This week on FAIR TV: What are media missing in their tributes to Nelson Mandela? We share a few thoughts. Also: USA Today's front page told readers that the US public is mostly opposed to the tentative deal on Iran's nuclear program. That's not what most other polls are saying. We'll explain why.
This week on FAIR TV, NBC got a scoop: Iran's new president says his country isn't interested in a nuclear bomb. NBC–and other outlets–treated this as big news. But it's not. Plus: Time magazine finds a link between mass shooters and government whistleblowers, and NBC tries to do some Obamacare fact-checking. It doesn't go very well.
This week: War on Syria has been called off, at least for now, and that seemed to bother a lot of pundits. ABC looked at how the war would have affected your 401(k), assuming you have one. And a radio station rejects an ad criticizing the "Washington Redskins" for using an ethnic slur as a team name–maybe because the station is owned by the same guy who owns the team. Watch:
Rachel Maddow asks why corporations would want to be associated with the promotion of Stand Your Ground gun laws–but fails to mention that her employer is one company that doesn't seem embarrassed by the connection.
U.S. media have shown great, and warranted, interest in Malala Yousafzai, the 14-year-old Pakistani girl shot in the head October 9 by members of a Taliban faction for her outspoken promotion of education for women. The attack "has horrified people across the South Asian country and abroad," reports the Washington Post, and "has also sparked hope that the Pakistani government will respond by intensifying its fight against the Taliban and its allies." In recalling conversations with Yousafzai, the Christian Science Monitor's Owais Tohid noted her sources of inspiration: The first time I met Malala, a couple of years ago, I […]
The New York Times editorially decried the New York City police department's stop-and-frisk practices ("Injustices of Stop and Frisk," 5/13/12), noting that the criterion of "furtive movements" most often used for stopping disproportionately black and brown people is "so vague as to be meaningless," that people of color are treated more violently than white people when stopped, and that the excuse that stop-and-frisk keeps guns off the street is not supported. The paper's conclusion: "The mounting evidence reveals a pattern of abusive policing that warrants the attention of the Justice Department, which should be using its broad authority to investigate […]