Cafe Press Bans All ‘Pray For Obama: Psalm 109:8′ Merchandise
Cafe Press Bans All ‘Pray For Obama: Psalm 109:8′ Merchandise
This week, both the websites of CafePress.com and Zazzle.com decided to stop selling merchandise that featured the latest right-wing craze: the slogan “Pray for Obama: Psalm 109:8.” However, Cafe Press then changed its mind and told ThinkProgress that it was reinstating the merchandise, which fell within “fair political commentary.”
Whether it’s “fair political commentary” was quickly questioned. While 109:8 reads, “Let his days be few; and let another take his office,” the next line is, “Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow,” suggesting far more violent rhetoric than simple criticism. Diana Butler Bass at Beliefnet has explained that Psalm 109 is “considered one of the most difficult of all the psalms — full of violent images of vengeance and death.”
Yesterday, Cafe Press announced that it was again reversing itself and removing all the merchandise in response to strong public pressure:
The public debate started with questioning if the design was simply intended to be criticism of the President or something much worse. The discourse was surprisingly civil online, given the heated nature of the topic. Given that, and the positions of groups like the ACLU and the Anti-Defamation League, we decided to let the dialogue play out publicly before making a final decision.
Last night we posted a poll on our blog, read through the emails we’ve received and weighed the nature of the calls we’ve received on the topic. In the process we also learned that many of the original designers of the Psalm 109:8 designs had already decided to remove them on their own.
General consensus has proven that the design does point to a broader interpretation of the Psalm and thus has been deemed inappropriate for sale at CafePress.
The results of the Cafe Press poll were 76 percent calling the slogan “overly inflammatory and inappropriate” and 22 percent saying it was fair.
(HT: TP commenter Marie)
- Comments
- 91
CNN paid Lou Dobbs $8 million to quit.
CNN paid Lou Dobbs $8 million to quit.
Although Lou Dobbs has been saying that his departure from CNN was an “amicable parting on the best of terms,” the New York Post reports that CNN wanted him gone so badly that it gave him an $8 million severance package. Dobbs “had a year and a half to go on his $12 million contract.” He’ll be appearing on Fox News tonight to talk with Bill O’Reilly, who has called the former CNN host a “stand-up guy.”
Lou Dobbs Accuses ThinkProgress Of Conspiring With The White House To Carry Out ‘Insidious And Sordid Attacks’
Lou Dobbs Accuses ThinkProgress Of Conspiring With The White House To Carry Out ‘Insidious And Sordid Attacks’
Last night, CNN anchor Lou Dobbs abruptly announced that he was leaving the network, effective immediately. TPM notes that in the weeks preceding his departure, Dobbs told GQ that the White House had been conspiring with a number of groups, including ThinkProgress, to wage “insidious and sordid attacks” against him with the goal of intimidating him and his former network:
GQ: That was my next question. Have you heard from the administration?
LD: Of course I have. Sure. Without question. They are coordinating with a number of groups, including the Center for American Progress. The usual suspects. To carry out constant and absolutely insidious and sordid attacks on me. And the reason they’re doing so, I’m the leading independent voice, and I am critical on their policies and intent, on unconditional amnesty, and leaving the borders and ports unsecure. They cannot, they’re. . .
GQ: They’re afraid of that point of view? They don’t think their point of view will carry against…
LD: Apparently not. Otherwise why would you do such a thing? But I will not be intimidated, and I understand that. Therefore they’re trying to intimidate my network and my owners.
For the record, neither ThinkProgress nor its parent organization, the Center for American Progress Action Fund, collaborated with the White House on our Dobbs coverage. However, Dobbs’ paranoid remarks did come around the same time ThinkProgress began promoting the efforts of progressive activists who were leading the Drop Dobbs, Tell CNN Enough Is Enough, and Basta Dobbs campaigns aimed at pressuring CNN to hold Dobbs to journalistic standards.
ThinkProgress has always focused on media accountability. Throughout the years, Dobbs has repeatedly left himself wide-open to legitimate criticism, not baseless attacks. Some recent examples:
– This summer, ThinkProgress reported that Dobbs had joined the birther movement and claimed President Obama might be an undocumented immigrant.
– The Wonk Room reported that the Lou Dobbs Show was promoting the myth that “people who break immigration laws” will be “rewarded” with free health care coverage.
