![\"GovernmentMotors0609\"](\"http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx40/mmatters/GovernmentMotors0609.jpg\")
\n\n
If your blood pressure can stand it, you can learn a lot about how the Apparatachik Press -- er, the Associated Press -- operates as you watch a news story evolve, or I should say devolve. The wire service often reworks adequately-written stories with no new developments for no apparent reason other than to add bias and/or remove inconvenient truths.
\nA classic example of this occurred in the situation involving Barack Obama, Henry Louis Gates, and Cambridge, Massachusetts police in late July (covered at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog). AP reporter Nancy Benac's headline went from "Obama Rushes to Quell Racial Uproar He Helped Fire" on a Friday evening to "Obama Moves to Dampen Uproar on Comment Over Race" on a Saturday morning, even though there had been no new developments in the story. The later story's text was heavily revised, totally deleting an accurate opening paragraph about the president being "knocked off stride" and trying to "tamp down the controversy," leaving readers of that version with the impression that Obama had become the conciliator in the controversy instead of the being its fueler.
\nAnother AP devolution took place between Thursday afternoon and early this morning. An already pretty weak story that bordered on being a PR piece about a two-month new vehicle refund offer by Government Motors -- er, General Motors -- only got worse in subsequent revisions.
\nFor starters, here are the respective headlines and first paragraphs from Thursday afternoon at 3:47 p.m., Thursday evening at 10:27 p.m., and Friday morning at 5:38 a.m., respectively (links are to full versions of articles saved at my host here, here, and here, for fair use and discussion purposes):
\n![\"APstoryDevolvutionGM091009\"](\"http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx40/mmatters/APstoryDevolvutionGM091009.jpg\")
Note how the need "to regain consumers' trust" and to "win them back" disappeared from Emily Fredrix's initial paragraph. Though the next paragraph in the second and third renditions refers to how GM "aims to win back customers leery of GM since it filed for bankruptcy protection earlier this year," the word "trust" disappeared entirely. By Version 3, the words in the headline and first paragraph were predominantly positive.
\nIn Versions 2 and 3, Fredrix did refer to importance of making customers "less reluctant to buy" -- in the second-last paragraph out of 17 in each instance. She saved her last paragraph for a person labeled as coming from "a Web site that follows and is often critical of the auto industry and GM," who characterized the company's move as "a Hail Mary pass." That's nice, but many if not most readers won't get that far, and subscribing publications and broadcasting outlets will often leave it on the cutting-room floor.
\nNo AP report of the three ever tells readers that the federal government now owns the majority of GM. The fact that Versions 2 and 3 manage to mention in their second paragraphs that GM "needs to improve sales so it can repay billions in government loans and stay in business" is in a way helpful. But it also gives the impression, in the absence of an ownership disclosure, that lending represents the full extent of the government's financial involvement.
\nNo one who reads any of the three AP reports will learn how much money has been thrown into the company's bailout by taxpayers and other unwilling parties (at least $49.9 billion, plus billions more in value obtained through contract law-violating disproportionate treatment of the company's unsecured bondholders), or that the Congressional Oversight Panel on Wednesday predicted that it is "highly unlikely" that taxpayers will fully recoup their auto-bailout .... (excuse me, I had to pick myself up off the floor after breaking out in convulsions of laughter) .... "investments."
\nPerhaps readers might excuse AP for not bringing up GM's baggage in a marketing story. But in a report that is really about a company trying to regain its footing, Fredrix failed to note one of the main reasons -- if not THE main reason -- why GM's sales have been falling. That reason goes well beyond the products, product quality, or even that GM went through a bankruptcy.
\nThe fact is that enough consumers to matter have been shunning the company's vehicles because they opposed its bailout by taxpayers -- either on principle, or out of concerns that a government-owned operation won't keep its warranty and other promises. Further, the substantial number of people who feel this way aren't likely to put their opposition aside any time soon.
\nI'm not saying this, pollsters Rasmussen and Gallup are:
\nBut in AP's world, GM's trust issue all but disappeared in the space of 14 hours. How did that happen?
\nIn early May, AP reporters Kimberly Johnson and Dan Stumpf, in a nice bit of honest reporting, opened a story about April car sales by telling readers that "Detroit's Big Three is becoming Ford and the other two." Since then, the AP reports I have seen have largely glossed over the continuing market share declines at GM and Chrysler. Only the few who dig into the detail such as that found at the Wall Street Journal's monthly auto sales report know that:
\nTidbits like these and other are virtually absent from AP reports, while the negatives coming out of GM and Chrysler are often minimized or described in vague terms. That now seems to include the monthly missives from Johnson and Strumpf (August example here).
\nAs long as AP engages the kind of truth avoidance described here, and despite occasional heartening exceptions, including one cited here on a different topic yesterday by NewsBusters, calling the wire service the Apparatchik Press will be too close to the truth for comfort.
\nCross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
\n"; Author[0] = "Tom Blumer"; Link[0] = "http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/09/11/devolution-revised-ap-reports-gm-whitewash-trust-problem-ignore-real-cau"; Cat[0] = "\n
If your blood pressure can stand it, you can learn a lot about how the Apparatachik Press -- er, the Associated Press -- operates as you watch a news story evolve, or I should say devolve. The wire service often reworks adequately-written stories with no new developments for no apparent reason other than to add bias and/or remove inconvenient truths.
\nA classic example of this occurred in the situation involving Barack Obama, Henry Louis Gates, and Cambridge, Massachusetts police in late July (covered at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog). AP reporter Nancy Benac's headline went from "Obama Rushes to Quell Racial Uproar He Helped Fire" on a Friday evening to "Obama Moves to Dampen Uproar on Comment Over Race" on a Saturday morning, even though there had been no new developments in the story. The later story's text was heavily revised, totally deleting an accurate opening paragraph about the president being "knocked off stride" and trying to "tamp down the controversy," leaving readers of that version with the impression that Obama had become the conciliator in the controversy instead of the being its fueler.
\nAnother AP devolution took place between Thursday afternoon and early this morning. An already pretty weak story that bordered on being a PR piece about a two-month new vehicle refund offer by Government Motors -- er, General Motors -- only got worse in subsequent revisions.
\nFor starters, here are the respective headlines and first paragraphs from Thursday afternoon at 3:47 p.m., Thursday evening at 10:27 p.m., and Friday morning at 5:38 a.m., respectively (links are to full versions of articles saved at my host here, here, and here, for fair use and discussion purposes):
\n
Note how the need "to regain consumers' trust" and to "win them back" disappeared from Emily Fredrix's initial paragraph. Though the next paragraph in the second and third renditions refers to how GM "aims to win back customers leery of GM since it filed for bankruptcy protection earlier this year," the word "trust" disappeared entirely. By Version 3, the words in the headline and first paragraph were predominantly positive.
\nIn Versions 2 and 3, Fredrix did refer to importance of making customers "less reluctant to buy" -- in the second-last paragraph out of 17 in each instance. She saved her last paragraph for a person labeled as coming from "a Web site that follows and is often critical of the auto industry and GM," who characterized the company's move as "a Hail Mary pass." That's nice, but many if not most readers won't get that far, and subscribing publications and broadcasting outlets will often leave it on the cutting-room floor.
\nNo AP report of the three ever tells readers that the federal government now owns the majority of GM. The fact that Versions 2 and 3 manage to mention in their second paragraphs that GM "needs to improve sales so it can repay billions in government loans and stay in business" is in a way helpful. But it also gives the impression, in the absence of an ownership disclosure, that lending represents the full extent of the government's financial involvement.
\nNo one who reads any of the three AP reports will learn how much money has been thrown into the company's bailout by taxpayers and other unwilling parties (at least $49.9 billion, plus billions more in value obtained through contract law-violating disproportionate treatment of the company's unsecured bondholders), or that the Congressional Oversight Panel on Wednesday predicted that it is "highly unlikely" that taxpayers will fully recoup their auto-bailout .... (excuse me, I had to pick myself up off the floor after breaking out in convulsions of laughter) .... "investments."
\nPerhaps readers might excuse AP for not bringing up GM's baggage in a marketing story. But in a report that is really about a company trying to regain its footing, Fredrix failed to note one of the main reasons -- if not THE main reason -- why GM's sales have been falling. That reason goes well beyond the products, product quality, or even that GM went through a bankruptcy.
\nThe fact is that enough consumers to matter have been shunning the company's vehicles because they opposed its bailout by taxpayers -- either on principle, or out of concerns that a government-owned operation won't keep its warranty and other promises. Further, the substantial number of people who feel this way aren't likely to put their opposition aside any time soon.
\nI'm not saying this, pollsters Rasmussen and Gallup are:
\nBut in AP's world, GM's trust issue all but disappeared in the space of 14 hours. How did that happen?
\nIn early May, AP reporters Kimberly Johnson and Dan Stumpf, in a nice bit of honest reporting, opened a story about April car sales by telling readers that "Detroit's Big Three is becoming Ford and the other two." Since then, the AP reports I have seen have largely glossed over the continuing market share declines at GM and Chrysler. Only the few who dig into the detail such as that found at the Wall Street Journal's monthly auto sales report know that:
\nTidbits like these and other are virtually absent from AP reports, while the negatives coming out of GM and Chrysler are often minimized or described in vague terms. That now seems to include the monthly missives from Johnson and Strumpf (August example here).
\nAs long as AP engages the kind of truth avoidance described here, and despite occasional heartening exceptions, including one cited here on a different topic yesterday by NewsBusters, calling the wire service the Apparatchik Press will be too close to the truth for comfort.
\nCross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
\n![](\"http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2009/03/26/image4895854g.jpg\")
On a day in which the AP found newsworthiness in scandals involving both Democrats and Republicans, only one party was expressly identified within the articles. Can you guess which one?
It is the grand AP tradition known as 'Name That Party' - a tradition which includes the following:
\nThat's just a brief summary of the more recent transgressions committed by the AP.
\nIn their story covering the taped sex comments of Assemblyman Mike Duvall, the AP has no problem identifying the lawmaker as a Republican. In fact, they label him as such within the headline:
\n\nCalif. GOP lawmaker quits over taped sex comments
\n
Yet, when it comes to a story involving the 48-count indictment of two former Pennsylvania judges Michael Conahan and Mark Ciavarella Jr., accused of taking millions of dollars in kickbacks, the word Democrat is nowhere to be found. This news, it would seem, was not even worthy of a capital 'D'.
\nWhile affairs such as Duvall's are abhorrent and should be condemned, what the judges from Pennsylvania did can be considered far worse - sending kids that never deserved such harsh punishment to detention centers, scarring them for life.
\nThe Duvall article is so thorough in its party identification, that it not only mentions this in the title, it goes on to sprinkle in such phrases as:
\nOddly enough, the AP also saw fit to identify every other name mentioned within the article with their respective party, including:
\nWhen it comes to news involving a kids-for-cash scandal on the other hand, the editors at the AP are unable to locate the 'D' key.
\nThis, of course, comes as no surprise to readers of NewsBusters, as the coverage of the kids-for-cash judges, and the AP's choice to remove their party label has been chronicled by Tom Blumer in the past.
\nPhoto Credit: AP Photo via CBSNews.com
\n"; Author[1] = "Rusty Weiss"; Link[1] = "http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rusty-weiss/2009/09/11/ap-continues-trend-failing-identify-democrats-embroiled-scandal"; Cat[1] = "\nOn a day in which the AP found newsworthiness in scandals involving both Democrats and Republicans, only one party was expressly identified within the articles. Can you guess which one?
It is the grand AP tradition known as 'Name That Party' - a tradition which includes the following:
\nThat's just a brief summary of the more recent transgressions committed by the AP.
\nIn their story covering the taped sex comments of Assemblyman Mike Duvall, the AP has no problem identifying the lawmaker as a Republican. In fact, they label him as such within the headline:
\n\nCalif. GOP lawmaker quits over taped sex comments
\n
Yet, when it comes to a story involving the 48-count indictment of two former Pennsylvania judges Michael Conahan and Mark Ciavarella Jr., accused of taking millions of dollars in kickbacks, the word Democrat is nowhere to be found. This news, it would seem, was not even worthy of a capital 'D'.
\nWhile affairs such as Duvall's are abhorrent and should be condemned, what the judges from Pennsylvania did can be considered far worse - sending kids that never deserved such harsh punishment to detention centers, scarring them for life.
\nThe Duvall article is so thorough in its party identification, that it not only mentions this in the title, it goes on to sprinkle in such phrases as:
\nOddly enough, the AP also saw fit to identify every other name mentioned within the article with their respective party, including:
\nWhen it comes to news involving a kids-for-cash scandal on the other hand, the editors at the AP are unable to locate the 'D' key.
\nThis, of course, comes as no surprise to readers of NewsBusters, as the coverage of the kids-for-cash judges, and the AP's choice to remove their party label has been chronicled by Tom Blumer in the past.
\nPhoto Credit: AP Photo via CBSNews.com
\n![](\"/static/2009/09/Sarah%20Palin%20Tells%20People%20to%20Thank%20a%20Veteran%20on%20911%27s%20Anniversary.jpg\")
Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has some outstanding advice for all Americans on the 8th anniversary of 9/11:
Please thank a veteran today. They certainly do not look for those thanks, but they have more than earned it.
Her entire Facebook note concerning today's anniversary follows:
Remembering 9/11: We Are AmericansIt has been eight years since the United States suffered the worst attack on our soil since Pearl Harbor. As we look back, we should take stock of what has transpired since then. We have sent our nation's soldiers into battlefields far from home to defend us. These brave men and women live in treacherous conditions, facing improvised roadside bombs, suicide bombers and other attacks. Yet they fight on in their mission to defend the United States and all of us without complaint.
Our all-volunteer service is made up of Americans of all races, creeds, and economic backgrounds. These soldiers are on the front lines of this battle, and there are others in the fight as well. We must continue to give our utmost support to the United States military and those that support their efforts. In light of this, I have added my name to a letter sent to President Obama urging him to remain committed to prosecuting the War on Terror in Afghanistan. Never have so few defended the liberty of so many. We must continue to support their mission because they will continue to fight for us.
President Reagan ended his first inaugural with this story:
Under one such marker lies a young man-Martin Treptow-who left his job in a small town barber shop in 1917 to go to France with the famed Rainbow Division. There, on the western front, he was killed trying to carry a message between battalions under heavy artillery fire. We are told that on his body was found a diary. On the flyleaf under the heading, "My Pledge," he had written these words: "America must win this war. Therefore, I will work, I will save, I will sacrifice, I will endure, I will fight cheerfully and do my utmost, as if the issue of the whole struggle depended on me alone." The crisis we are facing today does not require of us the kind of sacrifice that Martin Treptow and so many thousands of others were called upon to make. It does require, however, our best effort, and our willingness to believe in ourselves and to believe in our capacity to perform great deeds; to believe that together, with God's help, we can and will resolve the problems which now confront us. And, after all, why shouldn't we believe that? We are Americans. God bless you, and thank you.
As we look back to that tragic day eight years ago we take pride in the fact that we came together as a nation in the days, months and years that followed. We rose to the challenge that fateful day and we still can. And why shouldn't we believe that? We are Americans.
I thank all our servicemen and women, in and out of uniform, for keeping us safe over the last eight years in the face of enormous odds.
Please thank a veteran today. They certainly do not look for those thanks, but they have more than earned it.
- Sarah Palin
Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has some outstanding advice for all Americans on the 8th anniversary of 9/11:
Please thank a veteran today. They certainly do not look for those thanks, but they have more than earned it.
