Before you go further, finish your drink. Put down the baby. CBS MarketWatch columnist Jon Friedman reported today that raging lefty New York Times columnist Frank Rich stresses that he is "anything but an apologist for the lefties and all of their causes.'I trend liberal but I had no use for John Kerry,' he told me."
Riiiight. See the TimesWatch.org Frank Rich page to see if you agree. I'd just quickly cite, on the supposedly-indifferent-to-Kerry front, a Clay Waters report from September 8, 2004: "Frank Rich is back from vacation and in full foam in his Sunday column, 'How Kerry Became a Girlie-Man,' which begins: 'Only in an election year ruled by fiction could a sissy who used Daddy's connections to escape Vietnam turn an actual war hero into a girlie-man.'" Rich was also steamed that "Mr. Kerry was said to appear 'French.' (That's code for 'faggy.') His alleged encounters with Botox and a Christophe hairdresser were dutifully clocked on Drudge. For Memorial Day weekend, the redoubtable New York Post published hypothetical barbecue memos for the two contenders, with Mr. Bush favoring sausage and beer (albeit nonalcoholic) and Mr. Kerry opting for frogs legs, chardonnay and creme brulee." But Frank's not really a fan of the wronged "war hero." Mm-hmm.
The Washington Post's Dan Froomkin on the Post's website a few hours back rained on the parade for those who romanticize journalists who take jail time over divulging sources, saying to any and all of his journalistic colleagues reading him:
There is nothing intrinsically noble about keeping your sources' secrets. Your job, in fact, is to expose them. And if a very senior government official, after telling you something in confidence, then tells you that you don't have to keep it secret anymore, the proper response is "Hooray, now I can tell the world" -- not "Sorry, that's not good enough for me, I need that in triplicate." And if you're going to go to jail invoking important, time-honored journalistic principles, make sure those principles really apply.
Shortly after yesterday’s announcement of Rep. Tom DeLay’s (R-Tex) indictment for alleged campaign finance violations, the mainstream media began doing reports on the subject with largely similar content. A memo written by Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean posted at the Democratic Party’s website almost immediately after the announcement was made contained virtually the same “hotbuttons” as those subsequently raised in media accounts of the story.
What follows is a copy of that memo, along with comparisons to what has since been reported by leading media outlets on this subject:
As I began to read Martel’s critique of the show I was amazed to see that Martel took issue with a show that was designed to help people. To begin with Martel begins by characterizing the whole idea of the show and how it is presented as a “traveling ministry, with revival tents pitched in a different small town every week”, thereby insulting any and everyone who has ever attended a revival meeting of some sort.
Yesterday the New York Times went all out on a memo that they said was written by John Roberts, echoed by the media establishment, saying "John Roberts shows deep hositility toward the press."
The critique was vigorous, brilliantly written and informed by a deep hostility toward the press, said Anthony Lewis, the author of "Make No Law: The Sullivan Case and the First Amendment" and a former columnist for The New York Times. "It's quite an astonishing document," Mr. Lewis said of the critique. "He's not a fan of the press. He speaks of 'the zeal and insouciance with which the mass media assails public officials.' " The Sullivan decision, the memorandum said, overstated the social value of the press. "Any assumption that media coverage of government institutions and public officials is the centerpiece of effective democracy," Mr. Roberts wrote, "is misplaced."
There's just one problem; Roberts didn't write it. Bruce Fein, a Washington lawyer wrote the memo. Oops. On a brighter note, for Bruce Fein, the New York Times said he writes brilliantly.
How could something like this happen?
Three people quoted in the article discussed the Fein memorandum, provided to them by a reporter, on the assumption that it had been written by Judge Roberts.
And we all know that the New York Times is a major player in the assuming game.
On Monday I posted to TimesWatch.org about a review of Gretchen Wilson's newly-released album All Jacked Up, and how New York Times reviewer Jon Pareles lamented what he saw as a departure from hints of class warfare themes in Wilson's last album to the "market-tested populism" embodied in a new duet with Merle Haggard, Politically Uncorrect.
