Media now criticizing Obama for mentioning capture of bin Laden

During ABC's This Week yesterday, there was an unfortunate back and forth - several times in fact - in which PBS' Gwen Ifill and ABC's Jonathan Karl seemed to criticize the President, and his surrogates, for noting that President Obama finally captured Osama bin Laden. (Tapper simply made a quick jest about the fact that the campaign was obviously pushing the issue, he's done good reporting on this - the other two seemed actually critical of the campaign's decision.)

This was disturbing on numerous levels.

First, the Romney campaign has been mocking the President for a while on this point, suggesting that the President has nothing to be proud of (because Romney thinks President's don't matter during wartime, the military runs itself - that admission is a frightening window into a future Romney administration). So it's disturbing that the media would play into a false Romney talking point.

Second, I'm disturbed because capturing and killing Osama bin Laden was a huge deal. It is clearly on a par with saving the economy from a Great Depression and passing health care reform. And at the very least, it's easily the President's number one foreign policy victory.

So why exactly are Democrats supposed to now stop talking about the President's number one foreign policy victory?

It's not entirely clear. Read on:

WESLEY CLARK: I do disagree, because I think this is a consistent Republican narrative that Democrats are soft on defense, but we've a Democratic president who's been strongest on national security. He's completely taken the foreign policy and national security argument away from the other side.

He reinforced in Afghanistan. He got us responsibly out of Iraq. We took Osama bin Laden. He's been firm. He's been visionary. He's been tough. He's decisive.

GWEN IFILL: Not much immediately. But, you know, I find it really interesting, Jake, that a week ago we were post-convention and we were completely consumed with what we talked about at those conventions, not foreign policy, not at either convention, unless you count every Democrat talking about Osama bin Laden. Other than that...

JAKE TAPPER: You caught that?

IFILL: ... nobody really -- I picked up on that. I picked up on that.

CLARK: Actually, I don't think we are weaker. I think the whole point of going into Afghanistan in 2001, which President George W. Bush articulated, was Osama bin Laden, wanted dead or alive. And it was Barack Obama who really put the pressure on and got him.

IFILL: There it goes again. Once again, Osama bin Laden.

(LAUGHTER)

(CROSSTALK)

CLARK: But I think it's a huge -- it was a huge marker. It was a presidential decision in the -- and he was very much aware of President Carter's problem with Desert One. And he did against the advice...

(CROSSTALK)

JONATHAN KARL: Are you at all uncomfortable, though, with how political that -- I mean, that at the -- at the national political convention, that this military operation is used as a -- as a political talking point over and over again?

(CROSSTALK)

CLARK: But here's the -- here's the...

(CROSSTALK)

KARL: The vice president talking about putting him on bumper stickers?

CLARK: We've had, since the Vietnam War, the consistent refrain has been Republicans are the daddy party, Democrats are the mommy party, Republicans are strong, robust, Democrats are soft and weak and want to negotiate, want to apologize. It's simply not true.

We're stronger. We're safer. Barack Obama has been a very robust, muscular -- has a very robust, muscular foreign policy. And as George said earlier, what's happened in the Middle East has lots of factors and lots of causes underneath. It has nothing to do with rhetoric from Washington.

Why exactly should Democrats be "uncomfortable," at a political convention for the upcoming election, talking about our number one foreign policy success, when that is exactly what conventions are about, talking about the policy successes of the nominee?

Funny how the Republican bear hug of September 11, going so far as to hold their convention in NYC in 2004, after they had berated Democrats for holding their convention in NYC in the 90s, didn't bother the media.  It didn't bother them when Rudy "A noun, a verb, and September 11" Giuliani incessantly brought up 9/11, whether to help his own personal business or his party (or both).  More from the Washington Post, back in 2004:

Republican officials said Sunday that they plan to make Sept. 11 a focus of the week in a convention that is also intended to soften some of the party's ideological edges and broaden Bush's appeal to the political middle.

