David Ansen (Newsweek, 12/22/08) has a point when he says that the movie Borat "epitomized the [Bush] era." But he strikes a jarring note when he says:

Racism, misogyny and homophobia come pouring out of the mouths of [Sasha] Baron Cohen's unsuspecting dupes, and in a time of political correctness, when the slightest suggestion of bias on the lips of a public figure gets raked over the media coals, there was something fantastically liberating (and frightening) about seeing the national id so baldly exposed.

Presumably Ansen's thinking of someone like Don Imus, who was "raked over the media coals" not after he showed "the slightest suggestion of bias," but after years of wallowing in racist, homophobic and misogynist schtick with the tacit approval of his multitude of pals in the media elite.

In a media environment where the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage and Ann Coulter have wildly lucrative careers, there's no shortage of opportunities to get what Ansen calls the "national id" exposed--and celebrated.   What Borat provided--in the wake of the 2006 election's repudiation of Bushism--was an opportunity to see such creepiness ridiculed and scorned.  That's what makes the film, as Ansen rightly notes, a cultural landmark.

Veteran media blogger Bob Harris looks at (BobHarris.com, 12/11/08) the meager media pick up five hours after "the Washington Post [reported] a bipartisan Senate investigation has concluded that blame for the abuse of prisoners at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib... belongs at the very top." Reading the Post's conclusion that "the true genesis of the decision to use coercive techniques, the report said, was a memo signed by President Bush on February 7, 2002," Harris thinks: "Um... that's kinda big news. Or is it?":

As of 2:52 PST on 11 December 2008... it's nowhere to be found on CNN's front page.

Although they've somehow found room for "Child's Skull Found," "Navy Mom Surprises Son, 8, in Class," and "Pretty Robot Slaps Men Who Get Fresh."

No surprise, the Fox News front page is also not carrying the story.

Although they have room for "KFC Workers in Hot Water After Sink Baths," "Outrage After Teacher Tells 7-Year-Olds Santa Is Fake," and "Georgia School Staff Accused of Inflatable Mattress Sex."

To its credit, however, MSNBC, generally considered the most liberal of the three major 24-hour cable news nets, has indeed placed the story on the front page. In a single-line, fine-print text link.

Just beneath "Bowel-Clearing Drugs to Get Sternest FDA Label" and "Child's Body Found Near Missing Girl's Home."

Even though this sole mention comes "in the same vital column with 'Vegas Still Offers Fun for the Budget Conscious' and 'Aniston on Jolie: "No Daggers Through the Heart,"'" Harris is forced to admit: "So you can't say the media is ignoring the story completely."

Red state gay rights blogger Brad--not Friedman--has posted (BradBlog, 12/12/08) the latest email drive from Human Rights Campaign regarding the current Newsweek cover story, "The Religious Case for Gay Marriage," which "provides an in-depth debunking of many of the popular myths about scripture that the religious-right has used time and time again." HRC President Joe Solmonese finds it

refreshing to see a major, mainstream American news outlet speaking the truth in such a courageous way.

But, as you would fully expect, the right-wing has launched a massive uproar to the piece by flooding Newsweek's editors with thousands of letters in opposition. Last night, I interviewed Lisa Miller, religion editor for Newsweek magazine and the article's author, on my Sirius XM radio show, the Agenda. You can hear Lisa in her own words describe how on the first day the story came out, Newsweek was "bombarded" with 20,000 emails in opposition to the article.

Friends, when someone is courageously willing to stand up and take on the those who have for so long twisted the words of the Bible and gone unchecked--it is our obligation to make sure they know that there are also millions of us standing right on their side.

In closing, Solmonese urges us all, "Don't let the voices of extremists silence those of inclusion and truth. Join me by sending a letter of support to Newsweek today."

Also listen to the FAIR radio program CounterSpin: "Kai Wright on the Proposition 8 Vote" (11/21/08)

The new edition of FAIR's radio show CounterSpin (12/12/08) examines the financial collapse of a major U.S. media force:

The Tribune Company that owns the Chicago Tribune and the L.A. Times, along with much else, declared bankruptcy this week, just a year after new owner Sam Zell took over, with his notable lack of background or interest in newspapers. It sounds like workers will wind up with the short end of the stick but what does it mean in the bigger picture? Are capitalists losing interest in media and if so, what do we think about that?

After listening to Robert McChesney's analysis of that story, hear about the latest labor news:

The fight over "card check" union organizing was somewhat low-key during the general election. But the issue soon became a favorite topic for pundits who were either warning that Obama would lurch to the left, or those who held out the hope that Obama would turn his back on the labor movement. What is card check, and why does it have corporate America--and much of the corporate media-up in arms? We'll find out from labor journalist Steve Early.

