HEADLINES

Monday, June 28, 2010

Fwd: MRC Alert: ABC Warns G-20's Rejection of Obama-Spendanomics 'Could Plunge World Into a Second Recession'



 

visit mrc.org today!

MRC CyberAlert

A daily compilation edited by Brent H. Baker, CyberAlert items are drawn from daily BiasAlert posts and distributed by the Media Research Center's News Analysis Division, the leader since 1987 in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias.

Support the MRC's work with a donation - it's fast, free and secure!

 

Tracking Liberal Media Bias Since 1996
Monday June 28, 2010 @ 09:04 AM EDT

1. ABC Warns G-20's Rejection of Obama-Spendanomics 'Could Plunge World Into a Second Recession'
Based on the view of a single economist, ABC portrayed the agreement by world powers, at the G-20 summit in Toronto, to pursue fiscal sanity over the accelerated government spending urged by President Barack Obama, as a threat the well-being of the American people. "President Obama lost an argument today with other world leaders, and some economists say that could plunge the world into a second recession," Dan Harris intoned at the top of Sunday's World News. From Toronto, reporter David Kerley agreed: "The President lost the argument and there could be serious consequences. Some economists are saying what was decided in Toronto today could actually lead to a double-dip recession."

2. CBS's Logan Zings Hastings: He's 'Never Served His Country the Way McChrystal Has'
Lara Logan, CBS's chief foreign affairs correspondent, took to CNN's Reliable Sources on Sunday to accuse Michael Hastings, who was interviewed by Howard Kurtz in the preceding segment, of using subterfuge and Rolling Stone of pushing an agenda in their hit piece on General Stanley McChrystal, both of which unfairly tarnished McCrystal and will lead to more military wariness toward the journalists. Logan castigated Hastings: "The question is, really, is what General McChrystal and his aides are doing so egregious, that they deserved to end a career like McChrystal's? Michael Hastings has never served his country the way McChrystal has." As for Hastings' insistence he didn't break any "off the record" ground rules, Logan declared: "Something doesn't add up here. I just - I don't believe it." The subterfuge really infuriated Logan...

3. NBC's Todd Defends Obama 'Twitters' Gaffe: 'Written Incorrectly in His Prepared Remarks'
On NBC's Today on Friday, White House correspondent Chuck Todd preemptively dismissed any criticism of President Obama referring to "Twitters" during a joint press conference with Russian President Dimitri Medvedev on Thursday: "It turns out he didn't misstate it. It was written incorrectly in his prepared remarks." Despite Obama's inability to correct the remarks off the cuff, Todd solely blamed a White House staffer for the mistake: "A speechwriter falling on his sword on that one."

4. NYT Movie Critic: Dictator Hugo Chavez a 'Good-Hearted Man of the People'
New York Times movie critic Stephen Holden on Oliver Stone's new documentary on left-wing leaders in Latin America, including dictator Hugo Chavez of Venezuela: "Mr. Chávez comes across as a rough-hewn but good-hearted man of the people whose bullheaded determination is softened by a sense of humor. At a corn-processing factory, he jokes: 'This is where we build the Iranian atomic bomb. A corn bomb.'" Holden had room for the strongman's corny jokes, but none to discuss Venezuela's political prisoners.


Advertisement - Mark Levin wants you to "Show the liberals in the media what you think of them!"
Tell the world how you feel about the liberal media with your free "I Don't Believe the Liberal Media" bumper sticker from NewsBusters and the Media Research Center - America's Media Watchdog! To get your sticker: http://www.mrcsticker.org



 

ABC Warns G-20's Rejection of Obama-Spendanomics 'Could Plunge World Into a Second Recession'

 

Based on the view of a single economist, ABC portrayed the agreement by world powers, at the G-20 summit in Toronto, to pursue fiscal sanity over the accelerated government spending urged by President Barack Obama, as a threat the well-being of the American people. "President Obama lost an argument today with other world leaders, and some economists say that could plunge the world into a second recession," Dan Harris intoned at the top of Sunday's World News.

From Toronto, reporter David Kerley agreed: "The President lost the argument and there could be serious consequences. Some economists are saying what was decided in Toronto today could actually lead to a double-dip recession." A dire Kerley elaborated: "The worry is that by turning off the stimulus spigot the fragile economic recovery could disappear and turn into a double-dip recession."

