The national media watch group
This week on FAIR TV: CBS Evening News looked like it was covering an immigrant rights rally– but it was merely a set up to talk about chaos at the border. Time's Joe Klein goes after the "gun lobby" by saying… both sides are at fault? And Cokie Roberts hears the public doesn't want to start a war with Syria. Why does she think that's "dangerous"?
The controversy over the attacks at a diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, is a great test of the right's tired claim that the corporate media have a liberal bias. If that were true, then this "scandal" would exist almost entirely on Fox News Channel and conservative talk radio.
There's another Libya story that should be getting attention. It's not, and never really has, because the dead are Libyan civilians, killed by U.S./NATO airstrikes.
The claims made about Israeli airstrikes against Syria could be true, or not. What is certain is that the assessments of the airstrikes are being shared anonymously by governments involved in carrying them out, a scenario that cries out for more skepticism.
This week on FAIR TV: Do the claims about Syria's chemical weapons hold up? Tom Friedman's column about the "sick madness" of attacking innocents. The Week magazine turns the Caucasian Tsarnaev brothers into non-whites.
If Guantanamo prisoners are being held without charge, and there is no available evidence to charge them with any terrorism-related offenses, why is the Washington Post talking about the possibility that they may "reengage in extremist activity"?
The pundits' message on Barack Obama's talk of a "red line" on Syria is that they are concerned about the credibility of the president's threats of violence–much more so than about the credibility of his evidence.
When someone says they "broke" with George W. Bush over the Iraq War, you might be inclined to think that they did that sometime before 2006 or so, which is about when Bush strategist-turned-TV pundit Matthew Dowd is saying he left.
What is going on in our community that a critical number of our columnists believe that every American military action in the Middle East is justifiable?
The front page of the New York Times had a very definitive headline on Syria and chemical weapons–but when you read the actual story, a much more ambiguous picture emerged.
In a moment when media are fixated on terrorism and the possibility that some people might be motivated to carry out acts of violence against the United States in part because of the effects of U.S. wars, a Yemeni writer's account of the effects of drone strikes on his village would be well worth covering.
O'Reilly was outraged by Sirota's point that the government's response would be very different–more costly, potentially more violent–if the perpetrators fit a certain profile. This is ironic, because O'Reilly had, the night of the attacks, basically made Sirota's point.
Why was the "Saudi national," a young man who was injured at the Boston Marathon bombing, considered a suspect? Enter "terrorism expert" Steve Emerson, who continues to make the media rounds despite a checkered history.