"How you approach the world after September 11th is a factor in this election," Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie said at a lunch with reporters Sunday. Noting that Democrats at their convention last month also spoke about the attacks, Gillespie said ignoring them would be like "a convention in 1864 that didn't take into account the Civil War."

Then there was the Bush campaign ad campaign around September 11.

President Bush's day-old reelection advertising campaign generated criticism and controversy yesterday, as relatives of the victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist strikes charged that television commercials using images from the attacks were exploiting the tragedy for political gain.

But when Democrats mention their number one foreign policy success when talking about whether their president has, or has not, been a foreign policy success, Democrats are very bad people who must be mocked and silenced.

I'm not entirely sure why Ifill and Karl find this objectionable.  But for a lot of us, killing Osama bin Laden was a huge deal.  Emotionally, for starters.  And you'd better believe that when George Bush called off the hunt for bin Laden only six months after September 11, and Barack Obama then caught the bastard, Democrats are going to talk about it.  And they should.

What other top successes of the Obama administration is President Obama not permitted to talk about when asked about whether his administration was a success?

And finally, just imagine what the Republicans would have done had they caught bin Laden.  We'd never hear the end of it for the next 30 years.  And the media would say nothing about it.

PS I've noticed that often when I post any media criticism I get some responses about how all journalists suck.  They don't.  And Tapper, in particular, has been excellent over the years.  I've worked with him a long time, he's one of the good guys in terms of really doing his job well and accurately.  That doesn't mean we can't from time to time post a critique when things go south.  It also doesn't mean that the folks we're critiquing are bad people, or even bad journalists.  Some are.  Many aren't.  Remember: Conservatives want to destroy the media, liberals simply want it to do its job. Read the rest of this post...

OBL-killing Navy SEAL, outed by Fox, now targeted by Al Qaeda

It's not an overstatement to say that Fox News has endangered the life of a Navy SEAL and his family, an American hero who led the successful raid to kill Osama bin Laden.

It's now a real problem, with serious life-or-death consequences.  From NBC News:

Users on several militant Islamic websites affiliated with al-Qaida have posted the name and photo of a former Navy SEAL identified as the author of an upcoming book on the commando raid that killed Osama bin Laden. The posts called for his "destruction" in revenge for the al-Qaida founder’s killing.

"We pray to Allah for his destruction sooner rather than later," said one of the posts.

"Oh Allah, make an example of him for the whole world and give him dark days ahead," read another.

Among the website publishing the death threats was the "Al-Fidaa" web forum, which al-Qaida uses to distribute its media and public communications, said Evan Kohlmann, an NBC News consultant and a terrorism analyst at Flashpoint Partners, a global security firm.

And we have Fox News to thank for endangering this American heroes life:

Fox News on Thursday identified the author of the book, which is titled "No Easy Day: The Firsthand Account of the Mission That Killed Osama bin Laden," as a 36-year-old former SEAL from Wrangell, Alaska. The Associated Press later said it had confirmed the author’s identity. (NBC News is not identifying the former SEAL.)

Note from John: As Chris noted yesterday, Fox, which is a GOP propaganda outfit, could have been motivated by a desire to help Mitt Romney (ya think?).

Romney decided recently to use the killing of bin Laden as a "negative" for President Obama. This is a typical GOP election ploy - going after their opponent's strengths. An example was when Republicans mocked John Kerry, for having received a purple heart for being injured while saving a number of US service members in Vietnam, by putting fake little bandages on their faces during prime time at the GOP convention - and no one in the GOP stopped them, in fact they apparently facilitated it.

This time, Romney and the GOP are mocking the killing of Osama bin Laden and how President Obama handled it (apparently, killing OBL, a few years into office, when GWB couldn't pull it off (and basically gave up shortly after 9/11 - Bush actually called off the hunt for bin Laden only six months after September 11) is a "bad" thing).

Keep in mind that Mitt Romney, following in George Bush's footsteps, said he would have never ordered the successful raid against bin Laden in Pakistan.

