Some very good news for those of us in the trenches tonight. Media Matters for America is launching "Equality Matters", a website that tracks along the same work MMFA has been doing on tracking right-wing bias in the media, except with an emphasis on LGBT issues. I'm normally skeptical that more national groups are the answer, but in this case, I think it will fill a needed niche role in joining GLAAD to report and push back on anti-LGBT media decisions. Plus, it's more an outgrowth of an already-existing successful model, so they'll have less problems that new organizations often have getting off the ground.
The even better news is that my colleague Kerry Eleveld, the Washington and White House correspondent at The Advocate is going to join them and run the new website, http://equalitymatters.org. It's always a good thing when someone who has been on the inside of the press and journalism world can hop over to the direct advocacy side of the fence we're on, and there are few people I'd like to do it more than Kerry. She's fantastic. I once asked Kerry a simple question on how to get traditional media to use the term "same-sex marriage" or "marriage equality" instead of "gay marriage", and she gave me a 20-minute answer on the obstacles from the journalist's and editor's point of view that I found incredibly enlightening. She gets this world very much.
Sheryl Gay Stolberg at the NYTimes has a longer piece on the new group's formation.
Continuing the theme of rewriting presidential history that I covered in two diaries yesterday ("Clusterfuck conservative--take two (Rewriting presidential history 2009-2010)" and "The Clinton catastrophe vs. Versailles hallowed memory (Rewriting presidential history 1992-2000)"), I just can't help but comment on Sunday's column by George Will, himself a criminal involved in receiving stolen property in 1980, when he was part of Reagan's debate-prep team that acquired a stolen Carter briefing book. It was not a trivial or irrelevant crime. The race was considered too close to call until the debate, when Reagan's smooth performance convinced people he was a "credible" presidential contender--an impression obviously helped by the fact that he knew what was coming in his debate with Carter, and in fact was able to prepare and rehearse in advance his most famous line in the debate. As described by by Staurt E. Eizenstat in the LA Times, May 5, 1991, "The Presidency, by Any Means" (copy in this file):
The 1980 Reagan campaign, chaired by Casey, admitted after the election that it had come into the unauthorized posssessiuon--whether by theft, a mole in the Carter campaign or a disaffected Carter campaign worker--of the briefing book used to prepare Carter for the penultimate event of the 1980 campaign, the presidential debate with Reagan.
Perhaps the crucial point in the debate occurred when Reagan deftly responded to the President's charges of his opposition to Medicare by saying, `There you go again.' This was hardly spontaneous, we can now surmise, because the debate book gave him the Carter script to be used in attacking his record. Here there were possible violations of the law in purloining documents. But far more important, nothing came to light in time for the public to form its own judgments of this conduct.
Will's de facto criminal record is most germane here, since unpunished criminality and the stealing of elections is precisely what Bush v. Gore is all about, and that's what Will's column was all about.
Will's defense of Bush v. Gore essentially boils down to a claim that Al Gore started it by going to court in the first place, so he got what he deserved. Will writes:
Once Gore initiated the intervention of courts, the U.S. Constitution was implicated. On Nov. 7, Gore finished second in Florida's Election Day vote count. A few days later, after the state's mandatory (in close elections) machine recount, he again finished second. Florida law required counties to certify their results in seven days, by Nov. 14.
[...] Once Gore summoned judicial intervention, and Florida's Supreme Court began to revise state election law, it probably was inevitable that possession of the nation's highest political office was going to be determined by a state's highest court or the nation's. The U.S. Supreme Court was duty-bound not to defer to a state court that was patently misinterpreting - disregarding, actually - state law pertaining to a matter assigned by the U.S. Constitution to state legislatures. [emphases added]
That strikes me as a frivolous argument. If Bush had started the process by going to court to overturn what elected officials were doing, does that mean the Supreme Court should have intervened in favor of Gore?
