The national media watch group
Updated: 2 hours 56 min ago
O'Reilly was outraged by Sirota's point that the government's response would be very different--more costly, potentially more violent--if the perpetrators fit a certain profile. This is ironic, because O'Reilly had, the night of the attacks, basically made Sirota's point.
New York Times reporter John Burns admires Margaret Thatcher's legacy. But when he claims she lifted millions to prosperity, does he have any evidence?
Are the pressure cooker bombs used in Boston really a link to Al Qaeda? No. But some reporters are trying to make that connection.
The New Yorker is a magazine whose name is practically synonymous with factchecking--which makes you wonder how the glaring, major errors in the its recent coverage of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez got through.
Why was the "Saudi national," a young man who was injured at the Boston Marathon bombing, considered a suspect? Enter "terrorism expert" Steve Emerson, who continues to make the media rounds despite a checkered history.
"TERROR RETURNS" ran across USA Today's front page (4/16/13) in inch-high letters. Below, the story it referred to had a smaller headline: "That Post-9/11 Quiet? It's Over." Rick Hampson and Chuck Raasch's story began: The blasts on Boylston Street were felt across the nation, shaking and sometimes shattering a fragile hope–formed slowly in the years since 2001–that maybe it won’t happen here. Not again. Then it did. But what happened in Boston that hasn't happened since September 11? All we really can say with confidence so far is that somebody tried to kill a large group of people; as USA [...]
If USA Today is presenting an objective record of the Chavez years, how on Earth did he win so many elections? By that score, Venezuela must also have an especially ill-informed populace--or maybe Venezuelans know a different reality.
The record of the U.S. government's support for authoritarian, corrupt and/or murderous regimes is not really up for debate. The only question is whether one believes that the U.S. extends such support despite a deep-seated preference for democratic rule and human rights.
On the PBS NewsHour (4/12/13), the left/right debating duo of Mark Shields and David Brooks took up the issue of Social Security and "chained CPI"--and found that they didn't have a lot to debate on the virtues of Barack Obama's benefits-cutting plan.
"Today there's an elephant in the room: a huge, yet ignored, issue that largely explains why Social Security is now on the chopping block.... That problem is U.S. militarism and perpetual war."
Media remember Margaret Thatcher for turning around Britain's economy. But do the numbers tell a different story? Also: Barack Obama's plan to cut Social Security and Medicare is inexplicably deemed a move to the "center," and pundits are monitoring the 2016 election by paying close attention to... Hillary Clinton's haircut?
When it comes to elite media and political circles, there's no doubt that Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were treated the same way when they died: with gushing, uncritical celebration. They just wish the public could have been so univocal.
The panicky style of reporting on North Korea doesn't seem to be changing much, if you glance at the front pages of the Washington Post and New York Times this morning. But both pieces, if read carefully, undermine the alarmism--and make you wonder why the stories are on the front page.
Who gets to the top of the journalistic establishment probably has a lot to do with what they think of Margaret Thatcher's hard-right policies.
it was striking to see the parallels between the way Margaret Thatcher's death was covered on the PBS NewsHour and Fox News Channel's most popular show, the O'Reilly Factor. Though some people like to think that PBS and Fox couldn't be further apart, they were basically singing the same tune.
The New York Times treats Iran's right to enrich uranium as a "claim," to be challenged by anonymous U.S. officials.
The new White House budget proposal is getting a lot of attention because it explicitly connects the Obama administration to an agenda that includes cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits. Some pundits see this as a way to appeal to the "middle." But does anyone-- in the middle or anywhere else--really want to cut the safety net?
It's no secret that U.S. media loathed the late Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Much of that was purely political; sure, Chavez could have given shorter speeches and been nicer to his political opponents–but it's hard to imagine that would have mattered much to, say, the Washington Post editorial board. One thing that turned up constantly in Chavez coverage over the years was his suspicion that the United States government was looking to undermine his rule. As a Washington Post news article (1/10/13) put it: A central ideological pillar of Chavez's rule over 14 years has been to oppose Republican and [...]
The compelling interest in the public knowing that a high-ranking public official has taken part in highly controversial and perhaps even illegal actions, in the view of these news outlets, is apparently outweighed by their duty, as they see it, to keep the government's secrets.
This week on FAIR TV: A look at some of the media panic over North Korea, how the press is spinning the gun debate and why USA Today's front page headline about how "we" are all "feeling rich" might not not actually apply to us all of us.