An AP story (6/7/09) previewing today's European Parliament election is headlined on MSNBC, "Europe Leans Right Ahead of Parliament Voting: Amid Economic Gloom, Conservatives Look Set to Win Big in Europe-Wide Poll." The article, by Michael Weissenstein and Robert Wielaard, begins:

Europe was leaning to the right ahead of European Parliament elections Sunday, with voters in many countries favoring conservative parties against a backdrop of economic crisis.

Opinion polling showed right-leaning governments with edges over their opposition in Germany, Italy and France. Conservative opposition parties were tied or ahead in Britain, Spain, and some smaller countries.

So how big is the right expected to win? In the 17th paragraph, after we've been told "the Europe-wide elections were most important as a snapshot of national political sentiment," we finally get some numbers:

An informal forecast by the political science website http://www.predict09.eu anticipated Conservatives winning 262 seats against 194 for the Socialists and 85 for the Liberals in 736-seat European Parliament, roughly the same proportions as in the last parliament.

And then the article notes that "right-leaning parties have taken up business regulation and social protection initiatives more traditionally associated with the left."

When you look at the site that AP references--which turns out to be a project of the PR group Burson-Marsteller--it turns out that its actual prediction is for slight gains for the left. (On the chart on the site's main page, the left parties are in red, pink and green; the centrist Liberal parties are in yellow; the conservative parties are in blue and light blue; and the far-right parties are in orange and gray.) The main change the PR group predicts is that the left parties will take a slightly larger slice of the pie and the Liberal parties will have a slightly smaller one.

Of course, it's the actual voting results that matter, not the predictions, and it's certainly possible that the European right actually will make major gains. But when the AP takes forecasts that Conservatives will do about as well as they did last time after moving their platforms to the left, and depicts that as evidence of "Europe...leaning to the right," that would seem to say more about the news service's political sentiments than about Europe's.

Responding to "both Likud Party members in Israel as well as their Americans supporters" who "complain that the Obama administration is unduly 'interfering' in Israeli politics"--as exemplified by Ben Smith of Politico reporting that "the administration's escalating pressure on Israel to freeze all growth of its settlements on Palestinian land has begun to stir concern among Israel's numerous allies"--Salon's Glenn Greenwald (6/3/09, ad-viewing required) likens the situation to "teenagers who tell their parents that they are not compelled to comply with parental dictates" and are told that "as long as they seek financial support, then the parents have the right to demand certain actions in return":

Identically, if Israel wants to be free of what it and some of its U.S. supporters call "interference" from the Obama administration, that's very easy to achieve: Israel can stop asking for tens of billions of dollars of American taxpayer money, huge amounts of military and weapons supplies for its various wars, and unyielding American diplomatic protection at the U.N. But as long as Israel remains dependent on the U.S. in countless ways, then Obama not only has the right--but he has the obligation--to demand that Israel cease activities which harm U.S. interests.

Continuing settlement expansions that the entire world recognizes as illegal--what Time's Joe Klein accurately calls "taking territory that the rest of the world, without exception, considers Palestinian"--clearly harms U.S. interests in all sorts of ways, as Obama himself has concluded. He would be abdicating one of his primary responsibilities in foreign policy--maximizing U.S. national security rather than those of other countries--if he failed to demand that Israel cease this activity and if he failed to use U.S. leverage to compel compliance with those demands.

Writing that "Israelis are taking Obama's pressure quite seriously, as are many of his Israel-centric supporters in the U.S," Greenwald encourages "those who want Obama to continue to depart from the Bush administration’s blind support for Israeli actions" to "continue to make themselves heard, since those who desire a continuation of that blind Israeli support certainly intend to"--and we all know which group is sure to get unquestioning encouragement from the big U.S. outlets...

Reporting that "reactionary radio host and white supremacist Hal Turner was taken into custody Wednesday after remarks urging Catholics to 'take up arms' against two Connecticut lawmakers and a state ethics official over legislation... regarding the church," independent news outlet Raw Story's John Byrne (6/4/09) deepens the story by recalling that "Turner used to be a regular on Sean Hannity's radio show (the Fox News pundit)":

When Hannity said he didn't have an association with Turner earlier this year, Turner wrote:

I was quite disappointed when Sean Hannity at first tried to say he didn't know me and then went on to say that I ran some senate campaign in New Jersey. In fact, Sean Hannity does know me and we were quite friendly a number of years ago.

