On his Countdown show Wednesday night, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann managed to cram four lines of liberal bias all into the first 14 minutes of his show: Questioning whether Bush's announcements of Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court and of an avian flu plan were politically timed to distract from administration problems, passing on Jimmy Carter's anti-Bush accusations without question, belittling Scott McClellan's defense of the administration's pre-war beliefs about WMD in Iraq, and asking softball questions to Ambassador Joseph Wilson without challenging his answers, except while referring to charges by "reactionary parrots" Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

After opening the show theorizing that Bush's recent announcements may have been "designed to redirect today's headlines away from the CIA leak investigation and the sudden firestorm over pre-war intelligence," Olbermann then proceeded to dismiss McClellan, to promote Carter and Wilson, and to mock Limbaugh and Hannity.

Newsweek’s senior editor Jonathan Alter has an article that was just posted at MSNBC.com wherein he stated that Karl Rove could be guilty of violating Executive Order 12958 concerning the release of classified national security information, and, as a result, could lose his security clearance. As Alter sees it:

“According to last week’s indictment of Scooter Libby, a person identified as “Official A” held conversations with reporters about Plame’s identity as an undercover CIA operative, information that was classified. News accounts subsequently confirmed that that official was Rove. Under Executive Order 12958, signed by President Clinton in 1995, such a disclosure is grounds for, at a minimum, losing access to classified information.”

It’s the Poor Innocent Consumer vs. Big Bad Oil, with a side of Politicians to the Rescue.

The media love a good controversy – so much so that they stir things up when the facts don’t warrant it. Since oil companies released their profit numbers last week, the news template has been one of angry consumers claiming they’ve been harmed and politicians vowing to do something about gas prices. Both parties have been aided by the media, who declared that oil profits were "beyond imagination."

On “CNN Sunday Morning” October 30, hosts asked viewers to respond to the question, “Who do you hold accountable for high gas prices?” Ignoring market forces that set prices in favor of playing a political game, Anchor Tony Harris also rephrased the question: “Who are you blaming?”

CNN’s Miles O’Brien framed a report about high third-quarter oil profits as “something to get your blood boiling” and “get you a little outraged” on the October 28 “American Morning.”

The fact is, when the price of a product goes up, the people who sell that product make more money. The only way this happens is if consumers keep buying.

That’s the oversimplified version of what happened to oil companies’ profits in the third quarter of 2005. Interruptions from the hurricanes tightened supply, but consumer demand stayed high, fueled by China and India – so gasoline prices went up. Oil companies profited from the situation, but they didn’t arbitrarily set their prices extra-high. Market forces determined prices.

Unfortunately, most journalists haven’t been getting it. Rather than accepting the way the market works, they have pitted consumers against oil companies, bolstering the case of those who call for a “windfall profits tax” on the companies’ earnings. That includes members of Congress, who have scheduled a hearing on energy pricing and corporate profits for November 9.

Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) summed up the news template when she said, “At a time when the American people are struggling to pay their energy bills and the residents of my own state of Maine will be hard-pressed to pay their home heating costs this winter, it is deeply concerning and, frankly, outrageous that oil companies are boasting record-breaking profits,” according to the October 28 Los Angeles Times.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/15E6BF77-6F91-46EE-A4B5-A3CE0E9957EA.htm

Straight from Al-Jazeera itself, though slightly old I think it's a good example about the extremnity of Iran and why it should not be allowed to have enriched uranium.

The President of Iran himself states, "Israel must be wiped off the map" and "The Islamic umma (community) will not allow its historic enemy to live in its heartland!" He even refers to the US as the "oppressor".

In this instance I cannot help but note that this is obviously an extremist and I wonder as to why people would wish to give the man enriched uranium. I'm against any further spread of nuclear potentials... but especially to those who think Israel should be wiped off the map or are in the mindset that the west is a continuing enemy since the crusades. It's the same mentality as the terrorists themselves, I've seen it in training videos where the targets have a white background an a red crusader cross on the front. In their eyes America and the western world is still the crusader Europe it was back in the middle-ages, and they need to get over it.

