Between the Lines executive producer Scott Harris (8/14/09) has a new Q & A featuring FAIR's own Peter Hart discussing how "Media Coverage of Healthcare Debate Emphasizes Drama Over Substance."

Asked to assess "corporate media's coverage of the U.S. healthcare reform debate and conservative activists' disruption of congressional town hall meetings," Hart replies:

You wonder where the media got this sudden interest in listening to and amplifying grassroots concerns. I've never known this to be very, very typical of the corporate media to care so much about what protesters think. But suddenly they've found protesters here, I think, that been able to flesh out a story line that the media want to tell, and that is that there are passions that are running hot on both sides of this issue.

On the one side, the pro-reform campaign with the White House, with the congressional Democrats; on the other side, these folks who are--whatever their motivation--going to these Town Hall meetings, and disrupting them, shouting, comparing the White House efforts to Nazi Germany and so on....

This is, I think, a situation where the media, whatever their motivation is... are wildly overplaying these folks as a testament to real legitimate public concern. You look at the public opinion on the healthcare effort, the majority are with the White House and the majority would go much further than the White House and the congressional Democrats are going.

"That perspective is almost never heard," though, says Hart, "but what you do hear a lot are these naysayers who are a minority of the population." Read some quite logical reasons why that might be in the new issue of FAIR's magazine Extra!: "Single-Payer & Interlocking Directorates: The Corporate Ties Between Insurers and Media Companies" (August 2009) by Kate Murphy.

As "official Washington is buzzing about 'metrics'" of success in the U.S. war on Afghanistan, Norman Solomon (ZNet, 8/13/09) notes of media's persistent question, "Can the war in Afghanistan be successful?"--"Don't ask the dead":

On August 7, under the headline "White House Struggles to Gauge Afghan Success," a New York Times story made a splash. "As the American military comes to full strength in the Afghan buildup, the Obama administration is struggling to come up with a long-promised plan to measure whether the war is being won."

Don't ask the dead. They don't count.

The Times article went on: "Those 'metrics' of success, demanded by Congress and eagerly awaited by the military, are seen as crucial if the president is to convince Capitol Hill and the country that his revamped strategy is working."

But, Solomon says, "routinely, the dominant political and media calculus renders the dead as digits and widgets, moved around on spreadsheets and news pages. The victims of war are hardly seen as people by the numbed sophisticates who can measure just about anything but the value of a human life." Thus prompting Solomon's question to all of us: "The dead can't speak up. What's our excuse?"

WashingtonMonthly.com blogger Steve Benen (Political Animal, 8/12/09) has words for corporate pundits lambasting Barack Obama's "Attention to Detail" as "going "into the weeds":

A few weeks ago, MSNBC's First Read had an item questioning whether President Obama "knows too much" about healthcare policy. The piece complained that the president is willing to offer Americans details about reform....

The Wall Street Journal's Jonathan Weisman raised a similar concern today, arguing that Obama cares too much about policy details....

This, apparently, is criticism, not praise. The president who inherited a devastating economic crisis is interested in U6 numbers--a measure that includes the unemployed, those who are working part-time but want full-time employment, and those who've simply given up--and this, we're told, is somehow evidence of excessive interest in detail.

Benen thinks that too-skeptical-for-the-Washington Post Dan Froomkin "has this just right" when writing that "there are all sorts of legitimate reasons to be concerned about Obama's approach to governing" but "intellectual curiosity is one thing journalists in particular should celebrate, not sneer at."

In Benen's closing thoughts he really "can't help but wonder if" reporters might simply "prefer a more superficial president because they have a more superficial perspective?"

Media Matters research director Jeremy Schulman (8/12/09) writes that "Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Lou Dobbs have used their radio and television shows to incite hatred and push wild conspiracy theories, leading several of Beck's advertisers to reportedly pull out of his broadcasts"--one of the hazards inherent in for-profit media.

But "many advertisers have nonetheless sponsored these hosts' hate speech in recent weeks, including major corporations and organizations that, in 2006, reportedly requested that ABC Radio Networks not air their advertisements during any Air America programs":

At the time,

ABC subsequently provided a statement to Media Matters, which read: "It is not uncommon for advertisers and/or agencies to request that their ads run or not run in specific programming environments or dayparts. ABC Radio Networks does not solicit nor encourage these requests from advertisers. If a request is made by an advertiser and /or agency we make our best effort to comply."...

The New York Times reported at the time that "the advertisers' avoidance of Air America's liberal programming seems pointed when contrasted with the commercial success of right-wing talk radio programs like those of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity." [New York Times, 11/6/06]

Indeed, Schulman tells us how, "despite their appearance on ABC's Air America 'blackout' list in 2006, a number of those same advertisers have recently run ads during broadcasts of one or more of the following: Limbaugh's radio show, Beck's Fox News show, Beck's radio show, Dobbs' CNN show and Dobbs' radio show." He then provides for your perusal a handy list of said advertisers, including--no surprise--General Electric.

The dominant story from Hillary Clinton's trip to Africa was not her comments about combating rape and sexual violence in Congo.  No, the top story was Clinton's testy response to a question about what her husband thought of Chinese business interests in Kenya Congo.

That exchange prompted a whole story in today's New York Times by Jeffrey Gettleman ("Clinton's Flash of Pique in Congo"). While that's already kind of sad, it turns out that the questioner misspoke; he actually meant to ask what Barack Obama thought of these deals. But either way, apparently, you get to psychoanalyze Hillary Clinton:

After the forum, her aides told the traveling press corps that there might have been a mistranslation, and that the student actually wanted to know the opinion of her boss, not her husband. But that interpretation did not dispel the controversy either, since it gave new life to the nagging question of whether Mrs. Clinton felt marginalized in the Obama administration.

See? If the question was really about Obama, you can take the answer she gave to the question about her husband and use it to gauge her true feelings about her role in the Obama administration. Neat trick.

Gettleman's piece concludes:

No matter the issues she was talking about--encouraging good governing, ending Africa's wars, lifting women up from their lowly position in a place like Congo. The interest in this trip, it seemed, was not about the problems facing Africa. It was about her.

As one journalist covering her trip put it: "She is a celebrity. We have a celebrity secretary of state. When you have a celebrity, you get celebrity coverage."

Well, it's nice to know that journalists covering U.S. foreign policy see their jobs this way.

Since "on his Wednesday radio show, [Lou] Dobbs as much as announced that CNN president Jon Klein" is forcing him into "focusing on a nonpartisan objective reality that it is our job to cover"--with Dobbs "admitting, 'I resisted this idea initially'"--author and journalist Leslie Savan (TheNation.com, 8/12/09) has noticed some "kind of French" behavior from the usually "government-out-of-my-face bloviator," in the form of "a month-long, nation-a-night series to 'learn from other countries' healthcare plans'":

But as Lou has proved again and again, he can't help but resist. On radio the very next day, he slammed Obama for compiling "an enemies' list" (not true), and harrumphed mightily: "I'm moving from being an independent, sir, to being absolutely opposed to your, any policy you could conceive of!" As if he hadn't moved into outright opposition long ago.

So, as soon as Lou had completed all that extra homework--writing 100 times on the blackboard, "I will push opinion aside. I will push opinion aside"--he finally gets to bust out and mix it up with his guests. Only then do the familiar snide comments, appalled facial expressions, and twisted facts spill into a headlong attack on each and every aspect of Obama's healthcare plan--even the aspects resembling those he had just more or less commended in Europe.

That is, Dobbs can read all sorts of fair and balanced words from a script, but he is willfully deaf to their meaning.

"Anything that doesn't fit his worldview," Savan says, "he doesn't hear, it doesn't compute, and he goes blank."

When "journalists Euna Lee and Laura Ling stepped back onto American soil after being detained in North Korea for over four months. Their safe return was covered widely in the American media, and rightfully so," writes Women In Media & News guest blogger Tristin Aaron (8/12/09), "yet their reason for traveling to North Korea has been all but forgotten in the media reports on Lee and Ling":

Euna Lee and Laura Ling were reporting on the trafficking of women from North Korea into China. As Ji-Yeon Yuh notes in, "What Were Laura Ling and Euna Lee Looking For in North Korea?": "Of North Korean women and girl refugees in China, an estimated 80 to 90 percent are victims of trafficking. This is likely the highest percentage of trafficking in a single population."...

Further, these victims of human trafficking are treated as criminals by North Korea, and as illegal immigrants in China. Writing for the Women’s Media Center, Ji-Yeon Yuh highlights a gap in the media's coverage not only of the story Euna Lee and Laura Ling were reporting, but of coverage of North Korea in general: "The wider world takes little notice of these victims, with mainstream media closely focused on the issue of North Korea’s nuclear weapons."

Read all of Ji-Yeon Yuh's story on the website for Aaron's Women’s Media Center. And listen to the FAIR radio show CounterSpin: "John Feffer on North Korea" (5/29/09).

Blogging at Jezebel, Sadie Stein (8/12/09) turns the spotlight on the New York Times' Cintra Wilson "in a remarkably nasty piece. Brace yourselves, kids":

In a paper often characterized by a tone as carefully bland as NPR's, she can be a breath of fresh air. But today's column, on Manhattan's first J.C. Penney, is a marvel of snobbery, cruelty and ugliness....

