From the monthly archives:

April 2009

Will Media Challenge Obama’s False Claim of Creating 150,000 Jobs?

April 30, 2009

At the recent media celebration of Barack Obama’s first 100 days as President, Barack Obama made the bold claim that he created or saved over 150,000 jobs.

This budget builds on the steps we’ve taken over the last 100 days to move this economy from recession to recovery and ultimately to prosperity.
We began by passing a Recovery Act that has already saved or created over 150,000 jobs and provided a tax cut to 95 percent of all working families.Source

This would be wonderful news, if it were true. Unfortunately, no one seems to be able to figure out where he got these numbers from. They just don’t seem to add up to the facts.

So where do they get away with a number like that?

Actually, I thought this was easy. The administration has claimed that ARRA (“the stimulus bill”) will “save or create” 3.3 million jobs in 2 years. So I thought perhaps what they were doing was taking the date of signing, Feb. 17, computing how much of two years had passed (71/730 ~= 9.7%) and … well, that doesn’t work, because on a pro-rated basis they would get to claim 321,000 jobs.

I thought then maybe he had specific numbers. I recall him saying that he was told Caterpillar would call back the 20,000 in layoffs it had originally called for. But that doesn’t work out either, because Caterpillar is still laying off. Initial filings for unemployment insurance have risen through the first 100 days, though today’s number is a hopeful step downward.

Of course, no one will ever know the difference. The media wouldn’t dare challenge Obama with any difficult follow-up questions. Not one reporter asked president Obama to corroborate this claim.

Jon Stewart: Truman’s a War Criminal for Bombing Hiroshima

April 30, 2009

Although historians have debated the issue for decades, Jon Stewart has no question about this controversial matter: former President Harry S. Truman is a war criminal for dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima in 1945.

Such was discussed on Tuesday’s "The Daily Show" with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies’ Clifford May in a lively exchange about interrogation procedures.

Although it was not aired on Tuesday due to the length of their extraordinary conversation, the entire interview was posted at Comedy Central’s website in two parts (video part II embedded below the fold, relevant section at 5:40, h/t Hot Air):

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart M – Th 11p / 10c

Cliff May Unedited Interview Pt. 2

thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes Economic Crisis First 100 Days

JON STEWART: I try and draw the line where our country has drawn it for 200 years.

CLIFFORD MAY: Do you think in World War II we did not inflict pain and suffering on suspects in the war in Japan?

STEWART: I would hope we didn’t waterboard people. I would hope we didn’t…

MAY: We did do Hiroshima. Do you think, do you think Truman is a war criminal for that?

STEWART: Yeah.

MAY: You do?

STEWART: Yeah.

MAY: Okay. This is a, this is a…

STEWART: Here’s what I think of the atom bombs. I think if you dropped an atom bomb fifteen miles offshore and you said, "The next one’s coming and hitting you," then I would think it’s okay. To drop it on a city, and kill a hundred thousand people. Yeah. I think that’s criminal.

Of course, as May pointed out later, at stake for both countries was a prolonged war that might have been responsible for far more deaths potentially into the millions on both sides. What wasn’t discussed was how the Truman administration apparently entertained a threatening trial run offshore, but this was scrapped due to a number of concerns including the possibility that one or both of the bombs mightn’t have worked and that Japan mightn’t have surrendered even if the offshore explosion transpired.

This after all was a new science never tested in combat conditions. As such, what if the offshore explosion had worked, but failed to evoke a Japanese surrender followed by the second bomb NOT going off? Then, the successful explosion did nothing, and the war continues.

This ongoing moral debate aside, regardless of whether one feels Truman should have done something other than what he did, calling him a war criminal 64 years later is just pathetic.

That said, these unedited interviews are well worth your time, so much so that May admitted at the end that it was the best televised discussion he’s had on this issue to date (part I below):

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

M – Th 11p / 10c

Cliff May Unedited Interview Pt. 1

thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Economic Crisis

Maersk Alabama Captain: Provide Military Escorts and Arm (Some) of the Civilian Crews

April 30, 2009

It’s bound to be mostly lost in the mainstream media thanks to swine flu and the Obama 100 days hype, but Richard Phillips testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today. In doing so, the captain of the MV Maersk Alabama called on lawmakers to open the way for at least some merchant sailors to be armed as part of a comprehensive anti-piracy policy that includes more military escorts.

The Chicago Tribune’s Mark Silva has the story in an April 30 post in that paper’s "The Swamp" blog. Silva reports that Phillips has a moderate stance on arming civilian crews — he wants only the four most senior ranking officers aboard a given ship armed — and that Phillips hopes for a greater U.S. Navy presence in escorting and protecting U.S. merchant vessels (emphases mine):

"First, I believe it is the responsibility of our government to protect the United States, including U.S.-flag vessels that are by definition an extension of the United States, their U.S. citizen crews, and our nation’s worldwide commercial assets.

"So, it follows then that the most desirable and appropriate solution to piracy is for the United States government to provide protection, through military escorts and/or military detachments aboard U.S. vessels. That said, I am well aware that some will argue that there is a limit to any government’s resources – even America’s.

" In fact, due to the vastness of the area to be covered – and the areas of threat are continually growing larger – our Navy and the coalition of other navies currently positioned in the Gulf of Aden region may simply not have the resources to provide all the protection necessary to prevent and stop the attacks…

"In my opinion, the targets – the vessels – can be "hardened" even beyond what’s being done today and made even more structurally resistant to pirates.

"In addition, more can be done in terms of developing specific anti-piracy procedures, tools and training for American crews. I do however want to emphasize that contrary to some reports that I’ve heard recently, American mariners are highly trained and do receive up-to-date training and upgrading…

"I believe that discussions are underway now between the industry and government on the details of specific proposals to harden the vessels (the specifics of which should remain secret) and I am confident that we will soon have additional methods for protecting vessel and crew. And while they will be an improvement, there is no way they can be foolproof.

"I’ve also heard the suggestion that all we have to do to counter piracy is "just arm the crews". In my opinion, arming the crew cannot and should not be viewed as the best or ultimate solution to the problem. At most, arming the crew should be only one component of a comprehensive plan and approach to combat piracy.

"To the extent we go forward in this direction, it would be my personal preference that only the four most senior ranking officers aboard the vessel have access to effective weaponry and that these individuals receive special training on a regular basis.

"I realize that even this limited approach to arming the crew opens up a very thorny set of issues. I’ll let others sort out the legal and liability issues but we all must understand that having weapons on board merchant ships fundamentally changes the model of commercial shipping and we must be very cautious about how it is done.

"Nevertheless, I do believe that arming the crew, as part of an overall strategy, could provide an effective deterrent under certain circumstances and I believe that a measured capability in this respect should be part of the overall debate about how to defend ourselves against criminals on the sea.

