Archives

Date

Liberal American Prospect Editor: "Vultures of the Right" Waiting Until NYT Is a "Carcass"

Michael Tomasky, executive editor of the American Prospect, has written a column for the liberal magazine's web site urging the dismissal of his counterpart at the New York Times, Bill Keller, for Keller's alleged mishandling of both the Judith Miller matter and the NSA wiretap story. The piece is worth mentioning mostly for this paragraph, which builds to an overheated climax:    

There are reasons for liberals (at opinion magazines, at blogs, etc.) to tread a little carefully these days with regard to criticism of the Times. Those of us who work at smaller shops don’t appreciate how difficult it can be to run large institutions (here at TAP, we sometime have trouble running this institution, of 20-whatever people). The pressure of simply being The New York Times is enormous. And, of course, every piece of flesh ripped from the paper’s body by the liberal opinion-blog world serves, ultimately, as another plate of hot victuals for the vultures of the right, circling above, counting the hours until the newspaper of record is a flayed, and inconsequential, carcass.

Morning Shows Use I-Words Today; Brokaw and Koppel on "Meet the Press"

Some other newsy tidbits on a sleepy afternoon:

1. On the Finkelstein-strike beat, MRC’s Scott Whitlock says NBC reporter Michelle "Canoe Girl" Kosinski used the I-word ("illegal") for the first time on "Today" in reporting, "The illegal strike is taking a toll on the city’s economy, says the city’s mayor."

2. Scott also notes that CBS’s "Early Show" brought up the other I-word ("impeachment") again this morning, as co-host Hannah Storm asked CBS analyst Gloria Borger about the NSA surveillance hubbub, "What is the fallout of this going to be? Some people are already talking of impeachment proceedings." Borger shot that down: "Well, I think that’s a bridge too far." That's milder than Jonathan Turley's encouraging words about Bush's high crimes yesterday.

ABC's Tapper Airs Skepticism of Spielberg's "Munich" Take On Terrorism

MRC's Megan McCormack reports that on Thursday's "Good Morning America," ABC reporter Jake Tapper gave some air time to the view that Steven Spielberg's new film "Munich" has a "dangerous naivete," arguing that "fighting the terrorists only makes them more likely to commit acts of terror." Granted, when skepticism is coming from liberal magazines like The New Yorker and The New Republic, publicizing it on ABC is not as shocking. Tapper leaves out the role of screenwriter Tony Kushner, the controversial hard-left gay playwright. The transcript follows:  

Robin Roberts: "But first, opening tomorrow, a new movie directed by Steven Spielberg that's causing controversy before it even hits the screen. Spielberg took extraordinary steps to keep details of the film secret, with only a few actors even allowed to see the entire script. The film is called 'Munich,' and the controversy over how the movie treats terrorism. Here's ABC’s Jake Tapper."

AP Distorts Record on Lobby Gifts to Republicans

The Associated Press is very good at what it does. It's just a shame that straight news reporting isn't it.

They've run a piece this morning (Lawmakers Hasten to Return Abramoff Gifts) dealing with lobbyist and equal-opportunity crook Jack Abramoff. Regular AP readers will remember that when Abramoff was indicted back in August the AP story mentioned one congressman by name, Republican Tom Delay, and they mentioned him 5 times. Despite the fact that Abramoff has given money to many congresspeople of both party, the Republican Delay got mentioned, and no one else.

Well, they're at it again. (H/T to Michelle Malkin). Today's AP story makes it seem, again, as if Abramoff gave, or steered, contributions to Republicans, and to Republicans alone. They start with a quote from the President:

This week, President Bush said it seemed to him that Abramoff "was an equal money dispenser, that he was giving money to people in both political parties."

Wash Post Teams with Sen. Reid to Distort Bush Remarks

For Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid and the Washington Post, teaming up to claim President Bush said something he didn’t say is as easy as one, two, three.

If you doubt that, read the first three paragraphs of this Washington Post story, Democrats Criticize Bush For Saying DeLay's Innocent. Then look at what the President actually said.

Here are the Post's paragraphs:

Democratic leaders sternly criticized President Bush Thursday for saying former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, is innocent of felonious campaign finance abuses, suggesting his comments virtually amounted to jury tampering before DeLay stands trial.

"The president of the United States said a jury does not need to assemble, that Tom DeLay is innocent," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "To have someone of his stature, the president of the United States, prejudge a case is something I've never seen before."

During an interview Wednesday on the Fox News Channel, Bush was asked whether he believed DeLay was innocent of the charges of money laundering and conspiracy that led to his indictment and resignation from the House Republican leadership in September. "Yes, I do," the president replied.

Andrea Peyser claims New York Transit Union "Far More Treacherous, Selfish and Insane" Than 9/11 Hijackers

In a column in today's New York Post, regular columnist Andrea Peyser compared striking transit workers to the terrorists that carried out the 9/11 attacks, and found the union to be worse! In her column, Ms. Peyser talks to businessmen whose businesses survived the treachorous attacks of September 11th, 2001, but now fear that the transit strike may drive them out of business. In the opening line of the column, Ms. Peyser writes: <--break--> "The 9/11 terror attacks couldn't kill his business. No the villains threatening to rob Jay Park of his livelihood are far more treacherous, selfish and insane." <--break--> Ms. Peyser goes on to report about other businesses adversely affected by the strike, but she fails to justify her seemingly radical view that the evils our society face in the form of terrorism are not as serious as the nuisance of a striking transit union.

Is The New York Times' NSA Story the Next Memogate?

It seems like a common pattern lately. A mainstream media outlet publishes a bombshell story, and within days, the whole thing unravels quicker than a cheap sweater swarmed by kittens. Such is beginning to look like the case for The New York Times’ eavesdropping controversy, which is showing a lot of wear and tear for its age.

Wednesday wasn’t a very good day for the ongoing health of this story, or for members of the media hoping that the recent revelations concerning National Security Agency espionage tactics could lead to impeachment proceedings against President Bush.

The day started with a former member of the Clinton White House voicing strong words of support for the Bush administration’s behavior. In a Chicago Tribune op-ed  entitled “President Had Legal Authority to OK Taps,” former associate attorney general John Schmidt refuted media protestations concerning the illegality of the National Security Agency eavesdropping on American citizens who are in contact with known members of al Qaeda without a court order allowing it to do so:

Media Prefer "Holiday(s)" to "Christmas" in Shopping and Layoff Stories

This is the second update (third installment) of a series that began just before Thanksgiving looking at how the words "Christmas" and "holiday(s)" are being used. I have sensed a couple of tendencies over the years and wanted to see if my suspicions were accurate this Christmas season, and did Google News searches on November 23, December 7, and this morning to investigate. Here are this morning's results (Dec. 22, 9AM ET):

Shopping--

- "Holiday Shopping Season" (using quote marks)--9,100 hits.

- "Christmas shopping season" (using quote marks)--1,150 hits.

Surveillance Debate: Today Show Quakes for Quakers

Who would have thought the peaceful Quakers* [though see info at foot of column suggesting some Quakers are not so harmless] would be used as a spearhead?

Yet ironically, in the debate over national security and surveillance, liberals are attempting to beat the Quakers' plowshares into swords.

This morning's Today show offered a prime example.

In to debate was that patrician of the left, Katrina vanden Heuvel of The Nation and that most unreliable of Bush defenders, Pat Buchanan.

Credit Couric for at least identifying The Nation as a 'liberal' magazine.  Needless to say she labeled Buchanan "conservative."

And in fairness, Katie hit Vanden Heuvel with a tough first question:

Today's Gaggle: December 22, 2005

Gaggle is a daily comic strip about the Washington press corps and Larry the press secretary. Larry deals with the shenanigans of reporters who couldn't imagine anyone voting for a Republican.

Click here for instructions on running Gaggle daily on your own site. There's also an archive of previous toons available here.