Not to be outdone, reviewer Britt Robson in her special to the Washington Post today tagged the song as "reactionary":
Wilson is both clever and credible invoking her cultural talismans and puncturing sophisticated airs. Calling motherhood a "Full Time Job" is hardly a novel concept, but it's a tonic to hear a singer fling herself into the subject with the fervor others reserve for love songs, to empathize rather than preach. "Skoal Ring" takes the tongue-in-cheek approach to a new level, as Wilson waxes about the sex appeal of a mouthful of chaw. In case you still don't get her drift, she brings on Haggard, the original Okie From Muskogee, for a vocal duet on the reactionary "Politically Uncorrect."
The dramatic aftermath of Hurricane Rita moved the latest “antiwar” rally to page 12 on Sunday's New York Times (although the front page accidentally sent readers to page 14). But the warp and woof of the reporting was the same. Reporter/publicist Michael Janofsky’s report followed all the traditional rules.
1. Highlight the massive turnout. “Vast numbers of protesters from around the country poured onto the lawns behind the White House on Saturday to demonstrate their opposition to the war in Iraq, pointedly directing their anger at President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.” Give Janofsky credit for noticing the rally’s central focus: anti-Bush anger.
2. Channel protest-organizer claims that this wasn’t another scattershot rally attacking every problem from a different radical direction. “[B]ut unlike the more varied themes of recent protests against administration policies, antiwar sentiment on Saturday was consistent throughout.” This certainly does not match conservative reporter Byron York at National Review : “For a demonstration that was ostensibly about the war, there was a lot of talk about other things. Especially Katrina.”
Editor and Publisher drags out Jimmy Carter's arms control nabob to try to keep the big media crew on message: forget correcting flasehoods, forget being fair to the barbarians at Fox News, just focus on Rove, Plame, WMD (or lack thereof), and John Bolton.
All credibility was shot when he didn't ask that the Times both correct their falsehoods and investigate Miller.
Faithful readers of NewsBusters are quite aware of the ever-changing opinion of the Army Corps of Engineers by America’s Old Grey Lady, the New York Times. As reported here and here, the Times for more than a decade has had a very negative view of the Corps. They have questioned the value of its work, its accounting practices, and the environmental impact of its projects.
However, in the days and weeks following Hurricane Katrina, the Times mysteriously reversed this view without any explanation, and began suggesting that if President Bush had fully funded the Corps, the levees in New Orleans would not have failed.
Having suggested just weeks ago that the Corps should have been basically given a blank-check for its services, the Times published an article today by Eric Lipton and Ron Nixon wherein it has reverted to its pre-Katrina view that the Corps wastes taxpayer money:
Byron Calame has gotten to the bottom of the Geraldo vs. NYT title fight. While Geraldo is the victor, the New York Times refuses to surrender the belt. In the end, the NYT public editor tells us what we already know; the New York Times is not a fair publication.
ONE of the real tests of journalistic integrity is being fair to someone who might be best described by a four-letter word. The New York Times flunked such a test in rejecting a demand by Geraldo Rivera of Fox News for correction of a sentence about him in a column by the paper's chief television critic....
Since Ms. Stanley based her comments on what she saw on the screen Sept. 4, the videotape of that segment means everyone involved is looking at exactly the same evidence. My viewings of the videotape - at least a dozen times, including one time frame by frame - simply doesn't show me any "nudge" of any Air Force rescuer by Mr. Rivera. (Ms. Stanley declined my invitation to watch the tape with me.) I also reviewed all of the so-called outtakes shot by Mr. Rivera's camera crew at the Holy Angels Apartments in New Orleans on the morning of Sept. 4. Neither the video nor the audio revealed any nudge of an Air Force rescuer.
Ever since the dust and debris had been cleared away from where once stood the World Trade Center, a cultural fight has ensued these many months over what kind of memorial should be erected in honor of the victims of 9/11, and the memory of that fateful day.
Today (25 September) the NY Times ran an editorial, “The Hard Bigotry of No Expectations.” It excoriates the Bush Administration for two principal “failures,” the bad response to Hurricane Katrina and the defective Iraq Constitution. Instead, the Times demonstrated that its entire staff is incompetent.
Regarding Katrina, the Times opines, “Four years after 9/11, Katrina showed the world that performance standards for the Department of Homeland Security were so low that it was not required to create real plans to respond to real disasters.”
