FAIR is the national progressive media watchdog group, challenging corporate media bias, spin and misinformation.
While Meet the Press’s David Gregory is playing “gotcha” by selectively editing Barack Obama’s speeches, the real story here is that the administration’s record of targeting investigative journalism is all too consistent.
This week on FAIR TV: Obama’s big speech on U.S. anti-terrorism policies was treated as a big shift, a pivot away from war. Was it? Activists around the world rallied against Monsanto–which wasn’t considered big news here. And Bob Schieffer complains that the White House makes it hard to get good guests for his Sunday […]
Did Barack Obama’s National Defense University speech signal a sea change in White House terrorism policy? That depended on who was doing the listening. We’ll talk with Pardiss Kebriaei of the Center for Constitutional Rights.
And Bob McChesney talks about his new book Digital Disconnect, and why understanding capitalism is essential to understanding the development of the internet.
If you followed the coverage of President Barack Obama’s May 23 speech at the National Defense University, you would think something big happened to the “war on terror.” That was probably the message the White House wanted the press to send. But is true?
President Barack Obama’s address yesterday on U.S. terror strategies got a lot of attention for supposedly charting a new course in America’s longest war. But some of the facts were mangled along the way.
What should we make of the so-called “trifecta” of scandals hitting the Obama White House? And what questions should we ask about the IRS/Tea Party story? Also this week: Chris Matthews wants Obama to take charge–just like the union-busting Ronald Reagan. And the Newseum decides two Palestinian journalists shouldn’t be considered part of their tribute […]
Praise for a conservative president’s breaking the air traffic controllers’ union–that’s what you hear on the liberal cable channel.
The pundits’ message on Barack Obama’s talk of a “red line” on Syria is that they are concerned about the credibility of the president’s threats of violence–much more so than about the credibility of his evidence.
Covering the media’s rush to misjudgment on the Boston Marathon attack, which acts of terrorism are called “terrorism,” and PBS’s “debate” over Social Security–in which both sides call Obama “brave” for trying to cut benefits.
Media remember Margaret Thatcher for turning around Britain’s economy. But do the numbers tell a different story? Also: Barack Obama’s plan to cut Social Security and Medicare is inexplicably deemed a move to the “center,” and pundits are monitoring the 2016 election by paying close attention to… Hillary Clinton’s haircut?
The new White House budget proposal is getting a lot of attention because it explicitly connects the Obama administration to an agenda that includes cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits. Some pundits see this as a way to appeal to the “middle.” But does anyone– in the middle or anywhere else–really want to cut the safety net?
The new issue of Time has a pretty interesting piece on the debate over Obama’s drone program. One way to measure the shift in official opinion is to consider that a little more than a year ago, the magazine hardly seemed to think there was any debate at all.
There was a pair of pictures on the front page of USA Today today, meant to illustrate a story about President Barack Obama’s visit to Israel and the Occupied Territories. It actually illustrated the very different ways Israelis and Palestinians are depicted in U.S. media.
The New York Times’ Michael Shear suggests that Rep. Rand Paul’s criticism of Obama’s drone attacks are nothing out of the ordinary–but he takes a strange trip down memory lane to make the case.
As he moved into his office as Barack Obama’s budget director in 2010, Jack Lew took down a portrait of Alexander Hamilton—“the father of American finance,” the Washington Post (1/21/13) told readers—and “put up paintings of New York City by jobless artists who had been hired into the New Deal’s public works program.” It was, […]
It’s not as if Bill O’Reilly has never uttered things reasonable people might consider racist. But the fact that he seems to believe that the White House is destroying the economy in order to provide free stuff to people of color is taking things to an entirely different level.
When David Brooks writes that Obama “declines to come up with a proposal” other than raising taxes on the rich, and in reality he has proposed a plan, that merits a correction, right? Maybe. But when you’re a New York Times columnist, apparently you get to play by a different rulebook.
This week on FAIR TV: Why is raising the minimum wage considered “divisive”? And a Washington Post pundit gives Obama State of the Union advice: Skip climate change and go big on the deficit. Plus a look at the way the New York Times framed police brutality in a story about Charles Dorner. Remember: If […]
Why do we need “serious spending cuts”? Milbank assumes the answer is so obvious that it need not be explained–everyone knows the more cuts, the better. All the serious people, anyway.
The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza wrote a piece giving Barack Obama some advice on what to say in his State of the Union address. The article almost reads like a parody of Beltway punditry.
