MediaBloodhound

Story of the Day:Ward Sutton Illustrates the Feingold Effect

The mainstream media, parroting Republican poker-faced spin, has presented Senator Russ Feingold's attempt to censure Bush as a half-baked act sure to backfire. In case you missed it this week, cartoonist Ward Sutton skewered the spineless Democrats who continue to fold in the face of any opportunity to stand up to this White House.

Republicans Put on Poker Faces, by Ward Sutton
Sutton Impact (in Village Voice)

Story of the Day:Protective Armor for the Bush Administration

How it is that we've already entered the fourth year of this war and there are still issues with soldiers' body armor? This administration, save George, was supposed to be filled with all the old warhorses. The mainstream media referred to the cabinet as the "dream team." You may not like their politics, but they know what they're doing. They're experienced and wise. Remember that?

And while the White House continues to push their Orwellian polemic that things don't seem to be going well in Iraq because the media is not accentuating the positive, the reality is that the mainstream media has largely turned a blind eye to corporate incompetence and graft. Despicable acts abound of gross negligence and greed that have lined the pockets of friendly fat cats while simultaneously contributing to premature graves for young American men and women.

Once again, imagine what the mainstream media would do to a sitting Democratic president if this were still an issue going into the fourth year of a war?

Army Bans Use of Privately Bought Armor, by Lolita C. Baldor
The Associated Press

Story of the Day:Despite Media Claims, Country Feeling Blue

So much for the mainstream media's drumbeat over the years that our country has swung irrevocably rightward. It's this kind of received notion that, in fact, drives so much misconception. Such incessant false advertising by the media - of an American populace proud to be conservative - distorts reality in several insidious ways. First, it helps to metamorphose people into sheeple, those who have been brainwashed into thinking "Democrat" means "liberal" (incidentally, a dangerous assumption with the likes of Senator Lieberman) and liberal means "weak" and "unpatriotic." It also unduly influences citizens' responses in polls. The reality is that, when polled, the majority of Americans are liberal leaning on many, if not most, issues. Yet some of the very same people who swing liberal on the predominance of issues would never call themselves liberal, and some, for the same reasons, even refuse to call themselves Democrats.

Political operatives like Karl Rove (his awareness enhanced by a past life in direct mail advertising) know the power of words. Words can be shackles and darkness, or they can be keys and light. The mainstream media, consciously or not, often makes a hash of the nuance intrinsic to language, using words as toddlers use toys: they grab the shiniest one, have little interest or grasp of its meaning, then move one to the next shiny one.

Oblivious. Ego driven. Blissfully ignorant.

Gallup: In Shift, More Americans Now Call Themselves Democrats
By E&P Staff
Editor & Publisher

Op-Ed Column:All Tomorrow's Parties

Funny thing happened on the way to the very bottom of page A12 in The New York Times today:

“President Bush has been holding informal off-the-record sessions with major news organizations over the last several days. Starting Thursday, he began meeting with groups of about a half-dozen reporters from newspapers, television, news agencies and magazines. They have discussed a variety of issues including the war in Iraq, said a reporter who attended a session.

“The meetings, which the journalists have agreed not to describe publicly, have been in the White House residence. They come as several news organizations have assigned new reporters, who had no relationship with Mr. Bush, to cover the White House.”

“Off-the-record sessions” while discussing issues “including the war in Iraq”? “The journalists have agreed not to describe publicly” these meetings? What kind of two-bit democracy is this?

“They come as several news organizations have assigned new reporters, who had no relationship with Mr. Bush, to cover the White House.” God forbid a pre-hazed, independent-minded reporter posed probing questions and follow-ups to our petulant boy-king.

But, according to David Bohrman, the Washington bureau chief for CNN, these sessions were a good idea:

“Most of the time, the environments that our reporters deal with the president in are very structured, very managed, and they rarely get to just kick back and have a conversation," he said. "I think there's a lot of value in it for both sides."

Hey, I don’t deny “there’s a lot of value in it for both sides,” Mr. Borhman. But what’s in it for the public? How does this benefit our country’s citizens, which these two entities are supposed to be serving? Pardon me if I’m uncomfortable with Mr. Bush softening up the already softball mainstream media with exclusive White House finger sandwiches and screening-room-only passes to "Pollyanna's Trip to Iraq" and "The Constitution: A Relative Historical Document."

Call me old school, but I prefer reporters to be seen as a necessary nuisance to the White House rather than a convivial gathering of old friends. And it leaves me with an uneasy feeling whenever the president calls on members of the press corps by their nicknames ("Stretch," "Superstretch").

The New York Times did not take part in this session. Washington bureau chief Philip Taubman boasts: "The Times has declined this opportunity after weighing the potential benefits to our readers against the prospect of withholding information from them about the discussion with Mr. Bush. As a matter of policy and practice, we would prefer when possible to conduct on-the-record interviews with public officials." In the very next paragraph, however, we discover: “Times editors and reporters have participated in such unreported sessions with several presidents, including Mr. Bush, over the years. These have involved both social situations and substantive discussions.”

