They've warned you as it drains away, But you don't listen

Update below

What's up with Fire Dog Lake these days!? First Jane Hamsher joins Grover Norquist and now Marcy Wheeler aligns with large corporations. I expect smear tactics from Faux News, but this is a non-story that's now all over the news. Here are some of the headlines:

FDL:Jonathan Gruber Failed to Disclose His $392,600 Contracts with HHS

Faux News actually had a more accurate headline: Economist Was Under Contract With HHS While Touting Health Reform Bill

Here is the relevant part of The New England Journal of Medicine's conflict of interest policy:

Public funding sources, such as the NIH or the MRC, need not be disclosed.

Professor Gruber wasn't paid by the Obama Administration, he had a grant from HHS. Just like my work is paid for by a grant from the NIH. Obama can't just call up any Federal agency and get a paper written, all of these grants are peer reviewed at multiple stages.

How do these people think research gets done? Would they rather corporations pay for it? So what if reporters didn't do due diligence, they don't even fact check, and no one has suggested that anything Gruber has said isn't factual. And it's not like he gets all the money, there's overhead for MIT, technical and administrative support services, researchers.

The folks at FDL are doing everything they can to stop health care reform, even dishonest smear tactics like this, trying to make some conspiracy theory out of what is publicly available information. In fact, their 'source' was a website setup by the Obama Admin.

Their stance on HCR aligns them with insurance companies, the US Chamber of Commerce and drug corporations.

I still have hopes we'll get a better bill, but my god if all those folks are against it, then I'll take what I can get.

Update: I stand corrected by a commenter, Prof. Gruber didn't receive a grant, it was a "CONTINUATION OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR EVALUATING OPTIONS FOR NATIONAL HEALTHCARE REFORM"

And the contracts are only 2 of 18 contracts he has received from the Federal gov't since 2002. From everybody from the DOJ, to the DOD, to the HHS, to the State Department.

This is what happens when you're a leading expert in economic analysis.
Here is a list of his publications since 1991.

He's been writing papers about HCR since at least 1995.



Cross posted at VidiotSpeak

My Friends Know What's In Store

Perhaps you've seen the distraction, (ooh look, something shiny!), between Faux News & the White House. What has been lost in the 'analysis' from all the MMM (Millionaire Multi-Media) is the same thing these stenographers always manage to avoid: are the Admin's accusations true?

Is Faux News an arm of the republican party? Are their news division and opinion division intertwined?

Yes.

They've been attacking President Obama since he started running. "Terrorist fist jab" came directly from their newsroom. The chairman of Faux News, Roger Ailes worked for the Nixon, Reagan and Bush I campaigns. No need to work 'for' Bush II, Ailes ran the news division.

And while rethiglicans are screaming about 'unprecedented attacks on the media!', MediaMatters have lined up a slew of precedent.

(Quick aside: Something that especially offended me was the NYT's headline Behind the War Between White House and Fox You'd think by now they'd know the difference between statements and people dying in a WAR!)

IRT the 'liberal media', the WaPo and the NYT are both on record as saying they need to cover wrongwing news more (see above link.) Politco founders are on record saying "Drudge rules our world." CNN host Lou Dobbs pushed the birther conspiracy, and the bete noir of conservatives, MSNBC, has 3 straight hours of a rightwing ex-congressman Joe Scarborough spewing in the morning. (BTW Joe, what did happen to that dead intern on your desk?)

One would think that after all the MMM did to push the Bush WH's completely erroneous message on the need for an Iraq War on the American public, and all they did to promote the Clinton WH 'scandals' we could drop the 'liberal media' canard.

The 'he said/she said' skool of reporting only works if you don't have evidence. I think if you investigate abuse and only one person has scars and bruises you can find the truth. But you have to be willing to look. Maybe, just maybe, reporters do tend to be Democrats, but their editors aren't, their owners aren't and the board of directors of the corporations aren't.

But none of them are proven to be such blatant, top down, regurgitating republican talking points of the republican party as Fox News.

