FAIR is the national progressive media watchdog group, challenging corporate media bias, spin and misinformation.
Election Focus 2020: Coming out of the second round of Democratic debates, a curious storyline crystallized in the media: The candidates are attacking Obama, and that’s a sure-fire way to hand the election to Trump.
A new report makes clear that not only were progressive groups scrutinized by the IRS, they were in fact targeted more than conservative groups.
Despite the reality, the false conventional wisdom among Beltway politicians, pundits and press remained: Obama “did nothing” about Syria.
The Presidency–and Trump– Dominated Front Pages… Overlooking a ‘Screaming Faksehood’… ‘Smearing’ Thomas by Investigating ‘Terrible Things’… NYT: US Not ‘Involved’ in a War Where It Helped Kill 4,000 Civilians… ‘A Disaster For Democracy’
While BuzzFeed has certainly done important work of late, on issues ranging from sexual harassment to AIDS in Africa, when it comes to the most powerful person on earth, however—the president of the United States—its coverage is almost uniformly uncritical and often sycophantic.
The more cynical writers and pundits—no matter how contrived the task would be — would take the opportunity to take a story about a nationalistic British response to a pro-austerity EU, and make it about Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin.
News “explainer” Vox ran a seemingly innocuous write-up on Friday of President Barack Obama appearing on NBC’s Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon the night before, “slow jamming” the benefits of the highly controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership. It would be funny if it weren’t a borderline parody of everything wrong with corporate-owned “new media”:
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.
“None of those traits that we supposedly look for in allies or even friends characterize the Saudi kingdom whatsoever.”
Andrew Ross Sorkin (New York Times, 4/28/16) presented a confused account of the state of the economy and economic policy under President Barack Obama. The account repeats many self-serving comments from Obama without comment and offers little useful context to readers.
The friendship between the US and Saudi Arabia faces friction, media said—but not Saudi Arabia’s disastrous human rights record or anti-democratic government. Plus: is the situation in Brazil best summed up as “The People vs. The President,” as one pundit had it?
“The decision was made, very quickly, that they did not choose to let this revolution succeed, and that they were going to do everything possible to overthrow it.”
We talk about what would really need to change to “normalize” US/Cuba relations. And in Argentina, a thrilled press corps tells us a new day is dawning with the election of “former businessman” Mauricio Mauri.
While American human-rights hypocrisy is nothing new, a string of Bush-era, pro-torture, pro-Guantánamo pundits expressing indignation at Cuba’s human rights failings was still remarkable.
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?
“At the end of the day, you have more people that have died in Guantanamo than actually have been convicted by a court. “
The New York Times, reporting that a final agreement had been reached on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a still-secret commercial agreement involving 12 nations in Asia and the Americas, subtly sneered at critics for opposing a document that they had not been allowed to see yet.
“Have Democrats Pulled Too Far Left?” asks a New York Times op-ed. This question is always answered affirmatively by corporate media, but the column still manages to surprise with its degree of intellectual dishonesty.
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.