The only problem? This Navy SEAL, who led the raid on bin Laden, was writing a book about the raid that most likely would have shown the world exactly how President Obama handled the raid (excellently, per the admiral who oversaw the operation).  So the Navy SEAL, this American hero, had to be stopped at all costs, lest he undercut Mitt Romney's apparently embarrassment over the US - over President Obama - having killed bin Laden when Romney said he would have let bin Laden go.

So what happens next?  Fox "magically" gets the name of the SEAL and leaks it, knowing full well that Al Qaeda would threaten to kill this man and his family.  And voila, only 24 hours later, Al Qaeda has now threatened him.

Mitt Romney made this happen.  It was Romney's initial decision to let bin Laden go, and it was Romney's decision to mock the commander in chief, President Obama, for having caught bin Laden.  And as a result, the GOP noise machine went into full gear to take down anyone who stood in the way of Romney's smear on the commander in chief and our troops.

So now an American hero and his family are in danger because Mitt Romney didn't have the guts to order the raid on bin Laden.

Read the rest of this post...

Fox News outs Navy SEAL who led bin Laden raid, endangering him and his family

So Fox News has decided to name the anonymous Navy SEAL who authored an upcoming book about the rain on OBL.  Up until now the names have been kept secret out of fear for the lives of those SEALs.  They and their families would make perfect Al Qaeda targets now and in the future.  And now they are, thanks to Fox.

This of course is not long after Fox News - the same journalist who outed the SEAL, in fact - blasted President Obama for discussing the Navy SEAL raid that killed Osama bin Laden - Fox claimed at the time that leaking details of the raid like, oh I don't know, maybe the names of the guys who did the raid, might endanger their lives (Obama did not release their names).

Fox News is like the Republican Party (like?) who will say anything on any day as long as it's the opposite of what a Democrat said.  And this situation is very much like the Valerie Plame situation in which the Bush White House outed an undercover CIA agent, ruining her career and harming national security, in order to seek political retribution against anyone not buttressing GOP talking points, like the Navy SEAL whose story could undercut GOP talking points that America shouldn't not be proud of having killed Osama bin Laden.  So they outed him, broadcast his name to the world, including Al Qaeda, in order to silence him, permanently in the case of how Al Qaeda handles such things.

So the question today is why does Fox News want to risk endangering the life of a Navy SEAL who risked his life for his country?

Maybe because Rupert Murdoch did not grow up in the US, so he doesn't understand our traditions, or care about the safety of military personal?  We've seen his birth certificate, and it's not red, white and blue.

While most other media outlets chose not to out the author of the new book about the mission against bin Laden, Fox decided to publish his details and put him at risk.

More from ThinkProgress:

Fox News today published the name of a U.S. Navy SEAL who led the raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan last year that ended up in the al-Qaeda leader’s death. The SEAL under the pseudonym Mark Owen is the author of a book set to be released on Sept. 11 detailing the events of the raid. The book’s publisher says Owen “was one of the first men through the door on the third floor of the terrorist leader’s hideout and was present at his death.”

Fox News said that “multiple sources” told the news outlet Owen’s real name but Fox did not provide any details about its decision to publish it. The book seemingly provides some clues as to the SEAL’s real identity as, according to the New York Times, Owen “recalls his childhood in Alaska.”

And here's Fox last year discussing how dastardly it is to put our servicemembers at risk by discussing the raid:

Members of Navy SEAL team 6, the Special Operations unit responsible for killing Al Qaeda leader Usama bin Laden in Pakistan last Sunday, have expressed concerns about their safety and the safety of their families now that details of the mission have been made public.

Read the rest of this post...

The Fox News-ification of American newspapers has begun

For all of its foibles, the American media of the past several decades has been arguably one of the best, collectively, in the world.

I've done a lot of traveling.  And most countries have newspapers that follow the Fox News model - i.e., in bed with one political party (or union, in some places) and the news follows accordingly.  And for all the excuses that Fox apologists make about the difference between Fox's "news" and "commentary," spare us.  Fox lives to support the GOP, period.

