Reliable Sources asked a question about the talking heads on TV that have been chattering about the VP picks.

Matthew T. Felling, makes a great point about holding them accountable for a change and that's something I've talked about also:

Felling: I wish that we would see some accountability, where if somebody gets it right, you know, they get a little bit more airtime in the fall, but if somebody gets it wrong, they are grounded.

Pundits taking a little responsibility for their opinions for a change. Wow, what a concept. I'd love to keep a score card on all of them and see how their opinions come out. Would Bill Kristol have racked up so many demerits for his views  by now that he'd be kicked off TV already? Fat chance.

I wrote this post with Michael Hanlon in mind: C&L’s Accountability for the Punditocracy Proposal

Here’s a few things the networks can do to clean up their act.

1) Set up an Ombudsman with a staff for each network that isn’t an employee of their corporation and have a weekly segment devoted to policing the media. They will also be available to take complaints reported by individual citizens and investigate them thoroughly.

2) Replay clips of each pundit when they’ve been proven wrong and let them explain their positions and why they thought they were right and ask them how they will correct their mistakes in the future.

3) Keep track of their infractions and set up a benchmark, like a 3 strikes your out rule for pundits. When they hit the benchmark, suspend them for a period of time so they can reflect on their mistakes.

4) When they return to work, ask them why they should be believed in the future.

5) It would be nice if they stopped using pundits that we know have been wrong over and over again.

(transcript below the fold)

Continue reading »

Since Scotty McClellan came out with his new book called "What Happened," in which he was very harsh on President Bush over a host of issues including partisianship, the Iraq war and the Valerie Plame leak---there has been a very interesting response to it. It's expected that the White House and the rest of the 28%ers would attach him as not qualified for the job, incompetent, a traitor, a phony and a kook, but I think the media has offered up some of the most informative opinions on him and in essence about themselves because he attacked on their war coverage. Martha Raddatz, ABC chief White House correspondent not surprisingly defends her coverage and then tells us something that I would have expected to come from the lips of from David Frum.

Download | play Download | play

RADDATZ: Yet, he seemed like a robot with a new software program on this one. I mean he was on message. It was just a very different message that he was -- he was delivering.

Is he a Cylon or part of the Borg!

He's not even human now. But she was never pressured to change her coverage.

RADDATZ: First of all, we're not a monolithic thing here. But my own experience, and I say this from the bottom of my heart, I was never pressured at all. But in the end, and I think Scott McClellan writes this, George Bush decided to take the country to war even though most people believe there were weapons of mass destruction. It was his decision that sent us to war. But I got absolutely no pressure

Some people needed that push and some people didn't.

Continue reading »

Howard Kurtz covered the Military General propaganda story that the NY Times story uncovered last Sunday morning and did a very good job with it. (I'm usually fairly critical of him) Colonel Ken Allard, a former military analyst for NBC, said that there certainly were conflicts of interest that these former Generals held when they went on TV as pundits selling the positive side of the Iraq war. Lawrence DiRita, the former Pentagon spokesman under Secretary Don Rumsfeld, was on to offer the "other side" of the issue. Sure thing, LDR. Kurtz did call him out:

Download | play Download | play

" It sounds like you were kind of manipulating these folks."

DiRita had a good laugh at our expense over the fact that the Times called the propaganda manipulation war machine a "sophisticated program." That's really hysterical. This is a horrible affair that has led to so much destruction and broken lives that I don't know how DiRita can even show up on the set of CNN and sit there and still peddle his destructive talking point garbage. But Allard levied the real charges against the Generals and the Pentagon when he admitted:

KURTZ: Do you think it was a conflict of interest of some of your fellow former officers to be in that kind of a...

ALLARD: I absolutely do, because the reason why you're there is to offer the public, for whatever the reason you have, however good you are, whatever your opinion matters, is an honest opinion. You offer that without any hope of remuneration, without any hope of reward. That's basically -- the reward you're getting is what CNN, Fox or NBC News pays you to be there. That's it.

KURTZ: Fox analyst Tim Eads was quoting as saying that when he talked about the war or terrorism on television, he held his tongue for fear that "... some four-star could call up and say, 'Kill that contract.'" He was involved in military contracts.

