MediaBloodhound

Op-Ed Column: The Compassionate Conservatism of The Times

The front page of Wednesday's New York Times was a veritable train wreck of socio-economic bias in reporting.

In succession above the fold, the three lead stories were largely about the struggle of the economically disenfranchised. Yet you wouldn’t know it from their upbeat headlines, slanted perspectives, curious structures and crucial omissions.

The first article, “Housing Complex of 110 Buildings for Sale in City" - accompanied by the dual subheads “Metlife Seeks $5 Billion” and “Intense Bidding Seen for Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village” - sounds like it was penned by Donald “Your Fired” Trump. Given three separate opportunities, The Times’ editors fail to inform their readers that this deal (which “has already drawn interest from dozens of prospective buyers, including New York’s top real estate families, pension funds, international investment banks and investors from Dubai”) is a veritable deathblow to lower-income and middle-class families in these neighborhoods.

Journalists Charles V. Bagli and Janny Scott do address this issue in the article, though its effect on the real lives of people who live in these communities is of secondary concern, relegated mainly to the continuation page on B7, which many will never reach. Moreover, even when the lives of those affected by this deal are noted, it's only in counterpoint to the ebullience felt by the minute percentage of fat cats poised to make a killing.

But most, like Marilyn Phillips, 52, a nurse who has lived in Stuyvesant Town for 14 years, pay stabilized rents. She and her husband, a social worker, pay $1,700 a month for a two-bedroom apartment. News of the sale worried her. “It may mean we may no longer be able to live here,” she said. “The management is intent on making this luxury apartments and driving the working class out.”

MetLife and real estate investors view the sale far differently.

“It’ll be the largest sale of a single property in U.S. history,” said Dan Fasulo of Real Capital Analytics, a real estate research and consulting firm. “No doubt in my mind. It’s truly an unprecedented offering and an irreplaceable property. It would be impossible today to get a property of that scale in an urban location. And that neighborhood has become so desirable.”

But such giddy business observations and behind-the-scenes jockeying are the focus of this article. It’s riddled with lines like, “As one executive involved in the sale put it, ‘This is the ego dream of the world: 80 acres, 110 buildings, 11,000 apartments, covering 10 city blocks in Manhattan.’” Or, “Given the size of the deal, buyers are expected to team up. ‘You’ll see some interesting people stepping up to the plate for this one,’ said William Rudin, whose family owns about 2,000 apartments in New York.”

Fab. But whom is this speaking to but a handful of elite financial players?

The editors and writers of this story can’t seem to figure out whether they’re filing a business article - for which, of course, there’s a separate section - or one of general local interest. Curiously, the continuation page, however, brings readers to the metro section. Not the business section.

It’s fitting that the article ends with a quote from a tenant who’s lived in Stuyvesant Town for 43 years:

“If we die, whoever comes in will pay $3,500 or $4,000. This used to be a nice middle-income place. It’s no longer that.”

A powerful quote summing up what this deal really means to regular folks. Words that should’ve found their way into the first few paragraphs.

Next up is the second lead story on the front page, “Census Reports Slight Increase in ’05 Incomes.” The Times editors, along with journalist Rick Lyman, relied on the same new Census Bureau findings as did Tuesday's news of our nation’s grim poverty statistics, in which one in eight Americans and one in four blacks still live below the poverty line. A figure that remained stagnant from the previous year. Yet, from this headline, you'd think the report bore some good news. More absurd is the fact that the lead story in The Times’ metro section, “Census Figures Show Scant Improvement in City Poverty Rate,” is based on the identical figures as this cheerier front-page counterpart.

So, beyond the Pollyannaish headline, what does that “slight increase” amount to?

The rise, however, had little to do with bigger paychecks — in fact, both men and women earned less in 2005 than 2004. Rather, census officials said, more family members were taking jobs to make ends meet, and some people made more money from investments and other sources beyond wages.

And if that headline isn't intellectually dishonest enough for you, there's this:

The glimmer of improvement came after years in which the economy slogged through the bursting of the 1990’s stock market boom, a brief economic downturn, the aftershocks from the 2001 terrorist attacks, a series of corporate scandals and growing evidence of a deepening divide between rich and poor.

Interesting construction here. It would seem quite easy to miscontrue that “after….growing evidence of a deepening divide between rich and poor” means said divide has been staunched. Of course, this would be patently false. Even as poverty nationwide remained stagnant - which is to say, unquestionably high – it is also true, and not counterintuitive, that the rich have, in fact, become richer over the last year. Thus, indeed, deepening this divide.

In fact, beneath the articially sanguine surface, every single “glimmer” reported here is revealed to be negative. From median household income to “most statistical measures” to the fact that “the number and percentage of those living below the poverty line held steady in 2005 after four consecutive annual increases.” If a situation is dire, which poverty - including a skyrocketing number of uninsured - has become in this country under Bush administration policies, then holding steady is nothing to applaud. Regardless, “census officials were upbeat at a news conference while announcing the new data.”

It also doesn’t stop Lyman (apt name) from cheerleading, “The White House seized on the positive numbers, which had been in short supply in previous recent census reports,” in an effort to preface what might be the most preposterous statement of the article:

“Unemployment is low, wages are rising, and there are more jobs in America today than at any other time in history,” said Rob Portman, director of the Office of Management and Budget. “While we still have challenges ahead, our ability to bounce back is a testament to the strong work ethic of the American people, the resiliency of our economy and pro-growth economic policies, including tax relief.”

