One of the complexities that is interesting right now in America is the populism that exists on both sides of the political spectrum. It can be confusing, can send mixed political signals, and quite frankly can overlap on various issues of interest.
David Sirota has been writing about this issue for quite some time and he appeared on CNN earlier today to discuss this very issue. Granted it is hard to delve into this issue in a 4 minute segment, but I think this clip is worth watching:
I think Sirota is largely right. People are very angry at the system that has created this mess and I think that the alliance of governmental and corporate interests has been and will continue to be a big problem that stands in the way of real reform. People from all political walks are angry by this as well they should be. The Republican Party is trying to frame this populism as simply opposition to this Administration that is currently in power. This has created this weird brand of "GOPopulism" that you see in certain tea-party/Glenn Beck movements. People need to see through this nonsense and actively work to push the Obama Administration toward meaningful reforms and away from caving in to corporate powers.
Showing posts with label CNN. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CNN. Show all posts
Monday, January 25, 2010
Thursday, December 24, 2009
The Promise of the Digital Age
Matt Yglesias makes some good points on the shifting of power between the political press and politicians in this post:
The first part is nothing new. Beltway journalists and major news networks have acted as stenographers to power long before the digital age, but I certainly agree that these negative reporting practices can be magnified by the increase in available outlets. Objectivity is not CNN allowing Newt Gingrich to argue over health care reform with James Carville for a five-minute segment. Journalism should examine the arguments made by each side, point out areas that are not true, and inform the citizenry.
Sarah Palin's comments about "death panels" were largely circulated and embraced by the political right over the summer. It is not enough to simply report that "Sarah Palin has gone on record saying that health care reform will create death panels if passed." That tells us nothing except what Sarah Palin says. You have to give credit to those on reputable Internet blogging sites that broke down the fact that Palin was wrongly characterizing voluntary end-of-life counseling as "panels" that would be putting citizens to death.
This is the promise of the digital age. Responsible blogging and independent media outlets have a real chance to expand their footprint online to try and steer us back to responsible and investigative journalism. This expanded bandwidth that Yglesias references is also the peril of the digital age. The poor tendencies of the corporate media have been so pervasive, that they can easily carry over into digital mediums and percolate through the population that much faster.
The important part about the Internet is that truth and reality have a fighting chance. Organizations like Talking Points Memo are being used as sources of information for some (like Rachel Maddow) in reporting important stories. This is a big step forward in one sense, but as we all know, it is an uphill battle. The tea-party movement demonstrates this perfectly. You have a movement that had a lot of their facts wrong, whipped into a fervor by a "News" organization, and resonating with a lot of very angry people to create an odd "grasstroturf" movement.
The Internet does hold quite a bit of promise (that must be protected), but truth and reality still face a challenge in a culture that has been ingrained into the talking head mindset.
Bandwidth used to be very thin. If you wanted to communicate to voters, you had to get the attention of one of a very small number of national television newscasts or one or two local newspapers. Now there’s much more bandwidth you can take advantage of. At the same time, budgets have declined. Consequently, campaign coverage now consists largely of reporting what candidates or their representatives said or even just putting two proxies on television and listening to them talk.
[...]
This is the promise and the peril of digital media. People can communicate much more directly with their constituents, the media elite have much less power, consumers are much better-informed about the things they want to look up, but there’s less of an authoritative common culture that can force the national conversation down avenues deemed important.
The first part is nothing new. Beltway journalists and major news networks have acted as stenographers to power long before the digital age, but I certainly agree that these negative reporting practices can be magnified by the increase in available outlets. Objectivity is not CNN allowing Newt Gingrich to argue over health care reform with James Carville for a five-minute segment. Journalism should examine the arguments made by each side, point out areas that are not true, and inform the citizenry.
Sarah Palin's comments about "death panels" were largely circulated and embraced by the political right over the summer. It is not enough to simply report that "Sarah Palin has gone on record saying that health care reform will create death panels if passed." That tells us nothing except what Sarah Palin says. You have to give credit to those on reputable Internet blogging sites that broke down the fact that Palin was wrongly characterizing voluntary end-of-life counseling as "panels" that would be putting citizens to death.
