Josh Marshall rightly observes this morning that Politico's feature story on the New Jersey tea party's legal efforts to recall Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) gives pretty short shrift to a key flaw in the cunning plan -- "the fact that recalling a federal senator is clearly unconstitutional." Indeed, the article is a masterpiece of non-committal, "not everyone agrees"-type hedgery, and the closest they come to acknowledging this substantial hurdle is observing that "it's not entirely clear whether their approach will meet constitutional muster."
The Politico also missed a fine opportunity to explore the tea party's schizophrenic attitude toward the Constitution. They will talk your ear off about how the country has supposedly deviated from the principles enumerated in the founding document and how the only way to save ourselves from socialism or fascism or Democrats or whatever is to strictly adhere to its precepts. But it's also clear, at least in the case of the New Jersey recall efforts, that they're willing to ignore the parts of it they find inconvenient to their short-term political goals.
Politico is reporting tonight that the Danbury News-Times has "unearthed two new examples of Democratic Attorney General Richard Blumenthal suggesting that he served in Vietnam." One of those examples, however, seems to have appeared in the original New York Times article on Blumenthal's service.
In its original article, the Times reported (emphasis added:
At a 2008 ceremony in front of the Veterans War Memorial Building in Shelton, he praised the audience for paying tribute to troops fighting abroad, noting that America had not always done so.
"I served during the Vietnam era," he said. "I remember the taunts, the insults, sometimes even physical abuse."
Compare that quote to the one offered by the Connecticut Post in a May 18, 2008, article, which describes an event at Shelton's Veterans War Memorial Building (accessed from Nexis, emphasis added):
"When we returned from Vietnam, I remember the taunts, the verbal and even physical abuse we encountered," Blumenthal said. "It has taken 30 years for people to realize that, however they feel about the wars, they must honor the men and women who serve our country who had nothing to do with the decision to wage the conflicts.
It is the Post's quote that the News-Times and Politico are both citing today as "new." But it seems clear -- unless there were two events at the same building during the same year in which Blumenthal offered nearly identical comments -- that the Post's quote and the New York Times' quote are from the same speech. Indeed, searches of the Nexis and Factiva databases uncover no contemporaneous reports besides the Post's of a Blumenthal speech in 2008 at Shelton's Veterans War Memorial Building.
Also -- and here we see the problem with relying on print reports to draw conclusions about a speaker's specific word choices -- it appears that one of the accounts misquotes Blumenthal, as the Times' and Post's quotes are slightly different.
Adding to the confusion is that the News-Times has incorrectly placed that speech as occurring in May 2009, rather than in May 2008, an error that Politico copied.
Politico carries water for America's ex-Mayor:
Even with the memory of 9/11 fading – and with the dings he took from now-Vice President Joe Biden in the 2008 race about "a noun, a verb and 9/11" – Giuliani is still regarded as the best Republican spokesman on the national security issue. And the party's governor-dominated roster of likely 2012 candidate lacks anyone with his anti-terror bona fides, an issue increasingly seen as a sore point for the White House.
Just who regards Giuliani as the best Republican spokesman on national security? Politico doesn't say.
What are Giuliani's "anti-terror bona fides"? Politico doesn't say.
Who "increasingly" sees terrorism as a "sore point for the White House? (President Obama's handling of terrorism/national security gets higher marks from the public than his handling of the economy and health care.) Politico doesn't say. Well, Politico does quote Republican strategist Scott Reed saying Giuliani "owns the national security franchise" and calling the issue an "Achilles heel" for Democrats. But that's it.
What is it about reporters that makes them so obsessed with politicians' iPods, and whether they're telling the truth about liking more than one musician? First, Slate's Jacob Weisberg made the improbable suggestion that Hillary Clinton was insincere in saying she liked the Beatles and the Rolling Stones and Aretha Franklin. Then, Politico's Glenn Thrush followed up on this line of reporting a few years later by purporting to fact-check Clinton's professed fondness for the Beatles and the Stones.
Now comes the Los Angeles Times' Mark Milian:
So if Obama doesn't know how to use Apple's portable music player -- a product hailed for its ease-of-use, even for a Harvard Law graduate -- was the preelection Rolling Stone magazine article about what's on his iPod a farce?
Come to think of it, his picks did seem a little too varied, uncontroversial and universally respectable to be the real deal. Bob Dylan, Miles Davis, Sheryl Crow and Ludacris? Give me a break.
