Anne Kornblut in today's paper writes:
With her abrupt exit this week from consideration for the Senate, Caroline Kennedy added her name to a growing list: women who have sought the nation's highest offices only to face insurmountable hurdles. Like Hillary Rodham Clinton and Sarah Palin before her, Kennedy illustrated what some say is an enduring double standard in the handling of ambitious female office-seekers. Even as more women step forward as contenders for premier political jobs, observers say, few seem able to get there.
And just for the record, it's laughable to think that Kornblut, or anybody at the WaPo, is in a position to pontificate about the double standard Hillary Clinton had to endure from the press during her White House run. Since, of course, the Post was among the worst offenders in attacking Clinton in creepy, sexist ways.
Forbes magazine, that well know bastion of liberal thinking, just published its list of the The 25 Most Influential Liberals In The U.S. Media. And surprise! At least some of them are actually liberal. (Glenn Greenwald, Ezra Klein, Rachel Maddow, etc.)
But a bulk of the list is made up of Beltway insiders who wouldn't be caught dead at the Netroots Nation. Either that, or the progressive movement in America today is suddenly being represented in the media by the pro-Iraq war Kurt Andersen, the pro-war Andrew Sullivan, the pro-war Christopher Hitchens, the pro-war Thomas Friedman, and the pro-war Fred Hiatt.
And not to mention--according to Forbes--the Clinton/Gore-hating Maureen Dowd and the Clinton/Gore-hating Chris Matthews.
Note to Forbes: stick to what you know. (And it ain't liberalism.)
Big shock, we know. But it's almost comical to read this headline "DAVE PICKS GILLIBRAND AS LIBERAL DEMS HOWL," and then read the Fredric Dicker article and realize the right-wing Post provided no facts, quotes, or hard evidence to back up its reporting about how liberal Democrats supposedly feel.
Must be nice to practice journalism at a newspaper that requires very little actual journalism.
I'm slightly torn over this one. One the one hand, it's a good thing if Matthews attempt on Hardball Thursday night was to make clear that his show didn't want to traffic is personal rumors that swirled around Caroline Kennedy in light of her withdrawing from pursuing Hillary Clinton's U.S. senate seat.
The problem was the way Matthews did it. Specifically, by suggesting the rumors were a blog thing, and that he practiced journalism and that blogs, in general, did not. Because, let's be honest, that's just not the case. Or did I miss the blog coverage from Inauguration Day that read like this:
I gave Val Kilmer a ride home last night. I met—let's go through the names of who I met, John Cusack. I love—I always wanted to meet him. He said he always wanted to meet me. That's kind of cool. And Ed Harris. And Robert De Niro, I met him last night. …
Glenn Greenwald counts the ways:
Despite the fact that it's only 74 words, one could spend hours highlighting the factual inaccuracies in McArdle's "uncomfortable question." The point isn't that what she said is wrong. Everyone makes factual errors. There's nothing wrong with that. It's that there is no way to think or write any of what she wrote if one has been paying even the slightest attention to these matters, and if one hasn't been, then one shouldn't be writing about them
Dissecting Chris Matthews' Inauguration Day performance on MSNBC, Slate goes with this headline:
Parroting GOP talking points about how rapturous the media coverage was of Obama inauguration, the WaPo's Kurtz wrote:
Well, the coverage has been so positive in the past week that you almost got the impression Obama would solve all of America's problems while fixing the college football playoff system and discovering a cure for cancer.
Kurtz didn't offer up any specific examples of coverage that was somehow offensively "positive." But more importantly, what was Kurtz comparing the coverage to, all that nasty, negative coverage George Bush got when he was first sworn in? Give us a break.
Inauguration coverage is what it is. The press, and especially television, loves tradition and pomp and circumstance and pretty pictures. And whenever a new president is sworn in the press produces wall-to-wall, feel-good coverage built around those pretty inaugural pictures. This week was no different than what Bush received for his first inaugural in 2001.
So where's Kurtz's actual proof that somehow this year's inauguration coverage was unusually positive?
MSNBC's Courtney Hazlett, discussing Oscar nominations:
First: Frozen River was nominated for two awards, Best Actress and Original Screenplay. It is doubtful that viewers will avoid the Oscars because a movie they've never heard of was nominated for Best Original Screenplay.
More significantly: Hazlett's contention that only "elite, effete" viewers watch "obscure" films like Frozen River is a slur against both those who have seen Frozen River and those who will never hear of it.
Enjoying a movie that Courtney Hazlett has never heard of does not make one "effete" - it simply suggests that perhaps MSNBC should find an entertainment reporter who actually takes the time to watch - or at least read a review of -- Oscar-caliber films.
It's simply astonishing that an MSNBC reporter would feel comfortable describing people as effete - "Marked by self-indulgence, triviality, or decadence"; "effeminate" - merely because they liked a movie she hasn't heard of.
Imagine if she said something similarly insulting about moviegoers who preferred, say, Kung Fu Panda.
Actually, she did - though she almost certainly doesn't realize it. Hazlett referred to Frozen River's audience as "elite." But watching, or even enjoying, a film like Frozen River doesn't mean a person is "elite" - "The best or most skilled members of a group." Hazlett's formulation suggests Frozen River viewers are better than Kung Fu Panda fans. This is complete nonsense. And, though Hazlett probably meant it as an insult to Frozen River viewers, it is actually an insult to every one else.
Hazlett's commentary is quite similar to the way many reporters talk about politics and the so-called "culture wars." They portrayed John Kerry, for example, as "elite" and "effete" for drinking green tea and wind-surfing. They tried to do the same when Barack Obama displayed somewhat limited bowling abilities - and even when he wore sunglasses.
This is stupid and insulting. But it is not only insulting to Frozen River viewers and green tea drinkers. It is stupid and insulting to everyone else, as well. Saying that the "elite" watch art-house films and drink green tea suggests that those who watch Ironman and drink Budweiser are inferior.
Most people, I think, got over that worldview shortly after middle school. Most people realize that watching Frozen River doesn't make you better than anyone else - and it doesn't make you worse, either.
Sadly, that's a lesson Courtney Hazlett and many other journalists still haven't learned.
More narrowly, it seems time for somebody at MSNBC to have a little talk with Hazlett about her insults. Today it was "effete"; last year she called director Spike Lee "uppity."
UPDATE: Hazlett makes fun of Frozen River's obscurity by claiming you have to go to some web site to view it and, later in the day, pointing out that if you are in New York City and want to see it, you have to travel all the way to Ithaca to find a theater at which the film is showing. Presumably, that's because the film was playing in New York City in August. Hazlett is aware that films that appeared in theaters before December are Oscar-eligible, isn't she? And that movies don't tend to stay in theaters for six months?
That's the question the press ought to be asking. But apparently unwilling, or incapable, to perform actual journalism, lots of reporters and pundits remained fixated on the supposed cost of the Obama bash, which the press excitedly claims will cost $160 million, including security costs.
As Media Matters has been noting for close to a week now, the tab for Bush's second inauguration, after figuring in security costs, totaled $157 million. Yet it's virtually impossible to find a single press report in the last week that has documented that fact. That number does not exist. It has been suppressed and flushed down the memory hole. Because if it's mentioned alongside the Obama tab, than the Obama's-inauguration-is-historically-expensive storyline evaporates. (Because it's not historically expensive.)
But let's move on. The official crowd estimate for Tuesday's swearing now stands as a eye-popping 1.8 million. How many attended Bush's 2005 inauguration? The official estimate was 400,000. So let's do some math. 157 million divided by 400,000 equals 392. It cost nearly $392 per-person to cover the expenses for Bush's modest sized bash.
For Obama? Based on the current projection of $160 million (the final official tab, once security costs are factored in won't be known for months), and divided by 1.8 million people in attendance, the per-person cost for the Obama bash came out to $88.
So we ask again, why was the Bush inauguration so wildy expensive?