MediaBloodhound

Story of the Day: Miley Cyrus Trumps Voter ID Ruling on NBC Nightly News; On Same Day, NBC Anchor Slammed NYT's Fluff

Last night, NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams allotted eighty seconds to yesterday's momentous Supreme Court ruling that there's nothing unconstitutional with Indiana's law requiring a photo ID to vote. Meanwhile, during the same broadcast, it spent over two minutes on the concern caused by photos of teen star Miley Cyrus in Vanity Fair.

That would be embarrassing enough for a news organization purporting to be credible.

But earlier in the day on the Nightly News blog The Daily Nightly, anchor and managing editor Brian Williams (in a post titled "What Times Is It?") actually took The New York Times to task for publishing puff pieces. Now, Williams won't get an argument from me on The Times' penchant for such reporting in between serious news items, which can bump a crucial story to the back pages (that's why "NYT Front|Back" is an ongoing series here). But Williams is either in bunker-mentality denial or gallingly disingenuous to suggest he and his newscast - not to mention his network news colleagues and the mainstream media at large - don't regularly focus attention on the same kind of tripe at the expense of substantive news.

Talk about your glass houses.

How big has Williams' bubble grown? Did it not cross his mind that people might read his post, then watch his newscast and call him out on his hypocritical, cognitive dissonant analysis? Does he realize that even though he might wish to remain in his Big Media bubble, that it's precisely this kind of intellectual dishonesty and brain-dead hackery that drove, and continues to drive, millions of formerly trusting viewers to seek their news elsewhere?

What's more, Williams and NBC poorly handled those eighty whole seconds they allocated to the Supreme Court ruling on voter IDs. They not only failed to present one dissenting viewpoint - whether from a Supreme Court Justice, legal scholar, civil rights lawyer or voters in Indiana - but also to point out how this ruling will impact the upcoming primary in Indiana, where, as the Associated Press reported yesterday, "more than 20 percent of black voters do not have access to a valid photo ID."

Instead, ignoring substantive context, dissenting views and serious implications on the constitutional right to vote, Brian Williams framed the issue for NBC justice correspondent Pete Williams (former longtime aide to Dick Cheney) through a Fox News-like lens:

BRIAN WILLIAMS: Pete, let's come at this a little differently. In a nation where in the post-9/11 era, we need a photo ID to fly, why was it a big story today, this court ruling that we need it to vote?

Yeah, what's all the fuss about, Pete? I mean, sure, we're only spending eighty seconds on this story, but let's take it from the angle of questioning why we should cover it at all.

Of course, Brian turned to the right correspondent to take a complex issue involving civil liberties and the Constitution and, for all intents and purposes, reduce it down to corporate media stenography and Bush administration talking points. A skilled piece of journalistic hackery in short form:

PETE WILLIAMS: Well, showing a photo ID at the airport has been upheld because of the need for security. Now the Supreme Court said that states can require voter ID at the polls to prevent voter fraud. Georgia, Florida and Michigan have laws like Indiana's and seventeen other states were waiting for today's decision before considering laws of their own to make voting another part of American life requiring a photo ID, just like flying. Today's vote was six-to-three, with one of the most liberal justices, John Paul Stevens, in the majority. He said most people do already have a photo ID and that for those who don't, who are poor, elderly or handicapped, this may add to their burden. But he said it was not enough to overcome the state's interest in discouraging fraud, Brian.

Our curious anchor's follow-up?

BRIAN WILLIAMS: All right. Pete Williams in Washington for us. Pete, thanks.

Adding insult to injury, this clip is not currently available on its own on MSNBC's Nightly News website (it's only accessible through watching a video of the full broadcast). But fear not, Brian's two-minute-plus Miley Cyrus (aka, Hannah Montana) report, covered by NBC correspondent Rehema Ellis, is there in all its gratuitously vapid glory.

Never mind how the Supreme Court's decision will directly affect the Indiana Democratic primary, the presidential election in November, and, potentially, voting rights of US citizens for years to come. NBC Nightly News and Brian Williams provided their viewers with a much more valuable piece of information: the "ruckus" over teen sensation Miley Cyrus' photo spread in Vanity Fair and an answer to the question that's keeping most Americans awake at night:

REHEMA ELLIS, NBC CORRESPONDENT: How could this affect the pop star's career?

