"We shouldn't even be wasting our time talking about Anthony Weiner," the pundits say– and then they continue to talk about him anyway.
This week: The corporate media finally paid attention to the Bradley Manning trial–but NBC botched some of the history. Plus the New York Times tries to show how Democrats are moving 'away from the center.' But how do they define the center anyway? And we look at an MSNBC debate over Walmart and a living wage that could have used more debate.
The cover of Rolling Stone (8/13), featuring a self-portrait of Dzhokhar Tsaernav taken weeks before the Boston bombing, has fueled a strong backlash. Discussing the cover, Fox News' Lisa Daftari (7/18/13) said: In the aftermath of 9/11, if you look back over a decade ago, this country had an awakening, an understanding, that we have a new ideological threat that is on our soil. People became aware. But we've since gone very far from that, almost gone too far from that. We are almost becoming overcompensating, for fear of being Islamophobic. Political correctness is leading us to put a terrorist […]
This week we look at some of the messages coming from the corporate media in the wake of the George Zimmerman verdict. And CBS gives Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu a platform to spread alarm over Iranian nukes. Plus a look at what corporate-owned TV networks think is newsworthy–a royal baby, not the trial of Bradley Manning.
"The Guardian newspaper's Glenn Greenwald," writes former NSA director Michael Hayden today in a CNN op-ed, is "more deserving of the Justice Department's characterization of a co-conspirator than Fox's James Rosen ever was." Hayden's smear came in a column in which he argues that Edward Snowden, whose story Greenwald has been telling in the Guardian, "will likely prove to be the most costly leaker of American secrets in the history of the Republic." Those thuggish words are particularly disturbing coming from a figure who is, as CNN's editor's note at the top of the column explains, still tied to military […]
When Jeremy Scahill called out a CNN reporter for an error, she eventually corrected her mistake on the air. That's good– and more outlets should be doing the same. Unfortunately the "non-correction correction" is more typical–or, as in the case of MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, a media figure will simply ignore the issue.
"With a Royal Baby Due, News Outlets Are on High Alert" reported the New York Times (7/14/13) in a piece detailing the extensive planning that TV networks have done in order to cover the any-day-now arrival of the child of Prince William and Kate Middleton. The Times said it "will be a spectacle unlike any other in the modern media age"; the ABC website has a special section ("sponsored by Nestlé"), while "NBC News has a site called RoyalBabyGuess.com, asking for predictions about name, birth time and weight. To make it more fun, the people whose guesses come closest might […]
The recent Supreme Court decision on the Voting Rights Act is bound to bring voter ID laws back into the media discussion. And, unfortunately, that means some of these discussions will suffer from a familiar problem: The unwillingness to point out that the problem such laws are allegedly fighting–voter fraud– doesn't exist.
What are David Gregory and Andrew Ross Sorkin really trying to say about Glenn Greenwald? Unnamed government officials are telling media outlets that Edward Snowden's NSA whistleblowing is helping terrorists. Plus, Time's Jon Meacham has some odd nostalgia for the Bush years.