Time for some clean up in Ailes 1:




Cross posted at VidiotSpeak

Someone To Watch Over Me

The Washington Post fired Dan Froomkin, one of the few journalist/columnist writers that wasn't a stenographer for the government. Here are portions of his last column, but I urge you to follow the link and read all of it:

White House Watched

Today's column is my last for The Washington Post.
[...]
I started my column in January 2004, and one dominant theme quickly emerged: That George W. Bush was truly the proverbial emperor with no clothes. In the days and weeks after the 9/11 terror attacks, the nation, including the media, vested him with abilities he didn't have and credibility he didn't deserve. As it happens, it was on the day of my very first column that we also got the first insider look at the Bush White House, via Ron Suskind's book, The Price of Loyalty. In it, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill described a disengaged president "like a blind man in a room full of deaf people", encircled by "a Praetorian guard,” intently looking for a way to overthrow Saddam Hussein long before 9/11. The ensuing five years and 1,088 columns really just fleshed out that portrait, describing a president who was oblivious, embubbled and untrustworthy.

When I look back on the Bush years, I think of the lies. There were so many. Lies about the war and lies to cover up the lies about the war. Lies about torture and surveillance. Lies about Valerie Plame. Vice President Dick Cheney's lies, criminally prosecutable but for his chief of staff Scooter Libby's lies. I also think about the extraordinary and fundamentally cancerous expansion of executive power that led to violations of our laws and our principles.

I don't understand why the WaPo would fire one of their few employees who got it right. But wherever Dan ends up writing next, I'll be reading.



Cross posted at VidiotSpeak

As sounding brass

The other night our president gave a speech and then answered questions from the press. (there goes the whole 'Obama needs a teleprompter so his puppet masters can control him' meme.)

And what does the '4th estate' complain about? Not his policies, not his answers to their questions, they complain he didn't call on their MSM buddies. Jeebus, how shallow can these 'reporters' be?

A small sample of the outrage they exuded:

Obama skips major papers: No NYT, WaPo, WSJ, USA Today

During President Obama's second East Room news conference, he took questions from 13 reporters over about an hour -- that's the same as during his first presser on Feb. 9.

But in quite a departure from the first presser -- and White House protocol -- Obama skipped over the nation's top newspapers. Indeed, there were no questions from the NY Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal or USA Today. That might not sit well with the already insecure newspaper industry.

Nobody gives a f*%k about your insecurities. We're dying over here!

[...]in his second prime-time news conference from the White House, it was Barack Obama the lecturer, a familiar character from early in the campaign. Placid and unsmiling, he was the professor in chief, offering familiar arguments in long paragraphs — often introduced with the phrase, “as I said before” — sounding like the teacher speaking in the stillness of a classroom where students are restlessly waiting for the ring of the bell.

Ohh, was the poor repoter bored because he couldn't understand the complexities of Obama's answers, after having them repeated? Or was his wittle feewings hurt?

President Obama's dull delivery during press conference fails to inspire

[...]
But many probably wished "American Idol" hadn't been bumped from the lineup to make room for the President.

Ahh yes, the 'many probably' dodge because you don't have any facts. FYI, American Idol wasn't 'bumped', it was delayed.

Obama seems less at ease

[...]
He passed over reporters from The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and the Los Angeles Times, opting instead to call on correspondents from Univision, Ebony magazine and Stars and Stripes.

And one final parting shot:

The President took a total of 13 questions, none of which were from a mainstream newspaper. After tapping the AP, then the networks, then the cablers, Obama turned his attention to more niche publications such as Stars & Stripes and Univision, arguably because he rightly guessed their questions would skew with topics he wanted to talk about i.e. the military and Mexico border issues.

The speech and press conference focused almost entirely on the economy! What the hell was this moron watching? I'm so glad you asked. He was probably with Eric Cantor watching the Britney Spears concert.

Hey fellas? Get over yourselves. It's not about you. We all heard what he said. And we don't need your spin or your ignorant badgering. We don't need no stinking badgers!

And to the moron who thinks he only called on 'niche' reporters?
That's not true. He called on the AP, NBC, ABC, CBS, Univision, Stars and Stripes, CNN, Ebony & AFP. Shoot, he even called on Faux News and the Washington Times! There was only so much time and he answered original questions and followups at length.

BTW, the military, Blacks and Latinos are not a niche in this country, they are Americans who have just as much right as you to ask questions of our president as the MSM does.



Cross posted at VidiotSpeak

Polishing off a fine whine

Someone please call the whaaambulance for the WATB rethuglicans who have mounted a campaign to whine that the NYT had the temerity to ask McCain to re-submit his obviously deficient article.

House Republicans Fire Off Letter To New York Times
[...]
"A national publication such as the Times has a clear obligation to provide equal access to its op-ed page to both candidates," the Republicans wrote, "to convey fairness by the paper and to help further the national debate."

Well, actually, no! Newspapers have never been obligated to provide equal access. Newspapers aren't 'broadcast', and even if they were it's the Republicans who successfully fought the "Fairness Doctrine." Ye shall reap what ye sow.

And here's the nuts:

House Republicans distributed a letter on Wednesday formally "urging" The New York Times to allow a third party to take out a full-page ad featuring a rejected opinion piece by their party's presidential candidate, Arizona Sen. John McCain.

Strawman anyone!? Aside from the fact that many media outlets have already trumpeted McCain's unedited piece, no one has even suggested that McCain couldn't buy an ad in the NYT. No one has said McCain's billionaire buddies can't buy an ad. But I have to wonder, is McSame's campaign so deficient of funds that they can buy millions of dollars of TV ads but they can't but a print ad!?

Piffle, this is yet another attempt to manufacture a faux (news) controversy to cover up the fact their candidate doesn't have anything to offer except blaming American's first, negative campaigning and a fainting couch for his rich republican buddies.



Cross posted at VidiotSpeak

And Another One Bites the Dust

A recurring meme I see over and over, continuing the false meme of a 'liberal bias' in the MSM, is that it's so unfair that Obama gets more coverage in the press than McSame. e.g.

The Project for Excellence in Journalism evaluates more than 300 political stories each week in newspapers, magazines and television to measure whether each candidate is talked about in more than 25 percent of the stories.

Every week, Obama played an important role in more than two-thirds of the stories. For July 7-13, for example, Obama was a significant presence in 77 percent of the stories, while McCain was in 48 percent, the PEJ said.
[...]
"No matter how understandable it is given the newness of the candidate and the historical nature of Obama's candidacy, in the end it's probably not fair to McCain," he said.

Sure, a Lexis/Nexis search will show that Obama is mentioned more often than McCain in MSM reporting, but if one looks at the stories they are usually negative stories about Obama. The perfect example of this is in the above story when they ask Rush Limbaugh to comment on whether this is unfair to McClain.

Are you kidding me!? Asking Rush Limbaugh to comment on whether the press is unfair to McCain is the same as asking a lying, drug addicted, racist, homophobic [you can Google it, but I refuse to provide the link to Rush's website where he says "... I am a homophobe ..."], sexual predator uber-republican to comment on McCain's unequal coverage in the MSM.

It's obvious that Obama gets more coverage in the MSM, it's also obvious that most of the coverage is negative.

And after all, if they were to write about McCain they might have to mention that McCain thinks:
Czechoslovakia is a country, (nope, not for over 15 years)
Iraq borders Afghanistan, (nope, not ever)
We have succeeded in Iraq, (oops, my bad, the MSM covered that lie over and over. p.s. If we've succeeded in Iraq why can't our troops come home?)
McCain has reversed course on almost every POV he's ever held, occasionally twice in the same day.

And now McCain is whining that the NYT asked him to make changes in his Op-Ed.

All I have to say to Republicans is that the "Fairness Doctrine" has never applied to the press, and Republicans are responsible for it being negated in the broadcast media. (BTW, Bill Clinton had several Op-Eds to the NYT rejected when he was President!)

It's just yet another desperation tactic by McCain and his Bush/Rove advisers to try to rouse the rabble and ignore the fact that McClain has one again flip-flopped and now endorses Obama's plan for Iraq:McCain indicates US troops could withdraw in 2 years




Cross posted at VidiotSpeak