Editor's Note: Appreciate this post? Subscribe to receive MediaBloodhound email alerts so you don't miss the next one. MBH doesn't post daily, so it's a great way to keep up with the latest. And it's easy to subscribe: 1) Enter your email address above the "Subscribe" button in top right-hand column of this site and click button; 2) Check your inbox for auto email from "confirmations@emailenfuego.com" (if you don't see it, check your spam folder); 3) Open email, click confirm link and you're done. Thanks for your readership. - Brad Jacobson

The Wounded-Courier: McCain Targets "Sadrists" Stewart and Colbert

After recent gaffes confusing Sunnis and Shiites, John McCain has now mixed up Sadrists - followers of Iraqi Shiite militia leader Muqtada al-Sadr - with satirists.

Aboard his campaign plane yesterday afternoon, the Republican presidential candidate answered a question about the dangers of Sadrists waging an all-out war on US troops, saying, "Well, here's some straight talk for you - I think Sadrists like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have been waging a war on our troops for years. And it's about time, my friends, that we face this reality and confront them head-on."

Attempting to correct the Arizona senator, New York Times journalist Elizabeth Bumiller, the reporter who had asked him the question, said, "Uh, Senator. I don't think Stewart and Colbert are the Sadrists I was referring to."

But McCain, vigorously reiterating his position, replied, "Well, maybe not. But they're two of the most popular out there. Ratings are high, kids love 'em. Here's some more straight talk - I've been on Jon's show but I'll admit I was wrong to do it, and I hope my Democratic opponents will have the courage to denounce their associations with him, too. The point is, anyone with military chops knows the best strategy for victory is to cut the snake off at the head. My friends, it's time we take these jokers out."

When Bumiller tried to correct him one last time, McCain erupted, "Look, I don't come to your office at the Times, elbow my way threw that Third World newsroom of Marxist homosexual terrorists, and stand over your desk telling you how to type! So, please - please - my friend, don't tell me how to win a war!"

Senator Joe Lieberman (?!-CT), a fixture at McCain's side throughout his presidential run, was unable to step forward this time and whisper facts into McCain's ear as he did during one of the two previous Sunni-Shiite blunders. Lieberman, observing the Passover holiday, had relegated himself to the Kosher for Passover section of the campaign aircraft.

Stephen Colbert, who responded in character during the taping of Thursday's scheduled Colbert Report, said, "This is further proof that Senator John McCain has what it takes to lead this country - a limited yet firm grip of the facts, a tenuous hold on reality, and Bunyanesque balls of stainless steel. Senator McCain, if posing as your patsy to win this war is wrong, then I don't want to be right. Hand me a Crave Case of White Castles and an elephant tranquilizer gun, and I'll take down Michael Moore for you, sir!"

When notified of John McCain's comment on the set of The Daily Show, host Jon Stewart stammered, loosened his tie and said, "Huh...is it hot in here, or is it me?" Breaking into a Woody Allen impression, he then added, "Well, I, uh, that's very interesting. You'll have to excuse me. I, I seem to remember I, I have a plane to catch...to Peru."

On MSNBC's Hardball last night, guest John Amato, proprietor of the popular blog Crooks and Liars, said, "So now we know what to expect. George W. Bush averted attention away from al Qaeda and Afghanistan to attack Iraq, and John McCain wants to avert attention away from the Sadrists to attack the satirists. You know, Chris, if Terry Southern and Stanley Kubrick were alive today, they wouldn't need a script."

But MSNBC commentator Pat Buchanan countered, "Look, what we have here is a case of turning lemons into lemonade. Did McCain confuse Sadrists and satirists? Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. But whatever happened, he brought attention to a growing problem - homegrown insurgents, like Stewart and Colbert, who are doing our troops a grave disservice. I'm with McCain, I say take 'em out."

McCain, however, did note that he would spare 70-year-old comedy legend Rich Little, considering both Little's magnanimous White House Correspondents Dinner routine the year following, as the senator put it, "Mr. Colbert's Tet Offensive of comedy," and because he considers Little more an impressionist than a Sadrist.