Her entire Facebook note concerning today's anniversary follows:
Remembering 9/11: We Are AmericansIt has been eight years since the United States suffered the worst attack on our soil since Pearl Harbor. As we look back, we should take stock of what has transpired since then. We have sent our nation's soldiers into battlefields far from home to defend us. These brave men and women live in treacherous conditions, facing improvised roadside bombs, suicide bombers and other attacks. Yet they fight on in their mission to defend the United States and all of us without complaint.
Our all-volunteer service is made up of Americans of all races, creeds, and economic backgrounds. These soldiers are on the front lines of this battle, and there are others in the fight as well. We must continue to give our utmost support to the United States military and those that support their efforts. In light of this, I have added my name to a letter sent to President Obama urging him to remain committed to prosecuting the War on Terror in Afghanistan. Never have so few defended the liberty of so many. We must continue to support their mission because they will continue to fight for us.
President Reagan ended his first inaugural with this story:
Under one such marker lies a young man-Martin Treptow-who left his job in a small town barber shop in 1917 to go to France with the famed Rainbow Division. There, on the western front, he was killed trying to carry a message between battalions under heavy artillery fire. We are told that on his body was found a diary. On the flyleaf under the heading, "My Pledge," he had written these words: "America must win this war. Therefore, I will work, I will save, I will sacrifice, I will endure, I will fight cheerfully and do my utmost, as if the issue of the whole struggle depended on me alone." The crisis we are facing today does not require of us the kind of sacrifice that Martin Treptow and so many thousands of others were called upon to make. It does require, however, our best effort, and our willingness to believe in ourselves and to believe in our capacity to perform great deeds; to believe that together, with God's help, we can and will resolve the problems which now confront us. And, after all, why shouldn't we believe that? We are Americans. God bless you, and thank you.
As we look back to that tragic day eight years ago we take pride in the fact that we came together as a nation in the days, months and years that followed. We rose to the challenge that fateful day and we still can. And why shouldn't we believe that? We are Americans.
I thank all our servicemen and women, in and out of uniform, for keeping us safe over the last eight years in the face of enormous odds.
Please thank a veteran today. They certainly do not look for those thanks, but they have more than earned it.
- Sarah Palin
For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: what does the 8th anniversary of 9/11 mean to you and the nation?
\n"; Author[3] = "NB Staff"; Link[3] = "http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2009/09/11/open-thread"; Cat[3] = "\nFor general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: what does the 8th anniversary of 9/11 mean to you and the nation?
\nJake Tapper has distinguished himself within the White House press corps as someone consistently willing to pose probing questions to the president and his aides. But on today's Good Morning America, ABC's chief White House correspondent used a particularly unflattering metaphor for Rep. Joe Wilson and his decision to go on Fox News to defend himself. As a clip of Rep. Wilson on last night's Sean Hannity show rolled . . .
JAKE TAPPER: Although Wilson apologized to the White House for his lack of civility, he quickly took to the limelight of conservative media like a moth to a flame.Just an hour before Wilson went on with Hannity, Olbermann devoted an entire Special Comment to denigrating the SC Republican, referring to him as "stupid," "pathetic," and likening him to "a drunk" at a ballgame.
Jake Tapper has distinguished himself within the White House press corps as someone consistently willing to pose probing questions to the president and his aides. But on today's Good Morning America, ABC's chief White House correspondent used a particularly unflattering metaphor for Rep. Joe Wilson and his decision to go on Fox News to defend himself. As a clip of Rep. Wilson on last night's Sean Hannity show rolled . . .
JAKE TAPPER: Although Wilson apologized to the White House for his lack of civility, he quickly took to the limelight of conservative media like a moth to a flame.Just an hour before Wilson went on with Hannity, Olbermann devoted an entire Special Comment to denigrating the SC Republican, referring to him as "stupid," "pathetic," and likening him to "a drunk" at a ballgame.
![](\"/media/2007-01-23-PBS-SOTU-Brooks.jpg\")
In the first few moments after Barack Obama's speech to Congress on Wednesday night, PBS anchor Jim Lehrer turned to his allegedly liberal vs. conservative duo of pundits, Mark Shields and David Brooks. Shields said the speech was terrific, the best speech of his presidency. Brooks said....the speech was terrific, the best speech of his presidency. Without a Bob Dole flourish about deficits, a viewer would scarcely know there was any difference in opinion.
Shields hailed how Obama had put down the "the slanders and libels" about ObamaCare, and the first words out of the mouth of Brooks? "I agree with Mark." He may not have agreed with the "libels" line, but he never objected to it. He found Obama's exploitation of Ted Kennedy "moving" and then said the center was Obama's "natural milieu." It's too bad conservatives don't seem to have a spokesman on the tax-funded network:
\n\nLEHRER: Now we have some reaction to what the president said from Mark Shields and David Brooks. Mark? First, your overview.
\nSHIELDS: I think it worked. I think it was Barack Obama’s strongest speech that I’ve heard since the campaign, maybe since the Reverend Wright speech. He made the case on every possible ground. He reassured the groups that had to be reassured, those in Medicare in particular, those who have insurance. I thought he laid down the moral challenge, and made the practical argument.
\nIn a strange way, Jim, what may have helped him the most was when he made the Republicans, of the slanders and libels that have been raised against the proposals, and he talked about there would be no bureaucrats, panels to kill off senior citizens, and the Republicans sat on their hands. [They were supposed to applaud being called slanderers?]
\nHe had to energize Democrats tonight, and I think he energized Democrats. And I think he did make the effort to reach out to Republicans.
\nLEHRER: What do you think, David?
\nBROOKS: I agree with Mark. I thought it was his best speech as president. I thought, maybe since the campaign. It was very effective in laying out, explaining the idea at the end. I thought the Teddy Kennedy part was very – moving, very strong. I thought the little peroration on his governing philosophy was very strong. It was sort of down the middle – ‘The right believes this, the left believes that, I’m just a pragmatist here in the center.’ I think that’s his natural milieu, natural mode. I think he expressed it well. There were a few lines that leapt out at me. Promising not to sign anything that will increase the deficit, now or in the future. There’s not a bill out there within hundreds of billions of dollars of that, but it’s a strong promise. He made it very clearly. But overall, I thought, quite outstanding speech.
\n
He talked nonsense, but he talked it clearly and brilliantly?
\nThe Lehrer show once had a terrific and yet mild-mannered conservative in Paul Gigot of the Wall Street Journal editorial page. Before that, they had the oleaginous David Gergen in the "conservative" spot. Brooks is much more Gergenesque. In the absence of Brooks, Lehrer's producers have used National Review's Rich Lowry and Ramesh Ponnuru. Either would be much better than the current Mark Shields echo chamber.
\nAs long as we're recalling Obama's brilliance during the presidential campaign, it's easy to remember Brooks comparing Obama after one fall debate to both a redwood forest and a mountain.
\nFeel free to offer your thoughts to PBS ombudsman Michael Getler (with courtesy, please).
\n"; Author[5] = "Tim Graham"; Link[5] = "http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2009/09/11/david-brooks-pbs-echo-not-choice"; Cat[5] = "\nIn the first few moments after Barack Obama's speech to Congress on Wednesday night, PBS anchor Jim Lehrer turned to his allegedly liberal vs. conservative duo of pundits, Mark Shields and David Brooks. Shields said the speech was terrific, the best speech of his presidency. Brooks said....the speech was terrific, the best speech of his presidency. Without a Bob Dole flourish about deficits, a viewer would scarcely know there was any difference in opinion.
Shields hailed how Obama had put down the "the slanders and libels" about ObamaCare, and the first words out of the mouth of Brooks? "I agree with Mark." He may not have agreed with the "libels" line, but he never objected to it. He found Obama's exploitation of Ted Kennedy "moving" and then said the center was Obama's "natural milieu." It's too bad conservatives don't seem to have a spokesman on the tax-funded network:
\n\nLEHRER: Now we have some reaction to what the president said from Mark Shields and David Brooks. Mark? First, your overview.
\nSHIELDS: I think it worked. I think it was Barack Obama’s strongest speech that I’ve heard since the campaign, maybe since the Reverend Wright speech. He made the case on every possible ground. He reassured the groups that had to be reassured, those in Medicare in particular, those who have insurance. I thought he laid down the moral challenge, and made the practical argument.
\nIn a strange way, Jim, what may have helped him the most was when he made the Republicans, of the slanders and libels that have been raised against the proposals, and he talked about there would be no bureaucrats, panels to kill off senior citizens, and the Republicans sat on their hands. [They were supposed to applaud being called slanderers?]
\nHe had to energize Democrats tonight, and I think he energized Democrats. And I think he did make the effort to reach out to Republicans.
\nLEHRER: What do you think, David?
\nBROOKS: I agree with Mark. I thought it was his best speech as president. I thought, maybe since the campaign. It was very effective in laying out, explaining the idea at the end. I thought the Teddy Kennedy part was very – moving, very strong. I thought the little peroration on his governing philosophy was very strong. It was sort of down the middle – ‘The right believes this, the left believes that, I’m just a pragmatist here in the center.’ I think that’s his natural milieu, natural mode. I think he expressed it well. There were a few lines that leapt out at me. Promising not to sign anything that will increase the deficit, now or in the future. There’s not a bill out there within hundreds of billions of dollars of that, but it’s a strong promise. He made it very clearly. But overall, I thought, quite outstanding speech.
\n
He talked nonsense, but he talked it clearly and brilliantly?
\nThe Lehrer show once had a terrific and yet mild-mannered conservative in Paul Gigot of the Wall Street Journal editorial page. Before that, they had the oleaginous David Gergen in the "conservative" spot. Brooks is much more Gergenesque. In the absence of Brooks, Lehrer's producers have used National Review's Rich Lowry and Ramesh Ponnuru. Either would be much better than the current Mark Shields echo chamber.
\nAs long as we're recalling Obama's brilliance during the presidential campaign, it's easy to remember Brooks comparing Obama after one fall debate to both a redwood forest and a mountain.
\nFeel free to offer your thoughts to PBS ombudsman Michael Getler (with courtesy, please).
\n![](\"http://media.eyeblast.org/newsbusters/static/2009/09/2009-09-05-CBS-EN-Phi.jpg\")
On Saturday’s CBS Evening News, correspondent Mark Phillips filed a report that lends credibility to the conservative or libertarian theory that too much regulation can be counterproductive and even lead to results opposite to those intended, as he highlighted a town in the Netherlands that took the seemingly radical step of removing all its traffic lights and road signs. Rather than resulting in more dangerous roads, the number of traffic accidents dropped substantially, presumably because road users – which even includes many bicyclists and pedestrians – were forced to think for themselves to navigate the intersections in the absence of rules set by the government.
Anchor Jeff Glor introduced the report: "Can you imagine having no traffic lights or signs or any other way of keeping cars and people apart? The results would be dangerous chaos, right? Well, Mark Phillips tells us what happened when one town in Holland tried."
\nPhillips began his report by recounting the story of the busiest intersection in Drachten, in the Netherlands, where – despite the presence of many bicyclists and pedestrians – the removal of traffic lights resulted in a reduction in accidents:
\n\nThe normal civic response here and elsewhere has been to put in more traffic lights, divide the roadway into lanes, control things. But the response in Drachten has been the opposite. They took the controls away, and a funny thing happened. The accident rate around this intersection went down – way down – from more than eight a year to fewer than two.
\n
After describing the "Shared Space" theory of urban planning, Phillips clarified that the approach relies on individual responsibility: "The idea is that this takes responsibility away from the traffic engineers and puts it on the individual."
\nNow, if only CBS would realize that a similar principle of encouraging individuals to think for themselves would also work better on issues like saving for retirement or choosing a school for one’s children.
\nBelow is a complete transcript of the report from the Saturday, September 5, CBS Evening News:
\n\n"; Author[6] = "Brad Wilmouth"; Link[6] = "http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2009/09/11/cbs-finds-less-govt-regulation-means-fewer-traffic-accidents-dutch-town"; Cat[6] = "\n\n
JEFF GLOR: Can you imagine having no traffic lights or signs or any other way of keeping cars and people apart? The results would be dangerous chaos, right? Well, Mark Phillips tells us what happened when one town in Holland tried.
MARK PHILLIPS: They've got a lot of faith in human nature in the small Dutch down of Drachten. Its main intersection is a busy place where cars and trucks compete with people on bicycles and others on foot. The normal civic response here and elsewhere has been to put in more traffic lights, divide the roadway into lanes, control things. But the response in Drachten has been the opposite. They took the controls away, and a funny thing happened. The accident rate around this intersection went down – way down – from more than eight a year to fewer than two.
\nNIESKE KETELAAR, CITY COUNSELOR OF DRACHTEN, THE NETHERLANDS: We wanted to appeal to social behavior, people's own behavior and responsibility.
\nPHILLIPS: The city council here decided to implement a new philosophy in urban planning called "Shared Space." Left to their own devices, the thinking goes, people use their own devices.
\nKETELAAR: A little bit of chaos helps people to think for themselves, be alert and react on the situation.
\nPHILLIPS: Not far away, in the village of Makkinga, the sign you see as you approach town is the last sign you'll see. All traffic signals and notices have been removed. Everyone – from school kids to truck drivers – is on their own.
\nMARLIES BOUMA, TEACHER: You see the children looking, where can I cross? What's a good place to cross?
\nPHILLIPS: The whole point of the "Shared Space" idea is that it changes behavior. Drivers no longer look for road signs or traffic lights. They look for people on foot or on bicycles. People on bikes have to watch out for themselves and for those in cars and on foot. And those walking have to watch out for everybody. The idea is that this takes responsibility away from the traffic engineers and puts it on the individual. The idea is catching on in bigger places. There are now "Shared Space" schemes in several countries in Western Europe and some being considered in America.
\nBEN HAMILTON-BAILLIE, SHARED SPACE DESIGNER: As soon as you remove the certainty provided by signals and lines and regulation, then the attitude of drivers changes completely. This is one of the paradoxes-
\nPHILLIPS: That’s a tough sell, though.
\nHAMILTON-BAILLIE: It's a tough sell. It's very difficult, and it's not surprising that people feel uncomfortable with this idea. It takes a while.
\nPHILLIPS: But where it's been tried, the people and the dropping accident statistics say it works. Mark Phillips, CBS News, Drachten, Holland.
\n
On Saturday’s CBS Evening News, correspondent Mark Phillips filed a report that lends credibility to the conservative or libertarian theory that too much regulation can be counterproductive and even lead to results opposite to those intended, as he highlighted a town in the Netherlands that took the seemingly radical step of removing all its traffic lights and road signs. Rather than resulting in more dangerous roads, the number of traffic accidents dropped substantially, presumably because road users – which even includes many bicyclists and pedestrians – were forced to think for themselves to navigate the intersections in the absence of rules set by the government.
Anchor Jeff Glor introduced the report: "Can you imagine having no traffic lights or signs or any other way of keeping cars and people apart? The results would be dangerous chaos, right? Well, Mark Phillips tells us what happened when one town in Holland tried."
\nPhillips began his report by recounting the story of the busiest intersection in Drachten, in the Netherlands, where – despite the presence of many bicyclists and pedestrians – the removal of traffic lights resulted in a reduction in accidents:
\n\nThe normal civic response here and elsewhere has been to put in more traffic lights, divide the roadway into lanes, control things. But the response in Drachten has been the opposite. They took the controls away, and a funny thing happened. The accident rate around this intersection went down – way down – from more than eight a year to fewer than two.
\n
After describing the "Shared Space" theory of urban planning, Phillips clarified that the approach relies on individual responsibility: "The idea is that this takes responsibility away from the traffic engineers and puts it on the individual."
\nNow, if only CBS would realize that a similar principle of encouraging individuals to think for themselves would also work better on issues like saving for retirement or choosing a school for one’s children.