While biased media is the norm in much of Europe, it's not in America (it was, once upon a time, but not for a long while now).  Other than Fox, our media had its foibles, but it was pretty good.  But now, per the NYT, the robber barons are back and the Republicans are spreading the Fox plague across the land, starting in San Diego.

Republicans learned long ago that they win more easily when they lie.  And the biggest impediment to a GOP lie is a fair and balanced media.  And rather than play the refs, like folks on the left do, the GOP figured they'd simply make their own media to replace the real one.  Get rid of the fact checkers and you can get rid of the facts.

But even by GOP standards, it's pretty sleazy what's happening in San Diego.  The local paper, bought by a conservative activist, now investigates government entities that don't do what the paper management wants.  It's the kind of thing you hear about in Europe, and particularly Russia (or the Third World), but now we have it in America too (like we used to a long time ago).

Well, the Republicans have been saying for a while that they wanted to go back to the traditional ways of doing things.  Apparently, they included corruption in that mix.

Read the rest of this post...

ABC's Carrie Gann sugarcoats anti-gay study paid for by anti-gay activists

This is the network that just put Ann Coulter on This Week, so perhaps I'm expecting too much actual journalism. Read the rest of this post...

AP is rooting for the Republicans again

This is pretty bad. From Media Matters:

The Associated Press published an article implying that Democrats are not focused on jobs and the economy, and are instead pandering to women by pushing a measure to protect women from workplace discrimination. In contrast, AP reported that the Republican agenda focuses on job creation.

The article, written by Laurie Kellman, reported on Senate Republicans' efforts to successfully block a law that would have required equal pay for women. The piece included a passage that strongly suggests that Democrats are not focused on jobs, while portraying concerns over fair pay to be hollow:

The vote was the latest effort by Democrats to protect their lead among critical women voters this presidential and congressional election year. Republicans are focusing on the No. 1 concern for all voters: jobs and the economy.

In suggesting that Democrats are not focused on jobs and the economy, AP ignores President Obama's repeated calls for Congress to pass a jobs bill. Friday, when the Labor Department reported that jobs growth slowed during May, the president again called on Congress to "get to work" and pass a jobs bill that economists say could create 2 million jobs.

So, Democrats are focusing on a bill dealing with women's jobs, but that's not "jobs" to the AP. The Republicans, who have pretty much been trying to force the country back into a Depression from the first day of Obama's term, are the only party "really" focusing on jobs and the economy.

I guess in fairness to AP they the Republicans are focusing on jobs and the economy... in order to destroy them in time for the election. Read the rest of this post...

Fox News creates 4 min. long anti-Obama attack ad for 2012 campaign

Not that there was ever any question as to Fox News' bias, but still.  Even by their standards, this is bad.  First, the video:



To his credit, Howie Kurtz blasted Fox's tepid response to criticism of the ad. I got on Howie's CNN show a decent amount, and it's fair to say that Howie has defended Fox in the past against accusations of bias. And he freely admits so in his story. So I do think it's particularly important that someone like Howie believes Fox has not only crossed a line in airing the attack ad, but that they've crossed an even greater line by refusing to fully repudiate it and take disciplinary action against the employees involved.

Wednesday’s video tarnishes the journalists who work at Fox News. Everyone knows that Fox & Friends is a right-leaning show whose hosts have disparaged Obama. During the 2008 campaign, Wallace accused the program of "distorting" what the candidate had said and declared that "two hours of Obama-bashing may be enough."

The fact that the hosts were happy with this latest video assault on the president is nothing short of revealing.

This is a moment of truth heading into the general election. Roger Ailes should denounce the video and criticize his network’s handling of it. He should make clear that such partisan garbage has no place on Fox News. Otherwise people will assume that Fox’s worst critics are right.

The problem is that this is Fox News. And at Fox, bias isn't a bug, it's a feature. Read the rest of this post...

