Author Page | Page 3 | Media Matters for America

Jamison Foser

Author ››› Jamison Foser
  • Classy: National Review Column Calls President Obama "Hussein," Suggests First Lady Is Fat

    Blog ››› ››› JAMISON FOSER

    I can't imagine the thought process that led National Review to post this garbage on its website's home page:

    Believe it or not, the actual column is worse: At one point, David Kahan refers to President Obama simply as "Hussein" and suggests that if Obama loses re-election, he'll "call out every union thug and goon in these United States to occupy the Capitol, shred the drapery, steal the silver, and molest the servants." And he calls First Lady Michelle Obama fat:

    My first thought was that we should offer Barry the vacant throne of his native Hawaiian Islands. Sure, he'd have to put on three or four hundred pounds to fit the royal robes of King Kamehameha, but even Barry might blanch at the thought of adding King Kam's full moniker to his roster of names: Kalani Pai'ea Wohi o Kaleikini Keali'ikui Kamehameha o 'Iolani i Kaiwikapu kaui Ka Liholiho Kunuiakea, the Second. Still, Michelle would have a real shot of slipping into Queen Kapiolani's muumuu collection and making it her own, especially after a few more meals of short ribs in Vail, the calorie count of which is only slightly offset by her incessant finger-wagging at the rest of us.

    Remember, National Review is supposedly a bastion of respectable, intellectual conservative thought.

    Previously: So They're Just Calling Michelle Obama Fat Now

  • After Mocking Obama's Teleprompter Use, LAT's Malcolm Praises Barbour For Doing The Same

    Blog ››› ››› JAMISON FOSER

    Here's Los Angeles Times blogger and former GOP press aide Andrew Malcolm mocking Barack Obama as the "teleprompter president." Here's Malcolm comparing Obama's teleprompter use to "some MLB pitcher going to his trademark fastball way too often," which, Malcolm says, contributes to Obama's "worst" problem: "he's the Real Good Talker." Here's Malcolm sneering that Obama's teleprompter is one of the "trademarks" of his administration.

    And here's Andrew Malcolm praising potential Republican presidential candidate Haley Barbour for using a teleprompter, which Malcolm says demonstrates "an attention to delivery detail."

    What did LA Times readers do to deserve such a clownish partisan?

    Previously: Andrew Malcolm, Hack

  • How NPR Helped Empower James O'Keefe

    Blog ››› ››› JAMISON FOSER

    So James O'Keefe's much-hyped NPR video turns out to have been misleadingly edited, just like his previous efforts. Shocking, isn't it?

    Actually, it might be -- if you get your news from NPR.

    Dishonesty is James O'Keefe's defining trait. If there is anything news organizations should tell their audiences about him, it's that he's repeatedly been caught lying and producing misleading videos and transcripts. His whole operation is a sham. That's all you need to know about James O'Keefe. And yet, NPR's reporting on O'Keefe consistently failed to make that clear -- or even to hint at it. A search of NPR transcripts in the Nexis database finds 10 NPR reports that mentioned O'Keefe prior to the controversy over his NPR video. Only once in these 10 reports is there so much as a hint that O'Keefe had ever behaved dishonestly in presenting the results of his "stings" to the public -- a September 23, 2009 interview in which an attorney for ACORN says "The tapes have been edited and rearranged."

    No NPR report available on Nexis that mentions James O'Keefe has included the fact that California's attorney general said the ACORN tapes were "severely edited by O'Keefe" and constituted a "highly selective editing of reality." None mentioned a New York Daily News report that a law enforcement source said O'Keefe "edited the tape to meet their agenda." In several reports, NPR journalists adopted the false claim that O'Keefe had dressed as a pimp; none of the reports indicate that this was not, in fact, true. NPR never got around to telling listeners that O'Keefe pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in connection with one of his stunts. And O'Keefe's bizarre scheme to lure CNN reporter Abbie Boudreau onto a boat under false pretenses, then secretly record her reaction to being confronted in an enclosed, unfamiliar environment by a strange man with handcuffs and sex toys? None of the NPR reports available on Nexis mentioned that.