\nBelow is a complete transcript of the report from the Saturday, September 5, CBS Evening News:
\n\n\n
MARK PHILLIPS: They've got a lot of faith in human nature in the small Dutch down of Drachten. Its main intersection is a busy place where cars and trucks compete with people on bicycles and others on foot. The normal civic response here and elsewhere has been to put in more traffic lights, divide the roadway into lanes, control things. But the response in Drachten has been the opposite. They took the controls away, and a funny thing happened. The accident rate around this intersection went down – way down – from more than eight a year to fewer than two.
\nNIESKE KETELAAR, CITY COUNSELOR OF DRACHTEN, THE NETHERLANDS: We wanted to appeal to social behavior, people's own behavior and responsibility.
\nPHILLIPS: The city council here decided to implement a new philosophy in urban planning called "Shared Space." Left to their own devices, the thinking goes, people use their own devices.
\nKETELAAR: A little bit of chaos helps people to think for themselves, be alert and react on the situation.
\nPHILLIPS: Not far away, in the village of Makkinga, the sign you see as you approach town is the last sign you'll see. All traffic signals and notices have been removed. Everyone – from school kids to truck drivers – is on their own.
\nMARLIES BOUMA, TEACHER: You see the children looking, where can I cross? What's a good place to cross?
\nPHILLIPS: The whole point of the "Shared Space" idea is that it changes behavior. Drivers no longer look for road signs or traffic lights. They look for people on foot or on bicycles. People on bikes have to watch out for themselves and for those in cars and on foot. And those walking have to watch out for everybody. The idea is that this takes responsibility away from the traffic engineers and puts it on the individual. The idea is catching on in bigger places. There are now "Shared Space" schemes in several countries in Western Europe and some being considered in America.
\nBEN HAMILTON-BAILLIE, SHARED SPACE DESIGNER: As soon as you remove the certainty provided by signals and lines and regulation, then the attitude of drivers changes completely. This is one of the paradoxes-
\nPHILLIPS: That’s a tough sell, though.
\nHAMILTON-BAILLIE: It's a tough sell. It's very difficult, and it's not surprising that people feel uncomfortable with this idea. It takes a while.
\nPHILLIPS: But where it's been tried, the people and the dropping accident statistics say it works. Mark Phillips, CBS News, Drachten, Holland.
\n
![](\"http://www.ettc.net/njarts/examples/Franklin-Flagraising390.jpg\")
With the eight year anniversary of 9/11 mere hours away, the Associated Press has written a very moving, very emotional piece, focusing on victims who fear leaving the house on that day, victims who will never view that day as routine, victims who get a sick feeling in their stomach when the anniversary arrives each year - Muslims. \n
While nobody is promoting discrimination against any group of people based on the actions of a maniacal few, one has to question if the alleged terror experienced by Muslims on this anniversary warrants a focal point? On a day in which Americans take time to remember the devastation and the loss of life on 9/11, we are encouraged by the AP to feel sorry for those who might receive strange stares, or may 'feel' less safe on this day because they are Muslim.
\nYet there is little mention of Americans themselves who feel a little less safe on 9/11, because we remember being attacked on that day, we remember watching over 3,000 of our friends and family dying that day, we remember the screams of the heroes on Flight 93, the screams of women and men, mothers and fathers, wives and husbands, who desperately made an attempt to take back a plane scheduled for a suicide mission which surely would have killed many more.
\nA quote from Sarah Sayeed attempts to capture the anxiety of the day as she wonders, ‘should I go anywhere?' An appropriate question, but perhaps more so for Americans who asked themselves the same question weeks, months, and even years after the tragedy. There is no attempt to capture the anxiety of those who still give a quick glance up to the sky each time the sound of an airplane fills their ears.
\nThe elaborate sob story comes on the heels of another AP article which covers a recent survey indicating that Americans believe Muslims are a significant target for discrimination. The survey, provided by the Pew Research Center, shockingly finds that 58% of Americans, when questioned less than one month prior to the anniversary of the deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. soil, find that Muslims tend to be highly discriminated against.
\nThe AP would have you believe that the fear of backlash against Muslims ‘builds each 9/11'. Yet the Pew Research Center poll indicates that the American view of Islam as a violent religion has actually fluctuated over the last several years, and in fact has declined from 45% to 38% over the last two years. Meaning, tucked neatly away from the focus of the poll, is the fact that a majority of Americans do not currently view Islam as more likely to incite violence than other major religions - hardly a discriminatory mindset.
\nFurther breakdown of this survey indicates that younger people especially, believe Muslims face a high level of discrimination, with 73% of those aged 18-29 having this opinion. That's 73% of people who were between the age of 10 and 21 years old at the time of the attacks, feel that Muslims are discriminated against. Of course, this skews the numbers a touch. From a recent Newsweek article, millennial author Neil Howe states that children falling in this age range have taken the horror of 9/11, and transformed it into the fear that "strange people with motives we don't understand could be lurking among us."
\nThe discrimination against Muslims poll also found that the percentages were skewed by one particular political group with a significantly higher number - 80%. The group? Liberal democrats.
\nAll of this seems a bit odd considering the Pew Research Center conducted a similar poll over three years ago in which it was determined that 'Americans view Muslims favorably'.
\nIt seems that on a significant date in American history, the AP would rather focus on manufacturing sympathy for Muslims, than reporting on an actual tragedy for Americans.
\nPhoto Credit: 2001 The Record (Bergen County, NJ)/Thomas E. Franklin
\n"; Author[7] = "Rusty Weiss"; Link[7] = "http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rusty-weiss/2009/09/10/eve-9-11-ap-focuses-victims-muslims"; Cat[7] = "\nWith the eight year anniversary of 9/11 mere hours away, the Associated Press has written a very moving, very emotional piece, focusing on victims who fear leaving the house on that day, victims who will never view that day as routine, victims who get a sick feeling in their stomach when the anniversary arrives each year - Muslims. \n
While nobody is promoting discrimination against any group of people based on the actions of a maniacal few, one has to question if the alleged terror experienced by Muslims on this anniversary warrants a focal point? On a day in which Americans take time to remember the devastation and the loss of life on 9/11, we are encouraged by the AP to feel sorry for those who might receive strange stares, or may 'feel' less safe on this day because they are Muslim.
\nYet there is little mention of Americans themselves who feel a little less safe on 9/11, because we remember being attacked on that day, we remember watching over 3,000 of our friends and family dying that day, we remember the screams of the heroes on Flight 93, the screams of women and men, mothers and fathers, wives and husbands, who desperately made an attempt to take back a plane scheduled for a suicide mission which surely would have killed many more.
\nA quote from Sarah Sayeed attempts to capture the anxiety of the day as she wonders, ‘should I go anywhere?' An appropriate question, but perhaps more so for Americans who asked themselves the same question weeks, months, and even years after the tragedy. There is no attempt to capture the anxiety of those who still give a quick glance up to the sky each time the sound of an airplane fills their ears.
\nThe elaborate sob story comes on the heels of another AP article which covers a recent survey indicating that Americans believe Muslims are a significant target for discrimination. The survey, provided by the Pew Research Center, shockingly finds that 58% of Americans, when questioned less than one month prior to the anniversary of the deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. soil, find that Muslims tend to be highly discriminated against.
\nThe AP would have you believe that the fear of backlash against Muslims ‘builds each 9/11'. Yet the Pew Research Center poll indicates that the American view of Islam as a violent religion has actually fluctuated over the last several years, and in fact has declined from 45% to 38% over the last two years. Meaning, tucked neatly away from the focus of the poll, is the fact that a majority of Americans do not currently view Islam as more likely to incite violence than other major religions - hardly a discriminatory mindset.
\nFurther breakdown of this survey indicates that younger people especially, believe Muslims face a high level of discrimination, with 73% of those aged 18-29 having this opinion. That's 73% of people who were between the age of 10 and 21 years old at the time of the attacks, feel that Muslims are discriminated against. Of course, this skews the numbers a touch. From a recent Newsweek article, millennial author Neil Howe states that children falling in this age range have taken the horror of 9/11, and transformed it into the fear that "strange people with motives we don't understand could be lurking among us."
\nThe discrimination against Muslims poll also found that the percentages were skewed by one particular political group with a significantly higher number - 80%. The group? Liberal democrats.
\nAll of this seems a bit odd considering the Pew Research Center conducted a similar poll over three years ago in which it was determined that 'Americans view Muslims favorably'.
\nIt seems that on a significant date in American history, the AP would rather focus on manufacturing sympathy for Muslims, than reporting on an actual tragedy for Americans.
\nPhoto Credit: 2001 The Record (Bergen County, NJ)/Thomas E. Franklin
\n![](\"http://media.eyeblast.org/newsbusters/static/2009/gwhoax.jpg\")
If...could...would.
That pretty much sums up the "scientific" analysis in a Chicago Tribune story warning of the terrible warming the Windy City will be enduring in the not too distant future. Never mind that Chicago has been experiencing much colder than normal weather this year as your humble correspondent noted last June when quoting the WGN Weather Center blog:
\n\nThe cloudy, chilly and rainy open to June here has been the talk of the town. So far this June is running more than 12 degrees cooler than last year, and the clouds, rain and chilly lake winds have been persistent. The average temperature at O'Hare International Airport through Friday has been only 59.5 degrees: nearly 7 degrees below normal and the coldest since records there began 50 years ago.
\n
However, the weather that is actually occurring in Chicago is completely overlooked in the global warming warning story based on sheer speculation by Jim Tankersley:
\n\nIf global warming continues unchecked, Chicago would see a repeat of the killer 1995 heat wave every summer by the middle of the century, an environmental group says in a study released Wednesday.
\n
Big if there, Jim. Especially since global warming is hardly continuing unchecked in Chicago. It's more like global cooling in that city but why toss inconvenient facts in your direction when it interferes with the global warming fairy tale:
\n\nThe report from the Union of Concerned Scientists also predicts that the city's air quality would deteriorate if humans do not scale back greenhouse gas emissions dramatically.
\nIllinois farmers would suffer from droughts, pests and flooding that would more than outweigh any potential benefits from a longer growing season caused by warmer temperatures. Heat stress in cattle could force the state's dairy industry to migrate north.
\n"Global warming represents an enormous challenge to Illinois' way of life and its residents' livelihoods," the authors write in conclusion.
\n
Ah yes, the far left Union of Concerned Scientists funded by the equally far left Tides Foundation. Not much of an agenda there, eh?
\nLet us now search in vain for even the slightest hint of what the weather Chicago has been experiencing lately in this article:
\n\nMore than 50 days a year would top 90 degrees in Chicago by mid-century, the report warns, up from a historical average of 15 per year. The city would average a heat wave per year on par with the city's 1995 scorcher, which authorities blamed for hundreds of deaths. Once every five years, the city would endure a heat wave similar to Europe's in 2003, which the authors project would kill more than 1,000 residents.
\nBy century's end, the report projects, every Chicago summer would be hotter than 1983, the hottest summer on record for the city. Illinois' climate would resemble East Texas today, the report says.
\n
Key word here: "would." Note the complete lack of reference to the actual weather Chicago is experiencing.
\nSo give it another try, Jim. And this time you might want to open your window and take note of the weather that is actually occurring in Chicago. Oh, and try to dress warmly when you open that window so you don't get a chill.
\n"; Author[8] = "P.J. Gladnick"; Link[8] = "http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/09/10/chicago-suffers-unusually-cold-weather-chicago-tribune-warns-global-wa"; Cat[8] = "\nIf...could...would.
That pretty much sums up the "scientific" analysis in a Chicago Tribune story warning of the terrible warming the Windy City will be enduring in the not too distant future. Never mind that Chicago has been experiencing much colder than normal weather this year as your humble correspondent noted last June when quoting the WGN Weather Center blog:
\n\nThe cloudy, chilly and rainy open to June here has been the talk of the town. So far this June is running more than 12 degrees cooler than last year, and the clouds, rain and chilly lake winds have been persistent. The average temperature at O'Hare International Airport through Friday has been only 59.5 degrees: nearly 7 degrees below normal and the coldest since records there began 50 years ago.
\n
However, the weather that is actually occurring in Chicago is completely overlooked in the global warming warning story based on sheer speculation by Jim Tankersley:
\n\nIf global warming continues unchecked, Chicago would see a repeat of the killer 1995 heat wave every summer by the middle of the century, an environmental group says in a study released Wednesday.
\n
Big if there, Jim. Especially since global warming is hardly continuing unchecked in Chicago. It's more like global cooling in that city but why toss inconvenient facts in your direction when it interferes with the global warming fairy tale:
\n\nThe report from the Union of Concerned Scientists also predicts that the city's air quality would deteriorate if humans do not scale back greenhouse gas emissions dramatically.
\nIllinois farmers would suffer from droughts, pests and flooding that would more than outweigh any potential benefits from a longer growing season caused by warmer temperatures. Heat stress in cattle could force the state's dairy industry to migrate north.
\n"Global warming represents an enormous challenge to Illinois' way of life and its residents' livelihoods," the authors write in conclusion.
\n
Ah yes, the far left Union of Concerned Scientists funded by the equally far left Tides Foundation. Not much of an agenda there, eh?
\nLet us now search in vain for even the slightest hint of what the weather Chicago has been experiencing lately in this article:
\n\nMore than 50 days a year would top 90 degrees in Chicago by mid-century, the report warns, up from a historical average of 15 per year. The city would average a heat wave per year on par with the city's 1995 scorcher, which authorities blamed for hundreds of deaths. Once every five years, the city would endure a heat wave similar to Europe's in 2003, which the authors project would kill more than 1,000 residents.
\nBy century's end, the report projects, every Chicago summer would be hotter than 1983, the hottest summer on record for the city. Illinois' climate would resemble East Texas today, the report says.
\n
Key word here: "would." Note the complete lack of reference to the actual weather Chicago is experiencing.
\nSo give it another try, Jim. And this time you might want to open your window and take note of the weather that is actually occurring in Chicago. Oh, and try to dress warmly when you open that window so you don't get a chill.
\n![](\"/static/2007/10/2007-10-26-NBC-Tday-Pink.jpg\")
Brent Baker revealed how the network news on Thursday night described Rep. Joe Wilson’s "you lie" comment at President Obama as almost an international incident, a "shout heard ‘round the world" that symbolized the "ugly" tone of anti-Obama sentiment and a sign of disrespect on Capitol Hill.
It’s probably not shocking to remember that on Wednesday, October 24, 2007, when Code Pink protester Desiree al-Fairooz screamed at Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that she was a "war criminal" at a hearing of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, none of the networks described it as "ugly," and NBC painted it as another sign of disarray for Team Bush.
\nOn the Nightly News, reporter Andrea Mitchell weaved the Code Pink protest into a story on how the State Department was struggling with contractors in maintaining security in Iraq:
\n\nANDREA MITCHELL:Before she even confronted lawmakers today, the secretary of state came face to face with a protester --
\nUNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: War criminal!
\nMITCHELL: – on top of scathing criticism, even from her own investigators, of the huge State Department security operation in Iraq.
\nCONDOLEEZZA RICE (Secretary of State): The department is being asked to do things in numbers and in size that are well beyond the bounds of we had been asked to do before.
\nMITCHELL: An acknowledgement of the disarray, today her top deputy for security, Richard Griffin, resigned abruptly.
\n
Mitchell ended the story: "Under fire, Secretary Rice today promised more oversight, cameras to track contractors and better coordination with the military. Andrea Mitchell, NBC News."
\nThe tone was aptly captured by the headline in Nexis: "State Department unable to handle war in Iraq."
\nCBS anchor Katie Couric was anchoring from San Diego, and only noted the protest stunt in passing:
\n\nOn Capitol Hill, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was confronted by an anti-war protester at a hearing of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The woman shouted "war criminal" before she and several other protesters were dragged away by the police. The secretary was unfazed by the outburst, and testified she expects there will be a Mideast peace conference between Israel and the Palestinians in November or December.
