From an editorial in the February 26 edition of the Las Vegas Review-Journal:
Canadians who are not independently wealthy still struggle to raise the cash to avail themselves of superior medical care "south of the border" whenever they consider the problem serious enough. Why is that, if the Canadian system is so good that we should emulate it, as Barack Obama insists?
Medical innovation continues in the United States because it's profitable. Medical innovation has stagnated in Canada because it's not, and because the best doctors and researchers have fled to countries where they can still make money at their trade -- most notably, the United States.
If the United States adopts a Canadian-style, rationed, inferior medical system in which more people die while waiting in line, where will Americans go in pursuit of better care? Where will Canadians go? And won't that lead to precisely the "two-tiered" system -- better care for those with enough money to hop a plane -- that Democrats claim to oppose?
Or will they just refuse to let us leave?
Rightwing media outlets have distorted testimony by Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair to buttress their false claims that the decision to process alleged Christmas Day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab through the civilian criminal justice system prevented his interrogation and has made the United States less safe. In fact, in remarks Blair later stated were "misconstrued," he stated that an interrogation team that is not actually operational "should have" been "invoke[d]" with regard to Abdulmutallab, and in a subsequent statement, Blair said that the FBI interrogated Abdulmutallab and "received important intelligence."
From an op-ed in the January 20 edition of the Las Vegas Review-Journal by publisher Sherman Frederick:
After a full year, the people have grown weary of a president who talks pretty, promises much and delivers nothing. The misery facts don't lie: Obama Nation has brought us a 10 percent unemployment rate (1.7 million more people unemployed today than a year ago); almost $2 trillion of new outstanding public debt, and 139 bank failures.
Add to that the arrogance of a leader who thinks he's so much more self-aware than the presidents before him that he must apologize to the world for American "selfishness" (U.S. relief to Haiti, hello?), while at the same time failing to enact policies to keep Americans safe from al-Qaida terrorists, and it is no wonder Democrats find themselves in a woozy state this morning.
Conservative media figures have politicized the failed Christmas Day terrorist attack to criticize President Obama's handling of national security matters. But their assertions about Obama's and former President Bush's handling of terrorism and national security are replete with myths and falsehoods.
From the January 7 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:
Loading the player ...
In his January 3 column, Las Vegas Review-Journal publisher Sherman Frederick falsely claimed that "the two cases of domestic terrorism since 9/11" happened "on Obama's watch." In fact, while Frederick and other conservative media figures have recently downplayed the number of attacks on the United States under former President Bush, there were numerous post-9-11 terrorist attacks attempted during the Bush administration, including the attempted detonation of an explosive device on an airplane by shoe bomber Richard Reid and the anthrax attacks.
For years, personal indiscretions by elected officials have been viewed as fair game by the press. The political impact of the ensuing stories is left to the public, which must determine whether a particular aspect of an individual's private life is relevant to their public one.
When reporting on personal issues, the press owes the people a full and accurate accounting, especially when suggesting reasons why a certain action might be relevant to voters. But today's print coverage of Senator John Ensign's affair demonstrates how often stories concerning personal problems miss a central part of the tale.
If Mr. Ensign's actions are indeed newsworthy (an idea some would dispute), it is because they represent hypocrisy on behalf of a lawmaker with future political ambitions. To that end, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times noted in their articles that Sen. Ensign had been highly critical of former Idaho Senator Larry Craig for his alleged actions in a Minneapolis bathroom, adding that Ensign had also called on Bill Clinton to resign during the Monica Lewinsky affair. Reuters and the Associated Press included the Craig connection, but failed to mention the statements regarding Clinton. The New York Times, to its discredit, chose not to mention Ensign's reaction to either event.
But more importantly, not one of these news organizations felt compelled to note that Senator Ensign has been a vocal opponent of gay marriage, as well as being a public and proud supporter of the Defense of Marriage Amendment (DOMA). As a readily available press release on Mr. Ensign's website makes clear, for him, "Marriage is an extremely important institution in this country and protecting it is, in my mind, worth the extraordinary step of amending our constitution."
This obvious and highly consequential hypocrisy was immediately picked up on by several progressive blogs, such as DailyKos and Think Progress.
An editorial in today's Las Vegas Review-Journal shows why this major omission on behalf of print journalism's standard bearers is so galling. Not content merely to ignore all of Senator Ensign's past statements on the behavior (and marriage rights) of others, it defended him by illogically shifting the focus onto the "leftists" who couldn't recognize that this was a "personal matter":
[D]espite the predictable cries of "hypocrisy" from leftists who are only spared the label because so little is expected of them, it's worth pointing out that this is a personal matter -- not the kind of betrayal of official trust Democrats demonstrate every time they sacrifice the public welfare to satiate their paymasters, the trial lawyers or the public employee unions.
For the Review-Journal, it is worth noting, Bill Clinton's personal behavior was anything but personal.
The piece follows this purely partisan attack by noting that "Sen. Ensign remains one of the more principled spokesmen now on the Washington stage for a government limited in size and intrusiveness into our lives." Apparently, federally mandating which consenting adults can and cannot marry one another fits the "limited intrusiveness" guidelines.
Nevada readers are regrettably exposed to such poorly reasoned conservative dogma every day, much to their detriment. As such, more responsible news organizations with a national reach have a responsibility to pick up the pieces and provide them with the full story.
The omission of Sen. Ensign's support of DOMA from coverage both at the national and state level therefore represents the kind of failure that does a disservice to readers and voters, and must not be repeated.
A New York Times essay by Jason DeParle highlighted a resurgence of the use of the word "welfare" among conservatives, this time to attack President Obama's economy recovery plan. Indeed, while economists agree that provisions in the legislation targeting needy people are among the most economically stimulative, Media Matters documents below the pervasiveness of what DeParle called the "weaponiz[ation]" of the "very word, welfare," in the media, particularly, but not exclusively on Fox News, to denounce the stimulus bill.
A Las Vegas Review-Journal editorial asserted that Sen. John McCain "did have a valid point" when he said, "The bridge in Minneapolis collapsed because so much money was spent on wasteful, unnecessary pork-barrel projects." The editorial praised McCain for issuing a "bold position ... with no immediate 'clarification' from the staff, explaining that the senator somehow 'misspoke.' How refreshing." But the AP reported that McCain "backed off his assertion that pork-barrel spending led to last year's deadly bridge collapse in Minneapolis" a day after saying it.