Lyman fails to challenge Portman's claim even though his previous breakdown of numbers prove Portman is - how do you say? - lying.

Finally, there’s the last above-the-fold story, “Bush, Returning to New Orleans, Repeats Vow to Help Stricken City,” with the following subheads, “Hurricane’s Anniversary” and “He Accepts Responsibility for U.S. Effort – Tour Highlights Progress.” This article ties up the front-page train wreck of socio-economic bias in a nice little bow. The headline and subheads work to paint Bush in the most favorable light possible, just shy of sounding like an Onion article. (Maybe that’s the red editing line in the sand for The Times: “Nope, can’t use that headline – sounds just like The Onion.”)

On its face, this story is exactly what one has come to expect from the mainstream media. A mere parroting of Bush talking points, little more than stenography - Bush “repeats aid vow,” “accepts responsibility” – yet completely lacking in the intellectual honesty and journalistic due diligence to cite not only his criminal negligence one year ago, but also to catalogue his broken promises to the people - many of them underprivileged - who suffered the consequences of his abject incompetence and inhumane disregard.

Don’t tell us he accepts responsibility again without detailing what he did. Don’t tell us he’s vowing to get the job done now without pointing out all of his prior broken promises. That’s not reporting. That, by its very definition, is stenography. And if those in the mainstream press are rankled by progressive media pointing out this shoddy habit, then, well, maybe they should stop whining and start doing a better job.

Another thing missing from this anniversary is also nowhere to be found in this story: Bush’s promise to tackle the issue of poverty. Now, any fool knows Bush cares about as much for the poor as he does for Iraqi civilians. But that’s beside the point here. The fact of the matter is that, in addition to promising to swiftly rebuild New Orleans, his declaration - while standing before that ludicrous Disneyland-looking backdrop - included a vow to address poverty in this country, which, the mainstream media, knowing full well he'd never do, praised his empty posturing, nevertheless. One year later, as they wade knee-deep in all the anniversary pageantry, both the White House and the press that covers it have suffered complete amnesia on this topic.

Buried in the continuation page on A19, our Empathizer-in-Chief reveals his heartfelt concern for the less fortunate:

He did not stray far from his script nor venture out of his motorcade as it sped past some of the worst destruction in the Lower Ninth Ward, where rows of gutted homes stood along deserted streets.

Also telling was this exchange, noted in the final two lines of the article:

As Mr. Bush squeezed through tables at a pancake house where he ate breakfast, a waitress asked, “Mr. President, are you going to turn your back on me?”

“No, ma’am,” he replied, with a laugh and a pause. “Not again.”

What a charmer. What a press. What a day.

Story of the Day:Olbermann Channels Murrow in Rumsfeld Takedown

Keith Olbermann has long been the only responsible news anchor on television, day in and day out.

From covering widespread voting irregularities in the 2004 presidential election to presenting a timeline tracking the Bush administration's curiously opportunistic terror alerts to daily reality-based reports on the fumblings and falsehoods of this White House, Olbermann has stood out from his wildly erratic and consistently feckless TV news colleagues.

But, tonight, Mr. Olbermann has outdone himself.

Responding to Donald Rumsfeld's excoriation of Americans who oppose the war in Iraq, Olbermann, literally and figuratively, took a page from another news legend, Edward R. Murrow. He ended his show with a searing commentary on Rumsfeld and the Bush administration. Just as Murrow took down Joseph McCarthy by exposing him through his own words, Olbermann revealed the dark irony of Rumsfeld accusing others of being fascists.

What Stephen Colbert did as a fake newsman at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, Keith Olbermann has now done as a real journalist this evening. It's about time someone did. Thank you, Keith.

PLEASE NOTE: When we come across examples of irresponsible journalism, we are often directed to send emails and make phone calls to mainstream media executives. When Keith exposed Rumsfeld last night, he also exposed himself, in that he went straight at the Bush administration. Though more members of the MSM should be taking the same action, there's obviously a reason why they don't: they're unwilling to put their jobs in jeopardy for the sake of the greater good. Even with the tides turning in this country, we shouldn't depend on everyone being happy about Keith's commentary. All it takes is a torrent of wingnuts to send angry emails and an unprincipled news executive to fold under pressure. So make sure you got Keith's back - send MSNBC an email (or give them a phone call) and let them know how much you support what he said last night, and how you hope more honest journalism is on the way:

viewerservices@msnbc.com 
Phone: (201) 583-5000 

Here is the full text of Olbermann's commentary:

The man who sees absolutes, where all other men see nuances and shades of meaning, is either a prophet, or a quack.

Donald H. Rumsfeld is not a prophet. Mr. Rumsfeld’s remarkable speech to the American Legion yesterday demands the deep analysis—and the sober contemplation—of every American.

For it did not merely serve to impugn the morality or intelligence -- indeed, the loyalty -- of the majority of Americans who oppose the transient occupants of the highest offices in the land. Worse, still, it credits those same transient occupants -- our employees -- with a total omniscience; a total omniscience which neither common sense, nor this administration’s track record at home or abroad, suggests they deserve.

Dissent and disagreement with government is the life’s blood of human freedom; and not merely because it is the first roadblock against the kind of tyranny the men Mr. Rumsfeld likes to think of as “his” troops still fight, this very evening, in Iraq.

It is also essential.  Because just every once in awhile it is right and the power to which it speaks, is wrong.

In a small irony, however, Mr. Rumsfeld’s speechwriter was adroit in invoking the memory of the appeasement of the Nazis. For in their time, there was another government faced with true peril—with a growing evil—powerful and remorseless.

That government, like Mr. Rumsfeld’s, had a monopoly on all the facts. It, too, had the “secret information.” It alone had the true picture of the threat. It too dismissed and insulted its critics in terms like Mr. Rumsfeld’s -- questioning their intellect and their morality.

That government was England’s, in the 1930’s.

It knew Hitler posed no true threat to Europe, let alone England.

It knew Germany was not re-arming, in violation of all treaties and accords.

It knew that the hard evidence it received, which contradicted its own policies, its own conclusions — its own omniscience -- needed to be dismissed.

The English government of Neville Chamberlain already knew the truth.

Most relevant of all — it “knew” that its staunchest critics needed to be marginalized and isolated. In fact, it portrayed the foremost of them as a blood-thirsty war-monger who was, if not truly senile, at best morally or intellectually confused.

That critic’s name was Winston Churchill.

Sadly, we have no Winston Churchills evident among us this evening.  We have only Donald Rumsfelds, demonizing disagreement, the way Neville Chamberlain demonized Winston Churchill.

History — and 163 million pounds of Luftwaffe bombs over England — have taught us that all Mr. Chamberlain had was his certainty — and his own confusion. A confusion that suggested that the office can not only make the man, but that the office can also make the facts.

Thus, did Mr. Rumsfeld make an apt historical analogy.

Excepting the fact, that he has the battery plugged in backwards.

His government, absolute -- and exclusive -- in its knowledge, is not the modern version of the one which stood up to the Nazis.

It is the modern version of the government of Neville Chamberlain.

But back to today’s Omniscient ones.

That, about which Mr. Rumsfeld is confused is simply this: This is a Democracy. Still. Sometimes just barely.

And, as such, all voices count -- not just his.

Had he or his president perhaps proven any of their prior claims of omniscience — about Osama Bin Laden’s plans five years ago, about Saddam Hussein’s weapons four years ago, about Hurricane Katrina’s impact one year ago — we all might be able to swallow hard, and accept their “omniscience” as a bearable, even useful recipe, of fact, plus ego.

But, to date, this government has proved little besides its own arrogance, and its own hubris.

Mr. Rumsfeld is also personally confused, morally or intellectually, about his own standing in this matter. From Iraq to Katrina, to the entire “Fog of Fear” which continues to envelop this nation, he, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, and their cronies have — inadvertently or intentionally — profited and benefited, both personally, and politically.

And yet he can stand up, in public, and question the morality and the intellect of those of us who dare ask just for the receipt for the Emporer’s New Clothes?

In what country was Mr. Rumsfeld raised? As a child, of whose heroism did he read? On what side of the battle for freedom did he dream one day to fight? With what country has he confused the United States of America?

The confusion we -- as its citizens— must now address, is stark and forbidding.

But variations of it have faced our forefathers, when men like Nixon and McCarthy and Curtis LeMay have darkened our skies and obscured our flag. Note -- with hope in your heart — that those earlier Americans always found their way to the light, and we can, too.

The confusion is about whether this Secretary of Defense, and this administration, are in fact now accomplishing what they claim the terrorists seek: The destruction of our freedoms, the very ones for which the same veterans Mr. Rumsfeld addressed yesterday in Salt Lake City, so valiantly fought.

And about Mr. Rumsfeld’s other main assertion, that this country faces a “new type of fascism.”

As he was correct to remind us how a government that knew everything could get everything wrong, so too was he right when he said that -- though probably not in the way he thought he meant it.

This country faces a new type of fascism - indeed. Although I presumptuously use his sign-off each night, in feeble tribute, I have utterly no claim to the words of the exemplary journalist Edward R. Murrow.

But never in the trial of a thousand years of writing could I come close to matching how he phrased a warning to an earlier generation of us, at a time when other politicians thought they (and they alone) knew everything, and branded those who disagreed: “confused” or “immoral.”

Thus, forgive me, for reading Murrow, in full:

“We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty,” he said, in 1954. “We must remember always that accusation is not proof, and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law.

“We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men, not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were for the moment unpopular.”

And so good night, and good luck.

Feeling morally, intellectually confused?
By Keith Olbermann
MSNBC's Countdown
(Also, watch the video.)

Story of the Day: Poverty Forgotten in Anniversary of Katrina

In the immediate aftermath of Katrina's devastation, the mainstream media was compelled to acknowledge the extreme poverty in which many of our citizens live. Much talk followed about how America would now be forced to face this largely hidden nationwide scourge. Of course, this talk was just that. Talk. Both from the mainstream media and from our faux compassionate president. For neither had a track record to back up their words or instill any confidence they would actually address this problem. So it should be no surprise that neither did.