Wednesday's CBS Evening News touted a new poll by the network which found, as anchor Bob Schieffer relayed, that “the President's job approval has reached the lowest level yet” at “only 35 percent” with Congress “rated even lower” at a mere “34 percent,” but Bush and Congress are doing a lot better than Vice President Cheney whose “favorable rating is down nine points this year to just 19 percent.” Over side-by-side head-shot videos on screen of Richard Nixon and George W. Bush, with Bush's 35 percent approval below his image and Gallup's 27 percent finding beneath the shot of Nixon, John Roberts pointed out how “the only recent President lower at this point in their second term was Richard Nixon.” Roberts asked and answered: “What's behind the slide: 2,000 war dead in Iraq, an indictment in the CIA leak, the aborted Harriet Miers nomination, the disastrous response to Hurricane Katrina."

Roberts warned that “yesterday's shutdown of the Senate shows the political danger of presidential drift. Democrats sat back and watched for an opening, then moved right in." He proceeded to deliver an unobjectionable rundown of advise offered by Reagan chief-of-staff Ken Duberstein: “This week's Alito nomination and the President's bird flu speech were the first steps in a turnaround, says Duberstein, but the White House still needs to lose the bunker mentality, let in new ideas." In conclusion, Roberts cautioned, "So far, there's no indication that President Bush is considering any of the outside advice to shake up the White House, but one thing is clear: If he doesn't find his footing soon, suggestions for change will quickly turn into demands." (Full transcript follows)

The Internet has been abuzz for the past hour or so over rumors that CNN has either announced, or is about to announce a serious shakeup in its broadcasting staff. As reported by the New York Daily News this morning:

“Looks like Anderson Cooper, CNN'S Silver Fox, may get a permanent slot on ‘NewsNight,’ the 24-hour cable channel's signature prime-time show.

“Cooper will move into the high-profile 10 p.m. hour, while regular ‘NewsNight’ anchor Aaron Brown will be shunted to 7 p.m., where ‘Anderson Cooper 360’ now airs, according to The Hollywood Reporter.”

Yet, MediaBistro.com reported on Monday that its sources indicated that Brown is out:

I tuned in to WJR in Detroit today to hear the Rush Limbaugh show and found that they were covering the Rosa Parks funeral. At that time, I heard Bill Clinton making some remarks and he referred to her as Rosa Park - dropping the "s". I thought at the time that had George Bush said it, the media would make a fuss about it saying that Bush was so insensitive that he didn't bother to get her name right.

At the top of the next hour, I heard the ABC newscast and they had a short item on the Rosa Parks coverage and included some remarks by Bill Clinton. It happened to be the same remark I had heard earlier, but something had changed. This time, there was a momentary pause and he clearly said "Parks" with an "s". I think that someone at ABC altered the tape to spare Clinton the embarassment of mispronouncing Rosa Parks' name.

Implosion has occurred. The liberals now realize their play book has long ago been played out, they cannot offer anything new.

Linda Chavez;

Liberals' response to the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito Jr., to
replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is as
hysterical as it was predictable. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid,
D.-Nev., blamed the "radical right wing" for Alito's selection. Failed
Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry, D.-Mass., echoed the
sentiment. "Has the right wing now forced a weakened president to
nominate a divisive justice in the mold of Antonin Scalia?" Kerry
asked, rhetorically. And it wasn't just senators, but left leaning
interest groups that joined the fray. Ralph Neas of the mis-named
People for the American Way warned, "Replacing a mainstream
conservative like Justice O'Connor with a far-right activist like
Samuel Alito would threaten Americans' rights and legal protections for
decades."... It boils down to one issue: abortion.

The masks have come off, the truth has become reality, and their policies are unsupported, including abortion. How much longer can they continue to shut down Congress?

The broadcast network morning shows did segments today concerning yesterday’s surprise “closed session” in the Senate demanded by Democratic minority leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada). All three appeared quite pleased with what occurred while suggesting that it was a big win for the Democrats, and indicating that the Republicans were very angered by “the stunt.” However, even though they have now had almost a day to research the history of such events, much like what was reported by NewsBusters yesterday, not one of the programs discussed just how rare these sessions are, or questioned why this subject matter warranted a closed session. (Video links of the CBS and NBC segments to follow.)

