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.
Tracking Liberal Media Bias Since 1996
Friday June 04, 2010 @ 09:12 AM EDT1. Now They Tell Us: Pro-Obama-Care Study By 'Wonderful' Group Now Seen As Dangerously Faulty By NYT
A study advocating cost-cutting of "wasteful" health-care spending, hailed by New York Times reporters for over two years during the debate over Obama-care, is now revealed as grievously flawed: "The mistaken belief that the Dartmouth research proves that cheaper care is better care is widespread -- and has been fed in part by Dartmouth researchers themselves. The debate about the Dartmouth work is important because a growing number of health policy researchers are finding that overhauling the nation's health care system will be far harder and more painful than the Dartmouth work has long suggested. Cuts, if not made carefully, could cost lives."
2. CBS: Memos Show Kagan 'Stood Shoulder to Shoulder with the Liberal Left'
On Thursday's CBS Evening News, correspondent Jan Crawford filed a report recounting revelations that Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan has a history of taking solidly liberal positions on issues like abortion, gay rights, and gun control – with evidence in the form of memos, some going back to her days working for liberal Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. Crawford: "Documents buried in Thurgood Marshall's papers in the Library of Congress show that, as a young lawyer, Kagan stood shoulder to shoulder with the liberal left, including on the most controversial issue Supreme Court nominees ever confront: abortion."
3. Brian Williams Claims Great Compassion, But Has Faulty Memory of His Own Shows
In an interview on the Thursday with the Mediaite website, NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams claimed the media would show more compassion and attention to the oil spill than Team Obama. But Williams inaccurately described his own coverage from just six weeks ago.
4. HuffPo's Grim: Real 'Crime' of White House Was 'Holding Back A Progressive Agenda'
On Thursday's 11AM EST hour on MSNBC, anchor Tamron Hall asked Ryan Grim of the left-wing Huffington Post about recent scandals involving the Obama White House tampering with Democratic primaries: "Darrell Issa of California...he wants the FBI involved in this....Any legs here, or is this, again, a situation that may be politicized by the other side?" Grim dismissed the idea that there was any need for an investigation: "I mean, this isn't criminal activity. This really is politics as usual."
5. Behar: Palin Made Her Children Targets, 'Passing That Kid Out More Than a Joint at a Grateful Dead Concert'
After having already used her appearance on Wednesday's The View show on ABC to defend author Joe McGinniss's claim that Sarah Palin was acting like a Nazi trying to intimidate him, Joy Behar again defended McGinniss on the same day's Joy Behar Show on HLN, and suggested that Palin is responsible for making her children into targets for daring to let the public see her family – as most politicians do – while she was running for Vice President. Behar: "The other thing is that isn`t she the one who put her kids in the spotlight in the first place? I mean, they, at the convention, when they were passing that kid out more than a joint at a Grateful Dead concert. Remember that? I mean, she started it, as far as I can tell."
6. NBC Skips Any Mention of Latest Obama Job Offer to Dem Politician, Touts President's Rock Concert
On Thursday's Today, the NBC program ignored the revelation that the Obama administration attempted to persuade a Democratic Senate candidate to drop out of a primary race. ABC's Good Morning America and CBS's Early Show both highlighted the story in full reports.
7. The AG vs. BP: Little Skepticism on ABC and NBC, While Lefty Talker Blasts Holder as 'Corporatist' Pretender
American lawyers who represent captured terrorists are simply fulfilling their duty to provide representation, it is often argued by those who seem to enjoy mucking up efforts to curtail future terrorism. But once representing the American beverage giant Coca Cola makes Attorney General Eric Holder a "corporatist" who's going to "do the Devil's work" and merely "pretend" to investigate BP's role in the oil spill, lefty talk radio host Mike Malloy argued Wednesday night. Meanwhile, the big three network evening newscasts reported Holder's announcement of a criminal probe during their Tuesday night broadcasts, but only CBS's Chip Reid struck what could be called a skeptical note about the Obama administration's motives in publicly touting the investigation after a week of criticism about the federal government's less-than-effective handling of the matter.
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! Get your sticker.