Video: I debate same-sex marriage, and sex with turtles, on CNN

No lectures about the lack of jacket and tie - I'm in Chicago and don't have any business clothes with me, so you get casual John for this appearance. Also, there are the glasses, which are a first for me and TV - I'm getting cataract surgery later this week, so not permitted to wear the contacts. Now back to the substance. The segment was about media bias vis-a-vis President Obama's marriage equality announcement this past week (i.e., was the media too giddy?). The conversation veered into some other unexpected areas as well, but I think it went well overall. See what you think. JOHN

Read the rest of this post...

Former Murdoch journalist: stories made up, lived in culture of fear

Anyone who has been paying attention can't be surprised. The Rupert Murdoch empire has been bullying opponents for years so it's perfectly believable that they also bullied employees.

The former Murdoch journalist raises a key point about the way Murdoch's News Corp is run. News Corp desperately needs to be investigated because there's too much smoke around its operations. The Guardian:

A former News of the World reporter has claimed that journalists at the now defunct newspaper regularly made up stories and unethical practices were rife because of a "culture of fear" at the tabloid.

Graham Johnson, who worked at the newspaper between 1995 and 1997, said many employees carried out illegal operations and fabricated articles due to pressures from the top.

He told the BBC: "You can't get through the day on a tabloid newspaper if you don't lie, if you don't deceive, if you're not prepared to use forms of blackmail or extortion or lean on people, you know, make people's lives a misery. You just have to deliver the story on time and on budget, and if you didn't then you'd get told off.

"The News of the World culture was driven by fear, because it's a hierarchy, it's a military operation, it's a seamless operation."

Read the rest of this post...

Right-wing rag Daily Caller seems to admit Fox News is the head of the GOP

Tucker Carlson's online rag, The Daily Caller, is doing a series of hit pieces on Media Matters for America. Based on anonymous sources and conspiracy-minded dreck, the whole series is a hot mess. Today's feature piece is an attempt to discredit Media Matter's non-profit tax status, with the dramatic sounding headline of Media Matters tax-exempt status may face new scrutiny from Congress. They may face congressional scrutiny! Maybe!

My favorite part of the whole mess is when The Daily Caller claims that Media Matter's criticism of Fox News as not just an arm, but a leadership element, of the Republican Party amounts to Media Matters engaging in partisan, political activities which are prohibited by their 501(c)3 status:

Because Brock has referred to Fox News as a political organization and the “de facto” leader of the GOP, Gray and other critics have argued that Media Matters is engaged in the kind of direct political activity forbidden by IRS regulations.

The Daily Caller is trying so hard to kick-start a Republican Congressional investigation into Media Matter's tax status that they seem to have just conceded Media Matter's core criticism of Fox News, namely that it is a Republican propaganda outlet.  Otherwise, how could it be a violation of Media Matters' tax status to criticize Fox unless it really is a "political organization"?  I see a congressional investigation coming all right, but not the one the Daily Caller wants.  (And of course, if the Daily Caller is now claiming that Media Matters is a political organization for simply claiming Fox plays politics, doesn't that, under the same logic, mean the Daily Caller is violating its tax status by claiming Media Matters play politics? Maybe we ought to have an investigation of that too.)

Politics is serious business, and progressives should be concerned that a major piece of progressive infrastructure is under concerted attack from the right. But if this sort of nonsense from The Daily Caller doesn't make you laugh out loud, you're missing one hell of a performance. Read the rest of this post...

Fox News on UC Davis: Pepper spray nothing more than 'a food product'

And of course, UC Davis has liberals, so that makes it okay to abuse students in the eyes of Fox News. Click through for the sickening video. Gawker:

"I don't think we have the right to Monday-morning quarterback the police," O'Reilly says, "particularly at a place like UC Davis, which is a fairly liberal campus." God forbid! We'd never want to question Lt. John Pike's decision to generously and indifferently dust peacefully sitting protesters with pepper spray from only a few feet away. Especially given that Davis is, you know, a liberal campus! And, gosh, even if we were going to Monday-morning quarterback the police, shouldn't we remember, as Megyn Kelly tells O'Reilly, that pepper spray is "a food product, essentially"?

