The national media watch group
Updated: 6 hours 18 min ago
I was invited to an event yesterday that was held specifically so that media companies can take money from companies who will pay for the chance to be mistaken for an expert.
What is going on in our community that a critical number of our columnists believe that every American military action in the Middle East is justifiable?
The front page of the New York Times had a very definitive headline on Syria and chemical weapons--but when you read the actual story, a much more ambiguous picture emerged.
The West Fertilizer Co. explosion last week was largely obscured by blanket coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing. More than that, says legendary EPA whistleblower Hugh Kaufman, a guest on this week's CounterSpin, what coverage there was often obscured the real story.
Fox's Bill O'Reilly, who hosts the most-watched cable news show, has spent much of the week making inflammatory claims about Islam. Sounds like somebody is looking for a religion to scapegoat--or, given his track record, some countries to attack.
In a moment when media are fixated on terrorism and the possibility that some people might be motivated to carry out acts of violence against the United States in part because of the effects of U.S. wars, a Yemeni writer's account of the effects of drone strikes on his village would be well worth covering.
New Yorker staff writer Jon Lee Anderson has a blog post on the magazine's website (4/23/13) addressing the controversy over his recent coverage of Venezuela (FAIR Blog, 4/17/13): At issue are sentences in three different pieces written in the course of a number of months—two on the New Yorker's website and one in the magazine. Readers pointed out what they saw as factual errors in each. In two cases I agreed, and corrected the sentences; in the third I didn't, for reasons I'll explain. So you expect he's going to explain why he didn't agree that the third alleged factual [...]
CNN host Erin Burnett wonders whether it's time to come up with some new laws in the wake of the Boston bombing, since the old ones seem to give Dzhokhar Tsarnaev too many rights.
The opening of the George W. Bush library is generating coverage about the state of the Bush legacy. But if the journalists who were far too generous in their coverage of Bush's presidency are the same ones writing about how that presidency should be viewed now, he's in safe hands.
Seeing a photograph of USA Today founder Al Neuharth above the fold in the edition of his newspaper that reported his death calls to mind a rather famous story about Neuharth's outburst at a 1983 USA Today editorial meeting.
The New York Times finds anonymous sources to assure us that the Koch brothers are not trying to buy the Tribune newspapers in order to "destroy the other side." But Mother Jones finds an actual person who explains how the Kochs actually treat media outlets whose reporting they don't like.
Covering the media's rush to misjudgment on the Boston Marathon attack, which acts of terrorism are called "terrorism," and PBS's "debate" over Social Security--in which both sides call Obama "brave" for trying to cut benefits.
There are perhaps plenty of lessons in the (most recent) Senate failure to pass even modest new restrictions/regulations on gun ownership. But one lesson needs to be resisted: The idea that passing a more expansive gun control law in 1994 came back to bite Democrats in the midterm elections.
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.