Friday News Roundup - Hour 2
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-07-22/friday-news-roundup-hour-2
A panel of journalists joins Diane to talk about the week's top international stories: Rupert Murdoch testifies before the British Parliament, telling lawmakers that he had "no evidence" his employees hacked the phones of 9/11 victims or their families; the Syrian government warned U.S. and French envoys not to leave Damascus as unrest continued there; and East Africa suffered from the worst drought in 60 years.
Guests
Moises Naim
chief international columnist, El Pais.
Elisabeth Bumiller
Pentagon correspondent, The New York Times.
Tom Gjelten
correspondent, NPR, and author of "Bacardi and the Long Fight for Cuba: The Biography of a Cause."
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
From what I understand, the phone hacking practices of News of the World have been made public many times including an expose in The Guardian. How did it come out/up this time? It seems like the American media entered into this news story in medias res; I've never heard the beginning of the story.
Re: the comment about the Peterson Institute's comment about the Greek's issue. Please disclose where the Peterson institute get's its money- Pete Peterson is a multiBILLION dollar hedgefund manager whose goal for the past thirty years it to privatize social security, privatize other social programs, and funnel public money to the elite private sector. Please discuss how disaster capitalism works to create these crises.
If it isn't aspic it isn't Tom Gjelten.
"Both the New York Times and NPR are less opinionated in their approach to news coverage than FOX generally." TG
What is Tommy talking about? FOX News has news reporters and news anchors and they have pundits as well. The New York Times has op-ed writers. Since Pinch Sulzberger has taken over the NYT, the difference between the front page and op-ed page has become blurred. Surely Tommy is being whimsical in this comment since he himself is a perfect example of a an NPR news correspondent giving...wait for it....his opinion.
What is this 'newspaper' you speak of?
Reporting died when it was more profitable to sell.
And the whole lockup/fire any whistleblowers did not help.
Or jailing reporters for not revealing source. When young used to think that was what communist countries did. Then I met one(GI 'free' travel). And the enemy- and he is US.
Wonder why viewership down? Ads are only interesting when you have money.
Always wondered how a planetary economy based on growing consumation of limited resources while ignoring 'free' or renewable sources without regard for waste or pollutants could survive.
Know I know. It cannot. So let it ALL BURN. Almost hot enough already. Thought my neighbors(five unemployed- one on 'official' count) were saying recssion. No it was secession. Personally it is too hot- said the lazy American.
Thank you Moises for mentioning the role Fox had in stoking the tea party movement. Fox news correspondents actively led demonstrations, their coverage was plastered with mention of even the tiniest tea party event, and Glen Beck was the stated hero of many many tea party adherents.
I think it is hard to overestimate the role of Murdoch in manufacturing right-wing sentiment. This background piece on the hacking scandal is instructive, particularly in its description of the possible role of Murdoch in the Blair government and the Iraq war:
http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/7/21/the_british_watergate_a_backg...
The way Fox uses its orchestrated propaganda to whip up outrage about imaginary problems is making it difficult for us to respond intelligently to the many real ones we face.
GMG wrote:
"Thank you Moises for mentioning the role Fox had in stoking the tea party movement. Fox news correspondents actively led demonstrations, their coverage was plastered with mention of even the tiniest tea party event, and Glen Beck was the stated hero of many many tea party adherents. "
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure. Covering the Tea Party is now considered "stoking." Didn't you hear that the New York Times and NPR covered the Tea Party as well?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GMG wrote:
"I think it is hard to overestimate the role of Murdoch in manufacturing right-wing sentiment.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How about the role of George Soros in manufacturing left wing sentiment? Or is that the only sentiment manufacturing you would allow?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GMG wrote:
"The way Fox uses its orchestrated propaganda to whip up outrage about imaginary problems is making it difficult for us to respond intelligently to the many real ones we face."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the real ones we face is liberals making FOX News an imaginary problem.
GMG wrote:
"I think it is hard to overestimate the role of Murdoch in manufacturing right-wing sentiment".
Of course you do! Now, here's some reality for you, GMG. For decades, you and other liberals have been basking in the glow of main-stream media that agrees with your every sentiment and therefore is perceived by you as fair, when we can see, now that there is something to contrast it with, is clearly biased.
The best analysis of Murdoch and Fox that I have ever heard came from Charles Krauthammer who said, "The genius of Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes was to have discovered a niche market in American broadcasting — half the American people.”
I said, stoking, not covering. Don't you remember the "FNC Tax Day Tea Parties?" Organizing and advocating is not the same as covering. I never heard of the NYT organizing rallies.
http://mediamatters.org/reports/200904080025
I have not seen any evidence of Soros manufacturing opinion. Do you have any? I routinely see evidence of Fox news doing this. Jon Stewart summarized some examples nicely, starting at 2:30:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-21-2011/fox-news-false-statem...
Fox news is not an imaginary problem. It pushes a very specific ideological agenda. Say what you want about the NYT editorial pages, I have yet so see anything biased in their coverage, except perhaps an overly credulous trust in official sources of any party.
GMG wrote:
"Fox news is not an imaginary problem".
In your head maybe.
"It pushes a very specific ideological agenda. "
That statement is patently false. And your links prove nothing except that left wing ideologues don't know the difference between Fox News programming and Fox Commentary programs. Now that's not too surprising considering these are the same folks whose primary news print source can't distinguish between the front page and the editorial page.
Glenn Beck (a Fox COMMENTATOR) and not part of the Fox News team using the phrase "FNC Tax Day Tea Parties" one time on his TV show does not constitute "Organizing and advocating"! any more than Chris Mattews who gets a thrill up his leg over Obama becoming President represents the official position of MSNBC.
Bret Baer reporting on Tea Party events does not constitute "Organizing and advocating". In fact, if Fox didn't report on the TP events, there would be NO COVERAGE AT ALL!!! According to MSM the Tea Party was a "passing fad", according to Nancy Pelosi, it wasn't "grass roots", it was "astroturf". Gee, would you try this hard to stamp out "astrotuf"?
I watched the Stewart video too. About 30% I recognized immediately as coming from Fox COMMENTATORS, not the news programming. Probably another 30% that he claims were false ... are actually true or have been misrepresented by the left, and if you would like to go one by one I will supply you the evidence. The rest, who knows where they came from or if Stewart made them up.
I'll tell you the same thing I've told Drew Kelly; just because you read something on a left wing website or see it on a left wing TV show, does not mean it is true (and I like Stewart by the way, I find him entertaining). You simply have to come with better documentation than that to be credible.
That commentator/news divide is mighty thin gruel. The division is certainly not clear to me. And, if a commentator is saying something that isn't true, that doesn't mean it should not be corrected.
Do you have anything more substantive than the usual tirade against "left wing websites"? It seems to me that Media Matters report is fairly persuasive and goes beyond a single case.
"Probably another 30% that he claims were false ... are actually true or have been misrepresented by the left, and if you would like to go one by one I will supply you the evidence."
Well, speaking of providing better documentation, can you pick one? I would certainly like to know if any of the items on Stewart's list are wrong.
"The division is certainly not clear to me"
I'll make is simple for you; whenever the host says, "let's go to so and so for the latest headlines", you're about to hear the news.
"It seems to me that Media Matters report is fairly persuasive and goes beyond a single case".
When you see what you want to see, it does. Start under the heading "Protests responding to administration policies". Note who is cited; Greta Van Sustren (commentary), O'Reilley Factor (commentary).
"On the March 25 edition of Special Report, host Bret Baier said that the tea parties are "protests of wasteful government spending in general and of President Obama's stimulus package and his budget in particular."
That is, was, and will be, an absolutely true statement. That's what the Tea Partiers are protesting!
"During the April 6 edition of America's Newsroom, FoxNews.com contributor Andrea Tantaros said of the protests: "People are fighting against Barack Obama's radical shift to turn us into Europe." Fox News also aired on-screen text stating that the "Tea Parties Are Anti-Stimulus Demonstrations."
Hint: whenever you see "contributor", think "commentator". That's what Andrea Tantaros does. If you see Bret Baier say, "we now go to REPORTER Carl Camron in Washington", that's a news report. And the text on the screen is exactly what the tea partiers were - Anti stimulus. It seems like Media Matters takes exception to Fox reporting the news.
As to Stewart, it would be painful to go back through the entire list, but since you only ask for one, here you go. "Death Panels". Absolutely true, even if you don't like the term. Read about IPAB.
It looks to me like the Politifact statement that Stewart was referencing was about this statement by Sarah Palin:
..."my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care."..
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/10/sarah-pal...
And it was this statement that was rated "pants on fire." It wasn't even about the IPAB. And, in any case, according to whitehouse.gov.
"IPAB is specifically prohibited by law from recommending any policies that ration care, raise taxes, increase premiums or cost-sharing, restrict benefits or modify who is eligible for Medicare."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/20/facts-about-independent-paymen...
PS: I do see a problem here looking more closely - this statement was made by Sarah Palin on FaceBook, before she joined Fox, so Politifact's finding wasn't really against Fox, as far as I can tell. But, since Sarah Palin does work for Fox now, and Fox commentators repeated this phrase ad nauseum, I think Stewart point is pretty valid.
GMG wrote:
"I said, stoking, not covering. Don't you remember the "FNC Tax Day Tea Parties?" Organizing and advocating is not the same as covering. I never heard of the NYT organizing rallies."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The extent of FNC Tax Day Tea Parties consisted of this from your MediaMatters:
"While discussing the April 15 protests on his April 6 program, Glenn Beck suggested that viewers could "[c]elebrate with Fox News" by either attending a protest or watching it on Fox News. Beck stated that in addition to himself, hosts Neil Cavuto, Greta Van Susteren, and Sean Hannity would be "live" at different protests."
None of these folks are FOX News anchors/reporters/journalists/. On the other hand, the POTUS himself plugged Jon Stewart Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear?
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/09/29/5203437-obama-plugs-jon-...
Not to mention HuffPo's organizing Jon Stewart Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear?
"Arianna Huffington’s surprise gift to Jon Stewart -- a convoy of shuttle buses to his “Rally to Restore Sanity” in Washington -- was an even bigger surprise to the folks at the Huffington Post."
How about the NYT's puff piece coverge in their POLITCIS section of the Jon Stewart Rally Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/31/us/politics/31rally.html
GMG wrote: --
I have not seen any evidence of Soros manufacturing opinion. Do you have any? I routinely see evidence of Fox news doing this. Jon Stewart summarized some examples nicely, starting at 2:30:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Of course. MediaMatters is funded by the Democracy Alliance which is funded by George Soros and his brother. Democratic Network and MoveOn.org, have also contributed to Brock's project.
Jon Stewart is great. Here he is slapping down MSNBC Rachel Maddow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gsJrgwxQDo
Here he is slapping down all the MSNBC critters calling them The Munsters:
http://www.cjr.org/the_kicker/the_munsters_of_msnbc.php
By the way, were you always enamored with David Brock, the MediaMatters mad hatter? Or only after he left The American Spectator and went over to the dark side?
GMG wrote:
Fox news is not an imaginary problem. It pushes a very specific ideological agenda. Say what you want about the NYT editorial pages, I have yet so see anything biased in their coverage, except perhaps an overly credulous trust in official sources of any party.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
You actually need to know something about the NYT in order to understand their historical biased coverage. We could go all the way back to 1931 when NYT reporter Walter Duranty, who actually won a Pulitzer for this, knowingly lied when he reporteded that Stalin's forced starvation of 15 million Ukranians was a "false rumor."
New York Times reporter Brooks Atkinson wrote glowing reports about Mao and the ChiComs describing them as an "agrarian or peasant democracy." The fact that the Chinese Communist Party killed 78 million people was not of much concern to the NYT.
Now to 2011:
"Tax-Loving, Obama-Defending Writer David Leonhardt Rises to NYT Washington Bureau Chief"
http://www.mrc.org/timeswatch/articles/2011/20110722125627.aspx
"Two recent events which went completely unnoticed by The New York Times, but were covered in great depth by Fox News and conservative bloggers: the Van Jones and ACORN affairs."
Whoa! That link! Where else do you get your information? Alex Jones? A steady diet of that kind of stuff would make anyone crazy. I suggest you detox with a few months of the BBC.
>>Of course. MediaMatters is funded by the Democracy Alliance which is funded by George Soros and his brother. Democratic Network and MoveOn.org, have also contributed to Brock's project.
This doesn't say anything about its accuracy. What specifically is inaccurate?
Yes, I like the way Jon Stewart goes after MSNBC too. They have there issues as well.
GMG wrote:
"Whoa! That link! Where else do you get your information? Alex Jones? A steady diet of that kind of stuff would make anyone crazy. I suggest you detox with a few months of the BBC"
-------------------------------------------------
The link? This from the guy whose go-to source for information is the moonbat David Brock's MediaMatters. Are you saying that David Leonhardt is not the NYT Washington Bureau Chief? Are you saying that David Leonhardt isn't an Obama confidant?
BTW: Alex Jones appeals to liberals who believe 911 was Bush/Israel/Media conspiracy.
Detox with the BBC? The BBC is liberal toxicity at its worst.
"BBC network admits it: We're biased toward left
Acknowledges failure to offer debate due to inherent liberal culture of staff"
"We are biased, admit the stars of BBC News"
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56228
GMG wrote:
"Of course. MediaMatters is funded by the Democracy Alliance which is funded by George Soros and his brother. Democratic Network and MoveOn.org, have also contributed to Brock's project.
This doesn't say anything about its accuracy. What specifically is inaccurate?"
--------------------------------------------------------------
First you said: " I have not seen any evidence of Soros manufacturing opinion."
I then provide examples of David Brock being Soros' mouthpiece for manufactured opinions. But as to the flagrant inaccuracies of Media Matters, feast your eyes:
http://mediamatters.blogsome.com/
At least you have given up the myth that the front page of the NYT is not rife with bias.
GMG wrote: ""IPAB is specifically prohibited by law from recommending any policies that ration care, ...."
Oooh by law! Ok, I apologize. I guess it's not really fair to bait the hook like that. "Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former CBO director thinks that despite "requirements that would force Congress to adopt the recommendations or find comparable savings", "cuts will be politically infeasible" no IPAB "will ever succeed in saving lawmakers from their own self-preserving instincts to pander".
In other words, IPAB will be FORCED by economics, to effectively ration, though it will no doubt be disguised as or called something else.
It's a little like Obama talking about all the "shovel ready projects" waiting for his stimulus when no such projects existed. They sound good, but were a fantasy. The idea that IPAB can help control Medicare costs without rationing sounds good, but is a fantasy.
" I do see a problem here looking more closely - this statement was made by Sarah Palin on FaceBook, before she joined Fox .... But, since Sarah Palin does work for Fox now, and Fox commentators repeated this phrase ad nauseum, I think Stewart point is pretty valid."
So the hell with the facts, I'll just say I'm right anyway! It's pretty clear to me you're going to believe what you're going to believe GMG. Too bad for you. Shall we say that since Chris Matthews get's a thrill up his leg when he thinks about Obama and praises him ad nauseum, that they are secret lovers? That makes about as much sense.
Palin's comment, prior to her association with Fox, was, at the time a bit hyperbolic, but it made the point that ACA was dangerous. It's turning out she was right. First the administration denied any such thing was in the bill. Then it slipped back in under the radar at the last minute. Ever wonder why Pelosi said, "we have to pass the bill to find out what's in it"? Now the government says, "oh yeah, there's IPAB, but it won't ration". Do you believe them?
cicero, thanks for laying this out. Yes, MM is as slanted as chalet roof. But you have to understand that, the way the left thinks, anyone who agrees with them is unbised. Their idea of free speech is, "you are entitled to my opinion".