
The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza wrote a piece giving Barack Obama some advice on what to say in his State of the Union address. The article almost reads like a parody of Beltway punditry.
The national media watch group

The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza wrote a piece giving Barack Obama some advice on what to say in his State of the Union address. The article almost reads like a parody of Beltway punditry.
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.

The Washington Post reported some news that it's known for years, but had decided not tell us until now: The CIA has a drone base in Saudi Arabia. Their rationale for withholding this information was simple: The government didn't want them to. And from what the Post is telling us today, they weren't the only ones.

Ten years ago today, Colin Powell made the Bush administration's case for going to war against Iraq, and much of what he said was false. Most of the journalists who promoted his justifications for the war paid no price for their failures.

Fareed Zakaria in his latest Washington Post column argues that pro-democracy movements would be better off with less democracy. To Zakaria, Egypt tried too much democracy too soon. "In Jordan, by contrast, the king did not rush to hold elections"– shocking!–but instead "appointed a council to propose changes to the constitution."
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.

It's hard to be surprised by the practice of granting anonymity to U.S. officials. But it was surprising to be reassured in the Washington Post that the U.S.-led sanctions on Iran aren't really harming ordinary Iranians–based on the word of an anonymous U.S. official.
On the new FAIR TV: The Washington Post says France had better slash wages and benefits in order to be more like Spain. Why would they want to do that? The New York Times erases a headline referring to the occupation of the West Bank. And when the Wall Street Journal wanted to show what the new tax deal meant for "you"–who exactly did they have in mind?

With an unemployment rate at just over 26 percent and regular street protests against government austerity policies, it's hard to imagine anyone holding up Spain as a model. But Howard Schneider, writing in the Washington Post, does just that–warning France that it had better shape up and be more like Spain:

The headline of a recent article posted at the website of the Atlantic–"David Miscavige Leads Scientology to Milestone Year"–probably tipped readers that something was more than a little off. It wasn't an article, really; above the headline, in a yellow box, was the phrase "Sponsor Content." But is what the Atlantic did–and quickly apologized for–really unusual?

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.