PDA

View Full Version : MSM = Media Supporting McCain?


Bloggingheads
04-02-2008, 01:30 PM

Joel_Cairo
04-02-2008, 02:12 PM
Thank god. I've been refreshing the homepage every hour or so hoping not to see Goldfarb's pudgy smirk, and it finally happened.

harkin
04-02-2008, 02:15 PM
I hope Ana Marie gives an update on the Drudge Report no longer being relevant.

thprop
04-02-2008, 02:20 PM
I don't buy Ana Marie's argument at all. Appearances are important. Even if it was just a joke, the media should not go around reinforcing it.

I would also like to see an end to things like the Gridiron Club dinner, White House Correspondents dinner, etc. I think the press should never be at all chummy with the people it covers. The press should be adversarial and appear adversarial.

Also, an end to anonymous quotes. No more "senior White House official" crap.

deebee
04-02-2008, 02:59 PM
It is often said that in political life both actual wrongdoing as well as any perception of it is to be guarded against. I believe that this should also apply to those journalists who present themselves as objective observers. Even the slightest appearance of a too-cozy relationship with a public figure taints their reporting in the public eye even if they are able to divorce themselves from their personal feelings

Also, if McCain and Obama end up as the final nominees it will be interesting to see who gets the more favorable coverage since it has been the "perception" (wrongly or rightly) that the MSM is in the tank for both of them.

Joel_Cairo
04-02-2008, 03:14 PM
Am I mistaken, or is Glenn flubbing this here (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/9880?in=00:28:21&out=00:28:35)?
If I recall correctly, McCain's post-Lieberman-whisper correction changed "Al Qaeda" to "Extremists" rather than, as Glenn says, "Shi'ite Extremists." There's certainly a big difference, as AQ is a possible subgroup of "Extremists", but would be excluded from the "Shi'ite Extremist" formulation. I remember McCain's statement as an obfuscation, just blurring his statement a bit so as not to catch as much flak; Glenn posits that McCain actually effectively retracted the AQ/Iran link...?

lowellfield
04-02-2008, 03:15 PM
Good pairing. I like Greenwald a lot, and Cox is the by far the best of the Swamplanders.

The big problem with it is that Cox clearly knows that Glenn is the most vitriolic scourge of the MSM from the liberal perspective, and her sense of tribal solidarity clearly overrides that part of her which has made many of the same criticisms as Greenwald. I guess it's good to the extent that it makes for more disagreement, but she seems to be going to great lengths to just oppose the DFH for its own sake.

David Edenden
04-02-2008, 03:19 PM
Glen, it seems to me that the general discussion in American politics is to use "Al Qaeda" to represent all "Islamic extremism" or Islamo-Fascism" without differentiating between Shia or Sunni groups.

It is a mild mistake and the media was correct to see it that way.

lowellfield
04-02-2008, 03:26 PM
No, that's ridiculous. The president of the United States need to understand what's going on in the Middle East on a more granular level than Muslims = Bad Guys. "Who can tell the difference?" is a piss poor excuse.

bjkeefe
04-02-2008, 03:31 PM
Am I mistaken, or is Glenn flubbing this here (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/9880?in=00:28:21&out=00:28:35)?
If I recall correctly, McCain's post-Lieberman-whisper correction changed "Al Qaeda" to "Extremists" rather than, as Glenn says, "Shi'ite Extremists." There's certainly a big difference, as AQ is a possible subgroup of "Extremists", but would be excluded from the "Shi'ite Extremist" formulation. I remember McCain's statement as an obfuscation, just blurring his statement a bit so as not to catch as much flak; Glenn posits that McCain actually effectively retracted the AQ/Iran link...?

I think your dingalink is messed up -- it doesn't have Glenn talking.

McCain, after being corrected by Lieberman, just said "extremists;" i.e., with no "islamist" or "shiite" modifier, at least in this case: (CBS video (http://youtube.com/watch?v=v6GBdyws5YU))

Since he "misspoke" on other occasions as well, it's possible he added the modifier on those occasions, but the video I linked to is the one that seems to be the reference point for most of this coverage.

Abu Noor Al-Irlandee
04-02-2008, 03:34 PM
He said "extremists," but then he also specifically said, "NOT Al-Qa'ida"

http://abunooralirlandee.wordpress.com

garbagecowboy
04-02-2008, 03:35 PM
_____________

lowellfield
04-02-2008, 03:36 PM
I kind of agree. I don't know why she's so determined to defend McCain and the coverage of him, but it leads her to say things which go beyond naive to childish.

...and that bit at the end where she gets pissed at Glenn ("I wasn't asking for advice, actually...")? No, she wasn't asking for advice. She was whining about the negative impact mean comments (like this one) have on her writing. Glenn was telling her to suck it up, which she should.

Abu Noor Al-Irlandee
04-02-2008, 03:36 PM
In addition to that, I think Mr. Greenwald makes the most important observation about the conversation over on his blog. Ms. Cox begins by arguing that having a friendly/cordial relationship doesn't mean the media can't deal with politicians in an objective/challenging manner then she spends the whole diavlog making weak arguments which attempt to search for the most sympathetic possible reading of both McCain and her journalistic colleagues in general.

http://abunooralirlandee.wordpress.com

Abu Noor Al-Irlandee
04-02-2008, 03:43 PM
lowellfield is right on...I don't know what passes for common expression in the general media but there's a big difference between Al-Qa'ida and "Shi'ite Extremists." Not only are these two groups that absolutely hate each other and fight each other but, as Mr. Greenwald points out in the diavlog, the so-called Bush doctrine means that if a state supports or is linked to Al-Qa'ida is supposed to be justified to invade and occupy them. Mr. McCain's original allegation would be an implied argument that Iran should be invaded. It makes a big difference and that's a really strange argument Mr. Edenden.

http://abunooralirlandee.wordpress.com

bjkeefe
04-02-2008, 03:47 PM
deebee:

Also, if McCain and Obama end up as the final nominees it will be interesting to see who gets the more favorable coverage since it has been the "perception" (wrongly or rightly) that the MSM is in the tank for both of them.

There are plenty of us who think the MSM has been in the tank just as much concerning Clinton. The most recent example is the "sniper fire" thing. This is a story she has been telling (http://www.veracifier.com/episode/TPM_20080327), at length, as part of her stump speech. I don't know how this isn't being labeled a fantasy or a lie. Instead, it is almost always referred to as "Clinton misspoke." This seems to me an awfully forgiving way to put it. This was not a slip of the tongue by any stretch.

Another example is the attitude on the part of most of the MSM in covering how "close" she is in the race. Until very recently, the typical horserace story did not reflect the extreme unlikelihood that she could catch Obama in the count of pledged delegates. Her wins on March 5 were treated as a huge change in momentum when, in fact, she netted only a few delegates. These gains were completely negated by the next couple of contests, another part of the race that was not prominently mentioned in the typical front page story. Only in the past couple of weeks has the reality of Obama's lead been admitted.

Final example: Clinton gets almost no critical coverage for her continued insistence that MI and FL count, or that they must have re-votes, or whatever. Stories reporting on the daily statements to this effect by Clinton and members of her campaign rarely include context; e.g., the fact that she agreed at the beginning of the campaign that those states were out of play.

bjkeefe
04-02-2008, 04:00 PM
Adam:

Wonkette has gone downhill since she left ...

I thought she was completely gone, too. If this is the case, the video page for the diavlog is in error. Note that she is not listed among the Wonkette personnel in their sidebar (http://wonkette.com/).

Greenwald, as is typical of his previous bh.tv appearances, works himself into a frenzy and comes off as unconvincing and hysterical.

To you, perhaps. I think he's a little unpleasant and resorts to exaggerating for effect more than is useful, but I do think he makes his points and that those points are convincing. I think he established that there is good reason to suspect a reporter's ability to remain objective about McCain when that reporter is regularly riding on the McCain bus. I also think he made a good case that the MSM, in general, makes a lot of favorable assumptions about McCain's supposed foreign affairs expertise. Did he "win" this debate? Not necessarily. But I think he was convincing enough that a previously uninformed watcher would at least say "hmmm."

I'll add that Ana Marie's view was not without merit. Having been raised by a reporter, I may have more sympathy for the complications faced by a reporter than the average viewer, though.

One final point that was neglected by both Glenn and Ana Marie: Whatever else one might think about McCain, he deserves credit for his understanding of the media and how to deal with them. There's a bit of cynicism in that observation, to be sure, but there's also some unalloyed respect.

