We noted here on June 3 that a USA Today column by former Secretary of States James Baker was missing some important disclosure.

Baker argued that the United States needs to encourage more domestic oil drilling. Baker championed efforts by Shell to drill in Alaska, which have been stymied by government bureaucrats.

As FAIR noted, Baker's Rice University institute receives funding from an array of energy companies, including Shell-- which also funds the institute's lecture series. It would be normal for a newspaper to mention this to readers, but USA Today did not.

After receiving a letter from FAIR, the paper issued this correction yesterday (which is hard to find on their website):

USA TODAY
June 8, 2011 Wednesday
FINAL EDITION
Corrections & Clarifications

SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 10A

A June 1 Forum column by former secretary of State James Baker on Alaska energy exploration should have noted that Baker has links to Shell Oil Co., which is mentioned in the piece. The James A. Baker III Center at Rice University receives funding from Shell, and the company also sponsors a lecture series for Baker's institute.

"Senators, congressmen and even President Obama have misquoted the Founding Fathers in recent years," writes Washington Post reporter David A. Fahrenthold in a June 7 piece suggesting that there is a bipartisan trend of misquotation and misrepresentation of historical events. After citing Sarah Palin's recent botched account of Paul Revere's revolutionary ride, Fahrenthold implies that historical distortion comes from a variety of political quarters:

But in Washington, nobody should feel too smug, as Palin is hardly the only politician with a habit of helpfully twisting the historical record, accidentally or not, and sometimes with politically handy consequences.

If Fahrenthold means to give the impression that there is no partisan pattern to the way politicians distort history, that's not what his assembled facts indicate.

The Washington Post reporter cites eight Republicans for  "twisting the historical record": Six--Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.); Rep. Louie Gohmert (Texas);  Rep. Virginia Foxx (N.C.);  Rep. Marlin A. Stutzman (Ind.); Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (Utah) and Sen. Tom Coburn (Okla.)--are cited for misquoting founders, while two, Palin and Rep. Michelle Bachman (Minn.), are cited for distorting Revolutionary War history.

And Democrats?  Fahrenthold cites only Barack Obama, for dropping the words "by their creator" from a speech he gave quoting the Declaration of Independence. (Fahrenthold reports that the White House insists that the president has accurately quoted the passage "countless times." If he really thinks Obama left out that phrase because he doesn't like its religious content, I've got a scoop for him involving birth certificates.)

So Fahrenthold's report is little more than false equivalence--an attempt to attribute a fault that resides largely in one political party and movement to both sides of the political aisle. This is particularly clear when taken in context with a long-term conservative campaign to force history to conform to their views on subjects ranging from religion to the economy.

Bill Moyers appeared on Democracy Now! this morning (6/8/11) to discuss his new book about his days at PBS, The Conversation Continues.

Interviewed for the  hour by anchors Any Goodman and Juan Gonzalez, Moyers said,  "The consensual seduction of the mainstream media by and with the government is one of the most dangerous toxins at work in America today."

He spoke, too, of the lost mission of public broadcasting, and how its reliance on the political whims of Congress for some of its funding prevents it from living up to its potential:

Sometimes self-censorship occurs because you're looking over your shoulder, and you think, well, if I do this story or that story, it will hurt public broadcasting. Public broadcasting has suffered often for my sins, reporting stories the officials don't want reported. And today, only...a very small percentage of funding for NPR and PBS comes from the government. But that accounts for a concentration of pressure and self-censorship. And only when we get a trust fund, only when the public figures out how to support us independently of a federal treasury, will we flourish as an independent medium.

"Fed Wants Priority Put on Deficit" was the New York Times' headline over Binyamin Appelbaum's June 8 story on the front page of the business section. Summarizing a speech Fed chair Ben Bernanke gave the day before, Appelbaum wrote, "He said that growth remained slow and uneven, but he made no mention of the possibility that the Fed would intervene, noting instead that 'a healthy economic future' required a plan to shrink the federal deficit."