Glenn Greenwald has a great piece posted whhich typifies that MSM's non-response to this story on Salon called: Brian Williams' "response" to the military analyst story

After I wrote about Williams' blog item yesterday, his blog was deluged with commenters angrily demanding to know why he has failed to address the NYT expose. In response, Williams wrote a new blog item last night in which he purports -- finally -- to respond to the story, and I can't recommend highly enough that it be read by anyone wanting to understand how our establishment journalist class thinks and acts. The essence of Williams' response: he did absolutely nothing wrong. Nor did any of the military analysts used by NBC News. Nor did his network. These are all honest, patriotic men whose integrity is beyond reproach. Here's but a sampling of Williams' defense...read on

Continue reading »

Emails are circulating that Jason Leopold has apparently decided to leave Truthout to start his own site, BackgroundBriefing.org, sometime in the next few months. Truthout's Executive Director Marc Ash assured readers that Leopold's departure is in no way related to Leopold's reporting back in May of '06 that Karl Rove had been indicted and that he had tendered his resignation -- stories that every last one of us who waited so impatiently for Fitzmas remembers all too well -- stories that never panned out but Marc Ash asserts that Truthout "stood by the factual accuracy of our reports, and we stand by them now." While that's probably true enough as that all happened more than a year and a half ago, certainly that whole saga took a heavy toll on the organization ever since.

In Leopold's defense, perhaps we may yet find out someday that his sealed indictment story was right all along but it seems a safer bet that he was punked by Rove and Co., and in Jason's case, that sure wouldn't be the first time he tried to deliver the goods on a story bigger than most journos out there could handle and came out on the short end of the stick. I will say that there's something to be admired for even being willing to try to unravel one of the biggest corporate scandals of all-time and to come out so strongly against a venomous White House like he did, but there's also been a lot of harsh criticism of Leopold's work along the way: Two that stand out is this one in the Columbia Journalism Review and another in WaPo by Howie Kurtz, so it comes as quite a surprise (Nicole spotted it) that Howie apparently just last week decided to post a comment at the bottom of the year and a half old CJR article, blasting the author and defending Leopold's reporting, which he wrote "has since proved reliable and trustworthy."

That's quite an endorsement from a former critic-- if it's true that Howie Kurtz wrote it and it wasn't someone else posing as him in the comments. I'm just sayin', because if it was Howie, doesn't he owe Jason something in an article to that effect, and not just some buried comment on an ancient thread that seemingly goes against what he's previously said in print?

I watched in amazement last Sunday to the opening segments of his telecast of Reliable Sources. Kurtz covered the WGA strike and wondered if Jon Stewart and Jay Leno should just get off their asses and write some of their own material. And Stewart should maybe do more interviews. I'm not kidding, this is the Washington Post and CNN media critic and he has no clue how difficult it is to write one episode of a show. The Daily Show employs a football team of writers on their staff to come up with the brilliant TV that we see. We expect the wingnut critic Medved to feed into the "Hollywood is bad" meme so why does Leno suck come naturally to him, but Kurtz should know better. Pozner explains that the strike is all about union busting....

MICHAEL MEDVED:...And this clearly just weakens the whole institution of television.

It's also very disillusioning, as you were indicating before, Howie, that some of the funniest people in America who are famous for their adlibs and their quickness are so reliant on writers. I think it makes people like Jay Leno look bad.

KURTZ: I've sort of wondered myself why Leno and Letterman and Jon Stewart don't try -- and maybe they will eventually be forced to do this -- to put on a different kind of show without writers where you rely more on interviews and so forth.

KURTZ: Stagehands also went on strike yesterday, closing down all the major plays in New York. So it seems like there is a plague of this.

Jennifer Pozner, it kind of reminds me of baseball. There's plenty of money in TV, lots of profit being made. It seems like there should be enough money to work out a reasonable settlement.

Do you think that on some level the Hollywood studios want this strike?

POZNER: I think -- I think that they are looking to bust the union. I think that they know that Internet downloads, distribution to cell phones, iPods and even technologies that aren't in creation yet are the way that we, the majority of people, are going to be seeing television, you know, content, not on the actual tube.

The last time that the Writers Guild had an agreement, we didn't have DVDs. We didn't have the Internet. We didn't have any of the new technology and distribution systems. So what the writers are looking for is basically any type of piece of that pie. They're looking for fair compensation. It's a basic labor issue.

And as we know, corporate media companies are trying to drive every last red cent out of the writers' content. There would be none of these TV shows that, Michael, you said people want to see. There would be no content without the writers, and the writers are trying to get anything. It's the height of nickel and diming. Well, not even nickel and diming. They're not even asking for a dime.