Now, one year later, as the mainstream media and our Opportunist-in-Chief suddenly remember that Katrina victims are still hurting and the government's response has been woefully inadequate (sorry, Rockey), the poverty this disaster revealed is conspicuously missing from their current discourse. 

Yet, here we are:

In the world's biggest economy, one in eight Americans and almost one in four blacks lived in poverty last year, the U.S. Census Bureau aid on Tuesday, both ratios virtually unchanged from 2004.

The survey also showed 15.9 percent of the population, or 46.6 million, had no health insurance, up from 15.6 percent in 2004 and an increase for a fifth consecutive year, even as the economy grew at a 3.2 percent clip.

...

In all, some 37 million Americans, or 12.6 percent, lived below the poverty line, defined as having an annual income around $10,000 for an individual or $20,000 for a family of four. The total showed a decrease of 90,000 from the 2004 figure, which Census Bureau officials said was "statistically insignificant."

The last time poverty declined was in 2000, the final year of

Bill Clinton's presidency, when it fell to 11.3 percent.

Unfortunately, statistics have a way of desensitizing people to real-world consequences. So think for a moment about those numbers again: "One in eight Americans and almost one in four blacks lived in poverty last year." Now imagine sitting in a baseball stadium in which you could spot this percentage of poor because of a particular article of clothing, say, the color of their baseball caps or their T-shirts. Picture all of those people and then ask yourself how a country so wealthy can allow this to happen. How we can be spending $200 million a day fighting a war of choice (which is only increasing the terrorist threat), while here at home millions of babies go starving and the elderly have to choose between a meal and their prescription drugs.

If only we saw these poor every day as clearly as in that imagined stadium, or as we did last year in New Orleans before the cameras abandoned them. 

The mainstream media should be challenging Bush on what he's done to remedy poverty in this country as well as highlight measures he's taken that only further widen the gap between the rich and the poor. These Census Bureau statistics are the ammunition they need.

But it's up to those in the mainstream media to use them.

Reuters Data show one in eight Americans in poverty
By Joanne Morrison
Reuters

Story of the Day: The War on Grandpa

It's bad enough the Bush administration has yet to shut down the Guantanamo prison camp and continues to operate undisclosed gulags around the globe. Ongoing acts (along with prior atrocities at Abu Ghraib) that manage to outdo what a murky, totalitarian bureaucracy perpetrated on Joseph K. in Kafka's novel The Trial. In the story, K. is woken one morning and arrested for a crime without being informed of the charges; he then embarks on a futile journey that sends him from one false hope of exoneration to the next, until finally, summarily, even mercifully - as he's come to recognize his futile state - he is stabbed to death by executioners. He meets his end never knowing what he was charged with, his last words: "Like a dog!"

Now, there's this off the AP newswire:

The oldest detainee at Guantanamo Bay — an Afghan man who is at least 71 and hobbled around the U.S. prison in Cuba using a walker — has been sent home, his lawyer said Monday.

This isn't satire. I wish it were. His name is Haji Nasrat Khan.

Khan was not charged with a crime and Ryan [his lawyer] said the government never said why he was detained.

"We couldn't figure out why he was there," Ryan said. "He could barely walk and he could barely hear."

It only gets worse.

Khan told his lawyers he believes he's around 78, but doesn't know his exact age. He is at least 71, according to military records obtained by The Associated Press.

So, for close to five years, the military has been holding a man in Guantanamo who is now somewhere between the age of 71 and 78 years old, limited to creeping along on a walker and is nearly deaf. 

U.S. forces captured the elderly detainee's son, Hiztullah Nasrat Yar, in a compound with some 700 weapons, including small arms and rockets, according to military records.

Khan and his son told the military panel that the younger man was guarding the weapons for the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai. The father had said he was arrested while complaining about his son's capture several days later.

The military said both father and son had links to the Taliban — a notion Khan once ridiculed at a military hearing.

"How could I be an enemy combatant if I was not able to stand up?" he asked, according to transcripts released to the AP.

Who knows? Maybe Guantanamo commander Rear Adm. Harry Harris declared Khan's method of ambulation an act of asymmetrical warfare. Those walkers, when raised, could be quite effective in momentarily warding off one's torturers.

Now let's see if this story garners any attention in the mainstream media, or if this geriatric jihadist shuffles gently into the night. 

71-Year-Old Gitmo Detainee Released, by Ben Fox
The Associated Press

Story of the Day: Tom Tomorrow Introduces Us to the Enablers

Bush gears up for his "Do You Know What It Means to Miss New Orleans" Tour. Senator George "Macaca" Allen now trails his Democratic opponent James Webb in the latest Zogby poll. And speaking of her upcoming anchor roll on CBS Evening News, Katie Couric wants her "product to have as much reach as it can." (Why does this "product" sound defective before we even get it out of the box?)

It's Sunday; laugh a little with Tom Tomorrow's latest toon:

The Enablers: Defending the Administration's Every Blunder
By Tom Tomorrow
This Modern World

Story of the Day: What Is More Impeachable Than This?

As we enter the heart of the political season and the mainstream media (taking the Bush administration's lead) further tightens its focus on political rhetoric surrounding the Iraq War rather than on the war's daily deadly results, it's important to remember what this tragic venture is costing us in lives and dollars.