Appelbaum also cited a speech by the head of the New York Fed, a member of the national Fed's board of governors: "William C. Dudley, one of Mr. Bernanke's top lieutenants, expanded on the same theme Tuesday night, saying that the government needed to balance its books, and that the nation needed to reduce its dependence on borrowing and consumption."

So the Federal Reserve is getting behind the current efforts in Washington to cut the deficit--efforts that have been greeted by widespread enthusiasm in corporate media? Though that's the impression you might get from reading the Times article, that's entirely incorrect.

Here's what Bernanke actually said (emphasis added):

If the nation is to have a healthy economic future, policymakers urgently need to put the federal government's finances on a sustainable trajectory. But, on the other hand, a sharp fiscal consolidation focused on the very near term could be self-defeating if it were to undercut the still-fragile recovery. The solution to this dilemma, I believe, lies in recognizing that our nation's fiscal problems are inherently long-term in nature. Consequently, the appropriate response is to move quickly to enact a credible, long-term plan for fiscal consolidation. By taking decisions today that lead to fiscal consolidation over a longer horizon, policymakers can avoid a sudden fiscal contraction that could put the recovery at risk. At the same time, establishing a credible plan for reducing future deficits now would not only enhance economic performance in the long run, but could also yield near-term benefits by leading to lower long-term interest rates and increased consumer and business confidence.

In other words, cutting the deficit in the short term would be bad for the economy; what's needed is a long-term strategy for deficit reduction.

Likewise, Dudley also warned about the danger of near-term deficit reduction:

As discussed earlier, no issue is more important than a credible commitment for getting our fiscal house in order, but at a pace that does not forestall a sustained economic recovery. What is needed here is fiscal consolidation that begins slowly, builds over time to substantial magnitude, and is difficult to dismantle--i.e., it requires the commitment of both political parties.

Nobody in Washington is saying that the U.S. can indefinitely ignore its budget deficit. The divide is between people insisting on immediate cuts in federal spending--you might call them "people who want priority put on deficit"--and those who maintain that cutting too quickly would damage the fragile recovery. Bernanke and Dudley are clearly in the latter camp, yet the New York Times makes that very difficult to figure out.

In the very last paragraph of this 19-paragraph piece, Appelbaum finally alludes to the fact that his sources are not actually saying what he's suggesting that they're saying:

"Policymakers urgently need to put the federal governments' finances on a sustainable trajectory," Mr. Bernanke said. Such a plan should not impose large spending cuts immediately, he cautioned, but it could produce immediate benefits "by leading to lower long-term interest rates and increased consumer and business confidence."

"Such a plan should not impose large spending cuts immediately": In order to inform readers where Bernanke and Dudley were coming down on the current budget debate in Washington, those words needed to be at the top of the piece. As it is, this is an example of an article where many readers probably knew more before they started reading it than they did when they finished.

Two elections, different outcomes, different headlines at the Wall Street Journal (6/6/11).

When the left loses:

Portugal Decisively Ends Leftist Rule

Portugal on Sunday voted decisively to end six years of leftist rule, electing the country's main conservative party and boosting prospects for austerity measures tied to a $114 billion aid package from the EU and IMF.

But when the left wins:

Peru Votes in Divisive Runoff for President

Voters in one of the world's most dynamic economies went to the polls Sunday to choose between two divisive presidential candidates.

The latter piece included this:  "Financial markets, which have been riding a roller coaster during the long campaign, would be almost certain to take a win by Mr. Humala badly, analysts say."

That analysis wasn't confined to Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal. In today's Washington Post (6/7/11):

Peru's Path Is Question Mark as Nationalist Wins Presidential Race
Investors worry whether he will pursue leftist economic policies

And the Los Angeles Times (6/7/11):

Leftist's Victory Rattles Peruvian Stock Market
After his narrow win, Ollanta Humala seeks to reassure the business class, but his previous pledge to work for better distribution of the nation's silver and gold wealth sends the market down more than 12 percent.

Viewing elections through the eyes of the investor class might be helpful for some, but it's doubtful that it's a great way to understand what the people in any country are thinking.

