Hmmm, why don't we talk to an economist?

You would hope, when we are facing such a dramatic worldwide economic crisis, that our Big Money Media would rise to the challenge. Don't hold your breath.
Why? Why do the news networks continue to book politicians and pundit to talk about the economy and turn their back on the experts, economists?

From Media Matters for America:

A Media Matters review of the Sunday talk shows and 12 cable news programs from January 25 through February 15 found that during 203 hours of programming on Sunday mornings and weekday afternoons and evenings, only 41 of 722 total guest appearances in discussions about the economic recovery legislation and debate in Congress, were made by economists -- a mere 6 percent.

Six percent? As John Stewart said, you guys are hurting America.
.

Dishonest and dishonorable

John McCain put out an add a couple of days ago that was one of the sleaziest ads ever seen in presidential politics, according to Joe Klein and many others, including the fact checkers below:

The New York Times’ “Checkpoint” (“Ad on Sex Education Distorts Obama Policy “), Factcheck.org (“Obama, contrary to the ad's insinuation, does not support explicit sex education for kindergarteners”) and the Washington Post’s Fact Checker ("McCain's Education' Spot Is Dishonest, Deceptive") say the ad is a gross distortion.

Basically, the legislation that Barack Obama supported in Illinois (but which did not pass), would have provided for educating younger children (as early as kindergarten) about sexuality in age appropriate and responsible ways, such as the difference between good touches and bad touches so they would be better protected against pedophiles.

But the McCain campaign and others are distorting this in sleazy ways. But the Big Money Media is starting to notice this crap and they don't like what all of this is saying about John McCain's character and the type of campaign he has decided to run. Jake Tapper has more:

The script reads as follows: "Education Week says Obama 'hasn’t made a significant mark on education' That he’s 'elusive' on accountability. 'A staunch defender of the existing public school monopoly.' Obama’s one accomplishment? Legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergarteners. Learning about sex before learning to read? Barack Obama. Wrong on education. Wrong for your family."

The most controversial item in the McCain ad is the assertion that Obama supports children "learning about sex before learning to read," and the accusation that Obama's "one accomplishment" on education was "legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergarteners."

But both claims are false.

The idea seems to be to paint Obama as an insanely liberal sleaze ball who wants to teach young kids who don’t even know how to read all about graphic sexual information.

That's not fair and it's not accurate.

One can only imagine what the John McCain of 2004 – who called the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads “dishonest and dishonorable” – would say about this ad.
...
I suppose one could twist this stuff any way you want if your only point is to make an inflammatory charge. And win an election.

One could say that if McCain opposes this bill he supports students in kindergarten making unwanted sexual advances towards each other, that he opposes ensuring that 5-year-old girls aren’t vulnerable to sexual violence.

It wouldn’t be true, but Obama could say that -- if his only point was to throw a rhetorical Molotov cocktail at McCain.

The fact checkers are not getting much sleep with the McSlime campaign running in high gear on the low road.

UPDATE:

(A new) ad defends Obama, and suggests McCain is indifferent to the plight of sexually abused children.

"Every eight minutes a child is sexually abused. That's why Barack Obama supported legislation to teach children how to protect themselves. Now John McCain is twisting the facts and attacking Senator Obama," says the female narrator, over images that suggest abused children.

"Doesn't McCain want our children to protect ourselves from sex offenders? Or after 26 years in Washington, is he just another politician who will say anything to get elected?"

.

What a bunch of crybabies

They can blame the media all they want, but the way Sarah Palin is dodging reporters, questions and interviews is proof that she was not and is not ready for the job.

Josh Marshall:

Not Training Wheels We Can Believe In
"Davis says Palin won't give any interviews until she feels "comfortable" giving one. And this morning he added that she wouldn't give any "until the point in time when she'll be treated with respect and deference."
Sarah Palin could be the President of the United States in four and a half months. We tend to think of this as an abstraction; but it's true. And yet today she's so unprepared and knows so little about the challenges and tasks facing the country that she can't even give a softball interview.
That's really all we need to know. Yes, she's off being prepped at some undisclosed location. And I've little doubt that by the time her debate rolls around she'll be sufficiently pumped full of slogans and bromides to make a show of it. But now, this moment, is the one that tells us all we need to know.
As is so often the case, Palin is the incarnation of the Republican slurs. The darling of the hard-right; she gives stem-winding speeches. She pushes all their buttons. But she's such a lightweight, they can't risk letting her answer a few questions. Not even on Fox. They know she's not ready and probably never will be. But they think the politics might work for them."