Abu Noor Al-Irlandee
04-02-2008, 04:12 PM
I think this bit here lapses into parody of the stereotypical discussion of communication problems between men and women. Ms. Cox goes on for over 3 1/2 minutes about a "crisis" she has been having in approaching her job which she thinks has made her "writing suffer" and she's "not sure if it's healthy." Mr. Greenwald makes some more general observations but then makes the big mistake of trying to offer a "solution" to Ms. Cox's "problem."

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/9880?in=00:44:36&out=45:12

http://abunooralirlandee.wordpress.com

bjkeefe
04-02-2008, 04:19 PM
Good observation, Abu Noor, and a more polite way than I would have put it. I found a lot of that segment pretty cringe-worthy, and I could only hope for Ana Marie's sake that her boss wasn't watching. To be fair, she came off a little better when she restated her original thoughts, but still. For someone who made her bones in the blogosphere, she came off as awfully thin-skinned during that bit.

And you're right: that closing bit about "I wasn't asking you to solve my problems" was just classic stereotype behavior. I'll be the first to admit that men try way too often to do this in conversation with the women in their lives when they really should just be listening, but a diavlog between people who are not, AFAIK, involved was no place for this. Made for some serious eye-rolling.

Wonderment
04-02-2008, 04:48 PM
There are plenty of us who think the MSM has been in the tank just as much concerning Clinton.

Interesting. My overall impression is that Clinton gets a negative treatment (often sexist) from both sides. The hardcore Republicans in the media hate her as if she were a criminal with a rap sheet a mile long; the liberals are pro-Obama across the board. Hillary's support comes from non-college-educated Dems and older women, which may be a majority in the country, but are a tiny minority in the media.

I say this as an Obama supporter and as someone who entirely agrees that her statements about Bosnia should be identified as "lies," not mistakes.

jazztao
04-02-2008, 05:31 PM
Ms. Cox actually says, "I’m not concerned about being wrong. I’m concerned about people not listening to what I say."

Now, she can argue that this is taken out of context, but I believe strongly that that is exactly how she's feeling right now. In todays journalism it is simply not important to get the story right or objectively; it's only important that you get eyeballs. Don't forget how many times she claimed that the "media loves to be part of the story". That's Psych 101 projection, and it embodies the trouble with the MSM: the problem is always out there somewhere with some other journalist or publication. There is no one in the MSM currently willing to honestly look in the mirror, or better yet, remove the plank from their own eye.

Thanks again Glen, for shining a light into the darkness!

AemJeff
04-02-2008, 05:41 PM
Ms. Cox actually says, "I’m not concerned about being wrong. I’m concerned about people not listening to what I say."

Now, she can argue that this is taken out of context, but I believe strongly that that is exactly how she's feeling right now. In todays journalism it is simply not important to get the story right or objectively; it's only important that you get eyeballs. Don't forget how many times she claimed that the "media loves to be part of the story". That's Psych 101 projection, and it embodies the trouble with the MSM: the problem is always out there somewhere with some other journalist or publication. There is no one in the MSM currently willing to honestly look in the mirror, or better yet, remove the plank from their own eye.

Thanks again Glen, for shining a light into the darkness!

You might also read that quote as evidence of a degree of humility. I doubt she's saying she doesn't care about the truth. Rather: regardless of whether she gets something right, she hopes that her interlocutors will take into account her actual arguments.

sleepyhead
04-02-2008, 05:43 PM
I didn't find that cringe-worthy, although I think my mind wandered a bit during that section, so I wasn't paying close attention to what she was saying. (How typically male of me, to get distracted while a woman is trying share her deep feelings!)

Although I tend to agree with Greenwald on the merits, I found myself instinctively siding with Cox. It's not only that she's so pretty and likable and he's so phlegmatic and humorless, although that's definitely part of it; it's also the fact that although I think he's correct on most of the issues, I find his analysis to be way too black and white and unforgiving. While I think much of the press's treatment of McCain is an embarassment, I also tend to favor the Cox view of the world, where things are complicated and it's hard to make categorical statements about an entire profession, etc.

uncle ebeneezer
04-02-2008, 05:56 PM
She got butchered (on the tat). Very shoddy work. The lines are pretty blurry. Unless she put on major weight since getting it, she went to a less-capable artist than she should have.

I find it somewhat annoying that every MSM critical commentary on McCain has to be prefaced by mentioning that he is a war hero, patriot or great American etc. Even if it's true, it always seems beside the point to me.

sleepyhead
04-02-2008, 06:06 PM
Indeed, she had said earlier in the conversation that all she really cared about was being accurate, and she didn't think it mattered whether there was some perception that journalists were too cozy with the people they cover. Essentially she was asking for people to judge her work on whether it was correct, instead of on whether she attended a barbecue at his ranch or spent 6 hours schmoozing with him on the back of his campaign bus.

So when she says her concern is not getting things wrong, she obviously meant that when she's writing a post or an article, she knows that she'll get hammered by partisans for being too soft or too hard on a candidate, but few people will care what she wrote was accurate or not. She was bemoaning the fact that commenters don't seem to care about accuracy anymore, rather than saying that she didn't care about whether she got things wrong.

So jazztao, you just confirmed her theory that commenters aren't interested in listening to her argument and taking it seriously, because they are too busy jumping on her for being biased or a hack or a sellout or...

TwinSwords
04-02-2008, 06:16 PM
LOL, she has absolutely no idea that she spent an hour proving Glenn's point.

She really doesn't like anyone saying anything bad about McCain!

And, man, it was one insult after another from her, wasn't it? I realize she does it with her big ol' smile, but her hostility towards Glenn was constant from beginning to end.

PaulL
04-02-2008, 06:32 PM
I noticed that the biggest bloggingheads d*ckweeds Glenn Greenwald and Eric Alterman will only talk to people on bloggingheads who agree with them or they can easily bully.
I heard Glenn on Hugh Hewitt and he was not at all confrontational.

I would love to see Glenn and Eric against Ann Althouse, Jonah Goldberg or Byron York.

zenweight
04-02-2008, 06:39 PM
That was truly weird. Did Ana feel so personally attacked by Glenn that this unusual behaviour resulted? I haven't seen such defensive, unstructured and patronising communication in any BH divlog. And arrogant in a deeper sense- not just the valley girlish rolling of the eyes and ubiquitous quick put down- but the arrogance of one who appears closed to learning, closed to considering anothers opinion and challenging ones own assumptions.

Congrats to Glenn, for making a clear case and staying composed.

TwinSwords
04-02-2008, 06:45 PM
Glen, it seems to me that the general discussion in American politics is to use "Al Qaeda" to represent all "Islamic extremism" or Islamo-Fascism" without differentiating between Shia or Sunni groups..

That's an amazing concession to make to intellectual laziness and an especially damaging one since, in 2008, there are no more inflammatory words in the English language than "al Qaeda."

You might as well us "Nazi" to represent all Germans.

carpenterale
04-02-2008, 06:49 PM
I'd like to add this to the evidence for what Glenn argues. I find it difficult to watch this video, posted by McCain's daughter cooing about the flowers the "guys from Politico" brought Mrs. McCain and not think about reporters giddy to curry favor with their subjects.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xp0iHOk0mEQ

Watch John Martin helping McCain grill ribs, Holly Bailey on the tire swing - of course they'll give their pal a pass.

TwinSwords
04-02-2008, 06:52 PM
lowellfield is right on...
You and lowellfield are both right on.

And this is precisely the point made by Heather Hurlburt (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/9817?in=00:22:34&out=00:24:27) -- the dangers of conflating various disparate Islamic groups -- that set that idiot Berman to sputtering about "92 questions."

Berman was completely unable to respond to Hurlbert's point, which is unfortunate for all of us.

Damn fool.

TwinSwords
04-02-2008, 06:55 PM
Exactly. She sincerly seems to have no idea that she was visibly and desperately trying to protect McCain.

It was simply astonishing that she had never considered the possibility that McCain (and Republicans generally) would dishonestly use the spectre of Al Qaeda to gin up support for their foreign policy ambitions (in this case, the hardline approach to Iran).

It just goes to show how incredibly naive a person can be and still hold a powerful and important position at a true media juggernaut.

TwinSwords
04-02-2008, 06:58 PM
And, adding to what Brendan and Abu Noor said, that was the whole point of the dustup: That Iran would help Shiite extremists, but not Sunni extremists.

TwinSwords
04-02-2008, 07:00 PM
Interesting. My overall impression is that Clinton gets a negative treatment (often sexist) from both sides.

I agree -- and this still predominates, in my opinion, however I will say that I think the media has scaled back some of its open and outright hostility towards Clinton since the SNL skits that exposed them as the shills they are.

TwinSwords
04-02-2008, 07:03 PM
Greenwald, as is typical of his previous bh.tv appearances
Plural? You're not aware he was only on once before?



[Glenn] works himself into a frenzy and comes off as unconvincing and hysterical.
I wonder if you could do us all a favor and dingalink to a moment in this diavlog when Glenn was in a frenzy or acting hysterical.

bjkeefe
04-02-2008, 07:11 PM
Wonderment:

My overall impression is that Clinton gets a negative treatment (often sexist) from both sides.

There's something to that. There's also something to be said for her, and her campaign, having earned it. Not the sexist part, of course, just the negative treatment.

Yes, I do agree she suffers some sexist treatment. On the other hand, she gets a bit of an assist here, too, both from women who like her for being a woman and from both genders excessively worrying about appearing sexist.

Obama is in a similar boat -- he gets some kid-glove treatment from people who like him just for being black, or who fear seeming racist, and at the same time, gets a lot of unfair treatment that ranges from cryto-racist winking to blatant prejudice. The Wright controversy is certainly an illustration of that -- the MSM, never mind Fox, has never come anywhere near the coverage given Wright in treating all of the intolerance and incendiary remarks coming from white religious figures who play at politics.

Ultimately, I'd say it's a wash, regarding Clinton and Obama and their treatment at the hands of the MSM. The right-wing noise machine is probably equally unfair to both, too. The liberal media is split in lots of ways, but I could accept a claim that Obama, here, gets more favorable coverage overall. However, at this point, it's just that he's the preferred candidate and most of Clinton's antics lately are seen as destructive to the Democrats' chances overall.

Bottom line is: nobody gets the media love like St. John. I can only hope this diavlog is the beginning of a sorely needed pushback. Maybe Ana Marie, for example, will have had a seed planted in her mind by Glenn. Doubt it, but maybe.

bjkeefe
04-02-2008, 07:21 PM
PaulL:

As Twin noted to GC: Glenn has only been on BH.tv once before today, so I'd say you're a little limited in your statistical universe there. As I recall his diavlog with Ben Smith, it was an interruption fest which bored me to tears. This suggests Glenn was not in a position to bully, and it certainly demonstrates that he was willing to talk to someone with whom he did not agree about everything.

Don't know what to say about your impression of Eric Alterman, except that I miss him. I don't agree that he was always matched with people with whom he agrees or could bully. Seems to me he's had some good vigorous debates and some polite exchanges, but I don't recall any echo-chamber events. I suppose if you are conservative enough, you would find two lefty people indistinguishable if they agreed on some core principles and were disputing the details.

I will grant that Eric sometimes presents as abrasive, and Glenn comes off as a little humorless and intense, but "dickweeds" seems uncalled for, as does cowardly refusal to just type the word you chose to say.

Can't say anything about Glenn's appearance on HH's show. There isn't a gun in the world big enough to be pointed at my head that would make me listen to that idiot.

Andrya6
04-02-2008, 07:38 PM
As an aerospace engineer I have some input into what suppliers my employer will buy parts from. My employer has strict restrictions on what hospitality I can accept from suppliers (no gourmet food, just deli stuff or pizza, and it must be consumed in the supplier's workplace during a working lunch). Going to a weekend barbeque would not be OK. Such rules are standard, and there's a good reason for them- accepting hospitality does bias the purchasing decision, even if only unconsiously.

Vendors do try to give us stuff, and we have to decline- and they wouldn't do it unless they thought it was effective. Likewise, I suspect McCain is inviting the press hoping to get a good press.

I think Cox is unrealistic about the effect of favors and socializing on human decision making.

otto
04-02-2008, 08:26 PM
This was not a success. GG is something of a blunderbuss, wanting his Big Claims about McCain acknowledged, and AMC was evasive, snippy, and refused to engage in any give-and-take. Both pretty unbearable conversationalists.

Wonderment
04-02-2008, 10:09 PM
Bottom line is: nobody gets the media love like St. John. I can only hope this diavlog is the beginning of a sorely needed pushback. Maybe Ana Marie, for example, will have had a seed planted in her mind by Glenn. Doubt it, but maybe.

As someone who has a visceral negative response to McCain, I find the notion of the media being "enamored of" him astonishing. It's disturbing enough that half the public is enamored of him independently of the media. We hopelessly fall head over heels in love with all flag-waving warlords, and obviously have not learned our lesson from Bush-Cheney. People find "Ba-ba-bomb Iran" charming and the 100-years war "pragmatic." It's sickening.

I'm also VERY suspect of the claim by Ana Marie that a journalist can be friends with a public figure and still report on him/her objectively. I lived in a country for 12 years where journalists were overly friendly with public figures, and it was an unmitigated and repulsive disaster. Glenn wins this argument hands down, whether it's about McCain or any other pol.

thouartgob
04-02-2008, 11:20 PM
I think that Ana Marie's point about pundits name dropping is true but less than half the story. ACCESS is the story and it is more important than accuracy because the press is a money making affair it will need a consistent influx of names and personalities. Being good at your job might get you a Pulitzer but eventually you will fall prey to the bean counters ( as we all will if we want be heaven bound, Saint Peter CPA) . Knight Ridder, who utterly shamed the establishment press, has been sold off to Mcclatchy and I fear any professional clout they had will be watered down. The only clout left is who you can get an interview with. Access is important and reporters and the media have to have it but to I will put a bit more trust in an outfit that works on the outside and doesn't have as much baggage then some outfit well stocked with names but with a small but discernible stench of power.

I also agree with Ms Cox about the mutual back-scratching that goes on with McCain and the press. As was pointed out in a previous diavlog he makes their job much easier. But I found her description of a reporter making points with McCain about the bears a bit naive. McCain will cop to not knowing something or not being completely truthful and maybe even concede a point or 2 but understand it will not change anything. He will say "woops I messed up" and move merrily along.

I disagree with a previous commenter her skills are sharp and her deconstruction of some of Glenn's more strident declarations were apt but she seemed a little to ready to despin lefty greenwald.

thouartgob
04-02-2008, 11:25 PM
I noticed that the biggest bloggingheads d*ckweeds Glenn Greenwald and Eric Alterman will only talk to people on bloggingheads who agree with them or they can easily bully.
I heard Glenn on Hugh Hewitt and he was not at all confrontational.

I would love to see Glenn and Eric against Ann Althouse, Jonah Goldberg or Byron York.

Alterman was paired off with york already, not that exciting, Alterman v Drezner was better. Yglessias and Cox would have been a better combo I think.

uncle ebeneezer
04-02-2008, 11:34 PM
I gotta admit that as a very liberal person, I love guys like Alterman and Glenn (and Rosa and Heather too) because they don't back down and they have more than enough intelligence to hold their own against any conservative. They may not be the most likeable guys in the warm n' fuzzy way, but if more liberals and progs acted this way the idea of Liberals being weak wouldn't last long.

I would sum this diavlog up as "GG calls AMC out on being a McCain shill. AMC's defense is rather unconvincing."

On a side note Glenn looks like a serial killer, the way he stares at the screen.

edhesq
04-02-2008, 11:41 PM
Iran - al Qaeda link was first pointed out by the much vaunted 9/11 Commission.

From TIME (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,664967,00.html), July 16, 2004:

9/11 Commission Finds Ties Between al-Qaeda and Iran
By Adam Zagorin and Joe Klein

Next week's much anticipated final report by a bipartisan commission on the origins of the 9/11 attacks will contain new evidence of contacts between al-Qaeda and Iran—just weeks after the Administration has come under fire for overstating its claims of contacts between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

A senior U.S. official told TIME that the Commission has uncovered evidence suggesting that between eight and ten of the 14 "muscle" hijackers—that is, those involved in gaining control of the four 9/11 aircraft and subduing the crew and passengers—passed through Iran in the period from October 2000 to February 2001. Sources also tell TIME that Commission investigators found that Iran had a history of allowing al-Qaeda members to enter and exit Iran across the Afghan border. This practice dated back to October 2000, with Iranian officials issuing specific instructions to their border guards—in some cases not to put stamps in the passports of al-Qaeda personnel—and otherwise not harass them and to facilitate their travel across the frontier. The report does not, however, offer evidence that Iran was aware of the plans for the 9/11 attacks.

The senior official also told TIME that the report will note that Iranian officials approached the al-Qaeda leadership after the bombing of the USS Cole and proposed a collaborative relationship in future attacks on the U.S., but the offer was turned down by bin Laden because he did not want to alienate his supporters in Saudi Arabia. [Excerpt]

rcocean
04-02-2008, 11:41 PM
What a perfect pairing. /sarcasm off/

A shallow, obnoxious wingnut vs. a shallow, completely conventional, bubble headed liberal who never had an original thought in her life.

Judas Priest. Where are Bob and Mickey?

Incompetence Dodger
04-02-2008, 11:48 PM
Doesn't the fact that the reporters, who are supposedly so chummy with McCain, went onto the Sunday talk-shows to expose his "gaffe" as a deliberately misleading statement (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/9880?in=00:29:16&out=00:32:22), somewhat undercut his point that reporters cannot be genuinely critical of McCain since they love him so much?

I think the point is not whether the press called McCain on his "gaffe" or not, it's that it ended up being more-or-less a one-day story. If the rules that apply to the other candidates also applied to McCain, surely it would have snowballed into a multi-day frenzy, with Sam 'n' Cokie prattling on about the "new and troubling questions" this raises about McCain's fitness to be President, how it strikes at the very heart of his candidacy, etc, etc, eventually becoming a central, ongoing part of the narrative about him (cf., Rev. Wright/Tuzla sniper fire).

Greenwald and AMC didn't really lay out the options as well as they might have in the section you linked to. If I've teased it out correctly, I think Greenwald contended that the two (and only two) possible interpretations is that a) McCain is deliberately trying to conflate Sunnis and Shi'ites into a single "the enemy" in the public's mind (pushing on an open door, IMO), or b) he genuinely doesn't know (or care) about the difference and has conflated them in his own mind. AMC was trying to say that it may have been a simple slip of the tongue, possibly because c) he has Iran fever (and the only cure is more cowbell), or d) he's exhausted from the campaign and was on auto-pilot. Personally I think it was e) all of the above (not really, I don't think he's devious enough for a)). The larger point, obviously, is that all of those possibilities reflect very badly on McCain, and by all rights should have sparked a media firestorm.

daveh
04-02-2008, 11:57 PM
How many of these comments have been posted by Glenn Greenwald (http://patterico.com/2006/07/27/annotated-wuzzadem-the-facts-behind-the-greenwald-sock-puppetry/)?

I don't think his problem is going to be having too many friends.

Incompetence Dodger
04-03-2008, 12:09 AM
Adam:
One final point that was neglected by both Glenn and Ana Marie: Whatever else one might think about McCain, he deserves credit for his understanding of the media and how to deal with them. There's a bit of cynicism in that observation, to be sure, but there's also some unalloyed respect.

Agreed (on both the cynicism and the respect). It would be next to impossible for the press not to be enamored of Obama for any number of reasons; McCain has had to work much harder for for the McLovin'.

The kid-gloves treatment McCain gets (so far) always reminds me of this (http://www.cartoonbank.com/item/40082). It applies to all reporters and all politicians, but it seems particularly apropos to McCain.

aboutthemonkey
04-03-2008, 12:26 AM
This conversation was stunning. AC lost all credibility with me. Seemed to me that she took every opportunity to weasel around criticisms of McCain. Furthermore, she didn't seem to have the knowledge of the Al Qaeda gaffe I expected her to have. I don't know her background and was surprised at the end when she implied she had a journalism background. Really?

I acknowledge GG is aggressive occasionally, and sneaks in a bit of hyperbole here and there (which she called him on several times), but in the sense of the debate I think he clearly made his case.

rcocean
04-03-2008, 12:35 AM
For your information, Mr. Greenwald has written a New York Times bestselling book on executive authority, broken a story on his blog about wiretapping that led to front-page stories on most major newspapers in the country, and Russ Feingold read from my blog...

thouartgob
04-03-2008, 01:11 AM
There is a hiccup and an ungodly presence descends into Ms Cox very soul.

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/9880?in=00:31:18&out=00:32:05

Now Mccain's speech was a good one and his resume gives his speechwriter's words the air of authenticity that Shrub couldn't match in a millennium but it has as much weight as bush's similarly timed/themed "humble foreign policy" declaration. Sometime in a year or 2, if McCain wins, I fear we will indeed find that his gaffe had much more to do with the conduct of his foreign policy than any pre-election posturing.

Tom Wittmann
04-03-2008, 01:15 AM
Cox is more likable, but Greenwald's points stick, although he tends to overstate.

Why did Hillary & Tuzla get so much more coverage than McCain & Iran/al qaeda? Both were important mistakes that say someting about the candidates, yet only Hillary was asked to explain herself, and only the coverage of Hillary suggested that maybe a character problem was in play.

Cox's suggestion that McCain was simply mis-speaking and Greenwald's explanation that McCain was deliberately misleading are both plausible explanations. How does Cox explain her far more favorable take? Because she knows McCain!!! That alone made Greenwald's case rather nicely.

Personal character judgements hopelessly advantage the charming candidate who pals around. Of course reporters are more generous in their assessments of friends, reporters are human like the rest of us. Cox is right; friends can be adversarial, but friends are <em>generous</em>. Friends <em>trust</em>. Very human, but it gets in the way.

In this diavlog Greenwald is right. Cox is exceptionally well-spoken, but she is trying to square a circle. I certainly understand why. McCain seems to have a terrific personality. I'd like to be close to him too.

I am so tired of fawning coverage of charming candidates.

johnmarzan
04-03-2008, 05:37 AM
Of course, it is impossible to imagine iran aiding al queda and sunni baathists with arms and money to defeat a common foe, and at the same time doing the same thing to shiite militias in the south.

and of course, it was impossible for saddam to have had a connection or relationship with a sunni group like al queda before 9/11 or any other terrorist organization in the region against a common enemy like the US or Israel.

johnmarzan
04-03-2008, 05:43 AM
MSM = media SUPPORTING mccain?

Bloggingheads editors and Greenwald are both wrong.

The Media does like Mccain, but they don't support his candidacy, his positions, and his party.

Barack on the other hand... ;)


For Republicans, if the want to be treated more fairly by the MSM, be more accessible. For democrats like obama, no need to follow that rule.

Joel_Cairo
04-03-2008, 06:06 AM
Of course, it is impossible to imagine iran aiding al queda and sunni baathists with arms and money to defeat a common foe, and at the same time doing the same thing to shiite militias in the south.

and of course, it was impossible for saddam to have had a connection or relationship with a sunni group like al queda before 9/11 or any other terrorist organization in the region against a common enemy like the US or Israel.

Of course it's possible, it's just not very meaningful, as every rational actor in the world plays "enemy of my enemy" games. See, for example, the recent Clemons/Cole matchup or this (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/302) classic Aslan/Lake vlog (particularly the "engagement" argument). IMO, those two episodes contain BHTV's densest pound-for-pound concentration of Iran FP expertise, from every possible angle (Clemons' beltway realism, Cole's academic progessivism, Aslan's impassioned internationalism, Lake's informed neonconism)*. The consensus that emerges w/r/t theis whispy spider-web of ties between AQ's network and the whole anti-America/Israel ME pantheon is "so what?" Saddam was always trying to burnish his street cred among the "cool kids", but was all talk. Iran is funneling money to virtually every side of every conflict because their interest is in chaos. It's not like we can make Saddam deader, and it's not like we have any actionable move to make against Iran, so let them squander their resources.

The only people in the world who think these AQ links are meaningful in any way are employed by NRO and the Weekly Standard, and therefore have enormous reputational capital invested in finding "Ahas!" proving that everybody they've ever advocated bombing is, or has been, connected to AQ. Are we eventually going to launch a war on ourselves for supporting OBL against the Soviets?

*Also, if you're digging through the archives, check out the Spack/Lake combo.

johnmarzan
04-03-2008, 06:35 AM
Iran is funneling money to virtually every side of every conflict because their interest is in chaos. It's not like we can make Saddam deader, and it's not like we have any actionable move to make against Iran, so let them squander their resources.

i think the mccain misspoke when he said iran is training al queda. but i believe iran has aided al queda with arms and money to do their damage, even against their fellow shiites.

The only people in the world who think these AQ links are meaningful in any way are employed by NRO and the Weekly Standard, and therefore have enormous reputational capital invested in finding "Ahas!" proving that everybody they've ever advocated bombing is, or has been, connected to AQ. Are we eventually going to launch a war on ourselves for supporting OBL against the Soviets?

the reason why the US coalition invaded iraq is because of:
a) WMD
b) Saddam's connection with terror groups.

not because there's a link between 9/11 and iraq. not because there's an al queda sanctuary in iraq.

because with WMDs, all you need to do is pass it along to a terror group and they'll take the blame (credit) for using WMDs against the US.

of course, by the time the US invaded iraq, there were no more WMDs to be found.

but i do believe that if saddam cooperated with the UN inspectors during the 90s and was declared WMD-free by the clinton admin, the US would have never invaded iraq, even if saddam is a thug and has some links to terror orgs.

johnmarzan
04-03-2008, 06:42 AM
The only people in the world who think these AQ links are meaningful in any way are employed by NRO and the Weekly Standard, and therefore have enormous reputational capital invested in finding "Ahas!" proving that everybody they've ever advocated bombing is, or has been, connected to AQ. Are we eventually going to launch a war on ourselves for supporting OBL against the Soviets?

Or against WMD-posssessing Pakistan? :lol:

Joel_Cairo
04-03-2008, 06:55 AM
johnmarzan-

I agree with most of what you posted above. Maybe I was too quick with my initial reply to you, because in retrospect I don't think I was really responding to what you were actually saying.

My whole point was the sheer inanity of declaring that any nation who has any ties whatsoever to terrorism is on our hit-list. It's a totally irrational posture to take because:
1. It's facially hypocritical (did someone say Saudi Arabia?)
2. Every nation on earth qualifies if you connect enough dots (call it the "6 degrees of terrorism").

In essence, it's an "a-strategic" strategy, because such boldly Manichean reductionism ties our hands at the same time as it forces them. We end up looking like weak Maliki giving an ultimatum to a much stronger Sadr (or HRC offering Obama VP, for that matter). Our choices become either to play into the hands of jihadists by bankrupting ourselves with ever multiplying fronts of the War on Terror or to blatantly undermine our own credibility by not following through on a tough-guy stance that was untenable to begin with.

Joel_Cairo
04-03-2008, 07:02 AM
Or against WMD-posssessing Pakistan? :lol:

Or against the new Iraq for having a puppet gov't containing proteges of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (a terrorist group now, don't forget)?

Or England for nurturing the 7/7 bombers and allowing them the benefit of state social services?

Or against France for granting Khomeini refuge in 1978 after he left Iraq?

Or against China for doing business with the Sudan and Burma?

Or for Columbia University for inviting Ahmedinejad to give a lecture?

It's lunacy.

nojp
04-03-2008, 07:29 AM
just the feeling i get following her logic

deebee
04-03-2008, 09:00 AM
Ana's reply that she was not asking for advice is a typical Men are from Mars, Women from Venus example. Although interesting, this diavlog was a bit painful to watch because of that tone. He was a bit ponderous - she was dismissive and, as Otto said, way too snippy. I generally like these two, but they should try to be a tad more civil to each other.

I also agree with Twin Swords that the SNL Hillary/Obama skits diffused the uneven coverage for a while since it obviously hit a chord with a lot of voters and proved embarrassing to the press, but that seems to have pretty much returned back to previous levels -- guess that the MSM just can't help itself.

As for the person that said that the media can't avoid being enamored with Obama -- I think that they should try really, really hard to either not be or to hide that fact. When an extreme bias is detected in the Press (MSNBC for example) they lose credibility and democracy really suffers.

Joel_Cairo
04-03-2008, 09:21 AM
As for the person that said that the media can't avoid being enamored with Obama -- I think that they should try really, really hard to either not be or to hide that fact. When an extreme bias is detected in the Press (MSNBC for example) they lose credibility and democracy really suffers.

Indeed. It's much better for a news outfit to pose as "fair and balanced" and launder its editorializing through a "no-spin zone", in order to maintain plausible deniability if accused of bias, and just matter-of-factly insist "we report; you decide."

Not that I watch much cable news, but I'd much prefer a station that wears its partisan slant on its sleeve over one which hides it so as to more easily brain-wash those naive enough to believe in journalistic objectivity.

deebee
04-03-2008, 09:51 AM
Joel Cairo:
I'd much prefer a station that wears its partisan slant on its sleeve over one which hides it so as to more easily brain-wash those naive enough to believe in journalistic objectivity.

Of course I should have included Fox in with MSNBC -- few are actually fooled by their false sloganeering. Although I have to say that having given up on MSNBC, I occasionally flip to Fox (can't believe this is happening) and they do currently offer more objectivity regarding the Democratic race than I have seen on that channel before. Also their technical primary-night number crunching is actually more detailed than the other channels.

Having said that, I'm extremely suspicious of their sudden objectivity -- it does seem forced. I believe that they are actually more interested in keeping the race going than in offering a fair assessment of either Democrat.

deebee
04-03-2008, 09:59 AM
Those who are tired of or disillusioned with cable news channel political coverage should check out Public Televisions "Washington Week in Review" on Friday nights (1/2 hour - usually 8pm EST). It's probably too low key for a lot of cable watchers but I always feel that I get the straight scoop from that show. Some regular participants are Doyle McManus, Karen Tumulty, Dan Balz and other respected, veteran reporters.

johnmarzan
04-03-2008, 10:33 AM
Indeed. It's much better for a news outfit to pose as "fair and balanced" and launder its editorializing through a "no-spin zone", in order to maintain plausible deniability if accused of bias, and just matter-of-factly insist "we report; you decide."

Hillary supporter Ed Rendell said FOX was the fairest in covering Barack and Hillary.

I live outside the US and have been a regular Special Report w/ Hume watcher. I think they've been fair to the 3 remaining candidates.

as for the O'reilly factor, to criticize it for it's "bias" is just silly. it's an opinion program, and either you like his viewpoints or you don't, just like olberman and matthews. if you don't, then don't listen to his opinions.

bjkeefe
04-03-2008, 11:21 AM
johnmarzan:

Hillary supporter Ed Rendell said FOX was the fairest in covering Barack and Hillary.

Hard to believe you find any credibility in that. To your credit, you demonstrate awareness of Rendell's leanings. To your detriment, you appear to have ignored why he might have said that. Hint: endless looping of Wright clips, to the point where even Chris Wallace felt embarrassed. Of course Rendell is going to praise Fox -- they're a big help in wielding the hatchet.

Bloggin' Noggin
04-03-2008, 11:22 AM
I was struck by Ana's suggestion that the top bloggers should try being reporters for a while.
What struck me first was the thought that novelists and poets might well wish their critics could try writing a novel or a poem themselves before they criticize. But novelists and poets are not supposed to be the primary audience of novels and poems -- they are supposed to be writing for other people. And most novelists and poets seem to realize that explanations after the fact about why their characters didn't come to life or why their rhymes are so forced and plaintive pleas to understand just how difficult it is to find a rhyme for "orange" just don't cut it as answers to the critic. The question is whether you have succeeded in doing what you set out to do and whether what you set out to do was valuable from the point of view of your intended audience. Reporters often react to media criticism in precisely these defensive ways -- understandably, but for other writers, such reactions would be professionally beyond the pale. The poet is supposed to weigh the criticism he gets, decide what part of it he thinks is right, dismiss what's wrong or irrelevant, and try to do better next time. There's no room for excuses. Reporters seem to be fairly new at taking criticism -- at least criticism outside the reporters' club. The web has opened them up to all sorts of criticism (much of it highly biased of course) directly from their audience. I think other writers, though they don't like harsh criticism are pretty happy to find out how their writings are affecting their actual audience (not just this reviewer or that). Reporters don't seem to like being judged by results, but maybe their skin will toughen a bit and they'll be able to take the constructive criticism and slough off the rest.

At the same time, I think Ana has a point. Sometimes the blogger critics go beyond judging the results and start speculating about specific causes of those results in a particular article -- conspiracies or intentional spinning, for example. When seeking explanations for biased or otherwise deficient coverage, an understanding of how the media actually work would indeed be helpful. In some cases, establishing such explanations would require interviewing the reporter and his coworkers and constructing a "story behind the story." We saw a bit of this in Glen's last diavlog (with Ben Smith): a fluffy story damaging to Edwards emerges from Politico. Glen notes that one of the backers of Politico is a Republican, and he suggests a causal connection without establishing how that causal connection actually worked.
If Glen had been more familiar with how Politico or other such organizations actually work, he might be more wary of jumping to conclusions.

On the third hand, though, there are genuine biases in the media which don't require the critic to get into the specifics of how this particular story emerged. One important bias is the natural bias of reporters (and humans generally) in favor of narrative. If Obama captures a string of states which favor him, that shows he has "momentum" and if Hillary then beats him in two states where she was always at a big advantage, then she has stopped his momentum. But this could be entirely an illusion. If they had all voted on the same day, they might have voted roughly the same way, yet there would be no narrative, no momentum. To point out that this bias is operating in a story or group of stories, you don't need to do the kind of investigation into the background of the story that you'd need to establish the kind of motivated intentional bias that Glen seemed to charge Politico with.
I've seen some reporters personalize such criticisms too much. Rather than considering whether they may have the unconscious bias imputed to them by the critic, they defend themselves against the claim that they consciously and intentionally biased the story and they get very upset.

So long as blogger critics stick primarily to criticizing the product from the point of view of how well the media are informing the public and try not to speculate too much about how far the bias they detect is conscious and intentional, they are providing a service to reporters and the public. The better, more responsible critics will also not just assume that something damaging to their candidate or party may not represent bias. But even the less sophisticated critics who aren't so careful can be useful as raw data for the reporter, so long as he doesn't take it too much to heart.

bjkeefe
04-03-2008, 11:25 AM
How many of these comments have been posted by Glenn Greenwald (http://patterico.com/2006/07/27/annotated-wuzzadem-the-facts-behind-the-greenwald-sock-puppetry/)?

That post sets a new record for mindless obsession.

I'll be the first to say that sockpuppetry is abhorrent, particularly if done by a someone who already has a well-known platform. However, the author of that post is in serious need of a life.

Any idea whether Greenwald ever responded to the charges? (I could not bear to follow all the links in the accusatory post; the first few all seemed to point to others just piling on.)

Bloggin' Noggin
04-03-2008, 11:41 AM
Those who are tired of or disillusioned with cable news channel political coverage should check out Public Televisions "Washington Week in Review" on Friday nights (1/2 hour - usually 8pm EST). It's probably too low key for a lot of cable watchers but I always feel that I get the straight scoop from that show. Some regular participants are Doyle McManus, Karen Tumulty, Dan Balz and other respected, veteran reporters.

I tend to hate that show because it's so damned scripted (which isn't to say I refrain from watching it). Essentially, it's a series of reports from different journalists about their own beat masquerading as a conversation. Despite all the screaming and the silly gimmicks (like rating scandals from 1 to 10), I'd really rather watch McLaughlin. Of course, I prefer BloggingHeads to either one (by a mile).
I also find Gwen Ifill too reflexively cynical about politics. Her attitude could be good if it were in stark contrast to the bias of the reporters she talks to -- but it's just the bias that all political reporters seem to have. If a politician takes a certain position, it's just assumed that his doing so is all about "positioning" and has nothing to do with the politician's actual beliefs. Cynical explanations are certainly sometimes right -- Obama and Clinton don't really believe NAFTA is the main source of Ohio's ills. I'd just like them to recognize that sometimes politicians say what they say at least in part because they believe what they are saying.

TwinSwords
04-03-2008, 01:20 PM
as for the O'reilly factor, to criticize it for it's "bias" is just silly.

Silly? More like accurate, as you acknowledge.

What would be silly would be calling it fair and balanced.

Fox News is a cable news network based on the model of right-wing talk radio. Nothing more, nothing less. It's basically the Rush Limbaugh show.

TwinSwords
04-03-2008, 01:26 PM
Any idea whether Greenwald ever responded to the charges?

He did, and he denied them. He says that some comments were left by his boyfriend, which explains the IP addresses.

Here (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/07/response-to-right-wing-personal.html) is one such denial:

A new accusation is that I've been engaging in so-called "sock puppetry" by leaving comments in response to posts that attack me under other names., i.e., that I use multiple names to comment and the same comment was left at several blogs by the same IP address under different names.

Not frequently, I leave comments at blogs which criticize or respond to something I have written. I always, in every single instance, use my own name when doing so. I have never left a single comment at any other blog using any name other than my own, at least not since I began blogging. IP addresses signify the Internet account one uses, not any one individual. Those in the same household have the same IP address. In response to the personal attacks that have been oozing forth these last couple of weeks, others have left comments responding to them and correcting the factual inaccuracies, as have I. In each case when I did, I have used my own name.


From Response to right-wing personal attacks (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/07/response-to-right-wing-personal.html).

amcarey
04-03-2008, 01:36 PM
Ana Marie Cox is not a serious journalist, and her performance here pretty well demonstrates that she doesn't care about serious journalism. To suggest that the public's perception of journalists is irrelevant to what they're doing is hopelessly naive. Actually, public perception is essential. That's a big part of the reason why the right wing has spent many millions of dollars deriding the mainstream media as liberal; they were hoping the label would stick and that it would discredit news coverage, which it has. The fact is, serious news reporters should not socialize with the people they cover. Inevitably, it makes fair coverage impossible. If sportwriters want to socialize with baseball players, fine. If Ana Marie Cox, a novelist and columnist, wants to socialize with politicians in Washington, fine. But legit reporters, charged with the duty of explaining complicated and delicate situations to the general public, should never do so.

TwinSwords
04-03-2008, 01:37 PM
Of course, it is impossible to imagine iran aiding al queda and sunni baathists with arms and money to defeat a common foe, and at the same time doing the same thing to shiite militias in the south.

and of course, it was impossible for saddam to have had a connection or relationship with a sunni group like al queda before 9/11 or any other terrorist organization in the region against a common enemy like the US or Israel.

Your sarcasm is noted, but this isn't about what's possible or impossible. McCain wasn't simply speculating about Iran's role in the war. He said it was "common knowledge" and "well known" that Iran was training Al-Qaeda. And then he admitted it wasn't.

Larry Bird
04-03-2008, 01:41 PM
How perspectives change when you recieve that cushy title at a mainstream magazine. Ana went from a blogger with an outsider looking in perspective to a traditional member of the media who doesn't care about any apperances of favoritism or conflict of interests. I'm glad she trusts herself to be objective but I as just a lowly member of the public don't and when I see you funning around with the people you're supposed to be keeping honest it creates a level of uneasiness. She basically said she doesn't care how it looks, like how dare we question her. I guess I'm just some idiot reader who does not understand journalism well enough to realize that all reporters never give friends the benefit of the doubt. I lost a lot of respect for her.

bjkeefe
04-03-2008, 02:05 PM
Twin:

Thanks for that link. I looked on Salon after giving up on a general Google, but I forgot about Glenn's earlier blog site.

My first thought on reading the obsessive wingnut's post was along those lines: duh, IP addresses don't map to a unique individual. It's always instructive to be reminded of how willing these "citizen journalists" are to overlook basic facts when they're on their little witch hunts. Daveh, please note.

I was interested to see in Glenn's post his accusation that LGF and Instapundit kept the sockpuppetry meme alive by "... promoting virtually every post which contains such attacks, no matter how juvenile or false ..." I guess I shouldn't be surprised by this, particularly coming from Chuckles, but it never fails to amaze me that Glenn Reynolds doesn't show a little more sense of responsibility, given his high profile.

look
04-03-2008, 04:23 PM
Ana's reply that she was not asking for advice is a typical Men are from Mars, Women from Venus example. Although interesting, this diavlog was a bit painful to watch because of that tone. He was a bit ponderous - she was dismissive and, as Otto said, way too snippy. I generally like these two, but they should try to be a tad more civil to each other.

As for the person that said that the media can't avoid being enamored with Obama -- I think that they should try really, really hard to either not be or to hide that fact. When an extreme bias is detected in the Press (MSNBC for example) they lose credibility and democracy really suffers.

The irony of the shot to Glen about 'solving her problems' was that just previously she was bemoaning the lack of willingness among commenters to engage in civil discussion where there was the possibility of minds being changed.

As far as McCain Love, a while back I was watching an interview of Dana Bash, a CNN reporter who covers the McCain Campaign. The subject was McCain's introductory speech on the Economy. I'd previously seen her covering the infamous barbecue, so I was curious if she'd betray any bias for McCain. At the very end, she added a disclaimer line that would be appropriate for a McCain surrogate, something like, 'but this speech was just an overview' YMMV. And if IIRC, Cox did the same thing. After saying that one of the possibile explanations for one of McCain's actions was mental impairment, or somesuch, she quickly added (paraphrase), 'but I don't think that's it.'

January
04-03-2008, 04:27 PM
After batting the ball with Greenwald on the subject of McCain's mis-speech on the Iran-Al Qaeda link, Cox bemoaned that she had allowed herself to be lured into the gutter with Greenwald, instead of steering the conversation towards McCain's "major" foreign policy speech. But not wanting to elevate the proceedings too much, she did not pursue her own invitation to actually discus the speech. Cox had no trouble dismissing Greenwald when he was strident, which he was a couple of times, but when he was more supple in his challenges she suddenly found nuance and complexity all around her and was as hard to nail down as Jello to a wall. I fear she likes to win at this game, but not actually play.

bjkeefe
04-03-2008, 04:38 PM
look:

At the very end, she added a disclaimer line that would be appropriate for a McCain surrogate, something like, 'but this speech was just an overview' YMMV. And if IIRC, Cox did the same thing. After saying that one of the possibile explanations for one of McCain's actions was mental impairment, or somesuch, she quickly added (paraphrase), 'but I don't think that's it.'

That's the story in a nutshell. By contrast, whenever any of the "liberal media" cover some Clinton or Obama gaffe, the closing line is invariably something like, "It remains to be seen just how much damage this will do in the coming weeks. And now, for a reaction, we turn to [fill in rightwing blowhard here]."

johnmarzan
04-03-2008, 11:17 PM
To your credit, you demonstrate awareness of Rendell's leanings. To your detriment, you appear to have ignored why he might have said that.

Because they hate both candidates?

Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
Any idea whether Greenwald ever responded to the charges?
He did, and he denied them. He says that some comments were left by his boyfriend, which explains the IP addresses.

a brazilian boyfriend who uses similar language like greenwald and writes like him?

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/187585.php

http://hotair.com/archives/2006/07/22/quagmire-sock-puppet-theater-iii/

johnmarzan
04-03-2008, 11:24 PM
Silly? More like accurate, as you acknowledge.

It is silly to be offended by O'Reilly's "bias." Because's an opinion/debate show.

obviously, you don't watch foxnews and rely only on leftwing blogs like mediamatters for your information.

AemJeff
04-03-2008, 11:31 PM
Are you really citing Ace and Malkin as sources, as opposed to sources of unwitting humor (or in Michelle's case strangely unrepentant racism?)

Good grief, there are plenty of conservatives you could cite with some acquaintance with the idea of intellectual honesty.

bjkeefe
04-03-2008, 11:52 PM
johnmarzan:

Because they hate both candidates?

If you review what I said originally, you should see that wasn't what I was saying about Rendell. I was saying that he was happy to suck up to Fox because they're doing endless smears of Obama, which benefits Clinton, whom Rendell supports.

Stepping back a bit, I fail to see why you place so much stock in one statement made one time by one person. Is that supposed to convince me that there's anything credible about Fox News?

On Glenn Greenwald's alleged sockpuppetry: what AemJeff said. I don't place any stock in Ace or Hot Air. If you truly consider them legitimate sources, I feel sorry for you.

johnmarzan
04-04-2008, 01:00 AM
If you review what I said originally, you should see that wasn't what I was saying about Rendell. I was saying that he was happy to suck up to Fox because they're doing endless smears of Obama, which benefits Clinton, whom Rendell supports.

actually, hillary said FOX is fair even before the "Wright Smears" started.

In a surprising admission, Hillary Clinton says Fox News Channel has actually been fairer to her presidential campaign than liberal MSNBC.

Clinton stated in an interview that aired on station WJLA in Washington, D.C., that her staff had delivered to her “some independent study” suggesting that “in terms of the fairness of the coverage,” Fox has treated her campaign more fairly than MSNBC.

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Hillary_Admits_Fox_News_I/2008/02/12/72050.html

as for hotair and ace, they're the first search results from google. if they are lying about greenwald's sockpuppets and IPs, i'm sure the truth will out.

bjkeefe
04-04-2008, 09:21 AM
johnmarzan:

I won't claim that MSNBC is much more objective than Fox News, but you're making a leap here. You began by claiming, based on Rendell's statement, that Fox News, of all media outlets, provides the most fair coverage of the Democratic candidates. Now you're trying to buttress the claim by saying that Hillary thinks Fox is more fair than MSNBC.

On Google rankings and your belief that the truth will out, I think you have failed to acknowledge how hard it is to prove a negative. False accusations frequently stick for years, especially when there is a network of people determined to propagate the accusations. To illustrate: how many people still believe the Moon landings were faked or that the World Trade Center collapsed due to internally-placed explosives? Another illustration: your most recently cited source, NewsMax, still publishes stories suggesting that Hillary Clinton killed Vince Foster

I think you have also assigned too much importance to Google rankings. Don't forget that Google first became widely known because the phrase "more evil than Satan himself" returned as its top result a pointer to microsoft.com. More recently, and perhaps closer to home, the top link for the phrase "miserable failure" pointed to whitehouse.gov. Am I now justified in saying "case closed" on Bill Gates and George W. Bush?

CitizenL
04-04-2008, 07:38 PM
Sorry, Cox confirms my suspicion that she was never anything other than a journalistic lightweight. She proves Glenn’s case over and over again throughout this video. And since she’s been adopted by the MSM she’s taken on all the most obnoxious traits of her peers: corrupted, thin-skinned, defensive, and utterly incapable of accepting any kind of criticism. When Glenn starts talking about how the blogosphere has changed journalism by providing real-time feedback to journalists, I was waiting for her to roll her eyes make the gag me gesture with a finger down her throat. After she gets done bitching and moaning about how all the meanies on the internets have made her think twice about how to write about a subject, Glenn very reasonably suggested, “I think what’s important for you to do—what’s important for everybody to do is to listen to the criticisms that are substantive and worthwhile and to ignore the ones that are just about spewing hatred, which we all are the target of….” Cox’s snide reaction? “Thank you for telling me what’s important for me to do, Glenn”. What an ass.

harkin
04-04-2008, 11:12 PM
I think Ana Marie's response to Glenn's delusional rant about the media being in the tank for McCain was just about right. I'm not much of a fan of hers usually but he really can't be serious that Chris Mattews, a reporter who on-air admits to leg spasms when Obama speaks, is somehow going to slant his coverage in favor of McCain. He never gives up, just becomes more excited and Ana Marie was correct to point out his spin attempts and dismiss them.

To GG, no coverage of McCain is legit unless it's liberal and confrontational.

Has he never seen coverage of Obama on CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC and MSNBC?? That is the true definition of in the tank.

Glenn, please give up commenting on politics and do a dissertation on the difference between dangerous and harmless jokes.

look
04-04-2008, 11:30 PM
I think Ana Marie's response to Glenn's delusional rant about the media being in the tank for McCain was just about right. I'm not much of a fan of hers usually but he really can't be serious that Chris Mattews, a reporter who on-air admits to leg spasms when Obama speaks, is somehow going to slant his coverage in favor of McCain.Matthews is famous for his man crushes, and more likely he'll reel between the two of them.

thenation (http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20070409&s=alterman)

AemJeff
04-04-2008, 11:47 PM
Chris Mattews, a reporter who on-air admits to leg spasms when Obama speaks, is somehow going to slant his coverage in favor of McCain.

look's already said it, but Matthews isn't exactly immune to McCain's charms either. All you can be sure of in his case is that he viscerally dislikes Hillary.

TwinSwords
04-05-2008, 05:55 PM
look's already said it, but Matthews isn't exactly immune to McCain's charms either. All you can be sure of in his case is that he viscerally dislikes Hillary.

What AemJeff and look said.

But I should point out that according to Cox, it's completely irrelavant what Chris Matthews thinks of McCain. When Glenn pointed out some of the pro-McCain things said by Matthews and others, Cox pointed that they don't count as examples of biased media, because they don't ride on the McCain bus (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/9880?in=00:12:00&out=00:12:10). Apparently Glenn's case can only be proved with examples from the travelling press who spend time on the bus.

"On the bus" could well replace "in the tank" by the time all of this is over.

bjkeefe
04-05-2008, 05:57 PM
Twin:

"On the bus" could well replace "in the tank" by the time all of this is over.

Nice of you to be so polite. I would have said "up his ass."

CitizenL
04-05-2008, 06:57 PM
"Delusional rant"? What utter nonsense. The media's love affair with McCain is a longstanding fact and is virtually admitted to by Cox. McCain himself refers to the media as his "base". Chris Matthews has also referred to the press as "McCain's base," so please spare us the hogwash that McCain is not treated with kid-gloves by the media. At the same time the So-Called-Liberal-Media presents male liberals and Democrats as effeminate and weak and the women as emasculating bitches.