Actually, we know the answer to that question. And it shows just how wrong Will's column is. Gore, in fact, didn't go to court first. Bush was the one who first ran to the courts to try to intervene in the election. After election day in 2000, several Florida county election boards decided to conduct a manual recount of ballots to better determine the vote totals. And Bush went to federal court to halt the proceedings. The New York Times headline the next day read: "BUSH SUES TO HALT HAND RECOUNT IN FLORIDA." (Bush ultimately lost that case, although he obviously won the court case that mattered most.)
But perhaps Will resorted to such a frivolous argument because it is rather hard to mount a full-throated defense of the merits of the actual Bush v. Gore decision.
Indeed, the whole point of Will's column--as with the other examples I cited yesterday--is anti-liberal myth-making in the guise of history. Will seeks to portray the entire controversy over the Bush v. Gore decision as nothing but an example of liberals behaving badly and getting their just deserts. But the Supreme Court decision itself is held in such low repute that's naturally necessary to divert attention and invent entirely supurious moral frameworks, just as Shah says.
A short while ago, Media Matters posted the following video from 2006, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf of the Park51 Cultural Center and Glenn Beck with Diane Sawyer. Media Matters stresses how Beck then indicated that he regarded Rauf as one of the vast majority of good Moslems, whose religion was being misused by an evil minority, and that's certainly evident in the tape:
Beck does not need to take our word for it that Imam Rauf is a moderate who distances himself from radicals -- Rauf told Beck as much while sitting at the same table with him during a 2006 discussion on ABC's Good Morning America.
During the ABC segment, Rauf condemned the extremists who issued death threats against the Pope and political cartoonists, specifically saying that "these reactions are not at all called for by Islamic teaching. The teachings of Islam are very similar to the teachings of Christianity, of loving the one God and loving thy neighbor. These are the two common principles."
When Diane Sawyer mentioned that Imam Rauf says the radicals are just a "group of people" and "not him," Beck seemed to agree, saying "sure, sure." He added, "I believe it's a small portion of Islam that is acting in these ways."
Beck, for his part, even appeared to gesture to Imam Rauf when he invoked the idea of "good Muslims." (At about 2:45.)
But also worth noting is how centered Rauf is, how he explains the process of political hijacking of religion, and how he gently takes Beck's accusation about the dangers of apocalyptic Islam and points out how the same dynamic also threatens us through the apocalyptic politics of evangelical Christianity.
Maybe all that's needed is some of that actual dialogue that folks keep saying that we need, but that never seems to involve the people who are the focus of so much undeserved hatred.
At least that sure seems to be the message one gets from watching this tape.
Glenn Beck is a type. Most folks have trouble recognizing it, because the type is not well-defined for them in their experience. He's the type that calls blacks racists in public. Lots of folks think that sort of thing. Racism has--fortunately for the most part--become a kind of taboo in (most of) our society, and so most whites who still harbor significant racial resentment find it far more comfortable to convince themselves that it's blacks (and other minorities) who are the real racists. But the difference between someone who may comfort themselves with such thoughts and someone who openly proclaims them to the world is what sets apart the type I'm talking about. And it is a type that's fortunately not well known to most of us. But it's starting to become much, much clearer if folks are paying attention.
Of course there's Beck, as mentioned above. More recently, attention has focused on Andrew Breitbart, who pushed the hoax that Shirley Sherrod is a racist--and that the NAACP crowd she spoke to applauded her racism. But now Media Matters has exposed a writer for Breitbart, Dr. Kevin Pezzi, who is so far gone that even Breitbart has gotten rid of him. And yet, the similarities are far more striking than the differences:
What the Pezzi saga tells us about Breitbart
August 05, 2010 6:05 pm ET by Ben Dimiero
Earlier today, we pointed out that Andrew Breitbart's Big Government published posts from Dr. Kevin Pezzi smearing Shirley Sherrod as a racist.
Pezzi is rather overtly racist, and has repeatedly used racial epithets like "Japs" and "Chinks," and claimed Native and African Americans should have been grateful for their subjugation by whites. Additionally, Pezzi is a doctor/"sex expert"/author/inventor/huckster, who, among other things, says he has "beaten Bill Gates" on a math aptitude test, is "bigger than some porno stars," and stumbled upon a cure for cancer. Pezzi has also apparently created a series of at least six fake MySpace profiles of women claiming to be big fans of his sex books.
In response to our posts, Big Government has now disappeared Pezzi's articles. If you attempt to visit the pages for his posts and bio, you are greeted with an error. While Big Government has disappeared Pezzi from their website, they posted the following "Editorial Note" from "Publius," which doesn't mention Pezzi by name:
Earlier this week, we read an on-line column which provided one of the most thorough and well-researched examinations of the many controversies surrounding former USDA employee Shirley Sherrod. We asked the author of the column for permission to reprint his article. Since publishing the articles, we have been made aware of other writings from this author which do not reflect the principles and values of this site. Because of this, we have removed the articles from Big Government. While we stand by the information contained in the articles we published, we do not wish to see the underlying issue confused or diminished by other work the author has done. We regret the error.
So, let me get this straight: After Breitbart and his "Big" websites became the focus of well-deserved criticism and national ridicule for posting a misleadingly edited video and smearing Shirley Sherrod as a racist, their defense was that Breitbart merely posted the video he was given, and he didn't bother doing any extra research. (Breitbart later conceded that the video was out of context and that he "should have waited for the full video.")
Yet in the wake of this embarrassment, Big Government sought out posts from a guy smearing Sherrod as a racist without doing any research into his background. Notice a pattern here? Breitbart and co. are so eager to cover their tracks and somehow "prove" that Sherrod is a racist that they have long-since abandoned any pretense of responsible behavior.
Once upon a time, the GOP used to have a couple of reckless, wild-eyed backbenchers in Congress who would spout off just about anything that popped into their heads. Then they made Newt Gingrich their leader. One upon a time, rightwing media had a good deal more such figures, but most of them were relatively discrete when the spotlight was on them. Then the Reagan Administration destroyed the Fairness Doctrine, and Rush Limabaugh was turned into the first post-fairness media star of the right. Glenn Beck, Andrew Breitbart, and Kevin Pezzi as the logical extensions of this "progression".
It's not just that Pezzi is a racist. It's of a piece that he's also:
a doctor/"sex expert"/author/inventor/huckster, who, among other things, says he has "beaten Bill Gates" on a math aptitude test, is "bigger than some porno stars," and stumbled upon a cure for cancer.
This sort of megalomania on the individual level is not aberational. It's the logical expression of the underlying attitude that denigrates blacks and puffs up whites in the first place. It's the "Drum Major Instinct" that Dr. Martin Luther King so thoroushly described in his famouse speech of that name so long ago. This is what white supremacry looks like. It's what folks who call blacks "racist" look like. It's not a pretty picture at all. But ultimately, it's more foolish, sad and pathetic than it is anything else.
This week in a San Francisco Federal District Court, a legal odd couple will be on display. Attorney David Boies, who represented Al Gore before the U.S. Supreme Court in the infamous 2000 case ofBush v. Gore, and conservative attorney Ted Olson, who represented George W. Bush, are joining forces to overturn California's Proposition 8. It will be their contention that the initiative passed by voters in 2008 banning same-sex marriage in the Golden State violates the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the U.S. Constitution, singles out gays and lesbians for a disfavored legal status, and discriminates on the basis of gender and sexual orientation.
Regardless of which side prevails, experts agree the case is likely to be appealed all the way to the highest court in the land.
It's that time of year again. Some have vowed to hit the gym more often. Others are swearing off cigarettes. For some, coffee has been replaced with copious amounts of socialist green tea. Still others are signing up for community service projects to help improve the world around them.
Yes, many Americans have made their New Year's resolutions. Perhaps the conservative media establishment should do the same.
"This is journalistic malpractice, plain and simple. A reporter right out of J-school would have taken the two minutes necessary to call the San Bernardino Police Department and verify Ms. Kaelke's statements. But that never occurred to anyone at Fox News before the network ran with the story. This kind of shameful work raises serious questions about the legitimacy of the entire campaign currently being waged against ACORN."
The Sotomayor Hearings - Branding the Neo-Confederates
If you read the liberal blogosphere, you know about Senator Jefferson Beauregard "Jeff" Sessions's history of dubious racial statements. If you're following on most of the mainstream media, you don't. You might even buy the Alabama Republican's not-so-subtle assertion that Sotomayor is a "racist" -- discriminating against whites -- while Sessions is above any considerations of color. This will change only if some Democratic Senator on the judicial committee (though probably not Al Franken) calls Session on his game, and calls him on his history.
Sessions, as you may know, was rejected for a federal court seat after calling the NAACP "un-American" because it "forced civil rights down the throats of people." He also called a white attorney a "disgrace to his race" for litigating voting rights cases on behalf of African Americans. And during a murder investigation of the Ku Klux Klan, he joked, as black former assistant US Attorney Thomas Figures testified in Sessions's original hearings, about how he had no problems with the Klan until he discovered they were pot smokers. He also warned Figures to "be careful what you say to white folks." It's ugly stuff, and consistent with his racially charged questioning of Judge Sotomayor: He said she should have voted with a fellow Puerto Rican judge whose opinions he endorsed, asking, "Is there any instance in which you'd let your prejudice impact your decisions?
Hey folks, I wanted to share my latest column with everyone here at OpenLeft -- a review of Bernard Goldberg's latest book, "A Slobbering Love Affair: The True (And Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media".
-K
That certainly didn't take long. Just shy of a week after Barack Obama took the oath of office, becoming America's 44th president, the nation's foremost right-wing publishing house has released a new tome by Bernard Goldberg that seeks to trash the supposedly liberal "mainstream media" for being in the tank for Obama.
The three-ringed circus of liberal media bias cryptozoology is nothing new for Goldberg. He's been part of this factually challenged freak show for years. This isn't even his first book on the subject -- he wrote 2001's creatively titled, Bias.
Who was not moved by the sight of hundreds of thousands of people of all colors gathered in Chicago's Grant Park to cheer Barack Obama's election as the 44th president of the United States?
Obama needed to win by a big enough margin that the Republicans couldn't steal the election again, and he did it with a campaign that harnessed the populist power of the Internet and an indefatigable army of young volunteers. Now the corporate pundits are trying to limit the damage Obama can do if he follows through on his promises.
Before the election John McCain and his right-wing allies were saying that Obama was a "socialist" with plans to soak the rich and "redistribute wealth." But after the election, the right's revisionists denied that Obama's impressive victory gave him any sort of mandate to enact socialist reforms or redistribute wealth. They claimed that the US remains a center-right nation.
As progressive writer David Sirota notes, the "center-right nation" phrase is being parroted with the propagandistic discipline of Cuba's Ministry of Information.
Media Matters Action Network has created a comprehensive overview of the character attacks on Barack Obama, dubbed "Swiftboating 2.0, available through an interactive interface on their website, through an online factsheet, or through a downloadable PDF. The DNC in general and Obama's speech in particular was so uncharacteristically tough and successful that these sorts of planned attacks may have been held back a bit, but no one in their right mind can doubt that they are coming. So those of you who've had enough of Sarah Palin for the time being, and want to look ahead a bit might want to check this out as a way of prepping yourselves a bit for the battles sure to come.
As Media Matters explains, this really is a systemic upgrade, fully worthy of the "2.0" designation. It's more sophisticated, more diversified, and like "Web 2.0" social networking sites, it harnesses the energy and contributions of ordinary people and peer to peer distribution:
As the means of communication have evolved, presidential campaigns have grown increasingly multifaceted, with each election featuring layers of complexity that were not present four years before. The most striking feature of the 2008 election may be the sheer volume and variation of the attacks being directed at Sen. Barack Obama. Though they come from many sources, arrive through a variety of media, and cover a wide range of subjects, a close examination reveals a unified thematic structure to these attacks.
As has been extensively documented, many of the criticisms Obama has faced are based on outright falsehoods. The truth is that he is a Christian, not a Muslim; he was born in the United States; he doesn't refuse to recite the Pledge of Allegiance; he wasn't endorsed by Fidel Castro; and so on. Other attacks are outrageous distortions with a kernel of truth at their core.
And they go on to discuss how the attacks are structured....
Why won't what Atrios calls the zombie lie (that Bob Casey Sr was supposedly denied a 1992 speaking slot for being pro-life) go away and die?
Probably because Bob Casey Jr. continues to spread it.
Today, at "God-o-Meter" (a joint Beliefnet.org/Time project), Dan Gilgoff posts this interview with Senator Casey, where the lie is given fresh life:
[Gilgoff:] Many pro-life Democrats were pushing for the opportunity for you to speak at the convention because of what it would represent symbolically, since your father was famously denied a speaking role at the 1992 convention over his pro-life views. Were you pushing for a speaking slot for that same reason?
[Casey:] We were invited to speak by Senator Obama's campaign and were grateful for the opportunity. But when you're in your first 18 months in the Senate, you shouldn't expect it. So I didn't ask.
"When a candidate changes his position as a response to the politics of the moment and the press ignores it, he's lucky. When he changes his position and the press goes out of its way to say how principled he is for not changing his position, he's John McCain."
-- David Brock & Paul Waldman
Today, Paul Waldman and David Brock are releasing a new chapter to their book, Free Ride: John McCain and the Media.. The new chapter is an update to the media coverage of McCain since the book was published, and is NOW available at www.mccainsfreeride.com.
Not surpringly the chapter contains few surprises--the press continues to give McCain a free ride, acting as his political base, and exhibiting the same lazy-minded stereotyping that was documented in the book itself: McCain is a "maverick" (even when he's singing duets with Bush) prone to "straight talk" (even when he's flip-flopping) who doesn't like to talk about his POW experience (but babbles on about it anyway, no matter how much it bothers him to do so).
As the authors explain:
Just a few months ago, McCain had cratered in the polls, and few thought he could bounce back. Yet there was one group of people who had not only the desire but the ability to give McCain the boost he needed, just when he needed it.
The point that began McCain's resurgence came around the Iowa caucuses. As McCain seemed to be staging a comeback, Newsweek editor Jon Meacham declared it "good news for all of us, whatever our politics." Chris Matthews waxed poetic: "There's something genuine here, something selfless, even quietly grand in his campaign." Matthews predicted that McCain would win 18 percent in Iowa, making him "a big hero." Chuck Todd noticed the obvious: "The media does seem to be ready to will John McCain out of Iowa."
And so they did, despite the actual results. Many may have forgotten by now that the Iowa contest was actually won by Mike Huckabee, but the media proclaimed McCain -- who came in fourth place, with 13 percent of the vote -- the actual winner. "A fantastic night for John McCain," said the Politico's Mike Allen. Tim Russert immediately booked McCain, and not Huckabee (or second-place finisher Mitt Romney, or third-place finisher Fred Thompson), to be the guest on that Sunday's Meet the Press. Matthews seemed to sum up the media's thoughts about the senator in a January 28 interview: "Senator McCain, you know you're in my heart."
Tomorrow, Paul Waldman and David Brock will be releasing a new chapter to their book, Free Ride: John McCain and the Media.. The new chapter is an update to the media coverage of McCain since the book was published and will be available at www.mccainsfreeride.com.
Today, Media Matters Action Committee hosted a conference call for bloggers with Paul Waldman to discuss the new chapter, and related issues about media coverage of McCain, and ideas about what bloggers can do to help prod the media to do a better job of... well, doing their job. The chapter is embarged until tomorrow morning, so I'm just going to do a brief rundown of the conference call itself, since I think this is going to be very useful for us in the months to come.
STATE BLOGS