\n
ABC mentioned the incident the next morning, as Good Morning America news anchor Chris Cuomo briefly noted: "A close confrontation for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Capitol Hill. A protester with painted hands to symbolize blood managed to get in the secretary's face, calling her a war criminal. Rice, though, was unfazed and went on to testify about Mideast policy."
\nNone of the networks made any attempt to identify the protester as Code Pink or describe her as liberal or leftist or radical. She was merely "anti-war."
\nOn Friday morning’s Today, NBC anchor Matt Lauer asked Rice about the incident, but he never described it as "ugly," but simply as something that may have "frazzled" the Secretary:
\n\nLAUER: Let me end on just a different subject. On Wednesday you were set to appear before the House Foreign Relations Committee and a protester walked right up to your face, Madam Secretary, and said--with red paint on her hands and said, quote, "The blood of millions of Iraqis is on your hands." She was taken out of the room. Not on a policy level, on a personal level, what was your response to that moment? Were you angered? Were you upset? Were you frazzled? How did you respond to it?
\nRICE: No. In fact, she was there, she was taken away. Look, I know what I'm doing and I know what this administration has done to liberate millions of people from the tyranny and the grip of Saddam Hussein and to give them a chance for a better, more democratic future.
\n
More on that here.
\n"; Author[9] = "Tim Graham"; Link[9] = "http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2009/09/10/flashback-2007-bloody-handed-condi-rice-protester-never-painted-ugly-or-"; Cat[9] = "\nBrent Baker revealed how the network news on Thursday night described Rep. Joe Wilson’s "you lie" comment at President Obama as almost an international incident, a "shout heard ‘round the world" that symbolized the "ugly" tone of anti-Obama sentiment and a sign of disrespect on Capitol Hill.
It’s probably not shocking to remember that on Wednesday, October 24, 2007, when Code Pink protester Desiree al-Fairooz screamed at Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that she was a "war criminal" at a hearing of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, none of the networks described it as "ugly," and NBC painted it as another sign of disarray for Team Bush.
\nOn the Nightly News, reporter Andrea Mitchell weaved the Code Pink protest into a story on how the State Department was struggling with contractors in maintaining security in Iraq:
\n\nANDREA MITCHELL:Before she even confronted lawmakers today, the secretary of state came face to face with a protester --
\nUNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: War criminal!
\nMITCHELL: – on top of scathing criticism, even from her own investigators, of the huge State Department security operation in Iraq.
\nCONDOLEEZZA RICE (Secretary of State): The department is being asked to do things in numbers and in size that are well beyond the bounds of we had been asked to do before.
\nMITCHELL: An acknowledgement of the disarray, today her top deputy for security, Richard Griffin, resigned abruptly.
\n
Mitchell ended the story: "Under fire, Secretary Rice today promised more oversight, cameras to track contractors and better coordination with the military. Andrea Mitchell, NBC News."
\nThe tone was aptly captured by the headline in Nexis: "State Department unable to handle war in Iraq."
\nCBS anchor Katie Couric was anchoring from San Diego, and only noted the protest stunt in passing:
\n\nOn Capitol Hill, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was confronted by an anti-war protester at a hearing of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The woman shouted "war criminal" before she and several other protesters were dragged away by the police. The secretary was unfazed by the outburst, and testified she expects there will be a Mideast peace conference between Israel and the Palestinians in November or December.
\n
ABC mentioned the incident the next morning, as Good Morning America news anchor Chris Cuomo briefly noted: "A close confrontation for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Capitol Hill. A protester with painted hands to symbolize blood managed to get in the secretary's face, calling her a war criminal. Rice, though, was unfazed and went on to testify about Mideast policy."
\nNone of the networks made any attempt to identify the protester as Code Pink or describe her as liberal or leftist or radical. She was merely "anti-war."
\nOn Friday morning’s Today, NBC anchor Matt Lauer asked Rice about the incident, but he never described it as "ugly," but simply as something that may have "frazzled" the Secretary:
\n\nLAUER: Let me end on just a different subject. On Wednesday you were set to appear before the House Foreign Relations Committee and a protester walked right up to your face, Madam Secretary, and said--with red paint on her hands and said, quote, "The blood of millions of Iraqis is on your hands." She was taken out of the room. Not on a policy level, on a personal level, what was your response to that moment? Were you angered? Were you upset? Were you frazzled? How did you respond to it?
\nRICE: No. In fact, she was there, she was taken away. Look, I know what I'm doing and I know what this administration has done to liberate millions of people from the tyranny and the grip of Saddam Hussein and to give them a chance for a better, more democratic future.
\n
More on that here.
\n![](\"http://www.watcherofweasels.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/noDoz-250x190.jpg\")
At first I thought it must be an article from The Onion. Surely this couldn't be a legitimate news story.
\nRep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), who shouted "you lie!" at President Obama during his Wednesday night address to Congress, admitted to regularly consuming caffeine pills in 2007.
\nIt is unclear if Wilson still takes NoDoz, a brand of pill that contains 200 milligrams of caffeine a pop. By comparison, a seven ounce cup of drip coffee contains 115 to 175 milligrams of caffeine.
Sadly this is someone's idea of news. The above excerpt is the startling revelation that appeared in The Hill's Blog Briefing Room under the ominous headline "Wilson regularly took caffeine pills in 2007". (h/t The Jawa Report)
\nThe Hill contributor Jordan Fabian took out the styrofoam knives as he revealed that "a source" spoon fed them this news.
\n\nA source told The Hill in 2007 that the congressman ingested the tablets “like candy," but Wilson insisted he was not addicted despite the fact that he had been taking them since high school.
\n
Sad is an overstatement.
\nWhen searching for others covering "the story" I did see a pretty funny retort from a blog callled Weasel Zippers.
\n\nThis is the best they can do, caffeine pills? The man he yelled at has admitted to doing cocaine!
\n
Terry Trippany is The Watcher at Watcher of Weasels
\n"; Author[10] = "Terry Trippany"; Link[10] = "http://newsbusters.org/blogs/terry-trippany/2009/09/10/hill-exposes-rep-joe-wilsons-nodoz-usage"; Cat[10] = "\nAt first I thought it must be an article from The Onion. Surely this couldn't be a legitimate news story.
\nRep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), who shouted "you lie!" at President Obama during his Wednesday night address to Congress, admitted to regularly consuming caffeine pills in 2007.
\nIt is unclear if Wilson still takes NoDoz, a brand of pill that contains 200 milligrams of caffeine a pop. By comparison, a seven ounce cup of drip coffee contains 115 to 175 milligrams of caffeine.
Sadly this is someone's idea of news. The above excerpt is the startling revelation that appeared in The Hill's Blog Briefing Room under the ominous headline "Wilson regularly took caffeine pills in 2007". (h/t The Jawa Report)
\nThe Hill contributor Jordan Fabian took out the styrofoam knives as he revealed that "a source" spoon fed them this news.
\n\nA source told The Hill in 2007 that the congressman ingested the tablets “like candy," but Wilson insisted he was not addicted despite the fact that he had been taking them since high school.
\n
Sad is an overstatement.
\nWhen searching for others covering "the story" I did see a pretty funny retort from a blog callled Weasel Zippers.
\n\nThis is the best they can do, caffeine pills? The man he yelled at has admitted to doing cocaine!
\n
Terry Trippany is The Watcher at Watcher of Weasels
\n![](\"http://media.eyeblast.org/newsbusters/static/2009/09/2009-09-10-CBS-EN-shout.jpg\")
Media minds think alike. ABC: “It was the shout heard 'round the world.” CBS: “It was the shout heard 'round the world.” NBC, slightly creative: “The outburst heard 'round the world” and the “heckle heard 'round the world.” Congressman Joe Wilson's “you lie” shout during President Obama's Wednesday address to Congress on health care animated the Thursday evening newscasts, though it at least prompted ABC and NBC, but not CBS, to grudgingly take up, briefly, Wilson's contention illegal immigrants would receive health benefits.
“As the President spoke last night, there was a stunning moment. As the President tried to refute criticisms of his health care reform, a Republican Congressman from South Carolina yelled out 'you lie,'” ABC anchor Charles Gibson announced. On CBS, Katie Couric maintained “Presidents appearing there as respected guests have been interrupted before by boos and hisses, but this was different. A Congressman last night calling a President an outright liar to his face. Just the latest indication of how ugly the debate over reforming health care has gotten.”
\nBrian Williams teased the NBC Nightly News: “On our broadcast tonight, the speech on health care and the outburst heard 'round the world.” In the subsequent story Kelly O'Donnell portrayed “a stunning outburst. South Carolina Congressman Joe Wilson accused the President of lying in a fit of anger that reverberated today.”
\nFollowing O'Donnell, Williams brought aboard former GOP Congressman Joe Scarborough of MSNBC's Morning Joe to decry Wilson's outburst as the “perfect ending to a long, ugly summer.” Scarborough asserted that “while the base may love it, while Rush Limbaugh may say, 'hey, this is great,' it's one more example of this Republican Party being seen as a party that lacks temperament.”
\nHowever “rude” Wilson was, O'Donnell acknowledged he “reflects a view Republican leaders stood by today. While the President insists health care reform will not cover illegal immigrants, Republicans argue there is a loophole because the House bill fails to require proof of citizenship.”
\nIn a larger “fact check” piece, ABC's Jake Tapper also took up Wilson's claim: “Would the President's reforms apply to illegal immigrants? The answer is no. House and Senate bills say any new government subsidies to purchase health insurance would only apply to legal citizens.” Tapper noted, however, “the issue is more complicated than that. When illegal immigrants to go emergency rooms, the charges are often paid for my emergency Medicaid, which at least one Democratic bill may expand, though today the White House reiterated the President's point.”
\nFrom the Thursday night, September 10 newscasts:
\nABC's World News:
\n
\nCHARLES GIBSON: As the President spoke last night, there was a stunning moment. As the President tried to refute criticisms of his health care reform, a Republican Congressman from South Carolina yelled out “you lie.” Well, there's a rough and tumble to Washington politics, but so, too, is there a history of civility and respect, especially for the President of the United States. Or, until recent years, there was. Here's David Wright.\n
DAVID WRIGHT: It was the shout heard 'round the world-
\nCONGRESSMAN JOE WILSON: You lie!
\nWRIGHT: Or at least the nation's capital. Today the President was magnanimous....
CBS Evening News:
\n
\nKATIE COURIC: Good evening, everyone. The fallout continues from that extraordinary moment in the United States Congress. Presidents appearing there as respected guests have been interrupted before by boos and hisses, but this was different. A Congressman last night calling a President an outright liar to his face. Just the latest indication of how ugly the debate over reforming health care has gotten. Today brought apologizing and forgiving, but so far, no one's forgetting. From Capitol Hill, here's Nancy Cordes.\n
PRESIDENT OBAMA: This, too, is false.
\nNANCY CORDES: It was the shout heard 'round the world.
\nOBAMA: The reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.
\n\n
CONGRESSMAN JOE WILSON: You lie!
CORDES: Two words, “you lie,” bellowed by 62-year-old Republican Representative Joe Wilson of South Carolina as the President defended his health care plan. Watch Speaker Pelosi behind the President.
\nWILSON: You lie!
\nCORDES: Visibly startled by what both parties agree was an unprecedented breech of protocol....
NBC Nightly News:
\n
BRIAN WILLIAMS TEASED: On our broadcast tonight, the speech on health care and the outburst heard 'round the world.\n\n"; Author[11] = "Brent Baker"; Link[11] = "http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2009/09/10/network-echo-chamber-appalled-ugly-shout-heard-round-world"; Cat[11] = "\n....
\n\n
Good evening. President Obama set out last night to deliver a sharp and direct speech on health care, one final big push for reform. However, it was a sharp and direct comment from a Republican Congressman in the audience that made a lot of news last night. He apologized to the President today....
Now, we go back to the heckle heard 'round the world. Congressman Joe Wilson was not widely known before last night. He is now. NBC's Kelly O'Donnell cover the Hill for us and joins us from there tonight. Kelly, good evening.
\nKELLY O'DONNELL: Good evening, Brian. I've talked to Members of Congress who have been here for decades and they say the kind of disruption we saw last night simply hasn't happened before. Now the issue that got a five-term Republican so upset actually touched off a wider conversation today about illegal immigrants and health care. It was a stunning outburst. South Carolina Congressman Joe Wilson accused the President of lying in a fit of anger that reverberated today....
\nWilson's complaint, however rude it was, reflects a view Republican leaders stood by today. While the President insists health care reform will not cover illegal immigrants, Republicans argue there is a loophole because the House bill fails to require proof of citizenship.
\nSENATOR JON KYL: So if there is verification of eligibility required, it is quite likely -- indeed I would say probable -- that a lot of people who are not eligible, including illegal immigrants, will end up receiving the benefits of the legislation.
\nO'DONNELL: Brian, this is complicated because the bill, as it's written now is explicit saying illegal immigrants will not get any health care benefits in reform. But Republicans say, they're concerned about cracks in the system. An example is times when illegal immigrants have managed to get benefits like Medicaid. Now, this has caused such a fuss that tonight Senate Democrats concede there is confusion and the last committee that's working on legislation says it will try to do more to be specific about requiring proof of citizenship.
Media minds think alike. ABC: “It was the shout heard 'round the world.” CBS: “It was the shout heard 'round the world.” NBC, slightly creative: “The outburst heard 'round the world” and the “heckle heard 'round the world.” Congressman Joe Wilson's “you lie” shout during President Obama's Wednesday address to Congress on health care animated the Thursday evening newscasts, though it at least prompted ABC and NBC, but not CBS, to grudgingly take up, briefly, Wilson's contention illegal immigrants would receive health benefits.
“As the President spoke last night, there was a stunning moment. As the President tried to refute criticisms of his health care reform, a Republican Congressman from South Carolina yelled out 'you lie,'” ABC anchor Charles Gibson announced. On CBS, Katie Couric maintained “Presidents appearing there as respected guests have been interrupted before by boos and hisses, but this was different. A Congressman last night calling a President an outright liar to his face. Just the latest indication of how ugly the debate over reforming health care has gotten.”
\nBrian Williams teased the NBC Nightly News: “On our broadcast tonight, the speech on health care and the outburst heard 'round the world.” In the subsequent story Kelly O'Donnell portrayed “a stunning outburst. South Carolina Congressman Joe Wilson accused the President of lying in a fit of anger that reverberated today.”
\nFollowing O'Donnell, Williams brought aboard former GOP Congressman Joe Scarborough of MSNBC's Morning Joe to decry Wilson's outburst as the “perfect ending to a long, ugly summer.” Scarborough asserted that “while the base may love it, while Rush Limbaugh may say, 'hey, this is great,' it's one more example of this Republican Party being seen as a party that lacks temperament.”
\nHowever “rude” Wilson was, O'Donnell acknowledged he “reflects a view Republican leaders stood by today. While the President insists health care reform will not cover illegal immigrants, Republicans argue there is a loophole because the House bill fails to require proof of citizenship.”
\nIn a larger “fact check” piece, ABC's Jake Tapper also took up Wilson's claim: “Would the President's reforms apply to illegal immigrants? The answer is no. House and Senate bills say any new government subsidies to purchase health insurance would only apply to legal citizens.” Tapper noted, however, “the issue is more complicated than that. When illegal immigrants to go emergency rooms, the charges are often paid for my emergency Medicaid, which at least one Democratic bill may expand, though today the White House reiterated the President's point.”
\nFrom the Thursday night, September 10 newscasts:
\nABC's World News:
\n
\nDAVID WRIGHT: It was the shout heard 'round the world-
\nCONGRESSMAN JOE WILSON: You lie!
