Buck Naked Politics

Olbermann's O-Reilly-ish Stance on FISA: Greenwald Delivers Knock-Out Punch

by D. Cupples |   It's just not smart to raise boxing gloves against Salon's Glenn Greenwald when one doesn't have actual facts and events on his or her side.  As my co-blogger Damozel put it, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and Glenn Greenwald went into a room over Olbermann's handling of the FISA issue, and only one of them came back out -- Greenwald.

Mr. Olbermann has been railing against FISA, Telecom Amnesty and President Bush for months -- complete with intense huffing and puffing and nostril flaring.  He even called Telecom Amnesty a fascist plot (video available here).  On those points, Greenwald agrees with Olbermann's original stance (which has, apparently, changed).

McCain Wants Tax Cuts -- for Himself

by D. Cupples |  Friday, Media Matters reported:

"Last week, the Center for American Progress Action Fund released a new report by Michael Ettlinger estimating that under McCain's tax plan, he and his wife, Cindy, would save $373,429. That's nearly $400,000 -- per year, not over the course of their lifetimes. (Under Barack Obama's plan, the McCains would save less than $6,000.

"The Obamas would save nearly $50,000 under McCain's plan, and slightly more than $6,000 under Obama's plan own plan.)"

While those numbers are interesting, Media Matters' primary point was actually the media's coverage failures and inconsistencies.

How Should One Read Obama's Campaign-Finance Statistics?

The short answer is "very carefully."  Last week, when Sen. Barack Obama decided to opt out of public financing (and   bizarrely attempted to link his decision to our nation's Declaration of Independence), he offered an odd statistic:

"The Obama campaign highlighted Thursday the fact that 93 percent of the more than three million contributions it had received were for $200 or less." (New York Times)

People quickly reading that statement  (or hearing it repeated verbatim on TV while setting the dinner table) might get the impression that 93% of Obama's funds came from small donors.

That impression would be false -- though many people likely doubt that Obama's campaign spokesperson had actually intended to create such a false impression.

Jon Swift on Tim Russert

by D. Cupples |  Satirist Jon Swift has been gone for a while, but he's back -- and he's done a wicked tribute to Tim Russert.  Below is just a taste of it:

"Universally acknowledged by Washington's elite to be one of the most important people who ever lived on Earth, if not the most important person, Meet the Press moderator Tim Russert was given a state funeral yesterday that rivaled the send-offs for such beloved and powerful men as Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. The impact of Russert's death on humanity is only just beginning to be felt, but one of its most immediate and profound effects may be on the U.S. election."

Law Prof Challenges the Spin and Tells Why FISA Bill is Frightening

by Deb Cupples |  Below is a good interview of George Washington University Professor and constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley re: FISA facts and spin.  The first minute (or so) is devoted to background info, and the next four minutes (or so)  are largely devoted to Prof. Turley.  Here's a snippet:

"It is reverse engineering, the type of thing the Bush Administration's famous for and now the Democrats are doing.  That is to change the law to conform to past conduct.  It's what any criminal would love to do.  You rob a bank, go to the legislature, and change the law to say that robbing banks is lawful...."

"People need to be very, very much aware of this bill.  What you're seeing in this bill is an evisceration of the fourth amendment of the constitution.  It is something that allows the president and the government to go into law-abiding homes on their word alone, their suspicion alone and engage in warrantless surveillance.  That's what the framers who drafted the Fourth Amendment wanted to prevent."

Notice how incisive Keith Olbermann is toward congressional Democrats who were caving into the White House on FISA.  The day after interviewing Prof. Turley, Mr. Olbermann did a piece on Sen. Obama's surprising support for the FISA bill -- and Mr. Olbermann wasn't nearly as incisive. 

I'm not sure if Mr. Olbermann was in shock or if he was trying to figure out a credible way to give Sen. Obama immunity on this issue.

Olbermann (and Others) Construct Rickety Defenses over FISA

by Deb Cupples |  I've been troubled by certain media's use of false (or selective) reporting to shape public opinion ever since Rush Limbaugh and Fox began convinced millions of Americans that President Bush could do no wrong -- and that his supporters should respond with verbal brutality when fellow Americans dared to question the policies of certain politicians.

My concerns intensified when even non-right-wing media failed (or refused) to accurately inform Americans before the Iraq war, thereby helping the Bush Administration falsely sell a costly war that will likely go on for years.

My concerns further intensified as I watched big media personalities abandon journalistic pursuits in favor of acting as unofficial campaign volunteers during this year's primaries. 

Warning flags are flapping again as I watch some media fail to inform the public about the new FISA bill, which includes retroactive immunity for telecom companies that helped the Bush Administration illegally spy on Americans.

Voters Want Media to Back Off

by Deb Cupples |   Eric Boehlert at Media Matters has an interesting piece about voters -- and McCain's and Obama's campaigns -- wanting the media to play a lesser role in the general election, given the nonsensical (and I would say biased) havoc many media wreaked during the Democratic primaries.

It's a shame that the candidates didn't take a stronger stance back in March or April against the media's hijacking of the primaries.  But then, Sen. McCain wasn't being particularly harmed by the media mis-steps of a few months ago, and Sen. Obama seemed to benefit from many of them.

Recipe-gate Part 2: A Teapot in a Tempest

by Damozel | But of course:  it's always the mid-Twentieth Century for a certain segment of the American public. Family Circle is sponsoring a bake-off between potential First Spouses.  Which one is the best role model for the homemakers of America?  As The New York Daily News says, '[T]he stakes are not small. The wives of the winners of the last four presidential elections have also won this competition.'   

So...by failing to win this competition, Michelle or Cindy may cause their husbands to lose the election.  Furthermore, they'll reveal themselves to be unfit to be a presidential spouse.  A presidential spouse needs to be a good role model, even if the spouse is Bill Clinton.  Bill submitted a recipe for oatmeal cookies.

It's worth noting that none of the spouses claims that the recipe was her --- or his --- own invention.  It's not Top Chef.   So the whole thing is kind of a farce. 

AP to Demand Protection Money for 'Fair Use' of their Content?

by Damozel | So it is rumored.  I have a hard time believing that they'd really try it on.  But according to Tim Conneally,  it seems that this may be what they're thinking.

Where the group had previously invoked the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and sent cease-and-desist orders to at least one blogger, seeking the removal of excerpted content (in some cases as few as 17 words in length), now the press service has attached an "Excerpt for Web Use" charge for passages as short as five words in length.

The pricing scale for excerpting AP content begins at $12.50 for 5-25 words and goes as high as $100 for 251 words and up. Nonprofit organizations and educational institutions enjoy a discounted rate. (BetaNews)

As Markos says, it will be the easiest question in the history of copyright law for a blogger who can afford to litigate, and you know he can.   Many blogs have decided to boycott AP content.  Lord Kos, who can doubtless afford it and who has 'a JD and specialized in media law, is going to fight back by carrying on making 'fair' --- i.e., legal --- use of their materials.

The 'Fair Use' Flap: Associated Press to Set Guidelines for Bloggers?

by Damozel | During last week's kerfuffle over use of  AP content,  bloggers who felt bullied by its move against the left-leaning Drudge Retort (not to be confused with The Drudge Report) urged an AP boycott.   

Apparently AP executives are worried that bloggers are making excessive --- as opposed to 'fair', whatever the hell that means, and no blogger I've ever spoken to really seems to know --- use of its original content.   On Saturday, it released a statement saying that its action had been heavy-handed  and it would rethink its position.  Apparently it's done so and has concluded that the way to ensure that bloggers comply with the AP's notion of what is --- or is not --- 'fair use' is to set guidelines for bloggers.(New York Times)  But it hasn't withdrawn its demand that The Drudge Retort remove the seven articles (ranging from 39 to 79 words).  In the meantime, it's announced --- see The New York Times --- that it is going to set standards for use by bloggers of its content. 

Talk about  reaping the whirlwind.

Olbermann vs. His Demographic; Network Boss Thinks Hillary Viewers Will Come Back for More

by Damozel | I am a sufficiently committed Democrat to vote for Obama in the general election.  I think --- I say I think --- that he'll try to represent the Democratic party if elected.  I don't have to like or believe in him.  I believe in what he stands for. 

But there are some things that have happened during the primary --- and some people who helped to orchestrate them --- that I shall never, never forget or forgive. 

But it's not just me. Despite what Frank Rich, who doesn't know a thing about it, would have you believe, the anger of many of  Hillary's supporters still burns with the fury of a million white-hot suns.  There are some media figures who seem to think they can put out the blaze by pissing on us.  They're wrong. 

Campaign Official Thinks Obama Got "F*cked" in Florida?

by Deb Cupples |   Apparently, the concept of unity has filled Florida's air like misquotes swarming around swamplands after dusk. Today, the Miami Herald blog Naked Politics reports:

"So much for party unity: As Florida Dems prepare for Saturday's Jefferson-Jackson dinner aimed at bringing the party 'together once and for all,' a spat over the Obama campaign's decision to replace some already-designated Florida delegates with Obama backers has intensified.

"And how. DNC member Jon Ausma [sic] late Thursday e-mailed Dems (and reporters) choice sections of what he says were e-mails from Obama's Florida finance chair Kirk Wagar -- in which Wagar curses Ausman out and criticizes Sen. Bill Nelson and party director Leonard Joseph.

"The highlights: 'You (Jon Ausman) f&^%ed us. We are dealing with it. You need to accept the fact that you f*&^ed us.'"

 

 

Media Finds Itself (Mainly) Innocent of the Charge of Sexism Against Hillary

by Damozel | Right.  There are none so blind as those who will not see.  According to The New York Times, a substantial number of media critics, commentators, pundits, and outlets --- not to mention many well known so-called 'progresssive' bloggers --- still aren't prepared to acknowledge the offensively biased coverage of Senator Clinton throughout the primary.  People, even my 80 year old "I am not now, nor have I ever been a feminist" Republican mom noticed it. 

The blatant sexism of the media campaign against Hillary Clinton didn't bother the people who were doing it or the people who benefited from it, but it bothered the hell out of a lot of women, including me.  It was quite clear to me early on that a large number of media figures had decided that Obama should be the presumptive nominee --- and never mind waiting to find out what Democratic voters wanted.

Now it seems that the scales have fallen from Howard Dean's eyes. 

Fox & 'Baby Mama' (Updated)

by Damozel | Fox News scores another, and you don't have to be an Obama supporter to find it offensive --- just a reasonably evolved human being.  At Salon, Joan Walsh wrote:

An alert reader wrote in just a little while ago to let us know about something he'd spotted on Fox News Wednesday afternoon. During a segment discussing conservative attacks against Michelle Obama, the wife of presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama, the network described the former as "Obama's baby mama." ...  In fact, that description was displayed on-screen several times during the segment, which featured anchor Megyn Kelly and conservative blogger Michelle Malkin, an FNC contributor.

You can see the screenshot here.  Yep, that's what it says.  Cute!

Media Messes up McCain Quote then Slams Him: Why it Matters

by Deb Cupples |   Both John McCain and Barack Obama trouble me, for different reasons but to similarly serious degrees.  Right now, I don't support either candidate. Fortunately, I have months to decide whose circle I'll bubble in on the November ballot.

That said, I am completely clear about my distrust of some U.S. media outlets. Throughout the Democratic primaries this year, we all watched many media use truth-obscuring  tactics.  Sometimes, media personalities would simply fail or refuse to report stories that other media were reporting.

Sometimes, they would hear a candidate speak 100 words; focus exclusively on, say, 10; then inflate them into a shrieking headline that bears little resemblance to the candidate's actual message.

This seems to have happened yesterday, when John McCain answered a question on the Today Show (video below).

Media Bias and Potential Disaster as we Move Forward: Fortunately, Poll Shows Public has Caught on

by Deb Cupples |  Rasmussen has some interesting polling data:

"Just 17% of voters nationwide believe that most reporters try to offer unbiased coverage of election campaigns. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that four times as many—68%--believe most reporters try to help the candidate that they want to win."

Even more people (76%) think the media has too much power over elections. Amen!

Yes, it was as obvious as a neon sign in a dark sports bar that media coverage of the Democratic race was far from objective -- so obvious, that Saturday Night Live had some fun with the issue.

It's no surprise that many media outlets failed or refused to objectively report on the Democratic race.  Not long ago, many media habitually ran positive stories on President Bush before and after the Iraq war started -- instead of challenging the Bush Administration's obviously dubious claims (CNN). Bill Moyers did a great story on this particular media failure.

If media had no qualms about helping sell the public on an unjust war, why would they have qualms about merely hijacking a political race? 

Looking ahead, what other national issues will the media misleadingly spin (or outright ignore), simply to promote the pecuniary interests of media executives?

Hillary Endorses Obama: Public Mauling Might Cease Soon

by Deb Cupples |   Today in Washington, Hillary Clinton (once again) voiced support for her former opponent.  Her website is already calling for people to "sign up now" and "support Barack Obama."  Some may disagree with her, but she has said for months that she thinks Obama would be better than McCain.

I am not trying to persuade anyone to agree with Hillary.  I honestly don't yet know how I will vote in November.  Fortunately, I have about five months to ponder and decide.

Unfortunately, I've seen comments around the blogosphere over the last few days expressing anger at Hillary because of her stated support for Obama.

It's hard to tell from watching how some media outlets and DNC "leaders" treated (and still are treating) her, but Hillary Clinton is made of the same flesh and blood that we all are -- and she has faced considerable brutality.

Starting in early March, certain pundits and DNC "leaders" commanded Hillary to drop out of the race.  Instead, she exercised her right to hold her head high and carry on -- and she racked up impressive victories along the way.  This angered some members of the Thunderdome-ish crowd, whose sentiments steadily grew even more toxic.

The Angry Ones cranked up their vituperations to the verbal equivalent of a mob taking her to the town square, tearing off her frock, and taking turns lacerating her flesh with a raw hide whip.

Scott McClellan Says Bush Facilitated Outing of Valerie Plame (video included)

by Deb Cupples |   I understand that former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan would have done the nation more good by more quickly exposing the dishonesty of the Bush Administration regarding the Iraq war, the blowing of ex-CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson's cover, and the media's complicity or failures.  I understand that Mr. McClellan stands to make a small fortune from his new book.

Still, I'm glad that Mr. McClellan has published his tell-all book.  Below is an video of the interview he did on MSNBC.  As Empty Wheel correctly points out, one of the big revelations of the interview is that reportedly President Bush facilitated the outing of Valarie Plame Wilson. (Memeorandum has commentary.)

 

Network Execs Pushed Pro-Bush Stories before Iraq War

by Deb Cupples |  The critical book by former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan is causing trouble for the media, as well as the Bush Administration.

Yesterday, CNN correspondent Jessica Yellin added evidence to the cases against the media, which McClellan (and many Americans who paid attention) believed had helped the Bush Administration sell the Iraq war to the public based on questionable grounds.

Yellin had covered the White House for ABC and MSNBC in 2002 and 2003.  Below is a piece of an interview of Yellin by Anderson Cooper:

Time's Joe Klein Defends Obama & Gets it Wrong

by Deb Cupples |  I just found this at the Daily Howler (via Make Them Accountable):

"Under the ludicrous headline, 'Stop Lying About My Record,' Klein somehow conjured up this:

"JOE KLEIN (5/19/08): 'It seems the only way the neoconservatives are able to attack Barack Obama's foreign policy proposals is to exaggerate and misrepresent them.

"'The evidence? On Friday, I promised to check into whether Obama had ever said that he would negotiate—specifically, by name—with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Indeed, according to the crack Time Magazine research department and the Obama campaign, he never has.

"'He did say that he would negotiate with the Iranian leadership—but, on matters of foreign policy and Iran's nuclear program, the guy in charge is the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

"'As of today, John McCain was still accusing Obama of wanting to negotiate with Ahmadinejad. Why doesn't the McCain campaign and other assorted Republicans ever accuse Obama of wanting to negotiate with Khamenei? Well, because Khamenei isn't quite the flagrant anti-Semite Ahmadinejad is...and, as we keep hearing, Obama has a Jewish problem.'"