Media bias borders on mental illness

Via Media Matters, Craig Crawford, columnist for Congressional Quarterly, answered Joe Scarborough's "assertion that former President Bill Clinton is 'divisive' " during the Jan. 26 MSNBC's Morning Joe. Snip (with emphasis):

CRAWFORD: You know, I have sat down here in Florida for the last month. And I have watched the coverage, and I really think the evidence-free bias against the Clintons in the media borders on mental illness. I mean, I think when Dr. Phil gets done with Britney [Spears], he ought to go to Washington and stage an intervention at the National Press Club. I mean, we've gotten into a situation where if you try to be fair to the Clintons, if you try to be objective, if you try to say, "Well, where's the evidence of racism in the Clinton campaign?" you're accused of being a naïve shill for the Clintons. I mean, I think if somebody came out today and said that Bill Clinton -- if the town drunk in Columbia [South Carolina] came out and said, "Bill Clinton last night was poisoning the drinking water in Obama precincts," the media would say, "Ah, there goes Clinton again. You can't trust him." I really think it's a problem. You know what? You guys make him stronger with this bashing. This actually is what makes the Clintons stronger.

According to Media Matters, Crawford's remarks followed a video clip cued up by Joe's co-host Mika Brzezinski in which Bill Clinton said (with emphasis):

[T]hey have systematically polarized the country, the right-wing Republican faction has. They first took over the Republican Party. And then they performed reverse plastic surgery on all the Democrats, right? ... And it worked for them every single time, except with me.

Joe then pontificated, "it's amazing how divisive he is compared to [Democratic presidential candidate] Barack Obama, who asks Republicans and independents to vote for him. And here's Bill Clinton fighting the right-wing Republicans. It's just like 1998 all over again, isn't it?"

[Keep reading... more after the jump.]

No, Joe, it's you and your kind that spread falsehoods -- like you did with Margaret Carlson -- and who refuse to hold Republicans accountable for using polarizing tactics. Like you do. How many news consumers have been informed of the unprecedented obstructionism by Senate Republicans? Are media reporting the facts about who's behaving divisively? Hell, no. The dumbed-down script for more than a decade is it's Clinton's fault and Hillary is polarizing.

When media manipulate the narrative into potshots at either Clinton and the Democrats, they keep the heat off the culprits responsible for the damage. It was the GOP that injected divisive issues such as the racially-exploitive southern strategy, attacks on abortion, gay marriage, and "amnesty" for illegal aliens, to name a few. They continue to misuse the Iraq war to taint Democrats as defeatists waving the white flag of surrender for advocating troop withdrawals. Forget that a majority of the nation supports leaving Iraq. That's an inconvenient fact the mainstream press corps readily dismisses when given a chance to bash Democrats.

That's how Big Media plays the game -- distorting and fabricating "evidence" -- and some foolish dupes fall for this crap. As Bob Somerby and Media Matters have documented for years, our mainstream press corps has unfairly attacked Al Gore and the Clintons sometimes with little proof other than innuendo, worthless trivia, and sometimes with blatant lies. And still do.

If Obama wins the Democratic nomination, expect to read and hear how divisive Barack is. Think it won't happen? Pat Buchanan has already floated a trial balloon raising the alleged rift between Hispanics and African-Americans. Earlier on Hardball, he insidiously alluded to Obama's campaign phrase -- "Yes, we can" translated "Sí, se puede" -- as "the cause of the illegal immigration movement and the amnesty movement." If you read of Buchanan's views on the invasion of America, his remarks weren't intended to flatter Obama's can-do message. At Faux News, Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Obama provided E.D. Hill with the opportunity to spout (with emphasis):

...Barack Obama, who has -- I mean, on his website, you look at it and sort of the whole thing is devoted to "I'm a man of change because I want to get away from all that -- the hate speech and the partisanship that you've seen in Washington." Ted Kennedy, you know, is that. You know, if you talk about the people of have sort of gone to the farthest wings, Kennedy certainly represents that. So it seems like an odd coming together, unless that's the direction Barack Obama is headed.

Par for the course, you know, of the scurrilous GOP-dedicated network.

