Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - More Know Edwards' Haircut Cost & Obama's Bowling Score vs If Saddam Linked to 9/11

host · 04-08-2008, 09:24 AM

Is the sad circumstance described in the thread title, more the fault of the folks in the US who receive the "news", or of the ones who package and deliver it to them?

Are the press people and editors, reporters of the news who question those in authority and actually report back to us, what they say? In another recent TFP politics thread, poll results were mixed whether it is even the expected role of the press to investigate to try to find the secrets of the powerful, and then to report them to the public.

I want to know if you agree or disagree that one of the biggest challenges for our country, and for this forum, is that many who want to, or do participate here, have not found a way to actually inform themselves about what is going on, just as the title of the thread, describes:

Quote:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...ico/index.html

......But it is worth recalling how intense and endless the coverage of the Edwards hair item was -- and continues to be -- in our establishment media. Ever since Ben Smith broke this story, we have been subjected to countless references -- one after the next -- not just by Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, but in <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/washington/politics-usa-politics-edwards.html">The New York Times</a> -- <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/us/politics/19campaign.html?ex=1184817600&en=8af4a49f2347ebb5&ei=5070">multiple</a>, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/20/us/politics/20edwards.html?ex=1184817600&en=81666e186873821e&ei=5070">repetitive</a> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/10/magazine/10edwards-t.html?pagewanted=8&ei=5070&en=5aa9dd525fa9b12c&ex=1184817600">"news"</a> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/21/us/politics/21edwards.html?ex=1184817600&en=d7d7e4439e181c70&ei=5070">articles</a> for <a href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E05E6DB1031F934A25756C0A9619C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2">months</a>, <a href="http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F10F1EFB3D5A0C718EDDAD0894DF404482">along</a> with <a href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C00E0DA1F31F930A15757C0A9619C8B63">"news analysis"</a> and <a href="http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F70B17FB3D5A0C728EDDAD0894DF404482">substance-free</a> <a href="http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F30916F6385A0C7B8CDDAE0894DF404482">Op-Eds</a>. All of that is just from the NYT news and editorial pages alone (the Times' coverage of Edwards' haircut almost exceeds that of <a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/05/03/politico/index.html">The Politico itself</a>). It was also, needless to say, endlessly repeated by one television pundit after the next and other news outlets as well. 

 In fact, as Greg Sargent <a href="http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/jun/08/poll_more_know_about_edwards_400_haircut_than_knew_saddam_didnt_have_wmds">noted weeks ago</a>, our broken, petty media's "coverage" of this "story" was so intense and endless that far more Americans were aware of it than they are of some of the most politically important facts:<blockquote>Buried in the new Fox News poll is a startling number that doesn't reflect terribly well on the priorities of our political media: 

 From the new Fox poll of registered voters: 

 32. Do you happen to know which presidential candidate has been in the news recently for paying four hundred dollars for a haircut? 

 Edwards 44% Hillary 2% Obama 1% Other 1% Don't know 53%</blockquote>As Greg noted, a recent Harris poll had found that only 45% of Americans were aware that Saddam had no WMD's at the time we invaded Iraq. As Greg said: "the same number know about Edwards' haircut that knew the truth last year about Saddam and his phantom weapons." 

 And citing the <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm">poll numbers</a> showing that Americans overwhelmingly believed even as late as September, 2003 that Saddam personally planned the 9/11 attacks, Greg observed:<blockquote>So nearly 20 percent more know about Edwards' haircut than believed Saddam wasn't behind 9/11 -- two years after the attacks and six whole months after the invasion. 

 Something's wrong here.</blockquote>Yes, something is quite wrong here. But the establishment media will not voluntarily change its behavior. Why not? Because they do not think there is a problem at all. Quite the contrary. Let us turn to Newsweek's Senior White House Correspondent Richard Wolffe and hear again <a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/02/21/wolffe/index.html">what he thinks about such matters</a>: "the press here does a fantastic job of adhering to journalistic standards and covering politics in general." Fantastic. 

 It isn't only that the press is petty and obsessed with worthless gossip at the expense of real reporting. It's also that their pettiness is so transparently one-sided. As MyDD's Jonathan Singer <a href="http://mydd.com/story/2007/7/16/224039/945">put it</a>:<blockquote> A whole lot of words have been spilled -- far too many, indeed -- over John Edwards' decision to spend $400 of campaign contributions on a haircut. But in the interest of balance, I suppose we should expect as much media attention to be poured on Mitt Romney's decision to spend nearly as much on a makeover this quarter. . . .

Quote:

Tuesday April 8, 2008 07:52 EDT
Megan McArdle and Dan Drezner's defense of the media

(updated below)

Several days ago, I <a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/04/05/media/index.html">documented</a> that the establishment media has virtually ignored new revelations of radical government behavior (the implementation of a torture regime at the highest levels of government, the suspension of the Fourth Amendment inside the U.S., patent falsehoods about the 9/11 attacks and surveillance laws from the Attorney General) while devoting extreme amounts of attention to matters so petty and juvenile that they defy derision (e.g., Barack Obama's bowling prowess and eating habits, gossip about Hillary and Monica Lewinsky, etc.).

I didn't expect that anyone would actually defend the media's conduct here because it's so self-evidently indefensible -- so ludicrous -- and because defending it would, by definition, require someone to spout rationale that is just inane. But yesterday, both <a href="http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/04/i_blame_the_media.php">Megan McArdle</a> (of The Atlantic) and <a href="http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/003778.html">Dan Drezner</a> (a Professor at Tufts) stepped up and showed that none of that would deter them. They both reject the idea that any of these facts demonstrate that there is something wrong with our political press.

The "points" they make along the way are just painfully self-refuting and outright false (self-evidently so), so I'm only going briefly to address a couple of those points for illustrative purposes. I want to focus, instead, on some substantive, broader points which their mentality demonstrates.

McArdle's principal point is that "Americans care more about [Obama] than John Yoo because, well, John Yoo isn't running for president" and that "most people don't care about minor government functionaries." Just think about that for a moment. Megan McCardle thinks that John Yoo is basically the DOJ version of Lynndie England -- just some low-level guy who went off on his own and did some isolated, unauthorized bad things in the past that our political leaders have now corrected. ......

Quote:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...rts/index.html
Monday April 7, 2008 07:49 EDT
Cokie Roberts speaks out on the war on behalf of the American people

......Yesterday, Cokie Roberts -- while expressing scorn for the "Responsible Plan for Withdrawal" advocated by 42 Democratic Congressional candidates and numerous military experts, and described by fellow panelist Katerina Vanden Heuvel of The Nation -- said this:

VANDEN HEUVEL: It is not, but you know what, the responsible thing to do is withdraw.

[you hear Cokie odiously chuckling at this point]

VANDEN HEUVEL: If we withdraw responsibly, the region would be more stable in the long term, America will be restored as a responsible global leader, and there are 42 challengers, you are absolutely right Cokie, who have a responsible plan to withdraw.

ROBERTS: Convincing the electorate of that I think would be very difficult, and I also agree that the notion that Sen. McCain and Sen. Graham you heard this morning putting forward, that Americans would prefer to win, is--

VANDEN HEUVEL: But what is winning? This war is unwinnable, there are no military solutions.

The video is also here. <h3>Roberts' claim -- that Americans agree with McCain, Graham and her that withdrawal is a bad idea and that they want to stay until we win -- is just a lie. There's no other way to put that. Poll after poll after poll demonstrates that exactly the opposite is true.</h3> It's fine for Roberts to say that McCain is right and that we should stay in Iraq indefinitely and continue to occupy that country until we "win." That's an opinion. But to claim that public opinion is consistent with that view is just false........

Quote:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...sey/print.html
<h2>The Associated Press fails to reveal Mukasey's favorite color</h2>


But it does uncover that he loves Ring Dings, parasailing and his grandchildren.


Glenn Greenwald

Apr. 06, 2008 | (updated below) 

In the short time he's been Attorney General, Michael Mukasey has become one of the most divisive political figures in the country. He's been in the middle of <a href="http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=1254">numerous controversies</a>, steadfastly defending even the most <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22904392/">radical Bush policies</a> -- from torture to warrantless spying -- and <a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1204287441626">demonstrating himself</a> to be as <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/29/congress.attorneys/index.html">blindly loyal</a> to <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/07/AR2008020701542.html">the White House</a> as his predecessor, Alberto Gonzales, and every bit as willing to <a href="http://harpers.org/archive/2008/04/hbc-90002785">subvert the powers of the DOJ</a> for political ends. 

Even political commentators who originally supported his nomination -- including one of <a href="http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/09/hbc-90001230">his own law partners</a> -- have <a href="http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/03/hbc-90002750">changed their minds completely</a> in a matter of a couple months, accusing him of "willful ignorance of instances of abuse" and "mischievous stonewalling to block proper Congressional investigation" and arguing that, under Mukasey, "the Justice Department has behaved and continues to behave not like a law enforcement agency, but like a white-collar criminal who has been caught in some very dirty dealings and is eager to obstruct the course of justice." 

In the midst of these <a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/04/03/mukasey/index.html">swirling and growing scandals</a>, The Associated Press yesterday distributed a lengthy profile of Mukasey, by AP writer Lara Jakes Jordan, that appeared, as most AP articles do, in numerous publications, including <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Accidental-Attorney-General.html?pagewanted=1&sq=michael%20mukasey&st=nyt&scp=3">The New York Times</a>, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/05/AR2008040501018.html">The Washington Post</a>, and countless other papers. In it, we learn that Mukasey's mom and dad taught him to keep his head down and work hard. He "grew up in a lower-middle-class Bronx family as the son of a Belarus immigrant." As a child, he worked in a laundromat and as a messenger boy. 

 Also, his friends call him "Michael" more than "Mike." He has a "dry and self-deprecating wit." He loves to eat Ring Dings but is able to avoid gaining weight. One of his best friends is Rudy Giuliani, who explains that he's "a very regular guy -- no pretenses. He has a lot of humility for somebody who is as talented as he is." 

 At first, Mukasey was sometimes sad about how hard his new job was, but now he's come to understand and master it. Another one of his good friends is federal Judge Royce Lamberth, who reveals that Mukasey loves to parasail even though it can be quite a dangerous sport, but assures that he has more than enough skills to be an absolutely fantastic Attorney General. 

Mukasey sacrificed a lucrative job at a large corporate law firm -- where he made $2 million in 21 months -- in order to serve the public and his country. But, sadly, even at the age of 66, he has to go back to work once he's done serving because he has "creditors" to pay. Mukasey loves to spend time with his wife, Susan, and his grandchildren. The end. 

No critics, criticism or controversies were mentioned or even referenced. The only people quoted about Mukasey's performance were his two bestest friends -- Rudy Giluiani and Reagan-appointee Judge Lamberth. 

AP did reference the speech Mukasey gave last week where, in the Q-and-A session that followed, he <a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/03/29/mukasey/index.html">spat out multiple lies</a> about the 9/11 attacks, our surveillance laws and the pending lawsuits against the telecoms in order to demand warrantless surveillance powers and telecom amnesty. But this is what AP said about that episode:.......

Contrast the AP "Fluff Piece" on Mukasey with recent REAL journalism:

Quote:

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/081...,396235,2.html

Michael Mukasey and the Ghost of Alberto Gonzales
Hermann Göring got a fair trial at Nuremberg. But not Gitmo prisoners.
by Nat Hentoff
April 1st, 2008 12:00 AM

Attorney General Michael Mukasey, the former much-lauded chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, is increasingly morphing into a replica, in key respects, of his embarrassing predecessor, Alberto Gonzales—a loyal enabler of George W. Bush's disdain for the Constitution's separation of powers, as well as the Bill of Rights.

Gonzales once testified before Congress that in the Constitution, there is no guaranteed individual right of habeas corpus. If that were even remotely true, huge numbers of law-school textbooks would have to be revised.

Now, during a March 14 speech at the London School of Economics, his successor Mukasey stated that the long-delayed trials of Guantánamo prisoners—six of them to start this year—will have "all the protections [for the defendants] we regard as fundamental." But he neglected to mention one glaring, discordant fact: that Colonel Morris D. Davis, the former chief prosecutor for the Office of Military Commissions, which will be conducting these trials, resigned in protest over their lack of credibility last October.....

You don't like Hentoff's reporting on Mukasey....your reaction is that it is too "partisan"? Can you at least admit that it correctly describes the controversy surrounding Mukasey, rightly questions his credibility....challenges POWER?

Does the AP article about Mukasey, especially during such a contentious time period in the news cycle, related to him and his statements and decisions, DO ANY OF WHAT HENTOFF'S REPORTING DOES?