MediaBloodhound

Op-Ed Column:Homeland Security to NYC: Drop Dead

Despite endless claims from the Bush administration and the Republican Party that fighting terror and protecting its citizens are number one priorities, anyone who follows their actions realizes they're all talk. But how do they get away with it? Why is it still so easy for them to paint Democrats as soft or likely to make us more vulnerable to attack? Well, if there's a lack of focus in the mainstream media on this administration's feeble efforts to improve national security and, in some cases, even its success in further weakening it, then the bad guys (as Chris Matthews is want to say) - but, in this case, the real bad guys - come off looking much better than they should.

The New York Times reports on their website today:

After vowing to steer a greater share of anti-terrorism money to the nation's highest-risk cities, Homeland Security officials today announced grants to New York City and Washington that would be slashed by 40 percent, while dollars headed to spots including Omaha and Louisville, Ky., would surge.

Homeland Security's response:

"We want to make sure we are not simply pushing dollars out of Washington," said Tracy Henke, assistant secretary for grants and training. "The reality is you have to understand that there is risk throughout the nation."

Ah, those hotbeds of terrorist activity. Louisville. Omaha. Charlotte, N.C. But why stop there? Why not go ahead and send the money to Bedford Falls or Mr. Roger's Neighborhood or Never-Never Land? Or maybe to Mars.

Henke further instills confidence with this harebrained assessment:

"It does not mean in any way that the risk in New York is any different or changed or any lower," she said, in responding to one of the many questions on this point. "It means that we have additional information, additional clarity. Our risk analysis has been a maturing process. It is the best we currently have."

How is it possible for Homeland Security officials not to grasp what an elementary school child could figure out with no "additional clarity" or risk analysis? The cities in gravest danger of a terrorist attack should receive the most money to protect themselves. Period. Next issue. It's called common sense. A rare commodity in this lethally bumbling administration.

And weren't we promised this illogical funding system would be fixed?

The competition for the grants this year kicked off in January when Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announced that in the fourth year of these awards, which were started after the 2001 attacks, the department would put much more emphasis on directing the money to the most likely possible terrorist targets. "The department is investing federal funding into our communities facing the greatest risk and demonstrating the greatest need in order to receive the highest return in our nation's security," he said.

Oh, Chertie, you've done it again. Heckuva job. Big ups and kudos all around. Whew! I wasn't just imagining you had promised to better allocate funding. Up from the memory hole, there it is for all to see. Take a good hard look, everyone. Before it plunges back down.

So, how many nightly network newscasts presented this story? Zero. And the number of primetime cable news talk shows that covered it? Zilch. Zip. Nada.

But who can blame them? They had more important stories to cover. Like the news Batwoman has come out of her cave and declared herself a lesbian. (I wish I were making this up.) And I'm not talking about an actress, a human being who played Batwoman in a movie or on TV; I mean the cartoon character. Though I must admit a strange fascination - akin to watching, say, an old woman curse like a whiskey-addled trucker - in seeing square ol' ABC World News Tonight anchor Charles Gibson utter the words "lipstick lesbian." Having recently taken over the newscast, you can palpably feel Gibson straining to look hip as he mouths the naughty, not-ready-for-primetime words.

As millions of Americans turned to one another tonight and said, "Did Charles Gibson just say "lipstick lesbian"?" far too many will fail to realize that Mr. Gibson and his TV news colleagues continue to gloss over this administration's deadly shortcomings and broken promises.

Apparently, now even at the cost of pissing off the family values crowd.

Story of the Day:Suppressing the Meaning of Voter Suppression

Today's New York Times editorial "Block the Vote" tackles voter suppression. Overall, its points are well made, but its breadth is too narrow in focus. It begins:

In a country that spends so much time extolling the glories of democracy, it's amazing how many elected officials go out of their way to discourage voting. States are adopting rules that make it hard, and financially perilous, for nonpartisan groups to register new voters. They have adopted new rules for maintaining voter rolls that are likely to throw off many eligible voters, and they are imposing unnecessarily tough ID requirements.

Here's a brief rundown:

• Florida has imposed unjust and costly fines on the League of Women Voters, forcing the group to suspend voter drives in the state because of financial reasons, ending 67 years of helping to register new voters there.

• A new law in Washington "prevents people from voting if the secretary of state fails to match the information on their registration form with government databases." One minor discrepancy or simple act of human error can now easily rescind someone's vote.

• Some in Congress are trying to tack on voter ID legislation to immigration reform. "Even people who have been voting for years would need to get a new ID to vote in 2008. Millions of people without drivers' licenses, including many elderly people and city residents, might fail to do so, and be ineligible to vote."