Watch for how media begin to transform Obama's anthem of "change" into change for the worse. It won't matter if it's false. Not to them. You can count on our fetid press corps to "swift-boat" the nominated Democratic WH contender as they did in 2004. Using a tested strategy, when they're not yapping at shadows, media lapdogs will idly sit, giving air time to dubious claims without challenging the GOP surrogate or politician smearing the Democratic candidate.

That's the way they sell crazy.

There's more: "Media bias borders on mental illness" >>

John Edwards Demonstrates Why He Is Ready For Prime Time

American politicians and pundits spent yesterday making asses of themselves. Who will ever forget John McCain strutting around like a little popping jay announcing that he alone was ready to handle the kind of crisis resulting from the Bhutto assassination. Roger Simon of the Politico bought the McCain line hook, line and sinker. In fact he bought it so completely somebody needs to check Simon's sources of income.

Personally I was shocked at how quickly Joe Scarborough and Chris Matthews shamefully turned the assassination into some sort of media event favoring Hillary Clinton. Clinton and Obama engaged in a day of childish pronouncements that amounted to "vote for me, unlike my opponent I know how to handle an assassination."

But then there was John Edwards, who with a single dignified comment showed us how a President of the United States should act in the face of tragedy.

Decorah, Iowa – Today in Decorah, Iowa, Senator John Edwards made the following statement:

"I want to say a word about the terrible tragedy that occurred in Pakistan earlier today. It's a terrible thing for the process of democratization in Pakistan, it's a terrible thing for the stability of Pakistan, and it's very important that we, America, and those of us who are running for president of the United States, be a strengthening and calming influence in these kinds of times.

"I met the former Prime Minister a few years ago. We spoke together at a conference. And she spoke then about the importance of the democratization process, her personal commitment and risk of her own life, which she recognized, and how the democratization process in Pakistan was, I think her words were, 'baptized in blood.'

"I spoke to President Musharraf a few minutes ago and I urged him to continue the democratization process because of how important it is to the Pakistani people and how important it is to his country. I also urged him to allow international investigators into Pakistan so that, for the rest of the world, there can be credibility in determining what the facts were and what actually occurred.

"It's very important for the Pakistani people, for the stability of the world and for America's interests, that the democratization process continue, and I believe this is the time for America to be a strong and calming influence in a difficult and unstable environment."

That is the kind of thing a President says.

There's more: "John Edwards Demonstrates Why He Is Ready For Prime Time" >>

Our rotting press corpse stinks again

They just can't help themselves (with emphasis):

On the December 6 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, during a discussion of former Arkansas Gov. and Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee's role in the 1999 release of convicted rapist Wayne DuMond, who was convicted of raping and murdering another woman after being released and was suspected in another rape and murder, host Joe Scarborough asked MSNBC correspondent David Shuster, "Do you think this is going to be a big issue?" Shuster responded: "No, I don't, because the reason -- the reason I think it was a big issue for [1988 Democratic presidential candidate] Mike Dukakis was because it played into the idea of a Massachusetts liberal soft on crime. Mike Huckabee has sentenced more people to death and carried out the death penalty more than anybody else, so it doesn't really fit that narrative."

Oh, I get it. We've come to expect a conservative to exemplify little compassion, to contradict a pro-life position by executing the death penalty more than anybody else, to accept that Republicans are a hard-hearted, blood-thirsty clan. And fallacious, too.

Later in the discussion, Shuster stated, "[T]here are a lot of ways that I think that Mike Huckabee can get out of this, and again, because he's a conservative guy from a conservative state, I just don't think it carries the same weight as Mike Dukakis in '88."

Follow Shuster's reasoning with me. Maybe I'm missing somethin' redemptive. Maybe not.

[Keep reading...]

A liberal pegged as soft on crime in liberal Massachusetts, who supported a weekend furlough system in which a felon raped, committed physical violence and armed robbery was a big story.

But, a conservative who went soft on crime in a conservative state, who -- against the objections of sexual assault victims -- made a bad and politically questionable decision that led to rape and murder is no big deal. Uh huh. IOKIYARIARS? The families of murder victims Sara Andrasek and Carol Shields probably wouldn't agree.