Now They Tell Us: Pro-Obama-Care Study By 'Wonderful' Group Now Seen As Dangerously Faulty By NYT
Another "now they tell us" moment from the New York Times on Obama-care appeared on Thursday's front page: "Study Cited for Health-Cost Cuts Overstated Its Upside, Critics Say" by health reporters Reed Abelson and Gardiner Harris. The study originated from the obscure Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care group and was heavily promoted on Capitol Hill by Congressional Budget Office director turned Obama budget director Peter Orszag.
Abelson has trod lightly over this ground before, in a December 23, 2009 story, pointing out flaws in the Dartmouth study, but this is the first Times story that challenges the findings root and branch. This after years of Times reporters and writers promoting the study, itself heavily promoted by Orszag.
In selling the health care overhaul to Congress, the Obama administration cited a once obscure research group at Dartmouth College to claim that it could not only cut billions in wasteful health care spending but make people healthier by doing so.
Wasteful spending -- perhaps $700 billion a year -- "does nothing to improve patient health but subjects you and me to tests and procedures that aren't necessary and are potentially harmful," the president's budget director, Peter Orszag, wrote in a blog post characteristic of the administration's argument.
....
Even Dartmouth's claims about which hospitals and regions are cheapest may be suspect. The principal argument behind Dartmouth's research is that doctors in the Upper Midwest offer consistently better and cheaper care than their counterparts in the South and in big cities, and if Southern and urban doctors would be less greedy and act more like ones in Minnesota, the country would be both healthier and wealthier.
But the real difference in costs between, say, Houston and Bismarck, N.D., may result less from how doctors work than from how patients live. Houstonians may simply be sicker and poorer than their Bismarck counterparts. Also, nurses in Houston tend to be paid more than those in North Dakota because the cost of living is higher in Houston. Neither patients' health nor differences in prices are fully considered by the Dartmouth Atlas.
The mistaken belief that the Dartmouth research proves that cheaper care is better care is widespread -- and has been fed in part by Dartmouth researchers themselves.
The debate about the Dartmouth work is important because a growing number of health policy researchers are finding that overhauling the nation's health care system will be far harder and more painful than the Dartmouth work has long suggested. Cuts, if not made carefully, could cost lives.
(Unfortunately, the Times has been among those outlets advocating cuts in care for the old in front-page stories.)
But the atlas's hospital rankings do not take into account care that prolongs or improves lives. If one hospital spends a lot on five patients and manages to keep four of them alive, while another spends less on each but all five die, the hospital that saved patients could rank lower because Dartmouth compares only costs before death.
After some sorting of disparate views, Abelson and Harris suggest the Dartmouth team overreached in its cost-cutting rhetoric:
Because some regions spent nearly a third more than other regions without any apparent benefit, the Dartmouth team concluded that at least one dollar in three was wasted by Medicare. When applied generally to the nation's health care system, that meant about $700 billion could be saved.
But as it began publicly discussing its research, the Dartmouth team often extrapolated beyond this basic finding. Not only do high-spending regions fail to provide better care, the Dartmouth team began to argue, but those regions actually offer worse care.
....
In other words, there is little evidence to support the widely held view, shaped by the Dartmouth researchers, that the nation's best hospitals tend to be among the least expensive.
The Times uncovered similar problems with Dartmouth's regional data, such as ranking New Jersey last because of its high costs, when the federal government ranks New Jersey second in quality of care nationwide.
A June 6, 2007 column by economic writer David Leonhardt called the group behind the study "wonderful."
These numbers come from the wonderful Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care. The Dartmouth researchers adjust the numbers to take into account age, race and sex, which is another way of saying that there is no good explanation for the huge variations they find.
Times health care reporter Robert Pear has cited the Dartmouth study favorably on several occasions. From March 3, 2008:
Researchers at Dartmouth Medical School have found large variations in the amount of hospital care and other services that people with the same condition receive in different parts of the country. In some regions, where doctors favor more intensive treatments, Medicare spends much more without getting better results for patients.Clay Waters is director of Times Watch. You can follow him on Twitter.