Therein lies the squirrelly nature and slippery ethics of The Times. It’s not that it’s against their policy to take part in these sessions, which Taubman’s quote leads one to believe; they just didn't take part in this one. A beautifully executed piece of misleading self-aggrandizement, Mr. Taubman. If it were a dive, I’d give you a 9.5, enhanced only by degree of difficulty. You, sir, blow an Olympian gust of windbaggery.

Finally, David Bohrman leaves us with this frighteningly sycophantic observation and hope for the future:

“Mr. Bush does better in such informal sessions than in formal presentations, said Mr. Bohrman, who added that he would like to see more.”

It’s comforting to know that the CNN Washington bureau chief is more concerned with perceptions of Incurious George than he is with presenting the truth to the American people.

Oh, where have you gone, Edward R. Murrow?

Story of the Day:Media Sleeps As Our Watergate Unfolds

With the daily barrage of disasters and scandal spawned by the Bush administration, it's "hard work" keeping up with all those ongoing investigations. But it appears the CIA leak investigation might soon be giving "The Sopranos" a run for its money.

From today's Raw Story article:

"According to one source close to the case, Rove is providing information on deleted emails, erased hard drives and other types of obstruction by staff and other officials in the Vice President's office. Pentagon sources close to Rove confirmed this account.

"None would name the staffers and/or officials whom Rove is providing information about. They did, however, explain that the White House computer system has "real time backup" servers and that while emails were deleted from computers, they were still retrievable from the backup system. By providing the dates and recipient information of the deleted emails, sources say, Rove was able to chart a path for Fitzgerald directly into the office of the Vice President."

I smell a rat. High-level infighting in the Bush crime family? Sounds too good to be true. It would be even better, though, if the mainstream media thought this break in the investigation was newsworthy.

So what kinds of stories are trumping this generation's Watergate? Well, let's take a gander at CNN's top stories right now:

- Report: Dirty bomb material brought into U.S.
- Israelis going to the polls
- Terri Schiavo's husband speaks out
- Iraqi papers seized during invasion posted on Web
- Reagan spokesman, Lyn Nofziger, dies
- Moussaoui: White House was my 9/11 target
- Immigration fight looms after vote | Protests
- Nebraska man nails Final Four ... by mistake
- Minister's widow arraigned on murder charges
- 9-inch stick lodges in dog playing fetch
- NFL player arrested for dancing in the street
- 'Sexiest woman'? Hint: It's not Jolie or Alba
- Scalia's 'Sicilian' gesture: Obscene or not?

OK, so here's where I netted out: I like dogs and it would be cruel to deny people their Final Four basketball (I guess), so my nominations for Most Frivolous CNN Top Story of the Day are:

- NFL player arrested for dancing in the street
- Terri Schiavo's husband speaks out
- 'Sexiest woman'? Hint: It's not Jolie or Alba

It's a tie, so please feel free to cast your vote in the comments section, and, if possible, give a reason for your choice. Then luxuriate in the rest of today's story. Rove vs. Cheney. Ahhh...the words alone are like gentle fingers massaging my temples.

Rove Said Cooperating in CIA Leak Inquiry, by Larisa Alexandrovna
The Raw Story

Story of the Day:Media Still Won't Say Bush Lied

The New York Times now reports on a new memo further confirming that Bush planned on invading Iraq even if no WMD were found and the United Nations wasn't on board. What a surprise.

How much more evidence do we need that Mr. Bush lied about the reasons for going to war before the mainstream media discusses this fact as a known quantity?

Bush Was Set on Path to War, Memo by British Adviser Says
By Don Van Nattta Jr.
The New York Times

Story of the Day:Tom Tomorrow On Our Sad Political Discourse

It's Saturday. The night before our Sunday news theatre lifts its curtain for another performance - dodging truth at every turn, deftly refraining from follow-up questions and twisting logic in positions that would cause a yoga master to pull a hamstring.

In preparation, steel yourself with Tom Tomorrow's latest cartoon:

Can We Talk?, by Tom Tomorrow
This Modern World

Story of the Day

From today's Boston Globe story, here's the premise:

"When President Bush signed the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act this month, he included an addendum saying that he did not feel obliged to obey requirements that he inform Congress about how the FBI was using the act's expanded police powers."

And, at democracy's expense, the dark punchline:

"Bush signed the bill with fanfare at a White House ceremony March 9, calling it 'a piece of legislation that's vital to win the war on terror and to protect the American people.' But after the reporters and guests had left, the White House quietly issued a 'signing statement,' an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law.