Reading my friend Blue Girl added a different and relevant perspective to Shuster's specious gaffe. Read her whole post. For now, a few snips:

If not for the family connection between the victim and Bill Clinton, Dumond would have rotted in an Arkansas prison and died, unknown and unmourned. That would have been justice.

Instead, the Arkansas GOP went into full-froth mode...Dumond was innocent! He was railroaded by that bastard Clinton! He must be freed!

Bullshit. He was a predator and a rapist and a murderer. That mattered not a whit...

...The Huckster pressured the parole board behind closed doors, and they granted the murdering monster parole - without Huck having to affix his signature to the release. When the victim pleaded with Huckabee to keep the man in prison, he dismissed her, telling her that he believed that the man was reformed and repentant, and would pose no future threat. (Haven't we heard that "looked into his soul" line of crap before?)

I do not believe for one second that anyone in Arkansas thought the bastard was reformed.

If they truly believed he was reformed, why was one of the conditions of his parole that he had to leave Arkansas???

Steve Benen also provided an excellent overview on Huckabee's involvement in the DuMond parole.

And what's this in today's Sunday NYTimes? Sho 'nuff, they finally caught up to the liberal bloggers.

Despite the Huckster's denials, "Two former parole board members in Arkansas said yesterday that as governor, Mr. Huckabee met with the board in 1996 to lobby them to release the convicted rapist, Wayne DuMond, whose case was championed by evangelical Christians." And... "The Los Angeles Times reported yesterday that three of the seven members of the parole board said Mr. Huckabee had pressured them, echoing earlier reporting by The Arkansas Times and other local news media."

Yet, according to MSNBC's David Shuster, the DuMond case ain't nuthin' for Huck to sweat. If a complicit media covers Huckabee's behind, maybe he's got a point.

When Shuster defended his argument with the excuse that Huckabee is a conservative guy from a conservative state, I thought that dog won't hunt, bubba. That's plain conservatard punditry. Without thinking (our mainstream press unwittingly and sometimes willfully sneaks in rightwing talking points, they're so insidiously ingrained like shoe polish on their wingtips), Shuster revisited the myth, a Serious Idea, that liberals are soft on crime and conservatives aren't -- a favorite narrative of the GOP. Bless his pea-picking heart, his mouth ran away from his brain.

So few Molly Ivins and Lars Erik Nelsons remain alive to demonstrate to the pups how to think independent of an approved script. Tragic but true especially on tee-vee.

The next day on the Dec. 7 Morning Joe, Shuster almost -- almost! -- acted like a journalist asking pertinent questions before fumbling as he pressed the waterboarding debate with Joe Scarborough. (Crooks and Liars). When he suggested that the CIA torture tapes may have been disposed to "cover up war crimes, and that torture doesn’t work and is barbaric and wrong," Joe launched his best "Sean Hannity impersonation" and issued a forceful "torture apologia" that vented his wingnut spleen.

"Because...we live in a dangerous world!" Joe vehemently defended, all bowed up and thunderin' like Moses in a Cecil B. DeMille production.

Now if Shuster -- "naive" is what Joe called him -- could realize how a "conservative guy in a conservative state" contributed to a dangerous world, maybe he'd understand why northwest Missouri thinks Huck's "guilty of felony murder."

But, for the life of me, I can't figure out how soy lattés on the upper West Side of New York City factor in a clash over the depravity of torture.

Oh, the mysteries of our rotting press corpse.

There's more: "Our rotting press corpse stinks again" >>

Morning Joe Interviews Dennis Kucinich About Impeachment

Yesterday I complained that the media is ignoring the impeachment story. Well this morning, Joe Scarborough interviewed Dennis Kucinich about his resolution to impeach Vice President Cheney and mentioned the poll showing that impeachment is favored by a majority of Americans. Who would have thought we would be applauding Joe Scarborough for talking seriously about something 54% of Americans want.

Kucinich did a solid job of explaining the first article of the impeachment resolution. He clearly wants to reign in the imperial vice presidency Cheney has been trying to establish.

Baby steps, baby steps.

The video can be found at RawStory.

There's more: "Morning Joe Interviews Dennis Kucinich About Impeachment" >>