What, exactly, is so hard to believe about having Bob Dylan, Miles Davis, Sheryl Crow and Ludacris on an iPod? Songs by all four artists can be found on my iPod.
The assumption by Weisberg, Thrush and Milian that everyone has narrow musical tastes is obnoxious -- and suggests that the three of them don't really like music. In my experience, people who do really like music tend to have diverse tastes -- and don't tend to see an iPod containing Dylan, Davis & Crow as a particularly eclectic collection. It also reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of one of the key the benefits of MP3 players like iPods -- they make it easy to own and access a "varied" music library.
But most of all it's a nasty little effort to portray Obama, like Clinton before him, as a phony, no matter how thin the evidence.
Earlier this week, Mediaite.com's Frances Martel asked why Michael Brown -- Bush's former FEMA director -- has been all over the television. Well, as Tommy Christopher points out, Politico appears to have the answer.
Politico's Andy Barr and Patrick Gavin report:
Former FEMA Director Michael Brown has been all over cable television recently bashing the federal response to the oil spill off the Gulf Coast.
But he doesn't see it as an attempt to rehabilitate his image or set the record straight. Nothing that dramatic.
Rather, he just wants the publicity. He wants to sell his new book, he says, and he wants to get some clients for his company.
"There's that phrase, 'Any publicity is good publicity'" Brown told POLITICO. "I kind of buy into that."
It looks like the media is doing a "heckuva job" giving Brownie just the platform he's been looking for.
Earlier, Eric Boehlert (and Time's Michael Scherer) noted Politico's efforts to hype campaign contributions Barack Obama's campaigns received from employees of BP. I'm going to spell out two pieces of context the Politico article was missing, because I think it's an excellent example of how not to report on campaign contributions:
Obama biggest recipient of BP cash
While the BP oil geyser pumps millions of gallons of petroleum into the Gulf of Mexico, President Barack Obama and members of Congress may have to answer for the millions in campaign contributions they've taken from the oil and gas giant over the years.
During his time in the Senate and while running for president, Obama received a total of $77,051 from the oil giant and is the top recipient of BP PAC and individual money over the past 20 years, according to financial disclosure records.
So, Politico puts Obama in the headline and the lede because he has received more money from people who work for BP than any other elected official. But if you're trying to assess how much influence a company may have over a politician, looking at raw contribution amounts can be badly misleading. You need to consider how much of the politician's war chest the company provided. And that's where it becomes clear that the focus on Obama is absurd.
See, Barack Obama has raised $799 million for his campaigns. The $77,051 he got from BP employees is a drop in the bucket -- just one one-hundredth of one percent of his total campaign cash.
Meanwhile, Rep. Don Young -- mentioned only in passing by Politico -- has taken $73,300 from BP during his time in Congress, out of a total of $14.9 million raised. So BP contributions account for about one half of one percent of Young's fundraising -- still not a staggering amount, but enough to make BP contributions to Young far, far more significant than BP contributions to Obama.
The way Politico reported the BP contributions -- focusing on raw numbers, without putting them in context of the recipients' total fundraising -- is typical of the media's approach to campaign finance stories, but it isn't particularly useful.
It's interesting that Fox News is refusing the ads, and apparently using confusion as some sort of justification. For instance, Fox regularly buys print advertising for themselves in newspapers and trade publications, yet I've never heard of a Fox ad being rejected because readers might confuse the network with actual news (they act more like a PAC nowadays). Or perhaps Fox felt VoteVets ads might create some sort of cognitive dissonance for viewers who have become used to the network's shoddy coverage of environmental issues?
Now, in a statement provided to Media Matters, VoteVets.org is asking why the conservative network would reject an ad "that calls on Congress to defund our enemies":
"There's nothing confusing about the link between oil and terrorist funding, and even the most dyed-in-the-wool neocons agree on that point," said VoteVets.org senior advisor Richard Smith. He continued, "The only confusing thing here is why FOX News would reject an ad that calls on Congress to defund our enemies by finding new sources of energy."
Take a look at the ad. Does it confuse you as much as it apparently confuses the folks at Fox News?
Today, President Obama took on cable news pundits during a commencement address at University of Michigan in front of an audience estimated at 92,000. Said Obama (emphasis added):
But it was the last question from the last student in the letter that gave me pause. The student asked, "Are people being nice?" Are people being nice?
Well, if you turn on the news today, or yesterday, or a week ago, or a month ago -- particularly one of the cable channels -- you can see why even a kindergartener would ask this question. We've got politicians calling each other all sorts of unflattering names. Pundits and talking heads shout at each other. The media tends to play up every hint of conflict, because it makes for a sexier story -- which means anyone interested in getting coverage feels compelled to make their arguments as outrageous and as incendiary as possible.
