Media Matters for America - County Fair

Chuck Todd's college basketball misinformation

Thu, 8 Jan 2009 15:59:32 EST

A little sports misinformation from MSNBC this afternoon, where NBC political director/White House correspondent Chuck Todd falsely besmirched Georgetown University's basketball team, as Georgetown grad Norah O'Donnell cried foul - but didn't correct Todd's glaring falsehood.

Todd: "Just so you know, this is really about going to places that have true basketball power, like a George Mason, that have been to a final four recently. Not like these Georgetowns or Dukes; they don't go to Final Fours any more."

O'Donnell: "We don't need this kind of trash talk, because I am actually a Hoya. Cheap shot."

Cheap, indeed. And false.

George Mason made the Final Four in 2006. Georgetown last made the Final Four in 2007.

Chuck Todd attended George Washington, which is still seeking its first Final Four appearance.

(Not conservative misinformation: just a point of personal privilege.)

But we thought Hollywood hated America

Thu, 8 Jan 2009 15:05:53 EST

Tough timing for Andrew Breitbart, the Hollywood conservative who just this week launched his culture and movie-bashing group blog, Big Hollywood, which is supposed to highlight how evil and liberal and out of touch the movie studios are, and how they're ruining our culture by poisoning it with liberal propaganda. (There, I just saved you the need of ever having to read the blog!)

Tough timing for Breitbart because I just read that HBO in February will be airing Taking Chance, an original movie staring Kevin Becon as a United State Marine officer who transports the remains of a soldier, Chance Phelps, killed outside of Baghdad in 2004. The heart wrenching Chance story was first told on the right-wing blog, BlackFive. See the Taking Chance trailer here. I got chills just watching it and I'll be sure to tune in February 21.

But the deeply evocative project, about honor and service and America, runs completely counter to Big Hollywood's name calling mantra about how liberal movie makers seek to undermine the military.

So Big Hollywood, how do you explain Taking Chance?

CNN's Romans "love[s]" Bloomberg's "ponzi scheme-Social Security reference"

Thu, 8 Jan 2009 14:52:22 EST

video: cnn-20090108-ponzi

Slow day for the Newsbusters crew ...

Thu, 8 Jan 2009 13:55:08 EST

Newsbusters Managing Editor Ken Sheperd complains about "Comic Books Crawling with Pro-Obama Bias."

What has him so upset? Apparently an upcoming issue of Spiderman features the super hero preventing a villain "from spoiling Obama's swearing-in."

Which pretty much tells you what you need to know about the gang at Newsbusters: not only do they spend their time sniffing out liberal bias in comic books, they consider it an example of "pro-Obama bias" when a criminal is prevented from disrupting Obama's swearing-in. Apparently for the comic industry to remain bias-free, it must depict criminals successfully undermining Obama.

Savage on SF Police Dep't transgender sensitive training: "brainwash[ing]" by a "freak," "sort of like toilet training for adults"

Thu, 8 Jan 2009 13:01:42 EST

video: savage-20090107-sfpd

Matthews on increasing the velocity of money: "Well, maybe if husbands should pay their wives for cooking dinner tonight, we can move the money around"

Thu, 8 Jan 2009 12:37:25 EST

video: matthews-20090108-wives

The Hill fumbled Jesse Jackson Jr.'s "racialized" comment

Thu, 8 Jan 2009 11:28:18 EST

It was made in the context of the unfolding Blago/Burris controversy. Jackson, who had been considered by Blago as a possible candidate to fill Barack Obama's senate seat, told CNN that it would be unfortunate if the issue of whether to seat Burris or not became "racialized."

The Hill reported it this way:

"The longer this process takes the more racialized this seat becomes and the more difficult it becomes for Democrats to hold it in 2010," Jackson, a onetime candidate for the seat, told CNN.

From that, The Hill made this rather sweeping, and damning, generalization about Democrats [emphasis added]:

Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D) warned Tuesday that Senate Democrats risk alienating black voters by refusing to seat Roland Burris, creating racial tension that could result in the party losing the Illinois Senate seat in 2010.

Is that really what Jackson claimed, that Democrats would alienate black voters? That's not how I read Jackson's somewhat amorphous CNN quote and I'm not sure how The Hill came to that conclusion. Because that same day Jackson also spoke to Politico about the Burris situation and seemed to making the opposite point from what The Hill claimed:

But [Jackson] said that use of the race card by Burris' supporters hurts Democrats' chances for holding the seat in 2010. "A racialized Senate seat is not something that the people of Illinois want," Jackson said. "They want people to speak to their concerns and the genuine economic hardships they confront. So the racialization of Senate seat is going to be a profound problem for Democrats," he said.

Scarborough: We went to "Elvis Costello concerts together" in the '80s and Dick Cheney is a "loveable guy"

Thu, 8 Jan 2009 09:16:44 EST

video: msnbc-20090108-lovable

Politico, please define "foreign policy observers"

Thu, 8 Jan 2009 08:49:56 EST

In an article that portrays Vice President-elect Joe Biden as a goof (gee, where have we seen that unflattering meme before?) the Politico plays dumb and pretends it's very weird and bizarre that Biden is going on an overseas trip as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and before he's sworn in as vice president. Politico suggests the world leaders Biden meets with will be wildly confused by his presence.

Pretty thin gruel for a news story, which was highlighted by Politico's lame attempt to back up the non-story by claiming "foreign policy observers" are equally confused about Biden's trip.

Question: Who were the only two "foreign policy observers" Politco quoted for the anti-Biden article?

Answer: Two right-wing, partisan think tank employees.

One from the conservative American Enterprise Institute and another from the even more conservative Heritage Foundation. That's who Politico dialed up to get insightful, independent quotes about the Democratic VP.

Minnesota judge schools WSJ editorial page

Wed, 7 Jan 2009 21:22:52 EST

It came in response to the Journal's rather hysterical, Franken's-stealing-the-election editorial.

Wrote Judge Edward J. Cleary:

One can only assume, based on the tone of the editorial, the numerous inaccuracies, and the over-the-top slam at Al Franken ("tainted and undeserving?") that had [Republican] Norm Coleman come out on top in this recount, the members of the Board would have been praised as "strong-willed, intelligent, and perceptive."

We won't hold our breath waiting for that editorial to appear.

(h/t Steven Benen.)

MSNBC's Shuster, Newsweek's Gross bust conservative media-driven myth that FDR made Great Depression worse

Wed, 7 Jan 2009 19:31:03 EST

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue host David Shuster and Newsweek senior editor Dan Gross blast the conservative media-driven myth that Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal worsened the Great Depression.

It's like GOP Reefer Madness, cont'd

Wed, 7 Jan 2009 16:51:10 EST

Ann Coulter (surprise!) is now also delirious about the supposed return of the evil Fairness Doctrine by liberals in Congress:

The next big "bailout" planned by Obama, Reid, Pelosi and pals is... THE BAILOUT OF LIBERAL TALK RADIO.

See Jason Linkins at HuffPost for more.

Oh. Never mind...

Wed, 7 Jan 2009 16:38:51 EST

Newsbusters' Kerry Picket tries to suggest that Leon Panetta is a poor choice to head the CIA due to his alleged involvement in "Filegate," one of many 1990s non-scandals relentlessly hyped by the news media (eagerly cheered on by conservative activists like those at the Media Research Center.) But her case contains a slight flaw: Leon Panetta didn't have anything to do with "Filegate."

Picket blasts Panetta's "pathetic excuses in 1996 over why several hundred FBI background reports on American citizens were obtained by Craig Livingston." Panetta apologized for the mistake, calling it "inexcusable" and "a completely honest bureaucratic snafu." Picket angrily denounces that as a "pathetic" and "lame" excuse.

Unfortunately for Picket's case against Panetta, his comments were true. Republican congressional committees and independent counsels (remember Ken Starr?) joined the media in investigating "Filegate," finding that, sure enough, it was an honest mistake.

Picket indignantly concludes:

[WaPo columnist David] Igantius may think a political heavyweight like Panetta will benefit the CIA and the Obama administration, but he fails to mention how Americans can count on Panetta to keep the nation safe.

Bureaucratic blunder or not confidential information was compromised, nonetheless. We are living in a post 9/11 world now. Is this the kind of leadership America really wants in a CIA chief?

Picket apparently doesn't realize that Panetta wasn't White House chief of staff when Craig Livingstone was hired, or when the files were obtained. He was chief of staff in 1996, when the investigations began, which is why he commented on them.

So, to sum up: Leon Panetta wasn't responsible for "Filegate," in which no laws were broken. As a result, Newsbusters' Kerry Picket thinks we can't count on Panetta to keep the nation safe. Got it?

Tucker Carlson, wrong again

Wed, 7 Jan 2009 15:25:31 EST

There's a reason why nobody ever mistook Tucker Carlson for a "policy wonk," even when he was still wearing the bow tie. Here he is making a fool of himself during a Washingtonpost.com online discussion:

Harrisburg, Pa.: I wish to please ask a question to Mr. Carlson (and Ms. Cox is free to also respond.). I saw you on MSNBC and I agree that a national health care system will increase government spending. Yet, how much would it increase costs to consumers? Are there national health insurance plans that could reduce costs to consumers, especially if, to be candid, government inefficiency can be found to be less costly that current health care administrative costs?

Tucker Carlson: With all respect, you've answered your own question: Increased government spending amouunts to an increased cost to consumers, since in the end consumers are the only source of government revenue.

Carlson doesn't seem to understand that "increased government spending" does not amount to "increased cost to consumers" if it replaces a larger amount of money that the consumers were already spending.

This really isn't all that complicated. Maybe the Post should consider replacing Carlson with someone who has some idea what he is talking about?

Savage calls CNN's Kyra Phillips a "dummy," says she "look[s] like a post-op transvestite"

Wed, 7 Jan 2009 15:00:05 EST