The Washington Post Cannot Tell Obama from Malcolm X

Via Gawker, they also have what WaPo meant to put up.

MythInformation Watch: Response to WaPo's "Condescending" liberals piece

By GottaLaff

You must read this op-ed by Robert Parry from OpEdNews.com. It gets into a lot of what I've been ranting about lately (media propaganda, Sarah Palin's speech, the death of accurate reporting), only with a twist: Psy-ops.

The trick, [CIA psy-war specialist Edward Lansdale] said, was to plant propaganda in a publication that was perceived to be open and honest because the readers' defenses would be down and thus they would be more susceptible to the message. In other words, they first had to be fooled about who controlled the outlet and what its biases were.

Several things came to mind as I read this: How do you unfool an entire country? Why can't we control the message?

And how do you educate low-information voters?

Pleaseohplease go read the whole thing:

A key strategy of the Right has been to convince as many Americans as possible that the U.S. news media has a "liberal bias," a canard that has stuck even though newspapers have been traditionally pro-Republican and most media outlets are owned by giant corporations reflecting the interests of wealthy individuals. [...]

Alexander's article in the Post is, in essence, a fancily written version of the Right's "populist" anti-intellectualism. Anyone who insists on checking out facts and applying reason must be an "elitist."

That this "condescending" attack line against the Left is being trumpeted by the supposedly "liberal" Washington Post makes it all the more powerful to many Americans.

Now, with the emergence of Sarah Palin as the latest heir to Ronald Reagan's legacy and as a potential next President of the United States it is clear that empiricism will be snowed under again by a blizzard of half-truths, emotional appeals, historical myths and nasty zingers.

Anyone who dares speak up for facts and reason will be portrayed as a pointy-headed intellectual out of touch with "real Americans." [...]

The American Right again has taken on the "populist" mantle of the plucky underdog facing down the "elitist" Obama and his arrogant entourage of House Speaker Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, defenders of Big Government, not to mention the "liberal" news media.

In this narrative, Palin, the Fox News personalities and poor Rush Limbaugh are the real victims who must face the cruelty and condescension of an all-powerful, arrogant Left.

Go read. Now.

H/t: Gr8RDH

Headlines: L.A. Times v. N.Y. Times v. WaPo

By GottaLaff

Here are the most prominent headlines for the L.A. Times, the New York Times, and the Washington Post. All are online:

L.A. Times:

Weight-loss surgery for the obese may soon be widely used

New York Times:

U.S. Sees an Opportunity to Press Iran on Nuclear Fuel

WaPo:

Foes of reform look to courts to halt legislation

Interesting priorities... or what they think will attract readers.

And yes, it's such a slow a news day that I had to dig up dueling headlines.

‘Washington Post’ Columnist’s Car Explodes

Wow. Via Greg-

Anne Applebaum, editorial writer and columnist for The Washington Post, is under police protection after her Jeep’s engine exploded in mysterious circumstances.

Applebaum, wife of Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski and author of “Gulag,” a Pulitzer prize-winning history of the Soviet Gulag, was driving in a Warsaw suburb on Saturday when she heard strange noises from under her hood and got out to investigate. Shortly afterward, the engine blew up, The Times of London reported. Applebaum was unhurt in the explosion. Polish police are considering it a technical problem, but she has been assigned bodyguards while the car’s remains are examined further.

(snip)

She and her husband are vocal critics of the Kremlin

WaPo's indiscriminate use of anonymity

By GottaLaff

Anonymous sources provided me with this excerpt:

Glenn Greenwald dissects a Washington Post article by Anne Kornblut and lists the sources for the article -- every one of them -- in the order she cites them:

"Obama aides pointed... administration officials said... a senior administration official said... officials said... a senior administration official said... senior Obama officials stressed... a senior administration official said... aides said... officials said... one senior administration official said... one senior official said... The official said... a senior administration official said... a senior administration official said... administration officials said... a senior official said."