Since it's only a food product, maybe Megyn Kelly or O'Reilly want to volunteer to be pepper sprayed in the face -- I hear it's just like ketchup. Then again, Sean Hannity volunteered to be water boarded and like all chicken hawks, he chickened out.

More from Joe Coscarelli at NYMag (he has the video too):

"First of all, pepper spray — that just burns your eyes, right?" O'Reilly asks Kelly, the legal (and apparently chemical) expert. "It's like a derivative of actual pepper," she responds. "It's a food product, essentially."

According to Kelly, some people are wondering if the UC officers' spray had been "diluted."

O'Reilly concurred: "They should have had more of a reaction than that." In actuality, the spray appears to be of the MK-9 stream canister variety, at 0.7 percent strength, with a possible range of 18–20 feet and a minimum recommended distance of six feet.

Read the rest of this post...

CBS more than a few minutes short in 60 Minutes hit piece on Pelosi

From Ryan Grim at HuffPost:

[T]he knock on Pelosi (D-Calif.) leaves out critical details. "60 Minutes" charges Pelosi with purchasing 5,000 shares of Visa stock as part of an exclusive initial public offering and implies that her financial connection to the credit card industry had something to do with the halting of credit card industry reform.

"Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her husband have participated in at least eight IPOs. One of those came in 2008, from Visa, just as a troublesome piece of legislation that would have hurt credit card companies began making its way through the House. Undisturbed by a potential conflict of interest, the Pelosis purchased 5,000 shares of Visa at the initial price of 44 dollars. Two days later it was trading at $64. The credit card legislation never made it to the floor of the House," CBS reports.

But CBS leaves out that fact that the bill passed out of committee at the very end of the legislative session, as Congress was dealing with the Wall Street implosion and bailout, and that the chamber then adjourned until the election. More importantly, Democrats didn't have the votes for it in the Senate and the notion that President Bush would have signed it if they did is far-fetched.

CBS goes on to report: "Congresswoman Pelosi pointed out that the tough credit card legislation eventually passed, but it was two years later and was initiated in the Senate."

The implication is, apparently, that the Senate forced Pelosi's hand. Throughout 2009 and 2010, the House consistently passed stronger and more progressive legislation than the Senate, but in the scenario laid down by CBS, it was the other way around when it came to credit card reform. But in 2008, before the stock transaction, the House had already passed the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights over the objections of industry lobbyists.

What's particularly weird is that 60 Minutes appears to have based their story on a hit-book by a right wing activist affiliated with Breitbart. Read the rest of this post...

Why isn’t the media analyzing GOP claim that their "jobs" plan will create 5m jobs?

They probably feel that they've covered this before, since the GOP simply rehashed all of their old proposals. But it doesn't matter - we're in the middle of a nasty political season, the Republicans are filibustering any kind of economic recovery plan, and now come out with one of their own that no one serious thinks will do a thing. It's the media's job and obligation to analyze the plan and tell us if it will work or not.

Greg Sargent has more.

A quick thought on the Senate GOP jobs plan that was released yesterday. Many news orgs showed a glimmer of skepticism towards the plan, pointing out that it was mostly a rehash of previous GOP ideas — deregulation, tax cuts, a Balanced Budget Amendment, etc. But Republicans made a very clear claim yesterday: They said by repackaging these ideas in one place, it would help foster confidence and eventually lead to growth.

Yet I can’t find any serious efforts by news orgs to evaluate whether the plan would actually do what Republicans said it would do, i.e., foster growth and create jobs in the long run.

Read the rest of this post...

Reuters recants (sort of) anti-Soros/OWS hit piece. But how did it happen in the first place?

We wrote yesterday about an anti- George Soros hit piece that Reuters ran yesterday suggesting that Soros was behind the OccupyWallStreet protests because, among other things, Rush Limbaugh said so.

Reuters appears to have recanted their story.  They claim a technical glitch caused the problem.  They've edited it, and now rather than a "George Soros appears to be behind OccupyWallStreet" story, it's a "George Soros is not behind OccupyWallStreet, but hey, let's publish 32 paragraphs still implying he is and hope that no one notices."  Reuters left the rest of the story in tact.  Sure, they tweaked it a little.  But seriously, the story is now that George Soros had nothing to do with OccupyWallStreet, and it takes Reuters 32 paragraphs to say that they have no story?

It's the same story, folks.  They left up all the info implying a connection between Soros and the protesters, and simply changed a few words to, in essence, make it a "Brutus is an honorable man" hit piece on George Soros.

If there's no story there, then pull the story because - and I know this is really complicated, so read closely - why are you writing an incredibly long (for Reuters) story about something you now admit isn't a story?  And when most of the story is still implying there is a story?

Not to mention, if it was a technical glitch that led to the story being published in the first place, then why is the original "bad" version still online?  And why is the new, supposedly "good," version still implying throughout the entire piece that Soros is behind OWS when the title of the piece says he isn't?  Here is possibly my favorite "explanation" from Reuters for all of this:

Reuters's editor for ethics and standards Alix M. Freedman indicated that updates like this one are quite common at the newswire. "We update stories all the time when we get more information," said Parsons. "As soon as the spokesmen for Soros provided us with more information we provided an update."

Update? You call it an update that the initial story said Soros was behind the OWS protests and the new story says he wasn't, and then you leave both up? That's an "update"? This just in from Reuters: Rush Limbaugh, pedophile? Oh, here's an update, no he's not, but let's take another 32 grafs to imply that maybe he is, because it would be embarrassing to just admit our mistake and pull the story.

As AMERICAblog reader Andrew writes this morning, how did this piece happen in the first place, and what's going to be done to make sure it doesn't happen again?

I'm curious about how they came to publish a hit piece on OWS and then re-release it as a story in support of OWS that was just as poorly supported. The hit piece was ridiculous, relying on Limbaugh's opinion and tenuous (to say the least) financial threads. The followup edit said explicitly and without qualification, quote, "George Soros isn't a financial backer of the Wall Street protests", yet based it mainly on a statement by a Soros spokesperson. (In addition of course to having had no evidence in the first place.) How does this happen at a major news organization? Shouldn't some sort of Reuters ombudsman be exhorting the right-wing media to stop running the first piece which they obviously no longer standbehind? Are people getting fired over this?

Reuters opinion writer Felix Salmon has more on this, it's quite good. Read the rest of this post...

Majority of Americans see OccupyWallStreet favorable; Tea Party not so much

Via Greg Sargent at the Wash Post:

Americans favor Occupy Wall Street far more than Tea Party: Despite nonstop GOP and conservative disparagement of the Wall Street protests, the most detailed polling yet on Occupy Wall Street suggests that the public holds a broadly favorable view of the movement — and, crucially, the positions it holds.

Time released a new poll this morning finding that 54 percent view the Wall Street protests favorably, versus only 23 percent who think the opposite. Interestingly, only 23 percent say they don’t have an opinion, suggesting the protests have succeeded in punching through to the mainstream. Also: The most populist positions espoused by Occupy Wall Street — that the gap between rich and poor has grown too large; that taxes should be raised on the rich; that execs responsible for the meltdown should be prosecuted — all have strong support.

Meanwhile, the poll found that only 27 percent have a favorable view of the Tea Party. My handy Plum Line calculator tells me that this amounts to half the number of those who view Occupy Wall Street favorably.

Be prepared for Reuters to do a story about how 170m Americans are secretly behind the entire OccupyWallStreet movement. Read the rest of this post...

But what does #OccupyWallStreet want?

Cartoonist Tom Tomorrow has a pretty brilliant toon up at Daily Kos on the refusal by many, particularly in the media, to acknowledge that #OccupyWallStreet has a very clear conception of what they are protesting. Go give it a read. Read the rest of this post...

Tavis Smiley & Cornel West on Occupy Wall Street: "How will history regard the silence of blacks in this moment?"

Via Matt Taibbi, we find this great discussion between Tavis Smiley, Dr. Cornel West (him, and them) and Keith Olbermann about Occupy Wall Street (preferred hashtag: #OWS).

The endgame problem is discussed. (Olbermann: "The people who hae the answers [to what's wrong] probably aren't in the protest right now.") True? Not sure, though it's a good question to ask.

But note the issue of black silence (3:00 into the clip) — not total, of course, but far too muted — due to the presence of the first black president in the White House.

This is a critical problem if Occupy Wall Street is not to remain mostly-white. Obama's black defenders, Smiley and West seem to be saying, need to pick — either the issues or their guy. Sometimes you can't have both. Video after the jump.


An excellent chewing of these issues, and exactly what has to happen at this stage of a nascent Tahrir Square movement. As West says, "This is a step-by-step process" and we're in early stages of not just a national, but an "international movement."

Remember, the goal of Tahrir Square was constitutional change. In my view, the goal of #OWS should be the same — the return to the rule of law.

With that as a goal, all of the issues that Smiley and West discuss would be addressed.

GP Read the rest of this post...

Deeper links revealed between British PM's office and Murdoch's News Corp

GOP hero Chris Christie revealed his meetings with Fox News in the US (rather than being forced by a judge) but there are certainly many more secret meetings both in the US and UK between News Corp execs and politicians. It's all been much too cozy and has to stop. The Guardian:

Ed Llewellyn, David Cameron's chief of staff, last night found himself in the spotlight over phone hacking for the second time in a week after No 10 announced that he attended a Scotland Yard dinner attended by Neil Wallis, the former deputy editor of the News of the World.

Llewellyn and Andy Coulson, then communications director at No 10, attended a dinner hosted by Sir Paul Stephenson when he was Metropolitan police commissioner on 17 June last year.

Wallis, once Coulson's deputy at the News of the World, had been hired as a media adviser by the Met and was present at the dinner. Earlier this month Wallis was arrested by the Met as part of Operation Weeting, the main investigation into allegations of phone hacking.

Read the rest of this post...

WSJ admits coverage of News Corp hacking scandal was poor

Quite the understatement.

The Wall Street Journal "could have done a better job" when it published an interview with proprietor Rupert Murdoch in which he said News Corporation had made only "minor mistakes" in managing the phone-hacking scandal, according to the paper's special editorial committee.

In a report published in the Journal on Monday designed to answer critics of its phone-hacking coverage, the committee – set up when Murdoch bought the paper in 2007 – admitted that its journalists failed to cover the scandal as promptly as its rivals. It also offered criticism of a one-sided interview earlier this month, just 24 hours before News Corp lost two of its most senior newspaper executives, including Les Hinton, who was responsible for the Dow Jones newswires.

"[The Journal] could have done a better job with a recent story allowing Mr Murdoch to get his side of the story on the record without tougher questioning," the report said, adding "We have discussed this with the involved editors."

Read the rest of this post...

Report: News Corp UK execs threatened British Members of Parliament

Anyone want to bet against the same thing happening in the US? How long do you really need to think about it before you come up with a story about ridiculous attacks on Democrats? This bullying behavior has to stop.

Lib Dem insiders say NI officials took their lobbying campaign well beyond acceptable limits and even threatened, last autumn, to persecute the party if Vince Cable, the business secretary, did not advance its case.

According to one account from a senior party figure, a cabinet minister was told that, if the government did not do as NI wanted, the Lib Dems would be "done over" by the Murdoch papers, which included the now defunct News of the World as well as the Sun, the Times and the Sunday Times.

The accounts are only now coming to light, say sources, because the minister involved feared the potential for damage to the party, which was already suffering a dramatic slide in popularity after going into coalition with the Tories. They chime with reports from senior figures in the Labour party who say that Murdoch executives issued threats to Ed Miliband's office after the Labour leader turned on NI when the news broke that murdered 13-year-old Milly Dowler's phone had been hacked into by the News of the World.

Read the rest of this post...