U.S. troops killed in Iraq: 2,621
U.S. troops wounded in Iraq: 19,890 (some estimates top 48,000)
Iraqi civilians killed: Between 40,671 - 45,227 (some estimates top 200,000)

Cost of war to date: $309 billion
Cost of war per day: $200 million
Projected cost of war: $1-2 trillion

Being led into the war under false pretenses: unconscionable

To get a better sense of how many American soldiers have lost their lives in this war of choice, go here to see their faces and names, where they were from, and how they died. And think of them the next time some mainstream media pundit or right-wing politician or faux Democrat whines about all that "anger" coming from progressives.

Angry? What kind of human being wouldn't be?

From the Archives: Terrorist Plot Foiled Before Conception Phase

(This Wounded-Courier article was originally posted on July 7, 2006. If you haven't heard of the Secaucus Seven, that's because the Bush administration thwarted their chilling plan.)

NEW YORK - In yet another victory in the war on terror, seven New Jersey residents were arrested before masterminding a plot to open a coffee bar in midtown that wasn’t a Starbucks.

A tip from the FBI alerted local Secaucus police, who arrested the men – known now as the “Secaucus Seven” – without a struggle. Each arrest came as a surprise to the plotters, none of whom had actually met.

FBI Assistant Director Mark Mershon, fresh from this afternoon’s press conference on the disrupted plot to blow up a tunnel between New York and New Jersey, met again with the press later in the day. “In the tunnel plot, the FBI, along with local New York City authorities, were able to stop it in the planning stage,” Mershon explained. “In the case of the non-Starbuck’s coffee bar plot, the FBI, with help from local Secaucus authorities, made the first terrorist arrest in the pre-ideation phase. Simply put, this is a landmark case in the war on terror.”

Mayor Michael Bloomberg, standing beside Mershon and New York Police Commissioner Raymond Kelley, said, “Though we can’t give enough credit to Agent Mershon and the FBI, Commissioner Kelley and local Secaucus law enforcement officials, New York cannot be expected to regularly stop terrorist plots in their pre-planning stage if we don’t receive more funding from the federal government.”

The only suspect to be formally charged as yet is mastermind Dougie Fensler, a 37-year-old man who operates a Mister Softee truck two days a week in his Secaucus neighborhood. Fensler confessed to thinking recently, while strolling through midtown on a day off, that something other than a Starbucks might be nice. But he claims he never planned on doing anything about it, or calling on anyone else to bring his idea to fruition. Through his lawyer, Fensler released this statement: “Dude, I’m a burnout who sells ice cream. I’m not exactly what you’d call proactive. You feel me?” Mr. Fensler did not claim any ties to al Qaeda, but did admit to hearing of them before; though he couldn’t remember why.

“The threat stream began with a citizen who witnessed Fensler scowl while passing a Starbuck’s on 48th and 8th,” said Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. “The FBI took over from there, noticing similar reactions as Mr. Fensler made his way around the general midtown area. Agents then tailed his Mister Softee truck – which, incidentally, he was driving illegally in an off-duty capacity – back to his home in Secaucus.” Chertoff went on to explain, “There, they witnessed Mr. Fensler’s soul-crushing existence – a basement apartment with a mattress on the floor, no sign whatsoever of a sexual partner and a wardrobe that included jeans shorts – and realized it was only a matter of time before militant desperation might lead to the idea of the coffee bar plot. We didn’t want to take that chance.”

The six other men, whose names have not been released, are still being questioned by authorities. Though one man, a podiatrist and father of four, did release this statement through his lawyer: “This entire episode is so idiotic I’ve temporarily lost my ability to swallow.”

Op-Ed Column: NYT Cites "Impartial Analysts" in Allen-Macaca Story

Today's New York Times article on Senator George Allen's (R-VA) apology for calling his opponent's campaign volunteer a "macaca" contains many of the hallmarks of a typical Times piece. With one notable exception.

First, a rundown of what we've come to expect.

In the opening line, journalist Carl Hulse writes that Allen made the apology "for a perceived racial insult." But let's be straight here. The only non-white face at the event belonged to the recipient of Allen's remark, S. R. Sidarth, a 20-year-old American of Indian descent. Whatever meaning of the word "macaca" Allen had in mind at the time, one thing is sure: its intent was derogatory. Various meanings have been attributed to the word, from "monkey" to the French slur macaque, used to disparage North Africans. Incidentally, Allen's mother is French Tunisian, Tunisia is in North Africa, and Allen speaks French. Coincidence?

Hulse then fails to mention what followed the one-word slur. After singling out Sidarth because of the color of his skin, Allen, sounding like a plantation owner from the Old South, said, "Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia." Add this to his previous comment and, shaken or stirred, any arguments denying the racist overtones are simply intellectually dishonest.

The article also avoids citing Allen's previous attempts to explain away his remark, which were nearly as offensive as the original slur. The best his camp came up with was that Allen employed a mash-up of "Mohawk," describing Sidarth's hair - never mind it's actually styled as a mullet - and "caca," Spanish slang for "shit." So, in other words, Allen was actually calling the young man a "shit head"? Much better. 

Hulse notes Allen's past "racial insensitivity" (i.e., racist behavior), but buries it near the end of the story.

Yet even some Republicans say it could intrude on Mr. Allen’s presidential aspirations, when he would have to appeal to a much wider audience. And the macaca gaffe could play into an earlier history that has raised the suggestion of racial insensitivity through Mr. Allen’s 1984 opposition to a Martin Luther King Jr. holiday as well as an affinity for the Confederate battle flag.

Finally, herewith is that notable exception to what we've come to expect from The Times.

While disproportionately presenting conservatives' views (a common practice) of Allen's remark and apology, Hulse attributes a particularly irresponsible - and bizarre - designation to one of his sources. Readers of this site, and those who follow the manipulative and misleading language often employed by the mainstream media (which also regularly adopts conservative talking points) are familiar with such terms as "critics say" or "experts say" or, the exceedingly opaque, "some say." But Hulse goes a step further with his line, "Like other Allen backers and some impartial analysts, Mr. Wadhams said the incident was badly overblown."

It's one thing to label an anonymous source a "critic" or "expert," but adding the judgment "impartial" is simply outrageous. How are we to know how Hulse quantifies his source's impartiality? Besides, based upon who had delivered the opinion, isn't it, rather, the reader's choice to make any such judgment? Is Hulse sourcing God? And even if he were, I'm not convinced of his impartiality either.

Let's face it: "A source who knows Allen better than anyone else on God's green earth" would have been less irresponsible than "some impartial analysts."

Op-Ed Column: The Adventure of Rockey the Shill and Bushwinkle

Meet Rockey Vaccarella. See Rockey present himself as just a regular guy who suffered Katrina's wrath, but thinks the White House has done a bang-up job in the aftermath. A "little guy" who, by chance, manages to wrangle a personal meeting with the "big guy," George W. Bush, which then develops into an address to the press and major photo-op. Watch Rockey tells us that those who criticize our president for his pace in aiding Katrina victims aren't looking at the situation, as Rockey does, with a "glass-half-full" perspective. Hear Rockey say the president "can't just snap his fingers and make it happen" and that Katrina victims "should start seeing a lot more things happening from the federal government" soon. Witness Rockey's shameless flattery of Bush, including "I wish he had another four years, man" and "he's a people person."

Now meet reality. Turns out Rockey did suffer in Katrina, but is hardly a regular guy. In fact, in a particularly egregious segment anchored by CNN's Kyra Phillips, she mentions in passing that Rockey once ran for local office in St. Bernard Parish, though fails to note that he did it as a Republican and is a big supporter of Bush. This same regular Joe - who, according to his 1999 candidate profile, was director of operations for a company that ran 31 Pizza Hut restaurants - "towed a 'mock but realistic-looking' version of the trailer issued to him and his family after the hurricane by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) from Louisiana to Washington with the intention of cooking a meal of 'shrimp and redfish and other good food' for Bush inside the trailer." What are the chances, huh?

How does CNN White House correspondent Ed Henry set up this story?

HENRY: No, I mean Hollywood couldn't have scripted this any better: A gritty guy named Rockey, slugging it out, trying to realize his dream, and getting that dream realized against all odds. Wait, actually I think Hollywood did script that. In fact, Rockey Vaccarella, not Rocky Balboa, came out to the cameras here at the White House, and told reporters at one point, sent a shout out to his wife, "Hey, yo, Carolyn, we did it." It did sound like a movie, a happy ending for Rockey. He's even making a movie himself chronicling his trip. He basically took a FEMA-style trailer down from New Orleans, up here to Washington, trying to get this meeting with the president. What he says he wanted to do is basically highlight the problems that still exist down there. But he's also traveling to praise President Bush and the help that the federal government has already given. And that may help explain why, while the White House initially told us the president's schedule was full yesterday -- as it was, he was traveling in Minnesota, he couldn't have dinner with Rockey -- they did find time this morning for them to meet in the Oval Office and then come out to the South Lawn.

No, Hollywood couldn't have scripted it any better, which is why a responsible journalist would be suspect of the incident's authenticity and dig for facts rather than lavish praise on, and draw attention to, the warm and fuzzy production value. But Henry, like a cloying emcee at a puppet show, then tells us to "Take a listen." The heart of Bush and Rockey's photo op follows:

BUSH: Rockey lost everything. He lost -- he and his family had every possession they had wiped out. And it's the time to remember that people suffered. And it's a time to recommit ourselves to helping them.

VACCARELLA: I just don't want the government and President Bush to forget about us. And I just wish the president could have another term in Washington --

BUSH: Wait a minute.

VACCARELLA: You know? I wish he had another four years, man.

But the subsequent exchange between Phillips and Henry sums up the patently propagandistic nature of their coverage. Though it is the White House - rather than Hollywood - that couldn't have scripted it any better.

HENRY: So, four more years, a refrain the president hasn't been hearing lately, in part because of the war in Iraq, but also that unpopularity, the slide he's had, starting, really, with Hurricane Katrina a year ago, the slow response. I asked Rockey, though, about the fact that he lost his job and his home. But he has his praise for the president. Others down in New Orleans don't have that same praise. And he basically said he thinks it's because he sees the glass half-full, Kyra.

PHILLIPS: And, Ed, we're just getting these new poll numbers in. I mean, while we see Rockey there praising the president, obviously a Katrina victim that lost everything, like you said, 56 percent of the people still think the federal government is not doing enough. And we're going to really hammer home on what people are still wanting from the government coming up a little later in this half hour. But, Ed, meanwhile, the president -- I'm assuming he's getting ready to mark the first anniversary of Katrina. It will be interesting to see what he says and what he does.

HENRY: Absolutely. I mean, and there's a challenge for the president in those poll numbers. A lot of people obviously still feeling like he has not done enough, and perhaps the White House could have been concerned about another Cindy Sheehan kind of issue, public relations problem if they had not met with Rockey. They obviously dealt with this one. And I think, as well there are a lot of people concerned they still haven't gotten that help. We're going to see the president do next week is go down to New Orleans and Mississippi himself. We just found out today as well, in the next few days the president is going to sign a proclamation declaring that next Tuesday will be a day of national remembrance. He wants to recognize those who lost their lives but also the heroes who helped more loss of life down in New Orleans, Mississippi, et cetera, Kyra.

Phillips and Henry, acting more the role of sports commentators than journalists, parrot Rockey's praise of Bush instead of presenting facts pertaining to the administration's sluggish progress, a pathetic effort riddled by - what else? - incompetence, fraud, greed and a lack of accountability. They mention the imminent anniversary of Katrina as if it weren't the driving force behind Rockey and Bush's ham-handed stunt. Most egregious, they actually compare this meet-and-greet with a sycophantic Republican supporter to Bush's infamous non-meeting with Cindy Sheehan, in essence, not only granting Bush absolution for failing to speak with the grieving mother but also adroitly tying in a positive spin on an Iraq thorn-in-the-foot that has plagued Bush ever since.

Finally, something was oddly missing from these proceedings. Rockey lost his eldest son during Katrina, yet somehow this doesn't warrant mention by either Rockey or Bush during their photo op, or by Phillips and Henry throughout their discussion. Not until we're nearing the end of the segment - after Phillips takes us into Rockey's real FEMA trailer back in the Gulf, where his wife and youngest son await to show off their government-issued trailer - is this matter-of-factly revealed by Rockey.

VACCARELLA: Well, you know, I went through some tragedy and I'm not scared to talk about it. I lost a 19-year old son, Rockey Jr. I have another son, Luke Vacarella, he's my youngest. And I did run for council office and I lost by minimal votes of 43. But that's all right. I had a plan of my own. You know, we always said down South we were going to get the big one, we're going to get the big one. Well, we got the big one. But unfortunately, we wasn't prepared. I actually went around with a camera, Steve Scafidi and I got together, we were making this documentary. You can go to our website, thepeoplesstory.com, and over 150 school buses were under water. Over 28, I think, police cars just in one area was under water. That's me on the roof right there in the middle of the storm. You know what, if I was in charge, what I would have done was, hey, let's take all of our school buses, our transit buses, and move 'em up north. Let's take boats and move 'em up north. So when the hurricane passes through, we can get down here very quick and react and we don't have to wait four or five days for the federal government to come down and bail us out.

"I lost a 19-year old son, Rockey Jr." That's it. Not wanting us to focus on loss of life, even his own son's - even for a minute - Rockey quickly returns to the matter at hand, deflecting White House culpability.

What are the odds that Phillips, Henry and Bush weren't aware Rockey had lost a son to Katrina? One would think slim to none. Yet, if by some chance they didn't know, it would only lay further claim to incompetence for all parties. Most likely, though, this knowledge was buried to protect the Pollyannaish facade of Rockey's roadshow.

Sadly, while it was the loss of life and destruction of lives that was, and remains, so devastating about Katrina's aftermath, as we near its anniversary it is cynical politics masquerading as hope that now draws the most attention from our mainstream media. An environment that allows this adventure of Rockey the Shill and Bushwinkle to thrive. Where our Excuser-in-Chief is confident enough in the mainstream media's allegiance and ineptitude to sanction his use of Katrina's anniversary to rewrite a history that - as he would say - covers his ass.

BUSH: And it's a time to remember that people suffer, and it's a time to recommit ourselves to helping them. But I also want people to remember that a one-year anniversary is just that, because it's going to require a long time to help these people rebuild.

Story of the Day: The Potential of Chris Matthews

Last night on Hardball, Chris Matthews spoke with Van Taylor (R-TX), the only Republican Iraq War veteran running for Congress, and Paul Hackett, a veteran from the same war and former senatorial candidate in Ohio who dropped his bid after receiving no support from the Democratic establishment (at the time, it deemed his straight talk on Iraq too incendiary). Taylor, an obvious hack with no recourse but to spew empty White House talking points, must have thought - like the rest of us - that he would be entering the "fair and balanced" atmosphere to which guests on Hardball are generally treated, in that no matter how baseless his claims and blatant his lies he would not endure any difficult follow-up questions, any substantive challenge to his peddling of disinformation.

And then a funny thing happened on the way to Hardball.

As though he'd recently finished a refresher journalism course taught by MSNBC colleague Keith Olbermann, Matthews suddenly took on the persona of a responsible news anchor, knocking back Taylor's lame Iraq Bushisms and challenging him to express an original idea.