KURTZ: Maybe...

POZNER: And they don't want to give them a nickel.

KURTZ: Maybe self-destructive for all sides.

"Self destructive for all sides," is Kurtz' answer. My god, who writes his material? Oh, he does, nevermind....

CNN's Howard Kurtz accused MSNBC of going "left" because they dared to offer Rosie O'Donnell a job. He picks up on a theme that Bill O'Reilly promotes daily because he's upset at Keith Olbermann for calling him out on his inaccuracies and refuses to name him. This is nothing new for Howard. He hasn't found a right wing talking point that he doesn't embrace. Here's Howie:

Download | play Download | play

KURTZ: Let me show you a little bit on this question that kind of sparked a debate about whether or not MSNBC is moving to the left. Let me show you a little bit of what you get in prime-time MSNBC, followed by Rosie O'Donnell on her blog, a video of her talking about the deal that fell apart.

Who has started a debate about this, Howard? Only Bill O'Reilly and the Malkinites. If a Presidency has started an immoral war, illegally spied on Americans, incorporated torture as national policy (and many more atrocities against the Constitution)---why does it make MSNBC a lefty for pointing "facts" out that are NEWS instead of spinning it?

Thankfully, Jennifer Pozner of Women in Media and News was on. She had to set him straight on this idiocy and actually Howie cut her off  (just like BillO) because she destroyed his talking point. Watch him defend Morning Joe because he's a Republican and should have opinions, but seems to have forgotten that Phil Donohue got FIRED for being against the Iraq invasion.

POZNER: You know what? I have to say, having done commentary on FOX News a number of times and having done Joe Scarborough's show on MSNBC, I've always had a tougher time from Scarborough. He struck me as the single-most conservative host of any show I've ever done, and I've been on "O'Reilly" and I've been on "Hannity & Colmes."

KURTZ: But what's wrong with that. It's Scarborough's...

POZNER: No, no, no. It's...

KURTZ: Hold it. It's Scarborough's job to be opinionated.

POZNER: Right. Right. Right.

KURTZ: He's a former Republican congressman.

POZNER: Yes. But when I'm saying is it's disingenuous to say MSNBC is tilting left when the majority of the people who host shows on MSNBC are either centrists or conservative.

Olbermann is a liberal host, but he doesn't necessarily promote liberal candidates or promote liberal projects. The one single show that was hosted by an actual person who called himself a leftist and had liberal and progressive guests and such was Phil Donahue's show, and it was cancelled in the run-up to the Iraq war...

KURTZ: Right, exactly.

POZNER: ... because they said from a memo from the top down they didn't want to provide an antiwar face for MSNBC.

KURTZ: OK. I've got to cut in here.

POZNER: It's about money. It's not about ideology.

KURTZ: I've got to cut in here. I want to get to Ray Richmond.

And let's look at what Howard's opinion is on FOX News' embrace of the Republican party while trying to tell everyone that they are the only "fair and balanced" network for news.

KURTZ: I think the argument that I’ve heard Olbermann make in the past about Fox News — it’s not an argument that I embrace — is that, because it poses as a news organization and puts out dangerous misinformation –

BECK: But that’s what he’s doing!

KURTZ: – and is — is a cheerleader for the Bush administration, that it’s misinforming our society. But you know what?

BECK: Howard –

KURTZ: They’re entitled to do that.

Howard, you ignorant slut! They are not entitled to do it if they want to be considered a f*&King news organization. What planet are you living on? Please, just stop masquerading as a media critic. You're entitled to your opinions also, but get honest.

Download | play Download | play (h/t Bill W)

Howie Kurtz crosses into rival territory to pimp his book, Reality Show, with Bill O'Reilly to discuss the state of network news...but really, it was just an opportunity for Bill O'Reilly to declare that 1) Network news is liberal and soon to be obsolete; 2) Dan Rather is crazy for his law suit and his obsession with Bush's TANG records are neurotic; and 3) Katie Couric is a failure...and all Howie can do is smile. Betcha gonna sell lots of books from Falafel Guy's dwindling, aging demographic, Howie.

Download | play Download | play

The level of spin and finger-pointing necessary to deflect from the reality of continuing to back a failed strategy and the cost of the bloodshed for our occupation of Iraq has truly reached ridiculous proportions.

Not content to smear solely MoveOn for their "General Betray Us?" ad--which, by the way, failed miserably because a recent poll shows that the percentage favoring withdrawal has moved upwards since Petraeus's speech--the White House and their flunkies in the mainstream media are now smearing that bastion of "liberal media," The New York Times, (purveyor of the collected works Judith Miller, Thomas "FU" Friedman, Michael O'Hanlon, David Brooks, et al., just sayin'...) for publishing the MoveOn Ad. A smear that has been repeated by the Vice President just yesterday, even though it's been debunked for a week now. But hey, since when did Dick Cheney have truth on his side?

On Sunday's Reliable Sources, Jack Cafferty did something that most of the punditry class needs to do in this country and that is to take responsibility for his words. He admitted that he was caught up in the national hysteria that followed 9/11----manipulated by the White House propaganda and pushed for war with Iraq. As usual, Howard Kurtz uses right-wing framing to ask Cafferty about his criticisms of the Bush Administration. No shock there.

Download | play Download | play

KURTZ: But you bash the Bush administration so often that you have become a hero to some on the left. I mean, just in this book, in the first few pages, you talk about Bush and company harming America. You call the president deluded and you speak favorably of impeachment.

Do you consider yourself a left-winger?

CAFFERTY: No, I don't. Not at all. On the contrary. In fact, in the early days of the run-up to the war in Iraq, I was a right-winger, if nothing else. I bought the whole song and dance about WMDs. I was caught up in the national hysteria that followed 9/11, and was captive to the political manipulation, if you will, that took place of all of us.

And I include myself. I was drinking the Kool-Aid on the run-up to that war. And I spent a lot of time on "AMERICAN MORNING" here on CNN supporting the administration and supporting the war.

So, no. The answer to your question is no, I don't consider myself a left-winger.

Good for him. Howie, do you consider yourself a shill for the right-wing bloggers?

Media Matters:

KURTZ: I think the argument that I've heard Olbermann make in the past about Fox News -- it's not an argument that I embrace -- is that, because it poses as a news organization and puts out dangerous misinformation --

BECK: But that's what he's doing!

KURTZ: -- and is -- is a cheerleader for the Bush administration, that it's misinforming our society. But you know what?

BECK: Howard --

KURTZ: They're entitled to do that.

BECK: Let me ask you this question. Who makes you weep more for journalism: Keith Olbermann or me? That's quite a question.

KURTZ: I think you both have plenty of opinions and are both paid to spew them on the airwaves.

BECK: At least I admit it. Howard, thank you very much.

(h/t Arlen)

On Sunday's Reliable Sources, Kurtz good-naturedly knocks Mitt Romney's excuse for not joining the CNN/YouTube GOP debate:

KURTZ: Mitt Romney said that, he was expressing his reservations about joining the next YouTube debate, "I don't think candidates should have to answer questions from a snowman." Well let me just say this to the former governor: how are you going to deal with Osama bin Laden if you're afraid of that snowman?

Oh, snap.

 Reliable Sources had on Brian Ross from ABC to talk about the Randall Tobias resignation and the thousands of names on the DC Madam's phone records. I think there are a few people a bit worried, don't you?

Download | play Download | play

BRIAN ROSS, ABC NEWS:  There are several thousands names, tens of thousands of phone numbers and they range from administration officials to lobbyists to advisers who are well known, people who appear on television, lawyers, and then just a lot of sort of ordinary businessmen and CEOs.

Duncan talks about the privacy issue. I found it f'd up that the Feds are only interested in the women. But that's par for the course...Here's a bit of interesting Laura/GW news...Does privacy extend to them?

 (full transcript via CNN below the fold)

Continue reading »

 The topic on Reliable Sources today was the hateful comments and emails women receive because of their blogs. Kurtz had on Mary Katherine Ham from Townhall.com along with Arianna Huffington and Joan Walsh of Salon. As soon as Ham's turn came up---she immediately attacked Arianna and then played the conservative victim card---what a shock there. Watch the clip...

Download | play Download | play

HAM:  I disagree just a little bit.  I think it is easy to say that this is a problem of both sides without realizing that there, despite Arianna's obvious comportment and elegance on TV that there are some serious monkeys hanging from the rafters over on the left side of the blogosphere.