ABC's "some economists" turned out to be a single one, Professor Peter Morici of the University of Maryland, who ominously warned: "It will be very difficult to recover from that. Then we start to get into depression-like conditions."

Kerley forecast not following Obama's policies will mean "an unemployment rate that could rise again, this time above ten percent, no recovery in the housing market and an even tighter credit market. And all of this could last another two to three years." From the Sunday, June 27 World News on ABC:

DAN HARRIS: Good evening. President Obama lost an argument today with other world leaders, and some economists say that could plunge the world into a second recession. The President went to this weekend's summit meeting in Canada to convince other wealthy nations to keep spending still stimulate their economies. But they said no, arguing now is the time to start cutting deficits. So, who is right here and what does that mean for your wallet? We're going to start tonight with David Kerley, who is at the G-20 summit in Toronto. David, good evening.

DAVID KERLEY: Good evening, Dan. You're right. The President lost the argument and there could be serious consequences. Some economists are saying what was decided in Toronto today could actually lead to a double-dip recession.

Screams and cheers for President Oobama during a photo shoot. But his G-20 colleagues didn't buy his argument that they need to keep spending to stimulate their economies, rather than turning to cutting deficits.

STEPHEN HARPER, CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER: Advanced countries must send a clear message that as our stimulus plans expire, we will focus can on getting our fiscal houses in order. Specifically, we should agree that deficits will be halved by 2013.

KERLEY: It is a major split for the major economies, which have been on the same page for a year and a half. The President gave in, signaling as much when he met with the new British Prime Minister.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: There are going to be differentiated responses between the two countries because of our different positions, but we are aiming at the same direction which is long-term sustainable growth that puts people to work.

KERLEY: The worry is that by turning off the stimulus spigot the fragile economic recovery could disappear and turn into a double-dip recession.

PROFESSOR PETER MORICI, ECONOMIST, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND: It will be very difficult to recover from that. Then we start to get into depression-like conditions.

KERLEY: What does that mean? An unemployment rate that could rise again, this time above ten percent, no recovery in the housing market and an even tighter credit market. And all of this could last another two to three years.

MORICI: What Europe did today would be like taking up smoking. You don't know when it's going to make you sick, but it will make you sick.

KERLEY: The weekend meetings here in Toronto were targeted by protesters who took to the streets, burning cars and breaking windows. Canada spent nearly a billion dollars on security. That's $12 million per hour that the world leaders were here in town. More than 500 protesters were arrested. Dan?

— Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.





CBS's Logan Zings Hastings: He's 'Never Served His Country the Way McChrystal Has'

 

Lara Logan, CBS's chief foreign affairs correspondent, took to CNN's Reliable Sources on Sunday to accuse Michael Hastings, who was interviewed by Howard Kurtz in the preceding segment, of using subterfuge and Rolling Stone of pushing an agenda in their hit piece on General Stanley McChrystal, both of which unfairly tarnished McCrystal and will lead to more military wariness toward the journalists. Logan castigated Hastings:

The question is, really, is what General McChrystal and his aides are doing so egregious, that they deserved to end a career like McChrystal's? Michael Hastings has never served his country the way McChrystal has.

As for Hastings' insistence he didn't break any "off the record" ground rules, Logan declared: "Something doesn't add up here. I just -- I don't believe it."

The subterfuge really infuriated Logan: "What I find is the most telling thing about what Michael Hastings said in your interview is that he talked about his manner as pretending to build an illusion of trust and, you know, he's laid out there what his game is. That is exactly the kind of damaging type of attitude that makes it difficult for reporters who are genuine about what they do....Clearly, you've got someone who is making friends with you, pretending to be sympathetic, pretending to be something that they're not..."

Taking on Rolling Stone, Logan charged the "magazine put their own spin on this. They said that the greatest enemy for McChrystal is the wimps in Washington. Nowhere in the article does McChrystal refer to 'the wimps in Washington.' That's Rolling Stone magazine, how they chose to cast this, to make it as sensational as possible. And that was with intent." (Logan echoed Newsweek's Evan Thomas, who asserted on this weekend's Inside Washington: "When they go to bars they...blow a lot of steam off. I don't think the reporter should have printed that stuff.")

In the pevious segment, Hastings insisted to Kurtz that he doesn't have a political agenda: "If Bill O'Reilly is calling you a far-left critic, in my book, no matter what your political persuasion is, that probably means you're doing a good job."