  • Chuck Norris Urges Use Of Bible As Textbook As A "Corrective" To Public School "Indoctrination Camps"

    Blog ››› ››› JAMISON FOSER

    Last week, Townhall columnist Chuck Norris called public schools "indoctrination camps." This week, he offers a "corrective":

    work to install a Bible curriculum into your public school district. Yes, it's legal, constitutional and being placed right now in thousands of schools across the country. A brand-new electronic version of the curriculum is available this week. The National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools' curriculum has been voted into 572 school districts (2,086 high schools) in 38 states, from Alaska and California to Pennsylvania and Florida. Ninety-three percent of school boards that have been approached to date with the curriculum have voted to implement it because the course helps students understand the Bible's influence and impact on history, literature, our legal and educational systems, art, archaeology and other parts of civilization. In this elective class, students are required to read through their textbook -- the Bible.

    According to a 2008 Austin American-Statesman article, the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools has been criticized by religious scholars for "sloppy work," factual errors, and for portraying conservative protestant Christianity as the "only true religion":

    Legal issues aside, [University of Texas biblical studies professor Steven] Friesen said the National Council curriculum is "sloppy work" with factual, historical mistakes; dubious sources; and a shallow understanding of the academic discipline.

    A review of the curriculum published in an academic journal last year found that it assumes that conservative Protestant Christianity is the "only true religion" and that the Bible is "infallible and thus historically accurate."

    "As a whole, it does little to describe the Bible in literature, and it presents a particular view of biblical history that may push the bounds of what is acceptable in a public-school setting," wrote the authors, one of whom is Kent Richards, director of the Society of Biblical Literature.

    And Chuck Norris claims this curriculum is a corrective to schools functioning as as "indoctrination camps."

  • Attention, Conservatives: People Like Teachers

    Blog ››› ››› JAMISON FOSER

    Is there a better example of how hilariously out of touch conservative pundits are than their belief that Americans hate teachers? Here's Townhall columnist Bill Murchison:

    [O]nce public education lost in great degree the robust support of the middle class, there was nowhere for things to go but downhill.

    Education made for a stronger, wiser America. That is what we believed -- and why we supported teachers and principals.

    You say I am generalizing. I am. Every assertion regarding the human experience is a generalization. The point is, we used to like teachers and support them. What happened?

    Parents, I tell you, used to like teachers. Teachers liked parents in return. There was a kind of compact between them. Back us up, the teachers said, and we'll deliver the goods. The parents nodded their heads. OK.

    That was until the compact came apart and society as a whole withdrew its support from the teacher: the teacher as authority figure anyway.

    In reality, people love teachers. So much so that two-thirds of Americans think public school teachers should be paid more.

    I look forward to Bill Murchison's next column, in which he will presumably address America's growing hatred of puppies and ice cream.

  • Haley Barbour Couldn't Buy Press This Good

    Blog ››› ››› JAMISON FOSER

    Remember when newspaper articles about one politician attacking another used to include a response to those attacks, and maybe even some assessment of their validity? Those were good times, weren't they? Sadly, those days are long gone at the Washington Post, as Karen Tumulty's report (really just a glorified transcript) on Mississippi governor and possible Republican presidential candidate Haley Barbour demonstrates.

    The first five paragraphs of Tumulty's article are devoted to passing along Barbour's attacks on President Obama's economic policies, without a word of response from the White House or anyone who disagrees with Barbour. And Tumulty makes no effort to assess the validity of Barbour's attacks or put them in context for readers. She passes along Barbour's claims that Obama's economic policies have made the economy worse, but doesn't mention that, for example, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the 2009 stimulus package increased employment by as much as 3.5 million. Tumulty quotes Barbour accusing Obama of "call[ing] for record tax increases," but she doesn't mention that the stimulus cut taxes for 95 percent of working families.

    Next, Tumulty devoted a paragraph to Barbour's economic agenda (again, no counterpoints or independent assessments included.) After a couple of paragraphs touting Barbour's political strengths, we come to this passage:

    It was evident that Barbour has also moved to address another potential stumbling block to his candidacy — a series of recent comments that have been portrayed as racially insensitive.