\nWRIGHT: Or at least the nation's capital. Today the President was magnanimous....
CBS Evening News:
\n
\nPRESIDENT OBAMA: This, too, is false.
\nNANCY CORDES: It was the shout heard 'round the world.
\nOBAMA: The reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.
\n\n
CORDES: Two words, “you lie,” bellowed by 62-year-old Republican Representative Joe Wilson of South Carolina as the President defended his health care plan. Watch Speaker Pelosi behind the President.
\nWILSON: You lie!
\nCORDES: Visibly startled by what both parties agree was an unprecedented breech of protocol....
NBC Nightly News:
\n
BRIAN WILLIAMS TEASED: On our broadcast tonight, the speech on health care and the outburst heard 'round the world.\n\n....
\n\n
Now, we go back to the heckle heard 'round the world. Congressman Joe Wilson was not widely known before last night. He is now. NBC's Kelly O'Donnell cover the Hill for us and joins us from there tonight. Kelly, good evening.
\nKELLY O'DONNELL: Good evening, Brian. I've talked to Members of Congress who have been here for decades and they say the kind of disruption we saw last night simply hasn't happened before. Now the issue that got a five-term Republican so upset actually touched off a wider conversation today about illegal immigrants and health care. It was a stunning outburst. South Carolina Congressman Joe Wilson accused the President of lying in a fit of anger that reverberated today....
\nWilson's complaint, however rude it was, reflects a view Republican leaders stood by today. While the President insists health care reform will not cover illegal immigrants, Republicans argue there is a loophole because the House bill fails to require proof of citizenship.
\nSENATOR JON KYL: So if there is verification of eligibility required, it is quite likely -- indeed I would say probable -- that a lot of people who are not eligible, including illegal immigrants, will end up receiving the benefits of the legislation.
\nO'DONNELL: Brian, this is complicated because the bill, as it's written now is explicit saying illegal immigrants will not get any health care benefits in reform. But Republicans say, they're concerned about cracks in the system. An example is times when illegal immigrants have managed to get benefits like Medicaid. Now, this has caused such a fuss that tonight Senate Democrats concede there is confusion and the last committee that's working on legislation says it will try to do more to be specific about requiring proof of citizenship.
![\"Rick](\"http://media.eyeblast.org/newsbusters/static/2009/09/2009-09-10-CNN-NR-Sanchez.jpg\")
CNN’s Rick Sanchez conducted a softball interview of Senator Bernie Sanders on Thursday’s Newsroom, during which the two railed against the influence of the wealthy in politics. Sanchez omitted the large donations Sanders has received from unions while taking other senators to task for receiving corporate money, and seemed to endorse the senator’s push for the public financing of elections.
The CNN anchor began the segment by lamenting how $375 million has apparently been spent “mostly by the health and insurance industry...to influence this important debate” on health care “reform,” barely mentioning the spending by “those who back the President.” He then introduced Senator Sanders as an “an independent from Vermont who is convinced that politics has become way too corporatized, if not controlled.” Sanchez did not mention how the Vermont Senator self-identifies as “democratic socialist” and has almost consistently supported left-wing causes throughout his political career.
\nAfter the two joked briefly about political donations, Sanchez suggested that the people who are “screaming over death panels, screaming over immigrant labor” (in other words, grassroots conservatives) should be “just as angry, if not more so, about politicians that are getting all this money.” Sanders replied, “Rick, you’re absolutely right, and thank you for speaking about an issue that far too people do talk about. Look, we pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, far higher than any other country. You know why- do you know why? Because the drug companies pour hundreds of millions of dollars into the political process.” The left-wing senator repeated this point about health care.
\nSanchez then read political contribution statistics from OpenSecrets.org about three of Sanders’ colleagues- Mitch McConnell, Max Baucus, and Chuck Grassley- two Republicans and a Democrat. He used the website’s grouping of the donations by industry, which, as you might expect, cast the three senators in a bad light on the health care issue.
\n
SANCHEZ: Let’s go with three people who have been very much involved in this health care debate. I have got Mitch McConnell, Republican; Max Baucus, Democrat; and Chuck Grassley. Let’s look at who- these are the people who are talking about this health care debate, right? Let’s see how much money they have gotten from health care. Let’s start with Mr. Grassley over here, all right? Top five industries- health professionals have given him $222,000; insurance, $184,000; pharmaceuticals, $145,000; lobbyists, $137,000; hospitals, nursing homes- $137,000. Those are the top five people who have given him money [sic]. Let’s go over here to Mr. McConnell. Look at Mr. McConnell- let’s go to the page. Okay again, this is the top five industries- industries that have given him money: securities and investment, $1.16 million; lawyers $918,000. But let’s go down here to health professionals, $713,000. Those are two Republicans.\n\nHere’s the big brouhaha Democrat on this- not too far off, by the way: securities and investment- top five industries- $842,000; insurance, $552,000; health professionals, $497,000; pharmaceuticals, $507,000. Now, $507,000- that’s a big nut for someone who’s making decisions about how our health care is going to be run to be getting from someone who’s very interested in how it’s going to be run, isn’t it?
The CNN anchor also read the statistics on the industries that gave to Sanders, giving him a more sympathetic portrayal: “I got you here at top five industries, you got $435,000 from retired, $331,000 from Democratic/liberal- I’m not sure what that means. You’ve got $138,000 from lawyers, $78,000 from transportation, and $75,000 from education. You don’t do as well as those other guys do, by the way.” Sanders replied to Sanchez’s figures from Open Secrets that “most of that money came from organizations representing working people, representing consumer interests, representing senior citizens. I happen not to take corporate PAC money.”
\nThese figures do not tell the whole story however. OpenSecrets.org also has a tab for top individual contributors. Since 1989, Sanders has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the PACs of liberal unions, including the Teamsters, the UAW, and the NEA, with the lone exception being the American Association for Justice, a trial lawyers group. One might guess Sanchez isn’t too concerned about these political contributions. The anchor didn’t ask a follow-up question to Sanders’ explanation.
\nNear the end of the interview, the discussion shifted to a case that was recently argued before the Supreme Court that may repeal many campaign finance laws. After Senator Sanders expressed concern that “if this decision is overturned...you’re just giving over our democracy to the most wealthy and powerful institutions in the world.” Sanchez replied that “it’s interesting because everything I read today seemed to indicate that because this is such a conservative court, they- they will probably rule...for corporations in this case.” The left-wing senator then suggested what his solution to the problem would be, and Sanchez seemed to approve of it.
\n
SANDERS: Rick, let me just add- you know, people are shaking their heads at home. The answer- and I know many people are not comfortable this- the answer, in my view, has got to be public funding of elections.\n\n"; Author[12] = "Matthew Balan"; Link[12] = "http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2009/09/10/cnns-sanchez-goes-soft-socialist-bernie-sanders-hints-approval-stance"; Cat[12] = "\nSANCHEZ: I think you make a great point. You know what? I want to pick up [on] that part of the conversation. I’m going to stay on this thing. This show- this show- this little Sanchez show that we’ve got every day from 3 to 4- this is a very important topic, and we are dedicated to staying on this. I want to get you back- maybe like a guy like Reich- Robert Reich or someone. We’re going to have a discussion about the possibility of public financing and if that may end up being cheaper for you and me and other Americans. Thank you sir- thanks for coming on.
CNN’s Rick Sanchez conducted a softball interview of Senator Bernie Sanders on Thursday’s Newsroom, during which the two railed against the influence of the wealthy in politics. Sanchez omitted the large donations Sanders has received from unions while taking other senators to task for receiving corporate money, and seemed to endorse the senator’s push for the public financing of elections.
The CNN anchor began the segment by lamenting how $375 million has apparently been spent “mostly by the health and insurance industry...to influence this important debate” on health care “reform,” barely mentioning the spending by “those who back the President.” He then introduced Senator Sanders as an “an independent from Vermont who is convinced that politics has become way too corporatized, if not controlled.” Sanchez did not mention how the Vermont Senator self-identifies as “democratic socialist” and has almost consistently supported left-wing causes throughout his political career.
\nAfter the two joked briefly about political donations, Sanchez suggested that the people who are “screaming over death panels, screaming over immigrant labor” (in other words, grassroots conservatives) should be “just as angry, if not more so, about politicians that are getting all this money.” Sanders replied, “Rick, you’re absolutely right, and thank you for speaking about an issue that far too people do talk about. Look, we pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, far higher than any other country. You know why- do you know why? Because the drug companies pour hundreds of millions of dollars into the political process.” The left-wing senator repeated this point about health care.
\nSanchez then read political contribution statistics from OpenSecrets.org about three of Sanders’ colleagues- Mitch McConnell, Max Baucus, and Chuck Grassley- two Republicans and a Democrat. He used the website’s grouping of the donations by industry, which, as you might expect, cast the three senators in a bad light on the health care issue.
\n
SANCHEZ: Let’s go with three people who have been very much involved in this health care debate. I have got Mitch McConnell, Republican; Max Baucus, Democrat; and Chuck Grassley. Let’s look at who- these are the people who are talking about this health care debate, right? Let’s see how much money they have gotten from health care. Let’s start with Mr. Grassley over here, all right? Top five industries- health professionals have given him $222,000; insurance, $184,000; pharmaceuticals, $145,000; lobbyists, $137,000; hospitals, nursing homes- $137,000. Those are the top five people who have given him money [sic]. Let’s go over here to Mr. McConnell. Look at Mr. McConnell- let’s go to the page. Okay again, this is the top five industries- industries that have given him money: securities and investment, $1.16 million; lawyers $918,000. But let’s go down here to health professionals, $713,000. Those are two Republicans.\n\nHere’s the big brouhaha Democrat on this- not too far off, by the way: securities and investment- top five industries- $842,000; insurance, $552,000; health professionals, $497,000; pharmaceuticals, $507,000. Now, $507,000- that’s a big nut for someone who’s making decisions about how our health care is going to be run to be getting from someone who’s very interested in how it’s going to be run, isn’t it?
The CNN anchor also read the statistics on the industries that gave to Sanders, giving him a more sympathetic portrayal: “I got you here at top five industries, you got $435,000 from retired, $331,000 from Democratic/liberal- I’m not sure what that means. You’ve got $138,000 from lawyers, $78,000 from transportation, and $75,000 from education. You don’t do as well as those other guys do, by the way.” Sanders replied to Sanchez’s figures from Open Secrets that “most of that money came from organizations representing working people, representing consumer interests, representing senior citizens. I happen not to take corporate PAC money.”
\nThese figures do not tell the whole story however. OpenSecrets.org also has a tab for top individual contributors. Since 1989, Sanders has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the PACs of liberal unions, including the Teamsters, the UAW, and the NEA, with the lone exception being the American Association for Justice, a trial lawyers group. One might guess Sanchez isn’t too concerned about these political contributions. The anchor didn’t ask a follow-up question to Sanders’ explanation.
\nNear the end of the interview, the discussion shifted to a case that was recently argued before the Supreme Court that may repeal many campaign finance laws. After Senator Sanders expressed concern that “if this decision is overturned...you’re just giving over our democracy to the most wealthy and powerful institutions in the world.” Sanchez replied that “it’s interesting because everything I read today seemed to indicate that because this is such a conservative court, they- they will probably rule...for corporations in this case.” The left-wing senator then suggested what his solution to the problem would be, and Sanchez seemed to approve of it.
\n
SANDERS: Rick, let me just add- you know, people are shaking their heads at home. The answer- and I know many people are not comfortable this- the answer, in my view, has got to be public funding of elections.\n\nSANCHEZ: I think you make a great point. You know what? I want to pick up [on] that part of the conversation. I’m going to stay on this thing. This show- this show- this little Sanchez show that we’ve got every day from 3 to 4- this is a very important topic, and we are dedicated to staying on this. I want to get you back- maybe like a guy like Reich- Robert Reich or someone. We’re going to have a discussion about the possibility of public financing and if that may end up being cheaper for you and me and other Americans. Thank you sir- thanks for coming on.
![](\"http://media.eyeblast.org/newsbusters/static/2009/09/2009-09-10-MSNBC-Barnicle.jpg\")
You know Cindy Sheehan's star has really fallen with the liberal media when the likes of Mike Barnicle, compare her to GOP Congressman Joe "You lie!" Wilson. On Thursday's "Hardball," Barnicle, substitute hosting for Chris Matthews, declared, "Democrats hope to turn Wilson into the Cindy Sheehan of the anti-health care reform movement. A clownish figure of ridicule who hurts his own side, more than he helps." As the MRC's Brent Baker noted, now that she is opposing a Democratic president, the media have turned on Sheehan.
The following is from Barnicle's opening to the September 10 edition of "Hardball":
\n\n"; Author[13] = "Geoffrey Dickens"; Link[13] = "http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2009/09/10/hardball-dems-turn-joe-wilson-sheehan-clownish-figure-ridicule"; Cat[13] = "\nMIKE BARNICLE: The insult heard ‘round the world! Let's play "Hardball!" Good evening. I'm Mike Barnicle in for Chris Matthews. Leading off tonight, the gift. When Congressman Joe Wilson shouted, "You lie!" at President Obama last night he gave the Democrats a gift they hope just keeps on giving. Wilson was forced – and that does seem to be the word, forced – to apologize today. And his Washington office has been mobbed mostly by right wing supporters. Democrats hope to turn Wilson into the Cindy Sheehan of the anti-health care reform movement. A clownish figure of ridicule who hurts his own side, more than he helps.
\n
You know Cindy Sheehan's star has really fallen with the liberal media when the likes of Mike Barnicle, compare her to GOP Congressman Joe "You lie!" Wilson. On Thursday's "Hardball," Barnicle, substitute hosting for Chris Matthews, declared, "Democrats hope to turn Wilson into the Cindy Sheehan of the anti-health care reform movement. A clownish figure of ridicule who hurts his own side, more than he helps." As the MRC's Brent Baker noted, now that she is opposing a Democratic president, the media have turned on Sheehan.
The following is from Barnicle's opening to the September 10 edition of "Hardball":
\n\nMIKE BARNICLE: The insult heard ‘round the world! Let's play "Hardball!" Good evening. I'm Mike Barnicle in for Chris Matthews. Leading off tonight, the gift. When Congressman Joe Wilson shouted, "You lie!" at President Obama last night he gave the Democrats a gift they hope just keeps on giving. Wilson was forced – and that does seem to be the word, forced – to apologize today. And his Washington office has been mobbed mostly by right wing supporters. Democrats hope to turn Wilson into the Cindy Sheehan of the anti-health care reform movement. A clownish figure of ridicule who hurts his own side, more than he helps.
\n
4:46PM"; Author[14] = "Kyle Drennen"; Link[14] = "http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2009/09/10/msnbc-s-david-shuster-gop-all-white-males-short-hair-cuts"; Cat[14] = "\n
TAMRON HALL: Well, David, in today’s ‘Face-Off’ the big image problem that some say now confronts the Republican Party following last night’s presidential speech.
DAVID SHUSTER: Yeah, Tamron, the video of the Republican lawmakers was almost as striking as the speech itself. The President was greeted with a chorus of jeers and boos when he said his plan would not cover illegal immigrants. And of course there was – they’re you’re looking at the moment when Joe Wilson was speaking out. There was the heckling from Congressman Joe Wilson. And last night, TV viewers also saw Virginia Republican Eric Cantor, a member of the GOP leadership, using his Blackberry – that’s underneath the banner there – he was using his Blackberry while the President was speaking. Dozens of Republicans also booed and hissed at the President for accusing them of misinformation and misleading. And when the President referred to plans passed by four separate committees, Republicans shouted ‘what plan!,’ with Congressman Louis Gohmert, who you just saw there, of Texas, holding up a sign that read ‘What Bill?’ Did the Republican image change last night for the worse or was it something minor that may have only had an impact on the conservative base that was energized and wants to kill reform? Here to face off, Democratic strategist Patrick Murphy and Republican strategist Alex Conant. Patrick, you get the first word. The Republicans, why – why shouldn’t this be seen as just sort of a minor moment that won’t last?
PATRICK MURPHY: Well, it’s a consistent pattern. I mean, I don’t know where the outrage is from Michael Steele and the other Republican leaders. You know, when Barack Obama tries to talk to school children about doing their homework, he gets criticized from the Right and from the conservatives. And when people like Joe Wilson stand up and call the President a liar in the middle of the congressional joint session, it’s just incredible. There’s no – there’s no sense of decency left of these guys and they’re just hitting the lowest possible rung on the ladder to try and upset health care and try and undue this presidency.
SHUSTER: Alex, I know in your heart of hearts you’re a smart guy, that the image last night was not the one you would have preferred for the Republican Party. Will you just come out now and say, ‘look, I wish the Republicans had behaved better’?
[LAUGHTER]
ALEX CONANT: Look, you know, I think we’re – I think we’re kidding ourselves if when you saw Republicans sitting on their hands last night, that’s not what most – that’s exactly what most Americans were doing when they were watching it at home last night. The Republicans are on the same page as the American people on the health care debate, they oppose what President Obama and the Democrats are trying to do with the government takeover the health care. Just like most Americans do.
SHUSTER: What about Joe Wilson? What about the Joe Wilson episode?
CONANT: Well, Joe Wilson apologized, and I think that was the appropriate thing to do. The White House accepted that and I think we should move on. I think the fact that we’re still debating Joe Wilson’s comment rather than debating what was supposed to be a game-changing speech by the President yesterday, shows just how far short the President’s speech was.
SHUSTER: Well, here’s the bigger issue. Let’s put up on that screen again, the Joe Wilson sort of picture of him reaching out. You look at the image of the Republican Party, all white males with short haircuts. They look sort of angry. No women, no minorities, and it looks like they’ve sort of become unhinged. How does that image-
CONANT: Well, except that-
SHUSTER: -help the Republican Party?
CONANT: Except that – except that the President – let’s remember, last night the President referred to Sarah Palin, who obviously is a Republican leader and a woman. And, you know, so I don’'t think it’s fair to say that all Republicans are white males like you and me, David.
SHUSTER: I don’t know if you want to invoke Sarah Palin to try to help your cause. Tamron, you take it away.
HALL: Well, I mean, David, you said all white males with short hair. I have short hair, so I guess I couldn’t have said it. But the reality, Patrick, the – I’m sorry, Alex, I was chuckling at some of the other things that we were talking about. But Patrick, set aside where you stand in this conversation, the image – I mean, you have the President saying it’s enough of the bitterness, let’s, you know, have a civil conversation, and you do have this image there. The flip side, though, you have progressives and some far left who say, ‘well, you know, Mr. President, don’t you see what we see? There are people who are not willing or not ready to have a legitimate conversation, so move on without them.’
MURPHY: Well, and I think it’s the dilemma of – I don’t think the American people are sitting at home on their hands.
HALL: No.
MURPHY: I think the American people are at sitting home very concerned about what kind of shape their health care is, if they have it, and what it would be like to get it. And I think that’s what Obama was trying to – the President was trying to get to last night. You know, and this jeering and booing by Republicans, it was just so – it was just – it was literally out of order.
CONANT: No, but-
HALL: Yeah, but then at the time you’re seeing, though, the President say that, you know, there’s hope for a legitimate conversation with both sides involved, but what you saw and everybody’s got eyes, you’re looking there, doesn’t look like what he is saying is making any leadway there. Did he see any movement there?
MURPHY: Well, I don’t know if he – I don’t think he saw any movement in that chamber. But, you know, I think some of the moderate Democrats and I think a handful of Republicans are going to help get this bill passed.
SHUSTER: Alex, we’ll give you the last word. One more shot to say, ‘you know what, I wish the Republicans had behaved better.’
HALL: David-
CONANT: You know, let me just say that this speech last night was very similar to the speech we heard two months ago at the press conference, when that was also supposed to change public opinion and was supposed to jump-start the debate and get people – get people excited about Obama’s plan. And that fell short. And yesterday’s speech was very similar. I – it should – I expect it will also. Nothing he said yesterday will fundamentally change the dynamics of this thing. If he wanted to change the strategy, he would have really reached out to Republicans and embraced the bipartisan ideas, instead of going along with congressional leaders like Nancy Pelosi.
MURPHY: He’s using John McCain’s ideas. He’s using Republican ideas and they still boo him.
HALL: He’s talking about now malpractice reform, that’s a Republican idea, that was new.
CONANT: We could absolutely pass a bipartisan bill. There’s a lot that we agree on. Some of the things that President Obama mentioned last night. But if he – if he continues to push ahead with things like the government takeover, the public option, that’s – that’s going to be a partisan proposal that even – even conservative Democrats are going to oppose. That’s why it hasn’t passed the House of Representatives yet-
SHUSTER: Alex, you maybe right – Alex, you maybe right that this was not a long-term game changer, but the fact of the matter is in the polling last night, the President jumped 15 points in one poll among independents, he was up 20 to 25 points in a whole host of areas. So at least there was a short-term boost for the Democrats. In any case, Alex Conant, Patrick Murphy, we’ve got to leave it there. Sorry I got the last word. Those are the rules, except when Tamron gets the last word.
MURPHY: We follow the rules, we follow the rules.
HALL: Yes, David.
SHUSTER: Tamron, what do you think?
HALL: Well, I don’t know. I think it is unfortunate that a lot of the conversation is about Congressman Wilson, but last night, you heard people who’ve been, you know, been scholars of politics far longer than at least myself, who say they’ve never seen anything like that.
SHUSTER: Right.
HALL: And I think it deserves a conversation and it also brings up, you know, this pride in being an American and what it means to have class in this country and to see something like that. It is hurtful when you know that it is a prestigious place we have in this world and when we are reduced to behavior like that, it is very telling to all of us. We love this country and it is hurtful to see someone play out their – their emotions in such a loser way – I think I can say that.
SHUSTER: Tamron you said it perfectly. I agree with you 100%.
HALL: I don’t think my mother would like I said loser, but oh well.
4:46PM
TAMRON HALL: Well, David, in today’s ‘Face-Off’ the big image problem that some say now confronts the Republican Party following last night’s presidential speech.
DAVID SHUSTER: Yeah, Tamron, the video of the Republican lawmakers was almost as striking as the speech itself. The President was greeted with a chorus of jeers and boos when he said his plan would not cover illegal immigrants. And of course there was – they’re you’re looking at the moment when Joe Wilson was speaking out. There was the heckling from Congressman Joe Wilson. And last night, TV viewers also saw Virginia Republican Eric Cantor, a member of the GOP leadership, using his Blackberry – that’s underneath the banner there – he was using his Blackberry while the President was speaking. Dozens of Republicans also booed and hissed at the President for accusing them of misinformation and misleading. And when the President referred to plans passed by four separate committees, Republicans shouted ‘what plan!,’ with Congressman Louis Gohmert, who you just saw there, of Texas, holding up a sign that read ‘What Bill?’ Did the Republican image change last night for the worse or was it something minor that may have only had an impact on the conservative base that was energized and wants to kill reform? Here to face off, Democratic strategist Patrick Murphy and Republican strategist Alex Conant. Patrick, you get the first word. The Republicans, why – why shouldn’t this be seen as just sort of a minor moment that won’t last?
PATRICK MURPHY: Well, it’s a consistent pattern. I mean, I don’t know where the outrage is from Michael Steele and the other Republican leaders. You know, when Barack Obama tries to talk to school children about doing their homework, he gets criticized from the Right and from the conservatives. And when people like Joe Wilson stand up and call the President a liar in the middle of the congressional joint session, it’s just incredible. There’s no – there’s no sense of decency left of these guys and they’re just hitting the lowest possible rung on the ladder to try and upset health care and try and undue this presidency.
SHUSTER: Alex, I know in your heart of hearts you’re a smart guy, that the image last night was not the one you would have preferred for the Republican Party. Will you just come out now and say, ‘look, I wish the Republicans had behaved better’?
[LAUGHTER]
ALEX CONANT: Look, you know, I think we’re – I think we’re kidding ourselves if when you saw Republicans sitting on their hands last night, that’s not what most – that’s exactly what most Americans were doing when they were watching it at home last night. The Republicans are on the same page as the American people on the health care debate, they oppose what President Obama and the Democrats are trying to do with the government takeover the health care. Just like most Americans do.
SHUSTER: What about Joe Wilson? What about the Joe Wilson episode?
CONANT: Well, Joe Wilson apologized, and I think that was the appropriate thing to do. The White House accepted that and I think we should move on. I think the fact that we’re still debating Joe Wilson’s comment rather than debating what was supposed to be a game-changing speech by the President yesterday, shows just how far short the President’s speech was.
SHUSTER: Well, here’s the bigger issue. Let’s put up on that screen again, the Joe Wilson sort of picture of him reaching out. You look at the image of the Republican Party, all white males with short haircuts. They look sort of angry. No women, no minorities, and it looks like they’ve sort of become unhinged. How does that image-
CONANT: Well, except that-
SHUSTER: -help the Republican Party?
CONANT: Except that – except that the President – let’s remember, last night the President referred to Sarah Palin, who obviously is a Republican leader and a woman. And, you know, so I don’'t think it’s fair to say that all Republicans are white males like you and me, David.
SHUSTER: I don’t know if you want to invoke Sarah Palin to try to help your cause. Tamron, you take it away.
HALL: Well, I mean, David, you said all white males with short hair. I have short hair, so I guess I couldn’t have said it. But the reality, Patrick, the – I’m sorry, Alex, I was chuckling at some of the other things that we were talking about. But Patrick, set aside where you stand in this conversation, the image – I mean, you have the President saying it’s enough of the bitterness, let’s, you know, have a civil conversation, and you do have this image there. The flip side, though, you have progressives and some far left who say, ‘well, you know, Mr. President, don’t you see what we see? There are people who are not willing or not ready to have a legitimate conversation, so move on without them.’
MURPHY: Well, and I think it’s the dilemma of – I don’t think the American people are sitting at home on their hands.
HALL: No.
MURPHY: I think the American people are at sitting home very concerned about what kind of shape their health care is, if they have it, and what it would be like to get it. And I think that’s what Obama was trying to – the President was trying to get to last night. You know, and this jeering and booing by Republicans, it was just so – it was just – it was literally out of order.
CONANT: No, but-
HALL: Yeah, but then at the time you’re seeing, though, the President say that, you know, there’s hope for a legitimate conversation with both sides involved, but what you saw and everybody’s got eyes, you’re looking there, doesn’t look like what he is saying is making any leadway there. Did he see any movement there?
MURPHY: Well, I don’t know if he – I don’t think he saw any movement in that chamber. But, you know, I think some of the moderate Democrats and I think a handful of Republicans are going to help get this bill passed.
SHUSTER: Alex, we’ll give you the last word. One more shot to say, ‘you know what, I wish the Republicans had behaved better.’
HALL: David-
CONANT: You know, let me just say that this speech last night was very similar to the speech we heard two months ago at the press conference, when that was also supposed to change public opinion and was supposed to jump-start the debate and get people – get people excited about Obama’s plan. And that fell short. And yesterday’s speech was very similar. I – it should – I expect it will also. Nothing he said yesterday will fundamentally change the dynamics of this thing. If he wanted to change the strategy, he would have really reached out to Republicans and embraced the bipartisan ideas, instead of going along with congressional leaders like Nancy Pelosi.
MURPHY: He’s using John McCain’s ideas. He’s using Republican ideas and they still boo him.
HALL: He’s talking about now malpractice reform, that’s a Republican idea, that was new.
CONANT: We could absolutely pass a bipartisan bill. There’s a lot that we agree on. Some of the things that President Obama mentioned last night. But if he – if he continues to push ahead with things like the government takeover, the public option, that’s – that’s going to be a partisan proposal that even – even conservative Democrats are going to oppose. That’s why it hasn’t passed the House of Representatives yet-
SHUSTER: Alex, you maybe right – Alex, you maybe right that this was not a long-term game changer, but the fact of the matter is in the polling last night, the President jumped 15 points in one poll among independents, he was up 20 to 25 points in a whole host of areas. So at least there was a short-term boost for the Democrats. In any case, Alex Conant, Patrick Murphy, we’ve got to leave it there. Sorry I got the last word. Those are the rules, except when Tamron gets the last word.
MURPHY: We follow the rules, we follow the rules.
HALL: Yes, David.
SHUSTER: Tamron, what do you think?
HALL: Well, I don’t know. I think it is unfortunate that a lot of the conversation is about Congressman Wilson, but last night, you heard people who’ve been, you know, been scholars of politics far longer than at least myself, who say they’ve never seen anything like that.
SHUSTER: Right.
HALL: And I think it deserves a conversation and it also brings up, you know, this pride in being an American and what it means to have class in this country and to see something like that. It is hurtful when you know that it is a prestigious place we have in this world and when we are reduced to behavior like that, it is very telling to all of us. We love this country and it is hurtful to see someone play out their – their emotions in such a loser way – I think I can say that.
SHUSTER: Tamron you said it perfectly. I agree with you 100%.
HALL: I don’t think my mother would like I said loser, but oh well.
![](\"/static/2008/08/profanity.jpg\")
The left has attempted with varying degrees of success to enact legislation that would increase government control over the news media and, in some instances, sway the political tides of various media in their favor, most notably in the form of the ‘Fairness Doctrine.’ Having failed to achieve its ends with the Fairness Doctrine, the left is now moving into alternative means through so-called ‘localism’ in broadcast media and ‘net neutrality’ on the web.
Both in traditional and new media, the left is attempting to tight its grip on the news, possibly asphyxiating the few bastions of center-right news and information that exist.
\nThe misnamed ‘Fairness Doctrine’ is the most widely publicized and debated of the left’s attempts to tighten their grip on the news media. Discarded by the Federal Communications Commission in 1987 on constitutional grounds, the doctrine required that networks and broadcast radio stations air opposing views that satisfied federal bureaucrats’ conception of ‘fairness.’
\nFar from increasing the diversity of views on the public airwaves, however, the Fairness Doctrine, according to the FCC at the time “had the net effect of reducing, rather than enhancing, the discussion of controversial issues of public importance.” The doctrine had a dramatic chilling effect on networks nationwide, which avoided political programming altogether for fear of not living up to the FCC’s standard of fairness.
\nThe repeal of the Fairness Doctrine produced a lively and diverse array of views on talk radio and in other media. Though conservatives still top the ratings charts, such talk show hosts as the stridently liberal Rachel Maddow have held their own.
\nBut what the left wants is not a diverse scope of discussion, but rather a politically supportive discussion. Opposing views are the problem, in the eyes of Fairness Doctrine proponents. Using the doctrine to silence those views is their ultimate goal.
\nThe Obama administration, realizing that the Fairness Doctrine is politically untenable, has advocated a backdoor for the regulation of speech on the airwaves considered politically unfavorable. The policy of ‘localism’ would mandate the creation of community advisory boards that would have to be consulted on ‘community needs and issues’ during the broadcasting license renewal process (which, incidentally, President Obama wants to hold every two years, instead of every eight).
\nThe power of these advisory boards to determine programming content and to stall or sink licensing applications for broadcasters that don’t meet their criteria for ‘community needs and issues’ suggests that localism could be more detrimental to free speech on talk radio than even the Fairness Doctrine.
\nQuoted in Broadcasting & Cable, a “veteran communications attorney” who spoke anonymously, warned that “Last year's localism decision, both the advisory boards and the programming forms, are a not-very-thinly-veiled Fairness Doctrine. But not just fairness. It is the commission determining the content of programming.”
\nSimilar concerns were raised by the administration’s pursuit of ‘diversity’ on the airwaves, exemplified by Obama’s appointment of Mark Lloyd as the FCC’s ‘diversity czar’. This newly created position is designed to establish regulations to ensure a yet-undefined notion of diverse programming.
\nGiven Lloyd’s previous statements on proper the role of the news media should raise concerns with those seeking to avoid another Fairness Doctrine. In 2007, he suggested progressives adopt Franklin Roosevelt’s stance against media consolidation, not to ensure a ‘diverse’ realm of political discourse, but rather to “continue to push a progressive agenda … [FDR] understood not only how to use media effectively, but also the importance of media ownership and the rules that determined media ownership.”
\nWith this man in charge of ensure ‘diversity’ of the airwaves, conservatives should be worried that the administration will change media ownership and broadcast rules to restrict oppositional speech.
\nThe advent of the Internet and new media technologies has rendered irrelevant the notion—first espoused by the Supreme Court—that the limited amount of radio bandwidth requires that the federal government intervene to ensure ‘fair’ distribution of broadcasting rights and capabilities. But the rise of the Internet as a force for political debate and opposition has the left worried.
\nEnter the similarly-misnamed ‘net neutrality’ movement, which advocates total government control of Internet browsing. Net neutrality would forbid Internet service providers from regulating traffic on their networks, and would place that regulatory control in the hands of the FCC.
\nWhile the left bemoans restrictions by private companies on their subscribers’ use of the Internet, progressives have few qualms with allowing the federal government a say in what we can or cannot see, do, or say on the Internet.
\nThe centralized control of Internet use by the federal government would provide a powerful tool for the censorship of websites deemed politically unfavorable. The current administration’s labeling of right-wing fringe groups as ‘extremists’ and potentially national security threats, and the labeling of town hall protestors as ‘political terrorists’ suggests that the realm of impermissible internet use could conceivably include groups that espouse intense opposition to federal policies.
\nThough no elected net neutrality advocate would ever suggest that the movement intends to regulate content, pundits on the left have been far more forthcoming. In March, a blogger at the Huffington Post lauding net neutrality wrote, “We have a very rare opportunity right now to lock in a progressive advantage in Internet communications, information sharing, and Netroots mobilizing.”
\nThere you have it, straight from the horse’s mouth. The left is seeking net neutrality as a means of consolidating control over the Internet, the same way it sought consolidated control over the airwaves with the Fairness Doctrine, and the same way it is now seeking that same objective in the guise of ‘diversity’ and ‘localism.’ Those on the center-right should not be fooled into thinking that 'localism' or 'net neutrality' promote free enterprise or free speech.
\n"; Author[15] = "Lachlan Markay"; Link[15] = "http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2009/09/10/new-media-same-fake-fairness-tactics-left"; Cat[15] = "\nThe left has attempted with varying degrees of success to enact legislation that would increase government control over the news media and, in some instances, sway the political tides of various media in their favor, most notably in the form of the ‘Fairness Doctrine.’ Having failed to achieve its ends with the Fairness Doctrine, the left is now moving into alternative means through so-called ‘localism’ in broadcast media and ‘net neutrality’ on the web.
Both in traditional and new media, the left is attempting to tight its grip on the news, possibly asphyxiating the few bastions of center-right news and information that exist.
\nThe misnamed ‘Fairness Doctrine’ is the most widely publicized and debated of the left’s attempts to tighten their grip on the news media. Discarded by the Federal Communications Commission in 1987 on constitutional grounds, the doctrine required that networks and broadcast radio stations air opposing views that satisfied federal bureaucrats’ conception of ‘fairness.’
\nFar from increasing the diversity of views on the public airwaves, however, the Fairness Doctrine, according to the FCC at the time “had the net effect of reducing, rather than enhancing, the discussion of controversial issues of public importance.” The doctrine had a dramatic chilling effect on networks nationwide, which avoided political programming altogether for fear of not living up to the FCC’s standard of fairness.
\nThe repeal of the Fairness Doctrine produced a lively and diverse array of views on talk radio and in other media. Though conservatives still top the ratings charts, such talk show hosts as the stridently liberal Rachel Maddow have held their own.
\nBut what the left wants is not a diverse scope of discussion, but rather a politically supportive discussion. Opposing views are the problem, in the eyes of Fairness Doctrine proponents. Using the doctrine to silence those views is their ultimate goal.
\nThe Obama administration, realizing that the Fairness Doctrine is politically untenable, has advocated a backdoor for the regulation of speech on the airwaves considered politically unfavorable. The policy of ‘localism’ would mandate the creation of community advisory boards that would have to be consulted on ‘community needs and issues’ during the broadcasting license renewal process (which, incidentally, President Obama wants to hold every two years, instead of every eight).
\nThe power of these advisory boards to determine programming content and to stall or sink licensing applications for broadcasters that don’t meet their criteria for ‘community needs and issues’ suggests that localism could be more detrimental to free speech on talk radio than even the Fairness Doctrine.
\nQuoted in Broadcasting & Cable, a “veteran communications attorney” who spoke anonymously, warned that “Last year's localism decision, both the advisory boards and the programming forms, are a not-very-thinly-veiled Fairness Doctrine. But not just fairness. It is the commission determining the content of programming.”
\nSimilar concerns were raised by the administration’s pursuit of ‘diversity’ on the airwaves, exemplified by Obama’s appointment of Mark Lloyd as the FCC’s ‘diversity czar’. This newly created position is designed to establish regulations to ensure a yet-undefined notion of diverse programming.
\nGiven Lloyd’s previous statements on proper the role of the news media should raise concerns with those seeking to avoid another Fairness Doctrine. In 2007, he suggested progressives adopt Franklin Roosevelt’s stance against media consolidation, not to ensure a ‘diverse’ realm of political discourse, but rather to “continue to push a progressive agenda … [FDR] understood not only how to use media effectively, but also the importance of media ownership and the rules that determined media ownership.”
\nWith this man in charge of ensure ‘diversity’ of the airwaves, conservatives should be worried that the administration will change media ownership and broadcast rules to restrict oppositional speech.
\nThe advent of the Internet and new media technologies has rendered irrelevant the notion—first espoused by the Supreme Court—that the limited amount of radio bandwidth requires that the federal government intervene to ensure ‘fair’ distribution of broadcasting rights and capabilities. But the rise of the Internet as a force for political debate and opposition has the left worried.
\nEnter the similarly-misnamed ‘net neutrality’ movement, which advocates total government control of Internet browsing. Net neutrality would forbid Internet service providers from regulating traffic on their networks, and would place that regulatory control in the hands of the FCC.
\nWhile the left bemoans restrictions by private companies on their subscribers’ use of the Internet, progressives have few qualms with allowing the federal government a say in what we can or cannot see, do, or say on the Internet.
\nThe centralized control of Internet use by the federal government would provide a powerful tool for the censorship of websites deemed politically unfavorable. The current administration’s labeling of right-wing fringe groups as ‘extremists’ and potentially national security threats, and the labeling of town hall protestors as ‘political terrorists’ suggests that the realm of impermissible internet use could conceivably include groups that espouse intense opposition to federal policies.
\nThough no elected net neutrality advocate would ever suggest that the movement intends to regulate content, pundits on the left have been far more forthcoming. In March, a blogger at the Huffington Post lauding net neutrality wrote, “We have a very rare opportunity right now to lock in a progressive advantage in Internet communications, information sharing, and Netroots mobilizing.”
\nThere you have it, straight from the horse’s mouth. The left is seeking net neutrality as a means of consolidating control over the Internet, the same way it sought consolidated control over the airwaves with the Fairness Doctrine, and the same way it is now seeking that same objective in the guise of ‘diversity’ and ‘localism.’ Those on the center-right should not be fooled into thinking that 'localism' or 'net neutrality' promote free enterprise or free speech.
\n![](\"http://media.eyeblast.org/newsbusters/static/2009/09/Shuster_David_2009-09-10.jpg\")
A half hour after wrapping up his on-air duties for the day, MSNBC's David Shuster took to his Twitter account to insist that he is biased, in favor of the truth:
Posted around 5:30 p.m. EDT to his Twitter account:
\n\n"; Author[16] = "Ken Shepherd"; Link[16] = "http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2009/09/10/msnbcs-david-shuster-insists-hes-biased-favor-facts"; Cat[16] = "\nTo all of the wing-nuts who are resorting to the usual tweets today: I am biased in favor of FACTS and biased against lies.
\n
A half hour after wrapping up his on-air duties for the day, MSNBC's David Shuster took to his Twitter account to insist that he is biased, in favor of the truth:
Posted around 5:30 p.m. EDT to his Twitter account:
\n\nTo all of the wing-nuts who are resorting to the usual tweets today: I am biased in favor of FACTS and biased against lies.
\n
![](\"http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h219/pjcomix/blog/kos2.jpg\")
Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas on the Midday Open Thread, Thursday: "As bad as Rep. Joe Wilson's behavior was last night, look on the bright side -- at least he wasn't carrying a sign that said 'Obama = Hitler'. Or a loaded rifle."
Also Markos on Thursday, lauding Joe Wilson’s Democrat opponent: "Overall, Rob Miller is close to hitting $400,000 from almost 11,000 patriots sick and tired of Republicans like Rep. Joe Wilson trying to debase our democracy." (More here.)
\nMarkos Moulitsas, opponent of debasing democracy, on the Midday Open Thread, Wednesday edition, on conservatives causing the resignation of radical leftist Van Jones: "It would be nice if the White House learned, as Baratunde notes, that they can't negotiate with terrorists."
\nP.S.: Another Kosmonaut with the handle "Meteor Blades" suggests Bush would have dragged uncivil Congresspersons into secret jails:
\n\n"; Author[17] = "Tim Graham"; Link[17] = "http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2009/09/10/daily-kos-civility-lesson"; Cat[17] = "\nBut whether it's racist tropes or moronic red-baiting, the right-wing media and way too many supposedly honorable Republicans have done nothing to tone down this rancid display. Plus the fact that if a Democratic Representative had yelled "You lie!" during a Bush speech, she'd still be doing time in a secret prison.
\n
Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas on the Midday Open Thread, Thursday: "As bad as Rep. Joe Wilson's behavior was last night, look on the bright side -- at least he wasn't carrying a sign that said 'Obama = Hitler'. Or a loaded rifle."
Also Markos on Thursday, lauding Joe Wilson’s Democrat opponent: "Overall, Rob Miller is close to hitting $400,000 from almost 11,000 patriots sick and tired of Republicans like Rep. Joe Wilson trying to debase our democracy." (More here.)
\nMarkos Moulitsas, opponent of debasing democracy, on the Midday Open Thread, Wednesday edition, on conservatives causing the resignation of radical leftist Van Jones: "It would be nice if the White House learned, as Baratunde notes, that they can't negotiate with terrorists."
\nP.S.: Another Kosmonaut with the handle "Meteor Blades" suggests Bush would have dragged uncivil Congresspersons into secret jails:
\n\nBut whether it's racist tropes or moronic red-baiting, the right-wing media and way too many supposedly honorable Republicans have done nothing to tone down this rancid display. Plus the fact that if a Democratic Representative had yelled "You lie!" during a Bush speech, she'd still be doing time in a secret prison.
\n
![](\"/static/2009/09/Mythbuster%20Health%20Insurance%20One%20of%20Least%20Profitable%20Industries.jpg\")
"[W]ithout competition, the price of insurance goes up and quality goes down. And it makes it easier for insurance companies to treat their customers badly -- by cherry-picking the healthiest individuals and trying to drop the sickest, by overcharging small businesses who have no leverage, and by jacking up rates. Insurance executives don't do this because they're bad people; they do it because it's profitable. As one former insurance executive testified before Congress, insurance companies are not only encouraged to find reasons to drop the seriously ill, they are rewarded for it. All of this is in service of meeting what this former executive called 'Wall Street's relentless profit expectations.'"
So said President Obama during his healthcare address Wednesday echoing a common Democrat and media meme that insurance companies are evil entities always looking to take advantage of the public for the sake of the mighty dollar.
The truth is that health insurance is one of the least profitable industries in America. In fact, according to Fortune magazine, such companies only make 2.2 cents for every dollar of gross sales:
2008 Industry Rank as % of Revenues
1 Network and Other Communications Equipment 20.4
2 Internet Services and Retailing 19.4
3 Pharmaceuticals 19.3
4 Medical Products and Equipment 16.3
5 Railroads 12.6
6 Financial Data Services 11.7
7 Mining, Crude-Oil production 11.5
8 Securities 10.7
9 Oil and Gas Equipment, Services 10.2
10 Scientific, Photographic, and Control Equipment 9.9
11 Household and Personal Products 8.7
12 Utilities: Gas and Electric 8.7
13 Aerospace and Defense 7.6
14 Food Services 7.1
15 Industrial Machinery 6.9
16 Food Consumer Products 6.7
17 Electronics, Electrical Equipment 6.5
18 Commercial Banks 5.2
19 Telecommunications 5.1
20 Chemicals 5.0
21 Construction and Farm Machinery 5.0
22 Insurance: Life, Health (stock) 4.6
23 Information Technology Services 4.5
24 Computers, Office Equipment 4.3
25 Metals 3.9
26 Wholesalers: Diversified 3.5
27 Insurance: Property and Casualty (stock) 3.3
28 Specialty Retailers 3.2
29 General Merchandisers 3.2
30 Health Care: Pharmacy and Other Services 3.0
31 Packaging, Containers 3.0
32 Beverages 2.9
33 Engineering, Construction 2.7
34 Health Care: Medical Facilities 2.4
35 Health Care: Insurance and Managed Care 2.2
36 Petroleum Refining 2.1
37 Food and Drug Stores 1.5
38 Pipelines 1.5
39 Wholesalers: Health Care 1.3
40 Semiconductors and Other Electronic Components 1.0
41 Energy 0.9
42 Home Equipment, Furnishings 0.7
43 Food Production 0.6
44 Wholesalers: Electronics and Office Equipment -0.3
45 Diversified Financials -0.6
46 Motor Vehicles and Parts -0.7
47 Insurance: Life, Health (mutual) -3.0
48 Hotels, Casinos, Resorts -4.5
49 Automotive Retailing, Services -7.9
50 Forest and Paper Products -9.6
51 Entertainment -10.0
52 Real Estate -13.4
53 Airlines -13.5
So, there are 34 industries in America that are more profitable than health insurance.
Are they all bad, too?
In the end, regardless of the kind of policies being written -- life, health, fire & casualty, etc. -- insurance isn't a high margin game.
Unfortunately, our President, his Party, and his media minions don't understand this, and continually misrepresent the facts to the public.
Someone cue Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC.).
"; Author[18] = "Noel Sheppard"; Link[18] = "http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/09/10/mythbuster-health-insurance-one-least-profitable-industries"; Cat[18] = "\n"[W]ithout competition, the price of insurance goes up and quality goes down. And it makes it easier for insurance companies to treat their customers badly -- by cherry-picking the healthiest individuals and trying to drop the sickest, by overcharging small businesses who have no leverage, and by jacking up rates. Insurance executives don't do this because they're bad people; they do it because it's profitable. As one former insurance executive testified before Congress, insurance companies are not only encouraged to find reasons to drop the seriously ill, they are rewarded for it. All of this is in service of meeting what this former executive called 'Wall Street's relentless profit expectations.'"
So said President Obama during his healthcare address Wednesday echoing a common Democrat and media meme that insurance companies are evil entities always looking to take advantage of the public for the sake of the mighty dollar.
The truth is that health insurance is one of the least profitable industries in America. In fact, according to Fortune magazine, such companies only make 2.2 cents for every dollar of gross sales:
2008 Industry Rank as % of Revenues
1 Network and Other Communications Equipment 20.4
2 Internet Services and Retailing 19.4
3 Pharmaceuticals 19.3
4 Medical Products and Equipment 16.3
5 Railroads 12.6
6 Financial Data Services 11.7
7 Mining, Crude-Oil production 11.5
8 Securities 10.7
9 Oil and Gas Equipment, Services 10.2
10 Scientific, Photographic, and Control Equipment 9.9
11 Household and Personal Products 8.7
12 Utilities: Gas and Electric 8.7
13 Aerospace and Defense 7.6
14 Food Services 7.1
15 Industrial Machinery 6.9
16 Food Consumer Products 6.7
17 Electronics, Electrical Equipment 6.5
18 Commercial Banks 5.2
19 Telecommunications 5.1
20 Chemicals 5.0
21 Construction and Farm Machinery 5.0
22 Insurance: Life, Health (stock) 4.6
23 Information Technology Services 4.5
24 Computers, Office Equipment 4.3
25 Metals 3.9
26 Wholesalers: Diversified 3.5
27 Insurance: Property and Casualty (stock) 3.3
28 Specialty Retailers 3.2
29 General Merchandisers 3.2
30 Health Care: Pharmacy and Other Services 3.0
31 Packaging, Containers 3.0
32 Beverages 2.9
33 Engineering, Construction 2.7
34 Health Care: Medical Facilities 2.4
35 Health Care: Insurance and Managed Care 2.2
36 Petroleum Refining 2.1
37 Food and Drug Stores 1.5
38 Pipelines 1.5
39 Wholesalers: Health Care 1.3
40 Semiconductors and Other Electronic Components 1.0
41 Energy 0.9
42 Home Equipment, Furnishings 0.7
43 Food Production 0.6
44 Wholesalers: Electronics and Office Equipment -0.3
45 Diversified Financials -0.6
46 Motor Vehicles and Parts -0.7
47 Insurance: Life, Health (mutual) -3.0
48 Hotels, Casinos, Resorts -4.5
49 Automotive Retailing, Services -7.9
50 Forest and Paper Products -9.6
51 Entertainment -10.0
52 Real Estate -13.4
53 Airlines -13.5
So, there are 34 industries in America that are more profitable than health insurance.
Are they all bad, too?
In the end, regardless of the kind of policies being written -- life, health, fire & casualty, etc. -- insurance isn't a high margin game.
Unfortunately, our President, his Party, and his media minions don't understand this, and continually misrepresent the facts to the public.
Someone cue Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC.).
![](\"http://media.eyeblast.org/newsbusters/static/2009/09/2009-09-09-ABC-NL-Moran.jpg\")
ABC’s Terry Moran on Wednesday hyperbolically spun Barack Obama’s congressional speech as a "bold call to action" and theatrically visualized, "There was another ghost in the chamber tonight, the spirit of Senator Ted Kennedy, who fought for decades for universal care."
Earlier in the Nightline segment, which recapped the President’s health care address, the co-anchor introduced his political revision of A Christmas Carol: "Yes, there were ghosts in that chamber tonight. The other Presidents who tried to reform the health care system and failed."
\nAfter discussing the outburst by South Carolina Congressman Joe Wilson, who accused the President of being a liar, Moran declared, "The President simply moved on. Focusing on his message. Trying to take the high road. Leaving Wilson and others behind."
\nThe President tried to take the high road? Although it’s only partially in Moran’s segment, Obama made this comment clearly aimed at Sarah Palin: "-That we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Now, such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple." So, Representative Wilson calling the President a liar is in poor taste? But, Obama doing the same thing to Palin is the "high road?"
\nMoran’s tone was constant throughout the piece. He opened the segment by trumpeting, "President Obama delivers a bold call to action on health care, challenging his Republican opponents to stop what he calls the scare tactics and telling lawmakers the time to act is now." He later declared the speech was a "urgent call to action, one that bluntly even emotionally challenged what he called the scare tactics of some of his Republican opponents."
\nRepeating White House talking points, Moran parroted, "The plan itself, the President claimed, will deliver what polls show Americans want- security and stability in health care, the end of those nightmares [extreme difficulties dealing with insurance companies]." Of course, the anchor could have cited polls, such as Rasmussen, that now show 53 percent of Americans oppose Obama’s proposal for government-run health care.
\nA transcript of the September 9 segment, which aired at 11:47pm EDT, follows:
\n\n"; Author[19] = "Scott Whitlock"; Link[19] = "http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2009/09/10/abc-s-terry-moran-hyperventilates-ghost-ted-kennedy-appeared-congres"; Cat[19] = "\n[Show open tease]
\nTERRY MORAN: Make or break. President Obama delivers a bold call to action on health care, challenging his Republican opponents to stop what he calls the scare tactics and telling lawmakers the time to act is now. Political showdown. So, did the President win the support of a divided Congress and an increasingly skeptical American public?
\n11:47
\nTERRY MORAN: And we begin tonight with President Obama's major speech on health care reform. It was an urgent call to action, one that bluntly even emotionally challenged what he called the scare tactics of some of his Republican opponents. When the President admitted that some of the tough details of his plan still need to be ironed out, lawmakers from both parties laughed out loud. And at one point, a Republican member of Congress actually heckled the president, yelling at him, "You lie!" Well, the deep divide reflects just how entrenched this healthcare fight has become. It was another high pressure moment for President Obama.
\nSARGENT AT ARMS: Madam Speaker, the President of the United States.
\nMORAN: He has lived on the political high wire, it seems, from the campaign, through the financial crisis, and the stimulus battle and now health care.
\nPRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: I'm not the first President to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last.
\nMORAN: Yes, there were ghosts in that chamber tonight. The other Presidents who tried to reform the health care system and failed. From Teddy Roosevelt, to Harry Truman, to Bill Clinton who came to Congress 16 years ago this month with his plan.
\nPRESIDENT BILL CLINTON [file footage]: There's still a lot of people who say it would be an outright miracle if we passed health care reform. But my fellow Americans, in a time of change you have to have miracles. And miracles do happen.
\nMORAN: Not that year. Year Clinton and the Democrats got hammered politically. This time, President Obama declared, it will be different, because, he argued, it has to be.
\nOBAMA: Our collective failure to meet this challenge, year after year, decade after decade, has led us to the breaking point.
\nMORAN: So the stakes were high, again. And the Congress President Obama addressed was bitterly divided, again. Not just the Republicans, his own party. He had his work cut out for him, and he went at it with relish.
\nOBAMA: We know we must reform this system. The question is how.
\nMORAN: First, the problem. The President sought to remind Americans of what they disliked, even fear the most, in the system by offering emotional examples of all too familiar health care nightmares.
\nOBAMA: It happens every day. One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn't reported gallstones that he didn't even know about. They delayed his treatment. And he died because of it. That is heartbreaking. It is wrong and no one should be treated that way in the United States of America.
\nMORAN: But how to fix the system? That is the question that bedeviled so many presidents. And that has ignited the divisive battle in the media and on the internet and in town hall meetings across the country.
\nOBAMA: The time for bickering is over. The time for game has passed. Now it's a season for action. Now is when we must bring the best ideas of both parties together. And show the American people that we can still do what we were sent here to do. Now is the time to deliver on health care.
\nMORAN: This was not some safe, predictable healthcare policy speech. President Obama was going all in rhetorically and the atmosphere thickened. It exploded when he tried to answer the most inflammatory charges against his plan, like that idea of death panels that would deny care to the old and sick.
\nOBAMA: Now, such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible.
\nMORAN: And then he tried to answer another accusation and listen to what happened.
\nOBAMA: There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would ensure illegal immigrants. This too is false. The reforms- the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.
\nREPRESENTATIVE JOE WILSON: You lie!
\nMORAN: That was Republican Congressman Joe Wilson shouting, "You lie," at the President, a rarely used word in the House chamber, explicitly prohibited by the rules. He later apologized.
\nOBAMA: It’s not true.
\nMORAN: The President simply moved on. Focusing on his message. Trying to take the high road. Leaving Wilson and others behind.
\nOBAMA: If you come to me with a serious set of proposals, I will be there to listen. My door is always open. But know this: I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it's better politics to kill this plan than to improve it.
\nMORAN: The plan itself, the President claimed, will deliver what polls show Americans want- security and stability in health care, the end of those nightmares.
\nOBAMA: Under this plan it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. As soon as I sign this bill, it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it the most.
\nMORAN: The President also called for a mandate that all Americans have health insurance, a new insurance exchange where small businesses and individuals could buy low-cost coverage, and most controversially, a so-called public option, a government insurance program.
\nOBAMA: It could provide a good deal for consumers. And it would keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better.
\nMORAN: There was another ghost in the chamber tonight, the spirit of Senator Ted Kennedy, who fought for decades for universal care. And with his family watching from the gallery, President Obama invoked his legacy and read from a letter Kennedy wrote him in May.
\nOBAMA: "What we face," he wrote, "is above all a moral issue. At stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country."
\n\n
MORAN: And at the end, President Obama sought to draw on the grand rhetorical tradition of President Kennedy and others, trying to summon the country to a great and necessary endeavor.
\nMORAN: We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it. I still believe we can act, even when it's hard.
\n
ABC’s Terry Moran on Wednesday hyperbolically spun Barack Obama’s congressional speech as a "bold call to action" and theatrically visualized, "There was another ghost in the chamber tonight, the spirit of Senator Ted Kennedy, who fought for decades for universal care."
Earlier in the Nightline segment, which recapped the President’s health care address, the co-anchor introduced his political revision of A Christmas Carol: "Yes, there were ghosts in that chamber tonight. The other Presidents who tried to reform the health care system and failed."
\nAfter discussing the outburst by South Carolina Congressman Joe Wilson, who accused the President of being a liar, Moran declared, "The President simply moved on. Focusing on his message. Trying to take the high road. Leaving Wilson and others behind."
\nThe President tried to take the high road? Although it’s only partially in Moran’s segment, Obama made this comment clearly aimed at Sarah Palin: "-That we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Now, such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple." So, Representative Wilson calling the President a liar is in poor taste? But, Obama doing the same thing to Palin is the "high road?"
\nMoran’s tone was constant throughout the piece. He opened the segment by trumpeting, "President Obama delivers a bold call to action on health care, challenging his Republican opponents to stop what he calls the scare tactics and telling lawmakers the time to act is now." He later declared the speech was a "urgent call to action, one that bluntly even emotionally challenged what he called the scare tactics of some of his Republican opponents."
\nRepeating White House talking points, Moran parroted, "The plan itself, the President claimed, will deliver what polls show Americans want- security and stability in health care, the end of those nightmares [extreme difficulties dealing with insurance companies]." Of course, the anchor could have cited polls, such as Rasmussen, that now show 53 percent of Americans oppose Obama’s proposal for government-run health care.
\nA transcript of the September 9 segment, which aired at 11:47pm EDT, follows:
\n\n[Show open tease]
\nTERRY MORAN: Make or break. President Obama delivers a bold call to action on health care, challenging his Republican opponents to stop what he calls the scare tactics and telling lawmakers the time to act is now. Political showdown. So, did the President win the support of a divided Congress and an increasingly skeptical American public?
\n11:47
\nTERRY MORAN: And we begin tonight with President Obama's major speech on health care reform. It was an urgent call to action, one that bluntly even emotionally challenged what he called the scare tactics of some of his Republican opponents. When the President admitted that some of the tough details of his plan still need to be ironed out, lawmakers from both parties laughed out loud. And at one point, a Republican member of Congress actually heckled the president, yelling at him, "You lie!" Well, the deep divide reflects just how entrenched this healthcare fight has become. It was another high pressure moment for President Obama.
\nSARGENT AT ARMS: Madam Speaker, the President of the United States.
\nMORAN: He has lived on the political high wire, it seems, from the campaign, through the financial crisis, and the stimulus battle and now health care.
\nPRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: I'm not the first President to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last.
\nMORAN: Yes, there were ghosts in that chamber tonight. The other Presidents who tried to reform the health care system and failed. From Teddy Roosevelt, to Harry Truman, to Bill Clinton who came to Congress 16 years ago this month with his plan.
\nPRESIDENT BILL CLINTON [file footage]: There's still a lot of people who say it would be an outright miracle if we passed health care reform. But my fellow Americans, in a time of change you have to have miracles. And miracles do happen.
\nMORAN: Not that year. Year Clinton and the Democrats got hammered politically. This time, President Obama declared, it will be different, because, he argued, it has to be.
\nOBAMA: Our collective failure to meet this challenge, year after year, decade after decade, has led us to the breaking point.
\nMORAN: So the stakes were high, again. And the Congress President Obama addressed was bitterly divided, again. Not just the Republicans, his own party. He had his work cut out for him, and he went at it with relish.
\nOBAMA: We know we must reform this system. The question is how.
\nMORAN: First, the problem. The President sought to remind Americans of what they disliked, even fear the most, in the system by offering emotional examples of all too familiar health care nightmares.
\nOBAMA: It happens every day. One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn't reported gallstones that he didn't even know about. They delayed his treatment. And he died because of it. That is heartbreaking. It is wrong and no one should be treated that way in the United States of America.
\nMORAN: But how to fix the system? That is the question that bedeviled so many presidents. And that has ignited the divisive battle in the media and on the internet and in town hall meetings across the country.
\nOBAMA: The time for bickering is over. The time for game has passed. Now it's a season for action. Now is when we must bring the best ideas of both parties together. And show the American people that we can still do what we were sent here to do. Now is the time to deliver on health care.
\nMORAN: This was not some safe, predictable healthcare policy speech. President Obama was going all in rhetorically and the atmosphere thickened. It exploded when he tried to answer the most inflammatory charges against his plan, like that idea of death panels that would deny care to the old and sick.
\nOBAMA: Now, such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible.
\nMORAN: And then he tried to answer another accusation and listen to what happened.
\nOBAMA: There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would ensure illegal immigrants. This too is false. The reforms- the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.
\nREPRESENTATIVE JOE WILSON: You lie!
\nMORAN: That was Republican Congressman Joe Wilson shouting, "You lie," at the President, a rarely used word in the House chamber, explicitly prohibited by the rules. He later apologized.
\nOBAMA: It’s not true.
\nMORAN: The President simply moved on. Focusing on his message. Trying to take the high road. Leaving Wilson and others behind.
\nOBAMA: If you come to me with a serious set of proposals, I will be there to listen. My door is always open. But know this: I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it's better politics to kill this plan than to improve it.
\nMORAN: The plan itself, the President claimed, will deliver what polls show Americans want- security and stability in health care, the end of those nightmares.
\nOBAMA: Under this plan it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. As soon as I sign this bill, it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it the most.
\nMORAN: The President also called for a mandate that all Americans have health insurance, a new insurance exchange where small businesses and individuals could buy low-cost coverage, and most controversially, a so-called public option, a government insurance program.
\nOBAMA: It could provide a good deal for consumers. And it would keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better.
\nMORAN: There was another ghost in the chamber tonight, the spirit of Senator Ted Kennedy, who fought for decades for universal care. And with his family watching from the gallery, President Obama invoked his legacy and read from a letter Kennedy wrote him in May.
\nOBAMA: "What we face," he wrote, "is above all a moral issue. At stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country."
\n\n
MORAN: And at the end, President Obama sought to draw on the grand rhetorical tradition of President Kennedy and others, trying to summon the country to a great and necessary endeavor.
\nMORAN: We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it. I still believe we can act, even when it's hard.
\n