How Come the media choses to ignore the things that Joe Wilson said prior to his May 2003 NY Times article?  Because it doesn't fit in with the liberal mantra.  Looking back thru news transcripts on the Lexus Nexus Database between his trip to Niger and that NY Times Article, Wilson was actually worried that Saddam would use WMD.  It wasn't until May of 03 that he changed his tune.  You can read my article on this at http://aarongop.ebloggy.com

Enjoy!

Aaron

While the mainstream media have focused attention on President Bush’s new Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito being an extreme Conservative (as reported by NewsBusters here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here), David G. Savage and Henry Weinstein of the Los Angeles Times actually did some real investigative journalism, and identified that people who have worked with Alito don’t agree with this right-wing depiction:

“Samuel A. Alito Jr. was quickly branded a hard-core conservative after President Bush announced his nomination, but a surprising number of liberal-leaning judges and ex-clerks say they support his elevation to the Supreme Court.

"Those who have worked alongside him say he was neither an ideologue nor a judge with an agenda, conservative or otherwise. They caution against attaching a label to Alito.”

Savage and Weinstein continued by citing and/or quoting a list of colleagues’ opinions on this issue:

The stunt by Senate Democrats who forced the chamber into closed session so they could get publicity for demands for an immediate probe into administration use of pre-war intelligence, earned a favorable tirade Tuesday afternoon from CNN’s Jack Cafferty who charged that “there's a perception in this country that we were lied to about the run-up to the war in Iraq.” Most believe they were “lied” to? More like Cafferty channeled the claims of the radical left. Cafferty proceeded to concede that “maybe we were, and maybe we weren't, but there are a lot of people who think we were.” Cafferty rued, as if WMDs were the only reason for the war: “A half a trillion dollars and 2,000 of our kids later, we're still there. We're mired in a thing that has no visible end” and so “if they lied to us, if there was some kind of intent to deceive, then they ought to find out who did it, and tear their fingernails out, and then get rid of them.” He insisted that “it's about what's right and what's wrong and what people who are entrusted to govern this country do with the power we give them. If it's being abused, we damn well have a right to know, and something should be done about it.”

Transcript follows. Video excerpt: Real or Windows Media

As soon as network reporters heard of his nomination, they began to brand Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito a right-wing extremist. During live coverage Monday morning, ABC's Charles Gibson termed Alito "very conservative" and "the most conservative member" of an otherwise "liberal appellate court." Over on CBS's Early Show, Gloria Borger dubbed Alito "quite conservative," the same label applied on CNN's Daybreak by Carol Costello. On Good Morning America, ABC's Jessica Yellin labeled Alito as "conservative" five times in 50 seconds.

Monday's evening newscasts carried the same message. On ABC, anchor Elizabeth Vargas called Alito a "staunch conservative," while Terry Moran found him "deeply conservative." CBS's John Roberts said that "if confirmed, Alito would wipe out the swing seat now occupied by Sandra Day O'Connor, tilting the Supreme Court in a solidly conservative direction." In contrast, NBC's Brian Williams, agreed Alito was "dependably conservative" but he also saw an "independent streak," as did reporter Pete Williams.

Quick: where was the photo on the right taken?

No one could blame you if you guessed it's from one of the "secret CIA prisons" whose existence is being reported today.

After all, that is the legend that the Today show imposed over the photo.  Katie Couric opened the show with it, ominously asking: "could there be another Abu Ghraib out there?" 

In fact, the photo is from Abu Ghraib.  But it was only when the same photo was displayed later in the half-hour that that fact clearly emerged.

Consider Today's cunning in choosing the photo it displayed. On the one hand, it is so lurid as to be sure to draw viewers' attention. On the other, Today avoided using one of the famous man-on-a-leash photos, since viewers would have immediately realized it was from Abu Ghraib. 

• Mark Finkelstein's blog
• Login or register to post comments
• Read more