It took me a long time to find a size 2 among the racks. There are, however, abundant size 10s, 12s and 16s....

The petites section features a bounty of items for women nearly as wide as they are tall; the men's Big & Tall section has shirts that could house two or three Shaquilles.

Because, you see, there are apparently people who wear these laughable sizes and are reduced to these knock-off fashions....

This is, she concludes,

the genius of J. C. Penney: It has made a point of providing clothing for people of all sizes.... To this end, it has the most obese mannequins I have ever seen. They probably need special insulin-based epoxy injections just to make their limbs stay on. It's like a headless wax museum devoted entirely to the cast of Roseanne.

Postulating that this may all be a misguided attempt by the Times "to draw on the snark of the blogosphere that the kids are supposedly so crazy about," Stein offers a response in the form of her own "little internet home-brew: FAIL. EPIC FAIL, even. I could add 'compassion fail' and 'humanity fail,' if I so chose. I'd say 'journalism fail,' but if you keep this up, I won't need to."

The Hispanic/Latino Anti-Defamation Coalition, along with the National Hispanic Media Coalition (8/11/09), "applauds" the San Francisco Board of Supervisors for being "the first elected body to take a stand against hate speech in media" by having

approved unanimously a resolution urging the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to conduct a comprehensive investigation on hate speech in media, allowing public participation via public hearings, and for the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to update its 1993 report the "Role of Telecommunications in Hate Crimes."

The Supervisors responded to grassroots activists in the Bay Area who have organized to call attention to the alarming increase of patently false and hateful language in media. For the last three years, the Hispanic/Latino Anti-Defamation Coalition SF has organized annual protests held at Clear Channel Communications.

Clear Channel is specifically "selected as the protest site due to the corporation's record of promoting some of the most virulent purveyors of hate and intolerance, including Michael Savage and Glenn Beck, who denigrate communities, groups and individuals."

Read the resolution on the City of San Francisco's website.

Also check out the profiles of Savage, Beck and other media hatemongers on FAIR's Smearcasting.com site--and see FAIR's magazine Extra!: "Hate Speech, Media Activism and the First Amendment: Putting a Spotlight on Dehumanizing Language" (5/09) by Candice O'Grady.

News Corpse blogger Mark Howard (8/10/09) calls the fact that "industry sources are reporting that Don Imus is in talks with the Fox Business Network to simulcast his Imus in the Morning radio program" a "de facto admission by FBN that they have failed to attract an audience capable of sustaining the network."

Howard sees further evidence of the network's struggles in that "they are approaching their second anniversary and still do not permit Nielsen to publish their ratings." And their rumored acquisition bodes ill for whatever credibility may remain:

Acquiring Imus would be a desperation play for eyeballs. While Imus suffered a devastating blow as a result of his "nappy-headed hos" remarks, losing his top-rated radio program and the MSNBC simulcast, he still has a smaller but significant fan base. However, for a business network to hand over the prime morning hours as the stock market opens to a shock jock with no business credibility tells you that they no longer consider business news their mission. They are grasping for any viewers they can round up.

"Remember," Howard urges, "this is the network that interviewed New York's Naked Cowboy on their first day of broadcasting. They haven’t come very far since then, have they?"

In a wide-ranging ZNet interview on both the history and future of U.S. media, Robert McChesney (8/11/09) gets to the kernel of reform activism:

The media is one of the key areas in society where power is exercised, reinforced and contested. It is hard to imagine a successful left political project that does not have a media platform. The media was not a major political issue for earlier generations of the left. In the 19th century, a very different media system was in place. 19th century socialists wouldn't be talking much about the need to criticize the New York Herald Tribune because they weren't organizing people who read the New York Herald Tribune. It was much easier and more common for the left to have its own media. The workers had worker papers. They weren't consuming mass-produced commercial media products. But this started changing in the first half of the 20th century. Capital accumulation colonized much more of popular culture and communications. Capitalism became the dominant mode of producing and distributing information in society. The media has since become central to politics; it is a central concern for anyone that wants to understand politics and intervene politically.

Which leaves all concerned with a serious "challenge": "to understand, use and struggle to change the existing media." Listen to some ideas on how to meet that challenge on the FAIR radio program CounterSpin: "Jim Naureckas on the Future of Journalism" (7/10/09).

Foreign Policy In Focus analyst Conn Hallinan (8/6/09) has yet another debunking of "the story most U.S. readers are getting about the coup" in Honduras, being "that Zelaya--an ally of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez--was deposed because he tried to change the constitution to keep himself in power."

Calling this dominant media narrative "a massive distortion of the facts," Hallinan patiently explains that "all Zelaya was trying to do is to put a non-binding referendum on the ballot calling for a constitutional convention"--which, Hallinan notes, was "a move that trade unions, indigenous groups and social activist organizations had long been lobbying for," since the country's current "one-term limit allows the brass-hats to dominate the politics of the country."

But things get really interesting when Hallinan spots a "U.S. Connection"--via one of our largest media conglomerates:

While Zelaya is indeed friendly with Chávez, he is at best a liberal reformer whose major accomplishment was raising the minimum wage....

One of those "little reforms" was aimed at ensuring public control of the Honduran telecommunications industry, which may well have been the trip-wire that triggered the coup....

One of the charges that [right wing Latin America operative Otto] Reich levels at Zelaya is that the Honduran president is supposedly involved with bribes paid out by the state-run telecommunications company Hondutel. Zelaya is threatening to file a defamation suit over the accusation.

Reich's charges against Hondutel are hardly happenstance, as he is a former AT&T lobbyist and served as Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) Latin American advisor during the senator's 2008 presidential campaign.

Writing that "AT&T, McCain's second largest donor, also generously funds the International Republican Institute, which has warred with Latin American regimes that have resisted telecommunications privatization," Hallinan perceives the seeds of Zelaya's fate in the fact that he "was known to be a fierce critic of telecommunications privatization."

The Washington Post's Walter Pincus writes (8/9/09) (under the headline "Analysts Expect Long-Term, Costly U.S. Campaign in Afghanistan") that "military experts are warning that the United States is taking on security and political commitments that will last at least a decade and a cost that will probably eclipse that of the Iraq War."

What follows is about what you'd expect: Various pro-war analysts giving their views on how best to wage war there. But perhaps the most telling part comes early on, when Pincus writes: "Military experts insist that the additional resources are necessary. But many, including some advising [Gen. Stanley A.]  McChrystal, say they fear the public has not been made aware of the significant commitments that come with Washington's new policies."

The public is aware of the Afghan War, of course--and they don't like it, according to the most recent polls. Thus, official Washington must present escalation of that war as a simple matter of fact--not something the public can debate or really do anything about. It's rather difficult to imagine the Post publishing a piece detailing the arguments of those opposed to escalating the war in Afghanistan; there is a more pressing need for the public to be "made aware" of the need for escalation.

The Washington Post editorial page weighed in on the troubling scenes from congressional "town hall" healthcare discussions, where angry right-wing protesters have shouted down politicians, threatened violence, compared Barack Obama to Adolph Hitler and so on. As the Post's subhead put it (perhaps too kindly), "Rhetoric and distortion imperil the opportunity to fix the American healthcare system."

Don't worry--the paper names names at the end. The first graph takes aim at "Republican lawmakers and conservative activists have fanned the flames of uninformed opposition." But the next three paragraphs are directed at the White House and Democrats for "vilifying the health-insurance industry," overstating the profit margins of the insurance industry (they're extremely profitable, but not making "record profits," as Obama had claimed), and promising too much to everyone.

In other words, judged by the amount of time spent assigning blame, the Post believes that Democrats and the White House are roughly three times as guilty as their Republican and conservative counterparts. Apparently, at the Post, comparing someone to a Nazi is less offensive than saying health insurers make too much money.

Economist Dean Baker (Beat the Press, 8/9/09) sees the Washington Post as simply "keeping with its strict editorial policy of only letting others tell readers what 'populists' think," when publishing its August 9 "front-page article on setting executive compensation at banks receiving bailout money"--one which "never presented the views of an actual populist."

Instead, Baker writes "readers got to see the comment of Robert Profusek, a lawyer at Jones Day who is identified as having advised major banks on compensation matters," and Linda Rappaport, "head of the executive compensation practice at the firm Shearman & Sterling"--both of whom unsurprisingly argue for maintaining high executive pay in order to attract "talent" that will "make the money for the shareholders."

Baker voices the unspoken aspects of this assertion:

If the Post had solicited the views of a populist, or an economist, they might have told readers that much of what the banks earn comes directly at the expense of consumers and businesses....
The public has no obvious interest in subsidizing traders to speculate in financial markets. If the speculators win, then the loans that Goldman and the others receive will be repaid, but this repayment will only be a portion of the higher prices paid by consumers and lower profits earned by producers as a result of Goldman's speculation.

And, "moving beyond the world of speculation," Baker doubts that "if most of these individuals were replaced by the person next in line...the bank's profits would suffer in any big way." Which means that "these high salaries are just a drain on the bank, its shareholders and the taxpayers. But you won't see this argument presented in the Post."

Listen to the FAIR radio show CounterSpin: "Robert Johnson on AIG Bonuses" (3/20/09).