Emperor Dubya's decree:

"In the statement, Bush said that he did not consider himself bound to tell Congress how the Patriot Act powers were being used and that, despite the law's requirements, he could withhold the information if he decided that disclosure would 'impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties.'"

His relentless trampling of our Constitution continues unabated:

"After The New York Times disclosed in December that Bush had authorized the military to conduct electronic surveillance of Americans' international phone calls and e-mails without obtaining warrants, as required by law, Bush said his wartime powers gave him the right to ignore the warrant law.

"And when Congress passed a law forbidding the torture of any detainee in US custody, Bush signed the bill but issued a signing statement declaring that he could bypass the law if he believed using harsh interrogation techniques was necessary to protect national security."

The mainstream media, on the whole, though, apparently has no interest that our president flagrantly and repeatedly breaks the most sacrosanct laws of our land. Behind closed doors, he manipulates laws to suit his needs in a way that would make Tony Soprano envious.

As progressive radio host Mike Malloy aptly dubbed them, the Bush crime family - as opposed to Tony Soprano's fictional one, with its rival factions that must be shown respect or else - answers to no one.

Eh, whaddya gonna do? It's only our democracy. Forgetaboutit! I got enough to worry about. So what if Lady Liberty is being driven the scenic route to the airport.

Sit back, light up a big fat cigar and enjoy your toys, folks. At this rate, there may be no turning this fascism bus around.

Bush Shuns Patriot Act Requirement:
In Addendum to Law, He Says Oversight Rules Are Not Binding
The Boston Globe

Story of the Day

In the rest of society, when one is exposed for being lethally incompetent, he is summarily relieved of his duties and often, in shame and remorse, seeks another form of employment. Or, at the very least, mindful of the pain and suffering caused, he maintains a low profile. Of course, he may even be charged with a crime and made to pay for his transgressions.

But not in Bush World. No, in this magical realm, accountability is antithetical to governance.

It's a ghoulishly surreal existence where you can be the chief of Homeland Security, cause the needless deaths of thousands due to your criminal negligence and retain your job. Moreover, you can follow up your deadly miscarriage of public trust by making a mockery of your basic duties to secure the country – specifically, in this case, our ports. Then, as if that weren't enough, you taunt the public and policy makers for rejecting your harebrained plan that would have turned over security of eight of our largest ports to, not just some company - as he, the administration and many in the mainstream media disingenuously or irresponsibly framed the debate - but rather directly to the UAE government. And you do this by delivering thinly veiled threats that we should have gone along with the deal, because, as ludicrous as it seemed, whatever deal will follow will push further the limits of our already jangled imaginations.

From today’s Reuters story:

“U.S. ports would have been safer with an Arab company running the terminals than they will be now that a political firestorm killed the deal, the chief of U.S. homeland security said on Thursday.”

And Michael Chertoff's only failure, according to MC Insecurity himself?

"It's clear to me from a public messaging standpoint, we dropped the ball. It may be that it was a classic case of people who knew the facts weren't paying enough attention to the perception of the facts."

And we all know that "perception of the facts" is key in Bush World.

Ports Would Have Been Safer Under Dubai: Chertoff
Reuters

Story of the Day

During today's widely televised townhall event, another staged forum for Bush to promote the false impression the public is still on his side, a "regular citizen" targeted the media's misleading coverage of the war in Iraq. Misleading, however, for being too negative. This woman didn't just drink the Kool-Aid, she licked every granule from the packet. But she remembered her lines like a pro:

QUESTION: I want to let you know that every service at our church, you are by name lifted up in prayer — and you and your staff and all of our leaders. And we believe in you. We are behind you. And we cannot thank you enough for what you’ve done to shape our country. Second of all, this is my husband who has returned from a 13- month tour in Tikrit.

BUSH: Oh, yes. Thank you, buddy. Welcome back.

QUESTION: His job while serving was as a broadcast journalist. And he has brought back several DVDs full of wonderful footage of reconstruction, of medical things going on. And I ask you this from the bottom of my heart for a solution to this, because it seems that our major media networks don’t want to portray the good. They just want to focus…

[Wild applause.]

BUSH: OK, hold on a second.

QUESTION: They just want to focus on another car bomb or they just want to focus on some more bloodshed or they just want to focus on how they don’t agree with you and what you’re doing, when they don’t even probably know how you’re doing what you’re doing anyway. But what can we do to get that footage on CNN, on Fox, to get it on Headline News, to get it on the local news? Because you can send it to the news people — and I’m sorry I’m rambling — like I have…

BUSH: So was I, though, for about an hour.

QUESTION: … can you use this, and it’ll just end up in a drawer because it’s good. It portrays the good. And if people could see that, if the American people could see it, there would never be another negative word about this conflict.

BUSH: Well, I appreciate that.

I'm sure you do. And...scene.

Welcome to Townhall World: Where the Media Is Always Wrong And Bush Is Always Right
Think Progress