Since voting issues receive far too little attention from our mainstream media - even our progressive media - it is good to see The Times covering the nationwide efforts to suppress votes. But the wider issue of our disastrous voting system is sorely missing from this editorial. One could argue voter suppression was their sole focus. But if a machine is not counting your vote or counting it for the wrong candidate, is that not voter suppression? If there are insufficient numbers of voting machines only in certain poorer, Democrat-leaning districts, is that not voter suppression? If machines have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be highly vulnerable to hacking and manipulation yet nothing is done to alter their administration and use, is that not voter suppression? If the CEO of a major supplier of voting machines declares he's going to deliver the election to one specific candidate and the mainstream media barely bats an eye in his direction, is that not voter suppression? If there's an election with widespread reports of voting machine irregularities yet the mainstream media not only largely ignores such reports but also forces the candidate's hand to concede quickly or face an unprecedented assault of criticism, is that not voter suppression?

And, finally, when one candidate is leading in all the exit polls and the mainstream media gets a call from the other candidate's chief campaign strategist telling them that, well, their numbers are not the numbers he has, though they never question where his numbers come from, is that not voter suppression?

I ask you.

Block the Vote
New York Times Editorial

Story of the Day:Remembering the Dead, Remembering the Dying

Iraq. Memorial Day. May 29, 2006.

2,466 American soldiers dead. Over 18,000 wounded. More than 38,000 civilian deaths.

George W. Bush shamelessly campaigns for his war while "honoring" the fallen at Arlington National Cemetery.

BUSH: Our nation is free because of brave Americans like these, who volunteer to confront our adversaries abroad so we do not have to face them here at home. Our nation mourns the loss of our men and women in uniform; we will honor them by completing the mission for which they gave their lives -- by defeating the terrorists, by advancing the cause of liberty, and by laying the foundation of peace for a generation of young Americans.

The mainstream media salutes President AWOL. Nary a word about the despicably manipulative nature of his speech. Complicit in their silence or praise, they run clip after clip as though he were someone who commands respect. As though he had not wholly manufactured this war (indeed, with their help). As though each life lost to it weren't one life too many.

As though the blood of all those men and women and children are not on his hands. And Cheney's. And Rummy's. And Condi's.

(Sorry to be so bleak, folks. But it is Memorial Day. Not everyone can be doing cannonballs and getting blind drunk before lunchtime.)

White House Transcript

NYT Front|Back:Demise of Petite Sizes vs. Crisis of Deadly Heroin Mix

The termination of petite sizes trumps the lives of human beings in today's New York Times.

FRONT:

Where's the Petite Department? Going the Way of the Petticoat
Is there a more pressing issue than the reduced number of petite departments in clothing stores? The Times puts the War on Petite Sizes front and center.

Excerpt:

But the love affair with little women appears to be over. Three of the country's most influential fashion emporiums — Neiman Marcus, Saks Fifth Avenue and Bloomingdale's — have quietly eliminated or drastically scaled back their petite departments in the past several months, infuriating many longtime customers.

BACK (Page A27):

A Deadly Heroin Mixture Is Claiming Dozens of Lives
Fentanyl, a painkiller 80 times more powerful than morphine, is being mixed with heroin before it reaches its users. A growing crisis that's fanning out across America, it's resulted in a rash of deaths that has medical professionals, the CDC and community organizations deeply concerned and desperate to find ways to stem the tide. Just as the effects our draconian drug laws receive short shrift from our mainstream media, it's not surprising The Times sees the deaths of scores of heroin users as meriting little prominence. What's especially egregious is that conspicuous placement of this article might have actually helped to spread the word and save an untold number of lives.

Excerpt:

In the Detroit area, the apparent hub of the problem, with more than 100 confirmed cases since last fall and about two dozen suspected ones in the last week, officials from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are investigating, and community organizations are scrambling to get the word out. The disease control centers have no national statistics on fentanyl deaths and have been asked to investigate only in Michigan. But reports from a scattering of states indicate the problem is widespread. In Philadelphia, there have been 20 confirmed deaths from heroin mixed with fentanyl since April 17, and test results are pending for eight other cases, according to the Health Department.

Story of the Day:Cartoonist Ward Sutton Scooby-Doos the Media

In case you missed it, Ward Sutton aptly illustrates - via Scooby-Doo - the public's (and alternative media's) frustration at the mainstream media's unwillingness to hold the Bush administration accountable for its laundry list of criminal acts. We've alluded to it here many times: what would this administration have to do before the mainstream media states unequivocally that high crimes have been committed and deadly lies told.