Capt. Phillips shown in AP Photo, via Chicago Tribune. Original caption: "Captain of the Maersk Alabama, Richard Phillips, prepares to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today."

‘Angels of Democracy’? Time Editor Hails Leftist Women of ‘The View’

April 30, 2009

They’re rude, annoying, smug and biased. And to Time magazine’s managing editor, they’re "angels?" Richard Stengel called the four-fifths liberal hosts of ABC’s "The View" on April 30 "Angels of Democracy" in an appearance on the show. As he discussed the release of "The Time 100: The World’s Most Influential People, " which includes all five women, and lavished praise on them:

"Part of the reason you guys are on there, you’re like America’s water cooler. People come around, they listen to you. You start, you’re like the angels of democracy. You start people talking about the things that are most important in society."

Things like sex, porn and sex toys, sex ed for five-year-olds, and more sex? Or maybe its bashing the Catholic Church, hypocritically defending Barack Obama or sniffing at religious Christmas cards?

The magazine hit news stands on April 30. People including Barack and Michelle Obama, Sarah Palin, and Zac Effron made the list. Each "winner," as Stengel referred to them, has their impact written by "somebody famous." New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg wrote the article on the ladies of the show.

Now that they made the list, the leftist hosts of The View, along with Elizabeth Hasselbeck’s sole dissenting voice of the five, will be able to nominate influential people for next year’s top 100 edition.

CBS’s Smith to RNC Chair: ‘Room For Moderates’ In GOP?

April 30, 2009

Harry Smith and Michael Steele, CBS On Thursday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith talked to Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele about Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter switching to the Democratic Party: "Alright, so you see red states going to blue, though, in this last presidential election…You look at percentage-wise, lower numbers of people who declare themselves to be actual Republicans…Where does the future of your party lie?…Is there room for moderates?"

Smith began the interview by asking Steele: "Olympia Snowe mourned his [Specter’s] loss earlier this week. Rush Limbaugh said he was dead weight, good riddance. Who’s right?" Steele was unequivocal: "Rush. I’m sorry, I’m not weeping here. I’m sorry. You know, look, Harry, in 2004, when Senator Specter ran for re-election…he whined and moaned and groaned and convinced the White House, and Senator Rick Santorum, and the Republican leadership at that time, to save his seat, to help him get re-elected. So all this, you know, rank-and-file crazy noise about conservatism, he didn’t mind it in 2004 when his seat was on the line."

Smith followed up: "So this — this choice…from your view is a middle of — about political expedience, and not about-" Steele interjected: "Oh, my goodness, yes…Oh, this has nothing to do with philosophy and principle and all those wonderful-sounding words. It has — is cold, crass, political calculation by a Senator who could not get re-elected through a nominating process in the Republican Party."

In response to Smith’s question about there being "room for moderates" in the Republican Party, Steele explained: "Absolutely. There’s room for everybody who wants to be a part of a party that believes first and foremost in the value of the individual to make decisions that empower him or herself to run their businesses, raise their kids, go to the schools of their choice, and then basically work their way towards the American dream…this notion that somehow, you know, because we’re conservatives our doors are closed and we only take certain types of people is just crazy. This has not — never been the nature of this party."

Here is the full transcript of the segment:

7:11AM SEGMENT:

HARRY SMITH: We want to talk with Republican National Chairman Michael Steele right now this morning. Good morning, sir.

MICHAEL STEELE: Hey, good morning, Harry. How are you, man?

SMITH: Pretty good. I want to first talk about Arlen Specter, his defection to the Democratic Party.

STEELE: Yeah.

SMITH: Olympia Snowe mourned his loss earlier this week. Rush Limbaugh said he was dead weight, good riddance. Who’s right?

STEELE: Rush. I’m sorry, I’m not weeping here. I’m sorry. You know, look, Harry, in 2004, when Senator Specter ran for re-election, he had — he was challenged in the primary by Pat Toomey, former Congressman Pat Toomey, and he whined and moaned and groaned and convinced the White House, and Senator Rick Santorum, and the Republican leadership at that time, to save his seat, to help him get re-elected. So all this, you know, rank-and-file crazy noise about conservatism, he didn’t mind it in 2004 when his seat was on the line. So here we are in 2008, after he cast a, I think, a debilitating vote on the stimulus bill, it went against core principles-

SMITH: So this — this choice-

STEELE: -and the party said that’s enough.

SMITH: -from your view is a middle of — about political expedience, and not about-

STEELE: Oh, my goodness, yes.

SMITH: Okay.

STEELE: Oh, this has nothing to do with philosophy and principle and all those wonderful-sounding words. It has — is cold, crass, political calculation by a Senator who could not get re-elected through a nominating process in the Republican Party.

SMITH: Alright, so you see red states going to blue, though, in this last presidential election.

STEELE: Yeah.

SMITH: You look at percentage-wise, lower numbers of people who declare themselves to be actual Republicans.

STEELE: Yeah.

SMITH: Where does the future of your party lie?

STEELE: Well, the future lies down the road a bit. I mean, look, I’m not going to sit here with, you know, pie-in-the-sky talking about, you know, how wonderful things are. They’re not. This party-

SMITH: Right. Is there room for moderates?

STEELE: Absolutely. There’s room for everybody who wants to be a part of a party that believes first and foremost in the value of the individual to make decisions that empower him or herself to run their businesses, raise their kids, go to the schools of their choice, and then basically work their way towards the American dream. You know, this notion that because-

SMITH: There are folks in your party, though, who would say — who would-

STEELE: But wait, Harry, let me make this point.

SMITH: Okay.

STEELE: But let me make this point, this notion that somehow, you know, because we’re conservatives our doors are closed and we only take certain types of people is just crazy. This has not — never been the nature of this party. This party has been-

SMITH: But the — but the larger conversation that’s going on in the party is it’s not conservative enough and there are people within your own party who say, ‘you know what, John McCain was part of the problem. He was too moderate. That’s part of the reason we lost this election.’

STEELE: Well, look, I think that’s more — using terms to reflect an attitude, or a process, in which the Republican Party moved away from certain core principles. We moved away from valuing, you know, frugality, and government expenditures, and the growth of government, by growing the government 40%, by spending on bridges to nowhere, raising the debt of this nation. So yeah, we had a direct hand in that. And the core base Republicans of this party, and conservatives across this nation, looked at that and said enough was enough. Look, they didn’t reject our value for life. They didn’t reject our value for economics, you know, our views on the economy, and our views on war and peace, in the last two election cycles. What they rejected, the voters rejected, was our failure to lead, and to stay to, I think, our core principles.

