Citing reports that the White House might select Tony Snow to replace Scott McClellan as Press Secretary, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann on Wednesday night ridiculed the journalistic integrity of Snow and FNC -- even claiming, contrary to what ratings show, that the number of people who “believe” FNC is becoming “increasingly smaller.” Near the top of his Countdown show, Olbermann noted Snow's Fox News affiliation before he snidely added: “As critics would suggest, as such he's already an unofficial White House spokesman.” To guest Richard Wolffe of Newsweek, Olbermann proposed: “If you go with Tony Snow of Fox News, are you not saying we're only talking to that increasingly smaller group of people who believe Fox News is the sole source of truth in the world?" In another segment, with the Washington Post's Dana Milbank, Olbermann, the host of a very slanted cable news show, presumed FNC is the only network anyone sees as biased: “Would the entire Fox News bias issue suddenly become connected at the hip with how the administration handles truth versus propaganda?" Milbank quipped: "I'm not sure it would necessarily be bad for the White House, but it does raise some questions. We first have to ask if Tony's going to get back pay?”

Of the three broadcast network evening newscasts, the NBC Nightly News delivered the most negative assessment of the situation facing a White House which made some personnel changes, with reporter David Gregory using the moves as a chance to resurrect the Plame case and to maintain, in an amazing coincidence of his personal agenda matching that of “Republicans I've been talking to,” that “the President needs a Press Secretary who will be more open with the media." CBS's Jim Axelrod also got in a snarky shot that certainly put imagery over substance: "The metaphor of the day came from the President's chopper. Technical problems kept it from getting off the ground, just like grounded poll numbers and a stalled agenda are making it harder to fill top jobs.”

NBC anchor Brian Williams led his newscast: “These are tough times these days at the Bush White House. The President's approval rating has hit its lowest point yet. Complaints have been coming in from fellow Republicans. And there is concern the coming midterm elections this year could spell colossal defeat for his own party.” Gregory proceeded to bring up how the portfolio change for Karl Rove “comes at a time when Rove remains under investigation in the CIA leak case.” Moving on to McClellan, Gregory again raised the Plame matter: "But his critics, including Republicans close to the White House, felt McClellan wasn't effective, didn't click with the press corps and lost credibility during the leak investigation when he vouched -- incorrectly it turned out -- for two key figures in the case, Scooter Libby and Rove." (Transcript follows.)

After hearing that Sami Al-Arian confessed to a dirty laundry list of terrorism related activities, I was eager to see how the liberal St. Petersburg Times would handle the story. Today they posted an editorial about "The Real Al-Arian," writing about all the horrible things he has done and lies he told. But is that an accurate account of the role the Times played in defending him? Maybe when you consider it is a newspaper that employs a former ACLU director as a columnist and has a Huffinton Post contributor for a reporter and an F.B.I. wiretap exposing a Times reporter acting as Al-Arian's media coach.

With the benefit of this hindsight, hindsight that the rest of us had little problem seeing in foresight, let's take a look at some past quotes. One has to wonder why a huge newspaper with vast resources couldn't see what the rest of us saw so easily.

Robyn Blumner: "...[USF President] Genshaft's stated intention to fire tenured computer science professor Sami Al-Arian due to the swirl of controversy over his activist Islamist views. Here Genshaft cannot deflect blame for besmirching the university's reputation. She made the call, and it's once again the wrong one for academic freedom and free speech...

THE DNC ALLERT
4/19/06

We applaud everyone for their efforts to dethrone Mr. Rumsfeld.

Our morning shows, media, and evening news are to be congratulated for their extended focused work. Regardless of the fact that we are now leaving him behind, you have assisted in creating a bold impression of which we will always have the opportunity to return and work from.

TALKING POINTS

At this time we are moving on (no pun intended) to yet another area, the generals. Not only are there ex-generals who participated in the war efforts but conservatives who support them. Realize that our opponents will counter with ideas such as our generals are foregoing future employment opportunities or are turning on the country they once fought for and understand these same people now understand what is right. Direct your questions to focus on the latter. Diplomacy will save lives.

Actor Dennis Quaid was on this morning's Today show promoting his new movie American Dreamz whose movie poster proclaims: "Imagine A Country Where The President Never Reads The Newspaper, Where The Government Goes To War For All The Wrong Reasons And Where More People Vote For A Pop Idol Than Their Next President." But according to Quaid the movie is, "not a political statement," and that he’s "not a Bush-basher." Katie Couric outed Quaid as a Gore voter in 2000 but tried to give him cover by noting he voted for Bush in 2004, however she had praise for Quaid’s co-star Mandy Moore’s performance in Saved, a movie that mocks Christians.

The bad news keeps coming for the Bush administration, at least that’s what we were told on PBS’s "Washington Week." For those not familiar with the program, it is moderated by Gwen Ifill, and is a roundtable discussion of reporters, each reporter taking a turn focusing on a political topic while the others ask them questions.

This week, one of the guests was Doyle McManus from the Los Angeles Times who discussed President Bush’s low approval ratings. Ms. Ifill introduced the topic:

"But if Donald Rumsfeld is having some credibility problems with the senior military, it pales in comparison to the credibility problems President Bush appears to be having with the American people. A new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll shows more than twice as many people strongly disapprove of the president's performance as strongly approve."

In the past couple of weeks, you haven’t been able to swing a dead cat without hitting some retired general complaining about the war in Iraq, and how that nation and its leader represented no imminent threat to America or the globe. One of the more prominent members of the hindsight is 20/20 crowd is former Clinton CENTCOM commander Gen. Anthony Zinni who has now conspicuously stated that he never saw any proof that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. Of course, this has been debunked by the recent revelations of a February 29, 2000 briefing by Zinni to Congress wherein the general made it quite clear that “Iraq remains the most significant near-term threat to U.S. interests in the Arabian Gulf region” stating quite unequivocally that Iraq either possessed or was pursuing WMD.

Yet, another bizarre oddity concerning the media’s acceptance of Zinni’s current position is the revelation that in the year 2000, Zinni actually briefed senior Clinton administration officials concerning a massive military strategy to overthrow Saddam. As reported by the Chicago Tribune on October 2, 2000: “Zinni has briefed senior administration officials on a secret war plan that details how the U.S. military, with limited allied help, would seek to topple Hussein. The effort would be massive, involving possibly as many as half a million troops, according to one knowledgeable official.”

The article continued:

Remember former Time contributor Nina Burleigh? She won our Quote of the Year award in 1998 for proclaiming to the Washington Post: "I would be happy to give him [Clinton] a blow job just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs." She also was a runner-up in a Hillary-worship category in 2000. (Screen shot is from an October 15, 1998 appearance on CNBC's Hardball when, as detailed by the MRC CyberAlert, Chris Matthews asked her why she had proclaimed she "would give the President the kind of sex that he got from Monica Lewinsky.")

Burleigh has written a piece for Salon.com (a liberal site, yes, but still viewing a corporate commercial is required) about how her son was molded into a little patriotic clone in small-town New York and how she learned that she, too, could love America, if only Bush wasn't ruining it with that vile war in Iraq:

Jon Friedman in MarketWatch claims that the Pulitzer awards given to anti-Bush journalism reflects the nation's growing discontent with Bush. Therefore, he claims, the awards were not out of touch with the American public like so many other awards shows. But high approval ratings did not stop the press from attacking Bush and inventing scandals, and certainly neither do low ratings.

Many awards presentations are accused of being out of touch with the public or even appearing to be popularity contests. But I contend that many of the Pulitzer Prizes, handed out on Monday, accurately reflected the nation's growing discontent with President Bush....

The wiretapping story seems like the most compelling one of all. It has dominated the Washington talk shows for months and triggered a slew of fascinating sub-plots. The administration has contended that it needed to counter the threat of domestic terrorism while critics have said the program was a blow to civil liberties and reduced individuals' privacy.

The CBS Early Show this morning continued its tradition of "fair and balanced" reporting, as they addressed the interminable firestorm that has surrounded Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, seemingly since he was first appointed 5 1/2 years ago. They addressed the Rumsfeld issue twice in the first hour, and both times the focus was on the critics and criticism. There were no defenders of Rumsfeld in evidence, save for short clips from the President and the SecDef himself, and their comments were immediately followed by critics explaining how they're lying.

The first segment was the "straight news" report from CBS White House correspondent Bill Plante. This segment did include short clips from Bush and Rumsfeld, but immediately followed by "balancing" their comments with those of critics.

Sometimes they just can’t contain themselves.

On April 10, left-wing organizations held a massive rally in Washington and other cities, demanding rights (and taxpayer benefits) for illegal aliens, and the liberal media couldn’t have been more excited. The networks had multiple stories, going from city to city, and breathless phrase to breathless phrase. CBS anchor Bob Schieffer played the worn cliche card: “Not since the protests of the Vietnam era has there been anything quite like it.” Bet ten bucks that CBS has said that about just about every large liberal protest they’ve covered. If that wasn’t enough to convince you, CBS also used on-screen graphics with earth-shaking metaphors like “Awakening Giant” to describe the protesters.

It's not clear what writer Tim Padgett is hoping to accomplish by the article, although it's possibly meant to put pressure on Jamaica and drive down tourism. Recently the BBC did a report claiming Iraqi homosexuals were better under Saddam. Now Time has an article sounding the alarm about Jamaica with the title: "The Most Homophobic Place on Earth?"

Perhaps Padgett hopes he can start a movement to boycott Jamaica as a tourist location. Starting a new drumbeat or a new consensus is the dream of all journalists. "How many drumbeats have you started in your career?" is the ultimate benchmark of journalistic accomplishment.

Scott McClellan, the embattled White House press secretary, resigned his position earlier today.

Karl Rove, Bush's closest adviser, will also be giving up his policy positions, the AP reports.

Fox News host and Bush 41 speechwriter Tony Snow is said to be a possible candidate for the press secretary spot. The Hotline blog throws out some more names including Dan Senor, Dan Bartlett, Victoria Clark, and Ron Bonjean.

Newsweek’s Eleanor Clift has certainly never been accused of being an impartial journalist. Quite the contrary, when compared with other antique media members, Clift has to be considered one of the most consistently biased – unashamedly and unapologetically appearing as though the ideas for her columns as well as her screechy sermonettes on “The McLaughlin Group” emanate directly from Democrat talking points in her e-mail inbox. 

This is why it must have been shocking for many readers to see the sub-headline of her most recent Newsweek piece (emphasis mine): “The Original Old-Fashioned Liberal: The descendant of Irish immigrants, Ted Kennedy badly wanted a reform bill. In the end, his own party stopped him.”

Now, before you get all excited over the possibility that Eleanor either had an epiphany or a rare moment of clarity, be advised that, in the end, she really didn’t blame the Democrats for anything.

When Sen. John Kerry lost to George W. Bush in the presidential election of 2004, the press turned its attention to 2008 and Sen. Hillary Clinton as a potential Democratic savior.

As Mrs. Clinton’s home state broadsheet, the Times has a front-row seat for the run-up to Election 2008. Yet a Times Watch study has discovered that ever since the Hillary-for-president talk heated up in earnest, the newspaper has used its seat more as a cheering section for Clinton than as a dispassionate perch for objective observation.

A reader wishing for a full, balanced picture of Sen. Hillary Clinton won’t get it from the New York Times, which has followed a pattern of mainstreaming Clinton’s liberal policies while throwing roadblocks in front of her potential Republican Senate opponents and playing down Clinton’s controversial remarks.

On this morning's Today show, NY Times foreign affairs columnist Thomas Friedman repeated his astonishing wish that the price of crude oil . . . go to $100/barrel ASAP. This is apparently a favorite Friedman mantra, as NewsBusters/MRC's Tim Graham and Brian Boyd have noted.

Friedman's theory is that extremely high oil prices are desirable because they would induce behavioral changes that would ultimately decrease demand and force oil prices way down. Here's how the exchange with host Matt Lauer unfolded:

Friedman: "I hope the Iranians get as crazy as they want. My attitude toward the president of Iran is 'you go, girl', because the faster we get to $100 a barrel, pal, the quicker we're going to get back to $20. Because when we go to $100/barrel, then you're going to see all these people change their behavior and their oil-buying habits and their car-buying habits in a fundamental way."

In Wednesday's Washington Post, media reporter Howard Kurtz profiled Fox News Channel's Brit Hume with the headline "Moving to the Right: Brit Hume's Path Took Him From Liberal Outsider to The Low-Key Voice of Conservatism on Fox News."

It's obvious from the headline. Once again, Fox is the only ideological news channel. In Kurtz's stories in the Post, the liberal media is usually treated as the objective media, never as liberal as they believe Fox is conservative. On April 4, Kurtz broke the Katie Couric story with the headline "CBS Prepares to Land a New Anchor." Liberal bias was not even mentioned in the story, as liberals worried about "residual sexism." The day before, the Keith Olbermann headline had only the right, not the left, in the headline: "A Gadfly With Buzz: MSNBC's Olbermann, Exercising the Right." On April 7, Meredith Vieira's arrival at NBC landed the bland headline "Who Wants to Be a Morning Host." (MRC did appear in that piece, in paragraph 19.) Last year, Bob Schieffer was "CBS News's Unstuffed Shirt." When the media pounded on Team Bush over Katrina, the headline rejoiced: "At Last, Reporters' Feelings Rise to the Surface." (Fox was included in the list of angry Katrina networks.)