Today's 24/7 echo-chamber amplifies the most inflammatory sound bites louder and faster than ever before. And it's also, however, given us unprecedented choice. Whereas most Americans used to get their news from the same three networks over dinner, or a few influential papers on Sunday morning, we now have the option to get our information from any number of blogs or websites or cable news shows. And this can have both a good and bad development for democracy. For if we choose only to expose ourselves to opinions and viewpoints that are in line with our own, studies suggest that we become more polarized, more set in our ways. That will only reinforce and even deepen the political divides in this country.
Still, if you're somebody who only reads the editorial page of The New York Times, try glancing at the page of The Wall Street Journal once in a while. If you're a fan of Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh, try reading a few columns on the Huffington Post website. It may make your blood boil; your mind may not be changed. But the practice of listening to opposing views is essential for effective citizenship. It is essential for our democracy.
Given how Fox News and right-wing radio hosts have responded to the President's criticism in the past, I'm sure they'll be chomping at the bit to ponder these remarks next week.
Video of the President's commencement address can be viewed here.
As Media Matters' Joe Strupp noted, Politico's Patrick Gavin brings us a preview of the fancy new high-definition set for NBC's Meet the Press with a behind the scenes video featuring host David Gregory.
For those of you wondering, Gregory did not announce a change of heart when it comes to fact-checking Meet the Press.
I'm guessing he could have paid for at least a year's worth of independent fact-checking with just a fraction of the new set's budget.
Today's Politico opus about the White House press corps' frustration with the Obama administration is, as these things tend to be, quite revealing about the media. And, as tends to be the case, what's missing from the sprawling assessment is as revealing as what's included.
Of note: in a 3,786 word article about "why reporters are down on Obama," there is no mention of the Obama administration giving reporters misleading or inaccurate information. Instead, the complaints are about whether press secretary Robert Gibbs shows up for social events and which reporters get to be in the press pool and in which circumstances the President takes their questions.
Not that those complaints are completely irrelevant. But after an administration that misled the media about things like war, it's a little quaint that reporters are so upset when a press secretary doesn't show up for what even Politico acknowledges was a "trivial social engagement."
Perhaps you think it unfair of me to invoke the Bush administration lying to the media in discussing the relationship between reporters and the Obama administration. But it isn't me -- It's the White House press corps that says its relationship with the Obama administration is as bad as it ever was with the Bush administration:
President Obama and the media actually have a surprisingly hostile relationship - as contentious on a day-to-day basis as any between press and president in the last decade, reporters who cover the White House say.
So ... yeah. To the White House press corps, not getting your calls returned -- or seeing a competitor get a scoop -- is as bad as this, for example.
At every step, the quality of the journalism produced by the White House press corps is treated as irrelevant. For example, Politico reports:
Last year, Times reporter Helene Cooper was the target of a fusillade of complaints from Obama staffers and was for a time essentially frozen out by the administration, several colleagues said. Recently, a story by Sanger and Thom Shanker about an Iran policy memo from Defense Secretary Robert Gates received a public drubbing from Gibbs.
Gibbs said he recalled complaints about a story Cooper wrote from Japan that "had a bent nobody else's story had. The bent was also wrong."
Well, what did Cooper report? Was it accurate and fair? Those questions are key to determining whether the White House treated Cooper shabbily -- or whether it had a justified reaction to deeply flawed reporting. And yet Politico makes absolutely no attempt to answer those questions; gives no indication that it even recognizes that the questions might matter. It takes two sides to maintain an amicable relationship, but Politico behaves as though responsibility for doing so lies solely with the White House.
Likewise, Politico gives us three paragraphs about complaints that the Obama administration has "back-benched" the Wall Street Journal -- without ever noting that since Rupert Murdoch bought the paper, it has lurched to the Right. That should be worth noting, shouldn't it? Nobody expects the President to treat the American Spectator the way he treats CNN, right? So the Journal's move towards the Spectator should probably be included in any discussion of the White House's treatment of the paper.
Then there's this:
"These are people who came in with every reporter giving them the benefit of the doubt," said another reporter who regularly covers the White House. "They've lost all that goodwill."
I have no doubt that many reporters believe this is true, but it simply is not.
This is just strange.