SMITH: Alright, Michael Steele, thank you so much for joining us this morning, do appreciate it.

STEELE: Thank you, Harry.

SMITH: You bet.

STEELE: Alrighty.

MSNBC’s Shuster Launches Attack Campaign Against Miss California for Gay Marriage Stance

April 30, 2009

David Shuster, MSNBC anchor/journalist, now a part-time Biblical scholar?

The former host of the canceled MSNBC show "1600 Pennsylvania Avenue" has gone on an attack campaign against Miss USA runner-up, Miss California Carrie Prejean for her stance on the same-sex marriage issue and her newly formed alliance with the National Organization Marriage (NOM).

Shuster made the following posts on his Twitter site on April 30, including praising gossip blogger Perez Hilton, who hurled several hateful insults at Prejean:

Anchoring until 1pm – highly amused by this ad: http://tinyurl.com/ddhec2
Not sure Perez Hilton has ever been featured in a political ad. In any case, I think his assessment of Miss USA’s logic was accurate.
If a narrow read of the bible is the last word on "marriage," what about bible based condemnations of cosmetic surgery? NOM = hypocrisy.
Lev. 19:27 expressly forbids men from getting their hair trimmed; Lev. 11:6-9 states that touching a dead pig makes us unclean. (football?)
Lev. 19:19 forbids planting two different crops in the same field or wearing two different kinds of thread Penalty? Lev. 24:10-16 death.
Who’s the bigger hypocrite? Texas Governor http://tinyurl.com/cu7sm4 or Miss CA starring in NOM ad http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id…

However, after making those posts attacking Prejean, he went back to "Shuster the Journalist" and inquired about Prejean’s positions with CRC Public Relations, the firm representing NOM with the following e-mail:

In your press release today announcing Carrie Prejean’s decision to join NOM today as it launches a new ad defending marriage… you wrote:

"Carrie Prejean does not have an opportunistic agenda. She’s a young woman of courage who chose truth over the Miss USA tiara."

(1) Did you know Carrie Prejean had cosmetic surgery (breast enhancement) just weeks before the competition?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30495983/

(2) Why does NOM not consider that "opportunistic?"

(3) What does NOM think of young women choosing "elective" cosmetic surgery?

(4) Does NOM still intend to feature miss Prejean as a spokesperson?

We are doing this segment on msnbc nearly every hour… please respond at your earliest convenience.

Thanks

David Shuster

Prejean appeared at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on April 30 to unveil a NOM television ad. She explained her stance and the reason she was speaking out about the issue – not for the sake of opportunism, as Shuster alleged.

"I am not affiliated with any organization," Prejean said. " … I am not paid for this. I am very passionate about this. I’m speaking my own views, but I do appreciate the many people who stand on front lines to fight for marriage, including the National Organization for Marriage."

Despite Shuster’s anti-conservative remarks in this case and others, including his mocking of the Tax Day tea parties, Shuster claims he’s independent.

"I have no party, I’m a complete Independent," Shuster told MSNBC "Morning Joe" host Joe Scarborough on Aug. 26, 2008.

Hollywood’s Default Villain: Your Employer

April 30, 2009

By Kurt Schlichter for Big Hollywood.

Watching “24? this week, I realized that our number one threat is multi-national corporations with battalions of hired killers on the payroll. Similarly, “Michael Clayton,” “The International,” the new “State of Play” and many others have taught me that big companies assassinate their rivals, whistleblowers, policemen and random passersby with astonishing regularity.

I wish. But then, I’m a trial lawyer and I could use a new house.

Sadly, the real world is much more esoteric than the portrait Hollywood paints, and the real threat is not quite so picturesque. Instead of corporate death squads composed of hardboiled mercenaries with high tech assault rifles, the real killers are boring jihadi doofuses with dusty AKs, booby-trapped Fiats and the occasional boxcutter.

Let’s stop and check the numbers. Real terrorists, counting the victims of 9/11 and American losses in Iraq and Afghanistan: Over 7900 murdered. Victims of corporate murder: Zero. Nada. Zip. I would add in the number of Iraqis and Afghanis murdered by these folks, except that toll is beyond counting. And to many liberals, their lives don’t seem to count anyway.

Oh, wait, this is where some feverish troll jumps on his iMac and starts spouting off about Karen Silkwood. Silkwood was a union organizer at a plutonium reprocessing plant who crashed and died one night in 1974. You probably remember the shower scene in the film of the same name where the evil corporate minions not-so-gently decontaminate a shrieking Meryl Streep. It’s an article of faith among the paranoid left that the evil company ran her car off the road. You know it has to be true because in the movie before the crash, a pair of headlights looms ominously behind Streep as she drives to a meeting with a reporter.

Heck, I’m convinced. Those headlights did look really ominous.

And it’s a pretty plausible scenario too. The smart move for any multi-billion dollar company facing an expose is to murder the reporters’ source. No way that could possibly wrong. It’s much more plausible – and exciting – than her falling asleep and driving into a ditch because of the double dose of Quaalude in her bloodstream like the police concluded.

At least “24? has an excuse – after seven seasons, it’s pretty much run out of villains, and it certainly has had no problem in the past pointing out that jihadis, you know, really do want to kill Americans. But others do not have that excuse.

The homicidal business man is their default villain. It’s become something more than even a cliché – it’s an assumption. A businessman appears on screen and you can just assume he’s going to try to off the hero. That the concept of corporate assassins is objectively ridiculous is not an obstacle. Remember, these people also think the key to improving health care is to let the same kind of geniuses behind the Department of Motor Vehicles control it.

Liberal Hollywood loves corporate villains because to face up to the real threat is just too great a challenge to their world view. Business people? Bad. Third world guys who hate America? “Well, let’s just forget about them and make the villain a drug company that just happens to employ an elite team of contract killers. Now, where’s my swine flu vaccine?”

Gimme a break. Even if our bankers, financiers and industrialists wanted to pull off one of these intricate conspiracies, does it really seem like they could? Look at the news. Big business can’t even do what it’s supposed to do anymore, much less mastermind fiendish schemes. Could the brain trust at Wachovia whack an opponent? They can’t even keep their doors open. Countrywide would bring the same precise attention to detail to its wet work as it did to its underwriting – and miss the target every time. GM and Chrysler’s hitmen would organize. The next thing we would hear is that International Brotherhood of Termination Workers Local 187 is on strike for a cushy jobs bank to retrain snipers with trigger finger repetitive stress injuries to reclassify as car bombers. And card check would just make it worse.

That assumes that hitmen could keep their jobs at all in this economy. Murder is not a profit center and corporations are cutting back. Look for hordes of unemployed button men downtown holding signs saying “Will kill for food” standing next to laid-off New York Times writers promising “Will shill shamelessly for $.”

Where would the companies find these killers anyway – on Craigslist, between the ads for $5 used sofas and creepy adult encounters? Hollywood always makes these thugs ex-military, which makes sense since the government tells us that veterans are violent extremists. Still, I must have missed the corporate recruiter’s booth at the veterans job fair promising prospects the chance to “Come grow with us as you kill with us.”

The fact is that today’s corporate environment is no place for self-respecting hitmen – excuse me, hit people. The Director of Diversity would constantly be hounding them with PowerPoint presentations about their failure to meet her goal of increasing the number of differently-abled lesbian Hindu assassins by 43.2%. And don’t get her started on how pistol silencers “send a message of non-inclusiveness through their phallocentric appearance.”

Originally published April 30, 2009 at BigHollywood.Breitbart.com.

Editor’s note/Related material: The Media Research Center’s Business & Media Institute in 2006 released a trilogy of studies entitled "Bad Company", dealing with the media’s portrayal of capitalistss and corporate executives as villains. Part one, dealing with network television can be found here. Part two, dealing with the cinema, can be found here.

‘American Morning’ Guest Predicts ‘Likely Scenario’ Like 1918 Flu, but Ignores Calmer Predictions

April 30, 2009

CNN amped up the alarmism about swine flu April 30 when co-host John Roberts interviewed Dr. Martin Blaser of NYU without rounding out the segment with other opinions.

Roberts asked Blaser to put the virus, which had already sickened 109 people in ten states, "in perspective."

Blaser responded, "This is a pandemic. It’s all over the world. Right now it’s early and it’s mild so everybody’s at risk. But right now the risk is low."

On April 29, the World Health Organization raised its alert level to stage 5, which "is characterized by human-to-human spread of the virus into at least two countries," according to WHO Web site. Phase 6 is "the pandemic phase."

Roberts also asked Blaser to respond to a prediction by John Barry, author of a book about the worst flu epidemic in history, that this virus would act in the same manner.

"John Barry, who wrote a fabulous book on the 1918 flu pandemic called ‘The Great Influenza’, thinks this is just the opening act of a very long play. That this virus is probably going to go away for a little while and then maybe next winter or early next year come back with a vengeance. What do you think?" Roberts asked.

Blaser said, "I think that’s the most likely scenario because of, because influenza is very influenced by the season and in 1918 it came. There was a little bump in the early summer. It went underground and then it did come back with a vengeance. And that would be predictable here."

Roberts didn’t mention that the 1918 Spanish flu killed an estimated 50 million people or ask Blaser if he was suggesting that there might be such serious loss of life if the swine flu returns. He also didn’t mention the views of others who think the H1N1 virus will be less severe than even seasonal flu — which takes an estimated 36,000 lives a year in the U.S.

According to the Los Angeles Times, "scientists studying the virus are coming to the consensus that this hybrid strain of influenza — at least in its current form — isn’t shaping up to be as fatal as the strains that caused some previous pandemics."

The Times cited a few scientists including Richard Webby, an influenza virologist at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital who said: "This virus doesn’t have anywhere near the capacity to kill like the 1918 virus."

"‘There are certain characteristics, molecular signatures, which this virus lacks,’ said Peter Palese, a microbiologist and influenza expert at Mt. Sinai Medical Center in New York. In particular, the swine flu lacks an amino acid that appears to increase the number of virus particles in the lungs and make the disease more deadly," Karen Kaplan and Alan Zarembo wrote.

The bottom line, according to the Times, was that we probably wouldn’t see this flu "dwarf a typical flu season." One applied mathematics professor, Dirk Brockmann, told the Times his worst-case scenario based on a computer model would result in 1,700 people sick after four weeks.

Time’s Liberal Bias Taught in Schools

April 30, 2009

As if school kids didn’t get enough liberal propaganda. Whether parents know it or not, millions of students across the country have been receiving biased news magazines in the classroom. Without adult guidance, children are at risk to take as fact the consistently liberal views of Time magazine.

Through Great American Opportunities, people can order magazine subscriptions and earn Time for Kids subscriptions for the school of their choice. Kindergarten through sixth-graders will then receive this publication free of charge.

According to its website, "The Time For Kids Program helps schools receive the best in current weekly classroom news magazines for students in grades K-6 at no cost. TFK delivers three weekly news magazines to over 3.9 million students."

This program comes from a magazine that has published articles on how kids are bad for the environment. As CMI noted previously, Time’s article on May 8 described this environmental problem:

"Want to wreck the environment? Have a baby. Each bundle of joy gobbles up more of the planet’s food, clogs garbage dumps with diapers, churns through plastic toys and winds up a gas-guzzling, resource-consuming grown-up like the rest of us. Still, babies are awfully cute. Given that most people will intend to procreate, what’s an environmentally conscious parent to do?"

Magazine orders may seem to be a simple way to keep children aware of current events. Subscribers and parents need to be aware of the cultural influences this may have on young children who are not aware of the biased articles.

Time for Kids, in its "Lights Out" article on March 20, encouraged participation in an hour of turning of lights and using less energy. They urge children to do their part for the green movement because, "As the planet warms, habitats are put in danger." The magazine continues to state the disputed global warming theory as a fact.

Given the state of public education, students that saw the Time environmental issue cover on April 21 2008 may not have understood why veterans were outraged by the magazine’s doctoring of the iconic Joe Rosenthal photograph to show the Marines at Iwo Jima raising a tree instead of the original American flag. And students would have no way of knowing that Time’s managing editor last year dismissed as "fantasy" the notion that journalism should be objective.

That attitude has resulted in Time calling George W, Bush an "eco-villian" at a hundred days into his presidency while hailing Obama at the same mark, suggesting that readers "trash" a book on media bias, and providing Michael Moore with a forum to promote universal healthcare. Do kids benefit from a "news" source that eschews even the semblance of balance and actively promotes liberal ideology in its pages?

CNN’s Ed Henry Jabs President on FOCA, ‘Above My Pay Grade’ Answer

April 30, 2009

CNN’s White House Correspondent Ed Henry broke the laudatory ranks of the mainstream media and even with those from his own network during Wednesday night’s primetime White House press conference when he questioned President Barack Obama about his pledge to sign the Freedom of Choice Act.

Henry challenged the President by bringing up the current controversy over Obama’s scheduled commencement address at the University of Notre Dame and his flippant cop-out, "it’s above my pay grade" to the question of when life begins:

Thank you, Mr. President. In a couple of weeks, you’re going to be giving the commencement at Notre Dame. And, as you know, this has caused a lot of controversy among Catholics who are opposed to your position on abortion.

As a candidate, you vowed that one of the very things you wanted to do was sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which, as you know, would eliminate federal, state and local restrictions on abortion. And at one point in the campaign when asked about abortion and life, you said that it was above – quote, above my pay grade.

Now that you’ve been president for 100 days, obviously, your pay grade is a little higher than when you were a senator.

Do you still hope that Congress quickly sends you the Freedom of Choice Act so you can sign it?

President Obama briefly smiled at Henry’s dig before he proceeded to side-step the Notre Dame and beginning of life issues, re-assert his commitment to pro-choice beliefs and backtrack from FOCA by saying, "Now, the Freedom of Choice Act is not my highest legislative priority. I believe that women should have the right to choose. But I think that the most important thing we can do to tamp down some of the anger surrounding this issue is to focus on those areas that we can agree on. And that’s – that’s where I’m going to focus."

Henry’s question provided a stark contrast to the other questions asked by members of the media:

Jeff Zeleny, New York Times: "During these first 100 days, what has surprised you the most about this office? Enchanted you the most from serving in this office? Humbled you the most? And troubled you the most?"

Chuck Todd, NBC: "Pakistan appears to be at war with the Taliban inside their own country. Can you reassure the American people that if necessary America could secure Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal and keep it from getting into the Taliban’s hands or, worst case scenario, even al-Qaida’s hands?"

Chip Reid, CBS: "Do you see it [Sen. Arlen Specter's switch to the Democratic Party] that way [as indication that we're on the verge of one-party rule]? And, also, what do you think his switch say about the state of the Republican Party?" Reid asked as a follow-up question, "Is the Republican Party in the desperate straits that Arlen Specter seems to think it is?"

Kudos to Henry for pointing out first, that Obama and his polices are not universally revered, and second, that a mocking answer to a serious question is no answer at all.

Perhaps his press room colleagues (Zeleny) could take notes the next time Henry asks a question

Is Sumner Redstone Right About the Economy?

April 30, 2009

Share

In Print, NY Times Downplays Its Own ‘Enchanting’ Question, Fails to Disclose Zeleny’s Authorship

April 30, 2009

At President Obama’s 100-day press conference on Wednesday night, White House correspondent Jeff Zeleny became a mini-celebrity – or a national laughingstock – for asking President Obama how he was surprised/troubled/enchanted/humbled over the first 100 days. The Times itself seemed embarrassed by the question. The press conference was relegated to page A-19, with the headline "Obama Voices Concern on Pakistan and Defends Interrogation Memo Release." Nine paragraphs in, Zeleny and Helene Cooper acknowledge the "light moments," but don’t acknowledge they were a gift from Zeleny and the Times:

There were a few light moments, particularly when Mr. Obama was asked what has surprised, troubled, enchanted and humbled him in the past 100 days. "Wait, let me get this all down," he said, taking out a pen.

Why the passive "mistakes were made" phrasing? Then Zeleny and Cooper provided all the president’s answers to the multi-part softball, including: "He called himself enchanted by American servicemen and women, and their sacrifices they make, although he allowed that ‘enchanted’ might not be the exact characterization."

The story briefly mentioned Obama’s town hall meeting in Missouri, but ignored his mockery of the protesters with the tea bags and the networks that don’t like him very much.

This was Zeleny’s question: "During these first 100 days, what has surprised you the most about this office, enchanted you the most about serving in this office, humbled you the most and troubled you the most?" This is not a question one would associate with a Gray Lady, a prestigious daily. It sounds more like an question from Access Hollywood.

On The Caucus blog, political reporter Adam Nagourney collegially declared Zeleny’s puffball his favorite question of the night when the press conference was over:

Besides my favorite question – yes, the enchanting one from Jeff – the president was discursive on torture, offered his medical counsel to a country worried about the flu, was reflective about the political meaning of Senator Specter’s defection, and lent his view of the dramatic expansion of government on his watch. That said, he did not make any jaw-dropping news, which was probably his intention. He also didn’t make any obvious mistakes, and for this president, no surprise there. He was also more lively and engaging than he was at the previous news conference.

Blogger Michelle Malkin gave Zeleny her Drool Bucket of the Day award:

He could have, I dunno, pressed Obama for details about how and why his administration spooked and freaked out countless New Yorkers this week for the sake of an alleged photo op update.

But no, New York Times reporter Jeff Zeleny decided he was going to be Perry Como and sing "Some Enchanted Evening."

Which makes sense, of course, given the New York Times’ $2 million financial stake in hawking Obama-themed merchandise.

USAT Blogger Passive-Aggressively Hits Pro-life Prof. Glendon as Hypocrite

April 30, 2009

While most of the mainstream media yawned at news that former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican Mary Ann Glendon was refusing Notre Dame’s Laetare award due to the university honoring pro-choice President Barack Obama, USA Today’s Cathy Lynn Grossman sure hasn’t.

The religion reporter/blogger found her own unique, passive-aggressive way to slam Glendon’s stand on principle by suggesting she’s a self-righteous hypocrite.

In her April 30 post, "Who’s a good enough Catholic for Notre Dame’s top honor?", Grossman delighted in excerpting a satirical open letter by Jesuit priest Rev. James Martin, who penned a blog post for America magazine making light of the university’s pressing need to find a new person to honor with the coveted Laetare Award (emphasis mine):

Who’s Catholic enough — besides Pope Benedict and some ultra-traditionalists aren’t so sure about him – to be honored with Notre Dame’s Laetare Medal this month?

Former US. Ambassador to the Vatican and top-ranked Catholic Mary Ann Glendon, has turned down the most prestigious award given to U.S. lay Catholics — intended to honor someone who exemplified the church’s ideals and contributed to humanity — to avoid sharing the podium with President Obama.

So leave it to Rev. James Martin to find some wit in the situation. His idea for saving face at Notre Dame: Give the medal to him. That is, of course, if Susan Boyle is unavailable.

[...]

At the blog for America magazine, In All things, the Jesuit priest lists his qualifications. Among them:

I would accept it. I mean, if someone’s going to give me an award the very least I can do is accept it, whether or not I agree with what they’re doing or not doing. It’s just common courtesy … And I wouldn’t cause you the least bit of controversy because

I’m Catholic. I mean, really Catholic…

Yeah, that’s all that’s needed. Being a really good Catholic with the "common courtesy" to share the stage at a Catholic college’s graduation ceremony with a man that NARAL Pro-Choice America enthusiastically endorsed in 2008 and who has pledged to sign the Freedom of Choice Act should it reach his desk.

No matter to Grossman, who implied a moral equivalancy between Glendon’s connection to President Bush and the Iraq war and Obama’s support of abortion:

Glendon, by the way, accepted her Vatican posting from George W. Bush, who led the U.S. into a war specifically opposed as unjust by Catholic theological standards by the late Pope John Paul II and by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

DO YOU THINK…you’ve got a better Catholic name to suggest? Or should Notre Dame skip the medal this year?

Grossman’s message is clear. Glendon was self-righteous to refuse the honor of accepting the Laetare Award and hypocritical to oppose Obama being honored by the Notre Dame seeing as her former boss waged a war the Vatican thought was unjust.

Of course, in doing so Goodman failed to make a distinction between the Vatican’s view of abortion as a sin and "intrinsic evil" and its view of how states wage war to be a "prudential judgment" ultimately left to heads of state.

But what’s a little thing such as accuracy when the goal is trashing someone who, in effect, spurned the media’s messiah: Barack Obama.

CBS’s Plante: Obama ‘Laughed Off’ Big Government Criticism

April 30, 2009

Bill Plante, CBS Rather than provide objective analysis of President Obama’s performance at Wednesday’s White House press conference, on Thursday’s CBS Early Show, correspondent Bill Plante issued what amounted to a press release and brushed aside criticism of Obama’s expansion of government during the first 100 days: "The President laughed off charges that he’s intent on making the government bigger...And said the 100-day mark was just the beginning."

Plante offered no facts about the massive spending and growth of government under the Obama administration, but instead concluded his report: "Anyway, they [the White House] think that the public is well disposed to give the President some more time. How much, is the question."

At the top of the show, co-host Harry Smith declared: "A lot of people watching President Obama last night. How do you celebrate 100 days in office? Speak to the news media." Based on reporting from Plante and New York Times reporter Jeff Zeleny’s "enchanting" question to Obama, that would be a party with close friends for the President.

Here is the full transcript of Plante’s report:

7:01AM TEASE:

HARRY SMITH: A lot of people watching President Obama last night. How do you celebrate 100 days in office? Speak to the news media. Also coming up this morning, we’re going to talk to Vice President Joe Biden and we’ll have a chat with Republican National Committee chair Michael Steele.

7:06AM SEGMENT:

JULIE CHEN: In other news, on his 100th day in office, President Obama held his third prime-time news conference. CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante joins us with more. Good morning, Bill.

BILL PLANTE: Morning, Julie. Some highlights: the President urged people not to panic and to take safety precautions on the flu epidemic. He said that the waterboarding, as practiced by the Bush administration, was torture. He said that he thinks Chrysler can remain a viable company, but that he’s anxious to get the U.S. government out of the private sector.

BARACK OBAMA: I don’t want to run auto companies. I don’t want to run banks. I’ve got two wars I’ve got to run already.

PLANTE: Asked about Senator Arlen Specter’s switch to the Democrat side of the aisle, the President said he knew that Specter is still likely to be a man of strong opinions.

OBAMA: I am under no illusions that suddenly I’m going to have a rubber stamp Senate.

PLANTE: The President laughed off charges that he’s intent on making the government bigger.

OBAMA: No! I would love a nice, lean, portfolio to deal with. But that’s not the hand that’s been dealt us.

PLANTE: And said the 100-day mark was just the beginning.

OBAMA: I think we’re off to a good start. But it’s just a start.

PLANTE: They’ve always maintained here that the 100 day mark is an artificial construct. But, they played to it. Anyway, they think that the public is well disposed to give the President some more time. How much, is the question. Maggie.

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Yes, we shall see. Bill Plante in Washington. Thank you, Bill.

Joe Biden to ABC’s Robin Roberts: I’m Humbled by Cheering, Spontaneous Crowds

April 30, 2009

"Good Morning America" co-host Robin Roberts didn’t bother to challenge Vice President Joe Biden when he asserted on Thursday that cheering crowds spontaneously appear wherever he goes. Paraphrasing a softball question given to Barack Obama at his Wednesday news conference, Roberts asked what had humbled the Vice President during his first 100 days in office. [Audio available here]

In a serious tone, Biden responded, "…Everywhere I go, crowds spontaneously assemble. They start to cheer, whether I go to a play on Broadway or I’m going home to Wilmington, Delaware. I walk on the train. People stand up and clap." Roberts didn’t offer a follow-up, but she could have referenced a January 3 incident, when (then) Vice President-elect Biden went unnoticed while trying to see a movie in Delaware. According to a reprinted Deleware Online article, "Remarkably, none of the other moviegoers appeared to notice. Employees said nobody mobbed Biden or called his name or asked for an autograph." Movie theater employee Becky Gingrich explained, "It didn’t seem many people recognized him."

During the Roberts interview, Biden attempted to work the "humble" part of the question into his response. He elaborated, "It’s not about me. It’s about, I think, the hope and expectation they [Americans] have for our administration. But it’s spontaneous everywhere I’ve gone around the country."

Setting up the question, Roberts replayed the original "enchanted" question from the news conference, directed to Barack Obama. She enthused, " So, what has surprised you in your first 100 days?" And then followed-up by cooing, "And enchanted you?…And humbled you?"

A transcript of the April 30 interview, which aired at 7:08am, follows:

ROBIN ROBERTS: Well, President Obama marked the 100th day of his office- in office with a prime-time news conference last night. The first issue he addressed, swine flu, and its impact on parents and children. We asked Vice President Joe Biden about that and other issues when he joined us just moments ago from his official residence at the Naval Observatory in Washington. Good to see you, Vice President Biden. Thank you very much for joining us this morning. The President talked about parents and businesses having a contingency plan in case more children need to stay home from school. Do you know exactly what he means by contingency plan?

VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: Well, yes, I do. For example, that- a parent whose child’s school is closed out of a precaution, or because there’s been a confirmed case of flu, should not take that child into a day-care center. They’re going to have to take them home. And the hope is that the employers will have- be generous, in terms of how they treat that employee’s necessary action of taking the child home and not being at work. And so, the urging is the contingency plans that businesses should have, if they’re going- if this hits in a way that their employees have to care for their children.

ROBERTS: Our Jake Tapper asked the President if he thought that the previous administration had sanctioned torture. And this is how the President responded.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: I believe that waterboarding was torture. And I think that the- whatever legal rationales were used, it was a mistake.

ROBERTS: There’s a couple times that Jake tried to get an answer from the President and wasn’t quite able to. So, let me ask you. Do you think that the Bush administration sanctioned torture?

BIDEN: I think the Bush administration misread the law, justified the action, which both the President and I believe to be torture on a faulty rationale. So, I think they were mistaken in their judgment as to whether or not it constituted torture. We believe it was torture. We’ve ended the practice.

ROBERTS: There’s a lot of talk about- and you all have talked a lot about, the economy, and what’s going on, of course. And the economy shrank at an alarming rate. 6.1 percent in the first quarter. Is it going to continue at this rate before it gets better, Vice President?

BIDEN: I think unemployment is going to continue this rate before it gets better. But I don’t think the economy is likely to continue shrinking at this rate. Remember that, you know, we said it was an alarming rate. But it wasn’t an unpredictable rate. We’ve been in office for a third of this quarter. Or two-thirds of this quarter. And the plans we have put in place to begin to turn this economy around, are going to take some time. So, it wasn’t a shock. Disappointing that it grew- that it shrunk at that number.

ROBERTS: Well, let’s end, as it did at the press conference, on a bit of a lighter note. The President, when he was asked about what surprised, troubled, enchanted and humbled him? This is what the President said last night.

OBAMA: I’ve got- what was the first one?

JEFF ZELENY (New York Times): Surprised, troubled. Surprised.

OBAMA: Surprised.

ZELENY: Troubled.

OBAMA: Troubled.

ZELENY: Enchanted.

OBAMA: Enchanted?

ZELENY: And humbled.

[clip ends]

ROBERTS: We won’t make you have to write it down. But, we’ll do a little lightning round. So, what has surprised you in your first 100 days?

BIDEN: What surprise me is the pace. I’ve been in Washington a long time. The pace of decisions that had to be made. What has troubled me is the failure of us to get the kind of cooperation we hoped we would get on major issues with some of our Republican colleagues. There seemed to be, at least at the outset, a determination not to cooperate. I hopeful that’s going to change. We continue to reach out. But, I was a little surprised that on the big-ticket items that we’re facing, in terms of crisis, there might have been a little more cooperation. But this is early.

ROBERTS: And enchanted you?

BIDEN: My wife, on the night of the inauguration.

ROBERTS: And humbled you?

BIDEN: She was gorgeous.

ROBERTS: She was.

BIDEN: What’s humbled me, as you walk out, I mean, everywhere I go, crowds spontaneously assemble. They start to cheer, whether I go to a play on Broadway or I’m going home to Wilmington, Delaware. I walk on the train. People stand up and clap. I mean, it’s humbled me. It’s not about me. It’s about, I think, the hope and expectation they have for our administration. But it’s spontaneous everywhere I’ve gone around the country. And it really is humbling. And it makes you realize that people are really banking on us, you know, changing the day. And it really it is humbling.

ROBERTS: I’m sure it is. Vice President Joe Biden, always a pleasure to see you. Thanks so much for joining us. Have a great day.

BIDEN: Thank you, Robin. Thanks a lot.

MRC-TV: Rich Noyes on Fox News Discusses Media’s ‘Enchanted’ Evening w/Obama

April 30, 2009

The morning after the media’s "enchanted" evening with President Obama’s 100-day press conference, Media Research Center Director of Research Rich Noyes appeared on the April 30 "America’s Newsroom" to do a post-mortem of the media’s fawning over the nation’s 44th president. [audio excerpt here]

The segment began with a discussion of New York Times reporter Jeff Zeleny’s fawning question about what enchanted Obama the most in his first 100 days.:

MEGYN KELLY, Fox News anchor: So, you know, it’s prime real estate when you get to ask one of these questions as a reporter at these White House press conferences. He doesn’t call on all the reporters. Every question counts, and the White House press corps sort of relies on one another to get to the heart of the matter so that all the most important things are asked. Does this qualify? How enchanted he was in his first 100 days?!

RICH NOYES, Media Research Center: I’m not sure if it really does. You’re right. I cannot imagine the press asking George W. Bush what enchanted him the most about his time in the White House. I believe their mantra kept asking him to define all his mistakes and apologize for them, was sort of the routine question they’d bring up to him.

NOYES: I think there’s a reason why [White House Press Secretary] Robert Gibbs the other day gave the press corps an "A" for their performance. From the White House’s perspective, there’s nothing to complain about here.This is celebrity coverage. That’s the same kind of question you’d ask Princess Di if she was coming to the United States. What enchants you the most about this or something like that.

NOYES: So, I think this was a poor use of a press conference question. I think there were some good questions asked in that press conference as well, but I would say nothing that you’d call a hardball or a tough question. [They were all] basically news-gathering questions, and then you had these softballs that just sort of puffed the president up and made him giggle and laugh and look good.

An MRC study on the media’s bias in the first 100 days of the Obama presidency is forthcoming. For some preliminary findings, click here.

The Washington Post Hires Ultraliberal Blogger Ezra Klein

April 30, 2009

It seems that the Washington Post will soon be welcoming ultra-liberal hack blogger Ezra Klein to their online operations. Klein has often been the subject of stories by NewsBusters. This is what the Politico reported on the Post’s acquisition of Klein (h/t OTB):

The American Prospect’s Ezra Klein, one of the top bloggers on politics and policy, is heading to the Washington Post.

Rumors about Klein’s upcoming move spread on Wednesday night during a reception thrown by The Nation magazine in honor of D.C. bureau chief Chris Hayes.

A Post spokesperson confirmed to POLITICO this morning that Klein was hired as a blogger at washingtonpost.com and is expected to start in about a month.

The move continues a regrettable trend started with their hiring of Greg Sargent, who formerly worked for the far left Talking Points Memo, to run a blog at one of the Post’s websites. The addition of Sargent, an accomplished hack in his own right, was covered by Tim Graham here at NewsBusters. Tim quickly identified it as yet another example of the revolving door between liberal organizations and the mainstream media:

The revolving door first revolved the other way, with old Post vets like Thomas Edsall being hired by the Huffington Post. Now the revolving is going from partisan to "mainstream."

And, as I’m sure you’ve all figured out by now, Ezra Klein is about to become the latest to spin his way through that same door. However, Ezra’s welcome into the Washington Post is especially distressing given the countless acts of stupidity and vulgarity he has managed to commit in his short time as a prominent blogger.

Take, for example, his affinity for the ideas of the National Socialists:

Nazi Ideas

I’m with Jane Galt on this one: Not everything the Nazis touched was bad. Hitler was a vegetarian. Volkswagen is a perfectly good car company. Universal health care is a perfectly good idea. Indeed, the Nazis actually did a pretty good job increasing economic growth and improving standards of living (they were, many think, the first Keynesians, adopting the strategy even before Keynes had come up with it), pushing Germany out of a depression and back into expansion.

Yea… never mind that much of the Nazi’s economic expansion was due to their massive war build up set off by a megalomaniacal ambition to conquer the world. But, hey, at least Ezra finds a sentence to harshly condemn the Nazi’s for their horrifying atrocities:

Unfortunately, they also set out to conquer Europe and exterminate the Jews. People shouldn’t do that.

Ezra’s correct, people shouldn’t do that just like they shouldn’t marginalize the deaths of millions in order to try, and fail, to make political points.

But if his idiotic defense of Nazis isn’t enough to sink Ezra’s media aspirations in your mind then I suppose his vulgar attack on the late Tim Russert probably wont change your mind either (content warning):

Sadly, Klein didn’t stop there, for according to multiple sources including Unpopular Front and the liberal Wonkette, he later posted on the short-message blogging service called "Twitter,":

f*** tim russert. f*** him with a spiky acid-tipped d***.

And, I suppose, if you still think Ezra deserves a position at any news outlet then the fact that he is the founder of the famed vast left wing conspiracy that is "Journolist" wont turn you off to him either:

But don’t worry, this "journolist" is no great cabal of underground left-wing plotters attempting to co-opt the message emanating from the bowls of the Old Media. We know this cuz they told us so!

Move along…. nothing to see here.

Michael Calderone is soon going to find his invites to all the swankiest mau jacket required cocktail parties drying up if he keeps this sort of reporting up.

For the past two years, several hundred left-leaning bloggers, political reporters, magazine writers, policy wonks and academics have talked stories and compared notes in an off-the-record online meeting space called JournoList.

Proof of a vast liberal media conspiracy?

Not at all, says Ezra Klein, the 24-year-old American Prospect blogging wunderkind who formed JournoList in February 2007. “Basically,” he says, “it’s just a list where journalists and policy wonks can discuss issues freely.”

See, if ol’ Ezra says it’s cool, then dadgummit, whaterya’all worried about?

But, if you care about integrity in media and unbiased news reporting then you may be more than a little bit concerned about the Washington Post’s decision to hire such an undeserving hack. Unfortunately, it looks like the Washington Post is unconcerned with little things like integrity and professionalism.

After all, they’ve hired both Sargent and Klein without much thought or criticism. Compare that to the way conservative blogger Ben Domenech was received at the Post. Liberal readers where so incensed at the idea of a conservative being given a platform there that they immediately went on a expedition to dig up anything they could on him.

Certainly they turned up legitimate accusations of plagiarism, which Domenech rightfully resigned over, but that is beside the point here. The real lesson is that liberals can’t stand any conservative encroachment into their media and they will fight tooth and nail to remove them. If the real issue was plagiarism then liberals would have unearthed Domenech’s mistakes long before he made it to the Post.

And the Post is just fine with that. As is made clear by this case they are quick to fire conservatives at the first sign of trouble but they are more than alright with hiring liberals with a well documented and abundant history of outrages.

Obama-Fawning Over at the WaPo – Tom Shales Rhapsodic Over Obama Speech

April 30, 2009

As Tim Graham mentioned earlier, Washington Post Style-page columnist/TV critic Tom Shales went completely rhapsodic over President Obama’s speech last night. It’s a bizzaro read, actually. Starting with the headline, "Obama’s Enchanting Quizfest" and continuing with descriptors like "earnestly," "disarmingly," "enchantingly" (again), "comfortingly cool and collected," "truly flabbergasting" (in a good way, pretty sure he means), and so on. Shales even compares Obama to a comic-book hero. The level of abject fawning and slobbering on the part of Shales is itself truly flabbergasting (in not a good way, I mean). What possessed him to lose sense of appropriate professional tone in covering an elected official? Fine, you think the man is doing a great job in office. But as a journalist, why write it that way? Especially in the wake of Obama’s massive government expansion and take-over of the US economy, Shales really does a disservice to WaPo readers by abandoning a more balanced, detached and critical write-up of the Obama 100-day presser.

Obama-Enchanted, Part II: WaPo Art Critic Finds Smithsonian’s ‘Superstar’

April 30, 2009

Tom Shales wasn’t alone in praising Obama in the Washington Post today. Art critic Philip Kennicott acted embarrassed that the Smithsonian’s American history museum would already put on an exhibit honoring Barack Obama’s inauguration at the 100-day mark, even if they had a good reason:

The Smithsonian hasn’t mounted an exhibit like this, for a sitting president, in recent memory, if ever. And it’s not doing it because it’s historic — George W. Bush’s first election, which hung in the balance for weeks, was also historic — the Smithsonian is doing it because Obama has the peculiar, hard-to-define but easy-to-spot power of the superstar.

Obama trumps Reagan in image management, Kennicott declared:

We’ve come a long way since the press was wowed by President Ronald Reagan’s carefully constructed images. Although there were images of photographers photographing him, the ideal Reagan image eliminated the photographer in an effort to create a transparent, perfect window on the spectacle of power. Today, the presence of the photographer is celebrated. Obama is the cynosure of all lenses.

Cynosure? Dictionary.com defines it as "something that strongly attracts attention by its brilliance, interest, etc.: the cynosure of all eyes."

Kennicott even lamented how Obama lives in "the Jonas Brothers fishbowl," like a teen idol:

Obama is a strange hybrid of politician and celebrity, and so we see him in perfectly framed images, enacting political power, and we see him being borne down upon by hundreds of ominous cameras. Even the supposed victimization of the celebrity by the photographer — the "dark side" of celebrity — is hinted at in this exhibition. Obama doesn’t just suffer Kennedy’s "loneliness" of power, he lives in the Jonas Brothers fishbowl.

Kennicott’s usual loathing of George W. Bush is much subtler in this exercise, but his preference for Obama is still apparent:

Other images seem designed to emphasize the difference between Obama and his predecessor. A photograph of the two men talking during a pre-inaugural White House meeting shows Obama the Listener, juxtaposed with Bush the Decider. Bush emphasizes his point with his index finger tightly pinching his thumb, a hard, almost angry gesture. You can almost hear the old Bush tone, insistent, didactic, perhaps a little impatient.

Kennicott seemed embarrassed that the Smithsonian would be so quick to declare history before it’s barely unfolded, against the "best standards of museology." But he didn’t really wonder whether the Smithsonian’s curators are being cynical about their federal funding, or whether they’re simply Obama-enchanted, like the "critics" on the payroll of The Washington Post.

Nike Sasquatch Sumo 2 Luvky 13 Driver

April 30, 2009

Nike Sasquatch Sumo 2 Driver – As winners of the Golf Digest Editor’s Choice for drivers in 2006, it was a challenge course, the original all-titanium Sasquatch Drivers again to improve. What the original did so well, makes the new Sasquatch SUMO is even better – a new Nike PowerBow geometry will result in even [...]

← Previous Entries

cross channel ferry
Find cheap ferry tickets quickly - Channel Ferries a fast way to search for a cross channel ferry ticket online.

Honda Civic Blog
Honda Civic Blog, Unofficial articles of all Honda Civic enthusiasts.

iPhone Blog
iphone blog: iphone news, reviews, and opinion

Partner links