Here's Matthews as you so rarely see him:

VAN TAYLOR (R-TX), CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE: We need to stay in Iraq until we get the job done there.  We have got to defeat al Qaeda terrorists that are trying to take over the country of Iraq and use it as a launching pad to conduct terrorist attacks in the region and possibly even on the United States.

MATTHEWS:  And where did al Qaeda come from?

TAYLOR:  Al Qaeda is an amorphous organization.

MATTHEWS:  No no, the people that are fighting it that you say are threatening us in Iraq, where did they come from?

TAYLOR: Al Qaeda made a conscious, tactical decision to do battle with the United States in Iraq and we have responded and fought them there.  We need to fight them there because if we don‘t fight them there, we are going to fight them here at home.

MATTHEWS:  So they came in since we went in?

TAYLOR: There is no question.  I mean, they made a decision in the summer of 2003 to come into Iraq and launch an attack against the United States forces.

MATTHEWS: So there wouldn‘t have been an al Qaeda component of the size there is -- there wouldn‘t have been that threat if we hadn‘t gone in in the first place.

TAYLOR: Well al Qaeda could choose to do battle with us somewhere else, possibly in Europe or even in the United States.  So clearly fighting in Iraq meant that they didn‘t fight us somewhere else.

MATTHEWS: So the people that are killing 3,000 people a month in Iraq are al Qaeda, you are saying?  All the deaths we are seeing on television is caused by al Qaeda?  That‘s against all the reporting we are getting. That‘s why I‘m raising this sir.  I don‘t get any reporting saying those people are being getting killed by al Qaeda -- 3,000, 100 people a day are getting in that war between the Shia and the Sunni and I just wonder why you keep bringing in al Qaeda, which is by every estimate of every military man, is an isolated five percent maybe of the action over there.

TAYLOR:  We need to be in Iraq because of al Qaeda and we cannot leave Iraq until al Qaeda is eradicated from that country.

MATTHEWS: Well those are talking points.  Where do they fit into the fact that 3,000 a month are being killed over there?  Who is killing those people that we are watching on television every night.  Is that al Qaeda doing that?

TAYLOR:  Al Qaeda is trying to foment a civil war in Iraq and we need to stop them from doing that.  We need to make sure that Iraq is a stable democracy.

MATTHEWS: OK, what percentage being killed over there are being killed by al Qaeda, as you say?  Every day on the headlines?  Who is doing all the killing?

TAYLOR:  You are asking two different questions.

MATTHEWS: No, I‘m asking one question, sir.  What is the role of al Qaeda?  You brought it up.  What‘s the role of al Qaeda in Iraq?  I‘m just asking.

TAYLOR: Al Qaeda is trying to foment an insurgency in Iraq.  We have got to secure our country against terrorists and they are attacking us right now, U.S. forces are risking their lives fighting al Qaeda terrorists that seek to destroy our country and our way of life.  We have got to do whatever it takes to finish the job in Iraq and make sure that we give a secure country to our children.

Matthews' slightly tentative nature, as if he were walking around in a new pair of shoes, is evident in the words, "I'm just asking." He's well aware his about-face might infuriate Republicans and incite the wingnuts to pounce, and (if this wasn't sanctioned by his bosses) even raise the dander of station executives. These three most telling words of the segment reveal the imposed - or self-imposed - electric fence from within which he must broadcast nightly. Nevertheless, on this particular night, Matthews walks up to that fence and throws it a few elbows.

MATTHEWS:  OK, let me ask you the question. Mr. Taylor, the president of the United States held a press conference yesterday and he was asked what role did Iraq play on the al Qaeda attack on us on 9/11?  He said nothing, no role.  You say something different it sounds like. 

TAYLOR:  Today, in Iraq al Qaeda ...

MATTHEWS: No, he said they had nothing—he said—no, he said they had nothing—do you agree with that, with the president that they had nothing to do with the attack of 9/11? 

TAYLOR:  They had no direct involvement in the 9/11 attacks. 

MATTHEWS:  Well, what do you mean no direct?  Answer the question. 

The president said no connection.  What connection do you draw? 

TAYLOR: As far as I know, I do not believe they have any direct involvement with the attack on 9/11.  I agree with the president. 

MATTHEWS:  So why did we attack Iraq then?  Why did we attack Iraq then?

TAYLOR:  Regardless of why we may have started fighting, and I served as a marine ... 

MATTHEWS:  I‘m asking the question, why did we attack Iraq?  Why did we go into Iraq?

TAYLOR:  That‘s not the question that we need answered. 

MATTHEWS:  It‘s mine. 

TAYLOR:  It‘s what do we do now?

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS:  What‘s wrong with me asking the question?  We are in a war. 

Pearl Harbor started World War II. 

TAYLOR:  That‘s a question you can ask ...

MATTHEWS:  What start it?  Why did we go into Iraq? 

TAYLOR: That is a question you can ask historians, but today we need to send people to Washington who understand the war on terror.  There is not a single member of the United States Congress that has served in the war on terror, and there are only two dozen combat veterans.  I will be the very first.  We need to send people like me in Washington. 

To paraphrase Woody Allen in Annie Hall, if only life on Hardball were always like this. 

Paul Hackett on Hardball
Crooks and Liars
(transcript via MSNBC)