And Andrew Sullivan documents the media and press conference history of past vice presidential candidates.

Here:

Ferraro was being interviewed within four days of being announced. Dan Quayle gave an interview one day after being selected. We are now on Day Nine for Palin and are told to expect another thirteen before she's ready.
This is a pitbull with lipstick?
More like a cowering chihuahua.

Here:

Thomas Eagleton was selected on July 15, 1972. His first press conference was July 25, 1972. So ten days is the maximum delay in recent history so far. ... Lloyd Bentsen gave a press conference one day after being selected. ... When Eagleton was selected, there were a little under four months left till election day. Now there's less than two
months. And they say the public has no right to know who could be their next president.

Here:

In fact, Eagleton may not have given a press conference until July 25, but he was interviewed on television on July 14, the day of his selection, and on July 16, on Face The Nation. So Eagleton was available to some press one day after he was announced. ... Notice that most campaigns actually believe that it is good for them to get press interest in their vice-presidential pick. Normally, they can't wait to get him or her in front of the cameras. It's important to realize that, whatever the intimidation from the GOP, what is happening with Palin is without historical precedent.
The question we have every right to ask is: why?

And here:

He was giving press conferences one day after the convention. Of course. He was a serious pick. Can you imagine George H. W. Bush runing off to Kennebunkport to cram for three weeks in September 1980?

A Sullivan reader adds:

Three Weeks "Training" To Be President?

Assuming Gov. Palin is entitled to time to "prepare" for her new job, could you or I learn what we need to know in 3 weeks? Can she? I'm a lawyer, a political/news freak, and work in gov't, and I don't think I could do it.

She. Is. Not. Ready. For. Primetime.
.

Oops!

Oh, my! Who left that mic on?



Now ask yourself, why aren't these people saying what they really believe when they are on the air? Because it is all show business.

Full transcript at TalkingPointsMemo.com.
.

Meet Campbell Brown's bitch ... Tucker Bounds

This is the interview that sent Big John McCain running away to hide from ... Larry King? Yup. McCain cancelled an appearance on Larry King because his robotic spokesperson got clobbered by Campbell Brown. She simply asked a question and kept asking for an answer. She never got one.


.

Maverick is in the danger zone.

John McCain is only leading Barack Obama in Arizona by six points, 47%-41%. AmericaBlog has more and asks ... why isn't this a bigger story in the media

He's not even breaking 50% and barely breaking 45%. That's why John McCain has to campaign in his home state. Arizona is the place where McCain has most of his houses. The people who know him best don't really like him. Take a look at Pollster.com's trend chart for Arizona. This is McCain's home state and he's barely winning. This should be a HUGE political story -- it really is one of the untold stories of the 2008 election. In any statewide race, an incumbent who is stuck at 45% would be in the danger zone. This should be a HUGE story, but too many reporters like McCain so they can't grasp that others don't. (And, those reporters like going to John McCain's biggest house -- the compound in Sedona with the private lake.)
.

Funny Money

OK, below is the video of John McCain bringing up his P.O.W. experience in response to a question about his inability to remember or even know how many homes he and Cindy own. But there is something else to note in the video. He also uses the military experience of his father-in-law to deflect the criticism. But now he has opened the door wider for people to take a close look at Cindy's father, Jim Hensley, and his divorce, his wealth and how he got it (are there ties to organized crime?).

It is a story that most of the Big Money Media is ignoring, but the New York Times hit the story hard on Saturday. Check out the entire article here:

"But the Hensley family wealth, from its rough-and-tumble origins to prominence in Arizona’s corporate world, is also the fortune that propelled John McCain into national politics. A clearer picture of that fortune emerges from a review of public records and interviews with employees, business associates, friends and relatives."

.

A noun, a verb and P.O.W.

Well, that didn't take long. Bringing up your POW experience multiple times over the course of the past week as the primary retort to criticism has awakened some of the traditional press. The McCain campaign has been successful for a long time at convincing members of the Big Money Media that "the hero" doesn't bring up his POW background, or only does so reluctantly. That narrative seems to be weakening:

• Huffington Post: The McCain campaign--realizing this was trouble--retorted the only way they knew how: With a truly stupefying response from McCain spokesman Brian Rogers: "This is a guy who lived in one house for five and a half years -- in prison," referring to the prisoner of war camp that McCain was in during the Vietnam War. Yes, you read that right. McCain justified not knowing how many houses he has by saying he was a POW in Vietnam, four decades ago. I have some things to say about this: 1. Being a POW is not an excuse for everything.
• Ana Marie Cox: "The McCain campaign's constant invocation of the candidate's POW past is weird bordering on irrational."
• Talkingpointsmemo.com: "McCain Camp Responds On Houses Gaffe: He Was A POW!
• Americablog: "McCain's housing gaffe doesn't matter because - are you ready? - he was a POW"
• Ben Smith at Politico: "McCain aides referred back to McCain's time as a prisoner of war in Vietnam in defending him from the mockery over his houses. This is a guy who lived in one house for five and a half years -- in prison," says spokesman Rogers. It does seem like they're flirting with Giuliani/9/11 territory here, in which at subject that seems utterly immune to humor, used as a first resort, suddenly becomes a running joke among your political enemies and your late night comic friends."
• You Knew This Was Coming ...by hilzoy: "It didn't take more than a few hours for McCain's people to cite his experience as a POW in response to his gaffe about his houses."

Blogging Royalty

I have the utmost respect for Bob Somerby at The Daily Howler. He is known far and wide in the liberal blogosphere as the expert in documenting and deconstructing the worst-of-the-worst episodes of the mainstream media, such as the trashing of Al Gore prior to the 2000 election. Make sure you read this example to see how these things "just happen":

“I invented the Internet!” That was the way “his enemies” projected it, Blitzer slickly said—failing to note that it was really his own mainstream colleagues who rode this mocking, “distorted” paraphrase for the next two years. And sure enough! Right to this day, more than nine years later, Blitzer and Kurtz refuse to describe the actual history of this monumental event. They forget to say who really drove this history-changing “distortion.”
Within the press corps, everyone knows he can say it now: Al Gore never said he invented the Internet. But Daddy, what did you say in real time? What did you say when it actually mattered? Isn’t it true that you cowered and quaked? That you didn’t say sh*t at the time?"

Good stuff!

A ton of great reading on the Internets tonight. Here are a few samples for you to check out:

• Digby sez:

"Media Bloodhound caught a perfect example of the Entertainment Industrial Complex doing its best to ensure that Americans stay as uninformed as possible."

• Digby again ... highlights a Glenn Greenwald post about the meaning of bipartisanship in the inner circle of D.C.:

"The key to understanding how the elders define bipartisanship is recognizing that whatever your beliefs or principles, you "get things done" in Washington by doing what conservatives want you to do."

• Uh-Oh!

"It seems unthinkable, but for the first time in human history, ice is on course to disappear entirely from the North Pole this year. The disappearance of the Arctic sea ice, making it possible to reach the Pole sailing in a boat through open water, would be one of the most dramatic – and worrying – examples of the impact of global warming on the planet."

• Pick your favorite B.O. magazine cover!

• I don't know who this Larry Hunter is (a conservative economist I'm told), but I like this quote:

"The Republican Party is a dead rotting carcass with a few decrepit old leaders stumbling around like zombies in a horror version of 'Weekend With Bernie,' handcuffed to a corpse."

ABC debate blows because the moderators suck.

The Democratic debate last night in Pennsylvania was a disaster. Not for the candidates (although both could have done much better), but for ABC and the hosts Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos. There's no other way to describe it ... they are tools.

It looks like George got at least one question from Sean Hannity and Gibson has a pattern of looking foolish on money matters affecting average Americans.

Here's a synopsis of several blogs at Americablog.com:

Wow, major loathing of ABC on the Web tonight ...

• TPM: Looking around other sites, I guess I'm not the only one that thought this debate was unmitigated travesty. Maybe the embargo on debate rebroadcast was a pro-human rights stand.
• From FDL: Well, that was really, really horrible. Charlie Gibson and Mr. Snuffalupagus fed Clinton and Obama nothing but gotcha questions. Torture never came up, China never came up, unchecked executive power never came up, and it was 50+ minutes in before they asked any questions that could be considered remotely substantive or issues-based.
• Atrios: Aside from the lack of policy questions, so far this "debate" has been played entirely on wingnut ground. If BillO and Sean Hannity hosted it the questions would've been the same. In a general election debate it would make sense to get questions from the right like that, but in a democratic primary it's just fucking stupid.
• DKos: The questioning in tonight's debate--—mostly straight out of 1988—was an abomination. Gun control. 60's radicalism. Inflammatory black pastors. Respecting or disrespecting the flag. Taxes. Being out of touch with the military. Affirmative Action. I'll bet if they had more time, ABC anchors Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolus would probably have gotten around to asking Obama and Clinton about Willie Horton and Piss Christ.
• Editor & Publisher: In perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years, ABC News hosts Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous focused mainly on trivial issues as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama faced off in Philadelphia.
• OpenLeft: Halfway through the debate, not a single question on any policy issue had been asked, it was obvious that this debate was prime-time hit job on Obama. The questions so far have been why he doesn't wear a flag pin, whether or not his pastor loves America, why he can't win, and how many people were offended by his bittergate comments. Except for Clinton being asked about why she wasn't trustworthy, and both of them being asked about their vice-presidential choices, that has been the entire debate. As Master Jack said in the comments, nothing on Iraq, nothing on the economy, nothing on health care, nothing on housing, nothing on global warming, nothing on torture. This is nothing but a prime-time hit job on Democrats, although mainly a hit job on Obama.
• Tapped: Seriously "does rev. wright love america as much as you?" Really? REALLY?!!! Also, "what will you do when clips" of Wright "play over an over" on TV? [... A woman asks if Obama "believes in the American flag" because he doesn't wear a flag pin. Charlie Gibson says that questions about the flag are "all over the internet" -- along with Pamela Anderson's sex tape, cats with bad grammar, and Rick Astley. Journalism at it's finest.
• Huff Post: Why in the world George Stephanopoulos felt compelled to ask Barack Obama if Reverend Wright "loved America" after he had already been made to give another recitation of his repudiation of Wright's remarks is a question that simply defies the imagination. What sort of sensible answer can be given to that question? It would require astral projection to properly gauge another man's emotional state. And if you want to ask Hillary Clinton to account for the odd contortions she advanced on the matter of her Bosnia recollections, just sack up and ask. Don't hide behind the additional, pointless cruelty of a random voter's scoldings that Clinton lost their vote. What a wholly superfluous pile on! And the flag lapel pin question came with this admonishment from Charles Gibson: "It
  keeps coming up, again and again." Well, no shit, Charlie! It keeps "coming up, again and again" because the media resolutely refuses to obtain the necessary courage to stop doing so.

Also from Americablog.com:

"Today's front page Washington Post article about the debate last night comprised twenty-five paragraphs. This is the 23rd paragraph:
The debate also touched on Iraq, Iran, the Middle East,
taxes, the economy, guns and affirmative action.
That pretty much sums up the debate. It's almost comical. One line, in the 23rd paragraph of a 25 paragraph article. Granted, because of the performance of Stephanopoulos and Gibson, the Post didn't have much to work with. The political reporters and pundits didn't get what happened last night, but the Post's media critic, Tom Shales did ..."

Finally ... Here is a great video summarizing the descent of George's career.

Cruisin' the Internets

Check out these blog posts:

• Lawyers, Guns & Money looks at revisionist Confederate history. The Money Quote:
  

  "Confederate nostalgia has always included this racial component, and has never been about the "heritage" of the American South."

• Bob Somerby writes The Daily Howler and is the blogging master for documenting some of the worst media atrocities when it comes to trashing Democratic Presidential candidates and spreading myths and lies. The Money Quote:
  

  "Saint McCain is a very good man! The Clintons—and Gore—are really quite vile! Since the summer of 2002, we’ve explicitly asked them to fight these novels. But nothing on earth can make them do it. Simply put, they never will."

• Atrios links to a story about a reporter who ... gasp ... let her 9-year-old son ride the NYC subway alone! The Money Quote:
  

  "... accidents and bad things can always happen and since parents get blamed for them they feel the need to go through elaborate steps to shield children from very low probability events."

Congratulations to TPM!

The first blog I go to any time I'm online is Talking Points Memo. I have blogged about this site before here, and how it is changing the nature of online journalism. Today, TPM and its founder Josh Marshall won a prestigious George Polk Award.
Here is another excellent blogger, Will Bunch of Attytood.com with details:

A landmark day for bloggers -- and the future of journalism

The George Polk Awards are kind of like the Golden Globes of American journalism . Not as well known as those Oscars of the news business, the Pulitzer Prize, the Polk Awards are nevertheless probably a close second in terms of prestige, and this year I am especially blown away by the quality of the work they honor. But I want to highlight one Polk Award that shows there are emerging models for using the very tool at the root of the turmoil of the news business -- the Internet -- as a newfangled way to re-invent investigative reporting -- by using new techniques that emphasize collaboration over competition and by working with readers and through collective weight of many news sources to expose government misconduct.
It would have seemed incredible a couple of years ago, but a George Polk Award was given this morning to a blogger.
Not just any blogger, of course. Josh Marshall (top, with his son Sam) of Talking Points Memo may have started back in 2000 as a kind of blogging stereotype, posting late at night from his small D.C. apartment and from the corner Starbucks and -- in just two years -- shining a light on the remarks that cost Sen. Trent Lott his GOP Senate leadership post, but he's turned his operation into much, much more.
Since 2002 Marshall has moved to New York and -- thanks to increasing ad revenue -- made Talking Points Memo into a new kind of journalistic enterprise for the 21st Century, hiring a staff of a half dozen talented young journalists and rewriting the rules with a mix of commentary and original muckraking while highlighting the work of other to focus like a laser on the big political questions.

There is much more to read ... go do it!

Media drives the McCain bus

Sure, I hammered Mitt Romney yesterday. But today is another day. And a beautiful one at that, because while I am giving him a boost (via Mattew Yglesias), I actually get to hammer John McCain AND the Beltway Media.

This morning, Mitt Romney had more delegates than John McCain. Following today's primaries, Romney's lead has grown even larger because Nevada has more delegates than South Carolina and Romney won a larger proportion of the vote in NV than McCain got in South Carolina. Naturally, the press is declaring this a big win for McCain. I just saw Howard Fineman explain that "there is no longer any strong candidate in the race" to oppose McCain. Nobody but the guy who's leading, that is.

The media pundits from the Washington D.C. beltway absolutely love Saint McCain. And it looks like they don't care for Romney. Just watch ... everything that happens in the campaign over the next few weeks will be bad news for Romney and great news for McCain, according to these pundits.

What do you get when you cross a Filipino monkey with a horse's a$$ ...

Last week some in the Pentagon and high up in this administration announced in most-serious tones that the Iranian Navy had almost provoked the US Navy into a violent confrontation in the Straits of Hormuz. The sabres were rattling for days, but then a strange thing started happening; some reporters actually did some investigative reporting.

Democracy Now! spoke with Gareth Porter, a historian and national security policy analyst who says ...

"I must say this is perhaps the worst -- the most egregious case of sensationalist journalism in the service of the interests of the Pentagon, the Bush administration, that I have seen so far."

And Digby writes a post based on onw The Newshoggers offers up titled "Who spun the Hormuz incident?"

Nobody puts Baby in a corner.*

Supporters of all the presidential hopefuls think the Big Money Media hates their candidate and wants him or her to lose. And I think their dislike or hatred of HRC leads some in the media to negatively pile on her campaign. But it is amazing how the media is ignoring the campaign of John Edwards. Especially when you look at how he matches up head-to-head against the Republican candidates. His numbers are the best of the Democratic candidates, according to recent CBS and Rasmussen polls. He ties with Giuliani, but easily beats McCain, Thompson, Romney and Huckabee. Why are they so afraid of a John Edwards presidency?

Phoenix Women at Firedoglake.com explains in The Polls You Won’t Hear Much About.

*