HUFFINGTON:  Absolutely.  I think it is really amazing that people like Michelle and others are really trying to make that a left-right thing.  I read everything Joan wrote on the subject, and there wasn't a single thing that singled out progressive women bloggers.  It was all about women.

 And the idea that this is a left-wing phenomenon is just laughable, absolutely laughable.  I mean, the most toxic women on TV  practically is Anne Coulter, who is solidly on the right, who talks about rat poison for Judge Stevens, who talks about The New York Times journalists needing to be executed.  I mean, this is the kind of absolutely toxic vile talk.  And she is not even anonymous.  So please, you know, let's stop this absurd idea that this has anything to do with the progressive blogosphere.

Didn't the FBI look into Charles Johnson's LGF? Howie couldn't help himself and had to bring up the Cheney comments on the Huff Post and then guess who else he took care of? Come on, you can do it.---Malkin! It would be nice if Howie put into context who Michelle really is, but that's asking for a lot. Something along the lines of----John Kerry shot himself to get a purple heart and she wrote a book defending the Japanese internment camps among other things, which the CNN audience would very likely be appalled to hear about. (full transcript below the fold)

Continue reading »

I'll be sitting by my computer waiting to read Howard Kurtz's piece on the hatred that filled the right wing blogs like LGF about President Carter.

Let us first recall that LGF's Charles Johnson was one of the leaders of the Outrage Brigade driving the big "story" -- that made it into virtually every national media outlet -- of how anonymous HuffPost commenters expressed sorrow that the bombing in Afghanistan did not result in Dick Cheney's death.

Remember this post? More Greenwald:

Yet here are multiple comments from Johnson's standard, regular followers -- all of whom have to register as LGF users, a device Johnson uses to ban commenters of whom he disapproves -- expressing explicit support for Al Qaeda's plot against President Carter...read on

Kurtz had no problem attacking The Huffington Post which was fueled by right wing blogs over the anonymous comments that were left on Arianna's site.

This is really sick. I know we're living in a polarized time. I know there are people who absolutely detest George Bush and Dick Cheney. I know they like to vent their spleen online, sometimes in vulgar terms, and hey, that's life in a democracy...

This time, it's Charles Johnson from LGF, (who has appeared on Reliable Sources.) that has a commenting problem. What say you---Howard? Will you have a big write up in your "Media Notes" column about this for the sake of balance? Email Howard Kurtz here and ask him if he'll "comment," but be nice...And don't forget that he chats every Monday at noon on the front page of the Washington Post.

 Mike Stark and Dan Riehl joined Howard Kurtz on Reliable Sources this morning to talk about KSFO and Spockogate. Stark tried to stay on topic throughout, but, Dan had to attack him personally. (Check out John Cole's encounter with him.) It would have been nice if Kurtz gave Stark a chance to respond in kind, but I guess that was asking for a little too much.

Download | play   Download | play  

These right-wingers are so desperate to play the victim it's pathetic. Since they can't defend their eliminationist, hate-filled, irresponsible rhetoric, they obfuscate the issue with accusations of censorship. Spocko wasn't trying to silence anyone; he was simply informing the advertisers of what they're associating their products with. Melanie Morgan and the rest of the KSFO hacks have the right to say whatever they want. And we as bloggers have a right to point it out while their advertisers have the right to decide against sponsoring it. It's really not a difficult concept to understand.

In case you haven't seen it, here's the Daily Show's hilarious take on "Hannity sucks ass."

Update: Roger Ailes says that "Howard Kurtz has a problem with the First Amendment. He's never read it."

Yes, a media critic who doesn't understand the First Amendement. Of course, Stark, a citizen holding no political office, couldn't violate the First Amendment if he tried. And Stark didn't call upon the government to silence KKKSFO. But for Kurtz, the mere act of criticizing the haters who call for the murder of Nancy Pelosi, Bill Keller and millions of Muslims is not an act of free speech but a violation of the constitution.

To be fair, Howie did select Fred Flintstone to provide the counterpoint to Stark. But since Howie was making all the points Fred couldn't manage to spit out, Fred was superfluous.

Howard Kurtz did say:

KURTZ: I want to give you my take, which is, I don't like boycotts, but, you know, tough luck. It's fair game when you're in the media business for critics to talk about what's on your air.

And ABC Radio should not be saying no comment. ABC is in the communications business. They ought to have some kind of comment about what they did.

But you all are continuing this exercise in free speech. And it's an interesting one. It shows that bloggers have become a real force.