On that note, laugh a little; it's Saturday:

Modern Scandal Explained Through Scooby-Doo, by Ward Sutton
Sutton Impact

Story of the Day:Media Continues to Hype Phony Bush Humility

If an abusive alcoholic father suddenly acknowledges he's made a few mistakes along the way - reflecting only on a verbal shot here and a crack across the jaw there - yet has no plans to put down the bottle and alter the pattern that leads to his vicious behavior, is he worthy of praise?

Many in our mainstream media apparently think so.

Reacting to Bush's choreographed statement of regret during the joint press conference with Tony Blair, Chris Matthews (who had previously likened Bush to Atticus Finch) last night compared him to Abraham Lincoln. Today, the mainstream media continued to do this administration's bidding, hyping George's faux humility as genuine. And, as equally irresponsible, they've applauded this feeble show of contrition as strategically shrewd. 

Today's story from Reuters leads with the headline "Bush Adopts Humility on Iraq; Policy Unchanged." The subhead, midway through the article, is "Catching Up to Public." Together, they work to give the impression that Bush has learned something from his failed policies and truculent manner other than he might need to start at least feigning an iota of humble pie, considering that he's now about as popular as halitosis.

This article, which purports to be news (as opposed to news analysis), consists almost solely of color commentary from a "political science professor," "poll analyst," "political analyst" and a "professor." All of whom focus not on the deadly costs of Bush's mistakes and how he's yet to be held accountable, but rather on the savvy to soften the appearance of his true self - a silver-spooned, peevish, blundering, incurious, inhumane, short-sighted, power-hungry man who's done more harm to this country than anyone could imagine possible of an American president. 

Here's the kind of hard news assessment you can expect from this article:

"By acknowledging past mistakes, he hoped to build some credibility for the things he is still pushing for in Iraq," said Bruce Buchanan, a political science professor at the University of Texas and a longtime Bush watcher. "He is trying to show he is aware when things go wrong and he can make adjustments. He knows no one will support him in the future unless he admits the mistakes of the past."

Now enjoy the rest of the humility charade.

Bush Adopts Humility on Iraq; Policy Unchanged, by John Whitesides
Reuters

Story of the Day:Chris Matthews Compares Bush to Lincoln

Alert the presses. George admits he's made a few mistakes. From tonight's joint press conference with Tony Blair:

Q Mr. President, you spoke about missteps and mistakes in Iraq. Could I ask both of you which missteps and mistakes of your own you most regret?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Sounds like kind of a familiar refrain here -- saying "bring it on," kind of tough talk, you know, that sent the wrong signal to people. I learned some lessons about expressing myself maybe in a little more sophisticated manner -- you know, "wanted dead or alive," that kind of talk. I think in certain parts of the world it was misinterpreted, and so I learned from that. And I think the biggest mistake that's happened so far, at least from our country's involvement in Iraq is Abu Ghraib. We've been paying for that for a long period of time. And it's -- unlike Iraq, however, under Saddam, the people who committed those acts were brought to justice. They've been given a fair trial and tried and convicted.

Unfortunately, George's expression of regret comes several years too late. With his approval ratings stuck in a Nixonian ditch, his words seem wholly propelled by political expediency. It's evident in the surface quality of his contrition. He says he's sorry for having said "bring it on" yet fails to mention that what made those words so egregiously irresponsible was that he helped to foment the insurgency and put our troops in further harm. He says he's sorry for having said "wanted dead or alive" yet doesn't mention that Osama is still on the loose and nowhere closer to capture than when George first uttered his Wild West declaration. He says the biggest mistake on his watch was the torture at Abu Ghraib, but adds, "unlike Iraq, however, under Saddam, the people who committed those acts were brought to justice." Yet the directive to allow torture was given from the top down. Bush. Cheney. Rumsfeld. Rice. The high command in the military. Gonzales, who helped architect Orwellian legal loopholes to circumvent Geneva Conventions. Only the grunts have been held accountable thus far. Moreover, there is no evidence that such torture, including renderings to other countries, has ceased.

So how does our "liberal" mainstream media respond? Listening to Hardball host Chris Matthews and Nora O'Donnell, you'd think our newly annointed Regretter-in-Chief just delivered the equivalent of the Gettysburg Address. Literally. After gushing about Bush's unprecedented openness and willingness to take responsibility for his mistakes, poor Keith Obermann - probably the only consistently responsible mainstream TV journalist working today - was brought into the conversation (his show follows Hardball). After playing the clip of Bush, Matthews addresses Obermann, saying, "A little bit of Lincoln there, I think, uh, Keith."

Lincoln. Bush. You absolutely have to see this to believe it.

Bizzaroland
Crooks and Liars

Story of the Day:Couric Heats Up Myth of "Global Warming Debate"

Today Show host Katie Couric sat down with Al Gore this morning to discuss An Inconvenient Truth, his new film on global warming.

First, Couric describes Gore as being "mad about global warming," a sure way to turn off much of Middle America from the start. She then furthers the misconception that a legitimate debate over the presence of a growing global warming crisis exists, making a reference to those "people on the other side of the debate" without actually citing who those people are. But the talking points Couric employs to express their views are unmistakably those of big oil propaganda outfits such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), which released two TV ads last week to blunt the impact of Gore's film.

COURIC: People on the other side of the debate say, yes, it's getting warmer, but the earth's average temperature has done this before. We may have something to do with it, but it hasn't warmed that much. And it's not going to have catastrophic consequences any time soon.

Gore, responsibly, follows up by pointing out the paid-off sources of such unscientific naysaying. Couric, however, fails to present any information on who represents those "people on the other side of the debate," refusing even to acknowledge Gore's response before moving on.

Is Katie Couric ready to take over the CBS Evening News from Bob "I Baked These Questions Just for You, Mr. President" Schieffer? You bet your rising sea levels she is.

Gore on the Today Show
You Tube

NYT Front|Back:Billary's World vs. Afghan Civilian Deaths

This is a new feature on MediaBloodhound. Its inspiration lies in the Paper of Record's penchant for all-too-often running insignificant stories on its front page while, on the same day, burying an important story in its back pages.

Here are today's winners.

FRONT (and lead story):

Clintons Balance Married and Public Lives
A puff piece on how Billary manage their private and political worlds. We need this on the front page like we need Michael Bolton's new Frank Sinatra cover album.

Opening paragraph:

Bill and Hillary Clinton flew to Chicago together last month to deliver speeches a few hours and a few miles apart. And like any couple, they thought about having dinner at day's end. But life is not so simple when you are married to a Clinton.

BACK (Page A10):

U.S. Airstrike at Taliban Kills Civilians, Afghans Say
As with the mainstream media in general, reports of civilian deaths in Iraq or Afghanistan just don't "bleed" enough to lead. The New York Times, however, as the Paper of Record, sets the bar low with its muted focus on civilian war casualties.

Opening paragraph:

American planes in pursuit of suspected Taliban fighters bombed a village in southern Afghanistan on Sunday night and early Monday, killing 16 civilians and wounding 15, among them women and children, the local governor and villagers said Monday.

Story of the Day:USA Today and the Science of Propaganda

In an article about Al Gore, which covers his film An Inconvenient Truth as well as his potential run for president in ’08, USA Today reporters Anthony Breznican and Bill Nichols present Gore's views on the global warming crisis. But who offers the only other perspective on global warming in this article?

None other than Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy for the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), the front group for big oil that released two national "global warming alarmism" TV ads last week (May 18th Story of the Day) in anticipation of Gore's movie.

Here's the frame Breznican and Nichols use to lend credence to Ebell's and CEI's patently false claims:

While there is a consensus among scientists that the planet is warming, politicians and others disagree over the pace of climate change, how much damage it's doing, what causes it and what to do about it. Some groups - many of them funded by fuel and chemical companies - are skeptical.

This is like saying while there's consensus among physicians that binge drinking is unhealthy, many college students and their younger siblings disagree. Well, all right. Let 'em disagree. But they're wrong. It's a fact. It might be fun, but it's unhealthy. Physicians know this because they've studied it and have the necessary skills and experience to interpret their findings. Now, everyone's entitled to a second opinion, but when physicians come to an overwhelming consensus their views are accepted as the universal model. So why then, when scientists in this absurd global warming "debate" agree the planet is indeed increasing in temperature because of manmade pollutants, are we still subjected to the unscientific, politically motivated views of those who have neither the skills nor the experience to accurately comment on the issue?

Fair and balanced, Breznican and Nichols give voice to the other side of scientific findings:

Myron Ebell, CEI's director of energy and global warming policy, acknowledged that the group gets funding from companies such as ExxonMobil but says that doesn't compromise him. His group says global warming is not a crisis, and oil use shouldn't be curtailed. Ebell says deforestation, not pollution from fossil fuels, is to blame for some climate problems. He also says "niche technologies" such as solar, wind and ethanol "can only provide small amounts of the energy we need."   

Hmm. The views of paid-off shills? Or those of accredited and distinguished scientists? The mainstream media doesn't want to color your views with rigid facts. It's up to you to decide. And why not, right? We're all human. I'm sure if I handed you a scalpel, you would do just about as stellar a job performing that triple bypass as some brainiac, know-it-all doctor. Right? Some things you just know in your gut. And if it gets a little messy, well, at least you tried - you were a doer.

I mean isn't that what freedom's all about? The right to choose what you believe?

Al Gore's Coming Back - But How Far?
By Anthony Breznican and Bill Nichols
USA Today