high end of the narrow 44% to 48% range recorded over the past decade. One-third say the media are just about right while 15% say they are too conservative. Overall, perceptions of bias have remained quite steady over this tumultuous period of change for the media, marked by the growth of cable and Internet news sources. Americans' views now are in fact identical to those in 2004, despite the many changes in the industry since then.

When one takes a look at the breakdown of whom holds these particular views, there's one question that quickly springs to mind: Is Fox"News" not part of the media any longer?

73% of those calling themselves conservative thought the "media" had a liberal bias. This is not surprising, as one of the pillars of the modern conservative movement is to vilify the media - that is, unless you are Fox. So again, are they left out of this equation? When you look at the polling data, it's readily apparent that conservatives consider this to be a question about everyone else.

I found this hypothesis even more plausible when I noticed that Ed Morrissey over at Hot Air had taken this in the predictable direction of "who is to blame" for the loss in trust. Naturally, he cast the blame directly at the feet of Dan Rather:

What happened? The CBS attempt to smear George W. Bush with the phony Texas Air National Guard memos. That episode made clear the political tilt and the situational ethics of the “layers of editors and fact-checkers” at CBS, providing a clear basis for the always-present suspicion that the national news media occasionally cooked a story for their own political purposes.

While the Rather piece was accurate, despite the alleged "fabricated font" in the memo, this is the conservative line of attack - all media is biased against us if they attempt in any way to hold us accountable.

Again, just as in the Gallup results, Morrissey never makes mention of Fox"News", even though just days ago he cited polling data to push the narrative that most Americans "trusted" Fox"News" - despite the fact that the poll done by Politico and George Washington University had nothing to do with "trust", but simply what people watched regarding political information.

It becomes glaringly apparent that Morrissey ( and most conservatives )is attempting to have it both ways, and you simply can't do that. Well, you can, but free thinking people aren't going to take you seriously if you do.

As for me, I have to question everything put forward to me - media or otherwise. Despite the fact that conservatives operate under the failed notion that liberal/progressive Democrats will blindly follow Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, or anyone else on MSNBC, I have to dig deeper into things that they report on simply because that's how I've always been.

Were I to be questioned in this survey, I would have to offer the opinion that I don't think there is an across the board "liberal bias" in the media. I do, however, feel that there are far too many people working in media that allow conservative memes to run unchecked and unchallenged. And to take this further, I believe that of the big three cable news networks, MSNBC does have a more liberal leaning prime time line-up that completely distinguishes itself from the more straight-forward reportage that makes up the bulk of every 24hr cycle. Compare that with the unblushing way in which Fox"News" not only allows but urges virtually all their programs to be seriously tilted towards conservative Republican points of view and theatrics over solid reporting and you'll get not only a sense of why conservatives prefer Fox but why they would shy away if asked to defend their standpoints in the Gallup versus POLITICO polling data.

How It Works

If anything, Pam Gellar is great at fabrication and fear-mongering.

When 60 Minutes caught up with her and challenged her on the blatantly false narrative she created surrounding Park51, she took the standard line of response.



So what does Gellar do when in the safe confines of the Fox"Business" noise machine?



That's right, 60 Minutes - a well respected news program for decades - is now nothing more than a tool of the "Islamic supremacist agenda".

Make no mistake, this works quite well within the modern conservative movement - especially when their own rhetoric is reasonably questioned by actual news organizations.

And almost on cue, Fox"Nation" highlighted a "study" that shows alleged bias towards Islam and "the Left".

On Sunday, the season premiere of 60 Minutes will include an anticipated Scott Pelley report on the Ground Zero mosque. Will the story be pro-mosque, just like President Obama? The first clips displayed softballs of sympathy, that it should be seen as "a hub of culture, a hub of coexistence, a hub of bringing people together." To underline the overwhelming sympathetic tilt of this program in the Obama era -- especially all the Steve Kroft hope-and-change goo before the 2008 election -- the MRC has a new special report called "Syrupy Minutes." Here's my executive summary:

In the last five years, CBS’s 60 Minutes has become infamous for letting its left-wing ardor get way ahead of its journalistic mission. Dan Rather destroyed his own reputation in 2004 with a 60 Minutes II “expose” of President Bush’s incomplete Vietnam-era service in the Texas Air National Guard which relied on falsified documents. A CBS-appointed panel found “myopic zeal” in Rather’s professional demise, but no one would admit a political bias.