When Hannity took over Bob Grant's spot on 77 WABC in New York City, I was a well-known, regular and welcome caller to his show. Through those calls, Sean and I got to know each other a bit and at some point, I can't remember exactly when, Sean gave me the secret "Guest call-in number" at WABC so that my calls could always get on the air.

Here, for your own consideration, is Crooks and Liars blogger John Amato quoting Turner's language that Connecticut Police Chief Michael J. Fallon deemed "above and beyond the threshold of free speech" for "inciting others through his website to commit acts of violence":

"It is our intent to foment direct action against these individuals personally," the blog stated. "These beastly government officials should be made an example of as a warning to others in government: Obey the Constitution or die."

And, the post continued, "If any state attorney, police department or court thinks they're going to get uppity with us about this; I suspect we have enough bullets to put them down too."

Directly referring to the reason such hate speech is such a hot topic currently, the Hartford Courant reports that "elsewhere on [Turner's] blog, the recent fatal shooting of a Kansas abortion provider is called 'a righteous act.'"

If you've ever wondered why the New York Times' labor coverage is just so bad, a lot can be learned by looking at the company's treatment of its own workers. Newspaper Guild president Dan Totten has published an open letter (6/3/09) about how the Boston Globe-owning Times has chosen to "behave in a highly challenging situation" and what his union has "learned about New York Times Company management--and its unwillingness to share the pain of overcoming this crisis":

Guild members haven't seen a pay raise in four years. And they are well prepared to take a pay cut to help preserve the Globe and its mission. Management, on the other hand, received healthy bonus payments in February 2009--just weeks before New York threatened to shut down the Globe.

Indeed, while this entire process began with one threat, the Times Company now hopes to finish things with another--the prospect of an immediate 23-percent pay cut.

The company's best offer to Guild members effectively cuts pay 10.3 percent forever. Management, however, will endure a 5 percent pay cut only through December 31. Guild members have been preparing for significant pension and retirement plan cuts, including an end to any 401k match. Unbelievably, the Times Company has actually boosted the matching contribution for management 401k plans by 66 percent.

Totten goes on to say that even "under tremendous financial pressure, there are good examples being set elsewhere," citing Gatehouse Media New England--"which owns 100 community newspapers in Massachusetts"--where "senior managers will shoulder the largest pay cuts (up to 15 percent)" and the Boston Phoenix owners who "also reserved the biggest hits for top management in a recent round of costcutting." Totten notes that "that's one way to cope with such a challenge--sharing the pain and being a true partner with workers. It's just not the Times Company's way."

Washington Monthly contributing editor Art Levine has a piece for In These Times (5/31/09) reporting on economist Anne Layne-Farrar's recent congressional appearance in which she

warned about the horrendous impact of the Employee Free Choice Act. Its potential to increase union membership from between five and 10 percent, she said, 'would result in an increase in the unemployment of around one and a half to three percentage points.'

Levine tells us how "Fox 'Fair and Balanced' News, naturally, in its TV report neglected to mention that her 'research' was funded by the corporate-friendly, anti-union 'Alliance to Save Main Street Jobs,'" and directly takes on Layne-Farrar's estimate "that 600,000 jobs would be lost in the first year after the EFCA became law":

Layne-Farrar massages the data using a complex "regression analysis" to connect the dots between card check, higher unionization rates and more unemployment, putting the loss at between 600,000 and 2.6 million new American jobs in the first year.

"That's bullshit," says Canadian labor economist Charlotte Yates, now the Dean of Social Sciences at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario. "I don’t know of any credible economists who say [now] there is a direct correlation between unionization and the rise in unemployment."

Despite being so flawed as to elicit such strong exclamations from prominent academic economists, "since the report's publication in March, this statistic has circulated through the media, showing up on MSNBC, CBS News, the Wall Street Journal and, in spades, Fox News." For more on corporate media coverage of EFCA, read FAIR's magazine Extra!: "For Media, 'Card Check' Promise Is One to Break: Corporate Outlets Suddenly Discover 'Workers Rights'" (2/09) by Janine Jackson.

Looking at last week's "whole series of bad reports on the state of the economy," Dean Baker of Beat the Press and the Center for Economic and Policy Research tells readers of London's Guardian (6/1/09) if they think "these reports might have led to gloomy news stories," such assessments are to be found "not in the U.S. media": "The folks who could not see an $8 trillion housing bubble are still determined to find the silver lining in even the worst economic news":

For example, National Public Radio told listeners that the new home sales figure reported for April was up from the March level. While this was true, the April figure was only 1,000 higher than a March level that had just been revised down by 5,000. April new home sales were 4,000 below the sales level that had originally been reported for March. USA Today touted a "surge" in durable goods orders, which was also based on a sharp downward revision to the prior month's data.

The media have obviously abandoned economic reporting and instead have adopted the role of cheerleader, touting whatever good news it can find and inventing good news when none can be found. This leaves the responsibility of reporting on the economy to others.

Predicting that "at some point it will be impossible to conceal the bad news, and Congress' attention will return to stimulus," for now Baker notes that "media's reality defying happy talk on the economy is delaying this moment." Read the recent issue of FAIR's magazine Extra!: "Stimulus Snake Oil: Media Promote Nonsensical GOP Talking Points (3/09) by Peter Hart.

Pratap Chatterjee's new TomDispatch essay (5/31/09) explores how Dick Cheney's mercenary corporation Halliburton recently has managed to largely "Stay Out of Sight While Profiting From the War in Iraq" despite what Tom Engelhardt's introduction calls "hatfuls of charges against the company for a laundry list of alleged misdeeds":

There were no protesters outside the [annual Halliburton shareholders] meeting this year, nor the kind of national media stakeouts commonplace when [CEO David] Lesar addressed the same crew at the posh Four Seasons Hotel in downtown Houston in May 2004. Then, dozens of mounted police faced off against 300 protesters in the streets outside, while a San Francisco group that dubbed itself the Ronald Reagan Home for the Criminally Insane fielded activists in Bush and Cheney masks, offering fake $100 bills to passersby in a mock protest against war profiteering. And don't forget the 25-foot inflatable pig there to mock shareholders. Local TV crews swarmed, a national crew from NBC flew in from New York, and reporters from the Financial Times and the Wall Street Journal eagerly scribbled notes.

Now the 25-foot pigs are gone and all is quiet on the western front. How did Halliburton, once branded the ugly stepchild of Dick Cheney--the company's former CEO--and a poster child of war profiteering, receive such absolution from anti-war activists and the media?

Naming "a general apathy towards the ongoing but lower-level war in Iraq" as just "part of the answer," Chatterjee urges readers to not, as U.S. media have, "ignore a potentially brilliant financial sleight of hand by Halliburton either. That move played a crucial role in the cleansing of the company." Listen to the FAIR radio show CounterSpin: "Jason Leopold on Halliburton" (9/3/04).

Discussing (5/31/09) the "story on the two U.S. journalists detained in North Korea," NPR Check's Mytwords states clearly that it "deserves coverage, as did some coverage of [Roxana] Saberi's arrest in Iran (though not the wall to wall attention given by NPR)." But a reader's link to the L.A. Times' May 24 "article on another irregular (illegal?) detention of a journalist" sheds light on a glaring double standard:

In this case the journalist was seized by U.S. forces and its allies. The reader noted the lack of NPR coverage on the abduction/detention of Ibrahim Jassam, complaining that NPR has voiced "not a word"--which this search of NPR proves.

A glance at the Committee to Protect Journalists report for "Attacks on the Press in 2008: United States" reveals that Jassam's case is not an anomaly (e.g., Jawed Ahmad). What is not an anomaly is NPR's utter disregard for, and refusal to investigate, attacks against journalists that are initiated by the United States government/military.

On this point, Mytwords notes that independent reporter "Jeremy Schahill has written incisively about the U.S. strategy of violence and intimidation against critical media and the complicity of mainstream U.S. media outlets (such as NPR) in covering it up." See also FAIR's Media Advisory: "U.S. Media Applaud Bombing of Iraqi TV" (3/27/03).

I give the Washington Post's Anthony Shadid credit for good intentions in his article today (6/3/09)--he realizes that there's some aspects of Mideast history that his readers ought to know about but probably don't. But it seems like any attempt to tell the truth about the Middle East has to be accompanied by a bodyguard of obfuscation. As with this passage:

The blacks and whites of U.S. policy always seem to give way to a far greater ambiguity in the region. Lies by a generation of authoritarian Arab leaders to their people have given many a healthy skepticism of any public statement, whatever the source.

You think maybe skepticism of U.S. statements has maybe more to do with what U.S. leaders have said, rather than those lying Arabs? Just a possibility.

And that's followed by this:

Footnotes of U.S. history have become seminal events in the Muslim world. A half-century on, few people are unaware of the U.S. role in 1953 in helping overthrow Mohammad Mossadegh, the nationalist prime minister in Iran.

That first statement would be a great deal more accurate if it were reversed: Seminal events in the Muslim world have become footnotes in U.S. history. If a foreign power overthrows your elected government and installs a dictator, it's pretty hard for that not to be a seminal event.

Imagine that the executive director of Rev. Al Sharpton's National Action Network punched a woman in the head while uttering a racial epithet. Imagine further that two years after this hate crime took place, the executive director still had his job, and when Sharpton was asked about this, he speculated about why this story was "even newsworthy," and insisted that "I don't have any day-to-day control over the organization."

Does anyone doubt that if such an incident happened, it would be a major national news story, and Sharpton would be facing a firestorm of criticism?

Yet precisely such an incident did happen--except that the leader of the national movement was former Republican presidential candidate Tom Tancredo, and the perpetrator of the assault was Marcus Epstein, the executive director of Tancredo's anti-immigration PAC, Team America.

So why is it that a Google News search for "Marcus Epstein" turns up only a handful of stories--many of them in progressive online outlets like Talking Points Memo, Washington Independent and Daily Kos? The "liberal media" work in mysterious ways, I guess.

Progressive critic Dr. Roberto Rodriguez has a new commentary (New America Media, 6/2/09) demonstrating how the miserable press reaction to Judge Sonia Sotomayor's U.S. Supreme Court "nomination clearly shows us is that what this nation needs is more incisive journalism, not less." But, Rodriguez laments, "to be sure, the rise of right-wing media, which include Fox News and virtually all the known right-wing radio talkshow hosts, is the antithesis of journalism":

Their coverage of the Sotomayor nomination points to the need for honest debate, not simply on the issues of race, but on the right wing's aversion to truth. It also points to the right wing's pompous beliefs, on every topic, including affirmative action, that their positions are "American."

Extremist politicos Newt Gingrich and Tom Tancredo, both of whom have zero credibility but are stars of right-wing media, have led the charge that Sotomayor is a racist. They have been joined by the usual wingnuts: Rush Limbaugh, Gordon Liddy, Glenn Beck, Pat Buchanan, Lou Dobbs, to name a few. Even Juan Williams of NPR, has parroted the claim that Sotomayor's (out-of-context) statements are racist. The fact that the nation’s discussion centers on whether she is a racist or not--or that she is an "affirmative action" pick (Buchanan)--points to both the power of the wingnuts and also to the virtual impotence, or complicity, of mainstream media.

While "these pundits who daily rant against 'illegal aliens,' and who daily clamor on the need to fortify the U.S.-Mexico border, are quoted as credible sources by the mainstream press," Rodriguez remains hopeful that "the majority of Americans can see through the false arguments...by these so-called patriots." Yet "this does not hold true for the mainstream media. As we are seeing with Sotomayor, all it takes is a handful of 'extremists' to control and shape the media debate."

"Amid all the recent negatives in the worlds of intelligence and journalism," Consortium News' Robert Parry (6/2/09) has spotted "one encouraging development": "the recognition of common ground between two beleaguered groups, honest U.S. intelligence analysts and honest American journalists, two groups that previously had been on opposite sides of the secrecy divide." The strangeness of which is not lost on Parry, who says that "what brought them together, ironically, was that they both were targeted by the same dishonest forces":

Through the 1980s, the neocons spearheaded an assault on the CIA's analytical division by pushing a politicization of intelligence that reversed the tradition of giving policymakers the best possible information. Instead, careerists got rewarded for tailoring intelligence to fit the neocon agenda--and those who wouldn't go along were pushed aside or out the door.

Simultaneously, within the Washington news media, the neocons and allied right-wing attack groups took aim at journalists who dug up unwanted information. Instead of rewards for such work, there were punishments. Many truth-telling reporters were "controversialized," while journalists who played ball moved to the center of the profession.

That last point is on a phenomenon Parry is regrettably quite familiar with--see the FAIR magazine Extra!: "America's Debt to Gary Webb: Punished for Reporting the Truth While Those Who Covered It Up Thrived" (3–4/05) by Robert Parry.

Writing on Salon (5/31/09, ad-viewing required) of the "controversy surrounding Jeffrey Rosen's New Republic anonymity-driven smear attack on Sonia Sotomayor's intellect and character," Glenn Greenwald sees more evidence that

the one trait that defines establishment pundits more than any other is a pathological inability ever to accept blame or admit error. That's because they work in the most accountability-free profession in America, where people like Bill Kristol (with a record like this) and Jeffrey Goldberg (with a record like this) get promoted despite no retractions or remorse, and establishment media stars in general can pretend that they bear no responsibility for enabling the abuses and crimes of the Bush years. And all of that is simply an extension of the prevailing ethos that political, financial and media elites should be immunized from accountability in general--which is why the Beltway elite class collectively scoffs at the very notion that there should be any consequences at all when our highest political leaders commit the most serious crimes.

Greenwald recounts for us how, in the New Republic's latest contribution to "that grand accountability-free tradition," Jeffrey "Rosen blames everyone but himself for what he did, but then melodramatically announces that he will no longer 'blog'--as though it's the medium, rather than his own standards and choices, that are to blame for what he did."

Veteran actor and activist Peter Coyote (SFChronicle.com, 5/30/09) writes about big media's overriding response to the "Largest Environmental Lawsuit in History--Silence." Taking a look at "the practices that are going on behind Chevron's carefully cultivated 'green' image" as they "drill for oil in the jungles of the Ecuadorian Amazon," Coyote does give credit to the Washington Post reporting of "several damning letters" like "an internal 1972 memo...instructing Texaco [now Chevron] officials in Ecuador to report only spills that attracted the attention of the news media." Nonetheless:

This is a case of epic proportions, where our commons, the lungs of the planet, have been violated needlessly and carelessly, to save money with no thought whatsoever paid to the thousands of people, and millions of species, that would be poisoned while the American media basically slept. Those of you who may have noticed the cozy interview with the [executive vice] president of Chevron in the SF Chronicle last week might not have noticed the small article in the Chronicle's business section mentioning the protests outside of the Chevron stockholders meeting in San Ramon on May 26. Cofan Indian leader Ermenegildo Quillolo, and lead-American attorney for the defense Steve Danziger, Ecuadorian community organizer Luis Yanza, members of Amazon Watch and a host of NGOs seeking to protect the Amazon were there protesting the actions of Chevron, and alerting stockholders that their company paid $30 billion dollars for a company with $27 billion dollars of liabilities attached, a gross failure of due diligence. We, the public, were not offered a comparable interview with the Ecuadorians, Steven Danziger or members of Amazon Watch.

Even though "this spill dwarfs the Exxon Valdez," Coyote notes that it, "aside from an excellent piece on 60 Minutes, remains virtually unreported. How many of you know about it? And if not, why not?" Listen to a similar story of oil company crimes and media neglect on the current FAIR radio program CounterSpin: "Han Shan on Shell & Ken Saro-Wiwa" (5/29/09).

Spotting a May 31 Washington Post column "that blamed the United Auto Workers for the bankruptcy of Chrysler and GM," Dean Baker declares (Beat the Press, 5/31/09) that the D.C. daily "showed yet again why it is known as "Fox on 15th Street":

So what if Toyota has managed to profitably run a plant in California represented by the UAW for more than two decades? So what if wages of unionized autoworkers in profitable car companies in Europe and Japan are the same or higher than in the United States? So what if the proximate cause of the bankruptcy was incompetent economic management in Washington and an explosion of incompetence and greed on Wall Street?

At the Washington Post, the line is blame the unionized auto workers--after all, they earn $57,000 a year. Except, of course, by the calculation in this column. Richard K. Bank, a man with no obvious qualification other than his dislike of unions, told Post readers that GM, Ford and Chrysler have labor costs of close to $110 an hour. The would come to $220,000 a year for a full-time worker.

"Of course," Baker notes, "this has no basis in reality, but it helps advance the anti-union case, so it's good enough to get in the Washington Post"--thus leading directly to the scathing headline of Baker's piece: "Do You Hate Unions and Working Class People? You Can Write for the Washington Post. No Knowledge Necessary!"

Read the FAIR Action Alert: "ABC's Overpaid Autoworkers" (12/5/08).