Posts tagged journalism

Hillary Clinton has many legitimate faults as a candidate, but this kind of Crazy Eyes ☭linton picture is something fit for a Fox Noise also-ran website…maybe a Breitbart, Drudge or a World Noise Now; but not La Opinión, that’s for sure.

Hillary Clinton has many legitimate faults as a candidate, but this kind of Crazy Eyes ☭linton picture is something fit for a Fox Noise also-ran website…maybe a Breitbart, Drudge or a World Noise Now; but not La Opinión, that’s for sure.

They sure did.  Critics pounced on Time's puff piece; interestingly, one of the more helpful pieces came from USA Today (2/19/14), under the headline “Everyone Giddy Over Mexico–Except Mexicans.” It turns out that while Time thinks Peña Nieto is saving Mexico, Mexicans give him very low marks; he has a 32 percent approval rating. And those “reforms” being touted by Time leave many Mexicans wondering if they’ll see any benefit; foreign oil companies might profit from oil drilling, but what will that do for Mexican citizens? And actual growth in 2013 was 1.3 percent–well short of the sunny 3.5 percent growth that was forecast.

One critic, Bill Conroy of NarcoNews (2/17/14), noted that a few weeks earlier Time had published a 14-page advertising spread touting Mexico’s turnaround, sponsored by the government and corporate interests. Conroy argues that Time's journalism and this advertorial bore some striking resemblances. The magazine disagreed, of course; but it's worth recalling that Time, Inc. has already declared that part of  the company’s new business strategy will include blurring the line between editorial and advertising (FAIR Blog, 1/2/14). As the New York Times reported (12/30/13),  ”The newsroom staffs at Time Inc.’s magazines will report to the business executives.”
Morell is, of course, free to hold those opinions, though given his long tenure at the CIA, it’s not terribly surprising that he sees the world the way he does. What’s interesting, and disappointing, is that CBS thinks their network newscasts need to hear more regularly from someone who believes that the US government should keep a record of every phone call its citizens make and every email they send.

And they’re not the only ones making curious decisions. As Yousef Munayyer noted (Permission to Narrate, 1/4/14), CNN has just hired former Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren as a Mideast contributor. Munayyer noted that CNN's coverage of Israel/Palestine had already been tilted in favor of Israeli guests. So why the need to add one more? Will CNN be hiring a contributor to provide analysis from a Palestinian perspective?

These are the kinds of hires that remind you that corporate media aren’t looking to expand the debate on important issues. They’re interested in keeping things as narrow as they already are.

60 Minutes Hit Job On Clean Energy Ignores The Facts

Memo to CBS: Every business is tough! In 2012, the Wall Street Journal ran an informative piece on just how tough the private sector venture-capital businesses is, headlined, “The Venture Capital Secret: 3 Out of 4 Start-Ups Fail.”

It seems at first that this is a secret 60 Minutes is unaware of — since the show focuses almost entirely on the failures. But CBS explains that “the venture capital model is that for every 10 startups, nine go under” — except that CBS appears to see that as a bug, not a feature, failing to understand that the successes more than pay for the failures.

Moreover, 60 Minutes is apparently unaware that the DOE Loan Guarantee Program has a whopping 97 percent success rate, while the companies CBS focuses on such as Solyndra and Abound Solar were just 3 percent of the portfolio.

It’s as if 60 Minutes did a profile of the venture firm Kleiner-Perkins and focused primarily on its failed investments with only passing mention of AOL — and no mention at all of, Genentech, Sun Microsystems or Google! In fact, when 60 Minutes profiled co-founder Tom Perkins several years ago, they called him “the captain of capitalism” and only found time to mention the winners!

Let’s set aside the question of why 60 Minutes chose to do a hit-job on cleantech, which clearly was unwarranted, after producing widely criticized puff pieces on the NSA and Amazon’s wildly impractical delivery drones.

The key point is that the goal of DOE’s investments is not to make money. The goal is to accelerate the drop in price — and increase in deployment — of clean energy in the market, which it clearly has done in industry after industry. A secondary goal was to create jobs in this country, which it also succeeded in doing.

Inexplicably, the 60 Minutes correspondent asserts that according to “everything I’ve read there were not many jobs created” (and they even found an uninformed former DOE official to agree with them). CBS claims taxpayers have little to show for the investments when the data clearly show otherwise.

The whole segment is baffling. CBS asserts that the key cleantech investor they interview, Vinod Khosla, is “known as the father of the cleantech revolution.” He ain’t, and in fact he’s about the last person you’d want to talk to on the subject (see my 2010 post, “Is anyone more incoherent than Vinod Khosla?“).

They even found a Chinese cleantech entrepreneur to say “clean tech is not going well” — even though China is the leader in both solar and wind power. CBS complains that the Chinese have created U.S. jobs using some of the technology U.S. taxpayers supported — as if the only U.S. jobs that count are ones created by U.S. companies. CBS correctly notes that China is willing to take a long term view of clean tech — but never mentions how opposition to U.S. clean energy standards, cleantech investment, and a price for carbon by conservatives in Congress have hurt the competitiveness of U.S. companies.

Black spot China RT @nxthompson Mapping freedom of the press: )— Kristie Lu Stout CNN (@klustout) December 16, 2013

Newsweek: Was Lara Logan's Husband Involved In 60 Minutes' Botched Benghazi Story?

Not only was CBS duped by their main witness in their year-long Benghazi report, they also reported several incorrect facts about the role of al Qaeda in the attacks.

Since they have yet to disclose how they got so much wrong, speculations still continue, specifically about Lara Logan’s husband, a former employee of a contractor hired by the U.S. government to plant pro-U.S. stories in the Iraqi media.

In an article in Newsweek, contributing editor Jeff Stein writes, “Whoever fooled them, whoever convinced them that al Qaeda orchestrated that attack on the U.S. embassy, had to be smart, incredibly persuasive and savvy about the media. And unquotable.

In other words, an intelligence source. And the person closest to Logan with those credentials is her husband. But he’s not talking.”

Media Maters for America’s Facebook page

You know what’s offensive, RT? You pretend not to be a right-hand engineered Pravda that is the tool of the Putin regime in defaming the USA for good cause while you don’t have the stones to allow anyone commenting on your stories to post legitimate links to legitimate content from anywhere else on the internet.

Absolutely, it is your site and U.S. law says you can do anything with it you choose; that includes being hypocritical and petty in the way you administer it.

The problem with [David Gregory] and all the political shows on Sunday is they can’t press their guests. If they are hard on their guests they get frozen out. So they end up just being free air time for unchallenged nonsense. There is so much competition to get “the big gets” and the big names, the “journalism” turns into hosting tepid teas for the tyrants of their own logic.

A comment about Sunday morning news programs in reaction to an original comment by a Facebook friend going fangirl about Nancy Pelosi on Meet The Press.

I have seen Bob Shieffer speak some truth to power on Face the Nation…just occasionally.

Reddit’s Politics Section Bans Salon, Mother Jones, Huffington Post for “Bad Journalism”





I’ve been hearing about this from a few different places this week. Much as us Tumblrfolk are loathe to admit it, Reddit is another source where stories that aren’t getting much attention from the media can go mainstream. Part of the success of Mother Jones’ breaking story on Romney’s 47% comment last year was due to it going viral on Reddit. But today, that wouldn’t be possible, because Mother Jones is one of the sites r/politics has now banned.

This Slate article discusses why banning these sites is both wrong and hypocritical. Many of the whitelisted sites are barely news sources (The Daily Mail) and others are as biased as some of the banned ones. Specifically, they’re biased toward Libertarianism.

The Libertarian bent of the story is a point that doesn’t come up in this article. I’ve seen posts from former r/politics participants that explained how this all happened: Libertarian-minded folks who spent time on the forum didn’t like how most of the top posts were from “liberal” sources. Recently, new moderators have been appointed, and most of them are vocal Libertarians. Not necessarily a problem in and of itself. But they’re banning sites that generally get lots of upvotes, not because the stories aren’t true, but because they want to see more Libertarian news.

IN OTHER WORDS: The “free market” of upvoting popular stories said what the people wanted was liberal news. So the free-market loving Libertarians decided to make a new regulation that would prevent the majority of commenters from doing something that disagreed with their ideology. They didn’t agree with the outcome of the free market, and since they were in a privileged position of power, they changed things in a way that would benefit them at the detriment of others.

If that isn’t the problem with Libertarianism in a nutshell, I don’t know what is.

Bolding is mine.

Also I recommend this interview with Mother Jones editor Clara Jeffery on the banning.

I’m sure most of them also scream “Freedom of speech!” after someone asks them to stop slinging slurs and hate mongering…

Well, we know they scream and do thinly-veiled reboots when you try to get them to stop posting creepshots.

Also, an update on this story: r/politics has unbanned Mother Jones, but none of the other sites.

Most of these selections are abhorrent, but I don’t think that all of you are keeping track of HuffPo’s journalistic endeavors. Take a little time to get to know what content scraping is, y’all

Can you imagine for a moment that you woke up one morning to hear the news of one of our nation’s largest international airports essentially being held hostage by some brown gun-wielding anti-government madman with a name like Muhammad Ali (or Aziz Ansari) walking around with a high-powered rifle shooting and killing innocent people as they simply waited to board their flights inside the airport terminal?

If that hypothetical scenario did ever occur, do you think that the vast majority of Americans would have any problem at all labeling the aforementioned situation an act of “terrorism”?

Of course not.

But in reality, it was a 23-year-old white man named Paul Anthony Ciancia who took his anti-government political ideology clearly into the realm of ‘terrorism’ when he inflicted mass violence aimed at instilling terror within the general public as thousands of innocent airline travelers at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) feared for their lives one sunny Friday morning.

The LAX Airport Shooter is a Terrorist

Another thing: the piece has this…

it was a 23-year-old white man named Paul Anthony Ciancia who took his

If an Italian American is white, what does that make an Arab-American or an Asian-American like the author?