– Shortly after we noted that Fox News’ John Stossel and Glenn Beck openly criticized Dobbs’ anti-immigrant “rants,” Dobbs proceeded to rip Stossel as a “self-important ass” with his “own brand of myopic idiocy.”
– ThinkProgress documented Dobbs slamming the “vile stupidity and ignorance” of “annoying” Geraldo Rivera, who had also denounced Dobbs’ immigration tirades.
– Most recently, Dobbs claimed that “ethnocentric interest groups” and Rivera himself were to blame for gun shots fired at his house. ThinkProgress called up the New Jersey State Police and broke the news that the shooting more likely involved a hunter’s stray bullet.
The efforts to get Dobbs off the air were not one-sided. Scott Stanzel, who used to work in President Bush’s communications shop, applauded the decision today in a statement to Politico: “I will not miss Lou Dobbs, his show or his ‘advocacy journalism.’ In recent years, the blurring of the lines between opinion and news reporting has damaged the credibility of mainstream reporters and news organizations. It’s refreshing to see CNN make a decision to fill the Dobbs slot with a respected and accomplished hard news journalist like John King. Maybe there is hope for the news business after all.”
Blackwater tried to bribe critical Iraqi officials with $1 million after 2007 shootings.
Blackwater tried to bribe critical Iraqi officials with $1 million after 2007 shootings.
On Sept. 16, 2007, a Blackwater convoy opened fire in Iraq’s crowded Nissor Square, killing 17 Iraqi civilians and wounding dozens more. The incident set off a backlash of criticism against the contractor, and earlier this year, Iraq said that it wouldn’t issue Blackwater a new operating license. Today, the New York Times reports that in 2007, top executives at Blackwater approved $1 million to bribe critical Iraqi officials into supporting the company, although it is unclear whether the money ever made it to the intended recipients:
Blackwater’s strategy of buying off the government officials, which would have been illegal under American law, created a deep rift inside the company, according to the former executives. [...]
The former Blackwater executives said it was not clear who proposed paying off Iraqi officials. But after Mr. Jackson, the former company president, approved the plan, the cash for the payoffs was taken from Amman and given to Rich Garner, then a top manager in Iraq, the former executives said. One of those executives said that officials in Iraq’s Interior Ministry, which is responsible for operating licenses, were the intended recipients.
Five Blackwater guards involved in the shooting now face federal manslaughter charges.
Liberal Professor Marc Lamont Hill Appears On O’Reilly’s Show After Murdoch Said He Had Been Fired
Liberal Professor Marc Lamont Hill Appears On O’Reilly’s Show After Murdoch Said He Had Been Fired
Last night on the O’Reilly Factor, host Bill O’Reilly brought on Marc Lamont Hill and Mary Katharine Hamm to talk about Iran’s nuclear weapons program. He introduced Hamm as a “Fox News analyst” and called Hill — who was filling in for NPR reporter Juan Williams — a professor from Columbia University.
What was interesting about Hill’s appearance was that it was his first one in nearly a month — since he was supposedly fired by Rupert Murdoch. From a report by the Live Feed on Oct. 16:
Rupert Murdoch continued Fox News Channel’s duel with the White House on Friday while also announcing the termination of the network’s left-leaning analyst Marc Lamont Hill. [...]
Murdoch also said that Hill has been fired. He revealed the move after a shareholder had raised the question of how Hill was hired, citing his “reputation of defending cop killers and racists.”
Murdoch never said why the network let Hill go. However, the Columbia University professor’s views — such as his defense of White House adviser Van Jones — are often out of step with those of the network’s hosts. Additionally, Hill has been the target of Cliff Kincaid, who works for the right-wing “Accuracy in Media” organization and has been leading a campaign to get Hill fired.
But if his controversial views were the reason he’s no longer a Fox News analyst, then why would O’Reilly still have him on his show? Or was there another reason he was fired?
Late last month, Hill said that he found out he had been fired through a “Google alert.” But on Twitter, Hill still calls himself a “Professor/Activist/Fox News Analyst,” and his bio on his website reads:
Hill has not responded to inquiries from ThinkProgress about his arrangement with Fox.
Lou Dobbs Slams ‘Vile Stupidity And Ignorance’ Of ‘Annoying’ Geraldo Rivera
Lou Dobbs Slams ‘Vile Stupidity And Ignorance’ Of ‘Annoying’ Geraldo Rivera
This afternoon, Lou Dobbs attacked Fox News host Geraldo Rivera for stating that Dobbs himself is “almost single-handedly responsible for creating, for being the architect of the young-Latino-as-scapegoat for everything that ails this country.” While Rivera accuses Dobbs of defaming an entire race of people, Dobbs insists that he loves immigrants and Latinos and claims that his accusations are nothing but a reflection of Rivera’s “stupidity” and the company of “ethnocentric left-wing activists” that he keeps:
DOBBS: I’m just still fuming over something that Geraldo Rivera said. I shouldn’t let — This guy is nothing but a fiction of his own imagination and a figment of whatever he sees in the mirror. But, I gotta tell you — the guy is so annoying. I should not let people get to me like this, but you know what? I’m starting to get short of patience with them. [...]
Geraldo Rivera wouldn’t know a fact if it hit him in the rear end — and that would probably be an appropriate place if you wanted him to absorb the information. … This is the kind of vile stupidity and ignorance that he spews everywhere he goes.
Listen here:
“Over the years, Lou Dobbs has consistently used his CNN platform to spread hatred and fear,” states Drop Dobbs, one of three campaigns aimed at pressuring CNN to hold Dobbs to journalistic standards or drop him altogether. News Corp. is reportedly “keen” on luring Dobbs over to the Fox Business Channel. However if CNN does drop Dobbs, it doesn’t look like he’ll have too many friends over at Fox. Last week, Dobbs ripped Fox Business News anchor John Stossel as a “self-important ass” with his “own brand of myopic idiocy” after Stossel told Fox News’ “rodeo clown” Glenn Beck that he does not support “the Lou Dobbs-kind of rants about immigrants wrecking America.” Rivera says that one of his Fox News bosses assured him that Dobbs “is not coming to Fox News.”
Perino: Obama’s Criticism Of Fox Is Akin To Chavez’s Tactics, Sets A Bad Example For ‘Emerging Democracies’
Perino: Obama’s Criticism Of Fox Is Akin To Chavez’s Tactics, Sets A Bad Example For ‘Emerging Democracies’
Today on Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace made sure to devote plenty of time to covering President Obama’s “war on Fox News”; he even played a clip of Sean Connery as Jim Malone “The Untouchables” talking about “the Chicago way” of getting things done. Former Bush press secretary Dana Perino sharply criticized the Obama administration’s tactics and expressed absolute shock at the example the United States was setting for “the free press in emerging democracies,” comparing the criticisms of Fox News to when “Hugo Chavez shuts down television stations”:
PERINO: That was a coordinated, calculated attack. It was unbecoming. And if you look at some of the coverage of what mainstream media covers when, for example, somebody like a Hugo Chavez shuts down television stations, he calls them illegitimate.
Now, I’m not suggesting that this White House believes that they are going to come over here and shut down Fox News. But they are defining a narrative in their first year, and it’s going to be very hard to recover from it. [...]
Through our State Department, we are trying to help emerging democracies get journalists and government officials to talk to one another, because freedom of the press is essential to any democracy. Believe me, they are watching this, and they have — surely are raising questions.
Watch it:
The Obama administration, according to Reporters Without Borders, is actually setting quite a strong example of press freedom for the world. In 2008, the organization found that in terms of press freedom, the U.S. ranked 36th out of 173 countries. Its report singled out “wars carried out in the name of the fight against terrorism” as a cause for the steep decline in press freedoms around the world. Just one year later, the United States has jumped from 36th to 20th. “Barack Obama’s election as president and the fact that he has a less hawkish approach than his predecessor have had a lot to do with this,” concluded Reporters Without Borders.
So what type of example did the Bush administration set? A few lowlights:
– The Pentagon had a secret program to use retired military analysts to “generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance.” Most of these analysts had “ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.” When the “message machine” became public, Perino defended the program as “absolutely appropriate.”
– The U.S. military was “secretly paying Iraqi newspapers to publish stories written by American troops in an effort to burnish the image of the U.S. mission in Iraq.” The articles contained anonymous quotes from U.S. military officials — which may or may not have been authentic — and “read more like press releases than news stories.”
– The Education Department paid conservative pundit Armstrong Williams hundreds of thousands of dollars to promote Bush’s No Child Left Behind law. Even after the corruption was uncovered, the administration defended it as “a permissible use of taxpayer funds.”
– The Government Accountability Office found that the Bush administration violated anti-propaganda laws when it disguised two promotional ads — on federal drug policy and Medicare — as news reports. The “reports” aired on dozens of stations, and the GAO “faulted the administration for distributing seemingly independent, ready-to-air reports that did not inform viewers that they came from the government.”
Bush also called a New York Times reporter “a major league asshole” — and never apologized. In fact, Bush never gave the NYT a single interview throughout his presidency. (Update: Bush gave the New York Times interviews in 2001, 2004, and 2005.) The White House frequently went after NBC News, and Perino has admitted that they essentially froze out MSNBC “towards the end.”
Transcript: More »
Former Fox News contributor: I left the network because I was ‘uncomfortable’ with Glenn Beck.
Former Fox News contributor: I left the network because I was ‘uncomfortable’ with Glenn Beck.
Today on CNN’s Reliable Sources segment, Washington Post reporter Howie Kurtz hosted Jane Hall, associate professor in the School of Communication at American University, to discuss the Obama administration’s criticisms of Fox News. Hall was a contributor to the network for 11 years and a frequent guest on The O’Reilly Factor and Fox News Watch. Kurtz asked Hall why she left Fox and whether she felt like she was “being used to give Fox a certain degree of legitimacy.” Hall replied that part of the reason she left was because of how “scary” Glenn Beck is:
HALL: No, I didn’t. The reason I left was in part because they’ve had less debates than they used to. It is a fair point to say how much debate is there on MSNBC? How many Republican strategists? We have a bifurcation of the media.
KURTZ: Wait a second. The reason you left is because you feel they have less debate than they used to. In other words, it used to be Hannity and Colmes, now it’s just Hannity. It used to be Bernie and Jane. Now it’s just Bernie.
HALL: I think there’s less debate than there was. And I’m also, frankly, uncomfortable with Beck, who I think should be called out as somebody whose language is way over the top. And it’s scary.
KURTZ: Was that a factor in your decision to leave Fox?
HALL: Yes, it was.
Watch it:
Rep. Alan Grayson Grills Republican Congressman On Constitutionality Of Anti-ACORN Crusade
Rep. Alan Grayson Grills Republican Congressman On Constitutionality Of Anti-ACORN Crusade
One of the right’s loudest crusades has been their effort to undermine the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN). Following the release of a series of videos showing a handful of ACORN employees behaving inappropriately, conservatives in Congress have done everything they can to single out ACORN for being stripped of all federal funding (while engaging in apparent opposition to defunding companies that cover up rape). Many legal experts have warned that these measures may be unconstitutional because lawmakers cannot punish a group or individual without a trial.
Yesterday, Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) challenged the constitutionality of one of these anti-ACORN measures being supported by Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) during a hearing of the Science and Technology committee. Grayson repeatedly questioned Broun about the constitutionality of “bills of attainder” — which are punishments that single out a group or individual without a court trial. The Georgia Republican was unable to offer a coherent rebuttal:
GRAYSON: I’d like to ask the gentleman from Georgia a few questions, and I’ll yield to him for the purpose of having answers to these questions. Does the gentleman from Georgia know what a bill of Attainder is?
BROUN: A bill of, the answer’s yes, in fact it’s been very explicitly described by the court’s.
GRAYSON: What is it?
BROUN: [long pause. Scrambling through papers.] The courts have applied a two pronged test. Number one, whether specific individuals or entities are affected by the staute, Number two, when the legislation affects a “punishment,” on those individuals, it serves no legitamate regulatory purpose.
GRAYSON: What, um, does the Constitution says about Bills of Attainder?
BROUN: Oh, I suggest that this is not a Bill of Attainder. It’s, um, certainly does focus on a specific entity, but it does not inflict punishment by any means. In fact…
GRAYSON: Will the gentleman from Georgia explain what the Constitution says about Bills of Attainder?
ANOTHER CONGRESSMAN: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a second? The gentleman from Florida?
GRAYSON: No. I’d like an answer to my question. [...]
GRAYSON: The question is, will the gentleman from Georgia agree with me that the Bill of Attainder clause was intended not as a narrow or technical provision, but as an implementation of the seperation of powers, and a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function, or more simply, trial by legislature. Will the gentleman agree to that?
BROUN: No, sir, I will not, and I ask counsel to help us with this. I think all this is determination of the court and I’d like to appeal to Mr. Sensenberner.
GRAYSON: Well, I’m sorry, but it’s my time, not yours or Mr. Sensenberner’s, so I will reclaim my time, and I will point out that what you just you would not agree to is from a Supreme Court case called the United States v. Brown, something I would expect you might know about, given your name.
Watch it:
Grayson ended his remarks by noting that the conservative crusade against ACORN isn’t based in principle but politics: “We are trampling on people’s Constitutional rights. And I think it’s unfortunate that the mania that exists on the other side of the aisle regarding this one organization, and we know why that mania exists, it’s because they’ve registered an awful lot of Democrats, continues to distort and waste the time of this committee and many other committees here in Congress. Enough is enough.”
Buchanan on GOP and Fox linking Obama to Nixon: ‘It is the most idiotic comparison I’ve ever seen.’
Buchanan on GOP and Fox linking Obama to Nixon: ‘It is the most idiotic comparison I’ve ever seen.’
Taking cues from their communications shop over at Fox News, GOP Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Judd Gregg (R-NH) yesterday attacked the White House’s campaign against Fox’s unethical journalistic practices by comparing President Obama to President Nixon. “Let’s not start calling people out and compiling an enemies list,” Alexander said, touting his days as a junior staffer in the Nixon White House as credentials for his charge. Gregg said he was “fascinated” by Alexander’s criticism and wondered if Obama is “Nixon-fying” the White House. But yesterday on MSNBC, top Nixon aide Pat Buchanan dismissed out-of-hand any comparison of Obama to Nixon:
BUCHANAN: It is the most idiotic comparison I’ve ever seen. Barack Obama won 95 percent of Washington DC, he comes in with both houses Congress behind him, the media love him, the country loves him. Nixon came in with both houses of Congress against him, he probably got 8 percent of the vote in Washington DC, the media loathed him. … I don’t see any comparison between Obama and Nixon whatsoever. … [T]here’s no comparison. Barack Obama’s got enormous press support, he’s got problems with Fox News but for heaven’s sakes there is no comparison here.
Watch it:
“I also have to laugh,” liberal talk radio host Bill Press said during the segment. “When two Republicans want to hurt a Democrat, what do they do? They compare him to another Republican. It’s crazy.”
Jon Stewart hits Fox for ignoring gay rights march after aggressively promoting 9/12 March.
Jon Stewart hits Fox for ignoring gay rights march after aggressively promoting 9/12 March.
During the tea party protests and the more recent 9/12 march, Fox News argued that it was justified in covering them incessantly because the network doesn’t “pick and choose these rallies and protests” — it covers them all. At the same time, it slammed other networks for not giving enough coverage to the right-wing rallies. But as Jon Stewart noted on The Daily Show last night, Fox ignored the weekend’s National Equality March, whose turnout was comparable to the 9/12 March. “You didn’t even send your own camera crew?” exclaimed Stewart. “You have a Washington bureau! Tell them to go to the window and point the camera down!” Watch it:
Stewart also pointed out that Fox was more than happy to get out the tv cameras and an on-air reporter to cover an empty sidewalk where there had apparently been a protest about students singing a pro-Obama song. (HT: Andrew Sullivan and Raw Story)
Porn company names Gingrich ‘Family Values Porn Fan of the Year, 2009.’
Porn company names Gingrich ‘Family Values Porn Fan of the Year, 2009.’
Newt Gingrich’s corporate-friendly advocacy group American Solutions for Winning the Future (ASWF) has had a propensity for telling pornography companies that they have received an award and then subsequently retracting them. Recently, ASWF awarded The Lodge — a gentleman’s club in Dallas — with an Entrepreneur of the Year award but then rescinded that award. Also, Pink Visual — a porn DVD store in California — was informed by ASWF that it received the “tremendous honor” of being named a 2009 Entrepreneur of the Year. ASWF later claimed it “inadvertently” sent the letter to Pink Visual. Allison Vivas, the president of Pink Visual, turned the tables on Newt. She told Dave McKenna of the Washington City Paper that she created a fake award for Gingrich:
“I sat down with the executive team here and created a special honor to bestow upon Newt: ‘Family Values Porn Fan of the Year, 2009,’ Vivas responded via email. “We worked on the plaque design [image on the right], an event schedule, a notification to fax to his office – and of course, a letter we’ll send rescinding the offer after he receives it.”
(HT: Huffington Post)
Jindal fires state worker one day after she publicly criticizes him.
Jindal fires state worker one day after she publicly criticizes him.
The Advocate reports today that Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal fired Melody Teague, a Department of Social Services contract grants reviewer, after she publicly criticized the privatization of state services during a forum held by the state’s Commission for Streamlining Government. While Jindal maintains that he fired her due to her handling of a food stamps program started after Katrina, a member of the Commission insists that she was targeted for speaking out:
Melody Teague, a state Department of Social Services contract grants reviewer, was informed she was fired because of problems with the disaster food stamps program that she was drawn into during the Katrina aftermath, her attorney, Mark Falcon said. [...]
The issue first entered the spotlight Tuesday after Commission for Streamlining Government member Leonal Hardman, of Baton Rouge, said Teague was unfairly targeted because she spoke out publicly at the streamlining forum.
During the forum, state Treasurer John Kennedy went out of his way to repeat to Teague she would not be punished for her comments. Hardman said he is concerned the termination is a sign of a larger effort to silence state workers.
(HT: Huffington Post)
Gold Digger! Beck Promotes Investment In Gold While Failing To Disclose His Conflict Of Interest
Gold Digger! Beck Promotes Investment In Gold While Failing To Disclose His Conflict Of Interest
Yesterday at the top of his Fox News show, Glenn Beck said that America might be “facing the end of the almighty dollar.” He then did an entire segment decrying the demise of the dollar and warning about hyperinflation. As a brilliant solution, he advocated that Americans turn to gold, even using props to show how badly off people will be if they don’t invest in gold:
BECK: So, everybody gave us the gold. We still had a nice stack of cash here, and gold.
You’re over here. You don’t have any gold, right? This is you. This is you. This is your savings.
How much did you lose if you had any money in your 401k? Did you lose, let’s say, I don’t know, 40 percent of it? So, that’s gone.
He then brought on David Buckner of Columbia University to echo his gold cheerleading:
BECK: Any way to protect yourself?
BUCKNER: Well, you invest in things that are friendly to inflation.
BECK: Gold.
BUCKNER: Gold, real estate and some realm of the world.
Watch it:
“So Beck essentially scares his audience into believing that hyperinflation and economic collapse is a near sure thing and then advises them to buy gold to protect themselves,” writes Ryan Witt for the Examiner.com. “All along Beck never mentions that a gold-buying company happens to be one of his few remaining sponsors.”
As Witt notes, eighty companies have stopped advertising on Beck’s show since Color Of Change started its boycott in August. These companies include major names like General Mills, AT&T, Wal-Mart, and Bank of America. Most of Beck’s remaining advertisers are conservative organizations like the National Review or little-known corporations such as…the Superior Gold Group, Rosland Capital, and Goldline International. In fact, during Beck’s gold promotion show yesterday, Goldline ran an ad that said almost exactly what Beck said on his show: Americans should be buying gold because of hyperinflation. Watch it:
Goldline’s website also features a picture of Beck and the quote, “Before I started turning you on to Goldline, I wanted to look them in the eye. This is a top notch organization that’s been in business since 1960.”
On The Wonk Room, Pat Garofalo points out that CNBC is now using Beck as an economic indicator, taking Beck’s conflict-of-interest tirade as the true indicator that the dollar’s six month slide in value is effectively over.
Transcript: More »
O’Reilly: Fox News Doesn’t Report Stories That Will ‘Hurt Anybody’
O’Reilly: Fox News Doesn’t Report Stories That Will ‘Hurt Anybody’
Last week, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) criticized the partisan political environment, saying, “Can you imagine writing the Constitution today?” Graham asked, speculating that Fox News host Bill O’Reilly would complain of “Ben Franklin giving in on something.” Last night on Fox News, Bill O’Reilly playfully confronted Graham about the accusation and attempted to defend the integrity of his network. O’Reilly said that unlike the New York Times, Fox News doesn’t break stories that hurt people:
O’REILLY: And I think you raise a very interesting point in what you said. And you said — I’m glad you mentioned me because that got attention And then people to think about this. We don’t break stories that are going to interfere with President Obama or President Bush or whoever’s in office if we feel that the story is going to hurt anybody, our military, our policymakers. We’ll hold it back. Okay? We’re not The New York Times. We’re not trying to do that.
Watch it:
Fox News and O’Reilly may not “break stories” that directly “hurt anybody,” but they certainly haven’t made great efforts to take targets off anyone’s back either. In fact, O’Reilly producer Jesse Watters regularly stalks and ambushes anyone O’Reilly and his goons disagree with (like TP’s own Amanda Terkel), even if it means following them home and confronting them in places such as their garages.
