Media Matters for America - Altercation by Eric Alterman

Media Matters for America - Altercation by Eric Alterman http://mediamatters.org This link is for use by RSS-enabled software to retrieve the latest items from Media Matters for America. en-US Copyright 2008, Media Matters for America I love how you love me http://mediamatters.org/items/200807230003 <a name=" " title=" "></a>Eric Boehlert has written a terrific column about the AP's "Ron Fournier problem," <a href="http://mediamatters.org/columns/200807220006">here</a>. He does the kind of digging that is so rare both in the MSM and in most of the blogosphere to show why Fournier's suck-up comments to Karl Rove were not evidence of a reporter's mere "breeziness" but of a mindset that is reflected in Fournier's and AP's coverage; one that has the effect of perverting the truth and misleading AP's readers. Boehlert piles up the evidence on this point, but I would like to suggest that the reason it has gone largely unnoticed is that it is par for the course among the so-called "Gang of 500." If you read Mark Halperin's page at Time or the current incarnation of The Note, you will find all kinds of Rovian assumptions about politics underlying the coverage; assumptions that are largely anathema to most Americans but embraced by the Beltway MSM as if written on tablets and handed down at Mount Sinai. (Halperin often gives evidence of having undergone a Rovian mind-meld.) I read The Note every day, and every day I notice the deep-seated bias of the sources that are considered credible. Following the requisite advertisements for ABC's correspondents, Commentary's awful blog, taken seriously nowhere else on Earth as far as I can tell, is usually cited, as is National Review and, of course, the lunatics at the Wall Street Journal editorial page. Robert Novak -- evidently played again as a <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Ftalkingpointsmemo.com%2Farchives%2F205154.php">patsy</a> by McCain and Co. this week -- is treated as a credible source. But do you see The American Prospect, Salon, Media Matters, The Nation, Rick Hertzberg's New Yorker "Comments," In These Times, The Washington Monthly, Josh Marshall, Yglesias, Atrios, Kos, etc, treated in this fashion? I sure don't think that anyone would argue that the judgment of those cited daily by The Note has proven superior to those it ignores. Who predicted the catastrophe that was George W. Bush? Who predicted the war would be a disaster? Who was on board with Obama when the establishment press proved completely clueless? Why is the surge being reported as an undeniable success when it still has not accomplished most of the things it was promised to do and has likely accomplished nothing that will last once its unsustainable numbers are drawn down? What about <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.salon.com%2Fnews%2Ffeature%2F2008%2F07%2F23%2Fnew_churchcomm%2Fprint.html">this story</a> this morning, for instance? I could go on forever about this, but the mindset that Fournier has revealed rules the discourse. The MSM was wrong about most things in just the fashion that the Bush administration was; and that's apparently the way they like it. And how rich is it for McCain to whine about Obama's treatment in the media? Particularly when, per usual, the allegedly liberal CBS News (among others) are covering up the candidate's "<a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fwp-dyn%2Fcontent%2Farticle%2F2008%2F07%2F22%2FAR2008072203201_pf.html">confusion</a>" about the most basic facts about Iraq, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200807230001">here</a>. Meanwhile, consistent with Slate editor Jacob Weisberg's frequently professed love and admiration for McCain -- coupled with his admonition to voters to ignore what McCain actually says and does because Weisberg has looked into his heart, George W. Bush-to-Vladimir Putin style -- Slate's John Dickerson is advising McCain on how to make his attacks on Obama more effectively, in a piece titled "Attack Obama but Do It Right," <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slate.com%2Fid%2F2195762%2F">here</a>. (That's quite a tricky liberal media we have here. If only someone would explain it to me ...) My buddy Tom Tomorrow has more <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.salon.com%2Fcomics%2Ftomo%2F2008%2F07%2F22%2Ftomo%2F">here</a>. <a name=" " title=" "></a>The LA Times, in the process of slow-motion seppuku, is eliminating its stand-alone book review, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.laobserved.com%2Farchive%2F2008%2F07%2Fbook_editors_protest_cuts.php">here</a>. Sam Zell puts me in mind of The Kinks' Preservation Acts I and II and believe me, they meant "preservation" ironically. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Consistent with its lies about the safety of the air after 9-11 and Dick Cheney's overruling of the EPA's scientists regarding global warming, the Bush administration would like to make it easier for employers to <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fwp-dyn%2Fcontent%2Farticle%2F2008%2F07%2F22%2FAR2008072202838.html">poison their workers</a> without legal responsibility. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Lines you don't want to have written about you, part XXVI: "Christian Bale, Warner Brothers' latest Batman in its smash hit 'The Dark Knight,' on Tuesday denied allegations of assault made against him by his mother and sister." <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2008%2F07%2F23%2Fmovies%2F23batm.html%3F_r%3D1%26ref%3Darts%26oref%3Dslogin">Here</a>. p.s. I saw The Dark Knight yesterday afternoon, and I think it pulled off the neat trick of being both libertarian and fascistic, which is to say it is damn confused ... not bad, but not consistent either. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Alter-embarrassment: I should add that Boehlert's email included this too: "I guess Billy Wagner's not so bad after all." Last night, literally as the ninth inning of the Mets/Phillies game was beginning and the Mets were about to go into first place, I wrote the following post before going to bed. It looks <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2008%2F07%2F23%2Fsports%2Fbaseball%2F23mets.html">pretty stupid</a> this morning, but my larger point about 40 years of Mets pitching still holds, I think. I print it in the interests of Maoist self-criticism. Um, did Pierce say "<a href="http://mediamatters.org/altercation/200807180003#5">second place</a>?" That seems rather optimistic on his part.... [OUCH!] But while we're on the topic of the first-place New York Mets, I've noticed something in the 41 years that I have been closely observing the team, and it's this: Even when they suck, they almost always have great pitching. I'd be willing to bet American dollars that over the past 40 years, the Mets have the lowest ERA of any pitching staff. If it's not the lowest, it's close. Could somebody check that, please? Assuming I'm right, why is that? Forty years is a long time. And owners, general managers, managers, coaches, and scouts all change. So what's in the Mets' DNA that always seems to give them great pitching (and usually subpar hitting)? I think it's a good idea, by the way, this privileging pitching over hitting, but how did it happen? Roger Angell -- a Mets fan, by the way, and a Sox fan, like yours truly -- had a piece about the Yankees pitching in last week's New Yorker in which he called the head of the Elias Sports Bureau for something, but we here at Altercation must remain reliant on our community. Meanwhile, a conspiracy of Major League Baseball's corporate cronies is blocking union pioneer Marvin Miller from the Baseball Hall of Fame. In The Nation, Kelly Candaele and Peter Dreier examine this travesty of justice. It's time for the players to step up to the plate. That's <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenation.com%2Fdoc%2F20080804%2Fdreier_candaele">here</a>. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Correspondence Corner: Name: Molly, NYC Hometown: New York, NY "The demand for so-called 'nonsectarian' prayer is merely a euphemism declaring that prayers will be acceptable only so long as they censor Christian beliefs." -- Rep. Walter B. Jones (R-NC). (7/22/08 column) Could someone explain to Rep. Jones the difference between having your religion censored (or persecuted) and not being allowed to proselytize on the public dime? <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: John B Hometown: Des Moines, IA As per usual LTC Bateman cuts right to the chase <a href="http://mediamatters.org/altercation/200807220002#2">here</a>. A pattern is certainly developing that's related to his comments about chaplains being allowed (by pending legislation) "invoke his own god in a public military ceremony." The people who are always claiming their first priority is to get the government off the backs of the individual also believe it's important to allow pharmacists to interfere in the health care of <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.time.com%2Ftime%2Fmagazine%2Farticle%2F0%2C9171%2C1101040607-644153%2C00.html">individuals</a>. They feel it's important for faith-based organizations to be able to discriminate against people of other faiths when spending government <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pfaw.org%2Fpfaw%2Fgeneral%2Fdefault.aspx%3Foid%3D19528">funds</a>. They've worked hard to redefine "religious discrimination" as the absence of a right for the religious (as long as you're the right religion) from discriminating against everyone else. After the 2000 and 2004 these efforts were an obvious outgrowth from the dreams of the Permanent Republican Majority (does anyone else chuckle a little when saying these words in 2008?), but lately the burner seems to be turned way up on this front. From here it sure looks like a desperate attempt to hold on to power when the clock is about to run out. It behooves Liberals everywhere to stay alert for more efforts to enshrine wingnut principles into law before GW rides off into his retirement as a cattleman. Who doesn't like <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pensitoreview.com%2F2007%2F09%2F21%2Fcowboy-bush-is-scared-of-horses%2F">horses</a>. And doesn't have any cattle. It's been a long time, but I'm starting to enjoy living in the reality-based community again. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Barbara C. Hometown: Fort Lauderdale, FL Eric -- On Bateman's piece on Iran and Adm. Mullen on Chris Wallace on Fox on Sunday. Was it lost on anyone how fast FOX News dragged out the brass on not only Iran but also on Iraq and Afghanistan because Obama was talking it up over there? To Adm. Mullen's remark saying we would have enough Military Power to go into Iran ... Yeah ... only if we start working on cardboard cutout soldiers about now. We do not have the troops. I would remind anyone who thinks we do ... .send your son ... mine is headed to Iraq this November! <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: W. Lewis Hometown: Cincinnati Eric, Ray Davies writes in character. I don't think he was adding those things so much as saying religious difference/ ethnic difference/ Rudolph. I have a cousin in law who just broke off her wedding date (scratch that visit to Boulder in late August) because her beau of five years is a practicing Catholic and they couldn't come to terms on how to raise their potential children (she's Jewish). I understand her former fiance is, in essence, making the "when we turn off the living room lights" argument. So far, hasn't worked. Plus, Davies ends the song saying, "When we turn off the living room light, we don't feel as ugly as we really are." So he's writing as a twisted, angry, long married, (probably Protestant or Catholic), old man. Adding a some bigotry just turns up a notch the pathetic nature and situation of the character. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Robert C Hometown: Hicksville (home of Billy Joel), NY Er, satire - or at least an attempt at it? "Who cares if you're Jewish, And your breath smells of garlic, And your nose is a shiny red light. To me you are gorgeous, And everything's right, When I turn off the living room light." Full lyrics <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fkinks.it.rit.edu%2Fdiscography%2Fshowsong.php%3Fsong%3D440">here</a> -- judge for yourself. OK, not his best work, and he probably could have come up with a better 2-syllable word to fit the meter (since "Jewish" is not necessary for the rhyme), but remember, Reprise Records released this album of "out takes" (The Great Lost Kinks Album) after The Kinks moved to RCA, and without permission (Ray sued and had it discontinued). And yes, the word in context is jarring -- at the time, my girlfriend, and most of my "circle of friends" (Bronx kids all) were Jewish (and me, a "good" eye-talian cat-lick, severely lapsed by this point) -- and we all held our breath when we first heard this opening line, but we soon relaxed as the lyrics became ever more ridiculous. So for me, this song is simply an unfinished, and abandoned, demo (it's not really very polished) that was never meant to be released, and having not ever seen or heard any evidence that Ray Davies is anti-Semitic, I'm willing to cut him some slack -- actually a whole lot of slack, considering his body of work. Now for the obligatory -- "God Save The Kinks! Eric replies: I had dinner with Ray a few months ago. I'm pretty sure he's not even remotely anti-Semitic. I thought perhaps he was reflecting the typical prejudices of his time, but the "in character" explanation, Randy Newman or Steve Earle style, works just fine for me, <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Denton Randall Hometown: Louisville, Kentucky There are only two Mavericks: James Garner and Jack Kelly. Neither one of them is running for president. Eric replies: Dude, are you crazy? What about The Mavericks? http://mediamatters.org/items/200807230003 Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:04:12 EST Get it right the first time, that's the main thing http://mediamatters.org/items/200807220002 "Fake coffee on the real news, two plastic cups permanently filled with some kind of bogus drink. The anchors aren't even supposed to acknowledge them, McDonald's reps explain ..." Why do I feel <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lasvegassun.com%2Fnews%2F2008%2Fjul%2F21%2Feye-opener-pitch%2F">this story</a> is as emblematic as anything of the current state and/or future direction of what is called the "news business"? I mean, look at these people. Fox News is only a pretend news station, the better to make money off of people's ignorance, prejudice, and taste for sensationalism. Fox Broadcasting is not as uniformly awful -- how could it be, with The Simpsons and all -- but its news broadcasts are, and this here is really all you need to know. Just look at that photo. Fake coffee, paid for by McDonald's! And they call it "news." And according to this report, it's happening everywhere. And we the taxpayers give these idiots the broadcast spectrum for free. That's some racket in more ways than one can count, but the one that is perhaps most offensive is that we let them call it "news." <a name=" " title=" "></a>From Bob Bateman: LTC Bateman here, just a few observations today because there were several interesting stories related to the military and strategy over the weekend. (And no, I am not talking about political factors.) On Sunday, Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was on Fox News being interviewed by Chris Wallace. Among his many comments were the following <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fstory%2F0%2C2933%2C386843%2C00.html">observations</a> made about the situation with Iran:<blockquote> WALLACE: I want to ask you two questions about Iran. How do you weigh, as a military man, as the top military man, the downside risk if either the U.S. or Israel were to militarily strike Iran in terms of blowback from Iran and its allies in the region, increased turmoil in that area, increased turmoil in the oil market? MULLEN: I think it would be significant. I worry about it a lot. I've said, when I've been asked this before, right now I'm fighting two wars and I don't need a third one to -- I would be concerned. Not that I couldn't -- not that we don't have the reserve to do it in the United States. We do. But I worry about the instability in that part of the world and, in fact, the possible unintended consequences of a strike like that in, in fact, having an impact throughout the region that would be difficult to both predict exactly what it would be and then the actions that we would have to take to contain it.</blockquote> Interpret that response as you will. While you are at it, examine <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fwp-dyn%2Fcontent%2Farticle%2F2008%2F07%2F18%2FAR2008071802563.html%3Fsub%3DAR">this</a>. Command Prayer: Then there is the issue of chaplains within the military. As <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtontimes.com%2Fnews%2F2008%2Fjul%2F21%2Finside-the-beltway%2F%3Fpage%3D2">this column</a> puts it, "New legislation would assure that all military chaplains in every branch of the U.S. armed services, including military academies, would have the prerogative to recite a closing prayer outside of a religious service according to the dictates of the chaplain's own conscience." I have commented on this topic before, of course. But this is the pull quote: "For Christian chaplains, closing their prayers in the name of Jesus Christ is a fundamental part of their beliefs, and to suppress this form of expression would violate their religious freedom. The demand for so-called 'nonsectarian' prayer is merely a euphemism declaring that prayers will be acceptable only so long as they censor Christian beliefs." This quote came from Rep. Walter B. Jones (R-NC). Jones apparently does not understand the implications of his proposed legislation. If I, as an officer or leader, learn of or watch my chaplain invoke "his" god at a public command-presence ceremony in accord with Jones' proposed law, I will have a very simple solution. I will not have a chaplain at such an event. Ever. Period. These events under consideration, you see, are not religious. They are secular military things, like change of command ceremonies, or a pre-deployment ceremony, or military social functions like a formal "dining in." In other words, they have nothing to do with religion, and enlisted men of all religions are required to be there. There is, however, absolutely no reason for a chaplain to be there except for a fairly recent tradition (roughly the past 50 years or so). A tradition is not a regulation or doctrine. It is just a tradition. You can dump it without consequence. So, the effect of Jones' legislation is that I, and people like me, may well likely take the simple step of just not inviting the chaplain at all. We will dump the chaplain and his "right" to invoke his own god in a public military ceremony. He can sit in his office or stand quietly in formation by himself for all I care. It is that simple. Jones probably should have thought of that first. (Eric chimes in: I'm "reading" The Abstinence Teacher right now on my beach walks. It's about a related topic. I like everything Tom Perrotta writes, and this is no exception.) U.S. Advisers: Finally, there is this solid analysis <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fnews%2Fworld%2Firaq%2F2008-07-20-iraqadvisers_N.htm">article</a> by USA Today Baghdad bureau chief Charles Levinson. (Full disclosure: I know and like Levinson. I do not always agree with him, or think that he gets every single element of every story exactly right. But I do trust him.) The salient point here is that everyone should now begin to understand that no matter who wins the presidency, and no matter how quickly that man begins to pull out U.S. troops, there will still be Americans on the ground for a long time, because the intent espoused by both politicians is to pull out "combat" troops, but by long usage "advisers" are not the same as "combat troops." (No matter how much actual combat they do see.) <a name=" " title=" "></a>George Zornick writes: Yesterday, Think Progress <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fthinkprogress.org%2F2008%2F07%2F21%2Fbeck-larry-king%2F">alerted</a> us to the fact that CNN was giving the entire 9 p.m. hour to Glenn Beck that night, who guest-hosted Larry King Live. Beck made a completely predictable mess of the show -- tossing the usual bombs at Barack Obama for being "dead wrong on the surge" and that Beck's "never (seen) anything like it," calling him "the most liberal senator in Congress," and so on. (Also, Michael Savage is in trouble for saying <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200807170005">this</a> on his nationally syndicated radio show: "I'll tell you what autism is. In 99 percent of the cases, it's a brat who hasn't been told to cut the act out. That's what autism is." Beck and/or his producers deemed Savage's argument worthy of the closing spot on Larry King Live, brought Savage on the air, and actually featured two doctors to have a discussion on Savage's lunacy). Anyhow, the whole hour was saved by this exchange, which I assume is even more hilarious on tape than on a transcript. Beck was bashing Obama as nothing but a speechifier, and this exchange with David Gergen and Ben Stein ensued:<blockquote> BECK: Thomas Jefferson was a horrible public speaker. Abraham Lincoln, horrible public speaker. Could they win in America today? GERGEN: What are you talking about? What are you talking about? STEIN: I don't think that's true. GERGEN: I mean, come on -- STEIN: I don't think that's true. I think he was a great public speaker. He did the Lincoln-Douglas debates -- GERGEN: He was absolutely compelling. STEIN: He was kind of a great speaker. He was a kind of a great speaker. But I don't -- BECK: Thomas Jefferson? STEIN: I don't know, McCain's got a -- no, but Lincoln -- I think he's got to do something quite dramatically better. And he's really got to change himself a lot.</blockquote> Gold! <a name=" " title=" "></a>Quote of the day: "Who cares if you're Jewish and your breath smells of garlic and your nose is a shiny red light?" Ray Davies, "When I Turn Off the Living Room Lights." WTF, Ray? <a name=" " title=" "></a>Alter-reviews: Dennis Wilson -- Pacific Ocean Blue (Deluxe Edition) 2008 reissue by Sal: A long time Holy Grail for Beach Boys fans finally sees the light of day in glorious form. Dennis Wilson apparently had a little more in him than just hanging ten and beating the skins on "I Get Around," and the absolutely beautiful Pacific Ocean Blue, just released as a deluxe edition from Sony Legacy, shows that in spades. Available years ago for a very short time on CD via the Sony imprint Caribou Records, Wilson's solo debut was a surprise to many. Along with producer Gregg Jakobson, Dennis, his soulful vocals and somewhat inadvertent genius on the piano, created what is arguably a little masterpiece. Sounding more like the orchestral pop of later Beach Boys' material found on such albums as "Sunflower" and "Holland," Wilson's "Pacific Ocean Blue" is a very personal journey with songs that will move you. The CD was deleted almost immediately and for years fetched well over $100 in collector's markets. This new reissue is stunning, to say the least. The remastering is breathtaking and gives this beautifully haunting album new life. As an added bonus, we get the long-bootlegged, unreleased follow-up, Bambu. While not as strong as "Pacific Ocean Blue," there is still plenty to listen to and wrap your head around. And again, what most of us Beach Boys collectors have been listening to for years in muddy, third-generation sound becomes a whole new listening experience with the stellar remastering job by Vic Anesini. One more thing -- in what at first seemed like some unfunny marketing ploy, having Foo Fighters drummer Taylor Hawkins add lyrics and vocals to an unreleased Dennis Wilson instrumental "Holy Man" as a bonus track, now seems like a bit of genius. The song works on every level. Sal "Big Boy" Nunziato Eric notes: Sal is reviewing the two-CD, 33-track limited edition, with first-run collector's packaging. The collection contains the original "Pacific Ocean Blue," plus tracks from an album that never came to be - "Bambu." It also has a lovely 50-page booklet with essays, photos, and memorabilia. More information is <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pacificoceanblue.net%2F">here</a>. Billy Joel -- The Stranger: 30th Anniversary Edition (Deluxe Boxed Set) Billy Joel went into the history books last week as the only boy to sell out Yankee, Shea and Giants' stadium, though of course, Bruce could have done it had he wanted to play Yankee Stadium and if I'm not mistaken, Billy needed Elton John to help with Giants Stadium, but still, I like the guy. What's not to like after all these years? And I love this 30th anniversary edition of The Stranger. I was too cool to admit to liking it in 1978, but like most of Joel's work, it has improved with age. The anniversary edition has the original album, remastered by the great Phil Ramone, who did the original comes with a CD of Live at Carnegie Hall 1977, recorded one month before Billy Joel cut The Stranger, and a bonus DVD of a March 1, 1978, performance on the Old Grey Whistle Test, plus a documentary I don't think I'll watch. Packaging-wise, it comes with a reproduction of Joel's lyric notebook, a poster for the Carnegie Hall shows and 48 pages of liner notes and photos and the like. Thanks to Sony Legacy again, for the standup job for this standup fellow. More <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.billyjoel.com%2Fnews">here</a>. Santana -- Multi-Dimensional Warrior Sony Legacy has also released yet another Santana collection: This one is called Multi-Dimensional Warrior, it is two CDs, and is divided into two distinct halves -- the first disc, 14 tracks, is more powerful songs featuring a lot of vocals, while the second disc, also 14 tracks, is more mellow instrumental tracks. I think the gimmick is that Carlos picked them all out. I like it because I really like Santana -- when they're not trying too hard commercially, but can't keep up with them. So this is really useful if you feel the same way. More <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.santana.com%2F">here</a>. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Correspondence Corner: Name: Rajesh Hometown: Cherry Hill, NJ The last line in this Bloomberg <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bloomberg.com%2Fapps%2Fnews%3Fpid%3D20601087%26sid%3DaKIkmrDcRKv4%26refer%3Dhome">article</a> says it all: "The country is facing a crisis in capitalism." Here are highlights of the Bush legacy: <ul><li>In June, employers cut jobs for a sixth straight month and the unemployment rate stood at 5.5 percent, a four-year high. Home prices in 20 cities dropped 15.3 percent in April from a year earlier, according to the S&P/Case-Shiller index.</li></ul> <ul><li>Oil prices have set records due to global demand and tensions in the Middle East.</li></ul> <ul><li>Consumer confidence has fallen to its lowest level since 1992.</li></ul> <ul><li>... some $2 trillion in tax cuts and military spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, the government has produced only deficits since 2002. Bush's budgets have added $1.7 trillion to the national debt. The CBO, which estimates this year's shortfall will reach $396 billion, projects the red ink will flow through at least 2011.</li></ul> <ul><li>Today, 82 percent of Americans say the economy is doing badly, and voters consider it the most important issue, followed by the Iraq War, health care, terrorism and illegal immigration. Education ranks sixth.</li></ul> <ul><li>Come January, the new president will face the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran's efforts to obtain nuclear power, and the dismantling of North Korea's nuclear program.</li></ul> It's hard to remember what it was like in 2000: In 2000, the last time no incumbent was running, consumer confidence was at record levels and the economy had created 1.3 million jobs in the year's first six months. In August 2000, 89 percent of Americans said the economy was doing well, according to a Los Angeles Times poll ...The Times survey showed that, after education, the issues that concerned Americans most were Social Security and health care, as the nation debated how to use a $5.6 trillion surplus the Congressional Budget Office projected the government would generate over the next decade. Thanks, Ralph. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: T. O'Dell Hometown: Port Angeles, WA A new poll shows that half of Americans believe the press to favor Obama while only 12 percent believe that it favors McCain. But rather than linking to any substantive debate (say, here) on the merits of these beliefs, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politico.com%2Fnews%2Fstories%2F0708%2F11912.html">Politico</a> merely quotes Rasmussen (the poll's source): "There's been a netroots push to say the media's biased in the other direction." Too bad the press spend more time on Obama, but ironically, if they really focused on McCain's remarks (Social Security is a disgrace, bomb bomb Iran) they would probably be seen as even more biased against him. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Tim Dean Hometown: Medford, NJ Eric, After reading <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2008%2F07%2F21%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2F21mccain.html">this</a>, notice the fleeting reference to the fact that "the Democrats accused [McCain] of hypocrisy" in appearing with the President who went out of his way to ruin him personally and politically, quickly followed by the explanation that he "was still a frequent impediment to the White House." First, it's not really true. Second, if it were true, it would only serve to highlight the political expediency of his appearances with the President. Hardly worthy of a "maverick." Conveniently, there is no reference to the fact that he has since changed his mind (flip-flopped?) on his stance of waterboarding as torture. Unfortunately, this kind of thing gets a guy elected. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Michael Bowen Hometown: Hudson Valley, NY Like <a href="http://mediamatters.org/altercation/200807210003#6">Lt. Col. Astore</a>, I've found the current self-labeling of our military as "warriors" and "warfighters" troubling. My father-in-law was a combat engineer who fought on D-Day on through the Battle of the Bulge and on to the German surrender. I've met survivors of the Bataan Death March and men who landed at Inchon, soldiers who contained the Russians during the Cold War and men who fought in Vietnam. None of them would have considered themselves "warriors"; they were all just Americans. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Russell Belding Hometown: Barre, Vermont I've quite frankly never understood why it's considered important for everybody to know what the <a href="http://mediamatters.org/altercation/200807210003#1">top-grossing movie</a> was on any given weekend. Not only that, there seems to be this irrational need to be informed as to exactly how much money the top-grossing film pulled in. I mean, like, who cares? Unless, of course, your paycheck depends on it. http://mediamatters.org/items/200807220002 Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:52:48 EST Every picture tells a story, don't it? http://mediamatters.org/items/200807210003 The news everywhere is that the new <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.google.com%2Fnews%3Fhl%3Den%26ned%3Dus%26scoring%3Dd%26ie%3DISO-8859-1%26q%3DBatman%252C%2Bgross">Batman movie</a> has set a new box office record for a single day by besting Spider-Man 3 by about $2 million. Thing is, those numbers are all pretty much nonsense, as is well known by the people writing them and editing them (and certainly sourcing them). Everyone but you, dear reader. The fact is these numbers are made up by the theaters, and then turned over to the studies who add their own fictional spin, and then given to the PR departments, who then spoon-feed them to reporters, etc. Does anyone verify them? How could they, given the speed with which they appear? And in whose interest would it be to pay for it? As Edward Jay Epstein explained in his excellent book The Big Picture: The New Logic of Money and Power in Hollywood, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fexec%2Fobidos%2Ftg%2Fdetail%2F-%2F1400063531%2Fqid%3D1113592939%2Fsr%3D8-1%2Fref%3Dpd_csp_1%2F002-1459747-7144815%3Fv%3Dglance%26s%3Dbooks%26n%3D507846">here</a>:<blockquote> To begin with, the Sunday numbers are not actual ticket sales but "projections" furnished by Nielsen EDI, since the Sunday evening box office cannot be counted in time to meet the deadlines of the morning papers. Variety, to its credit, corrects the guess estimates on Monday with the actual weekend take. Yet even these accurate numbers leave in place four other confusions about who earns what.</blockquote> What's more, for many other reasons, they have little if anything to say about actual profitability. So if you're interested in who's giving you careful, honest news-reporting, check and see what qualifications are used in the reporting of these self-serving and largely fictional numbers. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Still don't get it: I read The Washington Post, The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and Editor & Publisher stories on the new Pew study released this morning, called "The Changing Newsroom." Not one of them linked directly to the study itself, so that readers could determine what it might contain for themselves, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.journalism.org%2Fnode%2F11961">here</a>. It begins thusly:<blockquote> It has fewer pages than three years ago, the paper stock is thinner, and the stories are shorter. There is less foreign and national news, less space devoted to science, the arts, features and a range of specialized subjects. Business coverage is either packaged in an increasingly thin stand-alone section or collapsed into another part of the paper. The crossword puzzle has shrunk, the TV listings and stock tables may have disappeared, but coverage of some local issues has strengthened and investigative reporting remains highly valued. The newsroom staff producing the paper is also smaller, younger, more tech-savvy, and more oriented to serving the demands of both print and the web. The staff also is under greater pressure, has less institutional memory, less knowledge of the community, of how to gather news and the history of individual beats. There are fewer editors to catch mistakes.</blockquote> Pretty much everything I've read in it so far is consistent with <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenation.com%2Fdoc%2F20080804%2Falterman">this</a> and <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newyorker.com%2Freporting%2F2008%2F03%2F31%2F080331fa_fact_alterman%3FcurrentPage%3Dall">this</a>. And while we're on the topic of me, check out the new, no longer beta, webpage on Fora.tv <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ericalterman.com%2F">here</a>. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Congrats to my friends at Think Progress for <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fmatthewyglesias.theatlantic.com%2Farchives%2F2008%2F07%2Fbig_think_tank_matt.php">stealing away</a> Matt Yglesias, who remains, in our not-so-humble-opinion, something very close to America's best political blogger, despite his stubborn and ultimately inexplicable unwillingness to link to Altercation. The Atlantic's loss is really only a loss to them, as I assume young Matt will remain his Whitman-esque, multitudinous online self. It does hold into further relief, however, that The Atlantic, while still a quite good magazine with the great Jim Fallows reporting and a brilliant back of the book edited by Ben Schwarz, is now, more than ever, politically dominated by voices of the hawkish center-right like Kaplan, Sullivan, Rauch, Goldberg, and the rest of their right-leaning, Yglesias-less online "voices." Anyway, you can read Matt at ThinkProgress one of these days. <a name=" " title=" "></a>More News Jews Can Use: When I wrote about the American Jewish Committee's survey of American Jews a few months ago, I was <a href="http://mediamatters.org/altercation/200801020001#3">denounced</a> by the AJC's executive director for calling American Jews' position on the Israeli-Palestinian question "impressively sensible," <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenation.com%2Fdoc%2F20080107%2Falterman">here</a>, and noting that majority American Jewish positions on U.S. foreign policy were, in fact, opposed to most of those taken by the professional American Jewish establishment which professes to speak for it. (Apparently the AJC thinks American Jews to be neither impressive nor sensible.) It therefore gives me no small pleasure once again to tip my proverbial cap to the folks at J Street for their new survey, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jstreet.org%2Fpage%2Fmedia-advisory-new-survey-american-jewish-community">here</a>, which shows American Jews to be impressively sensible on almost everything and again, at odds not only with most of the hawkish, pro-Republican American Jewish establishment, but also the neocons, and particularly the John Hagee-loving Joe Lieberman. They even support U.S. pressure on Israel to do the right thing for itself and make concessions for genuine peace -- something considered heresy (or is it blasphemy) for the people who pretend to speak in their name. Here are some highlights. Take a look: 10 Do you approve or disapprove of the way George Bush is handling the Arab-Israeli conflict? Strongly approve: 9% Somewhat approve: 20% Somewhat disapprove: 26% Strongly disapprove: 45% Total Approve 29% Total Disapprove 71% Q.11 Now, we would like to rate your feelings toward some people and organizations, with one hundred meaning a VERY WARM, FAVORABLE feeling; zero meaning a VERY COLD, UNFAVORABLE feeling; and fifty meaning not particularly warm or cold. You can use any number from zero to one hundred, the higher the number the more favorable your feelings are toward that person or organization. <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tbody><tr> <td width="142" valign="top"> </td> <td width="49" valign="top"> Mean </td> <td width="84" valign="top"> Favorable </td> <td width="96" valign="top"> Unfavorable </td> <td width="48" valign="top"> ID </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="142" valign="top"> George W. Bush </td> <td width="49" valign="top"> 24.8 </td> <td width="84" valign="top"> 22 </td> <td width="96" valign="top"> 74 </td> <td width="48" valign="top"> 100 </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="142" valign="top"> Barack Obama </td> <td width="49" valign="top"> 57.8 </td> <td width="84" valign="top"> 60 </td> <td width="96" valign="top"> 34 </td> <td width="48" valign="top"> 97 </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="142" valign="top"> John McCain </td> <td width="49" valign="top"> 39.5 </td> <td width="84" valign="top"> 34 </td> <td width="96" valign="top"> 57 </td> <td width="48" valign="top"> 95 </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="142" valign="top"> Joe Lieberman </td> <td width="49" valign="top"> 41.7 </td> <td width="84" valign="top"> 37 </td> <td width="96" valign="top"> 48 </td> <td width="48" valign="top"> 92 </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="142" valign="top"> Nancy Pelosi </td> <td width="49" valign="top"> 47.9 </td> <td width="84" valign="top"> 47 </td> <td width="96" valign="top"> 37 </td> <td width="48" valign="top"> 91 </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="142" valign="top"> Democratic Party </td> <td width="49" valign="top"> 55.3 </td> <td width="84" valign="top"> 59 </td> <td width="96" valign="top"> 33 </td> <td width="48" valign="top"> 97 </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="142" valign="top"> Republican Party </td> <td width="49" valign="top"> 29.4 </td> <td width="84" valign="top"> 23 </td> <td width="96" valign="top"> 63 </td> <td width="48" valign="top"> 90 </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="142" valign="top"> Neo-Conservatives </td> <td width="49" valign="top"> 23.6 </td> <td width="84" valign="top"> 13 </td> <td width="96" valign="top"> 58 </td> <td width="48" valign="top"> 76 </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="142" valign="top"> Rev. John Hagee </td> <td width="49" valign="top"> 15.0 </td> <td width="84" valign="top"> 7 </td> <td width="96" valign="top"> 57 </td> <td width="48" valign="top"> 65 </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="142" valign="top"> Rev. Jeremiah Wright </td> <td width="49" valign="top"> 14.9 </td> <td width="84" valign="top"> 5 </td> <td width="96" valign="top"> 68 </td> <td width="48" valign="top"> 78 </td> </tr> </tbody></table> Q.30 (IF SUPPORT ACTIVE ROLE) Would you support or oppose the United States playing an active role in helping the parties to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict if it meant the United States publicly stating its disagreements with both the Israelis and the Arabs? Strongly support: 41% Somewhat support: 45% Somewhat oppose: 11% Strongly oppose: 3% Total Support: 86% Total Oppose: 14% You may recall that Marty Peretz/Jamie Kirchick was one (or two, I really don't know) of the people who attempted to undermine J Street with demonstrably false assertions about American Jews' views on the Middle East -- assertions that were disproven not only by the new J Street survey but also by the AJC's -- which Peretz/Kirchick quoted selectively and dishonestly, naturally. I say "naturally" because it is SOP over there in Peretz's corner of TNR, which I fear has reached a kind of new low with <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.tnr.com%2Ftnr%2Fblogs%2Fthe_spine%2Farchive%2F2008%2F07%2F09%2Fwaiting-for-the-palestinians.aspx">this post</a> in which he writes, "It is a week after Palestinian terror took on a new tactic: the bulldozer as an instrument of mass murder and mayhem." Once again, the question is: deliberate dishonesty, stupidity, or both? In fact, as Akiva Eldar <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.haaretz.com%2Fhasen%2Fspages%2F999589.html">pointed out</a>, this was not a "new tactic" but "a 'lone wolf,' a drug addict or just a nut case." Peretz wants to exploit it in support of his continuing campaign to stoke up racist hatred against all Arabs in general and Palestinians in particular, but he cannot be bothered to get his facts straight. I was actually on Jaffa Street when the attack took place -- though not on the same part of it -- and as soon as everybody understood what it really was, people resumed their normal lives. Had it been a real terrorist attack, the tourists, at least, would have emptied out of the city. But nothing happened. The hotels remained full and the restaurants crowded. Peretz/Kirchick's campaign of hatred rests in significant measure on ignorance, and it's nice to see from J Street that it is increasingly failing to convince. I don't deny that history has given Jews good reason to be paranoid. <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.haaretz.com%2Fhasen%2Fspages%2F1000086.html">Here</a> is one example of why. It is just a shame that both Palestinians and Israelis must suffer for this irrationality and indefensible that they must suffer to assuage the guilty consciences of ignorant American right-wing Jews who want to see Israel retain every inch of occupied territory and are willing to see them fight to the last Israeli to do it. Read Connie Bruck's incredible profile of Sheldon Adelson, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newyorker.com%2Freporting%2F2008%2F06%2F30%2F080630fa_fact_bruck">here</a>, for more on that. <a name=" " title=" "></a>"<a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.aol.com%2Fvideo-detail%2Ffound-objects-laura-ingraham%2F3082314605">Don't come in my ear</a>": "I'm talking with Dick Morris about the Clintons. This Gitmo thing is old." (Actually, what impressed me about this video is Laura's ability to keep her cool amidst so much incompetence on the part of Fox. How do these people put out a broadcast?) <a name=" " title=" "></a>From TomDispatch: Retired Lt. Col. and historian <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tomdispatch.com%2Fpost%2F174957">William J. Astore</a> first noticed the term "warfighter" in 2002. He writes: "Like many a field-grade staff officer, I spent a lot of time crafting PowerPoint briefings, trying to sell senior officers and the Pentagon on my particular unit's importance to the President's new Global War on Terrorism" -- and, like others, he picked up the new word, a mix of "warrior" and "war fighting." "But I wasn't comfortable with the term then, and today it tastes bitter in my mouth." In his latest TomDispatch post, Astore takes a trip to the Gettysburg battlefield and clambers around the "claustrophobically placed boulders of Devil's Den," while tourists get antiseptic accounts of the battle from their tour buses, and in the process he wonders just how the "citizen soldiers" of past American wars could have been replaced by the "warfighters" of "Generation Kill" -- and just what that means. He particularly focuses on a commonplace boast of our politicians today -- that we now have "the world's best military." Pointing out that it wasn't the "world's best" in either World War I or World War II (that "honor" went to the Germans), he writes: "Today, our military is arguably the world's best. Certainly, it's the world's most powerful in its advanced armaments and its ability to destroy. But what does it say about our leaders that they are so taken with this form of power? And why exactly is it so good to be the 'best' at this? Just ask a German military veteran -- among the few who survived, that is -- in a warrior-state that went berserk in a febrile quest for 'full spectrum dominance.' " This piece which begins by focusing on a new term for soldiers and a new militaristic boast for Americans ends as an eloquent plea for Americans to consider their real military heritage and reject the path we're presently on. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Alter-reviews: The New Orrin Keepnews Collection from Concord: The good news from my friends at Concord is the release of yet another in the series of inexpensive, remastered in 24-bit CDs produced by the great Orrin Keepnews, drawn from Riverside Records, which recorded seminal jazz albums in the '50s and early '60s, and his '70s label, Milestone Records. It's overseen by Keepnews himself and he contributes new liner notes to them and explains some of the feelings at the time and choices that he made. The new series is made up of: <ul><li>Coleman Hawkins: The Hawk Flies High (1957)</li><li>Sonny Rollins: Freedom Suite (1958)</li><li>Nat Adderley: Work Song (1960)</li><li>Wes Montgomery: Incredible Jazz Guitar (1960)</li><li>McCoy Tyner: Gone With the Wind (1976)</li></ul> They all represent either seminal moments in jazz history or albums that Keepnews and company feel to have been under-appreciated and deserve a new hearing. For instance on the "Hawk Flies High," he explains, "Before [Coleman] Hawkins, the tenor saxophone-which has come to be one of the basic instruments of jazz-simply did not exist, a fact that would be disputed by neither Lester Young nor Ben Webster-his most prominent immediate successors-nor by Sonny Rollins or John Coltrane or anyone you might choose to put near the head of the line thereafter." The Sonny Rollins "Freedom Suite" is not only a beautiful piece of music but an important artifact in the history of the civil rights movement -- Jazz's role in the movement is infrequently addressed. (It was released in 1958.) Keepnews says he picked the McCoy Tyner album -- which is not well known except to aficionados -- because it's his favorite. That would be enough to get me to lay my money down ... You can read about each individual release <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.concordmusicgroup.com%2Fpromos%2Fkeepnews%2F">here</a>, but you'll have to search out the individual releases yourselves, alas. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Correspondence Corner: Name: Thomas Heiden Hometown: Stratford, CT Eric, With the latest reports of KBR doing shoddy and dangerous electrical work throughout Iraq, let's remember that the firm's "no-bid" contract was an important reason for the haste with which the whole Iraq catastrophe was initiated. As CBS's "60 Minutes" pointed out at the time, the only way no-bid contracts could legally be awarded in those circumstances was if the situation was "urgent." It was not as simple as not wanting to give the American people and their representatives adequate time to assess the quality (using that word loosely) of the evidence - there was at least one other significant reason for Bush Corp.'s haste. How about a new corporate motto for KBR? I suggest, "KBR -- poisoning, electrocuting, and raping around the world." <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Don Schneier Hometown: Springfield, MA In recent years, George Lakoff has been promoting the characterization of Liberalism as a "nurturing" political ideology, deriving this from his conception of governing-governed as parent-child relation, with the Conservative as the strict parent, and the Liberal as the permissive one. How this model applies to such fundamental phenomena as the Conservative advocacy of laissez-faire economics, or the Liberal insistence on Rule of Law, is unclear. More generally, his metaphor seems little connected to the historical development of Liberalism as the Voice of Reason, as the adversary of compulsion, greed, prejudice, and stupidity, as the unique principle of adult self-rule. The Liberal would do better to heed one of Lakoff's other prescriptions -- to define Liberalism in its own terms, which the past eight years have proven to be more relevant than ever. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Bill Bunker Hometown: Chicago In criticizing Obama, the Washington Post puts forth this common argument that the architects of this war need to be commended because our situation there has improved, "vastly" seems to be the most common adverb. ("Yesterday, with bloodshed at its lowest level since the war began..."). Improved compared to what? Last year, two years ago? Why shouldn't the situation in Iraq always be measured against what we were promised from the get go? Dick Cheney was adamant on the inevitability of a rosy outcome, and quick to question the patriotism (and manliness) of anyone who dared suggest something more complicated than "sunshine and lollipops." Let's say I hire a guy to build me a garage, and he insists that he do so in the swampy part of my yard despite the recommendations to the contrary by a team of engineers. (I should also mention this guy said I won't even have to pay for this job since we'll both get rich from whatever goop he'll extract from the ground in the process.) Five years and tens of thousands of dollars later should I then congratulate him when says he's been able to jack up this sunken mess six inches higher than was the year before? You bet I should! Unless I hate America. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: J DAlessandro Hometown: Crestwood, NY As a Yankee fan for more than 40 years, I cannot let the absence of insults against Steinbrenner go unchallenged. The man has been a disaster for baseball, and an embarrassment for the fans, and the Yankees have prospered most during periods when he was not there to disrupt matters. Everyone knows that the current Jeter/Mariano team was built by Gene Michael during Steinbrenner's second (!) suspension from baseball. The expensive "improvements" such as Giambi, Carl Frickin' Pavano and Rodriguez have not resulted in a single world championship. The current intelligent rebuilding efforts, which might or might not succeed in future years, are a direct result of the Boss's disability. Had he been hail and hearty during this past year, there is no doubt whatsoever that the Yankees would have mortgaged their future to out-bid the Mets for their over-priced starter Santana, who doesn't seem to have 93 miles per hour left in his arm anymore. Perhaps the Barry Zito of the future. You're quite welcome. Oh, and Yogi as The Greatest Living Yankee? I think not, not so as long as Mariano Rivera draws breath. http://mediamatters.org/items/200807210003 Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:16:39 EST Same-as-it-ever-was Slacker Friday http://mediamatters.org/items/200807180003 <a name=" " title=" "></a>We've got a new "Think Again" column called "Nowhere-istan," <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanprogress.org%2Fissues%2F2008%2F07%2Fnowhereistan.html">here</a>, about coverage of the conflict in Afghanistan, and a new Nation <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenation.com%2Fdoc%2F20080804%2Falterman">column</a>, "I Read the News Today, Oh Boy," about the alarming state of the newspaper business. <a name=" " title=" "></a>From today's Wall Street Journal <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB121633647742963787.html%3Fmod%3Dopinion_main_review_and_outlooks">editorial page</a>: "The Washington Post has criticized this as obstinate, and Democratic foreign policy analyst Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution reacted this way: 'To say you're going to get out on a certain schedule -- regardless of what the Iraqis do, regardless of what our enemies do, regardless of what is happening on the ground -- is the height of absurdity.' " Which leads me to wonder if, when people like the editors of The Wall Street Journal, Michael O'Hanlon or the editors of The Washington Post (among many, many, many others, of course) attack Barack Obama's plans for Iraq, it might be a good idea -- for the sake of fairness and intellectual honesty -- to preface their remarks by saying: "Of course, it was the judgment of people like me who caused this catastrophe, and nothing I predicted before the war has actually turned out to be true, while Obama was not only correct about its likely effects, but also prophetic. Still, for reasons I can not even begin to explain, much less justify, I feel qualified to instruct him that ..." <a name=" " title=" "></a>From TomDispatch: <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tomdispatch.com%2Fpost%2F174956">Nick Turse</a> ("The Iraqi Oil Ministry's New Fave Five") offered some tips to mainstream reporters who finally -- only five years late -- made it to the Bush administration's role in Iraq's oil story. Now, in part two of his series on what the mainstream media misses when it comes to our oil wars and the energy story, he turns to Washington and that gas guzzler par excellence, the Pentagon. The ties that "the Complex" -- the term Turse gives the old military-industrial complex in his superb book on how our everyday lives have been militarized -- has developed with an allied petro-industrial complex are so taken for granted that mainstream reporters seldom think they add up to a story. It's like being on the science beat and filing stories about how we breathe. As a war-making society, though, our breathing's been a little labored lately and he suggests that perhaps it's time to take another look at everyday energy activities in the Pentagon. Recently, the New York Times revealed that Hunt Oil -- a company with close ties to George W. Bush himself -- made an oil deal with the Kurdistan regional government in Iraq that undermined U.S. policy -- and the State Department actually encouraged it. So far so good. At the same time, however, Hunt Refining, Hunt Oil's corporate twin, got more than $70 million from the Pentagon in a fuel contract and nobody so much as noticed. As Turse writes: "While the hunt for oil in Iraq is now being increasingly well covered in the mainstream, the Pentagon's hunt for oil remains a subject missing in action. Despite the staggering levels at which the Pentagon guzzles fuel, it's a chronic blind spot in media energy coverage." As an example of the Pentagon's life as a massive energy user, he then follows the Hunt Refining story -- and the ever larger rewards the company has reaped from the Department of Defense on our tax dollars since the President's Global War on Terror was launched. He concludes: "This is how the government now works and it should be a story -- and Hunt Refining should be part of it. But don't count on that. It's taken the mainstream media five years to make it to the oil story in Iraq. How many more before it notices that everyday oil operations in Washington are worth a look? ... Until the mainstream media begins to tease out the close-knit relationships among Hunt, other energy corporations, and the Pentagon that enable our military to function on a daily basis, key aspects not just of major scandals but of how our world works will remain hidden, even if in plain sight." <a name=" " title=" "></a>Slacker Friday: Name: Charles Pierce Hometown: Newton, MA Hey Doc: "Rosemary, on the gallows, she didn't even blink/The hangin' judge was sober, he hadn't had a drink." Weekly WWOZ Pick To Click: Caravan (Cassandra Wilson) -- Once again this week I failed to prepare a barbecue lunch for 900 members of the elite political press corps so they'd spend the next year massaging my feet and writing stories about how much I love New Orleans. Part The First: If you're keeping score at home, the following twin-killing, as recounted by MoDo in last Sunday's column -- "As Margaret Carlson told Mike Barnicle on 'Hardball' " -- was recorded by the famous double-play combination of Inept-To-Corrupt-To-Lunatic. There will always be a place for this kind of talent <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wichitawingnuts.com%2F">in baseball</a>. Part The Second: Look, Public Broadcasting makes A <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thetakeaway.org%2Farchives%2F2008%2F07%2F15%2F5">funny</a>. I think I know where they can stick their tote bag. Part The Third: The <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2008%2F07%2F16%2Fopinion%2F16dowd.html%3F_r%3D1%26hp%26oref%3Dslogin">woman</a> needs to be hospitalized. Soon. And, if she really believes this -- "But he seems like a guy who can be teased harmlessly" -- I dare her to <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Frawstory.com%2Fnews%2F2008%2FMcCain_temper_boiled_over_in_92_0407.html">try it</a>. Part The Fourth: No worries, Federal Appeals Judge <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2008%2F07%2F16%2Fwashington%2F16combatant.html%3F_r%3D1%26hp%26oref%3Dslogin">J. Harvie Wilkinson</a> tells us that "We may never know," he said, "whether we have struck the proper balance between liberty and security, because we do not know every action the executive is taking and we do not know every threat global terror networks have in store." Meanwhile, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fharpers.org%2Farchive%2F2008%2F07%2Fhbc-90003234">this is</a> the most important interview of the week. I would like to add that the When Will Jane Mayer Appear On Meet The Press? clock is now ticking. Part The Last: My goodness, ludicrously overpaid second-place teams can make some people <a href="http://mediamatters.org/altercation/200807140003#5">so giddy</a>. I think I remember what that was like. There simply is no reason to take Newsweek seriously any more -- not with the Rev. Meacham at the helm, anyway -- but last week's affair was so shot through with utter worthlessness that it deserves individual examination. (Dahlia Lithwick may leave the room. This does not concern her.) The lead <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsweek.com%2Fid%2F145971">piece</a> is a bulging sack of sonorous banality and pestiforous god-bothering on the subject of Barack Obama's "beliefs." In it, we got yet another ride on the Jeremiah Wright Tilt-a-Whirl, some brow-furrowing about the "difficulty" that Obama's having at shaking the notion that he's Muslim, and the astonishing assertion that "Presidents such as Lincoln and Jefferson were unorthodox Christians." Well, Lincoln, maybe, but, if the word has any meaning at all, Jefferson was no more a "Christian" than Nehru was. This is followed by a Q&A <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsweek.com%2Fid%2F145967">in which</a> Obama is asked the following preposterous question by people purporting to be journalists: "What do you think about the Kingdom of God? Is it attainable on Earth by humans?" Well, yeah, but book early. It's the busy season. And the Reverend <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsweek.com%2Fid%2F145972">leaps in</a> with some meeping about spiritual journeys in which he makes Polonius sound like Sam Kinison. Elsewhere, the occasionally reliable <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsweek.com%2Fid%2F145843">Jonathan Alter</a> checks in with a column saying that, having dispensed with MoveOn.org, rap music, and the Fourth Amendment in pursuit of "moderate" unicorns, Obama should now take a whack at the teachers' unions. (Sooner or later, some pundit is going to suggest that Obama simply belt in the chops individually any Democrat to the left of Evan Bayh.) In it, Alter gives every impression of having spent the last two decades on the Planet Mongo. The people who declined to fund No Child Left Behind sufficiently to monitor progress in thousands of schools will fund it sufficiently to monitor the progress of tens of thousands of teachers, as long as power is struck from the hands of their unions? Yeah, right. Once we bust tenure, then there will be more money paid to good teachers? Class size doesn't matter? And calling New Orleans merely "reform-minded" is rather <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nola.com%2Fnews%2Findex.ssf%2F2008%2F07%2Ffailing_school_label_sparks_de.html">gilding the lily</a>. Alter was the leader in the clubhouse for Sap of The Week, and then Stuart Taylor came along with <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsweek.com%2Fid%2F145842">this thing</a>. Apparently, the only way to get people to admit to committing crimes is to assure them that they will pay no criminal penalties. How did that work out in the case of the Iran-Contra pardons? This piece is so proudly, gloriously unmoored from the reality of anything that happened in the past seven years that one wonders if the Rev. Meacham has taken to editing in tongues. Of course, back in the day when the constitutional order faced genuine threats from blowjobs and meritless lawsuits, Taylor was <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theatlantic.com%2Fpolitics%2Fnj%2Ftaylor2001-02-01.htm">rather tougher</a>. Pax vobiscum, kids. Do better, OK? <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Myles Reilly Hometown: Salt Lake City The net is beating the printed page because of its timeliness and convenience. Not content, not news. Somebody has to answer the questions: What were the sirens about last night? Who won the game? What are the facts? Net people comment on the news, but they get it from the poor schmucks getting canned now. Reporting is and will always be a "boots on the ground" job. Imagine Drudge without links, it's just a blank page. The future. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Kirby Warnock Hometown: Dallas, TX Your reference to Lee Abrams caused my eyebrows to raise. Back in the late 70s, a consultant by the same name (I'm sure it is him) caused the demise of FM rock radio stations. He sent out his recommended playlist to stations in all of the major markets telling them which rock songs to play and which ones to avoid until we have our current situation where every FM rock station plays the same thing except the local traffic report. Lee Abrams single-handedly ruined FM rock. Now he's out to ruin newspapers. The McDonalds-ization of America continues. Every town will soon look alike. It all started with radio. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Martin E. Cobern Hometown: Cheshire, CT Wow! And people thought Clinton could parse a term! Douglas Feith: "Removal of clothing is different from naked." Imagine all the arguments in court cases involving "adult entertainment," or discussions with police on nude beaches, where there is a new authority to cite. It boggles the mind. PS: If you give an investigator unrestricted authority to "remove [someone's] clothing," doesn't that mean that he can strip the suspect naked? If not, how not? <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Derrick Gibson Hometown: Miami, FL The key takeaway from the great New Yorker Magazine Caper of 2008 came when McCain went on television mouthing the same words as the Obama campaign with respect to the cover: "offensive." What was in this offensive cover? Why, all of the anti-Obama talking points the crazed right wing loves to espouse: Obama is a secret Muslim; he is part of a plot hatched by Osama bin Laden to take over the White House; Obama is not patriotic; Michelle Obama is a Black Nationalist, etc. These messages recirculate from email to radio to television and back, and the New Yorker captured all of them in one cover. But now, McCain is on record from his own mouth as saying that the cover -- and the images it contained were -- were offensive. What will he do when the 527 organizations take up one or two or all of those images and convert them into their ads during the fall? What will he say when confronted with those ads during a debate -- will he shy away from his supporters or will he be forced to "reject and denounce" them? Had Obama ignored the cover or attempted to shrug it off, his campaign would have fallen into the same trap that John Kerry did, who attempted to rise above it all with an air of -- "unpatriotic? I have a Purple Heart, for goodness sakes!"). Instead, by denouncing the cover immediately, he forced reporters to put the question to John McCain and get him on the record too. What could McCain have said but ape the talking points the Obama campaign had made? "I think the cover raises questions that should be answered" or "Where there is smoke, there must be fire -- I just didn't know it was a flag burning!" or "No one will ever confuse my name with the most hated terrorist in the world." None of those work in the presence of a strong denunciation as the joke is made clear and supporting those images -- or supposing some portion of truth in them -- is laid bare as a falsehood. Looks like Obama is playing chess where other campaigns are playing checkers. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Pat Vaughan Hometown: Columbus, Ohio Dr. Alterman: Regarding the <a href="http://mediamatters.org/altercation/200807170002#4">post</a> "Things I learned reading 'Iraq Case Sheds Light On Secret Contractors' ($) by Siobhan Gorman and August Cole in today's Wall Street Journal," item #4 stated "The House of Representatives Wednesday passed a broad bill tackling a wide range of intelligence policy issues, including tightening oversight of such contractors. It would force intelligence agencies to keep Congress better informed about their use." I have a better idea. Why not legislate that any government contractor with at least one employee stationed in either Iraq or Afghanistan must report the nature, length, size (number of employees), and value of the contract to the Congress. Failure to comply means imprisonment of the corporate officers and the refund of all payments made to the contractor under the terms of the contract. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Ben Miller Hometown: Washington, DC Mr. Alterman, Am I the only one who does not fully understand the Washington Post's current series on who killed Chandra Levy? It is sad she was killed, and it must make everything more difficult for her family and friends that no one has ever been convicted of the murder. But every single day, especially in Washington, D.C., people are murdered in cases that are never solved. And most of those murders go unsolved and receive nothing more than a blurb buried someplace in the Post. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Michael Green Hometown: Las Vegas It always is a good day when I can criticize both The Washington Post's once-reputable editorial page and Joe Buck in the same breath, so here goes. The Post's <a href="http://mediamatters.org/altercation/200807170002#3">editorial</a> is a reminder of that paper's sorry history on wars. Few seem to remember today that under an excellent if essentially closed-minded editor, J. Russell Wiggins, The Post was one of the most ardent supporters of LBJ's policies in Vietnam (while The New York Times under the much-underrated John Oakes's editorship was one of the leading editorial doves). Wiggins was, as David Halberstam beautifully described him in The Powers That Be, the kind of old-fashioned man who could not believe that his government would lie to him. That begs a question: what excuse does Fred Hiatt have? And what excuse does the Graham family have for countenancing this daily outpouring of lies and disgrace? Which brings us to Joe Buck. He recently told a talk show host that he isn't all that interested in baseball. Actually, his entire broadcast style is a forced irreverence and unforced boredom designed to show that he is interested in something other than the event he is covering and that he knows something about popular culture. He is a far cry from his father, the late, great Jack Buck, probably the greatest modern baseball broadcaster next to Vin Scully, who once had a lovely line about George M. Steinbrenner III -- or, as Pulitzer Prize-winning sports columnist Red Smith used to call the Yankees owner before age and the loss of historical awareness softened him and the media's perceptions of him, George III. Buck claimed to have been to Steinbrenner's yacht and said it was "a beautiful sight, with all 36 oars working in unison." <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Bob Tallman Hometown: Crestwood, KY As a RI-born Red Sox fan I had to laugh at the Yankees' idea of a grand finale to the All Star pre-game festivities, one Geo. Steinbrenner. I had been looking forward to a replay of the 1999 Fenway All Star pregame introductions and wondered who NY would choose to honor in the finale -- Willie Mays or, more likely, the greatest living Yankee Yogi Berra. I was happy to see both enjoy sustained ovations from the NY crowd. Whereas the Sox capped off a memorable event by highlighting the greatest hitter who ever lived, the Yankees rain George down upon the national audience, spoiling what up until then had been an impressive parade of baseball's immortals. Like I said, as a fan of the World Champion Red Sox, I had to laugh. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Jesse Zander Corum Hometown: Portland, OR Without defending the Yankees or Steinbrenner, I disagree with Eric B from NYNY about letting the man into the Hall of Fame. It's not the "Hall of Baseball People Who Were Nice and Decent Human Beings." Even if you see Steinbrenner as a villain, sort of baseball's Darth Vader, he had a clear influence on the game over decades. For the same reason, I think it's silly to ignore Pete Rose's playing career because of the very poor decisions he made later. If Ty Cobb is in there, it's kind of hard to argue anyone else should be disqualified on moral grounds. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Ron Curtiss Hometown: Studio City, CA Eric: I just have to compliment you on your use of song lyrics to introduce your column. Being an old proghead and seeing "Welcome Back My Friends to the Show That Never Ends" from Emerson, Lake and Palmer does my heart good. Amazing how apropos they all are to the madness that exists around us. Eric replies: Thanks. Sometimes it's a lot of work, but yesterday was one of those days where magically, what was on worked. http://mediamatters.org/items/200807180003 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:12:07 EST Welcome back, my friends, to the show that never ends ... http://mediamatters.org/items/200807170002 <a name=" " title=" "></a>We've got a new "Think Again" column called "Nowhere-istan," <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanprogress.org%2Fissues%2F2008%2F07%2Fnowhereistan.html">here</a>, about coverage of the conflict in Afghanistan, and a new Nation <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenation.com%2Fdoc%2F20080804%2Falterman">column</a>, "I Read the News Today, Oh Boy," about the alarming state of the newspaper business. <a name=" " title=" "></a>I wonder if, when people like <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fwp-dyn%2Fcontent%2Farticle%2F2008%2F07%2F14%2FAR2008071401853.html">Michael O'Hanlon</a> or <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fwp-dyn%2Fcontent%2Farticle%2F2008%2F07%2F15%2FAR2008071502531_pf.html">the editors of The Washington Post</a> (among many, many, many others, of course) attack Barack Obama's plans for Iraq, it might be a good idea -- for the sake of fairness and intellectual honesty -- to preface their remarks by saying: "Of course, it was the judgment of people like me who caused this catastrophe, and nothing I predicted before the war has actually turned out to be true, while Obama was not only correct about its likely effects, but also prophetic. Still, I feel qualified to instruct him that ..." <a name=" " title=" "></a>Things I learned reading "<a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB121485921602717113.html%3Fmod%3Dhpp_us_pageone">Iraq Case Sheds Light On Secret Contractors</a>" ($) by Siobhan Gorman and August Cole in today's Wall Street Journal: 1) Employees of these firms stockpile weapons and pad their expense accounts and shoot "indiscriminately" into Baghdad neighborhoods and falsely claim they defeat a horde of snipers. When other employees attempt to call them to account, even when those reports are corroborated by colleagues, these individuals are fired. 2) Overall, the U.S. has about the same number of contractors as military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan. 3) These contractors have carried out some of the government's most sensitive work -- conducting interrogations, manning secret prisons and guarding spy-agency personnel. The programs' existence, size and scope are classified, and so are the details of their troubles. 4) The House of Representatives Wednesday passed a broad bill tackling a wide range of intelligence policy issues, including tightening oversight of such contractors. It would force intelligence agencies to keep Congress better informed about their use as well as any formal probes into wrongdoing. But the legislation faces serious headwinds: The White House threatened a veto Wednesday, arguing that some of the provisions would hamper its spying operations. Which leads me to conclude: a) The operations of these forces provide much of the reason that so many Iraqis and Afghanis hate us and are joining the resistance in both nations. b) They are constitutionally unaccountable. c) The media treat "our troops" as the story there, when they are, in fact, only half the story at best, and in many instances, not even the most important half. d) This is all consistent with Bush and Co.'s ideological predilections, but it works to the detriment of the U.S. military, the U.S. economy, the U.S. Constitution and, ultimately, U.S. interests. It helps only Republican friends and cronies who get rich off of it. It ought to be yet another national scandal, but who can keep track? <a name=" " title=" "></a><a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2F2008%2F07%2F15%2Fthe-who-nostalgic-pro-oba_n_112795.html">Meet the new boss</a>: Nice piece on the Who, but take a look at this, too: <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.msnbc.msn.com%2Fid%2F25696021%2F">same as the old Boss</a>. I chose Berlin when Time asked me which city would be the best for me to attend Bruce's 1999 European tour because of this amazing show, which I've never thought received enough attention in the history of rock 'n' roll. Whether it can sustain the claims made for it in terms of helping to bring down the wall, I'm skeptical. Still, I'm glad to see Reuters revisit the historical record. There's nowhere near enough of that in the world. (Thanks, Petey.) <a name=" " title=" "></a>I'm not making a big deal out of The New Yorker cover flap because I think it's silly, but I want to make the following suggestions: 1) Watch Jon Stewart's report on it from Monday night. 2) Watch (or read) David Remnick's interview with Charlie Rose about it from Wednesday night. 3) Consider for a moment what the hell kind of media we have when Wolf Blitzer can compare it to something in a "neo-Nazi" magazine or Howie Kurtz needs to be informed that yes, in fact, it's a satire, and these people retain the respect of their colleagues and their esteemed positions within the institutions that employ them. 4) Imagine if Obama's people had the good sense to laugh -- or at least shrug it off -- the way in fact, Obama largely did. I wonder if they were -- at least, initially -- looking to draw attention away from Ryan Lizza's 15,000-word story, which they probably read as unflattering and problematic from Inside the Bubble, but in my view is actually good news about the candidate's understanding of the need that good ideas have for "sharp elbows." <a name=" " title=" "></a>From TomDispatch: Remember last week's two-day, $9 plunge in the price of a barrel of crude oil -- you know, the one that set business pundits speculating on whether a new trend, based on lower consumer use of energy, was under way? Well, all it took was a few Iranian missiles, fears of a Brazilian oil strike, and a kidnapped oil worker in Nigeria to turn that "trend" into toast, and <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tomdispatch.com%2Fpost%2F174955">Dilip Hiro</a> offers the big picture that explains just why. In his latest piece, the author of the history of oil, Blood of the Earth, suggests why the fourth oil shock of the last half-century-plus is quite unlike the previous three and isn't going away any time soon -- and just what it is possible to do about it. After reviewing the energy conservation records of Japan (two thumbs up) and the U.S. (two thumbs down) over the last 30 years, Hiro offers a clear-eyed assessment not just of where we are in energy terms, but of where we're likely to be heading -- and why China and India won't lead the way, but the affluent societies of the West should. Since over half of all oil is used for transport, he first considers the likelihood of divorcing vehicles from the internal combustion engine -- and experiments now under way to do so. Then he turns to two key -- but controversial -- forms of energy on which we humans are likely to rely in "the medium term" -- coal and nuclear, and considers the degree to which either can be "cleaned up." Energy is obviously going to remain fiercely at the heart of our problems, locally and globally, indefinitely. TomDispatch plans to respond to this essential reality with a range of different perspectives on energy in the coming year from various experts -- of whom Dilip Hiro is the latest. The discussion of our future energy path(s) couldn't be more important. <a name=" " title=" "></a>This week on Moyers: This week PBS' Bill Moyers Journal travels to ground zero of the mortgage meltdown-Cleveland, Ohio. Correspondent Rick Karr takes viewers to Slavic Village, one of the hardest hit neighborhoods in the nation when it comes to the spate of foreclosures caused by the subprime mortgage crisis. There, more than 1,000 homes stand vacant and decaying in a neighborhood that once thrived with families living the American dream of home ownership. Moyers gets perspective from veteran journalist William Greider on the current financial crisis and what he calls "the great deflation of Wall Street." <a name=" " title=" "></a>From ANP: Does a 20-hour interrogation involving "hooding" and "removal of clothing" constitute inhumane treatment? Rep. Jerrold Nadler sought answers from <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fnewsproject.org%2Fnode%2F95">Douglas Feith</a>, an architect of the Bush administration's harsh interrogation policies.. Rep. Dennis Kucinich continued his seemingly quixotic crusade to <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fnewsproject.org%2Fnode%2F93">impeach President Bush</a> last week. But with Speaker Pelosi suggesting the House Judiciary Committee may hear his argument, Kucinich might get his day very soon.. The "<a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fnewsproject.org%2Fnode%2F92">enhanced interrogation tactics</a>" used in Guantanamo under orders from the Pentagon and the White House have been the subject of numerous hearings on Capitol Hill recently. The lawyers who approved the policies, which many call torture, are under increasing pressure to explain how it was possible for such methods to be ordered by the United States government. And at a Senate hearing on July 11th, 2008, the mothers of two electrocuted soldiers placed the blame for their sons' deaths with KBR, the world's largest defense services company. Two former KBR electricians described mismanagement, inadequate equipment, and a "good old boy network" that puts <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fnewsproject.org%2Fnode%2F91">soldiers' lives at risk</a>. <a name=" " title=" "></a>From the SEIU: Top Talent to Perform at SEIU Labor Day Festival at Foot of Republican National Convention Celebration in Minnesota to Promote a New Vision for the 21st Century WHO: Musicians Steve Earle, Allison Moorer, Tom Morello & friends and others to be announced; along with Senator John Edwards; SEIU leaders Andy Stern and Anna Burger; and tens of thousands of activists WHAT: Labor Day concert and festival WHEN: September 1st (Labor Day); Noon to 7 pm WHERE: Harriet Island Regional Park, St. Paul, Minnesota About the Labor Day festival: On the eve of the Republican National Convention, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU)-representing 2 million working people-will sponsor a festival to celebrate workers' achievements and to promote a New Vision for the 21st Century that includes: <ul><li>Affordable, quality healthcare for everyone;</li><li>Wages that can support families;</li><li>Freedom to join unions without intimidation;</li><li>Retirement security.</li></ul> In addition to the Labor Day concert, the festival will include a YouTube station, a fully equipped blogger lounge, a children's area, and a large audience-participation art project. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Correspondence Corner: Name: Michael Green Hometown: Las Vegas Perhaps because my dissertation and book were on the Republican Party during the Civil War, I found Bruce Bartlett's argument and Dr. A's counterpoints most interesting. I would love to ask Mr. Bartlett this: when LBJ pushed through civil rights with the help of Everett Dirksen but not of Barry Goldwater, whom did Republicans praise more? And once LBJ pushed through that legislation, why did so many southern Democrats switch to the Republican Party? Was it their belief that Republicans shared their commitment to equal rights for African Americans? Or did they grasp that they had a better chance of continuing to fight desegregation and integration with a party that already had learned the code language on those issues? <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Beth Woodall Hometown: Charleston, SC Remember the old adage about Gen'l Motors? If it still rings true, and this writer suspects it does, then the nation is in big trouble. Just this week, folks: Gen'l Motors announces that it will cut benefits for its retirees in an attempt to stay afloat; an American icon company, Anheuser Busch, is bought by a foreign company; the Dow plunges below 11,000 for the first time in more than two years; big bank failure and more on the horizon; the dollar is down; unemployment is up; China owns our debt; our president is the laughing stock of the world, yes, the world; our Constitution is in shreds; American deaths in Afghanistan are up for the first time in three years, and then there's this: The Miss America contestant (from Texas, no less) falls on her ass, just like last year's Miss America contestant. Two years in a row. The symbolism hasn't escaped me. And isn't this where we are as a country, folks? On our ass? Forget GM -- things are so ridiculously bad now that we can use our Miss America contestant as a measuring stick for the state of our nation: on our ass. Please, let's pull ourselves up by our national bootstraps. Off with the evening gown and high heels; we need hip waders with suspenders. And we need Barack Obama. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Will Hometown: Chicago Here's your so-called liberal media at work again. On McCain's side, we have "at least 20 fundraisers," including his campaign manager and VP vetter, who have been associated with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, according to this article. On Obama's side ... one -- Jim Johnson, a voluntary, unpaid advisor who quit after the screaming banshees in the MSM shouted him away. And on whom does <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com%2Fs%2Fpolitico%2F20080716%2Fpl_politico%2F11781%3B_ylt%3DAqra8AQGuKZ7chQBIo7D5e2s0NUE">this article</a> focus for nine paragraphs? That's right -- Obama's unpaid volunteer advisor. And there's the obligatory swipe against a former Clinton associate. All together now, "FAIR -- AND -- BALANCED" <a name=" " title=" "></a>Name: Eric Birenbaum Hometown: New York, NY I don't know if anyone else was as appalled as I was while watching last night's All Star game by Joe Buck's insane, incoherent praise of George Steinbrenner and his insistence that George be inducted into the Hall of Fame. While reveling in the sheer wonderment of his self-created Yankee Stadium moment, Buck glowingly cited Steinbrenner's dedication to doing whatever it takes to win and making the Yankees such a successful franchise. However, he somehow conspicuously omitted the fact that Steinbrenner is a convicted felon who was suspended not once, but twice, from baseball, first because of his illegal contributions to Nixon's re-election campaign and then for paying a known gambler, Howie Spira, $40,000 to dig up dirt on Dave Winfield, not to mention his abhorrent treatment of other human beings. Tim McCarver's failure to interject or stop Buck from flaunting his ignorance was equally as absurd. I never thought any announcer would ever make me long for the days of Brent Musburger. http://mediamatters.org/items/200807170002 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:10:02 EST There is a blue one who can't accept the green one... http://mediamatters.org/items/200807160001 <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2008%2F07%2F16%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2F16poll.html%3F_r%3D1%26hp%3D%26oref%3Dslogin%26pagewanted%3Dprint">This Times survey</a> paints an extremely disturbing picture of Americans' views on race and its implications for our ever being able to elect a black president, no matter how inspiring, and even in a period like today when the ruling party has been discredited in every imaginable way. One point into which it does not delve, however is the media's responsibility for the widespread ignorance and disinformation that characterizes so many people's views. I wrote about this a bit in <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.whatliberalmedia.com%2F">What Liberal Media?</a> and while the sources are a bit dated, the point still holds:<blockquote> Despite the enormous efforts that news organizations have undertaken to achieve diverse newsrooms and management teams, whites remain the norm in the media, both behind the scenes and in the public view. For all the complaints about political correctness and an alleged multicultural reign of terror, as it is sometimes described, as recently as 2001, a study of the nightly news found that among U.S. sources for whom race was determinable, whites made up 92 percent of the total, blacks 7 percent, Latinos and Arab-Americans 0.6 percent each, and Asian-Americans 0.2 percent. (According to the 2000 census, the U.S. population is 69 percent non-Hispanic white, 13 percent Hispanic, 12 percent black and 4 percent Asian.) A single source who appeared on NBC (July 26, 2001) was the only Native American identified as appearing on the nightly news in 2001-- for 0.008 percent of total sources. This was no isolated case. Between January 1996 and September 1999, Time ran thirty cover stories, on topics ranging from homework to parental care, in which millions of Americans were symbolized by a single image: a white person. A study of Newsweek during the period between September 1998 and September 1999 found ten such covers, with every one featuring a white person. To be black and make the cover of one of the main newsweeklies, being "ordinary" was never enough; it required a Michael Jordan, an Oprah Winfrey... or an O.J. Simpson. Another example of the social bias that can spill into allegedly objective news stories can be found in the disparity of coverage in crime victims, particularly when a single individual becomes the focus of intense media attention. Crime statistics do not begin to match media portrayals, with their vast over-representation of black criminals and white victims, and a corresponding underrepresentation of white criminals and black victims. When a white, upper-middle class woman is raped and attacked while jogging in Central Park, it became a worldwide media story and the hysteria it inspired may have inspired what were late proven to be the false convictions of a group of innocent young black men. But when a black woman met the same fate in the same park, at approximately the same time, nothing; next to no coverage and certainly no media-induced hysteria. From the birth of cable news, a missing white girl who appears to have met an untimely death owing to possible foul play has always been a staple of the news, from Nicole Brown to Jon-Benet Ramsey, to Chandra Levy to Elizabeth Smart, the beautiful blonde girl who graces both the cover of Newsweek and the pop-up screen of my AOL account as I write these words. One girl who is not on the cover of Newsweek or popping up on AOL, however, is a seven-year-old African-American named Alexis Patterson who disappeared on her way to school one month before Smart's alleged abduction. In the latter case, the New York Times and Washington Post filed reports from her hometown of Salt Lake City. So too did the Boston Globe, Miami Herald and countless other news outlets. Cable viewers were treated to updates on MSNBC and alleged experts scrutinized the case on CNN's Larry King Live and Hardball with Chris Matthews. But a Nexis search of the Patterson's name done before people started comparing the two cases, turned up only AP and local reports. After people began to notice this discrepancy, The New York Times sent a reporter to the Patterson home where, in their living room, the girl's parents saw MSNBC carry two reports on the Smart case, as the ticker beneath them carried the message, 'Elizabeth Smart has been missing for three weeks." Even with the best of intentions, the largely white dominated mass media does not seem to be able to help but depict blacks in a fashion that inspires racist conclusions on the part of the audience. As Robert M. Entman and Andrew Rojecki demonstrate at length in their study, The Black Image in the White Mind, a sampling of the network news drawn from 1997 shows blacks in basically three ways: "entertainer, sports figure or object of discrimination." A more detailed study of just ABC News found that the network "mainly discusses Blacks as such when they suffer or commit crime, or otherwise fall victim and require attention from government." As a result, "the news constructs African Americans as a distinct source of disruption." The authors note that since Caucasians are rarely featured in this way -- relative to the number of times they are shown, "the news can easily imply a baseline or ideal social condition in which far fewer serious problems would plague the society if only everyone in the United States were native-born whites."[Robert M. Entman and Andrew Rojecki, The Black Imagine in the White Mind: Media and Race in America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), 64-66] This point is actually supported by Bernard Goldberg in his rant against liberal "bias," though it remains a mystery as to whether he is aware of this. Goldberg quotes a producer for "48 Hours," who admits, "All we do around here is murder, murder, murder, sex. And only about white people." White characters," he explains "appeal to more viewers than black characters. More viewers mean higher ratings. We pick white characters whenever we can." He recounts the tale of a "48 Hours" producer who preemptively edited Hispanics out of stories because, he explained, his bosses "don't think our audience cares about Hispanics." A third producer, this one for NBC, explains, "Let's not kid ourselves.... There is no profit in people of color." Ex-ABC News chief, Av Westin, compiled a handbook for journalists covering racial issues. It has been filled by the anonymous comments of some of the most influential reporters and producers in the business. Each told a similar story: "My bosses have essentially made it clear. We do not feature black people." These tendencies must be added to those of local news, which -- with an "if it bleeds, it leads" mentality-- vastly overemphasize crime stories at the expense of all others. Within this context, they also exaggerate the degree to which criminals are alleged to be black and victims, white. And at the same time, they ignore virtually every conceivable contextual element of life that might induce crime, such as lack of economic or educational opportunity, wide availability of drugs, lack of local role models, etc, it hardly requires a doctorate in sociology to understand that the news media actually contributes to ignorance-based racism rather than ameliorates it. Whatever the intent of those responsible may be -- whether it is unconscious racism or merely a drive for better ratings and more money -- the overall results appear incontrovertible and they do not support an argument for liberal bias. Another way to measure the overall message the media communicates on racial issues is to examine the attitudes of the people who watch it. As most white Americans receive their information about black America from television, we can judge the question of whether the media is falsely catering to an overly liberal and generous portrayal of minorities based on the degree to which those attitudes correspond to reality -- and in the manner in which they diverge Whatever its specific source, in examining white attitudes toward Black America, we find considerable ignorance and confusion. According to an extensive poll by the Kaiser Foundation, between 40 percent to 60 percent of all whites feel reassured that the average black American appears to be faring about as well and perhaps even better than the average white in employment, income, education and access to health care. Unfortunately, this reassurance is false. While progress has been made in these areas in recent years, Black America lags far behind white America by every measurable statistic. Sixty-one percent of whites questioned believe that average black person has equal or better access to health care than the average white. The truth is that, in 2000, the U.S. Census Bureau's Current Population Survey found that blacks were nearly twice as likely as whites to be without health insurance. About half of whites believe blacks and whites enjoy roughly equivalent education levels of education. Actually, the percentage of college graduates among blacks is about 17 percent; for whites it is 28 percent. "The results suggest there is the overwhelming sense among most whites that this is 2001 -- we could not possibly be saddled with segregation and discrimination and therefore things can't possibly be as bad as black Americans say they are," Swarthmore College political scientist Keith Reeves, who consulted on the survey, explained to a reporter. The poll results imply ignorance on the part of most whites, rather than racism. The net results would seem to argue for an aggressive attempt by the news media to enlighten whites as to the true circumstances of Black America, as the knowledge would seem to empower a change in attitudes. Whites with accurate views of black circumstances prove more sympathetic to federal intervention to ensure racial equality in education as well as fair-treatment by the courts and law enforcement authorities. [Richard Morin, "Misperceptions Cloud Whites' View of Blacks," Washington Post, July 11, 2001, A1]</blockquote> <a name=" " title=" "></a>In making the argument that when the Southern racists like Strom Thurmond et al were Democrats, the Republicans were better than Democrats, but after Southern racists like Thurmond and Jesse Helms became Republicans, Republicans are -- well, I'm not sure I get it, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB121617172687056531.html%3Fmod%3Dopinion_main_commentaries">here</a>. Conservative Bruce Bartlett writes in The Wall Street Journal: "Lyndon Johnson consistently opposed civil-rights legislation while he was in Congress." Bartlett's phrasing is not exactly wrong, but it is purposely misleading. He must know -- and if he doesn't, perhaps he should pick up volume three of Robert Caro's incredible LBJ bio, which, if I'm not mistaken, devotes at least 200 pages to it -- that LBJ relentlessly and singlehandedly rammed the Civil Rights Act of 1957 through a recalcitrant Congress. So while he did oppose some civil rights legislation, he was solely responsible for one of the key steps in reversing the trend. It's a complicated picture, and apparently complexity is not something much appreciated by Mr. Bartlett or the editors of The Wall Street Journal. <a name=" " title=" "></a>Speaking of schizophrenia ... a tip of the cap to <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Fpublic%2Farticle%2FSB121616842842256325.html%3Fmod%3Dsports">Bobby Murcer</a>. <a name=" " title=" "></a>From Eric Boehlert: The Beltway press corps has become so borderline dysfunctional that even the simplest tasks, such as selecting which stories to cover -- such as using common sense -- now escape most of the major players at the mainstream news organizations. That's why Jesse Jackson and the "nuts" story was mentioned more than 900 times on television last week. But John McCain's comment about Social Security in this country being "a disgrace" was mentioned just 24 times. Read more <a href="http://mediamatters.org/columns/200807150002">here</a>. <a name=" " title=" "></a>This just in: JOHN MELLENCAMP ANNOUNCES FIRST FARM AID MUSIC FESTIVAL IN NEW ENGLAND Willie Nelson, Mellencamp, Neil Young and Dave Matthews to headline Sept. 20 all-star concert event BOSTON -- Alongside farmers and food buyers at the Copley Square Farmers Market, Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino and Governor Deval Patrick welcomed Farm Aid co-founder John Mellencamp to New England as he announced Farm Aid 2008 Presented by Whole Foods Market and Horizon Organic. The concert will take place on Sept. 20 at the Comcast Center in Mansfield, Mass., marking the first time the organization will bring its annual benefit concert to the region. "New England was built on the strength of independent family farmers," said Mellencamp. "We can honor that independent spirit by joining Farm Aid to grow the movement that is changing the way all of America eats." Farm Aid 2008 Presented by Whole Foods Market and Horizon Organic will feature headliners Willie Nelson, Mellencamp, Neil Young, and Dave Matthews, plus other top artists to be announced. The annual benefit concert will celebrate music and good food, featuring hands-on activities in the HOMEGROWN Village that will showcase the direct connection between who is growing our food and what we eat every day. "We are proud to bring our annual Farm Aid concert to a region that has such strong agricultural roots and to the many people who love to eat the good food grown in New England," said Farm Aid president Willie Nelson. "I'm looking forward to bringing my friends together on the Farm Aid stage to celebrate and support family farmers." The concert event will again feature family-farm identified, local and organic foods at concessions, setting an example of the many ways that family farm food can be integrated into the general marketplace. "Bringing Farm Aid's unique concert event to New England creates an unparalleled opportunity to showcase the innovation and