<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>FAIR Blog &#187; Politics</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.fair.org/blog/category/politics/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.fair.org/blog</link>
	<description>The national media watch group</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 21:04:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Dana Milbank&#039;s Equal-Opportunity Mockery</title>
		<link>http://www.fair.org/blog/2010/03/16/dana-milbanks-equal-opportunity-mockery/</link>
		<comments>http://www.fair.org/blog/2010/03/16/dana-milbanks-equal-opportunity-mockery/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 16:27:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jim Naureckas</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Washington Post]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dana Milbank]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fair.org/blog/?p=13967</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Washington Post columnists Dana Milbank and David Broder are both committed guardians of the establishment center, but they don't always interpret their role in the same way.
Milbank led the cheers for White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel as chief dragger to the right (FAIR Blog, 3/2/10), whereas Broder saw his blame-the-boss disloyalty as unseemly [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Washington Post</strong> columnists Dana Milbank and David Broder are both committed guardians of the establishment center, but they don't always interpret their role in the same way.</p>
<p>Milbank led the cheers for White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel as chief dragger to the right (<strong>FAIR Blog</strong>, <a title="FAIR Blog: Only Rahm Emanuel Can Save You Now" href="http://www.fair.org/blog/2010/03/02/only-rahm-emanuel-can-save-you-now/" target="_self">3/2/10</a>), whereas Broder saw his blame-the-boss disloyalty as unseemly (<a title="WPost: The Fable of Emanuel the Great" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/03/AR2010030301776.html" target="_blank">3/4/10</a>); on the other hand, it was Broder who thrilled recently to the "pitch-perfect populism" of Sarah Palin (<a title="WPost: Sarah Palin Displays Pitch-Perfect  Populism" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/10/AR2010021002451.html" target="_blank">2/11/10</a>), while Milbank's column today (<a title="WPost: Dick Armey's 'Tea Party' History Is a Strange Brew" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/15/AR2010031503730.html" target="_blank">3/16/10</a>) finds a similar spiel by Dick Armey to be as worthy of ridicule as, say, single-payer advocates (<strong>FAIR Blog</strong>, <a title="FAIR Blog: Inside Dana Milbank's Bubble" href="http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/06/12/dana-milbanks-bubble-problem/" target="_self">6/12/09</a>).</p>
<p>While Milbank's take-down of Armey's speech was amusing ("He asked if people 'agree with, with uh, with uh, help me out, uh, the great prime minister, English prime minister--Churchill'"), it was about as lo-cal as his more typical mockery of the left. <!--preview-break--> He quotes Armey's assertion:</p>
<blockquote><p>Jamestown colony, when it was first founded as a socialist venture, dang near failed with everybody dead and dying in the snow.</p></blockquote>
<p>To which Milbank retorts: "Who knew they had socialists in 1607?" But Milbank doesn't recall that Jamestown was in actuality a<em> for-profit enterprise</em>--a project of the <a title="Historic Jamestown: Virginia Company" href="http://www.preservationvirginia.org/rediscovery/page.php?page_id=22" target="_blank">Virginia Company of London</a>, a joint stock company. Perhaps that would have been too pointed a punchline for Milbank's ideological tastes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.fair.org/blog/2010/03/16/dana-milbanks-equal-opportunity-mockery/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why Isn&#039;t Brookings Labeled &#039;Liberal&#039;? Maybe Because It Isn&#039;t</title>
		<link>http://www.fair.org/blog/2010/03/15/why-isnt-brookings-labeled-liberal-maybe-because-it-isnt/</link>
		<comments>http://www.fair.org/blog/2010/03/15/why-isnt-brookings-labeled-liberal-maybe-because-it-isnt/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:07:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jim Naureckas</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[New York Times]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Brookings Institution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Clark Hoyt]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fair.org/blog/?p=13900</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt has not had a chance yet to respond to questions about his commentary on the ACORN hoax (FAIR Action Alert, 3/11/10), instead devoting his Sunday column (3/14/10) to a discussion of political labeling. It included this question:
Why is the American Enterprise Institute almost always called "conservative" in the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>New York Times</strong> public editor Clark Hoyt has not had a chance yet to respond to questions about his commentary on the ACORN hoax (FAIR Action Alert, <a href="http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4043">3/11/10</a>), instead devoting his Sunday column (<a title="NYT: Lost in the Shorthand " href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/opinion/14pubed.html" target="_blank">3/14/10</a>) to a discussion of political labeling. It included this question:</p>
<blockquote><p>Why is the American Enterprise Institute almost always called "conservative" in the <strong>Times</strong>, while the Brookings Institution seldom gets a label, although it has been described as a Democratic government in exile during Republican regimes?</p></blockquote>
<p>First off, the right-wing AEI (<strong>Extra!</strong>, <a title="Extra!: The Right's Race Desk" href="http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1449" target="_self">3-4/99</a>) is not "almost always called 'conservative' in the <strong>Times</strong>"; a Nexis search of the paper over the past year turns up 77 references to the think tank, of which 18 have the word "conservative" in the vicinity.  Twenty-three percent of the time is not "almost always."</p>
<p>And Brookings "has been described as a Democratic government in exile"--who, exactly, has described it thus? The only previous time that Brookings was described as a "government in exile" in the <strong>New York Times</strong>, it was a column (<a title="NYT: A Champion of Fiscal Principle" href="http://www.nytimes.com/1989/09/29/business/economic-scene-a-champion-of-fiscal-principle.html?pagewanted=1" target="_blank">9/29/89</a>) that said the think tank served as such for Democratic and Republican economists alike.<br />
<!--preview-break--><br />
It would certainly be an odd shadow government for Democrats that provided a home for so many Republicans. While its current president, Strobe Talbott, was a deputy secretary of state in the Clinton administration, his predecessor, Michael Armacost, was an undersecretary of state under Reagan (<strong>Extra!</strong>, <a title="Extra!: Brookings: The Establishment's Think Tank" href="http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1436" target="_self">11-12/98</a>); the president before that, Bruce MacLaury, worked for Nixon's Treasury Department (<strong>Extra!</strong>, <a title="Extra!: Brookings: Stand-In for the Left" href="http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1490">5/91</a>). Brookings' current roster of experts includes George W. Bush administration alumni like <a title="Brookings: Ted Gayer" href="http://www.brookings.edu/experts/gayert.aspx" target="_blank">Ted Gayer</a>, <a title="Brookings: Mark B. McClellan" href="http://www.brookings.edu/experts/mcclellanm.aspx" target="_blank">Mark McClellan</a> and <a title="Brookings: Ron Haskins" href="http://www.brookings.edu/experts/haskinsr.aspx" target="_blank">Ron Haskins</a>--not to mention prominent Iraq War hawks Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack (<strong>Extra! Update</strong>, <a title="Extra! Update: Protecting the 'Surge' With War 'Critics'" href="http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3443" target="_self">10/07</a>).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.fair.org/blog/2010/03/15/why-isnt-brookings-labeled-liberal-maybe-because-it-isnt/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>L.A. Local News: Next to None</title>
		<link>http://www.fair.org/blog/2010/03/12/l-a-local-news-next-to-none/</link>
		<comments>http://www.fair.org/blog/2010/03/12/l-a-local-news-next-to-none/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:14:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter Hart</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[L.A. Times]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fair.org/blog/?p=13887</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Los Angeles Times reports (3/12/10) on a new study of local news from the USC Annenberg School for Communications and Journalism's Norman Lear Center. The findings are hardly surprising: There is almost no local political coverage on TV news.  As the Times notes, "An average half-hour newscast devoted just 22 seconds to government issues, including city budgets, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The <strong>Los Angeles Times</strong> reports (<a href="http://latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-local-news12-2010mar12,0,1591368.story">3/12/10</a>) on a new study of local news from the USC Annenberg School for Communications and Journalism's Norman Lear Center. The findings are hardly surprising: There is almost no local political coverage on TV news.  As the <strong>Times</strong> notes, "An average half-hour newscast devoted just 22 seconds to government issues, including city budgets, healthcare, layoffs and law enforcement." Coverage of local politics works out to just under 2 percent of the "news hole"; on the other hand, crime stories make up closer to three minutes of a given newscast.</p>
<p>While that's terrible, the <strong>L.A. Times </strong>waits until the end of the piece to tell us that the <strong>L.A. Times</strong> does just a little better: <!--preview-break--></p>
<blockquote><p>A companion study also examined local coverage by the <strong>Los Angeles Times</strong> during the same 14-day period. The report found that while TV stations used 1.9 percent of its news hole (minus ads and teasers) for coverage of local government, the <strong>Times</strong> used 3.3 percent of its news hole (minus ads and teasers) for coverage of local government.</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.fair.org/blog/2010/03/12/l-a-local-news-next-to-none/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Kennedy: Media&#039;s &#039;Despicable&#039; Afghanistan Coverage</title>
		<link>http://www.fair.org/blog/2010/03/11/kennedy-medias-despicable-afghanistan-coverage/</link>
		<comments>http://www.fair.org/blog/2010/03/11/kennedy-medias-despicable-afghanistan-coverage/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 16:47:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter Hart</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War/Military]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dennis Kucinich]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patrick Kennedy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fair.org/blog/?p=13866</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Yesterday (3/10/10) there was  a House floor debate on Rep. Dennis Kucinich's push to withdraw troops from Afghanistan.  Kucinich's bill--which is based on the War Powers Act--was defeated, but it sparked hours of rare discussion of the White House's war policy ( in spite of the Washington Post's efforts to minimize the discussion as left-wing "venting").
The most dramatic moment came when [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yesterday (3/10/10) there was  a House floor debate on Rep. <a title="FAIR Blog: Dennis Kucinich, Right-Wing Democrat?" href="http://www.fair.org/blog/2010/03/09/dennis-kucinich-right-wing-democrat/">Dennis Kucinich</a>'s push to withdraw troops from Afghanistan.  Kucinich's bill--which is based on the War Powers Act--was defeated, but it sparked hours of rare discussion of the White House's war policy ( in spite of the <strong>Washington Post</strong>'s <a href="http://www.fair.org/blog/2010/03/09/washington-post-and-afghan-war-critics/">efforts to minimize</a> the discussion as left-wing "venting").</p>
<p>The most dramatic moment came when Rep. Patrick Kennedy chastised the press corps for skipping out on the discussion:  "There's two press people in this gallery.... We're talking about Eric Massa 24-7 on the TV, we're talking about war and peace, $3 billion, 1,000 lives and no press? No press."</p>
<p>He added: "The press of the United States is not covering the most significant issue of national importance and that's the laying of lives down in the nation for the service of our country. It's despicable, the national press corps right now."<br />
<!--preview-break--></p>
<p>Watch the video:</p>
<p><object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" width="480" height="385" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="src" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tKC3AiQkmuY&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1&amp;rel=0" /><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="385" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tKC3AiQkmuY&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1&amp;rel=0" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.fair.org/blog/2010/03/11/kennedy-medias-despicable-afghanistan-coverage/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