Wonderment
04-05-2008, 07:29 PM
10 things you should know about John McCain (but probably don't):

1. John McCain voted against establishing a national holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Now he says his position has "evolved," yet he's continued to oppose key civil rights laws.1

2. According to Bloomberg News, McCain is more hawkish than Bush on Iraq, Russia and China. Conservative columnist Pat Buchanan says McCain "will make Cheney look like Gandhi."2

3. His reputation is built on his opposition to torture, but McCain voted against a bill to ban waterboarding, and then applauded President Bush for vetoing that ban.3

4. McCain opposes a woman's right to choose. He said, "I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned."4

5. The Children's Defense Fund rated McCain as the worst senator in Congress for children. He voted against the children's health care bill last year, then defended Bush's veto of the bill.5

6. He's one of the richest people in a Senate filled with millionaires. The Associated Press reports he and his wife own at least eight homes! Yet McCain says the solution to the housing crisis is for people facing foreclosure to get a "second job" and skip their vacations.6

7. Many of McCain's fellow Republican senators say he's too reckless to be commander in chief. One Republican senator said: "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He's erratic. He's hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."7

8. McCain talks a lot about taking on special interests, but his campaign manager and top advisers are actually lobbyists. The government watchdog group Public Citizen says McCain has 59 lobbyists raising money for his campaign, more than any of the other presidential candidates.8

9. McCain has sought closer ties to the extreme religious right in recent years. The pastor McCain calls his "spiritual guide," Rod Parsley, believes America's founding mission is to destroy Islam, which he calls a "false religion." McCain sought the political support of right-wing preacher John Hagee, who believes Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for gay rights and called the Catholic Church "the Antichrist" and a "false cult."9

10. He positions himself as pro-environment, but he scored a 0—yes, zero—from the League of Conservation Voters last year.10

Sources:
1. "The Complicated History of John McCain and MLK Day," ABC News, April 3, 2008
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/the-complicated.html

"McCain Facts," ColorOfChange.org, April 4, 2008
http://colorofchange.org/mccain_facts/

2. "McCain More Hawkish Than Bush on Russia, China, Iraq," Bloomberg News, March 12, 2008
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aF28rSCtk0ZM&refer=us

"Buchanan: John McCain 'Will Make Cheney Look Like Gandhi,'" ThinkProgress, February 6, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/06/buchanan-gandhi-mccain/

3. "McCain Sides With Bush On Torture Again, Supports Veto Of Anti-Waterboarding Bill," ThinkProgress, February 20, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/20/mccain-torture-veto/

4. "McCain says Roe v. Wade should be overturned," MSNBC, February 18, 2007
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17222147/

5. "2007 Children's Defense Fund Action Council® Nonpartisan Congressional Scorecard," February 2008
http://www.childrensdefense.org/site/PageServer?pagename=act_learn_scorecard2007

"McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion," CNN, October 3, 2007
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/mccain.interview/

6. "Beer Executive Could Be Next First Lady," Associated Press, April 3, 2008
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-S1sWHm0tchtdMP5LcLywg5ZtMgD8VQ86M80

"McCain Says Bank Bailout Should End `Systemic Risk,'" Bloomberg News, March 25, 2008
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aHMiDVYaXZFM&refer=home

7. "Will McCain's Temper Be a Liability?," Associated Press, February 16, 2008
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=4301022

"Famed McCain temper is tamed," Boston Globe, January 27, 2008
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/27/famed_mccain_temper_is_tamed/

8. "Black Claims McCain's Campaign Is Above Lobbyist Influence: 'I Don't Know What The Criticism Is,'" ThinkProgress, April 2, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/02/mccain-black-lobbyist/

"McCain's Lobbyist Friends Rally 'Round Their Man," ABC News, January 29, 2008
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4210251

9. "McCain's Spiritual Guide: Destroy Islam," Mother Jones Magazine, March 12, 2008
http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/03/john-mccain-rod-parsley-spiritual-guide.html

"Will McCain Specifically 'Repudiate' Hagee's Anti-Gay Comments?," ThinkProgress, March 12, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/12/mccain-hagee-anti-gay/

"McCain 'Very Honored' By Support Of Pastor Preaching 'End-Time Confrontation With Iran,'" ThinkProgress, February 28, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/28/hagee-mccain-endorsement/
10. "John McCain Gets a Zero Rating for His Environmental Record," Sierra Club, February 28, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/environment/77913/

Source: MoveOn.org Political Action

pod2
04-05-2008, 09:23 PM
the reason why the US coalition invaded iraq is because of:
a) WMD
b) Saddam's connection with terror groups.

not because there's a link between 9/11 and iraq. not because there's an al queda sanctuary in iraq.

because with WMDs, all you need to do is pass it along to a terror group and they'll take the blame (credit) for using WMDs against the US.

of course, by the time the US invaded iraq, there were no more WMDs to be found.

but i do believe that if saddam cooperated with the UN inspectors during the 90s and was declared WMD-free by the clinton admin, the US would have never invaded iraq, even if saddam is a thug and has some links to terror orgs.

But the Clinton administration was very clear that the point of their iraq policy, including the sanctions, was not to verify absence of WMD, but regime change. Scott Ritter (ex-marine, Republican, head of the UNSCOM inspection team before Butler took over) made the case for several years leading up to the invasion, that inspections had destroyed any weapons or weapons program of any significance. When IAEA and UNMOVIC both found nothing in the run-up to the invasion, with UNMOVIC requesting more time from the Bush administration to continue the intrusive inspections, they were denied. They were told to leave the country so shock and awe could begin. The Bush admin had no interest in destroying WMD-- they wanted to continue the Clinton regime change policy, and had the excuse (9/11) to do it. As Rumsfeld said immediately after 9/11, sweep it all up, related and not.

pod2
04-05-2008, 09:34 PM
I found it fascinating that Cox repeatedly defended McCain by interpreting his remarks and motives by comparing him to her husband. Cozying up with political figures can inhibit powers of analysis, and also leads journalists to become defensive about their relationships-- interpreting motives and knowledge in the most positive light is not a reporter's job, and Cox's repeated protestations sometimes make the case for Greenwald better than he ever could.

johnmarzan
04-06-2008, 01:16 AM
But the Clinton administration was very clear that the point of their iraq policy, including the sanctions, was not to verify absence of WMD, but regime change. Scott Ritter (ex-marine, Republican, head of the UNSCOM inspection team before Butler took over) made the case for several years leading up to the invasion, that inspections had destroyed any weapons or weapons program of any significance.

but iraq was not just being punished with US sactions, sir. there were even more UN sanctions placed on Iraq's WMD violations throughout the 90s.

And I don't recall the UN sanctions advocating regime change.

ritter quit the UNSCOM back in 1998 because the UN, kofi annan and clinton were not taking WMD inspections seriously, and it was only making saddam stronger.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9505E1DC103CF93BA1575BC0A96E9582 60&scp=1&sq=iraq+scott+ritter&st=nyt

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990DE3D91338F937A35753C1A96E9582 60&scp=3&sq=iraq+scott+ritter&st=nyt

but two years after inspectors were kicked out and not allowed to come back, in 2000, scott ritter changed his tune

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A04E7DB1239F930A35754C0A9669C8B 63&scp=2&sq=iraq+scott+ritter&st=nyt

harkin
04-07-2008, 12:32 PM
CitL -

Wake up and smell the coffee.

The only 'kid glove' treatment being demonstrated by the press is the fact that Hillary and Obama are still slugging it out. Why is that so hard to comprehend? No one cares about McCain right now because it won't generate ratings or readers. He'll be half the big story come late August (unless the Dem nominee is chosen earlier).

When the Dem nominee is fixed (wins the nom, not forced upon the party), Greenwald will have to explain how the press all of a sudden goes whole-hog on the Dem bandwagon and fawns over the Dem 'dream team', no matter who they are. At that time we'll also see much more of the 'senile/deceitful old man' tactic that Glenn and others are firing across McCain's bow to little effect.

There is the actual possibilty the GG is just doing this as some sort of pre-emptive ploy to create a conventional wisdom whereby he and his ilk can dismiss any coverage of McCain (as ridiculous as that sounds) but never overestimate the netroots.

As for the theme which posits 'male liberals and Democrats as effeminate and weak and the women as emasculating bitches', I don't see that so much in the media but actually from the members of the netroots, depending on which of the two remaining candidates they support.