NB Extra

With the president mentioning "global climate change" in his State of the Union, CNN’s Miles O’Brien was happy he finally mentioned it. But, of course, he’s not doing enough and "more drastic action is needed.". Because his proposals are voluntary and not mandatory, it is "essentially toothless." O’Brien featured Gene Karpinski of the liberal League of Conservation Voters to call for "mandatory caps on global warming," but featured no contrary view.

The CNN anchor then predicted a very grim future.

Miles O’Brien: "Bush’s remarks were a small concession to what an overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe is a huge problem. They say in the coming decades, climate change will melt glaciers, flooding coastal areas as see levels rise. It will likely increase the frequency of extreme weather events like catastrophic hurricanes and it could lead to entire species going extinct, such as polar bears which are already struggling as their arctic habitat melts."

CORRECTION: An earlier post incorrectly said none of the evening newscasts carried a mention of the falling gas prices. I apologize for the error.

Gasoline costs nearly 20 cents less than it did the same time last year, but the good news merited only a passing mention on the night before President Bush’s State of the Union address. By contrast, the networks spent more than 10 minutes combined interviewing 2008 presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.).

"The price of gasoline fell by 6 cents last week to an average of about $2.16 a gallon nationwide – a 14-cent decline over three weeks,” the Associated Press reported January 22. AAA's Fuelgaugereport.com, which displays data from the Oil Price Information Service, shows similar data.

"Retail gasoline prices have fallen 17 cents from this time last year," and the price of crude oil has also been on a downward track, "down 86 cents at $51.13 a barrel Monday on the New York Mercantile Exchange," the AP reported.

ABC's Charles Gibson mentioned the drop in a 15-second bit on "World News," while CBS and NBC had no time for that good news. Each network, however, gave the junior senator considerable air time on its January 22 broadcast.

ABC anchor Gibson gave the former first lady the most face time with 5 minutes and 9 seconds in a satellite interview on "World News." NBC’s Brian Williams and CBS’s Katie Couric gave Clinton about the same time as a full-length news report. Clinton’s taped sit-down with Couric lasted 2 minutes and 40 seconds, while Williams’ taped in-studio chat was 2 minutes and 20 seconds.

Syndicated from a story posted on the MRC's BusinessandMedia.org

Here's part of what David wrote:

In a very poorly written article in the Washington Post, reporter Christopher Lee seems to find it remarkable that a lot of the health insurance groups that opposed Hillary Clinton-Care back in the early 1990s are now on board with a number of the new efforts at health insurance reform (and I use that last term loosely).

Lee notes:

An unbylined report on unemployment claims by the Associated Press is a classic of the genre (bold is mine):

The Labor Department reported Thursday that applications for jobless claims dropped by 26,000 to 299,000 last week on a seasonally adjusted basis. It marked the first time jobless claims have fallen below 300,000 since the week of July 22.

The improvement was much better than the decline of 9,000 that analysts had been expecting and provided further evidence that the slowing U.S. economy has not begun to seriously affect the labor market outside of specific industries such as housing and auto manufacturing.

SLOWING? Did AP ever consider that maybe claims are dropping because the economy may NOT be slowing?

It's not like there is a lack of evidence of continued and probably accelerating growth:

Clark is talking about the possibility of military action against Iran:

"How can you talk about bombing a country when you won't even talk to them?" said Clark. "It's outrageous. We're the United States of America; we don't do that. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the military option is off the table - but diplomacy is not what Jim Baker says it is. It's not, 'what will it take for you boys to support us on Iraq?' It's sitting down for a couple of days and talking about our families and our hopes, and building relationships."

When we asked him what made him so sure the Bush administration was headed in this direction, he replied: "You just have to read what's in the Israeli press. The Jewish community is divided, but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office seekers."

On Tuesday’s O’Reilly Factor, guests Michelle Malkin and Kirsten Powers offered what they thought were the top stories of 2006. The number one story on Michelle Malkin’s list was "mainstream media war coverage." Malkin spoke of the "eroding credibility" of the mainstream media from leaking classified information to doctoring photos and airing terrorist propaganda. This prompted her to conclude that there are "a lot of people questioning which side of the war these mainstream media outlets have been on." The entire transcript is below.

Bill O’Reilly: "Alright Michelle, surprisingly mainstream media war coverage. Why was that your top story?"

Michelle Malkin: "Well, I think that the slow and steady erosion of mainstream media credibility has been going on for quite a while, but 2006 was really a milestone. And I did a little poll on my website, michellemalkin.com, asking people who they thought was the worst media performer of the year. And the New York Times ran away with the prize. And I think they started off the year, if you'll recall, blabbing about the NSA's domestic surveillance program. And there was a huge uproar about that from the public. The New York Times refused to acknowledge that this program was very valuable in gathering intelligence and information that was helping in the War on Terror and our prosecution of the War on Terror. And they didn't listen to the public. I mean they went on to blab about, about a number of programs, and they set a role model for other papers. You saw the USA Today and the Los Angeles Times blab about another top secret program, that was-"

When does a protest that includes a total of approximately 45 people spread over 3 US cities merit national media coverage?  When the protest is anti-American and pro-terrorist.  That was the case of the “emergency” protests sponsored by Ramsey Clark’s International Action Center decrying the execution of Saddam Hussein. According to the AP, the protests were “small rallies” with “a few dozen activists” in Times Square, 15 “anti-war demonstrators” in Detroit and “five protesters” in Boston. Given the media’s penchant for inflating the attendance at any anti-American event, the number 45 is probably too generous.

While he wielded a heavy hand to maintain control, Saddam also sought to win public support with a personality cult that pervaded Iraqi society. Thousands of portraits, posters, statues and murals were erected in his honor all over Iraq. His face could be seen on the sides of office buildings, schools, airports and shops and on Iraq’s currency.

Don’t forget that Saddam Hussein received something like 100% of the polls in the 2002 "referendum" that granted him another seven years of power. Sure, none of the families of the millions killed in his name or the hundreds of thousands of people who have been reported to have been starved, tortured and brutalized by those loyal to Saddam bothered to come out and vote against him - he was a damn likable guy.