In May, a radical anti-choice crusader gunned down Dr. George Tiller, a Kansas physician who administered abortions. Prior to this incident, O’Reilly regularly singled out Tiller on his show, referring to him as “Tiller the Baby Killer,” saying that he “has blood on his hands” and that he “executes babies.” After the murder, O’Reilly stood by all his claims and even lied that he never called Tiller “Dr. Killer.”
Other hosts, such as by Glenn Beck, have attempted to scare the American public by calling the President a “socialist,” saying that he has ties to communists (or fascists), or that he’s even a “racist” who hates “white culture.” Beck regularly fears that the country is being “stolen” and has even said that the Obama administration had created concentration camps.
Indeed, other major conservative media figures have noticed this constant incendiary rhetoric, and one CNN host noted that “Americans are scarfing up guns and ammunition at an alarming rate.”
Fox Pats Itself On The Back For Being ‘Enemy Number One’ Of The Obama White House
Fox Pats Itself On The Back For Being ‘Enemy Number One’ Of The Obama White House
White House adviser David Axelrod recently met with Fox News Chairman and CEO Roger Ailes to discuss “news coverage and the relationship between the organizations.” Last month, Fox found itself shut out when President Obama made appearances on the Sunday morning public opinion shows of ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, and Univision — but left out Fox (which host Chris Wallace whined about on his show). The move came after Fox was the only network that refused to air the President’s joint address to Congress. Fox hosts have accused Obama of leading the country on a path to socialism, stirred up tea party protests, and gone after administration officials, and the White House has responded by criticizing the network.
Fox is patting itself on the back over a job well done, according to a new Time magazine article. “The fact that our numbers are up 30 plus in the news arena on basic cable I’d like to think is a sign that we are just putting what we believe to be the facts out on the table,” said Michael Clemente, Fox’s senior vice president for news. He then compared the network to veteran journalist Sam Donaldson, who was doing a good job because he was “enemy number one” to both the Carter and Reagan White Houses:
As for Fox’s journalism, Clemente said the White House criticism was typical of other administrations who have been critical of certain reporters. “It reminds me a little bit about what happened to Sam Donaldson when he was covering the White House,” said Clemente. “The Reagan White House thought he was enemy number one. He had the same relationship with the Carter White House. They thought he was enemy number one. He thought he was doing his job.”
Of course, the difference is that Fox News hasn’t met a Republican administration it didn’t love. While it may be out of favor with the Obama administration, it was the best friend of the Bush White House. Remember, Fox was the network:
– that received “unprecedented access by George W. Bush” for a one-hour documentary — “George W. Bush: Fighting to the Finish” — highlighting the administration’s accomplishments.
– that happily used talking points provided to them by the Bush administration.
– whose reporters couldn’t help from editorializing that Bush put America on an “amazing” foreign policy path, defending Bush by saying he “inherited” the 9/11 attacks, and arguing that critics who compared Bush to Nixon were guilty of a “gross misreading of history.”
Further demonstrating the love between the network and the Bush White House, Vice President Cheney always demanded that the televisions in his hotel rooms be turned to Fox News.
Nobel Prize Winner Elizabeth Blackburn Was An Outspoken Opponent Of Bush’s Politicization Of Science
Nobel Prize Winner Elizabeth Blackburn Was An Outspoken Opponent Of Bush’s Politicization Of Science
Yesterday, three American scientists — Elizabeth Blackburn, Carol Greider, and Jack Szostak — were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their contributions to the study of cell biology in a way that positively impacts our understanding of cancer and aging.
One of the stories not being covered about the Nobel winners is that one of them, Australian-American researcher Elizabeth Blackburn, played a “brave role” in exposing the Bush administration’s anti-science policies, particularly with respect to blocking embryonic stem cell research.
Shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attack, Blackburn was appointed a member of the “President’s Council of Bioethics,” the body charged with “advising the President on ethical issues related to advances in biomedical science and technology.” “Like everyone during that time, I wanted to do something, anything,” she told the press.
An “outspoken advocate” for embryonic stem cell research, Blackburn objected to President Bush’s position on the issue, which was to veto legislation that would have freed up federal funding for it. While the council is supposed to exist to provide a variety of views to the President on a whole host of bioethics issues, Blackburn soon found that under the Bush administration, “scientific research…[was] being manipulated for political ends.”
Eventually, the Bush administration decided that it would no longer tolerate Blackburn’s dissent. On Feb. 27, 2004, the administration dismissed Blackburn and another dissident scientist, Dr. William May, from the council. Dean Clancy, the executive director of the council, maintained that politics had nothing to do with her dismissal, telling the press, “The charge that she was let go because of her policy views is utterly without merit.”
Yet scientists around the country were not convinced. Following her dismissal, more than 170 researchers sent an open letter to the President protesting the decision. Janet Rowley, University of Chicago medical professor and fellow council member, told USA Today that she agreed with the researchers that Blackburn was fired for her views, “Liz is an important example of the absolutely destructive practices of the Bush administration.”
For her part, Blackburn said that she didn’t “feel martyred.” Rather, she said she saw her dismissal as “a badge of honor.” Following her firing, she wrote a scathing indictment of her time on the council in the New England Annals of Medicine, writing that science should be “protected from the influence of politics“:
As a naturalized citizen of the United States, I have an immigrant’s love for my country. But our country must not fail us. Scientific advice should and must be protected from the influence of politics. Will the President’s Council on Bioethics be up to that challenge?
Blackburn will receive one-third of the $1.4 million prize granted to the trio of researchers. She is the first Australian woman to ever win the Nobel Prize.
Jon Kyl Refuses To Defend John Ensign In Midst Of Ethics Scandal
Jon Kyl Refuses To Defend John Ensign In Midst Of Ethics Scandal
Late last week, the New York Times documented new ethics problems for Sen. John Ensign (R-NV). In an effort to cover-up an affair he was having with the wife of one of his top staffers, Ensign asked his corporate allies to give that aide — Doug Hampton — a lobbying job. Despite rules that prohibit congressional staffers from lobbying for one year after leaving their government position, Ensign nevertheless helped Hampton line up lobbying clients and then “repeatedly intervened on the companies’ behalf with federal agencies.”
Ensign “could be legally at risk” if he knew that Hampton was violating the one-year ban, or if he aided and abetted him in doing so. Law enforcement officials told the Times that the F.B.I. is “likely to open a preliminary investigation” into the new accusations to determine whether a full investigation is warranted. The FBI inquiry would take precedence over a Senate ethics inquiry.
This morning on CNN’s State of the Union, Senate ethics chair Barbara Boxer (D-CA) announced “there’s a preliminary investigation going on, and we will look at all aspects of this case.” When asked whether Ensign can continue to “serve effectively,” Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) — a member of the Senate Republican leadership — refused to lend his support to Ensign. We should simply “wait and see what happens,” Kyl said. Watch it:
Ensign is finding no support among his long-time friends and colleagues on Capitol Hill. On Friday, Republican leader Mitch McConnell dodged the issue. “I really don’t have any observations to make about the Ensign matter,’’ McConnell told reporters.
Gingrich strips his Entrepreneur of the Year award from Dallas topless club.
Gingrich strips his Entrepreneur of the Year award from Dallas topless club.
Last month, Allison Vivas of Pink Visual — a porn DVD superstore headquartered in California — was tickled to find out that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s Business Defense and Advisory Council had chosen her for a 2009 Entrepreneur of the Year award. Embarrassed, Gingrich’s group eventually said that it had “inadvertently” sent the invitation to Pink Visual. Yesterday, the Dallas Morning News reported that The Lodge, “one of the best-known gentlemen’s clubs in Dallas,” also received an Entrepreneur award from Gingrich, only to have it taken away:
That all changed, however, when Gingrich realized that The Lodge was a topless bar, not some other business in Virginia. He rescinded [Lodge owner Dawn] Rizos’ invitation to a private dinner and returned the $5,000 donation she made to his group, American Solutions for Winning the Future.
“It was disappointing,” Rizos said. “We were looking forward to sharing our political views with Newt Gingrich.” … She said she didn’t figure Gingrich had the wrong company because her business has been honored many times and she thought “his intentions were honorable.”
An spokesperson for Gingrich’s group American Solutions for Winning the Future said that the notice Rizos received “was sent at the same time as the other mistake [to Pink Visual] for the same reason.” CNN adds, “It did not specify what that reason was.” (HT: Raw Story)
‘Media Courage Award’ recipient Bill O’Reilly bans the media from his speech.
‘Media Courage Award’ recipient Bill O’Reilly bans the media from his speech.
Members of the press were dismayed to find out that they were banned from Bill O’Reilly’s speech at the Values Voter Summit tonight. The Washington Independent’s Dave Weigel snapped a picture of the sign letting them know that they couldn’t get in:
Ironically, O’Reilly was receiving a “Media Courage Award.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll