The national media watch group
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.
New York Times reporter John Burns admires Margaret Thatcher's legacy. But when he claims she lifted millions to prosperity, does he have any evidence?
Are the pressure cooker bombs used in Boston really a link to Al Qaeda? No. But some reporters are trying to make that connection.
The New Yorker is a magazine whose name is practically synonymous with factchecking–which makes you wonder how the glaring, major errors in the its recent coverage of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez got through.
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.
"TERROR RETURNS" ran across USA Today's front page (4/16/13) in inch-high letters. Below, the story it referred to had a smaller headline: "That Post-9/11 Quiet? It's Over." Rick Hampson and Chuck Raasch's story began: The blasts on Boylston Street were felt across the nation, shaking and sometimes shattering a fragile hope–formed slowly in the years since 2001–that maybe it won’t happen here. Not again. Then it did. But what happened in Boston that hasn't happened since September 11? All we really can say with confidence so far is that somebody tried to kill a large group of people; as USA [...]
If USA Today is presenting an objective record of the Chavez years, how on Earth did he win so many elections? By that score, Venezuela must also have an especially ill-informed populace–or maybe Venezuelans know a different reality.
The record of the U.S. government's support for authoritarian, corrupt and/or murderous regimes is not really up for debate. The only question is whether one believes that the U.S. extends such support despite a deep-seated preference for democratic rule and human rights.
On the PBS NewsHour (4/12/13), the left/right debating duo of Mark Shields and David Brooks took up the issue of Social Security and "chained CPI"–and found that they didn't have a lot to debate on the virtues of Barack Obama's benefits-cutting plan.
"Today there's an elephant in the room: a huge, yet ignored, issue that largely explains why Social Security is now on the chopping block…. That problem is U.S. militarism and perpetual war."
Media remember Margaret Thatcher for turning around Britain's economy. But do the numbers tell a different story? Also: Barack Obama's plan to cut Social Security and Medicare is inexplicably deemed a move to the "center," and pundits are monitoring the 2016 election by paying close attention to… Hillary Clinton's haircut?
When it comes to elite media and political circles, there's no doubt that Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were treated the same way when they died: with gushing, uncritical celebration. They just wish the public could have been so univocal.
The panicky style of reporting on North Korea doesn't seem to be changing much, if you glance at the front pages of the Washington Post and New York Times this morning. But both pieces, if read carefully, undermine the alarmism–and make you wonder why the stories are on the front page.