CBS: Memos Show Kagan 'Stood Shoulder to Shoulder with the Liberal Left'
On Thursday's CBS Evening News, correspondent Jan Crawford filed a report recounting revelations that Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan has a history of taking solidly liberal positions on issues like abortion, gay rights, and gun control – with evidence in the form of memos, some going back to her days working for liberal Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. Crawford: "Documents buried in Thurgood Marshall's papers in the Library of Congress show that, as a young lawyer, Kagan stood shoulder to shoulder with the liberal left, including on the most controversial issue Supreme Court nominees ever confront: abortion."
The CBS correspondent informed viewers that Kagan had fretted about conservatives restricting abortion rights: "In a case involving a prisoner who wanted the state to pay for her to have the procedure, Kagan writes to Marshall that the conservative-leaning court could use the case to rule against the woman and 'create some very bad law on abortion.'"
Notably, on Monday, May 10, as the broadcast network evening newscasts introduced Kagan to their viewers, only CBS referred to her liberal ideology, as Crawford asserted: "Her career has put her solidly on the left."
In addition to having suggested that she sees a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, Kagan had also admitted that "I'm not sympathetic" to a lawsuit challenging the D.C. gun ban as unconstitutional. Crawford: "A recently disclosed memo on gun rights, in a case challenging the District of Columbia's handgun ban as unconstitutional, Kagan was blunt: 'I'm not sympathetic.'"
Crawford predicted that the revelations would have a significant impact on her confirmation hearings: "Taken together, these documents will be much harder for her to explain away than other less controversial papers unearthed before her confirmation hearings for solicitor general. ... But the documents seem to show that Kagan had some pretty strong legal views of her own, and, while that may encourage liberals, it's going to give Republicans a lot more ammunition to fight against her."
Below is a complete transcript of the report from the Thursday, June 3, CBS Evening News:
KATIE COURIC: The Senate is scheduled to begin confirmation hearings at the end of this month for Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. Kagan has never been a judge, but she did clerk for Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. And in this exclusive report, chief legal correspondent Jan Crawford tells us she does have a paper trail.—Brad Wilmouth is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.
JAN CRAWFORD: Elena Kagan has kept her cards so close to the vest that some on the left have worried she's too moderate.
ELENA KAGAN, SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: Everybody's treated me very well.
CRAWFORD: But documents buried in Thurgood Marshall's papers in the Library of Congress show that, as a young lawyer, Kagan stood shoulder to shoulder with the liberal left, including on the most controversial issue Supreme Court nominees ever confront: abortion.
CLIP OF PROTESTERS: Abortion's got to go!
CRAWFORD: In a case involving a prisoner who wanted the state to pay for her to have the procedure, Kagan writes to Marshall that the conservative-leaning court could use the case to rule against the woman and "create some very bad law on abortion." She expressed strong views in a school desegregation case, calling a school busing plan "amazingly sensible." She said state court decisions upholding the plan recognized the "good sense and fair mindedness" of local efforts adding, "Let's hope this court takes not of the same." Kagan also wrote a memo Republicans will use to say she found a constitutional right to gay marriage. That case involved a man who said the state of New York was required to recognize his marriage in Kansas, even though it was illegal in New York. Kagan told Marshall his position was "arguably correct." And then, a recently disclosed memo on gun rights, in a case challenging the District of Columbia's handgun ban as unconstitutional, Kagan was blunt: "I'm not sympathetic." Taken together, these documents will be much harder for her to explain away than other less controversial papers unearthed before her confirmation hearings for solicitor general. At the time, she said:
KAGAN, DATED FEBRUARY 10, 2009: I was a 27-year-old pipsqueak, and I was working for an 80-year-old giant in the law, and a person who, let us be frank, had very strong jurisprudential and legal views.
CRAWFORD: But the documents seem to show that Kagan had some pretty strong legal views of her own, and, while that may encourage liberals, it's going to give Republicans a lot more ammunition to fight against her.
Brian Williams Claims Great Compassion, But Has Faulty Memory of His Own Shows
NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams granted an interview to the website Mediaite on Thursday, boasting that whatever the Obama administration and BP are doing to stop the oil spill is due to TV news cameras. Obama is behind the Williams curve, apparently.
Williams insisted he led with the story on the first night and described it on air as potentially "one of the most catastrophic events of all time" for the environment. Except he didn't lead the news with it on the first night. And he didn't call it a catastrophe. Here's his claim today:
The night the rig exploded I went on the air, it was our lead story. I asked the question, 'Is this going to lead to one of the most catastrophic events of all time where the environment is concerned?'
I got a kick out of President Obama saying that even when the cameras go away we'll still be there for you. That ain't the way this is going to play out. If anything, the cameras being here have compelled outside interests -- government, BP -- to kick this into another gear.
With all due respect, the President might have had his scenario off by 180 degrees. So we'll keep coming back here, we won't take our eyes off this region, we haven't since we knew we had a Category 5 storm off the coastline five years ago.On April 21, the first Nightly News report came second in the broadcast, after a story about "massive cutbacks" for public schools, post-"stimulus." Then Williams introduced Ron Mott:
Coast Guard rescuers spent the day looking for as many as 11 missing oil workers after a huge explosion rocked a drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, about 50 miles off the coast of Louisiana. Came out of nowhere. It left several workers critically injured. And the vigil is on again tonight for people working in a dangerous job. Our own Ron Mott is with us tonight from Port Fourchon in Louisiana.On April 22, Williams led the newscast with it, but he didn't suggest catastrophe. He actually understated it, that it "can't be good for the environment." The full context:
It was a spectacular explosion, a massive fire and a genuine human tragedy involving 11 missing men. Tonight, the oil platform that was on fire off the coast of Louisiana is gone. It sank today into the waters of the Gulf of Mexico, and the first thing a lot of people thought about was all that oil. This can't be good for the environment. It's where we start off tonight with NBC's Ron Mott.Williams did call it "catastrophic" and a "slow-motion environmental disaster"...on April 26, once the conventional wisdom had hardened.
Steve Krakauer at Mediaite, who conducted the interview, noted that Jon Friedman had called Williams the Cronkite of the new century, and "it makes his Pres. Obama comments that much more damning. 'If we've lost BriWi'...."
This kind of talk only feeds the abundant arrogance of Williams, whose peacock routine in this interview might remind the public of a preening Peter Jennings. NBC and the other networks have persistently covered the oil spill. They might seem more persistent than the government (especially as Obama seems distracted with fluff like golf and Beatles). But Williams seems to miss that news anchors and cameramen don't close oil spills. He's not offering expertise. He's just offering persistent public embarrassment to spur action.
Here's another snippet of the interview where Williams feels "compelled by pride" to boast:
MEDIAITE: You returned to the gulf region this week after about four weeks from the last time you were there.What do you see as one of the biggest changes in the time that you've been away?So Williams, in an eight-minute interview, can both claim that (a) he knew immediately it would be a historic catastrophe for the environment and (b) that he never dreamed the oil spill would be this "healthy." It shouldn't make NBC Nightly News viewers confident that Williams will always give them a reliable account of what's just happened.
WILLIAMS: It was May 3, I guess, when we arrived last time. I'm compelled by pride to point out I think this is something like our 16th trip to this region as a broadcast. And it seemed so innocent looking back on that trip. We didn't know -- the slick was much smaller, we knew this time bomb was coming, I never dreamed we'd still be talking about an even healthier flow of oil into the water, and I never dreamed that we'd be in Grand Isle, looking out at - I'm looking right now at the water line, a beautiful harbor surrounding by orange plastic booms. It is unbelievable to behold once you're here.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
HuffPo's Grim: Real 'Crime' of White House Was 'Holding Back A Progressive Agenda'
On Thursday's 11AM EST hour on MSNBC, anchor Tamron Hall asked Ryan Grim of the left-wing Huffington Post about recent scandals involving the Obama White House tampering with Democratic primaries: "Darrell Issa of California...he wants the FBI involved in this....Any legs here, or is this, again, a situation that may be politicized by the other side?" [Audio available here]
Grim dismissed the idea that there was any need for an investigation: "I mean, this isn't criminal activity. This really is politics as usual." He then lamented: "...the problem for the administration is that, you know, they ran against politics as usual....they were going to move beyond all of this."
Later, Grim described the real "crime" in the Obama administration pressuring candidates like Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania and Andrew Romanoff in Colorado to end their respective primary challenges to incumbent Democratic senators: "...the real problem is that the administration didn't – wasn't willing to allow the Democratic base to choose the candidates....having these primary candidates actually pushes the senator in a more progressive direction....if there's any crime here, it's a political one, in that the administration was holding back a progressive agenda by not allowing these primaries to go forward."
Here is a full transcript of the segment:
11:08AM EST—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center. You can follow him on Twitter here.
TAMRON HALL: And the White House is explaining and defending reports they approached a Democratic Senate candidate in Colorado to discuss some potential jobs with the Obama administration. Now, the administration is denying there was ever a formal job offer to this man, Andrew Romanoff. Romanoff had announced that he would challenge the White House-backed candidate, Senator Michael Bennett, in the Democratic primary. Today the White House is in what some are calling damage control mode, especially given the recent controversy regarding Congressman Joe Sestak. Ryan Grim covers Congress for the Huffington Post, he's with us now. Ryan, thanks for joining us. So give us the lowdown here. What is Romanoff saying? What is the White House saying?
RYAN GRIM: They're saying basically the same thing, that Romanoff talked to Rahm Emanuel's deputy, Jim Massena, and Massena offered him, or said that there were a few job possibilities in the administration if he didn't continue to try to primary Bennett out in Colorado. Romanoff said that he declined the offer and he decided to continue running for Senate. So the allegations being made are that they were trying to influence the Senate election, which clearly they were.
HALL: Well, regarding the Sestak issue, you've got Darrell Issa of California saying – Congressman Issa saying that, listen, he wants the FBI involved in this with this Romanoff thing. Any legs here, or is this, again, a situation that may be politicized by the other side?
GRIM: Right. I mean, this isn't criminal activity.
HALL: Right.
GRIM: This really is politics as usual. But the problem for the administration is that, you know, they ran against politics as usual. They ran as this post-partisan, you know, post-political savior of the political system. That they were going to move beyond all of this. And this was destiny. When you run – when you run that type of campaign and then pick Rahm Emanuel as your chief of staff, you're going to have this contradiction bubble up.
HALL: And I guess also people are noting, Ryan, that there was an e-mail even that Romanoff had of at least the three job offers that may have been put on the table.
GRIM: Right. And here's the thing. I mean, all of these different things are jobs. Being a Senator is a job. Working in the administration is a job. What Massena was saying, was 'look, instead of going for the Senate job, why don't you think about taking one of these Senate jobs.' Now, he wasn't saying 'you're guaranteed to get these administration jobs,' but it is hard to think about a situation where he drops out of the Senate race and then doesn't get one of the administration jobs. But the real problem is that the administration didn't – wasn't willing to allow the Democratic base to choose the candidates and instead wanted to have its own candidate. What we've seen in these primaries, both – you know, with Lincoln, with Specter and Sestak, and out in Colorado, is having these primary candidates actually pushes the senator in a more progressive direction. We got tough Wall Street reform from Lincoln because she got a primary challenge. And you have Bennett backing the public option out in Colorado because he got a primary challenge. So, you know, if there's any crime here, it's a political one, in that the administration was holding back a progressive agenda by not allowing these primaries to go forward.
HALL: Interesting developments.
GRIM: Or they went forward anyway.
HALL: Yeah, absolutely. Alright, Ryan, thank you very much. Great having you on. Thank you.
GRIM: Thank you.
Behar: Palin Made Her Children Targets, 'Passing That Kid Out More Than a Joint at a Grateful Dead Concert'
After having already used her appearance on Wednesday's The View show on ABC to defend author Joe McGinniss's claim that Sarah Palin was acting like a Nazi trying to intimidate him, Joy Behar again defended McGinniss on the same day's Joy Behar Show on HLN, and suggested that Palin is responsible for making her children into targets for daring to let the public see her family – as most politicians do – while she was running for Vice President. Behar: "The other thing is that isn`t she the one who put her kids in the spotlight in the first place? I mean, they, at the convention, when they were passing that kid out more than a joint at a Grateful Dead concert. Remember that? I mean, she started it, as far as I can tell."
Guest Lizz Winstead, co-creator of the Daily Show, then chimed in that Palin had already written about her "dumb life": "She already wrote a book about her own dumb life anyway, and, as far as I can tell, when Joe McGinniss writes about Sarah Palin, he doesn`t go into her personal life. He`s writing about whether or not she has a modicum of skill to run anything."
Behar also seemed to agree with McGinniss that the way Palin has dealt with him is indeed "Nazi-like." Behar: "He didn`t really equate her with the Nazis. He`s saying the tactic is very Nazi-like. Which is, which is what? Which is unleashing the wrath of the Palinites out there on this guy. That`s where the Nazi tactic comes in because when she says they`re attacking or being a threat to my children, all of these little Palinites go berserk, over the edge."
Below is a complete transcript of the relevant segment from the Wednesday, June 2, Joy Behar Show on HLN:
JOY BEHAR: You know, there`s something other than Russia that Sarah Palin can see from her house. It`s Joe McGinniss, the author who moved in next door to Palin while, while he writes a book about her. She`s calling foul claiming her privacy is being invaded. Now, a nasty war of words has erupted between the two. With me now are Ana Marie Cox, Washington correspondent for GQ magazine, and Lizz Winstead, comedian and co-creator of the Daily Show. Okay, Palin has made McGinniss a target of a national, of national harassment because he moved in next door to her. Okay, he`s renting a house. You know the story. Most people, I think, know it at this point. She`s tweeted and Facebooked about him. A conservative radio talk show host gave out his e-mail address which he had to shut down, and, after he moved in, she posted a Facebook, a picture of him on Facebook in the house. Now, is she now invading his privacy, Lizz?—Brad Wilmouth is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.
LIZZ WINSTEAD, COMEDIAN: Here`s the thing. If she does this in her personal life-
BEHAR: Yeah.
WINSTEAD: -you know, just the pre-emptive crazy, can you imagine if she was holding a high public office. Like, it would be horrible. This is how she reacts, she`s just reactive and bizarre.
BEHAR: Yeah, she overreacts.
WINSTEAD: Yeah, and I think she is being a little bit weird. I mean, it`s, at first, I was like, it`s kind of weird he moved in next door-
BEHAR: Yeah.
WINSTEAD: -but then my second thought was, he made it very public he was doing this. So, because he knew she was going to react this way. I mean A, he`ll get press for it, but B, why not move in next door to her? It`s an investigative journalist's dream to have the subject that you are, living in the house next to you. How awesome is that?
BEHAR: Ana Marie, do you find it creepy at all that he`s there?
ANA MARIE COX, GQ MAGAZINE: Well, yes, I mean, I think, as a feminist, you know, as a woman, the male gaze is a little unsettling, but, as a journalist, I find it really upsetting the way that she`s reacting to him. And I have to agree with Lizz, I think the overreaction here and the escalation that she`s done, can you imagine if she had at her disposal, you know, a private police force or a national police force? I mean, if she was actually holding office and had an investigative team that she could have working for her, if she had access to people`s records, if she could do whatever she wanted, imagine what kind of havoc she could wreak in this guy`s life, which, of course, makes me think, remember Troopergate? That all seems, this all seems really familiar now and even more unsettling.
WINSTEAD: Well, and it also, she feels like she deserves this power, and that`s the part that freaks me out, is that she really feels like any amount of power that she is given, whether she`s governor or just a, you know, a talking bot, it feels like she's just, the second she gets a moment of power, she just feels like she can do whatever she wants with it.
COX: And not that she can do whatever she wants with it, but use it against her enemies.
WINSTEAD: Yes.
COX: She is someone who definitely like, feels like she has enemies.
WINSTEAD: Right.
COX: And that they are personal enemies. Like, she cannot take this to the level of abstraction.
BEHAR: Paranoid.
COX: She can`t think of this as like a journalist covering a subject, right?
BEHAR: Right.
COX: It is Joe McGinniss attacking her, her personally. And, you know, and she brought her kids into this, which I have to say I don`t has anything-
BEHAR: Well, she implies in her Facebook thing that he`s going to be staring at Piper through the window, which automatically makes him into some kind of pervert, which is not his intention at all. Okay, the fight escalated this morning when McGinniss went on NBC`s Today Show. Watch.
JOE MCGINNISSS, AUTHOR/SARAH PALIN`S NEIGHBOR: It`s probably a lesson for the American people of the power Palin has to incite hatred and her willingness and readiness to do it. She has pushed a button and unleashed the hounds of hell, and now they're out there slobbering and barking and growling. And that`s the same kind of tactic – and I`m not calling her a Nazi – but that`s the same kind of tactic that the Nazi troopers used in Germany in the `30s, and I don`t think there`s any place for it in America.
BEHAR: Okay, now she says in response, "When I say, all right, leave my kids alone, it means simply that. Let my kids have a fun summer without having a journalist 15 feet from their play area. How that equates me with the Nazis is quite beyond me." Okay, she`s not, he didn`t really equate her with the Nazis. He`s saying the tactic is very Nazi-like.
WINSTEAD: Well, I just think any time you know-
BEHAR: Which is, which is what? Which is unleashing the wrath of the Palinites out there on this guy.
WINSTEAD: Yes.
BEHAR: That`s where the Nazi tactic comes in because when she says they`re attacking or being a threat to my children, all of these little Palinites go berserk.
WINSTEAD: I know, but just Nazi thing kind of, like, he has (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the Nazi thing.
BEHAR: Over the edge.
WINSTEAD: Over the edge, you know what, I just find it boring. Now, here`s the thing that I think is the biggest problem with Palin, is that why didn`t Bravo find her two weeks before McCain did, and we could just had the real housewives-
BEHAR: I know, we have to blame him.
WINSTEAD: -of Alaska and have it begun because she is exactly like that crazy woman on the Housewives of New Jersey.
BEHAR: Yes, the other thing is that isn`t she the one who put her kids in the spotlight in the first place? I mean, they-
WINSTEAD: Yes.
BEHAR: -at the convention, when they were passing that kid out more than a joint at a Grateful Dead concert.
WINSTEAD: Yeah.
BEHAR: Remember that?
WINSTEAD: She drags them out constantly.
BEHAR: I mean, she started it as far as I can tell.
WINSTEAD: She already wrote a book about her own dumb life anyway, and, as far as I can tell, when Joe McGinniss writes about Sarah Palin, he doesn`t go into her personal life. He`s writing about whether or not she has a modicum of skill-
BEHAR: Yeah.
WINSTEAD: -to run anything.
BEHAR: Right. Now, do you think, Ana Marie, do you think-
COX: She`s certainly good at running her own branding.
WINSTEAD: Yes.
COX: I mean, I think, that, that`s what she has a skill at. I mean, I don`t think she has, she could be the CEO of anything other than, you know, Palinville, the Palin company. And she`s branded herself really expertly, like even this, her outcry over McGinniss, puts her in this weird, non-threatening female position. I mean, we were sort of sold a bill of goods about her that she`s a strong woman. But everything she does in the public eye makes me think she`s actually very retrograde.
BEHAR: So isn`t this, isn`t it, the fence is up, shouldn`t that be the end of the conversation? The fence is up.
WINSTEAD: Well, the fence is up, yeah. But you know what? I just feel, too, it`s not brave to attack through Facebook and Twitter. You`re a grown woman with a public platform. I mean, it`s really weird.
BEHAR: Okay. Thanks, ladies, very much. And you can catch the fabulous Lizz Winstead at the Flynn Center for the Performing Arts, in Burlington, Vermont on June 19 th. We`ll be back in a minute with Alan Alda.