Swatting at imaginary flies above his head for a moment, McCain then added, "He's one Sadrist who's proved his loyalty to the United States and I honor him for his service."

Op-Ed Column: Networks Win Pennsylvania in Landslide!

Have you ever been dreaming, entertaining whatever loopy narrative your unconscious mind is unleashing, and then suddenly you recognize it's only a dream and you wake up?

Well, during MSNBC's election coverage last night, in between all the manufactured melodrama of the network's ensemble cast, Chris Matthews seemed to experience such a moment when, as if delivering an on-stage soliloquy sans the dimming lights, he said:

"But I really do think it’s a strange time because we’re all watching to see who won, but as Nora pointed out, 4 out of 5, or so, of the Hillary voters today believe she’s still in the running. That this is still up in the air and I think that was probably a mistake of the media. I think in the effort of the media, to try to keep this game going, we’ve created the delusion that somehow this race is still open. I don’t think it is open. I think if you look at the numbers Barack has to really blow it in the weeks ahead to lose."

Credible political analysts, such as #1 MSNBC number cruncher and political director Chuck Todd, have been quietly noting this for weeks. Of course, Todd's checks are also cut by the same network with a huge stake in stoking the "delusion" that this race is still neck and neck. (Just as this unreality benefits all the networks and the mainstream media at large.) So these waking moments supplied by Todd - conveniently, the most soft-spoken figure on network news - are fleeting. Rare glimpses of light before we're plunged back into the ratings-generating, Iago-like gaming of Tim Russert, Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan and, yes, Chris Matthews.

Todd reminded us again of this reality last night. Only now, Clinton's chances, ironically, are bleaker than they were before her Pennsylvania victory. Breaking down the numbers, Todd noted that "the pledged delegate count is basically over" and "it now appears like it's going to be impossible for Obama to lose his lead." And it's clear why Todd hedges ever so slightly, softening this dash of sobriety with the words "basically" and "appears": MSNBC desires thousands of miles more out of this nearly broken-down vehicle.

Today on Morning Joe, Matthews, along with Joe Scarborough and the rest of the panel, hailed Clinton's victory and, like Groundhog Day, picked up their ever-extended Thrilla in Manila narrative where they left off. To give him mild credit, Matthews did provide a seconds-long allusion to the reality of Chuck Todd's stark numbers, before he leaped back into the chorus and saddled up for another day at the horse track.

So if you're rooting for Clinton and you're still flush from this latest victory, or your candidate is Obama and you're still licking your wounds, remember this: the biggest winner last night was once again the networks and their ratings, with John McCain and the GOP right behind them.

Buckle up, Democrats, and proceed with caution. Right now, more than any one entity, the indiscriminate knife twisters in the mainstream media have the strongest hand on the wheel and they are driving this nomination process toward a cliff. Keep playing this game of chicken, keep operating within their craven frame of a never-ending steel-cage death match, and the only viable candidate standing - viable as in capable of winning in November - might soon be John McCain.

To corporate media chiefs, along with their friends in the GOP and their advertising sponsor pals in the defense, energy and pharmaceutical industries, this ongoing cutthroat nomination process and its very possible outcome (say hello to President McCain!) would be a tremendous win-win. And a classic demonstration of the Democratic Party's uncanny ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Especially when you consider President Bush just received the highest job disapproval rating in Gallup Poll's history (69%) and over 80% of Americans think this country's on the wrong track.

Of course, the more tattered the Democratic nominee is by the end, the closer the presidential race - and thus the higher the ratings - will be in the fall.

Make no mistake, the networks are also looking ahead to November. And their Lord of the Flies mentality has them salivating.

The Wounded-Courier (EXCLUSIVE): Transcript of Untelevised Portion of ABC Debate

ABC News' handling of the Democratic debate on Wednesday generated thousands of negative comments from viewers and also excoriating critiques from members alternative and mainstream media alike. In response, ABC News President David Westin has decided to release a transcript of the untelevised portion of the debate, which took place subsequent to the one Americans watched on Wednesday night.