More on Corporate Ownership of news outlets and media coverage of Labor can be founds in FAIR's online Issues Archives.

Blogging economist Dean Baker (Beat the Press, 12/12/08) gives
the New York Times headline "Goldman, Once Warning of $200 Oil, Sees $45 in 2009" as an example of his radical idea that "this is exactly what the media should be doing when they present forecasts from various experts":

For example, when they share the views of people like Alan Greenspan on the economy, they can preface them with a comment like, "Alan Greenspan, who insisted there was no housing bubble." In fact, the media should preface the predictions of almost all their economic experts with this comment.

With some experts this assertion would be especially important information. For example, predictions from Frederick Mishkin, a New York University professor and a former governor of the Federal Reserve Board, should carry the preface "who recently praised Iceland's economy for its effective inflation-targeting." Statements from Frank Nodthrift, the former chief economist with Freddie Mac, should include the phrase, "who asserted that house prices never fall."

It really doesn't seem like such a stretch that "reporters should be familiar with the track record of the experts they rely upon and they should share this information with the public."

See the FAIR magazine Extra!: "Busted Bubble: The Press Fell Down on the Job on Housing Prices" (11-12/08) by Veronica Cassidy

The FAIR Blog might be the newest addition to FAIR's program lineup, but it has already become our most active enterprise. We're posting more daily media criticism than ever before--more than 300 posts since our September launch. Covering a diverse array of topics, including election coverage, healthcare, the environment and the economy, we hope the FAIR Blog is becoming an essential part of your daily media routine.

As we continue developing this blog, we will be adding more features and innovative content to keep you on top of the news. We're also working to build our presence in the blogosphere, and hope you will help us spread the word by linking to our articles and posts and forwarding our commentary to your friends and colleagues.

Thanks for being part of the FAIR Blog's inaugural run--we hope you continue to log in and join the conversation.

Our ability to keep building and expanding our work depends on our community of supporters. We're in the middle of our annual year-end fundraising campaign. It's a tough time to give right now, but it's also vital that the public continues to support and promote independent and non-profit alternative media outlets.

Please consider making a donation to FAIR to help us reach our goal. Every dollar counts.

From all of us at FAIR--thanks for your support!

With Bob Kerrey back in the news (New York Times, 12/11/08) as the faculty of the New School University that he heads gives him a vote of no confidence, it's worth recalling the kid-glove treatment given to him by most of the media when his involvement in Vietnam-era war crimes was revealed (Extra!, 7-8/01).

Oddly, New York Times reporters Marc Santora and Lisa Foderaro, who wrote about the New School vote, don't seem to recall that Kerrey participated in a massacre of Vietnamese civilians--an atrocity that caused considerable controversy when it was exposed by the New York Times Magazine (4/25/01)--when they recount the major events of his career, though they do remember that Kerrey "briefly considered a run for mayor of New York in 2005." Presumably a war criminal heading up a school largely founded by refugees from Nazi Germany is a problem for at least some faculty members, but the New York Times' summation of the politics of the situation is that Kerrey's own politics "were too moderate for the unabashedly liberal campus."

The dismal state of corporate newspaper journalism has Philadelphia Inquirer columnist George Curry reconsidering (12/11/08) the value of his lifelong dedication to improving the trade:

I have spent most of my career urging young people to consider careers in journalism. I was founding director of workshops affiliated with the National Association of Black Journalists chapters in St. Louis, Washington and New York, which encouraged minority high school students to enter the profession. As a past chairman of Youth Communication, a news service for teen papers across the country, and as a board member of Young D.C., a regional teen paper, I have worked with hundreds of young people over the years, many of whom entered the field.

This has always been a source of great pride for me. But now, for the first time, I am wondering if I did the right thing. That's not because I have any less love for my profession, but because the news business is changing--for the worse. Many big-city newspapers are putting less emphasis on social issues and providing less coverage of the poor than when I first entered the business in 1970.

Having chosen his profession "not only because I could write, but also because I thought newspapers did a poor job of covering the poor, and I wanted to help change that," Curry now thinks that, "though there has been some improvement, it looks as if much of that progress is about to be eroded."

Read the FAIR magazine Extra!: "A Poverty of Coverage: Why Aren't the Poor on the Media Agenda?" (9-10/07) by Steve Rendall

Education author Alfie Kohn's got a beef (Nation, 12/10/08) with corporate news coverage of Barack Obama's choices for his cabinet, where "progressives are in short supply":

When he turns his attention to the Education Department, what are the chances he'll choose someone who is educationally progressive?

In fact, just such a person is said to be in the running and, perhaps for that very reason, has been singled out for scorn in Washington Post and Chicago Tribune editorials, a New York Times column by David Brooks and a New Republic article, all published almost simultaneously this month.

Depressingly predictable is the "eerily similar language" in these pieces urging rejection of Stanford educator Linda Darling-Hammond for fear she is "allied with the teachers' unions" and an opponent of "reform"--defined as "a heavy reliance on fill-in-the-bubble standardized tests," " a behaviorist model of motivation" and "a corporate sensibility."
(Kohn points out that the educational model promoted by "reformers" is "already pervasive, which means 'reform' actually signals more of the same--or, perhaps, intensification of the status quo.")

Darling-Hammond is not a "reformer," Kohn writes, since she argues that "experiments with high-stakes testing have mostly served to increase the dropout rate," and that "all the talk of 'rigor' and 'raising the bar' has produced sterile, scripted curriculums that have been imposed disproportionately on children of color."

See the FAIR Media Advisory: "Media Cheer for 'Non-Ideological' Centrists" (11/26/08)

Cal Thomas and Bob Beckel are, by mainstream media standards, ideological opposites. Thomas is a far-right pundit, and Beckel is what you might call a Fox News Democrat.

They spar in the pages of USA Today from time to time, though the point generally seems to be finding "common ground." The headline of today's installment (12/11/08) captures the essence of their relationship:

Centrist in Chief?
Cal and Bob like what they see and hear--so far--from President-elect Obama. A good sign: the left-wingers aren't getting their way.

More interesting, though, is Beckel's actual analysis:

I am amazed how many conservatives are praising Obama's transition and how many on the left are suddenly worried that they helped elect a moderate. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and any special interest groups are going to have decidedly less influence on Obama than you on the right predicted.

And:

It is politics, which at its most practical is about seeking consensus and common ground. That means a president will, at times, disagree with his base, which is akin to jilting a lover. The scorn is deep and unforgiving. Perfect example: the reaction of the left's Netroots folks--Daily Kos, MoveOn.org and the like--to Obama's Cabinet choices. You don't have to look very hard to find indignant bile. But Obama isn't in awe, or fearful, of these folks because he has built his own Netroots machine. These left-wing blatherers don't own him.

And:

Obama is wisely embracing the idea of uniting people--rather than MoveOn's tactic of dividing them.

And:

We on the left need to own up to our contribution to the dependency class. In hindsight, despite our best intentions, many of the poverty programs of the '60s and '70s did breed a generation or more of people dependent on government.

Bash the Democratic base, bash the left, bash the poor--that is how you get a gig as a TV leftist. Hannity and Beckel, anyone?

Blogging on the new congressional "report on the activities of Federal Communications Commission chairman Kevin Martin" entitled "Deception and Distrust," Mark Howard  (News Corpse, 12/10/08) says the "abuse, manipulation, intimidation and incompetence" detailed "would be shocking if it hadn't come from the same administration that gave us Alberto Gonzales, Michael Brown, Scooter Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, etc.":

Under Martin's dictatorial rule, employees were instructed not to talk to colleagues within the agency without permission. This gag rule was so comprehensive that they were also ordered not to talk to employees at other federal agencies. Martin further fortified his control by installing a hand-picked inspector general, Kent Nilsson, who was a close associate, insuring that there would be no independent oversight of his misdeeds. Nilsson himself is alleged to have violated agency procedures repeatedly, according to the report.

FAIR published an Action Alert: "FCC Destroyed Media Ownership Report: Study Found Local Ownership Means More Local News" (9/15/06) and an Activism Update: "FCC to Investigate Suppressed Reports: But Presses on With Proceedings On Media Ownership" (9/20/06) on Martin's epic malfeasance.

WeCanStopTheHate.org brings its fight against hate speech to online media with a post (12/10/08) about reports that Facebook board of directors member Peter Thiel "recently donated $1 million to the anti-immigrant group NumbersUSA," which the Southern Poverty Law Center "identified... as one of six core organizations in the anti-immigration movement."

Founded by John Tanton and directed by Roy Beck, who has written extensively on environmental and financial issues, NumbersUSA is the most calculating of the anti-immigration groups, offering information on the relationship between immigration and the environment. Regardless of apparent environmental sympathies, NumbersUSA supported Federation for American Immigration Reform and the American Immigration Control Foundation--SPLC-designated hate groups--in their immigrant-bashing billboard campaign. Beck has also been the Washington, D.C., editor of the Social Contract, a quarterly journal that has published articles by "white nationalists" such as Samuel Francis, who was fired from the conservative Washington Times after writing a racially inflammatory column, and James Lubinskas, a contributing editor to the racist American Renaissance magazine.

No. 1 on WeCanStopTheHate's list of how to "hold Thiel and Facebook accountable": Use Thiel's own medium to force his hand--"Invite friends to the grassroots page on Facebook that was launched in response to these reports." Over 2,000 members already have joined!

See the FAIR Press Release: "Questions About Source in Immigration Debate: Group Has Links to Racist Fund" (1/1/93)

Harold Meyerson's latest dispatch (WashingtonPost.com, 12/8/08) on Tribune Co. owner Sam Zell retells how "Zell repeatedly and profanely expressed his disdain for quality journalism," gutting major dailies like the L.A. Times and Chicago Tribune because he thought they "carried too much national and international news." After "hundreds of excellent reporters and editors were unceremoniously shown the door" comes news that the Tribune Co. is filing for bankruptcy protection, but Meyerson writes that

Sam Zell never really had much skin in the game. Last year, when he purchased the Tribune Company... he put up $315 million of his own money and paid the balance of the purchase price, $8.2 billion, with the employee stock ownership plan--a move in which Tribune employees had no say whatever. But that actually overstates the amount of Zell's investment. Of the $315 million he sunk into the company, it turns out that $225 million was simply a promissory note. Due to the vagaries of bankruptcy law, writes business analyst Mark Lacter on LAobserved.com, that means that Zell has better protection for his stake than all his employees.

And how are those employees faring? Well, even the New York Times headlined its December 8 report "Workers Pay for Debacle at Tribune."

Today New York Times business columnist David Leonhardt (12/10/08) weighs in on the $73-an-hour autoworker. His verdict is somewhat mixed—the Big Three do have to pay the so-called legacy costs that are part of this calculation, but it's misleading to conflate that with current earnings of autoworkers:

So what is the reality behind the number? Detroit's defenders are right that the number is basically wrong. Big Three workers aren't making anything close to $73 an hour (which would translate to about $150,000 a year).

And he adds a little media criticism:

The Big Three built up a huge pool of retirees long before Honda and Toyota opened plants in this country. You’d never know this by looking at the graphic behind Wolf Blitzer on CNN last week, contrasting the “$73/hour” pay of Detroit’s workers with the “up to $48/hour” pay of workers at the Japanese companies.

One of Leonhardt's main points, though, is that the chatter about union wages is mostly irrelevant to the bigger problems of the Big Three (emphasis added):

So here's a little experiment. Imagine that a Congressional bailout effectively pays for $10 an hour of the retiree benefits. That’s roughly the gap between the Big Three's retiree costs and those of the Japanese-owned plants in this country. Imagine, also, that the U.A.W. agrees to reduce pay and benefits for current workers to $45 an hour--the same as at Honda and Toyota.

Do you know how much that would reduce the cost of producing a Big Three vehicle? Only about $800. That’s because labor costs, for all the attention they have been receiving, make up only about 10 percent of the cost of making a vehicle. An extra $800 per vehicle would certainly help Detroit, but the Big Three already often sell their cars for about $2,500 less than equivalent cars from Japanese companies, analysts at the International Motor Vehicle Program say.

There are two problems with William Glaberson’s New York Times News Analysis piece (12/10/08), “Relatives of 9/11 Victims Add a Passionate Layer to Guantanamo Debate." Let's start with the lead:

After the detainees charged with the plotting of the September 11 attacks discussed confessing this week, something unusual was heard here: a vigorous public defense of Guantánamo.

"Guantánamo Bay has gotten a bad rap," said Alice Hoagland, whose son was killed in the 2001 attack.

It’s not at all unusual to hear people defending Guantanamo; it’s a staple of right-wing punditry and talk radio. Government officials have offered self-serving tours of the camp for certain media figures, like Bill O’Reilly, and of course the White House has vigorously defended its prison camp. And many in the corporate media defended the original legal argument behind the Guantanamo detentions in the first place.

Problem No. 2 comes a few graphs later:

The routine here has long included officials making their case for the detentions and trials at the Guantánamo naval base in muted bureaucratese about "fair and open" proceedings. They were outmatched by human rights groups and defense lawyers, with their inflammatory accusations about torture and secret evidence.

Ah, yes.... The people running the camp have been "outmatched" by their critics, who make "inflammatory accusations" about torture and secret evidence. Since the latter is a well-known feature of the military tribunals—it’s not inflammatory to say so, is it? As for torture—apparently it's inflammatory to talk about uncomfortable realities.

UPDATE: The L.A. Times' Carol Williams (12/11/08) had a much more balanced piece about relatives of September 11 victims' positions on Guantanamo.