The Times has dozens of its reporters and editors working on various aspects of hurricane coverage. Apparently, none of these crack “journalists” have yet discovered what the blogosphere has known for two weeks. There WAS an existing Evacuation Plan for Southern Louisiana. It was dated 1 January, 2000. It required (paragraph 5, page 13) the use of “public buses” for those citizens who “do not have, or cannot afford” private transportation.
“NBC Nightly News” anchor Brian Williams wrote an op-ed for the New York Times this morning. In a lot of respects, it praised former president Lyndon Baines Johnson, while certainly not flattering George W. Bush. In fact, the purpose of the piece appears to be to chastise president Bush for not going to Texas ahead of Rita by relaying what Johnson did forty years ago when Hurricane Betsy hit Louisiana:
“GIVEN President Bush's final decision not to head to Texas in advance of Hurricane Rita, it's worth noting that American presidents have long found both political riches and peril at the scene of a storm. A listen to the tapes of President Lyndon B. Johnson's White House telephone conversations of 40 years ago reveals that history does indeed repeat itself, even if presidential reactions and motivations have varied widely.”
Yet, the piece went on to show how LBJ didn’t want to go to Louisiana despite the efforts of its Senator, Russell Long. It wasn’t until Long properly conveyed a political benefit for the trip that LBJ acquiesced:
In its September 19 editorial entitled “Taking Full Responsibility” – an altogether too obvious reference to President Bush’s hurricane mea culpa - the New York Times continued what appears to be a full-court press on Congress to raise taxes in order to pay for the future costs of New Orleans reconstruction. In the view of the Times editorial staff, the economic health of the nation is at stake.
To drive the point home, the Times relied heavily on some rather tired cliches about tax cuts only helping the rich and budget deficits causing interest rates to rise, while swirving in and out of sound fiscal reasoning whenever it was necessary or convenient.
On the one hand, the Times is not opposed to the government borrowing money:
“Don't get us wrong. In the main, it makes sense to borrow for huge, vital and unexpected projects (World War II comes to mind). Such borrowing spreads the immense costs over generations, all of which presumably benefit from the extraordinary spending.”
Sigh. The day after Times Watch gave the paper an "attaboy" for delivering a somewhat balanced front-page story on the battle over a proposed left-wing museum at Ground Zero, comes a Friday editorial, "Freedom or Not?" It accuses those who don't want anti-American sentiments enshrined at the site of being "censors."
"The Lower Manhattan Development Corporation will soon decide whether ground zero will continue to include an International Freedom Center, or whether families of some 9/11 victims will be able to censor those plans. Yesterday, the Freedom Center submitted a report that specified in greater detail how it would be run and what it hoped to present in the way of programming. This became necessary when Gov. George Pataki capitulated to a misguided outcry from critics who fear that the center's main task will be to present anti-American views of 9/11."
The Times huffs: "But since late June the Freedom Center has been caught up in a vitriolic protest called the Take Back the Memorial movement, whose leaders claim for themselves the right of deciding for the rest of us what we should know and think about 9/11."
Take Back the Memorial's blog points out: "Some in the media, namely the New York Times, continue to write off Take Back the Memorial as a 'small number' of 9/11 family members. That is simply not the case, as evidenced by those that now stand with us," including the 20,000-member Uniformed Firefighters Association and three local congressmen threatening hearings on the matter.
In an op-ed in today’s New York Times, former president Jimmy Carter and former secretary of state James Baker answered their critics – one of them being the Times itself – concerning voter reforms they have proposed.
As reported by NewsBusters on Tuesday, the Times came out strongly against Carter and Baker’s proposals largely due to a requirement for voters to have proper identification to cast ballots. The Times’ contention was that this would have a discriminatory impact on the poor, the elderly, and minorities.
Today (22 September) the NY Times has a story from the Associated Press entitled “Afghan Count Reveals Kabul Indifference.” This article demonstrates that the AP and the Times are either mind readers, or are the original definition of the word "bigot."
The story recounts that turnout in Kabul in the midterm election just conducted was slightly over one-third of eligible voters. The writers and editors of this article then conclude:
“The drop in voter participation from the 70 percent recorded in last fall's presidential election has tempered celebrations of Sunday's vote as another big step to democracy.
“It sends a message that the government and its Western backers must move fast to rebuild the country, boost the economy and improve security or risk embittering Afghans disgruntled over the pace of change after decades of bloodshed and hardship.”