It doesn't take long to realize that this "study" isn't exactly non-partisan itself, as it was conducted by the ultra-rightwing group Media Research Center - a group known to have nothing but glowing words of praise for Fox"News" and who continually lambaste any reasonable challenges other news outlets put towards figures the MRC is attempting to shield from criticism.

This is how the modern conservative movement works: when you can't defend your own standpoints, simply claim that it's "liberal media bias" or "Islam" that is to blame.

Who's Really Afraid

Skip ahead to right around the 4:00 mark for Palin's description of how she and other conservatives feel they are treated.



I can't help but hear the average conservative responding to this had Obama said it; that's he's "whining". But the irony of Palin's statements of people being "limp" and "impotent" isn't lost on many of us, considering the fact that she almost refuses to leave the carefully orchestrated confines of Fox"News" unless she's getting paid to make some meandering speech for an exclusively conservative audience.

And isn't it reflective of what the modern conservative movement stands for that Palin would opt to use rhetoric that creates the picture that conservatives are "more of a man than you are". Seriously, the school-yard taunts from Palin and her easily lead followers has just about hit rock bottom.

As an aside, there a part of me that really wants Palin to run for President. Not because I know that Fox"News" will be there holding her hand the whole way, but to see if conservatives really are so blinded by their own ignorance to actually vote for her. It would certainly be a very interesting campaign to watch - seeing which conservatives have the "cojones" to stick with Palin all the way to the voting booth.

Those Media Bastards

In which Palin degrades that which created her. No, really.



Yeah, polls have no relevance if they say bad things about you. This from the woman that consistently references polling data that shows that Obama is below 50% in approval.

--- Just a side note, Obama is polling about even with Reagan during his second year in office in 1982. But don't tell Sarah, shhhh ---

Her blathering about her Q-score aside, this woman is a creation of the media - and not just Fox"News", mind you. If it weren't for the fawning mass media, then Palin would be about as meaningful to the socio-political landscape as Joe Eszterhaus is to screenwriting. To those that catch that last reference, you get extra "cool points".

It's almost to the point that we have reached a saturation point with Sarah Palin. It would almost make sense for her to quit Fox"News" at this point, just so she doesn't become any more stale than she already is. But where would she go? She couldn't do talk radio, as that would require her to take calls; and we all know that this woman can't survive in an unscripted landscape.

Some Thoughts For Your Morning

- With Arizona governor Jan Brewer the "face of the moment" for Tea Baggers, I'm guessing this upcoming meeting with President Obama is going to earn her some face-time on Fox"News". However, her ability to be honest about the meeting will most certainly be in question from those not within the reactionary realm of conservative ideology. After all, they do tend to confuse constructive criticism with being totally unhinged and "angry".

- As per the norm for Caribou Barbie, she took after NBC when an alleged promise was made to Sarah and Todd that, if they chose not to appear on a program to directly respond to author Joe McGinnis, they would have any prepared statements featured on the show. Naturally, Palin and hubby lack the courage to appear anywhere but Fox"News" and opted out. Statements were prepared but never featured on the program. However, there is no conclusive proof that NBC struck such a deal and we are left to rely on the questionable words of the Palin's. I'm of the mind that they formulated this plan in order to keep up the narrative that there is rampant "liberal media bias" in America.

- Seems that little Jimmy O'Keefe is afraid to do any interviews on his own, as he's got his pimp-daddy Andrew Breitbart in tow during a sit down on Good Morning America. The incessant whining is pretty much non-stop and O'Keefe even admits that he would break the law again if given the chance. And it's likely that he violated his parole by engaging in fraudulent actions by forging Census documents.

- And speaking of O'Keefe and Breitbart, Andrew went on Glenn Beck's radio program to complain that they were "sandbagged". That's conservatives code for asking to be held accountable.

- I'm not entirely too certain who's side to take in this whole Flotilla episode, but when you have the Israeli government conducting the study of the "peace keeper's" actions, I'm detecting just a tiny bit of conflict-of-interest. Of course they are going to allege that they have terrorist ties, it fits their narrative all too nicely.


- Here's something for the brain to chew on. Right now, out of the 24 pieces on the front page of Michelle Malkin's blog, only half were written by her. She's been doing this a lot lately. And while I'm sure even The Purse Lipped Rage Princess needs a break now and again, I'm starting to get the feeling that she's working on another book. Perhaps it's about how conservatives didn't do as well in the mid-term elections as they thought. After all, that "Culture Of Corruption" book came out VERY FAST after Obama won the Presidency. Just sayin.

Former Guest Host?

I'm wondering how much longer Mark Davis is going to be a guest host on Limbaugh's program.



He really thinks that Meet The Press is a "hostile" program? He really thinks that liberals are "treated better" on Fox"News"? Who the hell is this clown?

Granted, the caller appears to be the standard "Ditto-Head" that lacks the ability to rub two neurotransmitters together to create an original and cohesive thought, but for Davis to claim that asking relevant questions to a political candidate is "hostile" is to be more divorced from reality than most people that watched "Flavor Of Love" and thought it to be compelling television.

In the end, Davis' criticisms of Paul's whimping-out of appearing on Meet The Press will likely cause him to see a decline in his guest hosting duties.

Some Thoughts For Your Afternoon

- Now that Arizona is all about being a "white/English" only state in many regards, they having been going after courses that simply study other ethnicities. This is a clear reminder that conservatives have absolutely no desire to learn about the world around them but instead favor ignorance.

- Is anyone else ready for someone to do some fact checking of Zev Chafet's new book about Rush Limbaugh? I'm thinking that there's more than a healthy dose of textual hand-jobbery going on with this one. After all, Limbaugh's not going to invite a guys to his home that's going to write and honest and revealing book about him.

- Rand Paul thinks that answering legitimate questions from an actual journalist is torture? This doesn't surprise me, as conservatives have always attempted to compensate for their lack of accountability and lack of basic understand of how this country works in the 21st century by claiming there's this malevolent left-wing media bias.

- Everytime I hear conservatives claim that the entire country should follow Arizona's example of handling "immigration", I'm often reminded of the classic saying of "be careful what you wish for". Seems that now "anchor babies" are being targeted by the law. Guess which prominent conservative blogger/pundit is an anchor baby - Michelle Malkin. Someone should really press her on this aspect of Arizona's draconian stance.

- Whenever I hear a reactionary conservative talking about the alleged problems with the "constitutionality" of a piece of legislation, the more i'm inclined to think they are just opposing this to oppose it or they are so outside the pulse of modern America that they are wanting to sound far more educated on the Constitution than they really are. Dick Armey is no exception to this rule.

- The IFC media project series airs tonight with a special called "War, Fear, Greed, and Disaster". Max Blumenthal has a great segment in it that is not to be missed. If you're lucky enough to have IFC in your cable package, be sure and check this out tonight at 8pm EST.

Uncovering The Details

This is something that conservatives seems to have a serious problem with - trying to find out what motivates someone.

A recent highlighted article over at Fox Nation was used to suggest that researching Shahzad's recent past is showing "sympathy" for a terrorist.

Not only is this completely and utterly preposterous, but reveals conservatives to be a purely reactionary lot. How are we to learn about our enemies if we don't study them? What about the FBI agents that study and profile serial killers, are they somehow showing sympathy for them?

It's as simple as this - if a house burns down or a person is involved in a car accident, you don't just say "the house burned" or that "the individual crossed the median into oncoming traffic", as this isn't the whole story. Why did the house burn down? Why did this person drive headlong into traffic? The story just doesn't end that way.

Conservatives prefer an alternate avenue - speculation and fear. We aren't meant to know how and why Shahzad left America to go to Pakistan. We aren't meant to know details about Shahzad's family and his life in America prior to his apparent conversion into a would-be terrorist. We are only meant to be afraid and let our imaginations run wild. This is how conservatives operate and how Fox"News" delivers content completely unrelated to any given story.

As for me, I want to know as much about Shahzad as I can. This man actually attempting to kill Americans. Thankfully he was so inept that his poorly constructed plot didn't succeed, but this doesn't lessen my desire to get as much information about him as possible.

Most Trusted By The Same People As Before

This poll will likely have a lot of people scratching their heads, but it makes more sense than you might first realize.

Americans do not trust the major tv news operations in the country- except for Fox News.

Our newest survey looking at perceptions of ABC News, CBS News, CNN, Fox News, and NBC News finds Fox as the only one that more people say they trust than distrust. 49% say they trust it to 37% who do not.

CNN does next best at a 39/41 spread, followed by NBC at 35/44, CBS at 32/46, and ABC at 31/46.

Predictably there is a lot of political polarization in which outlets people trust. 74% of Republicans trust Fox News, but no more than 23% trust any of the other four sources. We already knew that conservatives don't trust the mainstream media but this data is a good prism into just how deep that distrust runs.

My only question with the results is what do the remaining 14% of people have to say about Fox”News”? Do they have no opinion one way or the other? But that’s not what this post is about.

Even though the very partisan nature of Fox”News” is evident in virtually all of it’s programming, the 49% number reflects the percent of people that voted for McCain in 2008. By that measurement, Fox”News” is no more “trusted” now than it was two years ago.

And Plus Is The New Minus

A reader pointed out to me that my statement about the Village Voice yesterday likely missed some sarcasm, but there is no denying the stupidity from this Philly paper.



Yeah, that evil liberal-media-bias sure is running rampant isn't it.

( h/t : Atrios )

The Malpractice Of Conservative Moral Authority

When conservatives write a book, no matter the subject, rest assured that they are going to attempt to re-write clearly defined segments of American history ( even some of it’s most recent aspects ) in order to prove their point – flaccid though it may be.

Case in point , Mark Theissen attempts to bully Chritiane Amanpour while denying that torture ever existed but then ultimately claiming that it saved American lives.



The “which attack would you have preferred succeeded” meme has been used multiple times by conservatives as a misdirection tool. It’s a clear signifier that conservatives are ultimately willing to use the spectre of torture to validate their own misgivings and moral failures.

It’s not a question that combating terrorism is difficult, but no one party can claim that they hold sway as the dominant force of success. After all, Theissen’s obtuse assurance that torture ( waterboarding, “advanced interrogation” ) offered actionable intel to prevent attacks has been proven false time and again.

In essence, Mark Theissen's thesis in the book is nothing more than an epic poem designed to warm the hearts of torture apologists within the conservative movement.

I am curious, thought, how Theissen would respond to recent disclosures that prisoners at Guantanamo were murdered.

That Was A Really Long Decade

( h/t Scholars and Rogues )



Looking back not only at the decade, but where I was 10 years ago, it really amazes me at times that the country isn't more screwed up than it already is.

Paying Attention To Detail

Sarah Palin, the woman who seemingly can't finish anything at this point in her life, has released a statement regarding the silly and slightly over-hyped "sun visor" story and why she decided the family needed to end their Hawaiian vacation a little early:

In an attempt to 'go incognito,' I Sharpied the logo out on my sun visor so photographers would be less likely to recognize me and bother my kids or other vacationers.

"I am so sorry if people took this silly incident the wrong way. I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago.

"Todd and I have since cut our vacation short because the incognito attempts didn't work and fellow vacationers were bothered for the two days we spent in the sun. So much for trying to go incognito.

Straight away, I'm calling complete bullshit on this rationalization on two counts. First, considering her thirst for the spotlight and the very touristy nature of the Hawaiian islands, she was going to be recognized anyway. After all, she's one of the most visible women in politics that has had more media coverage than just about anyone this year - save Obama - so to think that donning an altered visor was going to prevent people from recognizing her was a poorly conceived plan anyway. She must have thought that since no one recognizes Clark Kent as Superman because he wears glasses then her trick was sure to fool everyone.

Secondly, and this is the part where her statement really falls apart, why not just buy a new visor that doesn't have anything written on it? The answer is simple - she wanted to be recognized. It's almost as if she wanted to start this story up so that she could make some absurd proclamation on Facebook and have all of her pals at Fox"News" and on conservative radio talk about how her privacy was violated or to twist this into some sort of liberal conspiracy showing that people are somehow afraid of this woman, or that liberals are trying to show Palin has nothing but contempt for McCain.

Make no mistake, she knew she was going to be seen and this was a great opportunity for her to get some more face-time and manipulate the media into paying attention to her.

Attention whoring at it's best.

The Reality Of Celebrity

This will be the one and only posting I make about Tiger Woods.

For those of us able to see past the endorsements, the slightly elevated skill level in a sport that - from my point of view - requires little "skill" to begin with, and the overall aura of "majesty" that the media at large has place on this man, Tiger Woods is no more important than any man in any "sport".

Having said that, and having heard the 911 call, and having learned that he refused - yes, REFUSED - to be interviewed by police, I have to say that this man has actually managed to become more of a pathetic piece of work that I initially thought.

And while I am not alone in this, let me just say that this is born out of his overall attitude and lack of professionalism on multiple levels. But certainly, one is likely to be overcome with a sense of megalomania once the media latches onto you.

But let's just see what happens when the average American refuses to be quesitoned by police. It's certainly not going to play out the way it did with Woods.

All the media apologists need to get their priorities in line when it comes to something like this. He will have to pay for what he has done, period. The world will continue whether his wife stays with him or not. There are far more important things in this world than celebrity.