The national media watch group
Updated: 4 hours 14 min ago
Too hear the New York Times tell it, public misperceptions about the reality and severity of climate change aren't just the fault of the fossil-fuel industry--scientists are also to blame, for being too nuanced.
The NY Times once again advances the idea that Barack Obama's foreign policy is alarmingly noninterventionist. Which is true, when you discount all the evidence to the contrary.
Tracing the "Putin is delusional" storyline. CBS gives viewers an energy expert who just so happens to work for the oil industry. And there's good economic news: We're all rich again! Well, not all of us.
In reporting and commentary on Ukraine, the 2008 Russo-Georgian War provides a handy anti-Russian talking point...if you leave out half the story.
What if lawmakers put forward a federal budget plan to tax big financial institutions, enact a healthcare public option and increase spending to put millions of Americans to work on badly needed infrastructure projects? They did. You just didn't read or hear much about it.
Tracing back the story about Vladimir Putin being out of touch reality, one journalist sees it as a prime example of how media outlets can "become a megaphone for propaganda."
If the New York Times pointed out that Israel was making debunkable claims about Iranian weapons programs, it might make readers less inclined to accept Israel's unverifiable claims about Iranian weapons shipments.
A CBS guest is asked about Ukraine and "the energy equation." But viewers weren't told that he's a lobbyist for the oil/gas industry.
This week: US media go into overdrive over Russia/Ukraine, painting the conflict as proof that Barack Obama isn't feared enough. Plus pundits laugh at Putin's delusion–but what about John Kerry's? And a big anti-Keystone XL rally at the White House hardly makes the news. Watch:
The public strongly supports building the Keystone pipeline--and they wrongly think it will create a lot of jobs. Aren't media to blame for failing to set that straight?
When a USA Today headline declares, "We're $9,800,000,000,000 Richer," who exactly does the "we" in the headline refer to?
To maintain a simple good vs. evil framework, the fact that Ukraine's neo-fascist movement had a significant role in the opposition to Yanukovych--and the government that replaced him--was downplayed or even outright denied.
Right-wing columnist Jonah Goldberg slams Obama for expressing support for a 'nuclear free world'-- which was what Reagan said too.
Media are suggesting that Russian leader Vladimir Putin's defense of his actions in Ukraine suggests he is delusional. But what do they call it when US leaders appear unable to remember US invasions of other countries?
What happens when hundreds of Keystone activists get arrested in front of the White House? Not much, judging by the lack of media interest.
The complex anti-government protest movements in both Venezuela and Ukraine were boiled down by US corporate media to send a clear message to their domestic audience: These are the good guys.
Leaving the Washington Post, Robert Kaiser revealed his frustration that the "rules" of elite journalism do not allow one to call out lying politicians. He also demonstrated another key Beltway tendency: pretending that both sides are equally guilty of similar offenses.
Pundits worry about US 'prestige' and the weakness of Barack Obama.
Paul Ryan apparently has some big, bold ideas about how to fight poverty--mostly what the government is doing is all wrong. But why does the Washington Post fail to cite any critics of Ryan, and spend so much time quoting him and other Republicans?
Pundits were mad about the news that Barack Obama was backing away from "chained CPI" Social Security cuts. An announcement about troop cuts caused some reporters to panic. And Arizona's discriminatory SB 1062 is given the "some say" media treatment.