I think this is my favorite piece of video footage since Jon Stewart told off Tucker Carlson on Crossfire.  Seriously, watch it again and again, it just gets better. 

At the National Conference for Media Reform, Bill O'Reilly producer Porter Barry ambushes journalist Bill Moyers and asks him why he won't appear on The O'Reilly Factor.  Moyers, a class act to the last, makes Barry look like the small and petty man he is.  But the joke is on Barry, because other journalists, including Uptake correspondent Noah Kunin, who got this raw footage, turned tables on ol' Porter and gave him a little taste of the FOX News-style ambush journalism.  I don't think he liked it much.

By the way, Moyers gave an absolutely inspirational keynote address at NCMR2008.  You can view it on YouTube.

I'm sure (well, not really) that it's just a coincidence that as the FISA/telecom immunity debate comes to a head, the journalist who helped bring Bush and Cheney's illegal domestic spy program to light has just been subpoenaed.

Jon Perr has a most excellent write-up about it:

That cheering sound you may have heard this morning was conservatives' applauding the news that New York Times reporter James Risen has been subpoenaed in an effort to force him to reveal his confidential sources. But while Republican rage may be temporarily muted over the inquiry into Risen's 2006 book, many on the right won't be satisfied until Risen goes to jail for his cardinal offense, revealing President Bush's illegal domestic surveillance program.

The subpoena James Risen received from a federal grand jury last week did not concern his 2005 reporting on the NSA domestic spying program. Instead, the Justice Department wants Risen to divulge his sources for a chapter on Iran's nuclear program in his 2006 book, State of War. In it, Risen describes CIAs unsuccessful efforts during the Clinton and Bush administrations to infiltrate the Iranian nuclear program. ... (do read on)

Lest anyone be confused, this is quite the opposite situation from when former NYT pseudo-reporter/White House shill, Judy Miller, was subpoenaed and went to jail for failing to reveal her sources in the CIA leak case. In her case she was refusing to name White House officials who were involved in government wrongdoing in which she had a role. In James Risen's case, he exposed government wrongdoing that had been shrouded in secrecy, which is quite simply the most meritorious and patriotic deed a journalist can do, and is exactly why the fourth estate deserves to have a federal shield law to prevent government retaliation for exposing their crimes.

Click for larger...City Hall Flag by Zen Sutherland at Zenography, a nice collection of photos worth the click.

A friend told me yesterday he stopped reading The Onion when he found he couldn't tell if they were kidding or not. In that vein, Media Bloodhound has the 2007 Fact or Fiction Challenge. See if you can spot the true stories/headlines and diss the fake ones.

Shuster asked the right question of Rep. Blackburn and predictably the attacks followed. (Newsbusters) Whenever someone leaks info to right wing blogs---red flags should go up. Via Blue Texan:

Shuster's apology [re: Marsha Blackburn] may have been premature. The tiny hamlet of Bon Aqua, Tenn., is where Bohannon lived in the months immediately prior to entering the Army. The Census Bureau places his home in Blackburn's 7th Congressional District.

Media Bistro asks a good question:

Why did MSNBC rush Shuster to apologize? And, more importantly, who made him do so? Or did Shuster and MSNBC just not have the info (or didn't do the research) that Scripps dug up?

We know that Scooter Libby isn't around anymore to call NBC and complain to the Russert's of the world---so who is the new contact from the WH that's putting the heat on?

UPDATE: Oye:

FishbowlDC hears that MSNBC General Manager Dan Abrams asked David Shuster to apologize for Wednesday's Rep. Marsha Blackburn incident and even wrote the bulk of Shuster's on-air apology...read on

You know I've been hard on the LA Times, but this piece is excellent: "The Washington press corps is too busy cozying up to the people it covers to get at the truth." Ken Silverstein went undercover to expose some DC lobbyists. When he did they complained that he was...undercover...

Now, in a fabulous bit of irony, my article about the unethical behavior of lobbying firms has become, for some in the media, a story about my ethics in reporting the story. The lobbyists have attacked the story and me personally, saying that it was unethical of me to misrepresent myself when I went to speak to them.

That kind of reaction is to be expected from the lobbyists exposed in my article. But what I found more disappointing is that their concerns were then mirrored by Washington Post media columnist Howard Kurtz, who was apparently far less concerned by the lobbyists' ability to manipulate public and political opinion than by my use of undercover journalism.

"No matter how good the story," he wrote, "lying to get it raises as many questions about journalists as their subjects." 

Even Howard Kurtz plays the attack the messenger game. How are journalists supposed to actually report on these types of stories, Howard?

Chuck Lewis, a former "60 Minutes" producer and founder of the Center for Public Integrity, once told me: "The values of the news media are the same as those of the elite, and they badly want to be viewed by the elites as acceptable."

Read the full article. Thank you, Ken.

 Conservative radio talkie, Laura Ingraham was discussing Bush's immigration plan and the attacks he's making on conservative vocal critics of it with John Roberts of CNN, when she weakly tried to play the CNN is liberal elite card on Roberts. John Roberts was like, "say, what?" Her proof? She was characterized as being "outspoken."

Download | play Download | play  

INGRAHAM: ...But to insult his base, I mean, I hope he thinks he's going to be saved by the liberal elites at CNN, John, because if he is, then I'll be wrong about this. But I think it's kind of silly.

ROBERTS: Excuse me, what was that last comment?

INGRAHAM: By the way, John, how did you introduce me for this segment before the break. The outspoken Laura Ingraham. Do you guys introduce liberal commentators that way? I'm going to check.

ROBERTS: Yeah, we do actually.

That's a pretty tough depiction of her, wouldn't you agree. I guess I'd be bummed if I was called an outspoken blogger...The Nitpicker has more. "This post is dedicated to the memory of the Myth of the Liberal Media, born April 6, 1954, died October 24, 2006."

Then, this morning, Laura Ingraham made snide comments about the supposed liberal slant of CNN to American Morning host John Roberts. She even had proof from that very interview, in fact: John Roberts had called her outspoken. Never mind that Al Franken was called an "outspoken comedian and liberal" by CNN. Or that Hugo Chavez is an "outspoken leftist". Or that Cynthia McKinney, Michael Moore and Nancy Pelosi were all referred to as "outspoken liberal(s)." None of those things matter. In the minds of the Republican hothouse flowers, any word used to describe them--other than heroic or beloved--can be seen as an attack by the dastardly liberal media...read on

Continue reading »

John had linked to Arthur's post about the evidentally punitive measures the brass are taking at Walter Reed, in retribution for the soldiers speaking out about the horrible conditions they were enduring during their convalescence and rehabilitation.

Well, unfortunately, Walter Reed is not the only facility, nor the only crackdown from the Department of Defense.

E&P:  A report today that soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center are being told not to speak with the press is apparently just the latest move in a recent effort to tighten restrictions on journalists' access to many military facilities, according to the president of Military Reporters and Editors.

Continue reading »

 James Pinkerton makes the laughable observation that the media failed to report about the scandal at Walter Reed because they are liberals who normally don't worry about the troops so why would they care about the conditions at Walter Reed.

Download | play Download | play

Pinkerton: The media typically come at the Bush administration from the left. They say the Iraq war is a terrible idea. The idea of going after the administration from the right as it were, that they're not supporting the troops enough, not body armor enough, not Humvee enough, not helping at Walter Reed enough. That is an angle that reporters don't naturally think of when they're waking up in the morning...

To him, supporting the troops is only allowed by the right wingers who send them into battle with little care of their needs. That's a slap in the face to many fine reporters, but I doubt they'll complain. Ask him how many stories FOX News produced looking at the cuts Bush has proposed to veteran benefits, bad equipment and extended tours of duty.  He has no basis of fact, nor does he cite an example in his silliness.

Email him at pinkerto@ix.netcom.com and ask Pinky to justify his statement...

On Sunday, 60 Minutes is running (in Hannity's words) a biased "hit piece" about a group of GI's who are using the Military Whistleblower act to speak out and petition Congress to end the Iraq War. In an attempt to "present both sides," next Sunday Hannity plans to run a response piece and gave us this little teaser last night.

Download | play    Download | play  

Sean really needs to start doing some "fair and balanced" research. Despite saying CBS hasn't covered a single positive story about Iraq (because we know there are soo many the liberal media conspires to ignore), 60 Minutes just last week devoted an entire report to the greatest success story in Iraq yet -- the stable Kurdistan.

People tend to forget, in part because the story has been suppressed, that there was a movement during Vietnam among GI's to end the war. Sir! No Sir! tells that story.

Download | play    Download | play

Preview the GI story here and Mike Wallace's one on one interview with Bill O'Reilly here. 

Media Matters:

On the February 16 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Michael Savage asserted that ABC News correspondent Diane Sawyer was "aiding and abetting" Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during a February 13 interview in which, Savage claimed, Sawyer had refused to challenge Ahmadinejad's statements denying the existence of the Holocaust. Savage said: "Here Diane Sawyer goes to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and does not once say to him, 'How could you deny the Holocaust? Here are the pictures of the 6 or 7 million Jews that Hitler killed. How dare you do this to the world?' " Savage added: "So Diane Sawyer, in essence, is agreeing that the Holocaust didn't occur."  

There's a logic leap worthy of a C-level right-wing pundit.  Only problem, Mr. Weiner Savage, is that it's a complete and total lie.  Sawyer DID ask about Ahmadinejad's statements and even offered to show him take him and show him records from Auschwitz.  But why truth and facts get in the way of a nice little hate on?

While discussing this interview, Savage said Sawyer was "disgusting" and "full of crap" and repeatedly called her a "lying whore," a "prostitute," and a "witch." He added, "I stand by those words, and if you don't like it, sue me. Take me to a court of law for calling you a whore, because you are an intellectual prostitute for what you have done for ratings." 

Um, yeah.  That glass house looks a little shaky there, Mr. Weiner Savage.

...and far more nicely than I would have.  Barbara of Mahablog noticed this White House-Talking-Point-disguised-as-an-Op/Ed:

Boston Globe:

What does it mean to support the troops but oppose the cause they fight for?

[..](T)here is no end of Americans who insist they "support" US troops in Iraq but want the war those troops are fighting to end in defeat. The two positions are irreconcilable. You cannot logically or honorably curse the war as an immoral neocon disaster or a Halliburton oil grab or "a fraud... cooked up in Texas," yet bless the troops who are waging it.

Barbara:

It is not at all irreconcilable to oppose the Iraq War but wish to support the troops fighting the war. "Supporting the troops" means seeing to it they have whatever they need to stay as safe and healthy as possible, both while at war and after. It means providing state-of-the-art body armor now, not three years from now, maybe. If they are wounded, it means providing first-class medical care, not parking them in moldy, roach-infested hospital.

Bill Maxwell writes in the St. Petersburg Times ("White House delivers surge in lies, hypocrisy"):

Here is a substantive example of the reality of who supports the troops and who does not. The Washington Post reported last week that the Army, which has suffered the largest number of fatalities, began the Iraq war in 2003 with an estimated $56-billion shortage of equipment - including advanced Humvees equipped with armor kits designed to reduce troop deaths from roadside bombs.

Well, guess what? Nearly four years later, the Army, the Marine Corps and the National Guard still do not have an adequate number of Humvees equipped with the needed FRAG Kit 5 armor manufactured with more flexible materials that slow projectiles and contain debris, thus causing fewer deaths.

Is this support of our troops?[..]

Yet Jeff Jacoby, who (I infer) "supports" the troops, doesn't write a word about armor or hospitals. Indeed, he only obliquely refers to the war in Iraq. Instead, he writes about the "cause." What does it mean to support the troops but oppose the cause they fight for?

But what is the cause? If the cause is making the United States safer from terrorism, then it is perfectly logical to support the cause and oppose the war. The war is counterproductive to that cause. This was the conclusion of a National Intelligence Estimate of April 2006 portions of which were declassified and released in September 2006. Keep reading...

I am absolutely fed up with these ridiculous strawmen arguments being put up by the enabling media for the White House.  When the vast majority of the American people can figure out that this is an unwinnable and life-wasting occupation that is hurting-- not helping--us, why the hell are we giving the brain-dead media who are unable to cogitate reality a platform to tell us that we are wrong?  Especially since--all the way down the line-- everything we said has been right, and they have been wrong.

The General asks again, "Who is really supporting the troops?"

What the media isn't showing in Iraq: (h/t Hardliner)

It's a gut-wrenching 49 minutes, but worth your time. Americans, these actions are being done in our name.  This is our legacy.

<!--video-->

My hope is that showing videos such as this one and bringing you the information that the traditional media downplays or hides that it propel you to take action.  Call your elected officials, even if they are Republicans.  Demand that they stand by their actions in the face of reality, instead of White House spin.  Write them.  Email them. Call news organizations and demand the same.  

The Beltway media and politicians are insulated and isolated.  It's going to take a huge tidal wave from outside the Beltway for them to wake up. 

Please, please ...email this to every person you know, no matter what side of the war/occupation they fall in.  

Mike Stark calls himself a political gadfly, but he's quickly becoming one of my favorite people to watch in the blogosphere.  Look how he took a small, almost complete ignored diary at DKos and ran with it.  Ain't it funny how the established media gets testy when you point out that they're not doing their job very well?

In a nutshell, Jake Tapper writes a blog named Political Punch for ABC. Last week, he was breathlessly reporting the "Air Pelosi" story and complemented it with a blog post.

Tapper to me:

There was nothing misleading about my blog entry

But I will inquire about the posting situation.

Me to Tapper:

It's often astounding to me that some folks in the media elite seem to be uninterested in criticism of their work. I understand that you folks are in a profession that draws an outrageous amount of criticism and if you paid attention to all of it, you'd do nothing else.

That said, 10 minutes a day checking MediaMatters.com and, say, Bozell's Media watchdog group would do each and every one of you a world of good without introducing a bunch of distracting chaff.

This is why your post was misleading:

Continue reading »

Cenk Uygur at HuffPo:

The Bush administration claims that they care so much about protecting our troops in Iraq that they are going to go after Iran, who is at most responsible for 8% of US fatalities. Then, why not go after the people funding the Sunnis instead? After all, they are the ones doing the great majority of attacks against our beloved troops.

Yesterday, I concluded that the reason might be because some of that funding goes back to the even more beloved Saudi government. I came to that conclusion based on what analysts, experts and reporters in the field say and what the Iraq Study Group concluded, but I suppose I could be wrong. So, if this administration cares so much for the troops dying in Iraq, as they claim, why don't they investigate who is sending the money for the weapons that are killing over 90% of them?

If they don't do this, then it becomes patently obvious that they are using the troops as an excuse once again for their real agenda. They want to attack Iran at all costs.

To hype up Iran's involvement in the forces fighting against us in Iraq when all available intelligence indicates that we are fighting the Sunnis instead is unconscionable and inexplicable - unless, of course the explanation is that you don't care about the troops, you just want to manufacture a reason to attack Iran.

We've been absolutely up to our necks with stories coming out of Washington, but truly, this was too good to not show, even if it's from a broadcast earlier in the week. 

  The ongoing feud between Bill O'Reilly and NBC (and Joe Scarborough in particular) is a riot. Bill carried his obsession to a new level the other night, contacting a body language expert to analyze the movements of NBC commentators and concluding, in a broad, sweeping generalization, that the entire network has a deep-seated Bush hatred. Joe responds with an expert of his own to analyze O'Reilly's mannerisms. The results are not surprising.

Download | play   Download | play  

"He obsesses about his points. He mentions liberal...over and over again. 'I'm obsessed with this point about being a liberal and I'm gonna let you know and I'm gonna use my fingers for emphasis. And I'm gonna make alot of noise and alot of fury about nothing.' So, I don't think we have to pay too much attention to what he's doing because he's enjoying himself and he's doing alot of 'Here's my territory and I'm gonna protect it'."

I would love to see a full scale analysis of this interview with Donahue where the falafel king completely loses it.