(A couple of tweets I sent a few days ago about the political persuasions of McChrystal and Petraeus, starting with banning the wrong outlet:

> Marc Ambinder on McChrystal: A liberal, voted for Obama, "he banned Fox News from the TV sets in his headquarters." http://bit.ly/cx1t8i

> Petraeus has home in NH where "his personal vehicle sports 'Live Free or Die' license plates." Union Leader story: http://shar.es/mIeUw )

From the Sunday, June 27 Reliable Sources on CNN:

HOWARD KURTZ: If you had been traveling with General McChrystal and heard these comments about Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Jim Jones, Richard Holbrooke, would you have reported them?

LARA LOGAN, CBS CHIEF FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT: Well, it really depends on the circumstances. It's hard to know -- Michael Hastings, if you believe him, says that there were no ground rules laid out. And, I mean, that just doesn't really make a lot of sense to me, because if you look at the people around General McChrystal, if you look at his history, he was the Joint Special Operations commander. He has a history of not interacting with the media at all.

And his chief of intelligence, Mike Flynn, is the same. I mean, I know these people. They never let their guard down like that. To me, something doesn't add up here. I just -- I don't believe it.

KURTZ: When you are out with the troops and you're living together and sleeping together, is there an unspoken agreement-

LOGAN: Absolutely.

KURTZ: -that you're not going to embarrass them by reporting insults and banter?

LOGAN: Yes.

KURTZ: Tell me about that.

LOGAN: Yes, absolutely. There is an element of trust. And what I find is the most telling thing about what Michael Hastings said in your interview is that he talked about his manner as pretending to build an illusion of trust and, you know, he's laid out there what his game is. That is exactly the kind of damaging type of attitude that makes it difficult for reporters who are genuine about what they do, who don't -- I don't go around in my personal life pretending to be one thing and then being something else. I mean, I find it egregious that anyone would do that in their professional life.

And, I mean, I take that to the point of, even when I apply to interview someone about something difficult, and they want to know the areas of the interview, I might not say, well, we're going to spend the whole interview on this, but I will list that. I will list that controversial issue.

KURTZ: Because you don't want to blindside them.

LOGAN: Because I don't believe in that.

KURTZ: But don't beat reporters -- aren't they nice to people to gain their confidence, and sometimes they have to write things that are not flattering?

LOGAN: Of course. I mean, the military is a good example. I have never been -- they never know what to do with me because I've never been accused of being right wing. And they want to paint me as left wing because they expect the media to be that way. But, if you look at my body of work, it's been always been accurate and fair.

Now, Michael Hastings might look at my body of work and say, well, there's an example of another one of those reporters, unlike me, that didn't go and tell the truth because they wanted to come back. That's not the case at all.

KURTZ: He says that all of the things that have been written about Stanley McChrystal have been these glowing profiles. He's suggesting that he did a job that the regular beat journalists have not done.

LOGAN: I think that's insulting and arrogant, myself. I really do, because there are very good beat reporters who have been covering these wars for years, year after year. Michael Hastings appeared in Baghdad fairly late on the scene, and he was there for a significant period of time. He has his credentials, but he's not the only one.

There are a lot of very good reporters out there. And to be fair to the military, if they believe that a piece is balanced, they will let you back. They may not have loved it. They didn't love the piece I did about hand grenades being thrown in Iraq that were killing troops. They didn't love that piece, it made a lot of people very angry. They didn't block me from coming back.

KURTZ: The Washington Post quoted an unnamed senior military official as saying that Michael Hastings broke the off-the-record ground rules. But the person who said this was on background and wouldn't allow his name to be used. Is that fair?

LOGAN: Well, it's Kryptonite right now. I mean, do you blame them? The commanding general in Afghanistan just lost his job. Who else is going to lose his job? Believe me, all the senior leadership in Afghanistan are waiting for the ax to fall. I've been speaking to some of them. They don't know who's going to stay and who's going to go.

I mean, the question is, really, is what General McChrystal and his aides are doing so egregious, that they deserved to end a career like McChrystal's? Michael Hastings has never served his country the way McChrystal has.

KURTZ: Is this going to prompt the military, in general, the commanders in Afghanistan in particular, to be more wary of journalists?

LOGAN: Of course, because what you see is not what you get. Clearly, you've got someone who is making friends with you, pretending to be sympathetic, pretending to be something that they're not, and then they're taking what you say -- when you start an article with General McChrystal making obscene gestures, you're not even using something that he said.

And Rolling Stone magazine put their own spin on this. They said that the greatest enemy for McChrystal is the wimps in Washington. Nowhere in the article does McChrystal refer to "the wimps in Washington." That's Rolling Stone magazine, how they chose to cast this, to make it as sensational as possible. And that was with intent.

— Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.





NBC's Todd Defends Obama 'Twitters' Gaffe: 'Written Incorrectly in His Prepared Remarks'

 

On NBC's Today on Friday, White House correspondent Chuck Todd preemptively dismissed any criticism of President Obama referring to "Twitters" during a joint press conference with Russian President Dimitri Medvedev on Thursday: "It turns out he didn't misstate it. It was written incorrectly in his prepared remarks."

During Todd's report, a clip was played of Obama noting how in a visit to California's Silicon Valley, Medvedev went to "visit the headquarter of Twitters." Obama simply placed an 's' after the wrong word. Rather than let the minor gaffe stand, at the conclusion of the report, Todd made to sure to explain the typographical error to viewers: "You did not mishear. The President did say the word 'Twitters,' plural." Despite Obama's inability to correct the remarks off the cuff, Todd solely blamed a White House staffer for the mistake: "A speechwriter falling on his sword on that one."   
                        
Todd quickly changed the subject to a similar gaffe made by President Bush: "...it did bring back memories of President Bush one time referring to those 'internets.'" The media was certainly never quick to come to Bush's defense after a verbal misstep.  

In his report, Todd observed how Obama got a "diplomatic head-start" on the upcoming G-20 economic summit in Canada by meeting with Medvedev and how "...the President treated Medvedev to cheeseburgers at one of the President's favorite burger spots in northern Virginia."

Here is a full transcript of Todd's June 25 report:

7:07AM

MATT LAUER: President Obama will be keeping an eye on what's happening in the Gulf today from Toronto. He's heading there this morning to join a host of world leaders at the G-20 summit. NBC's chief White House correspondent Chuck Todd is there as well. Chuck, good morning to you.

CHUCK TODD: Well, good morning, Matt. The President is scheduled to arrive here later this morning. He's going to have a new Wall Street reform deal in his back pocket. It's something he's going to try to use to convince these other nations from around the world to do similar action. On Thursday he met with an important G-20 ally, the Russian president. Believe it or not, it's the seventh time these two have met face-to-face. Security here at the G-20 meeting is tight. The Canadian government has spent more than any other host country ever to try to make sure world leaders are safe. Heading into the important economic summit, the President got a diplomatic head-start by meeting with one of America's most touchy allies, Russia, and its president, Dimitri Medvedev.

BARACK OBAMA: America's most significant national security interests and priorities could be advanced most effectively through cooperation, not an adversarial relationship, with Russia.

TODD: And yet, despite the global economic concerns and the presence of the Russian president-

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Does the change in command in Afghanistan-

TODD: A reporter's first question brought the President back to the issue that's dogged him all week, Afghanistan.

OBAMA: I am confident we've got a team in place that can execute it.

TODD: The President promised no more personnel changes after Wednesday's dramatic firing of General Stanley McChrystal and the President made sure to leave himself wiggle room on the question of whether the U.S. will actually go through with its plans to draw down troops in July, 2011.

OBAMA: We didn't say we'd be switching off the lights and closing the door behind us. We said as we begin a transition phase in which the Afghan government is taking on more and more responsibility.

TODD: Medvedev was asked if he had any advice for the President, given Russia's long and costly war in Afghanistan.

DIMITRI MEDVEDEV: But I try not to give pieces of advice that can't be fulfilled.

TODD: But Defense Secretary Robert Gates did have words of advice.

ROBERT GATES: No one, be they adversaries or friends, or especially our troops, should misinterpret these personnel changes as a slackening of this government's commitment to the mission in Afghanistan.

OBAMA: Visit the headquarter of Twitters.

TODD: On a lighter note, President Obama noted President Medvedev opened a Twitter account and joked it was a 21st sentry substitute for the old Cold War hotline.

OBAMA: I have one as well, so we may be able to finally throw away those red phones that have been sitting around for so long.

TODD: Earlier in the day, the President treated Medvedev to cheeseburgers at one of the President's favorite burger spots in northern Virginia.

MEDVEDEV: Probably it's not quite healthy but it's very tasty and you can feel the spirit of America.

TODD: Alright. You did not mishear. The President did say the word 'Twitters,' plural. It turns out he didn't misstate it. It was written incorrectly in his prepared remarks. A speechwriter falling on his sword on that one. But it did bring back memories of President Bush one time referring to those 'internets.' Matt.

LAUER: Alright, Chuck Todd, thank you very much. He's in Toronto this morning.

—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center. You can follow him on Twitter here.





NYT Movie Critic: Dictator Hugo Chavez a 'Good-Hearted Man of the People'

 

Stephen Holden, the New York Times' most left-wing movie critic (and that's saying something) admires Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez almost as much as left-wing conspiracist/movie director Oliver Stone does.

Stone's new documentary, "South of the Border," features informal interview sessions with several left-wing Latin American leaders, but the screen-time is dominated by Chavez, who Holden holds up as a humorous, "good-hearted man of the people."

Political documentaries shadowed by paranoia and apocalyptic foreboding are so commonplace nowadays that "South of the Border," Oliver Stone's celebration of the leftward tilt of South American politics, comes as a cheerful surprise. As anyone who remembers "JFK," his 1991 film about the Kennedy assassination, can attest, Mr. Stone has his own paranoid tendencies, but they are muted in this provocative, if shallow, exaltation of Latin American socialism.

During "South of the Border" Mr. Stone schmoozes with several left-wing political leaders, including his good buddy the Venezuelan president, Hugo Chávez; he takes Mr. Stone to his childhood home, where Mr. Chávez mounts a children's bike that collapses under him. Mr. Chávez comes across as a rough-hewn but good-hearted man of the people whose bullheaded determination is softened by a sense of humor. At a corn-processing factory, he jokes: "This is where we build the Iranian atomic bomb. A corn bomb." Ho, ho, ho.

Such "humor" is especially hilarious given that, as Forbes reports, Venezuela under Chavez harbors terrorists and weapons from the anti-Israel groups Hezbollah and Hamas via Tehran.

Mr. Stone's visit with Mr. Chávez is the movie's longest interview with a Latin American statesman during what feels like a whirlwind tour of South American capitals. Instead of the saber-rattling, America-hating tyrants often depicted on American television (especially Fox News, several of whose extreme fulminations are excerpted for comic effect), Mr. Stone finds sensible, plain-spoken men (and one woman, Argentina's president, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner). They are well aware of how power works in the global arena. Those who have it use it for their own advantage; it's the way of the world.

The two demonic influences named in the movie are the American-controlled International Monetary Fund and the "private media." Mrs. Kirchner recalls resisting pressure to keep borrowing from the fund rather than pay back what was owed. Mr. Chávez repeatedly triumphs despite the almost unanimous hostility of Venezuela's privately owned media.

Holden brought up the anti-Chavez hostility of the "private" media without reporting that earlier this year Chavez arrested the owner of the independent TV network Globovision for "comments offensive" to Chavez.

Holden left Chavez criticism to a single sentence:

There are no serious interviews with the poor to determine how everyday lives have changed under these socialist governments, and there is no mention of the human rights abuses in Venezuela reported by Amnesty International.

Holden left out plenty. Chavez arrested Judge María Lourdes Afiuni for a ruling that displeased him (she had freed a businessman who had supported opposition politicians), as the Times itself reported on April 4, "Criticism of Chavez Stifled by Arrests." Reporter Simon Romero added:

Twenty to 30 Venezuelans, including Judge Afiuni, are now imprisoned here because of their political activity or for reasons connected to publicly contradicting Mr. Chávez's wishes, said Rocío San Miguel, a legal scholar here who leads a nongovernmental group that monitors Venezuelan security.

Holden argued that "South of the Border" "is a valuable, if naïvely idealistic, introductory tutorial on a significant international trend."  Ever the socialist idealist, Holden concluded: "It ultimately proffers the vision of a pan-South American union that is economically and politically strong enough to realize the Bolivarian dream."

Clay Waters is director of Times Watch. You can follow him on Twitter.





Free Bumper Sticker

 

 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Heritage Foundation

DrudgeFeed.com - Drudge Report RSS feed

RedState

Right Wing News

RenewAmerica

Hot Air » Top Picks

Conservative Outpost

Conservative Examiner

Michelle Malkin

Big Government

Big Journalism

Big Hollywood

Pajamas Media