If your local movie reviewer seems snippier than usual in his/her take on the latest romantic comedy vehicle for Reese Witherspoon, Just Like Heaven, well, it might have a bit to do with the writer's politics.
Seattle Post-Intelligencer's William Arnold wasn't content to confine his scorn for the theatrical merits (or lack thereof) for Witherspoon's latest work. In his negative review, Arnold scolds the movie's writers for what he sees as the politics behind the premise of the film:
One kudo for the New York Times today for the front page story by David Dunlap on the important ideological battle over a proposed museum at the site of the Twin Towers ("Freedom Museum Is Headed For Showdown at Ground Zero").
Critics of the International Freedom Center, including many relatives of the victims of 9-11, contend that the proposed museum would slight the victims in favor of liberal history lessons.
In an influential Wall Street Journal op-ed, chief critic (and relative of a 9-11 victim) Debra Burlingame called the proposed museum "a high-tech, multimedia tutorial about man's inhumanity to man, from Native American genocide to the lynchings and cross-burnings of the Jim Crow South, from the Third Reich's Final Solution to the Soviet gulags and beyond."
She stated: "This is a history all should know and learn, but dispensing it over the ashes of Ground Zero is like creating a Museum of Tolerance over the sunken graves of the USS Arizona." Burlingame also noted the left-wing nature of many connected to the project, including radical Columbia professor Eric Foner and left-wing billionaire George Soros.
Much has been written in the news media as of late about the news media and how all of a sudden they've been acting like the news media. Well, color us nostalgic, but it was with great delight that we went to the 26th Annual News and Documentary Emmy Awards ceremony at the Marriott Marquis on Monday night and witnessed this inspiring sight: reporters walking the red carpet. We saw CNN, for example, interviewing CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR about reporting. This is what journalism is about, ladies and gentlemen. Should be about.
Yes, indeed. That's what journalism should be about; a liberal hack network talking to a liberal politically motivated hack reporter who is married to a liberal hack politician.
As Brent Bozell's latest column mentions, George Stephanopoulos wasn't quite accurate when he claimed "full disclosure" before his Sunday interview with the boss (the one that used to scream at him in "purple rages") that he worked with him in the 1990s. In fact, the day before the interview, he moderated (for cash? or just a personal favor?) a panel at the Clinton Global Initiative on "Religion, Politics, and Social Progress." The web page on the panel explained the religious right would come up: "They will look into the question of whether religious communities and organizations have taken some of the more sensitive issues (such as AIDS and women’s rights) seriously enough, and if not, why not." The panel did include one religious-righty -- Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention -- but there's no transcript posted, and no news accounts of the panel. Let's hope Mr. Land elaborates. But he wasn't the only ABC face to work for Clinton over the weekend.
In a recent editorial entitled “Denying Access to the Ballot,” the New York Times came out against some newly proposed voter reforms due to a fear that they might be discriminatory against the poor, the elderly, and minorities:
“It has been clear since 2000 that the election system is in serious need of reform. But the commission led by James Baker III and former President Jimmy Carter has come up with a plan that is worse than no reform at all. Its good ideas are outweighed by one very bad idea: a voter identification requirement that would prevent large numbers of poor, black and elderly people from voting.”
“But the bombshell recommendation is for the states to require voters to have drivers' licenses or a government-issued photo ID. That would not be a great burden for people who have drivers' licenses, but it would be for those who don't, and they are disproportionately poor, elderly or members of minorities.”
Having been a bank manager for six years, I know these statements to be 100% false.
Byron Calame, public editor of the New York Times, is having a difficult time getting columnist Paul Krugman or his editor to correct a mistake Krugman made in an Aug. 19 column.
In that column, which discussed the disputed 2000 presidential election, Krugman asserted that candidate Al Gore won two after-the-fact recounts conducted by news organizations. This, however, was not true as Calame pointed out in a Sept. 2 posting on the Times web site.
After spotting the error, Calame pressed Krugman for a correction. The columnist relented and printed a note at the bottom of a his Aug. 26 column. But the correction was also mistaken, causing Calame to continue to press both Krugman and his editor, Gail Collins, for a more accurate recorrection. So far, he's been rebuffed as the ombud relayed in a Sept. 16 posting:
A New York Times Sunday editorial, "Penguin Family Values," mocks conservatives for praising "March of the Penguins," a surprise hit documentary about penguin families: "The news that emperor penguins are exemplars of self-sacrifice, marital fidelity and steadfast parenting has brought joy to many religious conservatives, who see the brave birds in the documentary 'March of the Penguins' as little Christian beacons of family and faith."