    Seated at the front of the ballroom for Barbour's speech was a table of African American community leaders. Among them was Andrea Zopp, president of the Chicago Urban League, who had initially planned to object to Barbour's appearance here, because she had been offended by an interview last year in which the Mississippi governor had seemed to defend the South's notorious segregationist Citizens Councils. [Emphasis added]

    Barbour seemed to defend the Citizens Councils in remarks that were portrayed as racially insensitive? That's quite a generous description. Here's what Barbour said:

  • Dick Morris, Wrong Again

    Blog ››› ››› JAMISON FOSER

    After predicting that Rick Lazio would beat Hillary Clinton in 2000, that New York Republican Senate candidate Jeanine Pirro was such a formidable opponent that Hillary Clinton would drop out of her 2006 re-election campaign rather than face Pirro, that the 2008 presidential general election would pit Clinton against Condi Rice, and that Kirsten Gillibrand was in electoral peril last year, you might think Dick Morris would have the good sense to take a break from making further predictions. But this is Dick Morris we're talking about, so "good sense" doesn't really apply.

    Dick Morris, March 11:

    It now appears likely that the Democratic Senators will never return to the State Capitol in Madison. They will probably not return to allow passage of the rest of Walker's program but will focus instead on their efforts to recall the Republican Senators and Governor Walker himself.

    New York Times, March 12 -- just one day later:

    They are the unlikeliest of folk heroes.

    But this group of once-obscure lawmakers — a dairy farmer, a lawyer and a woman who is seven months pregnant, among others — that fled this capital nearly a month ago, returned Saturday to the cheers of tens of thousands who once again packed the streets in protest.

    Many in the crowd wore buttons or held signs bearing admiring nicknames for the group: the "Fighting 14," the "Fab 14" or, simply, "the Wisconsin 14." They chanted, "Thank you" and "Welcome home."

    So, just a day after Dick Morris predicted that something would never happen, it happened. Is there anybody who is better at being wrong than Morris?

  • Chuck Norris Continues Conservative Assault On Public Education

    Blog ››› ››› JAMISON FOSER

    Last week, Townhall columnist Chuck Norris compared teachers unions to the mafia. Now he's expanding his attacks on public education, complaining about "scientific paradigms" and calling public schools "indoctrination camps":

    On Dec. 27, 1820, Thomas Jefferson wrote about his vision for the University of Virginia (chartered in 1819): "This institution will be based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind. For here we are not afraid to follow the truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it."

    But what should happen 200 years later when our public schools and universities avoid the testing of truths? Or suppress alternative opinions because they are unpopular or politically incorrect? Or no longer tolerate opinions now considered errors or obsolete by the elite? What happens when socio-political agendas or scientific paradigms dominate academic views to the exclusion of a minority's even being mentioned?

    What happens when the political and public educational pendulum swings from concern for the tyranny of sectarianism in Jefferson's day to secularism in ours? What happens when U.S. public schools become progressive indoctrination camps?


    Chuck Norris Facts: "Teachers Unions Muscle Legislators Like The Mafia"

    CNSNews' Jeffrey: "It is time to drive public schools out of business"

    Beck Talks Down To "Those Of You Who Went To Public School"

    Beck encourages retirees to home school their grandchildren because they're being "indoctrinated"

    Beck Claims Obama Wants Chinese-Style "Training Camps -- Schools"

    Conservative media take a strong stand against ... learning?!?

  • The AP Produces The Worst Article About Government Employees You'll Read All Day

    Blog ››› ››› JAMISON FOSER

    The Associated Press wins the prize with this stinker headlined "Anger brews over government workers' benefits."

    In paragraphs 1 and 2, the AP passes along a Wisconsin woman's criticisms of government workers. In the third paragraph, the AP tells readers "She's not alone in seeing public servants as public enemies in some ways." In the seventh paragraph, the AP gets around to acknowledging "A USA Today/Gallup poll last month found show [sic] that Americans largely side with the employees." Then: Nine consecutive paragraphs devoted to detailing the minority's hostility towards government workers. And even more as the article goes on ... and on ... and on about this alleged wave of anti-government worker sentiment. (Which, again, is a minority viewpoint.)

    Eventually, and hilariously, the AP offers this passage:

    [Abel] Stewart, 36, the director of contemporary worship at a Methodist church in suburban Toledo, says he has a hard time conjuring up sympathy for the government workers he's seen protesting because of all the time he's spent working with struggling immigrants.

    "These are middle class people who have a house, who have enough food, who are complaining they don't have enough," he said. "Instead of fighting for their piece of the political pie, they'd be better looking at how to live within their means."

    That's not a unanimous view.

    "Not a unanimous view"? That's quite an understatement: It isn't even a majority view, as the AP grudgingly acknowledged in paragraph seven. Incredible.