On the June 14 edition of NBC's “Today,” President Barack Obama ascribed part of the blame for the high unemployment rate to ATMs, yet most media outlets continue to ignore the gaffe. “There are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers,” lectured Obama in an interview with NBC's Ann Curry. “You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM, you don’t go to a bank teller, or you go to the airport and you’re using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate.” Curry moved on to another subject without addressing the faux pas, but she's not the only journalist to gloss over the story. Despite the fact that the automated teller machine was invented decades before Obama took office, a Lexis search revealed that not a single major news network, including ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FNC, and MSNBC, has covered the remark on air. Fox Nation linked to the “Today” interview and CNN buried a brief blurb on John King's blog, but other than that the networks have been mum on a story that Red State's Erick Erickson described as demonstrating that Obama “is completely and utterly ignorant about job creation and economics.” While the media give Obama a pass on ATMs, they afforded then-President George H.W. Bush no such luxury during the 1992 presidential campaign, when the Republican incumbent was mocked as out of touch for reportedly marveling at a grocery store scanner. The story was later exposed as “almost wholly untrue,” but that didn't stop former ABC anchor Peter Jennings from reviving the contrived controversy years later on “World News Tonight.” “News for everyone, but former President Bush might take note,” inveighed Jennings on March 31, 2000. “Self-scanning check-out systems are catching on at supermarkets. Customers scan and bag the groceries themselves and then to keep people honest, it checks to see if the weight of the groceries equals the weight of the items which were scanned.” Contrary to the president's assertion that ATMs contribute to nagging unemployment, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) predicted that teller jobs would grow about 6 percent from 2008 to 2016. In addition, NRO's Jonah Goldberg pointed to statistics indicating expansive growth in banking jobs since the self-service banking era began in 1985: “At the dawn of the self-service banking age in 1985, for example, the United States had 60,000 automated teller machines and 485,000 bank tellers. In 2002, the United States had 352,000 ATMs – and 527,000 bank tellers.” Adding insult to injury, the ATM Industry Association took a swipe at Obama in an email to the Washington Examiner: “Given these major roles of the ATM, it would be quite irrational to turn the clock back to the 1960s to a time before ATMs.” –Alex Fitzsimmons is a News Analysis intern at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.
Continue reading …Ed Schultz: Facts and Logic Have No Place in GOP Making Bachmann the Perfect Fit
June 14, 2011 No Comment
When possibly the most biased person on television questions your veracity and sanity after you appear in a Republican presidential debate, you know you've done a good job. It is precisely for that reason Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) should be pleased with being slighted by Ed Schultz who said on the MSNBC program bearing his name Tuesday, “Facts and logic have no place in the Republican Party. That’s why Bachmann I guess you could say is the perfect fit” (video follows with transcript and commentary): ED SCHULTZ: Bachmann for that matter is exactly what the modern Republican Party is all about. Bachmann has never voted for a tax increase. She believes government is the problem and the free market is going to save everything in America. Facts and logic have no place in the Republican Party. That’s why Bachmann I guess you could say is the perfect fit. Republican policy has systematically destroyed the middle class in America for years, but Bachmann is her Party’s biggest cheerleader as well. Isn't there a saying about idiots in glass houses? And what's to be said about an hour-long program on a so-called “news network” that covered important issues of the day including Monday's Republican presidential debate without any commentary from people on the right side of the aisle? Schultz's guests Tuesday evening included two Democrats from the state of Wisconsin, two union leaders, a Democrat from New Jersey, a correspondent from Nation magazine as well as that publication's editor. Including the host, that's eight liberals to no conservatives. For those that point fingers at Fox News for being biased, at least their prime time programs consistently invite Democrats and left-leaning contributors on to give an opposing viewpoint. On Tuesday, the only conservatives to be found on “The Ed Show” were the people being eviscerated by the host and his guests. And MSNBC has the nerve to call this news.
Continue reading …
MSNBC’s Matthews Doesn’t Seem to Understand British Were Coming for Colonists’ Weapons at Lexington, Concord
June 10, 2011 No Comment“Shouldn't presidential candidates and prospective candidates have a firm grasp of American history?” Chris Matthews rhetorically asked on the June 9 “Hardball” before lamenting that Sarah Palin had a penchant for being “painfully wrong” on the subject, citing her recent inartful explanation of the famed midnight ride of Paul Revere. Yet it seems Matthews may have no idea why the British regulars were marching on Lexington and Concord in the first place, as the “Hardball” host scoffed yesterday at Palin making an “NRA ad” out of the historical ride. “Here she is with her follow-up defending her false vision of history, and turning Revere's ride into a National Rifle Association TV commercial,” Matthews scoffed as introduced a clip of Palin from the June 5 “Fox News Sunday,” in which the former Alaska governor noted that Revere warned the British when captured “you're not going to succeed, you're not going to take American arms.” Matthews may scoff Palin making Revere a hero of Second Amendment adherents and gun rights advocates, but in doing so one has to wonder what exactly he thinks the British regulars were coming for in their April 18, 1775 march on Lexington and Concord. So here's a little history lesson for Matthews courtesy of the National Park Service (emphasis mine): What was the reason for the British expedition to Concord? On the evening of April 18, 1775, General Thomas Gage sent approximately 700 British soldiers out to Concord (about 18 miles distant) to seize and destroy military stores and equipment known to be stockpiled in the town . His orders to Lt. Col. Smith, the British officer who was to lead the expedition, were as follows: Sir: Having received intelligence, that a quantity of Ammunition, Provision, Artillery, Tents and small arms, have been collected at Concord, for the Avowed Purpose of raising and supporting a Rebellion against His Majesty, you will march with the Corps of Grenadiers and Light Infantry, put under your command, with the utmost expedition and secrecy to Concord, where you will seize and destroy all Artillery, Ammunition, Provision, Tents, Small Arms, and all military stores whatever. But you will take care that the Soldiers do not plunder the inhabitants, or hurt private property. Under great pressure from his superiors in England to bring Massachusetts back under control of the “lawful government,” General Gage sent the troops to Concord in the hopes that by doing so, he could convince the colonists to back down, and thus avoid an armed rebellion. General Gage also believed that seizing stockpiles of weapons was not only a military necessity, but also his prerogative as governor of the colony. The colonists actively disagreed. Matthews not understanding why Palin would take a pro-gun rights argument out of the march on Concord, Mass., is arguably much worse than Palin's Revere ride flub or Rep. Michele Bachmann erroneously stating Lexington and Concord were in New Hampshire, another gaffe which Matthews has mercilessly hounded .
Continue reading …America’s baking heat wave claimed five lives yesterday before storms plunged temperatures as much as 40 degrees. The heat was so intense across the Midwest and East that it buckled pavement on a major Michigan interstate, killed power in Detroit, and shut schools across New Jersey, reports MSNBC . Dozens of…
Continue reading …
In a desperate attempt to save Rep. Anthony Weiner, who has even been abandoned by the leaders of his own party, MSNBC is still refusing to acknowledge that Weiner's actions should jeopardize his House seat. Lawrence O'Donnell, host of “The Last Word,” ridicules the idea that lying should be grounds for resignation, Rachel Maddow, host of “The Rachel Maddow Show,” describes the situation as “more gossip than news,” and Cenk Uygur, MSNBC political commentator, says that “he lied, so what.” (Videos after the break) While the remarks from MSNBC are not all that surprising, their refusal to even consider the idea of Weiner's resignation are, following many prominent Democrats calling for him to step down. In O'Donnell's take on Weinergate, he thinks American politics are is moving in a “more prudish direction” following “a brief detour in the 90s toward the French and accepting everything Clintonian.” Visit msnbc.com for breaking news , world news , and news about the economy Maddow similarly says Weiner should not be held responsible because he did not win his seat based off his sexual morality, which is apparently not necessary for good judgement in other areas. Finally, Uygur maintains that even though Weiner did lie, it doesn't compromise his overall political standards. He references his own past when sympathizing with Weiner, asking, “You know how many times, when I was single and I had girlfriends, you know how many times that I lied to them? What does that mean? That you're not responsible on any other issue?' The same misguided talking point is espoused from each of these MSNBC journalists: Weiner's lapse in moral judgement should not reflect an overall lack in political judgement. Of course, if the same story was unfolding about a Republican congressman, their opinions would be much different.
Continue reading …Keith Olbermann isn’t talking to Rachel Maddow, he’s pulling down a fortune at Current TV, and he’s plucked suspended MSNBC anchor David Shuster to be his fill-in host there. Those are just some of the revelations in a characteristically candid interview Olbermann gave the Hollywood Reporter . Some highlights:
Continue reading …Defiant Morning Joe Defends Burying Weiner-gate: ‘We’ll Talk About What We Feel Like Talking About’
June 8, 2011 No Comment
Yesterday, this column jibed Joe Scarborough & Co. for blacking out, during Morning Joe's first half-hour, coverage of Anthony Weiner's epic news conference of the day before. Today, a defiant Scarborough dismissed the criticism the show received, boasting “we'll talk about what we feel like talking about.” When the show opened today, it at first seemed that Scarborough was about to make amends for yesterday's poor news judgment.
Continue reading …Keith Olbermann In Hollywood Reporter: Talks MSNBC Exit, Says He Hasn’t Spoken To Maddow
June 8, 2011 No Comment
Keith Olbermann has a bombshell interview in the latest edition of The Hollywood Reporter. In the interview, Olbermann fully breaks his silence about his stormy exit from MSNBC, and reveals, among other things, that he is not talking to former protege Rachel Maddow anymore. Olbermann left MSNBC in January, just months after he was suspended by the network for donating to three political candidates without first informing his bosses. He very publicly disagreed with this decision, and soon after, he and MSNBC mutually decided to part ways. Olbermann had always had a very tense relationship with the top brass at MSNBC—and, indeed, at just about every network he has worked at—and the situation had become untenable. He quickly jumped to Al Gore’s Current TV, where his new nightly show, also called “Countdown,” is debuting on June 20. In one astonishing detail, Olbermann told THR’s Marisa Guthrie that he began his final MSNBC broadcast not knowing if it would be his last. Olbermann, Guthrie writes, “had prepared two endings for the show; one with two readings from James Thurber, and another with a Thurber reading and his farewell to viewers.” It was only during the show that his representatives and MSNBC President Phil Griffin agreed to let him out of his contract. Olbermann also revealed that he has not spoken to Maddow since his departure from MSNBC. “There were lots of people who were forced to choose sides,” he said. “And particularly in Rachel’s case, I didn’t want to add to the pressure on her already. The last thing I need to do is be calling her up and saying, ‘How’s that Michael Steele working out for you?’ Which is exactly what I would do if I were in the office.” MSNBC, he said, THR also reports that Olbermann is making at least $10 million a year, though Current would not confirm that. Speaking about MSNBC now, Olbermann said, “I don’t think my former employers thought this was going to turn out quite this way I just don’t think they thought they’d be in competition with me, so fast or at all. And my understanding is this has left a certain tension over there.” The full article is available on THR, and you can read choice excerpts here.
Continue reading …Chris Matthews: ‘Palin is Out to Cause Trouble, Wants Bad News About America’
June 7, 2011 No Comment
Palin Derangement Syndrome was in full bloom on MSNBC's “Hardball” Tuesday. At the conclusion of the program, host Chris Matthews went on a hate-filled rant accusing the former Alaska governor of being “out to cause trouble” and wanting “bad news about America” (video follows with transcript and commentary): CHRIS MATTHEWS: Let me finish tonight with Sarah Palin’s midnight ride with American history. I have a theory about this person: I don't think she is at all interested in American history. If she were, she would know more of it. What she wants is bad news about America. What excites her isn't politics, the debate of one side against the other, Republicans versus Democrats, liberals versus conservatives. What she wants as I said is bad news about America. What excites her is not the chance to participate or lead in government. She quit government, dumped it really. She had other interests. No, Palin is out to cause trouble. She wants people to be mad at politicians, mad at government, mad at the people who report on government. She wants unhappiness with politics and government that dominate the airwaves, dominate the conversation, dominate the country's mood. She wants us to think about government the way the early colonists thought about the British back in England. She wants us to arm ourselves that we can fight the redcoats. She wants us to live in a state of relentless, simmering rebellion, ever angry, ever distrustful, ever detesting the people we’ve elected to run the government, the people who cover the people in government. She wants us to believe toward the government the way angry middle-aged bikers look at government as the enemy. This is why the 2012 election is not about who will lead us but whether we are ready to vote against the belief that we are governing ourselves. What a negative, self-defeating proposition she makes. What a strange reason for remaining in public life. She gets the history wrong because she gets the United States wrong. We are a self-governing country and the people who matter are the ones who help us do it not the ones who attack but do not lead. And what about the media members that attack but do not lead? After all, this is what MSNBC stands for now. On a daily basis, the extended prime time hosts including Matthews, Cenk Uygur, Lawrence O'Donnell, Rachel Maddow, and Ed Schultz Beck do virtually nothing to inform the American public about what's going on in the world. Their message isn't positive or uplifting. It's six straight hours of the most hate-filled invective on television today all aimed at the Republican Party and conservatives. With this in mind, we could easily take Matthews' Tuesday rant, substitute a few words here and there, and demonstrate quite emphatically just what this network has become: Let me finish tonight with MSNBC's midnight ride with American history. I have a theory about this so-called cable news network : I don't think MSNBC commentators are at all interested in American history. If they were, they would know more of it. What they want is bad news about Republicans . What excites them isn't politics, the debate of one side against the other, Republicans versus Democrats, liberals versus conservatives. What they want as I said is bad news about Republicans . MSNBC is out to cause trouble. They want people to be mad at Republicans , mad at the Tea Party , mad at the people who report on the Tea Party . They want unhappiness with conservatism and fiscal discipline that dominate the airwaves, dominate the conversation, dominate the country's mood. They want us to think about Republicans the way the early colonists thought about the British back in England. They want us to disarm ourselves that we can submit to our enemies . They want us to live in a state of relentless, growing dependence , ever angry, ever distrustful, ever detesting the people who pay all the taxes , the people who cover the people who pay all the taxes . They want us to believe toward the government the way a drug addict looks at a dealer as his friend . This is why the 2012 election is not about who will lead us but whether we are ready to vote against the belief that we are governing ourselves. What a negative, self-defeating proposition MSNBC makes. What a strange reason for remaining in business . They get the history wrong because they get the United States wrong. We are a self-governing country and the people who matter are the ones who help us do it not the ones who attack but do not lead. Which rant makes more sense to you?
Continue reading …