The Times had further sophomoric mocking of those who would equate human behavior with animal: "Those who start looking outside the human family for old-fashioned values, in fact, will need to quickly narrow their search terms. They will surely want to ignore practices observed in animals like dolphins (gang rape), chimpanzees (exhibitionism), bonobo apes (group sex) and Warner Brothers cartoon rabbits (cross-dressing). Casting a wide net for chaste and saintly creatures, the mind flails, then comes up mostly empty. Yowling tomcats? Lazy, sexist lions? Preening peacocks? Better stick with the penguins."
On Tuesday, the Science section let the paper's liberal readership pile on in an unusually long letters section mocking those silly conservatives.
Yet two years ago, one of the Times' own ultraliberal editorialists did much the same thing, albeit with weaker logic, from the left side of the aisle.
The hurricane may have knocked anti-war Bush-hater Cindy Sheehan off the news pages of the New York Times, but she still has enough liberal cred to make a local splash, as shown in a Monday Metro Section report in the Times by Marc Santora on Sheehan's visit to a church in Brooklyn, "Mother Who Lost Son in Iraq Continues Fight Against War."
"Cindy Sheehan, the mother of an American soldier killed in Iraq, last night brought her campaign to end the war to New York, where she accused Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of not doing enough to challenge the Bush administration's Iraq policies. Speaking in front of more than 500 supporters in Fort Greene, Brooklyn, Ms. Sheehan, speaking of Senator Clinton, said, 'She knows that the war is a lie but she is waiting for the right time to say it.'"
Santora ignores the far-left nature of Sheehan's posse: "Since leaving Texas, Ms. Sheehan, of Vacaville, Calif., has been traveling around the country, rallying people against the war. Her entourage includes other parents who lost their children in the war, families of soldiers overseas, and veterans who have returned from Iraq."
Santora also ignores Sheehan's latest bizarre statement, but the New York Sun did not, noting: "Ms. Sheehan wrote a letter posted on filmmaker Michael Moore's Web site in which she accused the federal government of evacuating people unnecessarily in the days after Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast. 'George Bush needs to stop talking, admit the mistakes of his all around failed administration, pull our troops out of occupied New Orleans and Iraq, and excuse his self from power,' she wrote."
In what has become a daily ritual, another New York Times columnist thoroughly defamed and abused the president in an op-ed piece today. This morning, Frank Rich wrote:
“ONCE Toto parts the curtain, the Wizard of Oz can never be the wizard again. He is forever Professor Marvel, blowhard and snake-oil salesman. Hurricane Katrina, which is likely to endure in the American psyche as long as L. Frank Baum's mythic tornado, has similarly unmasked George W. Bush.”
Also of note, Rich demonstrated how Cindy Sheehan – remember her? – was just a pawn of the media while referencing how another of his cronies is now equating Katrina to Vietnam:
“It came only after the plan to heap all the blame on the indeed blameworthy local Democrats failed to lift Mr. Bush's own record-low poll numbers. It came only after America's highest-rated TV news anchor, Brian Williams, started talking about Katrina the way Walter Cronkite once did about Vietnam.”
What a difference a month makes: In August, it was Cindy Sheehan that represented Bush’s Vietnam as far as the were press concerned as reported by NewsBusters squad members here, here, and here. I guess anything that offers the media an opportunity to criticize the performance of the president is now akin to Vietnam.
Rich than predictably moved the discussion in a racial direction:
Despite the enormous popularization of blogging and other public media, the New York Times bucked the trend yesterday with an announcement that it will start charging readers a fee to read the articles of its opinion columnists.
In all honesty, when I first heard the news, I thought it was some sort of joke. Surely the Times wouldn't do something so stupid, especially after seeing the Wall Street Journal became a virtual nonentity online. The NYT's move is especially bizarre considering that since the Journal became a total subscriber site in the late 90s, it's been gradually moving toward freer content through the creation of OpinionJournal.com, periodic free subscription programs, and a recent campaign to free some articles which may be of interest to bloggers.
Sure, some people will be dumb enough to register for the program. But most people, especially those who have no idea who the likes of Tom Friedman or Paul Krugman are, certainly will not. That's because to most people, an opinion slinger is far less valuable than the stuff he or she writes. People develop relationships with columnists, it's true, but only after they've done so with their writing.
Friday brings New York Times reporter Richard Stevenson's latest biased "news analysis," "Amid the Ruins, a President Tries to Reconstruct His Image, Too." Tasteful metaphor, eh?
Twice in his story in the news pages, Stevenson cites as fact Bush's "faltering response" to Katrina, while again ignoring state and local (and Democratic) culpability.
"The violence of Hurricane Katrina and his faltering response to it have left to Mr. Bush the task not just of physically rebuilding a swath of the United States, but also of addressing issues like poverty and racial inequality that were exposed in such raw form by the storm. The challenge would be immense for any president, but is especially so for Mr. Bush. He is scrambling to assure a shaken, angry nation not only that is he up to the task but also that he understands how much it disturbed Americans to see their fellow citizens suffering and their government responding so ineffectually.
"So for nearly 30 minutes, he stood in a largely lifeless New Orleans and, to recast his presidency in response to one of the nation's most devastating disasters, sought to show that he understands the suffering. He spoke of housing and health care and job training. He reached with rhetorical confidence for the uplifting theme that out of tragedy can emerge a better society, and he groped for what he lost in the wind and water more than two weeks ago: his well-cultivated image as a strong leader."
When it comes to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the Times has never tried to pin or suggest blame lies anywhere but with President George W. Bush, despite ample evidence elsewhere of congressional and local failures. Stevenson continues mining that same vein:
"But if the speech helped him clear his first hurdle by projecting the aura of a president at the controls, it probably did not, by itself, get him over a second: his need to erase or at least blur the image of a White House that was unresponsive to the plight of some of the country's most vulnerable citizens and failed to manage the government competently. Whether he can put a floor under his falling poll numbers, restore his political authority and move ahead with his agenda will determine not just the course of his second term but the strength of his party, which by virtue of having controlled both the White House and the Congress for more than five years has trouble credibly pinning the blame elsewhere."
The New York Times buries its latest poll story on Bush on Page 18, perhaps recognizing the lack of news in the findings. Yet reporters Todd Purdum and Marjorie Connelly try their best in, "Support for Bush Continues to Drop as More Question His Leadership Skills, Poll Shows."
They open: "A summer of bad news from Iraq, high gasoline prices, economic unease and now the devastation of Hurricane Katrina has left President Bush with overall approval ratings for his job performance and handling of Iraq, foreign policy and the economy at or near the lowest levels of his presidency, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll."
The Times admits, contrary to its headline, that "The hurricane, alone, does not appear to have taken any significant toll on Mr. Bush's overall job approval rating, which remains stuck virtually where it has been since early summer. But the findings do suggest that the slow federal response to the hurricane has increased public doubts about the Bush administration's effectiveness. Fifty-six percent of Americans said they were now less confident about the government's ability to respond to a terrorist attack or natural disaster."
But the Times doesn't mention in its story that the public perception of Bush's handling of Katrina has actually improved this week, from a 20-point gap in a CBS poll a week ago (38%-58% approval-disapproval) to a 6-point gap in this latest poll (44%-50%). For that tidbit you have to dig into the poll questions online. (It's Question 8.)
The media continue to use the 60th anniversary of the United Nations as a platform to criticize U.S. foreign aid as “second lowest of any wealthy country.” This is part of an ongoing, celebrity-filled push to get the United States to give billions of dollars in aid – totally ignoring the massive contributions already made by American charities.
The General Assembly has been debating what are called U.N. Millennium Development Goals, which attempt to mandate that each industrialized nation give 0.7 percent of its Gross National Product to foreign aid. The media have used the event to misrepresent U.S. foreign aid and to highlight celebrities like actress Angelia Jolie, an outspoken supporter of increased taxpayer-funded aid.
ABC’s “Good Morning America” interviewed Jolie September 13, along with with Dr. Jeffrey Sachs of the U.N. Millennium Project. Sachs is author of “The End of Poverty,” in which he indicted the United States for supposedly lagging behind other countries in aid for the poor. The two have produced a documentary about a trip to Kenya that is being shown on MTV on September 14.