Matt Drudge protégé Andrew Breitbart now travels with a camera crew because... well, I'll let him explain -- Politico's Patrick Gavin offers a partial transcript of a video shot by Wonkette's Liz Glover:
"It's helpful when you're a controversial person, who, wherever he goes, finds himself in a brouhaha and being accused of things," said Breitbart. "It's lovely to have documentation because they accused me of being the one throwing the eggs, they're the ones who called the police on me for throwing the eggs and thankfuly I had video proof to prove otherwise. Some people have bodyguards, I like having a camera crew."
I guess he's concerned that someone might give him the ole' O'Keefe/Giles treatment - an undercover video so heavily edited it hardly resembles reality.
Just about every time I include David Frum's views on anything related to Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, or Rush Limbaugh, I hear about it from fellow his fellow conservatives in comments and emails. Frum, they'll say, doesn't speak for them.
Frum, the former Bush speechwriter, has strong views on the future of the Republican Party, and is respected by some leading figures on the right, as Daniel Libit wrote last September in POLITICO. But he's got a lot of right-wing foes, too, especially in the talk radio world.
And it seems he also has a critic in Tunku Varadarajan, a former Wall Street Journal editorial board member and now a writer at the Daily Beast. For Varadarajan, Frum is representative of a certain speecies of conservative that one may find in cities connected by the Acela.
David is a man I've known professionally for almost a decade, and with whom my social interaction has always been very genial. He is a good and energetic man, and has, in the years since he left service at the White House, dedicated himself to being what I call a "polite-company conservative" (or PCC), much like David Brooks and Sam Tanenhaus at the New York Times (where the precocious Ross Douthat is shaping up to be a baby version of the species). A PCC is a conservative who yearns for the goodwill of the liberal elite in the media and in the Beltway-who wishes, always, to have their ear, to be at their dinner parties, to be comforted by a sense that their liberal interlocutors believe that they are not like other conservatives, with their intolerance and boorishness, their shrillness and their talk radio. The PCC, in fact, distinguishes himself from other conservatives not so much ideologically-though there is an element of that-as aesthetically.
So, Varadarajan thinks Frum, Brooks and Tanenhaus are "polite-company conservatives." Read his description of that term one more time: "[A] conservative who yearns for the goodwill of the liberal elite in the media and in the Beltway-who wishes, always, to have their ear, to be at their dinner parties, to be comforted by a sense that their liberal interlocutors believe that they are not like other conservatives, with their intolerance and boorishness, their shrillness and their talk radio."
Implied in the very term "polite-company conservative" is the notion that because of their behavior and ability to mince words or hold back, such people are welcome with open arms by the media elite, i.e. they are acceptable in polite company. They get column space, marquee television time, and invitations to fancy parties etc. In other words, they are accepted... a form of validation bestowed by our media.
This is, of course, ridiculous. The idea that the Frums of this world have done anything to become "polite-company conservatives" is a load of crap. If anything, they represent the rare exception of thoughtful media conservatives who largely refrain from nastiness and bomb-throwing.
It would be far more accurate - if speaking from the mentality of our media - to term people like Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and other similar conservative media stars as "polite-company conservatives." After all, they can say anything -- no matter how offensive or wrong -- and it doesn't seem to keep them off of tony programs like the Today Show, The View, Good Morning America or the major broadcast and cable news networks. In other words, they can do or say anything and still be accepted in "polite-company."
I guess you could call it the media's golden rule when it comes to punditry: Conservatives are mainstream no matter how right-wing, bigoted or otherwise untruthful their views, while progressives can't stray too far from the center or else they risk being considered illegitimate and not part of polite company.
Need more evidence?
I'm sure Ann Coulter has a new book on the horizon (doesn't she always?) and we all know her history. If you think that history will keep her from making the rounds on the cable and broadcast news chat shows, think again. It never has before.
When was the last time that someone as liberal and mean-spirited as Ann Coulter is conservative and mean-spirited got even a minute of time in front of the camera?
Then again, I struggle to even think of a liberal example that fits the Coulter-mold.
Politico's Michael Calderone reports:
Megan Whittemore, who was recently the research producer for "Fox News Sunday," has been named deputy press secretary to Republican whip Eric Cantor.
She had previously covered Capitol Hill for Fox News and FoxNews.com, according to the release, and worked on the network's 2008 election coverage.
Fox News is the "scene of the crime" on health care "falsehoods and myths" an unnamed White House official told Politico's Mike Allen in the lead up to President Obama's sit-down interview with the conservative network last night:
A White House official: "Many of the falsehoods and myths about health reform gained traction with Glenn Beck and others on FOX, so the President is returning to the scene of the crime to make the final sale. As we have said, we will work with Fox where it serves our communications interests, and this does."
