Appearing as a guest on Wednesday's All In with Chris Hayes on MSNBC, the Daily Beast's Michelle Goldberg praised Pope Francis as a "voice against the tyranny or the hegemony of global capitalism" during a discussion of whether the Pope should be chosen Time's "Person of the Year." Goldberg:
On Tuesday's PoliticsNation on MSNBC, as host Al Sharpton went after FNC host Bill O'Reilly for metaphorically complaining about a "war on Christmas" by liberals who have worked to water down the Christian holiday's public presence, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank took his own jabs at O'Reilly and Republicans.
After Sharpton opined that "I think the right just doesn't like the idea of a changing in America," Milbank began:
MSNBC took advantage of a golden opportunity to advocate its left-wing agenda on Sunday’s Weekends with Alex Witt. The host brought on Derek Thompson of The Atlantic to discuss the piece he wrote about a recent study on the cognitive effects of poverty. In a nutshell, the study found that being poor can actually lead to bad decision-making.
Naturally, Witt took this study as a chance to tout the welfare state and take a swipe at lawmakers who want to slow its growth. She asked Thompson:
For all his accomplishments, Henry Louis Gates might be doomed to being best remembered as the man whose arrest led to the "Beer Summit." But the Harvard prof had something surprising to say on today's Morning Joe: Gates questioned the need for affirmative action for affluent African-Americans, saying instead such programs should seek to help poor people, regardless of race.
Gates made the personal political, citing the case of his own two daughters, whom Gates described as having a "privileged" life."Do they really need to benefit from affirmative action?", asked Gates rhetorically. View the video after the jump.
Why are liberals in so much denial about liberal bias in the news? Why do they think they’re bending over backward to be “objective” doing that which Republicans see as partisan activism?
Daniel Froomkin of the Huffington Post – formerly of The Washington Post – suggests an answer. He is exactly the kind of liberal agitator in the newsroom who wants every news story to be a blazing editorial. Every reporter must divide the world clearly between Liberal Sense and Conservative Nonsense. His latest article is titled “Writing a Neutral Story About Something So Heartless As the Food Stamp Vote Is Not Good Journalism.”
Between August 13 and September 13, MSNBC's PoliticsNation host Al Sharpton has been so obsessed with FNC host Bill O'Reilly's criticism of food stamp abuse, the MSNBC host has on seven separate occasions played a clip of O'Reilly complaining that some food stamp recipients are "parasites" who abuse the system.
But Sharpton has repeatedly portrayed O'Reilly's comment as a general attack on the poor, as his PoliticsNation program seven times has played the same clip -- or a shorter version -- of the FNC host. O'Reilly, from the Monday, August 12, The O'Reilly Factor on FNC:
On Washington's NPR station WAMU on September 11, afternoon talk-show host Kojo Nnamdi organized a typically one-sided hour on food-stamp policy, with three liberal advocates trashing Republicans for proposing some kind of limit on skyrocketing "SNAP" spending.
But callers ruined the tilt by asking: What about fraud? "John from Chantilly, Virginia" talked about watching a person buy lobsters with their SNAP card. John asked if there was a party, and was told lobsters were all the dogs would eat. The NPR host then started a debate about corrupt governors in Illinois:
Following major electoral defeats, it has become a bit of a tradition for people on the losing side to try and figure out what went wrong and how to return back to political favor. Oftentimes, these books tend to devolve into laundry lists of issues rather than explore some of the broader themes of politics itself.
Last week, I spoke to one author who avoids those problems, I’m pleased today to offer a conversation with another one, Donald Devine, a man who has spent decades in public service in academia, in government in the Reagan Administration, and outside as a conservative commentator.
On Monday's PoliticsNation on MSNBC, host Al Sharpton again raised a distortion against FNC host Bill O'Reilly as he accused O'Reilly of applying the word "parasites" to "people in need," even though the FNC host was referring to people abusing the welfare system.
After Sharpton asserted that O'Reilly "slammed food stamp recipients as parasites," he played a clip of the FNC host. O'Reilly:
On Friday's PoliticsNation show, MSNBC host Al Sharpton reacted to FNC's Bill O'Reilly criticizing him the night before, as the FNC host had called out Sharpton for taking out of context his contention that some who receive food stamps are "parasites" who take advantage of the system, and divulged that he had made a donation to one of Sharpton's charities in the past.
After having tagged O'Reilly with "hypocrisy" in a plug before the segment, Sharpton brought up the donation from O'Reilly and declared:
In recent years, there has been a lot of discussion about the expense of the welfare state. There has not been much discussion about the effects of its expansiveness and generosity on those who qualify for its assistance, however. There also does not seem to be much of a realization of just how much more today’s beneficiaries receive.
Since the American establishment media are so utterly uninterested in asking questions that might undermine left-wing beliefs, we must turn instead to a new television series airing in the UK called “Benefits Britain 1949.”
One has to sift through the biased blather to get to it, but Mary Clare Jalonick's August 1 coverage at the Associated Press, aka the Administration's Press, of the House's plans to rein in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, still popularly called "food stamps," contains an important admission which most of the establishment press has avoided as the program's costs and enrollment have skyrocketed, all in the name of preserving the false impression that the program is exclusively about preventing people from starving.
As usual, one of those distractions is the tired idea that what the House is proposing represents harmful "cuts," when what is really occurring is a long overdue and yet still watered-down effort to target benefits to the truly eligible and prevent their disbursement to people who either don't need them or shouldn't get them (bolds and numbered tags are mine):