This is the promise of the digital age. Responsible blogging and independent media outlets have a real chance to expand their footprint online to try and steer us back to responsible and investigative journalism. This expanded bandwidth that Yglesias references is also the peril of the digital age. The poor tendencies of the corporate media have been so pervasive, that they can easily carry over into digital mediums and percolate through the population that much faster.
The important part about the Internet is that truth and reality have a fighting chance. Organizations like Talking Points Memo are being used as sources of information for some (like Rachel Maddow) in reporting important stories. This is a big step forward in one sense, but as we all know, it is an uphill battle. The tea-party movement demonstrates this perfectly. You have a movement that had a lot of their facts wrong, whipped into a fervor by a "News" organization, and resonating with a lot of very angry people to create an odd "grasstroturf" movement.
The Internet does hold quite a bit of promise (that must be protected), but truth and reality still face a challenge in a culture that has been ingrained into the talking head mindset.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Stenographer Alert!
I have often embraced Bill Moyers' assessment of our corporate media as "stenographers to power". I think this is a more accurate description rather than labeling the media as inherently liberal or conservative.
Here is a perfect example from Pam Benson over at CNN. In the story that you can find at that link, she reports that the White House has authorized an expansion of the CIA Predator Drone program. Benson sources the information to an anonymous "U.S. Official" and then states:
The quote above is how the story ends. What public good is served to the reader of this story by simply repeating what an anonymous "U.S. Official" says? Are these statements true or is this Official just trumpeting this government program because it is part of his/her job? We will never know because the source remains anonymous (it is never mentioned why) and Benson just acts as a stenographer and writes down what she was told. This type of story is a prime example of how the corporate media often gets it wrong.
A better, more critical story, would have also mentioned some more details about the controversial use of these predator drones. Perhaps it would have been relevant to mention the report that came out of the Pakistani paper The News last April that found that 687 Pakistani civilians have been killed in these drone strikes since 2006.
This Foreign Policy study counters the reports in the Pakistani paper yet still finds that about one-third of those killed in drone strikes are likely civilians.
I would think that this information would be relevant to an article about the White House expanding this drone program and to shed greater truth on the topic.
Instead, what we get from CNN's Pam Benson is a quick story that cites one anonymous "U.S. Official" who (while offering no evidence) claims that these reports are not accurate. Perfect if your idea journalism is simply writing down what Government officials tell you without looking into the validity of their claims.
Here is a perfect example from Pam Benson over at CNN. In the story that you can find at that link, she reports that the White House has authorized an expansion of the CIA Predator Drone program. Benson sources the information to an anonymous "U.S. Official" and then states:
The U.S. official took exception to reports that hundreds of civilians have been killed in the Predator attacks.
The official said the strikes are "extremely precise" against terrorist targets and that only a "small fraction" of those killed have been civilians.
Last May, CIA director Leon Panetta would not discuss the specifics of the air strikes, but he did say they were "very effective" and resulted in few civilian deaths.
The quote above is how the story ends. What public good is served to the reader of this story by simply repeating what an anonymous "U.S. Official" says? Are these statements true or is this Official just trumpeting this government program because it is part of his/her job? We will never know because the source remains anonymous (it is never mentioned why) and Benson just acts as a stenographer and writes down what she was told. This type of story is a prime example of how the corporate media often gets it wrong.
A better, more critical story, would have also mentioned some more details about the controversial use of these predator drones. Perhaps it would have been relevant to mention the report that came out of the Pakistani paper The News last April that found that 687 Pakistani civilians have been killed in these drone strikes since 2006.
This Foreign Policy study counters the reports in the Pakistani paper yet still finds that about one-third of those killed in drone strikes are likely civilians.
I would think that this information would be relevant to an article about the White House expanding this drone program and to shed greater truth on the topic.
Instead, what we get from CNN's Pam Benson is a quick story that cites one anonymous "U.S. Official" who (while offering no evidence) claims that these reports are not accurate. Perfect if your idea journalism is simply writing down what Government officials tell you without looking into the validity of their claims.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Lou Dobbs Continues his Post-CNN Media Tour
Lou Dobbs, freshly departed from his gig at CNN, stopped by The Daily Show last night. Jon Stewart extended the segment into a three-part conversation that is posted at The Daily Show's website and also right here:
I thought Stewart was pretty good in this conversation, but it wasn't his best. The conversation stayed very down to Earth and Stewart was able to challenge Dobbs on a few key points, but Stewart didn't touch on Dobbs' controversial stance on "illegal" immigration or on his recent birther comments. Stewart also allowed Dobbs to paint President Obama as a "far left" President which, in turn, framed Dobbs as being a centrist. Then again, Stewart is just the host of a satirical comedy show right?
One of the more important points that Stewart did bring up, which I believe is both revealing and central to this conversation, is the past silence of those who are suddenly criticizing the so-called destruction of our freedoms by the government. I have stated this in the past, but it is quite clear that during the last eight years, the tea-partiers and 9/12'ers were totally silent on these issues. It is only now, when there is a black Democratic President in the White House, when there is sudden outrage from the right and being adopted as a viable business strategy by a major "news" corporation.
If you want to take a look at a really interesting interview of Dobbs and a subsequent discussion, I point you to this interview that was conducted by Democracy Now! hosts Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez in December of 2007. Dobbs is confronted and forced to try and explain apparent inaccuracies that he stated on his broadcast. I will post some of the transcript below, but I highly recommend you follow that link and watch the entire conversation.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Exclusive - Lou Dobbs Extended Interview Pt. 1 | ||||
| ||||
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Exclusive - Lou Dobbs Extended Interview Pt. 2 | ||||
| ||||
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Exclusive - Lou Dobbs Extended Interview Pt. 3 | ||||
| ||||
I thought Stewart was pretty good in this conversation, but it wasn't his best. The conversation stayed very down to Earth and Stewart was able to challenge Dobbs on a few key points, but Stewart didn't touch on Dobbs' controversial stance on "illegal" immigration or on his recent birther comments. Stewart also allowed Dobbs to paint President Obama as a "far left" President which, in turn, framed Dobbs as being a centrist. Then again, Stewart is just the host of a satirical comedy show right?
One of the more important points that Stewart did bring up, which I believe is both revealing and central to this conversation, is the past silence of those who are suddenly criticizing the so-called destruction of our freedoms by the government. I have stated this in the past, but it is quite clear that during the last eight years, the tea-partiers and 9/12'ers were totally silent on these issues. It is only now, when there is a black Democratic President in the White House, when there is sudden outrage from the right and being adopted as a viable business strategy by a major "news" corporation.
If you want to take a look at a really interesting interview of Dobbs and a subsequent discussion, I point you to this interview that was conducted by Democracy Now! hosts Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez in December of 2007. Dobbs is confronted and forced to try and explain apparent inaccuracies that he stated on his broadcast. I will post some of the transcript below, but I highly recommend you follow that link and watch the entire conversation.
AMY GOODMAN: So, Lou, you said a third of the prison population are illegal aliens.
LOU DOBBS: Right.
AMY GOODMAN: The fact is, it’s something like 6% of prisoners in this country are non-citizens, not even illegal, just non-citizens.
LOU DOBBS: Right.
AMY GOODMAN: And then a percentage of that would not be documented.
LOU DOBBS: Well, it’s actually—I think it’s 26% in federal prison.
AMY GOODMAN: But you said of all prisoners.
LOU DOBBS: I said about—yes, but I—and I misspoke, without question. I was referring to federal prisoners.
AMY GOODMAN: But you didn’t say that, and so it leaves people with the impression—
LOU DOBBS: Well, I didn’t, but then I just explained it to you.
AMY GOODMAN: But you have a very large audience on CNN.
LOU DOBBS: I have a very large audience and a very bright audience.
AMY GOODMAN: And you told them that a third of the population of this country are illegal immigrants. 6% , which is under the population of immigrants—
LOU DOBBS: 6% , right.
AMY GOODMAN: —in this country, of prisoners—
LOU DOBBS: In state prisons.
AMY GOODMAN: —are immigrants.
LOU DOBBS: In state prisons. In state prisons.
AMY GOODMAN: No, 6% overall are immigrants. You said 30% are illegal.
LOU DOBBS: Well, I think we’ve established—we could sit here and say this all day, Amy. The fact is, the number is 26% in federal prisons. That’s what I was referring to. I did not—I misspoke when I said “prisons.” I was referring to the federal prisons, because that’s the federal crime: immigration. And that—
AMY GOODMAN: Have you made a correction on your show to say that 30% of—?
LOU DOBBS: I’m sure we have. We’ve reported—absolutely.
AMY GOODMAN: We didn’t see it.
[...]
AMY GOODMAN: Another guest that you’ve had on the show—now, this is a very important point, and this is one that you would agree that you’ve covered, and that is Arizona—this is very important—the Protect Arizona Now referendum. In late 2004, it was revealed that the new head of the national advisory board to Protect Arizona Now, an anti-immigration organization, was a longtime white supremacist who was also an editorial advisor to the racist Council of Conservative Citizens. Although Virginia Abernethy’s controversial selection was reported prominently in virtually every Arizona paper, and despite the fact that Lou Dobbs heavily cover the anti-immigration referendum that Protect Arizona Now was advocating, you never mentioned the affair at all, her controversial selection as head of this group.
LOU DOBBS: And she was featured in how many reports?
AMY GOODMAN: The point is, you covered Protect Arizona Now extensively, and this is certainly significant, when it turns out that the head of the board of Protect Arizona Now is—
LOU DOBBS: And when was the last time she was on the show?
AMY GOODMAN: No, the important point is, you didn’t report the news of this very controversial—
LOU DOBBS: Is it possible—
AMY GOODMAN: —racist woman who headed Protect Arizona Now, which was virtually in every Arizona paper. The question is—
LOU DOBBS: Concurrent with our reporting?
AMY GOODMAN: —what you report and what you don’t.
LOU DOBBS: Concurrent with our reporting?
AMY GOODMAN: Of course. This is in 2004. The point is, what you report, Lou, and what you don’t report.
LOU DOBBS: Well, you know, Amy, I don’t know what to tell you, because, you know, based on your focus here today, you have focused on probably three or four reports, as best I can figure, out of more than five years of reporting on the issue. If that smacks at all to you of reasonable proportionate journalism on your part, I mean, God bless you. If that’s what you believe, God bless you. But I think you’re coming from an ideological position that has just absolutely skewed that perception and that perspective.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
CNN Factchecks SNL: Jon Stewart Responds
This clip is from The Daily Show on Monday night and is just another reason why this show is so valuable (and hilarious):
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| CNN Leaves It There | ||||
| ||||
Monday, July 27, 2009
Birthers, Birthers Everywhere!
I posted an entry last week about the resurgence of the "birther" movement and Jon Stewart's insightful and hilarious take on the topic.
Despite being repeatedly debunked, there are still a group of people in this country that insist on advancing the idea that Barack Obama was not born in the United States and therefore is illegally occupying the office of the Presidency. CNN host Lou Dobbs was one of the most visible members of the so-called mainstream media to raise questions surrounding President Obama's birth certificate:
Then, when Dobbs was criticized for advancing this argument even in lieu of evidence to the contrary, he lashed out at the "Limp-minded lily-livered lefties" who were "attacking" him:
CNN's President, Jonathan Klein, tried to reign in Dobbs:
but apparently, in an interview with Greg Sargent, Klein appears to be backing off strong criticisms of Dobbs:
Hmmm, I wonder why this is a "phenomenon that for some people...won't go away", maybe because people like Lou Dobbs continue to host guests who raise these questions? By pretending that there is some sort of debate on this issue and continually hosting guests who baselessly give these claims, Dobbs only gives a kind of legitimacy to these arguments - regardless of whether he personally believes the claims or not. In the clip from Media Matters, Dobbs is even proud that he had the "temerity" to "actually raise a question of this great president."
Dobbs is not alone either. There are actually some members of Congress who either endorse the claims of the birther movement outright or will give you a vague statement like "I understand that some people are concerned about this issue and I will leave it to them to get to the bottom of it." Statements like these are nothing more than a wink and a nudge to a part of the conservative base of the Republican Party. Take a look at Politico's coverage of a statement made by Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) (emphasis mine):
Two noteworthy items about the quote. The first is the obvious, that Sen. Inhofe doesn't discourage the birther movement from raising these questions. The second is the wording of Politico's coverage - "Sen. Inhofe has also tried to find the elusive middle ground...". What "middle ground" is there to find? How is there a middle ground between something that is true and something that is not?
Mike Stark has been making the rounds in Washington in recent days to speak with members of Congress on the issue of health care on behalf of Firedoglake. In his spare time he has been asking Republican members of Congress if they believe that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Watch the varied responses he gets (including one Congressman taking off in a sprint):
and Press Secretary Robert Gibbs' take on the issue today:
Despite being repeatedly debunked, there are still a group of people in this country that insist on advancing the idea that Barack Obama was not born in the United States and therefore is illegally occupying the office of the Presidency. CNN host Lou Dobbs was one of the most visible members of the so-called mainstream media to raise questions surrounding President Obama's birth certificate:
Then, when Dobbs was criticized for advancing this argument even in lieu of evidence to the contrary, he lashed out at the "Limp-minded lily-livered lefties" who were "attacking" him:
CNN's President, Jonathan Klein, tried to reign in Dobbs:
"Since the show's mission is for Lou to be the explainer and enlightener, he should be sure to cite this during your segment tonite. And then it seems this story is dead - because anyone who still is not convinced doesn't really have a legitimate beef."
but apparently, in an interview with Greg Sargent, Klein appears to be backing off strong criticisms of Dobbs:
“Look, Lou’s his own show, and CNN in general has repeatedly and thoroughly reported on the facts behind this situation,” Klein said to me, adding that Lou had merely hosted “a few conversations with people representing a wide range of opinions.”
Klein said that Dobbs has repeatedly stated that he believes that Obama was born in Hawaii, and has simply been examining the “phenomenon that for some people this won’t go away.”
Hmmm, I wonder why this is a "phenomenon that for some people...won't go away", maybe because people like Lou Dobbs continue to host guests who raise these questions? By pretending that there is some sort of debate on this issue and continually hosting guests who baselessly give these claims, Dobbs only gives a kind of legitimacy to these arguments - regardless of whether he personally believes the claims or not. In the clip from Media Matters, Dobbs is even proud that he had the "temerity" to "actually raise a question of this great president."
Dobbs is not alone either. There are actually some members of Congress who either endorse the claims of the birther movement outright or will give you a vague statement like "I understand that some people are concerned about this issue and I will leave it to them to get to the bottom of it." Statements like these are nothing more than a wink and a nudge to a part of the conservative base of the Republican Party. Take a look at Politico's coverage of a statement made by Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) (emphasis mine):
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) has also tried to find the elusive middle ground.
"They have a point," he said of the birthers last week. "I don't discourage it. ... But I'm going to pursue defeating [Obama] on things that I think are very destructive to America."
Inhofe put out a statement Monday clarifying his comment:
"The point that they make is the Constitutional mandate that the U.S. president be a natural born citizen, and the White House has not done a very good job of dispelling the concerns of these citizens," he said. "My focus is on issues where I can make a difference to stop the liberal agenda being pushed by President Obama."
Two noteworthy items about the quote. The first is the obvious, that Sen. Inhofe doesn't discourage the birther movement from raising these questions. The second is the wording of Politico's coverage - "Sen. Inhofe has also tried to find the elusive middle ground...". What "middle ground" is there to find? How is there a middle ground between something that is true and something that is not?
Mike Stark has been making the rounds in Washington in recent days to speak with members of Congress on the issue of health care on behalf of Firedoglake. In his spare time he has been asking Republican members of Congress if they believe that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Watch the varied responses he gets (including one Congressman taking off in a sprint):
and Press Secretary Robert Gibbs' take on the issue today:
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Today's Cage Match Between Obama and Cheney
President Obama and former Vice President Dick Cheney will both be giving speeches on the topic of anti-terrorism and national security later this morning and the corporate media are eating this up, portraying this as if it were a championship fight between two heavyweight boxers.