Last night (6/6/11), Fox News host Sean Hannity was talking with WorldNetDaily's  Joe Farah:

FARAH: Charles Rangel is still in the House. Barney Frank is still in the House. Bill Clinton is getting awards. Gerry Studds got a standing ovation from House Democrats. This is a guy who had sex with a congressional page, correct?

HANNITY: But what about--you know, you think back when Republican scandals come up, they all bail out. I can't think of one that ever stayed, can you?

He's got a point. Except for Republican Sen. David Vitter (prostitution scandal, still in office). And Republican Sen. John Ensign (extramarital affair, investigation over payments and favors for his lover's spouse), who stuck around for two years after his scandal surfaced.  Oh, and there's Republican Sen. Larry Craig, who was arrested for lewd conduct in a bathroom in June 2007 and finished out his term. And also Republican South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, whose extramarital affair made headlines in mid-2009 when he disappeared from public life to visit his girlfriend. (Remember his cover story about hiking the Appalachian Trail?)

Then there's Fox favorite Rudy Giuliani, who literally paraded his then-girlfriend Judith Nathan around town in 2000, announcing his intention to file for divorce in a televised press conference.

In the non-politician realm, Hannity needn't look far for other examples. Bill O'Reilly, anyone?

Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen writes (6/7/11):

I once worked for an editor who banned the word "oxymoron." I don’t know why. It's a good word, meaning a contradiction in terms. The dictionary offers some examples: "wise fool" and "legal murder." I would like to cite another: Barack Obama. He sends contradictory messages.

That sounds reasonable enough--what are some good examples? Cohen writes:

The fact remains, no matter what Obama says--and almost no matter what he does--the business community deeply feels that he is unsympathetic to them and their goals. They say all they want to do is make an (honest) buck, but to do that they need consistency, predictability and--it would be nice--a pat on the back.

Whatever you think of that, it's not really an oxymoron. It's an example of a class of people who have apparently arrived at a conclusion about Obama that doesn't seem to be rooted in reality. Not even Cohen finds their case persuasive:

My reading of it is not much different than Obama's, but then I am not a businessman, do not eat in their clubs or fly charter. I do know that many of them feel that Obama is at root a hostile liberal, a former community organizer (this is often cited as if the word "community" was synonymous with communist) who would tinker with God's most perfect economic system by giving the government an inordinate role. You will look in vain for anything Obama has said to substantiate this view.

Again, interesting observation--but not at all an oxymoron.

Cohen sees the same thing with Israel policy:

Here again Obama's oxymoronic quality is on display. As with the business community, Obama's assurances to the pro-Israel community mean little. His precise words are discounted. As with the business community, rumor or anecdote trumps pronouncements or actions--something Obama once said, a pro-Palestinian friend he once had. Something like that. The whisper has more volume than the speech itself. It is an odd state of affairs.

Again, hard to see how this would qualify as an oxymoron.

Maybe Richard Cohen's old editor banned him from using that word because he didn't seem to know what it means.

In the New York Times corrections box (6/7/11):

An article on Monday about Rick Santorum, a former senator from Pennsylvania who is seeking the Republican presidential nomination, omitted the name of one of the other declared candidates, who number six, not five. Ron Paul, a Republican congressman from Texas, is also running.

One of the main tasks the  media perform in a campaign is excluding the candidates they deem unworthy of consideration. The Times is off to an early start.

Afghan president Hamid Karzai denounced once again U.S./NATO airstrikes that killed civilians. In this recent incident,  14 were killed, including 11 children. This prompted ABC World News anchor Diane Sawyer (5/31/11) to call in ABC reporters to sort things out, leading to this exchange with Pentagon reporter Martha Raddatz:

SAWYER: He's talking to the Afghan people. But Martha, he put restrictions on what U.S. troops can do, what the NATO troops can do. How onerous are these?

RADDATZ: Well, he's trying to put restrictions on. I mean they simply have to carry out air strikes over there. It's a very rapid response. It's real-time intelligence. It's certainly flawed at some points.

But I've been on these missions. I've been on a combat mission in a fighter jet. I've seen all the very, very careful steps they take. They go through what's called the nine line. In fact, the mission I went on, some French soldiers were calling for them to bomb and the pilot and the weapons officer said, "We can't bomb, we think there's a school, we think there might be people in there."

So I think you will see a real fight over these restrictions, but the airstrikes and these night raids just simply have to continue if they're going to go after the enemy.

So bombing raids in Afghanistan "have to continue," for the sake of having a "rapid response" to "real-time intelligence." And Raddatz, who has "been on a combat mission," can assure you how "very, very careful" they are--why, on the mission she flew, they didn't bomb a target simply because they thought it was a school! This great care taken to not kill civilians sometimes gets more attention than the actual killing of civilians.

The piece helpfully included footage of Raddatz on her combat mission, gathering all the "facts" necessary to produce this kind of journalism.

The headline above this USA Today op-ed read like a slightly wordier version of a Sarah Palin bumper sticker slogan: "Cut the Red Tape: Free Up Oil Drilling in Alaska."

The author is former George H.W. Bush Secretary of State James Baker, and he writes:

Even more domestic offshore drilling will be required if our country is to increase its stable and secure energy. One reasonable place to accomplish that goal lies beneath the waters off of Alaska's northern shores.

He tells the tale of an underdog corporation fighting the good fight--only to be stymied by government bureaucrats:

An effort by Shell Oil Co. is a case in point. During the past five years, Shell has been acquiring 10-year federal leases in the Beaufort Sea to the northeast of Alaska and the Chukchi Sea to the northwest. The company has spent more than $2 billion on the leases and $1.5 billion preparing a drilling program with state-of-the-art mitigation and safety measures. These plans have been transparent to stakeholders, regulators and the courts. However, federal officials continue to balk at delivering the permits necessary to begin drilling, most recently questioning the effects on air quality in the region. As the bureaucratic delays continue, this has become a test case for other energy producers wanting to drill there.

Why talk about Shell's efforts? There are probably other energy companies doing the same. Why makes Shell so special?

That might have something to do with Baker's other gig--namely, the Baker Center at Rice University. Particularly the Energy Forum at the Baker Center, which is funded by a variety of energy companies, including Shell. In fact, the energy giant underwrites the Shell Distinguished Lecture Series, which is apparently "the Baker Institute's flagship speakers program."

It is customary for newspapers to alert readers to such conflicts--something USA Today failed to do.

Seymour Hersh reports in the New Yorker (6/6/11--subscription required) that there is s virtually no evidence Iran has a nuclear weapons program, despite huge  efforts on the part of the U.S. to prove otherwise. Though Hersh's findings do not contradict the past two National Intelligence Estimates, they do fly in the face of long-held official and corporate media views.

Corporate media routinely treat the alleged Iranian nuclear weapons program as a matter of fact. New York Times reporter Michael Gordon has done it at least twice (2/24/03, 10/19/04), in one case suggesting that a U.S.-friendly regime in Iraq might pressure "Iran to halt its nuclear weapons program." With little variation in wording Gordon's Times colleagues Patrick Tyler  (6/27/05) and Scott Shane (3/26/05) have done the same.  So has the Washington Post's Walter Pincus and Karen DeYoung (9/28/09), and  Post editors and editorials routinely treat Iran's nuke program as a proven fact (e.g., 9/11/10, 6/17/09).

So it's not a big surprise that Hersh is coming under fire in in a corporate media which has largely internalized successive White House claims on Iran.

In a Politico report flagged by Glenn Greenwald , White House sources are quoted disparaging Hersh's New Yorker piece in a report the concludes by reminding readers that Hersh has been criticized in the past for relying too much on anonymous sources. Just a little problem with that angle though, as Greenwald points out:

That's the criticism that ends an article that relies exclusively on anonymous government sources, appearing in a D.C. gossip rag notorious for granting anonymity to any powerful figure who requests it for any or no reason.  The difference, of course, is that the Pulitzer Prize-winning, five-time-Polk-Award-recipient investigative journalist who uncovered the My Lai massacre and the Abu Ghraib scandal grants anonymity to those who are challenging the official claims of those in power (that's called "journalism"), while Politico uses it (as it did here) to serve those in power and shield them from all accountability as they spew their propaganda (which is called being a "lowly, rank Royal Court propagandist").

A headline today at the Washington Post (6/3/11) reads, "A Reprieve for Higher-Ed Companies?" A more honest headline might have been, "A Reprieve for Us?"

The story discusses congressional action on a bill that would increase oversight of private, for-profit colleges, since many students take out government-subsidized student loans in order to attend such schools. Critics argue that the schools do a poor job of preparing students for the workforce.

The Post discloses its interests, though a bit late--in the 14th paragraph of a 22-paragraph story: "Half a dozen leading firms in for-profit education--including the Washington Post Co. on behalf of its Kaplan education division--and the trade group Coalition for Educational Success spent a total of $4.3 million lobbying in 2010 and at least $2 million this year."

My favorite part of the story is this:

After an intense lobbying campaign by the for-profit education industry, the regulation--which is supposed to push for-profit companies into designing programs that will lead students to good-paying jobs--was pared back from a draft proposal that was released last summer.

"I wouldn’t say people are dancing in the streets," said one lobbyist who asked for anonymity to protect relationships with clients and officials. "But it is certainly an improvement over the proposed regulation."

The Post grants anonymity to a lobbyist who could very well be working on the Post's side in this debate? That's a new one.

On the Daily Show on June 1, Bill Moyers talked about the types of outsider guests he preferred to interview on his TV show.

As he put it at one point: "The worst hour that I ever put on, was many years ago, with Henry Kissinger....  I vowed after that never to do an hour with any official. None."

Interviewing guests who challenge or question the conventional wisdom or the status quo is exactly what we should be seeing on public television. Two nights before the Moyers interview (5/30/11), Charlie Rose offered a reminder that we've got a long way to go.

He interviewed, for a whole hour, this guy:

The New York Times' Alan Cowell had a piece (6/2/11) about public opposition to nuclear power in Germany, and the fact that the country's political leadership has decided to establish policies that conform to that sentiment. It apparently left the Times a bit perplexed:

But the German move also raised a question whose answer seemed elusive: What is there in this land of 82 million people that has, over decades, bred an aversion to nuclear energy that seems unrivaled among its economic peers, defying its reputation for reasoned debate?

Cowell reveals that Germans overwhelmingly oppose nuclear power, especially after the disasters at Chernobyl and Fukushima. Anti-nuclear feelings surfaced much earlier, though:

There is little doubt that Germany's modern history has combined to produce a deep strain of risk aversion, of caution, and a dislike for surprises, all of which magnify the potential hazards of nuclear energy, producing a perception that is different from that of other major European economies like France or Britain.

Risk aversion and caution produces a "perception" that is different than in other places. I am not even sure what that means, but it doesn't sound unreasonable.

The Times wasn't the only outlet slamming Germany's anti-nukes move. The Washington Post editorial page was unimpressed with Germany's turn toward renewables--a bad idea, "since sometimes the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine." Read Miranda Spencer's recent Extra! article for a good corrective on that.

The Post added:

Instead of providing a model for greening a post-industrial economy, Germany’s overreaching greens are showing the rest of the world just how difficult it is to contemplate big cuts in carbon emissions without keeping nuclear power on the table. Panicked overreaction isn't the right response to the partial meltdowns in Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex

The lesson of Fukushima, then, should be that the world really needs nuclear power. Apparently that kind of logic is what the Post means by a more "reasoned debate"?

Of the 24 members of Congress who have appeared three or more times in 2011 on any of the five Sunday morning shows (i.e., CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox or CNN), according to Roll Call's ongoing tally, 16, or two-thirds, have been Republicans. Just seven, or 29 percent, have been Democrats. (The other one was Sen. Joe Lieberman.)

We've looked at the right-wing slant on Sunday morning before (Extra!, 9-10/01,  12/10), but this more-than-2-to-1 bias is extreme. For the record, Democrats control one of the two houses of Congress.

You can probably guess who the Sunday shows' favorite congressional guest is.