Over the weekend, Politico published a profile of Media Matters by Michael Calderone.
From a glitzy new office in downtown Washington, the ideological war over the media is fully engaged.
Six years after its founding to counter what it said was "conservative misinformation," Media Matters for America employs a staff of 70 that spends 19 hours a day monitoring newspapers, magazines, broadcast and cable television, talk radio, and the Internet to counter reporting or commentary it deems to be inaccurate or biased.
One of the bloodiest battles in that war occurred last fall, when Kevin Jennings, an openly-gay educator hired by the Department of Education to run an anti-bullying campaign, became a conservative cause.
Jennings was under fire from critics because he once described how as, a 24-year-old teacher, he counseled a student having a sexual relationship with an "older man." Several conservative outlets and commentators said that by law Jennings had to report the incident, claiming the student was only 15 years old at the time, and the relationship thus constituted statutory rape.
Media Matters obtained the student's driver's license and proved he was 16 at the time, the age of consent in Massachusetts. While some may still question Jennings' judgment, he didn't break any law.
"This should put to rest claims made by Fox News and other conservatives that Jennings covered up 'statutory rape' or 'molestation,'" wrote Media Matters senior fellow Karl Frisch. "To continue reporting such reckless speculation is at best willful disregard for the facts and at worst journalistic malpractice."
The battle over Jennings convinced Media Matters that it needed to not only monitor other media but to do its own original reporting. On Monday, Joe Strupp, who covered the press for 11 years with Editor & Publisher magazine, will launch a new media blog after signing on as the group's first investigative reporter.
Joining a partisan organization is a change for Strupp, given that his press coverage with E&P, or in appearances on "Fox News Watch," was solidly non-partisan. However, Media Matters, he says, didn't ask about his political beliefs when it hired him, and his goal remains to do "straight-ahead reporting." Still, Strupp acknowledges that he represents a "new sort of wing for their organization."
So while Media Matters may increasingly hire journalists with more traditional news backgrounds, the reporting and writing still fits in with the organization's goals. Unlike a newspaper, Media Matters is not in the business of selling advertising, subscriptions or competing on a variety of beats. It also has a clear political agenda.
For instance, Media Matters hired Will Bunch, a veteran Philadelphia Daily News reporter and blogger, as a senior fellow last month. Bunch plans on remaining at the Daily News while also working on a book that seems well-suited for the Media Matters audience: "The Backlash: Right-Wing Radicals, Hi-Def Hucksters, and Paranoid Politics in the Age of Obama."
While Media Matters president Eric Burns and senior fellow Eric Boehlert are more visible presences on cable news and talk radio, founder David Brock remains chief executive and a major presence in the organization.
He plays a key role in strategy and fundraising, which supports the entire non-profit apparatus, and is typically at the office each day. "He guides us, gives vision," Rabin-Havt said.
That Brock has anything to do with the organization at all is more than a little ironic given his own role as part of the right-wing conspiracy. Two of Brock's notable contributions were his book "The Real Anita Hill," and a 1994 American Spectator article that spawned "Troopergate," leading to allegations that Bill Clinton, while Governor of Arkansas, used state troopers to arrange liaisons with women.
Brock later confessed that much of the Anita Hill book was false, apologized to the Clintons for the Troopergate article, broke with the right officially in a 1997 Esquire piece, and four years later explained his conversion in greater detail with his memoir, "Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative."
At the time Brock started Media Matters, the main counter to conservative media groups such as MRC and the even more established Accuracy in Media, founded in 1969, was Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), a liberal watchdog group that launched in 1986 to target media bias and censorship. While FAIR offers some analysis online each day, it doesn't do so as comprehensively as the better-funded Media Matters, which has researchers posting clips of video and audio throughout the day along with frequently updated online content.
Rabin-Havt, who like other Media Matters executives, arrived at the organization after working for a number of groups affiliated with liberal advocacy and the Democratic Party, said he thinks Media Matters has been somewhat misunderstood by mainstream reporters.
"The culture here, in this office, and I think reporters would be surprised by this, isn't one of sniping or disrespect towards the media," Rabin Havt said, adding that "being a reporter is such an incredibly honored profession, and plays such a role in our society and our debate, and we want people to do the best job they can."
Be sure to check out the profile in its entirety.
Other Profiles of Media Matters: