It's not as if Bill O'Reilly has never uttered things reasonable people might consider racist. But the fact that he seems to believe that the White House is destroying the economy in order to provide free stuff to people of color is taking things to an entirely different level.
This week on FAIR TV: Why is raising the minimum wage considered "divisive"? And a Washington Post pundit gives Obama State of the Union advice: Skip climate change and go big on the deficit. Plus a look at the way the New York Times framed police brutality in a story about Charles Dorner. Remember: If you like what you see, share it on Facebook and Twitter, and subscribe to FAIR's YouTube feed.
Why do we need "serious spending cuts"? Milbank assumes the answer is so obvious that it need not be explained–everyone knows the more cuts, the better. All the serious people, anyway.
FAIR TV: Big Papers Withhold News, Curious 'Confirmation' of Israeli Gov't Claims, 60 Minutes Plays Softball
This week on FAIR TV we take a look at the the "informal arrangement" between several media outlets–including the New York Times and the Washington Post– to not report news about a CIA drone base.
We also talk about the curious standard for "confirming" news from Israeli government officials, and we take a look at the 60 Minutes softball interview with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
At the top of his 60 Minutes interview with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, Steve Kroft declares, "The White House offered us 30 minutes, barely enough time to scratch the surface of their complicated personal and professional relationship, let alone discuss their policies." Apparently what that meant was, "So I didn't bother to ask them about that policy stuff."
In the latest edition of FAIR TV: Did Barack Obama's inaugural address really signify a shift to the left? Plus the Washington Post gives the government a chance to make anonymous claims about how much Iranians are suffering due to their sanctions policy. And PBS takes a look at drones,with special funding from… drone manufacturer Lockheed Martin? Take a look:
A Washington Post story today (1/24/13) leads with this: The success of President Obama's starkly liberal second-term agenda will rest largely on the shoulders of Senate majority leader Harry M. Reid, who has been a rock-solid political ally and a valued legislative tactician for Obama during his first term. That characterization of Obama's agenda–shared by many in corporate media (FAIR Media Advisory, 1/23/13)–a seems better suited for an op-ed than a news article, especially since reporter Paul Kane has little to back up his argument. The piece is mostly about Obama's gun proposals, which Kane reports will constitute three things: […]
Since the consensus seems to be that Obama's inaugural address was actually a statement of a bold, progressive vision for his second term, it's not a surprise that some in the corporate media are upset. Obama's words were seen as particularly injurious to Republicans, who presumably already feel bad enough as it is.
Republicans and various right-wing commentators have had a thing for talking about the supposedly "anti-business" tilt of the Obama administration. It's never made much sense–and it doesn't make any more sense now that pundits are reacting to news that Obama will tap his current chief of staff Jack Lew to be his next Treasury secretary.