NBC Skips Any Mention of Latest Obama Job Offer to Dem Politician, Touts President's Rock Concert
On Thursday's Today, the NBC program ignored the revelation that the Obama administration attempted to persuade a Democratic Senate candidate to drop out of a primary race. ABC's Good Morning America and CBS's Early Show both highlighted the story in full reports.
CBS's Erica Hill announced, "There are new allegations of back room politics by the White House. A Colorado politician says the Obama administration hinted at a job offer if he stayed out of the Senate race."
ABC's Jake Tapper pointed out the potential problems for the White House: "But this does look bad. It looks, again, like politics as usual. And Republicans, you can expect them to make a lot of hay about this today."
The AG vs. BP: Little Skepticism on ABC and NBC, While Lefty Talker Blasts Holder as 'Corporatist' Pretender
The American lawyers who flock to Guantanamo Bay to represent captured terrorists are simply fulfilling their duty to provide representation, it is often argued by those who seem to enjoy mucking up efforts to curtail future terrorism. But once representing the American beverage giant Coca Cola makes Attorney General Eric Holder a "corporatist" who's going to "do the Devil's work" and only "pretend" to go tough on BP after the oil spill, lefty talk radio host Mike Malloy (a onetime CNN news writer) argued Wednesday night. (Audio here.)
I guess you know this by now, the, uh, Justice Department under Eric Holder who defended, uh, was it Coca-Cola, against murder charges in, uh, South America? Good old Eric Holder, another corporatist, who, uh, is going to do the Devil's work now and pretend that he is conducting a criminal investigation into the events that led to the oil gush?For their part, the big three network evening newscasts reported Holder's announcement of a "criminal investigation" against BP during their Tuesday night broadcasts, but only CBS's Chip Reid struck what could be called a skeptical note about the Obama administration's motives in publicly touting the investigation after a week of criticism about the federal government's less-than-effective handling of the matter.
"The barrage of attacks on BP may be motivated in part by politics," Reid assessed on the June 1 Evening News, an attempt to make the company "a villain to distract from a growing chorus of criticism of the President who has visited the Gulf only twice in 43 days."
On ABC, anchor Diane Sawyer was much milder, asking whether "declaring BP a potential enemy" might "make it harder" for the administration to work with them on a solution. (Ever the Obama sycophant, George Stephanopoulos assured her that threatening BP would actually make things better.) And on NBC, correspondent Anne Thompson offered no second-guessing of the administration, just a couple of sentences matter-of-factly noting Holder's announcement.
Here's more of how the network evening newscasts covered Holder on Tuesday, arranged from the least skeptical (NBC) to most skeptical (CBS):
ANNE THOMPSON: This environmental disaster is now the focus of the Justice Department, confirming today both criminal and civil investigations into the oil rig explosion and the crude that now taints Louisiana's coast.#ABC's World News
ERIC HOLDER: We will prosecute to the fullest extent of the law anyone who has violated the law.
DIANE SAWYER: If the administration is now declaring BP a potential enemy here, what does this do to the cleanup? Does it make it harder?# CBS Evening News
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Well that's the question I asked the Attorney General. And he said quite the contrary. Not only does BP have an interest to clean this up for their own reasons, but also that that would be taken to account in any civil or criminal proceeding, but there's a lot of politics at play here as well, Diane. The White House, the administration believes that BP hasn't been fully straight in all their press conferences and they don't want to get saddled with BP's problems.
CHIP REID: The barrage of attacks on BP may be motivated in part by politics.— Rich Noyes is Research Director at the Media Research Center. You can follow him on Twitter here.
JOHN DICKERSON, POLITICAL ANALYST: This administration is doing what every administration under fire does, which is to defend themselves, and then also deflect the blame to someone else. Here they've got a ready villain, and that's BP.
REID: A villain to distract from a growing chorus of criticism of the President who has visited the Gulf only twice in 43 days. Even some supporters of the President including General Colin Powell have criticized his slow response....The relationship between the White House and BP has clearly moved into a new and hostile phase, leaving many people wondering how they`re going to work together to respond to this disaster.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Fwd: MRC Alert: Now They Tell Us: Pro-Obama-Care Study By 'Wonderful' Group Now Seen As Dangerously Faulty By NYT
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment