FAIR is the national progressive media watchdog group, challenging corporate media bias, spin and misinformation.
“Hillary’s fibs or lack of candor are all about bad judgments she made on issues that will not impact the future of either my family or my country,” says Thomas Friedman, whereas “Trump and Bernie Sanders have been getting away with some full Burger King Double Whoppers that will come crashing down on the whole country if either gets the chance to do what he says.”
These experts, it would seem, were wrong about Donald Trump winning the Republican nomination—and confidently, arrogantly, condescendingly so. But as noted by Glenn Greenwald and Zaid Jilani, who corralled many examples for The Intercept, they will pay absolutely no price for it.
The 538 crew have at times gone beyond the realm of punditry into the realm of hackery—that is, not just treating their own opinions as though they were objective data, but spinning the data so that it conforms to their opinions.
A New York Times op-ed claims that “no one doubted” that Bill Clinton “had given new life” to the Democratic Party. Actually, plenty of people have doubted this. But since corporate media keep pushing the fantasy of Bill Clinton as savior of the Democratic Party, it’s worth going over the reality once again.
This is Bad Journalism 101: You come up with a thesis, like “Bernie Sanders is going to hurt Hillary Clinton’s chances of beating Donald Trump.” You take your thesis to your source, and ask them to agree with it; like any sensible spokesperson, they decline to comment on it. You take their no-comment as an endorsement of your thesis—and that becomes the lead headline in the nation’s most influential newspaper.
What is NPR’s evidence that Obama is “reticent when it comes to deploying military force”? He’s bombed at least seven countries during his time in office—Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen and Libya. He’s sent ground troops to at least two others: Cameroon and Uganda.
A Nexis search turns up no US newspaper that reported on the recall of the Venezuelan or Salvadoran ambassadors to Brazil in response to the efforts to oust twice-elected Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff.
“When Did Optimism Become Uncool?” wonders a New York Times Sunday Review piece by Gregg Easterbrook. “The country is, on the whole, in the best shape it’s ever been in,” Easterbrook writes. “So what explains all the bad vibes?” It would be easier to be optimistic if the case for optimism didn’t involve so much manipulation and misrepresentation.
The website Vox has a “tax calculator” that promises to tell you “How Each Presidential Candidate’s Tax Plan Affects You.” Actually, it’s a gimmick that is entirely useless except as a deceptive advertisement for Hillary Clinton.
A New York Times op-ed by Michael Lind called “Trumpism and Clintonism Are the Future” is a good guide to how the wishful thinking of the pundit class will likely lead them to misread the clear message of the 2016 elections.
When the Washington Post and New York Times are making the same corporate-friendly point, it’s safe to assume that some PR agency somewhere is earning its substantial fees. In this case, the subject is the need for nuclear power.
FAIR.org readers got a response from NPR ombud Elizabeth Jensen and a do-over from NPR factchecker Peter Overby —but NPR’s coverage still leaves a lot to be desired in terms of forthrightly addressing the issue of fossil-fuel funding in the Democratic presidential race.
Hillary Clinton is “so sick of the Sanders campaign lying about me.” And NPR’s factchecker is so sick of having to decide whether or not Sanders’ campaign is actually lying about Clinton.
A broadcaster cheers on the electoral “circus” (“bring it on, Donald, go ahead, keep going”) that he acknowledges “may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS.”
The first thing the New York Times wants you to know about Sanders’ media criticism is that it’s wrong–because Sanders fails to appreciate the brave new media world.
The website Vox has a “tax calculator” that promises to tell you “How Each Presidential Candidate’s Tax Plan Affects You.” Actually, it’s a gimmick that is entirely useless except as a deceptive advertisement for Hillary Clinton.
Why did CNN describe the mostly urban, not particularly white states that Bernie Sanders won as “largely white and rural”?
People who worry about a Trump presidency just don’t understand how Washington works, according to Newsweek’s Matthew Cooper. But it’s Cooper who doesn’t know how Washington works—or is pretending not to.
Would Garland vote like other Obama appointees, or would he be an ideological surprise? The scoring that the New York Times offers is of no help in answering that question.
The consensus in corporate media is that Obama has picked the perfect Supreme Court nominee, and the Republican Senate should do its job and give him an up-or-down vote. But is Merrick Garland really so ideal?