"Obama vs. Cheney" reads this headline on MSNBC and Politico has a headline entitled, "Barack Obama, Dick Cheney plan dueling speeches". My how the media loves a good political speech-off! So much so, that CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News all plan to carrying Dick Cheney's speech in its entirety and predictably, will debate both speeches as if they carry equal weight.
I, for one, would like to see analysis of these speeches given in the following context. President Obama's speech, which will reportedly focus on Guantanamo Bay and the issues surrounding the closure of the base, actually has meaning considering that Obama is the President. Dick Cheney's speech, which will reportedly focus on how torture is a necessary tool in combating terror, are the words of a man who is not only making torture a partisan issue, but has been on a media tour trying to justify the lawless legacy that the Bush Administration has left behind.
This is only a "duel" because the corporate media are presenting it that way. What we really have is one speech by the President of the United States and another speech by a former Vice President who is desperate to defend the lawless legacy that he has left behind and in doing so, will rely on his continued strategy of defending torture and using fearmongering to claim we are "less safe" under Obama.
More thoughts and reactions on this after the two speeches.
"Obama vs. Cheney" reads this headline on MSNBC and Politico has a headline entitled, "Barack Obama, Dick Cheney plan dueling speeches". My how the media loves a good political speech-off! So much so, that CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News all plan to carrying Dick Cheney's speech in its entirety and predictably, will debate both speeches as if they carry equal weight.
I, for one, would like to see analysis of these speeches given in the following context. President Obama's speech, which will reportedly focus on Guantanamo Bay and the issues surrounding the closure of the base, actually has meaning considering that Obama is the President. Dick Cheney's speech, which will reportedly focus on how torture is a necessary tool in combating terror, are the words of a man who is not only making torture a partisan issue, but has been on a media tour trying to justify the lawless legacy that the Bush Administration has left behind.
This is only a "duel" because the corporate media are presenting it that way. What we really have is one speech by the President of the United States and another speech by a former Vice President who is desperate to defend the lawless legacy that he has left behind and in doing so, will rely on his continued strategy of defending torture and using fearmongering to claim we are "less safe" under Obama.
More thoughts and reactions on this after the two speeches.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
CNN Reporter Challenges Chicago Tea Party Protesters
Media Matters documented this item and Digby posted the transcript of CNN's Susan Roesgen challenging the protesters in Chicago:
Kira Phillips: Susan Roesgen getting a taste of that Chicago style tea. Does that come with a pizza too?
Roesgen: Well you know Kira, this is a party for Obama bashers. I have to say that this is not entirely representative of everybody in America. This was organized by three different conservative groups and if you lok at some of the signs Kira ... Let me intorduce you to this guy. Could you come over here please?
(Pointing to picture of Obama dressed as Hitler) You know, what is this supposed to mean? What do you mean by that?
Dittohead freak: Well, I mean he's a fascist, the real pirates ...
Roesgen: Wait, why do you say he's a fascist? He's the president of the United States.
Dittohead freak: I think he's a fascist.
Roesgen, Do you realize how offensive that is?
DF: I think he's a fascist
Roesgen: Why?
DF: Beacuse he is. He's a fascist.
Roesgen: Why can you say that?
DF: beacuse the real pirates are in the white house and the senate and in the congress. We need one term limits for all these elected politicians.
Roesgen: Why be so hard on the president of the United States with such an offensive message?
DF: Because he is. He's a fascist.
Roesgen: hooookay (moves away) We've got a fascist ... uh... allright
(points to other signs)
"Drop the taxes, drop socialism"
(approaches man)
Ok, you're here with your two year old and "you're already in debt" (referring to sign he's holding) Why do you say that?
Ditto head freak 2: Because I hear a president say that he believed in what Lincoln stood for. Lincoln's primary thing was that he believed that people had the right to liberty.
Roesgen: Sir, what does this have to do with taxes? What does this have to do with your taxes?
DF2: Let me finish speaking!
Roesgen: Do you realize that you are eligible for a 400 dollar ...
DF2: Let me finish my point. (Crowd getting surly, yelling at Rojan to shut up) Lincoln believed that people had ther right to share in the fruits of their own labor and that government should not take it. And we have clearly gotten to that point.
Roesgen: Alright. Did you know that the state of Lincoln gets 50 billion dollars out of this stimulus? That's 50 billion dollars for this state sir.
DF2: (looking at someone off camera) Can you stop this sir? (people milling closely around, Rojan looking harried. )
Roesgen: Ok Well, Kira, we'll move on over here. I think you get the general tenor of this. Uh, it's anti government, anti-CNN since this is highly promoted by the right wing conservative network Fox. And since I can't really hear much more and I think this is not really family viewing, toss it back to you, Kira.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Michael Steele's Revisionist History
I am sure that many of you have heard about the fighting that has been going on between the RNC Chair Michael Steele and the conservative radio personality Rush Limbaugh. In case you are late to this story here is an intentionally brief summary:
- Rush Limbaugh made the comment that he hopes President Obama will fail.
- Limbaugh is criticized for saying this but stands by his comments saying that if Obama succeeding means going against the principles that he believes, then of course he hopes Obama fails and he would think that many Republicans want Obama to fail as well.
- RNC Chairman Michael Steele goes on CNN, says that he is the head of the Republican Party and that Limbaugh is an entertainer. He also says that Limbaugh can be "incendiary" and "ugly". Here is the video of this exchange:
After this exchange, Limbaugh retaliated saying that Steele is not the head of the Republican Party. Steele then apologized to Limbaugh by saying:
Now, there is some revisionist history taking place as Michael Steele is claiming that he never attacked Limbaugh in the first place. He claims that he said that there were other "people out there" who may think that Limbaugh is incendiary and ugly, but that he never meant that to be his viewpoint. Watch:
In case you want to hear the exact language from Steele's CNN appearance that directly contradicts his most recent claims that he "never attacked" Limbaugh, just go watch it again for yourself. I also enjoy how Steele and others within the Republican Party are now saying that it is the Democrats and the left who are distracting America by bringing attention to all of this. Steele mentions in his final clip that the left are implementing some kind of plan that they have wanted to enact for a while...to distract Americans from the real issues by bringing up this controversy. Sure, that's it.
It's not only Steele either. Check out this exchange between MSNBC's David Schuster and former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleisher. Fleisher comes out on the offensive with his talking point about Obama acting "childish" and Schuster tries to show Fleisher just how hypocritical this claim is. It takes effort to not go insane when these items get flipped on the head on such a consistent basis and as part of a strategy to falsely revise history:
- Rush Limbaugh made the comment that he hopes President Obama will fail.
- Limbaugh is criticized for saying this but stands by his comments saying that if Obama succeeding means going against the principles that he believes, then of course he hopes Obama fails and he would think that many Republicans want Obama to fail as well.
- RNC Chairman Michael Steele goes on CNN, says that he is the head of the Republican Party and that Limbaugh is an entertainer. He also says that Limbaugh can be "incendiary" and "ugly". Here is the video of this exchange:
After this exchange, Limbaugh retaliated saying that Steele is not the head of the Republican Party. Steele then apologized to Limbaugh by saying:
“My intent was not to go after Rush – I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh...I was maybe a little bit inarticulate. …There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership.”
Now, there is some revisionist history taking place as Michael Steele is claiming that he never attacked Limbaugh in the first place. He claims that he said that there were other "people out there" who may think that Limbaugh is incendiary and ugly, but that he never meant that to be his viewpoint. Watch:
In case you want to hear the exact language from Steele's CNN appearance that directly contradicts his most recent claims that he "never attacked" Limbaugh, just go watch it again for yourself. I also enjoy how Steele and others within the Republican Party are now saying that it is the Democrats and the left who are distracting America by bringing attention to all of this. Steele mentions in his final clip that the left are implementing some kind of plan that they have wanted to enact for a while...to distract Americans from the real issues by bringing up this controversy. Sure, that's it.
It's not only Steele either. Check out this exchange between MSNBC's David Schuster and former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleisher. Fleisher comes out on the offensive with his talking point about Obama acting "childish" and Schuster tries to show Fleisher just how hypocritical this claim is. It takes effort to not go insane when these items get flipped on the head on such a consistent basis and as part of a strategy to falsely revise history:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
