FAIR is the national progressive media watchdog group, challenging corporate media bias, spin and misinformation.
The 2016 election season is roughly half over, but already certain tried-and-true trends have emerged in coverage. Generating original content is hard; generating it over and over over the course of an ever-elongated election season is near impossible.
Ask not what Springsteen’s boycott will do to North Carolina’s economy–ask how North Carolina intends to inspect people’s birth certificates before letting them use the restroom.
The Democracy Spring protests are about ending the influence of big money in politics and ensuring free, fair elections. It’s striking that Beltway reporters, self-proclaimed political junkies, have such a profound lack of interest in following such issues.
On Sunday, the Boston Globe published a mock front page, filled with ominous headlines and half-joking prognostications, to “warn” the GOP against nominating Donald Trump. But what’s strange about this “satire” is how most of the things they’re warning about are already underway, or have long existed.
The DC press corps that goes nuts because Bernie Sanders doesn’t know the name of the statute under which he would prosecute bank fraud thinks a guy who calls for eliminating most of the federal government is a great budget wonk.
In this moment of well-earned glory, why would the primary party responsible for the Panama Papers go out of its way to take a swipe at WikiLeaks, and, by extension, a prisoner of conscience?
Over the past week, Bernie Sanders racked up six wins out of seven primary contests, winning 92 delegates more than his rival Hillary Clinton. You, however, would hardly have noticed had you been watching cable news the night of the Saturday primaries.
Why did CNN describe the mostly urban, not particularly white states that Bernie Sanders won as “largely white and rural”?
The specter of ISIS constantly trying to enlist dozens of Americans, often for attacks on US soil, is a crucial element in maintaining the current war effort. The media inability to point out that these “plots” are almost always entirely of the FBI’s making helps perpetuate the illusion and inflate perceived risk.
By “inattention” and “failing to act,” John Bolton just means we haven’t bombed Iran yet. That’s what paying attention is to him.
Explosive claims that US military soldiers and contractors had sexually abused at least 54 children in Colombia thus far seem to have received zero coverage in the mainstream US press.
The question here is pretty simple, in spite of Robert Samuelson’s efforts to sow confusion. There is very little plausible benefit from raising interest rates and slowing the economy at a point where the economy is far below its potential by almost any measure.
Most of us recognize that politicians don’t always reveal their true thoughts. We know what they say their priorities are, but only a mind-reader would try to tell us what they really think.
Clearly there are judges who are too lenient and accept claims that probably should be denied; however, there are also judges who are too harsh and reject claims that should probably be approved.
A front-page lead New York Times story is mainly valuable for the insight it provides into what the Times considers to be a healthy economy–and who that economy is supposed to benefit.
The government says Bradley Manning helped Al Qaeda when he revealed information about civilian casualties. By that logic, didn’t George W. Bush do a lot more by causing those casualties?
The New York Times report, “Trial on Guatemalan Civil War Carnage Leaves Out U.S. Role,” raises at least one obvious question: How much has U.S. coverage of the Ríos Montt trial talked about U.S. support for genocide?
The new issue of Newsweek magazine is full of lists. This is a surefire way to generate buzz, since people are bound to disagree with who’s on your list—and then write about it. Which is exactly what I’m doing. But one of the lists really jumped out. The magazine selected the top “Opinionists,” who are […]
You often see pundits making suggestions to political candidates like David Brooks makes in his New York Times column today (1/10/12): If Romney is to thrive, he really needs to go on an integrity tour. He needs to show how his outer pronouncements flow directly from his inner core. He needs to trust that voters […]
His campaign might fading, but Newt Gingrich is still wowing the New York Times (2/10/12). Reporter Trip Gabriel writes: Mr. Gingrich is well known as the candidate of big ideas, hatched from a deep knowledge of politics and policy. But he is less recognized for his warehouse of everyday facts, the kind of small-bore knowledge […]