Please follow the Greenwald link. His piece delves into a whole lot more than the sliver I've provided. Go. Now.

Here's a hint:

Exposed: The WaPo’s One-Sided Account of Torture, Abuse

By GottaLaff

Is there a newspaper out there that we can trust any more?

I didn't think so:

The lead story in today’s Washington Post, headlined “How a Detainee Became An Asset,” provides a one-sided and distorted account of the torture and abuse of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad (KSM) and demonstrates the urgent need for a blue ribbon bipartisan commission to create a comprehensive and authoritative narrative of the eight years of misgovernment of the Bush administration. [...]

Today’s article argues that the techniques of torture and abuse turned KSM into the CIA’s “preeminent source” on al-Qaeda. Citing an intelligence assessment by the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center, which was presumably prepared for Vice President Cheney, the Post article argues that waterboarding was the key to breaking KSM’s spirit and eliciting valuable intelligence on the “inner workings of al-Qaeda and the group’s plans, ideology, and operatives.”

This view contradicts the findings of the authoritative 2004 report on detainees and interrogations of the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) as well as the personal views of the Inspector General (IG) himself.

The piece goes on to explain in detail why torture is wronger than wrong, and that the report did not conclude that torture elicited useful information that prevented any imminent attack.

And Dick Cheney, who has fanatically been waging his own personal jihad in defense of torture and abuse, told Fox News in an interview that will air tomorrow that CIA interrogators were justified in exceeding even the broad authorizations provided by the Justice Department, suggesting that the ends justify the means. Perhaps the Washington Post could give front-page coverage to the 18-page memorandum that the CIA gave to the DoJ’s Office of Legal Counsel in 2004, which provides extraordinary details of the interrogations in plain, but sordid and sadistic, language. [...]

In order to prevent the Washington Post and others from adding to the myths and misinformation of torture and abuse, it is time to appoint a blue ribbon commission to study all aspects of the CIA’s detentions and interrogations policies.

Melvin A. Goodman, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and adjunct professor of government at Johns Hopkins University, is The Public Record’s National Security and Intelligence columnist. He spent 42 years with the CIA, the National War College, and the U.S. Army. His latest book is Failure of Intelligence: The Decline and Fall of the CIA.

As far as I'm concerned, the debate about torture is over. However, there is so much CYA going on in so many places, this is one of the many times that winning is more important to BushCo and others than the worth of human lives... Fayiz al-Kandari's included (see below).

Oh, and then there are all those pesky little legal issues, too.

****************

All my previous posts on this subject matter can be found here; That link includes one specific to only Fayiz al-Kandari's story here. Here are audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you'd like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer's book The Dark Side. You'll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I'm all over the CIA deception issues, too.

More of Fayiz's story here, at Answers.com.

Washington Post re-prints misleading photo of Obama at G8

Your liberal media at work. Via Media Matters.

Dan Froomkin hired by Huffington Post

By GottaLaff

Via a Tweet from Oliver Willis:

Huffpo hired Dan Froomkin. Suck it, MSM.

Yup:

Froomkin will oversee a staff of four five reporters and an Assistant Editor, guide The Huffington Post's Washington reporting, and write at least two posts per week to be featured on its main page and Politics page. [...]

Media Matters' Jamison Foser uses pictures to convey "what The Washington Post is up to these days." With leadership like Fred Hiatt and the nepotism-benefiting Graham family, it's really no wonder that -- with a couple of individual exceptions -- it's become such a sad spectacle. Nora Ephron said this morning: "I used to read Dan Froomkin religiously -- I thought he was one of the best things at the Washington Post. I was bewildered when he was fired." At least it freed up money to produce embarrassing vaudeville videos from Dana Milbank and Chris Cillizza. When they're not selling access to lobbyists and printing John Bolton Op-Eds urging some new war on the latest Enemy, that is what "the Post is up to these days."

Suck it, corporate media.

My Tweet Spot: Froomkin, Correspondents Dinner, Iran, Meghan McCain- Aired June 26, 2009

By GottaLaff



Did you know that I do radio segments every Friday? Look at me going all podcasty and stuff!

"My Tweet Spot" is a recap of the week in politics via Tweets from Twitter. Today's episode consists of various Tweets about Dan Froomkin, the White House Correspondents Awards Dinner, Iran, Meghan McCain, and who knows what!

I do three per show every Friday. Podcasts here.

Hope you like it!

Stupid Headline of the Day

Black Reporters on the Beat of Michelle Obama
I don't seem to remember Howie writing about Laura Bush, "White WASP Women Sycophantically Follow Around Button Downed Laura". Geez o pete, do they have any AA female reporters at the WaPo? And this he writes about today, totally ignoring the Cash For Access scandal?

Washington Post sells access, $25,000+

I know this has been all over the place this morning, but one thing has really been bothering me. How much did they charge before?

For $25,000 to $250,000, The Washington Post has offered lobbyists and association executives off-the-record, non-confrontational access to "those powerful few" — Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and — at first — even the paper’s own reporters and editors.

The astonishing offer was detailed in a flier circulated Wednesday to a health care lobbyist, who provided it to a reporter because the lobbyist said he felt it was a conflict for the paper to charge for access to, as the flier says, its “health care reporting and editorial staff."

More Optimism Since Obama Became President

I wouldn't have expected such a huge amount in such a short period of time. The Republican approvals? That I expected.

Americans have grown more optimistic about the economy and the direction of the country in the 11 weeks since President Obama was inaugurated, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

"Fully two-thirds said they approved of his overall job performance. By contrast, just 31 percent of respondents said they had a favorable view of the Republican Party, the lowest in the 25 years the question has been asked" in the poll.

Few Blame Obama for Economy

Republicans probably see the economy souring more because they are the part of it that that disproportionally gotten richer the past 15 years.

A new Washington Post/ABC News poll finds that the number of Americans who believe that the nation is headed in the right direction has roughly tripled since President Obama's election, and the public overwhelmingly blames the excesses of the financial industry, rather than the new president, for turmoil in the economy.

Interesting: "There is now a pronounced divergence between Democratic and Republican perceptions of the economy, a bigger partisan divide than the one that occurred 16 years ago after Bill Clinton took office. In early 1993, people in both parties were about equally likely to see the economy as improving, but now the number of Republicans who say it is souring is more than double that of Democrats."

Washington Post spinning U.S. Attorney story to create Obama scandal?

By GottaLaff

DKos has a post up that makes one contemplate why WaPo would want to start something with Team Obama. Aren't the days of preemptive attacks over?

The Washington Post's Carrie Johnson writes today that it is "unclear" how Obama will handle replaicing U.S. Attorneys [...]

Any potential scandal would not be in President Obama choosing to put in place his own picks, but if he decided down the road to fire any of them who were refusing to use their offices for political purposes. Like his predecessor did. [...]

Mary Beth Buchanan, the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania, who oversaw a recent FBI raid of fundraisers close to Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), told local reporters after the November election that she did not plan to voluntarily resign. [...]

"It doesn't serve justice for all the U.S. attorneys to submit their resignations at one time," Buchanan told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette last year. "I am open to continuing further service to the United States." [...]

Ms. Buchanan [who held top political jobs in the Bush Justice Department, is a member of the conservative Federalist Society legal group and cultivated close connections to former senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), an advocate for antiabortion and Christian groups] serves at the pleasure of the President. If the President decides to fire her, whether or not she's involved in the Murtha investigation, it will not be a political decision on the part of President Obama, however the WaPo is choosing to preemptively spin it.

Media bias again? Don't be silly. Clearly, they're all liberal propaganda sheets. This one exception just slipped through the cracks.

NY Times: “I’ve had more unsolicited offers ... from the Obama people in 45 days than in the last 8 years from Bush”

By GottaLaff

(Unrelated photo via)

Yesterday I posted about President Obama (with audio) following up-- unsolicited-- on a (ridiculous) question by the New York Times about whether he was a socialist. Yes, that question.

But here's what isn't ridiculous: Our very smart, very savvy prez isn't just reaching out to Congress, or red states, or Goldendoodles. He's reaching out to the very same conservative media that so often misquotes, disagrees, or outright bashes him:

“I’ve had more unsolicited offers for participation from the Obama people in 45 days than in the last eight years from Bush,” said [Andrew Rosenthal, The Times’ editorial page director].

Rosenthal said the Obama administration’s approach is consistent with the one the Obama campaign used, and for a reason: It worked. Citing an example, he said that an Obama campaign aide succeeded in convincing him back in July — before an editorial ran — that Obama had not, in fact, reversed his position on a controversial D.C. handgun ban.

“With columnists and editorial writers,” Rosenthal said, “I think the theory is that you can actually have an impact.”

Washington Post editorial page editor Fred Hiatt said in an e-mail that the Obama team has been “open and responsive” to requests from The Post’s editorial writers. Hiatt said that helps The Post “produce smarter and more knowledgeable editorials.”

“My general view is, the more exchange of views, the better,” Hiatt added. “I welcome any outreach from the White House to my columnists or editorial board.” [...]

In an interview, [David] Brooks said that Obama’s people respond quickly to columns with which they find fault — but that, in doing so, they refrain from “personal insults,” opting for a “very nice, very evidence-based” approach instead.

The Obama outreach effort is different than Bush’s in part because the previous administration “only reached out to people who automatically agreed with them.” [...]

Rosenthal wondered if the Bush team had the kind of contact with The Wall Street Journal editorial board that the Obama team does now. WSJ editorial page editor Paul Gigot declined comment, but Tony Blankley — who ran The Washington Times’ conservative editorial page during the bulk of Bush’s tenure — suggested that it probably wasn’t so.

Although Blankley said he spoke regularly with senior Bush administration officials, many of whom he’d known for years, he said the Bush press team’s outreach was not as “aggressive in putting out useful things or complaining about editorials they didn’t like” as Obama’s is.

Part of the reason for that, says Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page, is that, like former President Bill Clinton, Obama “likes this sort of thing — the exchange with pundits.” [...]

[The Post's Kathleen] Parker, a conservative who clashed with Republicans over the Sarah Palin nomination, wrote a very personal account of the trip for The Daily Beast. There, she talked about the “adorable” Obama daughters and the president’s calm nature. “If you cut Obama open,” she said, “you’d find a little Buddha sitting inside, smiling.”

The personal touch is important, Dionne said, because “human beings, being who we are, it’s probably harder to eviscerate someone who you’ve sat down with and decided isn’t an evil person.”

Then why didn't they eviscerate Bush?

President-elect Obama visits WaPo, gets cheers

By GottaLaff

Come on, Helen, tell us what you really think:

From a pool report:

After three and a half hours at his transition office, PEOTUS Obama took another 6 minute ride through Washington, arriving at 1:57 pm at the nondescript soviet-style building at 15th and L street that houses the Washington Post.

Around 100 people -- Post reporters perhaps? -- awaited PEOTUS's arrival, cheering and bobbing their coffee cups.

Pool is holding in a van outside, while Mr Obama does his Washington Post interview, and will exercise enormous restraint by ending report before saying what [she] really thinks about this turn of events.

-- Helene Cooper, New York Times

"Bobbing their coffee cups"? I've heard of bobbing hair, and bobbing for apples, but coffee cups?

Maybe the WaPos and their cups were responding to this Fox News report*:

Most people think that President-elect Barack Obama is meeting -- if not exceeding -- expectations so far, according to a FOX News poll released Thursday.

*There's more to the poll than that, but I felt like using that part to make a point because I'm biased that way.

A headline not worthy of the Washington Post

OMG, next they'll be all, "BREAKING- Water is WET!" Dumbasses.

Some Conservatives Fear Obama Adivsers Lean Too Far Left

I don't seem to remember the WaPo being concerned about Bush's adivsers leaning too far right.

WASHINGTON POST ENDORSES OBAMA

By GottaLaff

Happy post time, with matching happy Obama photo:

THE NOMINATING process this year produced two unusually talented and qualified presidential candidates. There are few public figures we have respected more over the years than Sen. John McCain. Yet it is without ambivalence that we endorse Sen. Barack Obama for president.

The choice is made easy in part by Mr. McCain's disappointing campaign, above all his irresponsible selection of a running mate who is not ready to be president. It is made easy in larger part, though, because of our admiration for Mr. Obama and the impressive qualities he has shown during this long race. [...]

But the stress of a campaign can reveal some essential truths, and the picture of Mr. McCain that emerged this year is far from reassuring. To pass his party's tax-cut litmus test, he jettisoned his commitment to balanced budgets. He hasn't come up with a coherent agenda, and at times he has seemed rash and impulsive. And we find no way to square his professed passion for America's national security with his choice of a running mate who, no matter what her other strengths, is not prepared to be commander in chief.

ANY PRESIDENTIAL vote is a gamble, and Mr. Obama's résumé is undoubtedly thin. We had hoped, throughout this long campaign, to see more evidence that Mr. Obama might stand up to Democratic orthodoxy and end, as he said in his announcement speech, "our chronic avoidance of tough decisions."

But Mr. Obama's temperament is unlike anything we've seen on the national stage in many years. He is deliberate but not indecisive; eloquent but a master of substance and detail; preternaturally confident but eager to hear opposing points of view. He has inspired millions of voters of diverse ages and races, no small thing in our often divided and cynical country. We think he is the right man for a perilous moment.

You say "rescue", I say "bailout", let's call the whole thing off

By GottaLaff

Terminology, or in Gramm-pa McCain's/Bush's case, verminology:

Countdown to Crawford notes that White House spokesman Tony Fratto took issue today with journalists using the term “bailout” to describe the $700 billion package. “It’s really unfortunate shorthand for a very complicated issue,” he said. The White House prefers the word “rescue.” For insight into why the White House is playing semantic word games, consider what Fred Barnes said last week on Fox News:

We would be in a better situation, or at least the Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson would if this were known as a “rescue” rather than a “bailout.” “Bailout” sounds terrible. Who is for a bailout? A lot of people are for a rescue.

UPDATE: This morning, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) made a similar a comment:

Well I think what happened is we didn’t convince enough Republicans and Democrats…that this was a rescue package and not a bailout.

UPDATE II: Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) today: “When you call it a bailout, nobody’s in favor of a bailout.”

Now check this out... First, the Washington Post:

• With renewed confidence that a Wall St. rescue plan will eventually pass, investors unleash bargain hunters a day after historic sell-off.
• Lawmakers urged to revive financial rescue plan, warned of catastrophic consequences if it dies.
• Both candidates are jockeying to find their footing in ongoing battle to rescue economy.

Next, the New York Times:

• President Bush and Senate leaders of both parties vowed on Tuesday to work toward quick approval of a financial bailout plan.
• Wall Street Donations and the Bailout Vote
• Lobbyists regroup after public beats bailout bill

Does this have any relevance, or am I reading into it?

ABC/WaPo: Obama Takes Clear Lead, 52-43 Over McCain

Nice waker upper this morning.

Obama 52 (47)
McCain 43 (49)

More voters trust Obama to deal with the economy, and he currently has a big edge as the candidate who is more in tune with the economic problems Americans now face. He also has a double-digit advantage on handling the current problems on Wall Street, and as a result, there has been a rise in his overall support. The poll found that, among likely voters, Obama now leads McCain by 52 percent to 43 percent. Two weeks ago, in the days immediately following the Republican National Convention, the race was essentially even, with McCain at 49 percent and Obama at 47 percent.

Added extra bonus-

9/24 Daily Kos R2K Tracking Poll: Obama 48 , McCain 44