Westin, speaking with The Wounded-Courier, said, "While I think, on the whole, Charlie and George did an admirable job, I believe the most substantive part of the debate occurred after the cameras were turned off." Westin added, "I've decided to release this transcript to make clear ABC's commitment to excellence in journalism. We're confident you'll agree that the questions asked in these remaining minutes address substantive issues that are of the utmost concern to Pennsylvanians and every American."

Courtesy of ABC News, here is the untelevised transcript in its entirety:

CHARLES GIBSON, ABC ANCHOR: For the televised portion of this debate, we began segments with brief quotes from the Constitution apropos to what we would be discussing. For the untelevised portion, we will move away from the Constitution and quote liberally in a wild card fashion from whatever source seems appropriate. OK, so let's continue. "Sitting on a cornflake, waiting for the van to come. Corporation tee-shirt, stupid bloody Tuesday. Man, you been a naughty boy, you let your face grow long. I am the eggman, they are the eggmen, I am the walrus, goo goo g'joob."

GIBSON: That is a quote from The Beatles drug-inspired anthem "I Am the Walrus." Senator Obama, exactly how stoned were you the first time you heard this song? And did the bong hits, combined with the tabs of acid you ingested, make this song less or more enjoyable?

SENATOR BARACK OBAMA: You know, Charlie, I've already addressed my slight dabbling with drugs when I was a confused youth. I think I went through what many troubled youths go through when --

GIBSON: But how wasted were you the first time you heard "I Am the Walrus," Senator, and did your psychotic drug binge -- which may have caused you to black out for days on end while committing unspeakable acts you don't remember -- add or subtract from your listening pleasure?

OBAMA: Again, Charlie, I'm not sure how this helps get Americans health insurance, brings home our troops, or fixes the economy.

GIBSON: I'll take your response as an admission that pot and acid do, in fact, make this song better. But shooting heroin and the possible murders you committed during your unconscious fugue state detracted somewhat from the overall listening experience.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC ANCHOR: Senator Clinton, if a tree falls in the woods but no one is there to hear it, did it make a sound?

SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON: George, that is something which has been debated for centuries.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you admit there was no gunfire that day you landed in Bosnia?

CLINTON: Well, you know, George, I've already conceded that I misspoke on that issue. If you're campaigning as much as Barack and I have --

(STEPHANOPOULOS brandishes a revolver and fires a few feet above Sen. Clinton's head.)

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you would've remembered that, right?

CLINTON: Of course.

OBAMA: Can I just say something? I don't see where this is getting us. George, you could've just killed someone in here. That's not a toy you've got in your hand there.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Right you are, Senator. And that leads us to our next question. Charlie?

GIBSON: "I shot a man in Reno, just to watch him die." A line from Johnny Cash's "Folsom Prison Blues."

STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Obama, your childhood friend Jimmy Choi told us that as a six-year-old boy living in Honolulu, one day you were both engaged in a typical game of cops and robbers, running around your yard with plastic guns, when suddenly little Jimmy tripped and fell. Before you helped little Jimmy back to his feet, you stood over him and said, "Pow! Pow! Pow!" over and over again, seemingly taking great pleasure in unloading your fake gun into your supposed friend. How can Democrats vote for a candidate who has shown, beginning at the age of six, to have such little regard for human life?

OBAMA: You're serious.

Special Report: NYT Iraq War Timeline Whitewashes History (Part III: Burying News of Iraqi Dead)

To mark the recent fifth anniversary of the Iraq War, The New York Times published an interactive timeline. This is the third in a series of posts exploring the most misleading statements and glaring omissions from its Iraq War history. (If you missed either of the first two parts, you can read them here and here).

Timeline Entry: W.H.O.'s Iraqi Civilian Death Toll

This entry reads in full: "January 9, 2008, W.H.O. Estimates Deaths: The World Health Organization publishes a study estimating the number of Iraqi civilian deaths from the start of the war through June 2006 as between 104,000 and 223,000. It estimated that the actual total was 151,000."

In the accompanying article filed on Jan. 10, 2008 (linked under the timeline), The Times does note the John Hopkins study, which estimated "about 600,000 [Iraqi civilian] dead between the war’s start, in March 2003, and July 2006." So why, then, isn't this acknowledged in the timeline? Moreover, nine paragraphs into that same companion article, The Times mentions in passing:

In any case, the study [W.H.O.'s] ended four months after the bombing of a revered Shiite shrine in Samarra helped set off a wave of killings throughout Baghdad and other mixed Sunni-Shiite areas. So because of its timing, the study missed the period of what is believed to be the worst sectarian killings, during the latter half of 2006 and the first eight months of 2007.

FACT: This not only undercuts W.H.O.'s count but, considering the John Hopkins study only covered through the following month (July 2006), it also illuminates the shockingly high number of Iraqi civilian deaths by John Hopkin's estimate, which was counted before the "worst sectarian killings, during the latter half of 2006 and the first eight months of 2007."

The Times' omission of the John Hopkin's study is not surprising, considering it's framed in the accompanying article as having "come under criticism for its methodology." In reality, its methodology was almost solely criticized by the White House (President Bush falsely claimed that "the methodology has been pretty well discredited"), the Pentagon, and partisan pro-war supporters in the media.

The Wounded-Courier: Penn Leaves PR Firm to Work Directly for Satan

"It was time to cut out the middle man," said Mark Penn, who recently stepped down as Hillary Clinton's chief campaign strategist. Penn, speaking from Satan's lair in an undisclosed circle of Hell, told The New York Times yesterday that the Devil contacted him as soon as he heard Penn had relinquished his top tactical role for Clinton.

"He texted me immediately - 'IMHO, you still rock.' Then he called me directly on his cell. Needless to say, I was pretty flattered," admitted Penn. "I've worked for Blackwater but this was Beelzebub. Not Erik Prince - the Prince of Darkness. He's the best in the business. When he put an offer on the table, I said, 'Where do you want me to sign and when do you want me there [Hell]?'"

Once he accepted Lucifer's offer, Penn stepped down as CEO of PR/lobbying giant Burson-Marsteller, where he gained valuable experience that will inform his new endeavor. Burson-Marsteller - rumored to have long retained Mephistopheles as a silent partner - has not only consulted private military contractor Blackwater USA but many other challenging clients, including embattled mortgage lender Countrywide, nuclear behemoth Entergy (whose tagline is "The Power of People"), and the unfortunately named SpinMaster, Canadian manufacturer of the poisonous Aqua Dots toy.

Penn, however, will continue to do polling and consulting work for the Clinton camp.

Commenting on his new role with the Overlord of the Underworld, Sen. Hillary Clinton said, "I wish Mark all the best. He worked his heart out for us and I'm sure he'll do the same for Satan, who, full disclosure, counseled me on my decision in 2006 to vote against banning cluster bombs in civilian areas. That wasn't easy. My gut said I have to vote for this - contrary to what Samantha Power thinks, I'm not a monster. But the Devil made clear it wasn't worth jeopardizing my copious financial support from the defense industry. And that turned out to be a prudent choice."

Satan, who stopped by The View this morning, feels it's high time to dust off his image, which, he said, "Really hasn't changed much over millennia." Noted the King of Hell, "For example, most people today have no idea I started my career as an angel."

"That's deep," said View co-host Whoopi Goodberg. "But you do admit you've done some horrible stuff."

"Of course," he acknowledged. "But, Whoopi, that's only one side of the story. Not a balanced view. I think working with Mark will help people see the real me." Rolling his eyes, Satan explained, "You know, I'm so much more than the scary guy with the pitchfork and the horns spreading war and pestilence. I have feelings, too. I shed a tear when Suharto passed away. I enjoy gardening in my downtime, catching the latest American Idol, inciting suicidal ideation. Like regular people, I also get a little acid reflux if I snack too late. And puppies almost make me smile."

Sources close to Satan say he and Penn are already developing a new reality show inspired by Donald Trump's The Apprentice. Each week the Devil will review the lives of terminally ill cast members. At the close of every episode, he'll tell one or more unlucky participants, "You're going to Hell."

Polled: AP's Stupidest Poll Findings of the Primary Season

Polled, a new feature on MediaBloodhound, will cover the most inane polls from now through the November election and beyond.

Congratulations to the Associated Press for being the recipient of the inaugural post in Polled!

Here's the AP's lede in a story drawing striking conclusions from Democratic primary exit polls:

Add this to the divisive debate over race in the presidential campaign: Whites who said race was important in picking their candidate have been about twice as likely to back Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as Sen. Barack Obama.

Exit polls of voters in Democratic primaries also show that whites who considered the contender's race — Clinton is white, Obama is black — were three times likelier to say they would only be satisfied with Clinton as the nominee than if Obama were chosen.

Imagine that. Whites who said race would be a deciding factor chose Clinton over Obama.

And just as shocking:

Eighty-eight percent of blacks who said race was an important factor voted for Obama, compared to 81 percent of those who said they did not consider race.

Now I'm no polling expert or statistical analyst, but I'd wager that the majority of, say, insecure, mean-spirited, male chauvinists who would call their wives a "cunt" are more likely to vote for Sen. John McCain. But is that noteworthy?

AP writer Alan Fram, who penned this most insightful article, notes:

The data is from exit polls in Democratic primaries conducted for The Associated Press and television networks in Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, Mississippi, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Vermont.

Clearly, however, no one told Fram - or his editors at the AP - that not every finding in every poll is worthy of an article. Or in some cases, such as this, even a sentence.

Here are some other data the AP failed to mention from these exit polls*:

• Members of the KKK are twice as likely to own a backup set of white sheets than are non-KKK members.

• Raving lunatics are more likely to believe little blue men are following them than realize they've lost touch with reality.

• Vegetarians consume roughly 100% less meat per year than do meat eaters.

• People who claim Kenny G. is a "great jazz musician" own considerably fewer recordings of John Coltrane, Miles Davis, Louis Armstrong and Charles Mingus, and most have undergone full lobotomies.

• A majority of men prefer waking to an alarm clock in the morning rather than being kicked in the testicles; while a predominance of women reported that childbirth is actually more painful than a pedicure.

* As difficult as it is to believe, everything up to this point was documented by the AP; what follows is satire.

Feel free to add some of your own surprising statistical findings in the comments.

The Wounded-Courier Editorial: Why Obama's Bowling Would've Lost Dr. King's Support (satire)

"I don’t know whether to kill myself or go bowling."
- Unknown

On this day, the 40th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s death, we believe there is no better time to address Sen. Barack Obama's pitiful bowling display this week in Pennsylvania.

First, though The Wounded-Courier has not endorsed any candidate for president, after witnessing Mr. Obama toss that gutter ball again and again on that 24-hour media loop, let’s just say we are officially not endorsing him.

Why? It's only bowling, you say?

Well, it wasn't only bowling to Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy, all of whom (as most Americans know) not only looked comfortable in their bright stripped shoes and loved those miniature pencils, but actually based their foreign policies on proven bowling techniques and strategies.

While Dr. King laid the groundwork for a black man to run for president in 2008, we're sure that even Dr. King would conclude that any man or woman – black, white, brown, yellow or purple – must keep that bowling ball out of the gutter if he or she is truly ready to lead America.

Dr. King did not give his life so one day some bowling delinquent like Barack Obama could land in the White House. (And if there isn’t a law against bowling with a tie on, we believe there should be.) King knew how crucial bowling was to not only improving US foreign policy and ensuring national security but to helping the poor, upgrading education, fixing our healthcare system and keeping the economy strong.

But he also knew America was not ready at the time to have an honest discussion about the issue of bowling. In fact, while some of his aides and confidantes, including Andrew Young and Harry Belafonte, pressed King to incorporate bowling into his "I Have a Dream" speech, King, in the end, believed it would be too controversial. Even in his "Beyond Vietnam" address, as he assailed US actions in Southeast Asia and gross neglect of the poor here at home, he dared not suggest bowling as a remedy for what ailed our nation.

But few people know that in earlier drafts of this speech, the line "A time comes when silence is betrayal" originally read, "A time comes when silence is betrayal and bowling is the only path to right a nation’s wrongs."

There are those who see a bowling ball and ask, "Why is this thing so f***ing heavy?" We see Barack Hussein Obama delivering a gutter ball and ask, “How do you expect to protect America?"