<?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; Reliable Sources</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.fair.org/blog/tag/reliable-sources/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.fair.org/blog</link>
	<description>The national media watch group</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:42:42 +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>The Right&#039;s Echo Chamber Reverberates on &#039;Reliable Sources&#039;</title>
		<link>http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/05/04/the-rights-echo-chamber-reverberates-on-reliable-sources/</link>
		<comments>http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/05/04/the-rights-echo-chamber-reverberates-on-reliable-sources/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2009 00:03:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jim Naureckas</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Amy Holmes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CNN]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fox News Channel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[History News Network]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Howard Kurtz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[James Pinkerton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judith Apter Klinghoffer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reliable Sources]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ryan Lizza]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Washington Times]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fair.org/blog/?p=8608</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Reliable Sources host Howard Kurtz (5/3/09) seemed startled when the New Yorker's Ryan Lizza argued that "just because Bush or some previous president didn't garner as much coverage as  Michelle and Barack Obama did doesn't tell you anything about press bias one way  or another."
"Are you kidding?" Kurtz exclaimed.
He didn't express any similar [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Reliable Sources</strong> host Howard Kurtz (<a href="http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0905/03/sotu.02.html" target="_blank">5/3/09</a>) seemed startled when the <strong>New Yorker</strong>'s Ryan Lizza argued that "just because Bush or some previous president didn't garner as much coverage as  Michelle and Barack Obama did doesn't tell you anything about press bias one way  or another."</p>
<p>"Are you kidding?" Kurtz exclaimed.</p>
<p>He didn't express any similar surprise when <strong>CNN</strong> in-house conservative Amy Holmes came up with this "little-known fact":</p>
<blockquote><p>The <strong>Washington Times</strong> reported this <a title="Washington Times: Barack's in the Basement" href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/28/baracks-in-the-basement/" target="_blank">last week</a>.... Actually, at this  point in his presidency, Barack Obama is the fourth least popular of the past  five presidents. You wouldn't know that from the press coverage, and you  wouldn't know that George Bush...at this point in his presidency,  in 2001, after having had the recount, not even winning the popular vote, in  fact had higher Gallup approvals than Barack Obama does right now.</p></blockquote>
<p>Well, no, you wouldn't know those things, because they aren't true. At the 100-day mark, <a title="Gallup: Obama Job Approval" href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx" target="_blank">Gallup</a> found a job approval rating for Obama of 65 percent--three percentage points higher than the <a title="Polling Report: Bush Job Ratings" href="http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob1.htm" target="_blank">62 percent</a> that George W. Bush had at the same point in his first term. <a title="American Presidency Project: Presidential Job Approval Ratings Following the First 100 Days" href="http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/100days_approval.php" target="_blank">Gallup's polling</a> found that Obama had a higher 100th-day approval rating than Bill Clinton, George Bush Sr., Jimmy Carter or Richard Nixon as well. Of the last seven presidents, only Ronald Reagan, at 68 percent, had a higher job-approval rating--and Reagan, as Media Matters' Eric Boehlert pointed out (<a title="Media Matters: The Washington Times Vs. Reality" href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/200904290007" target="_blank">4/29/09</a>), had just survived an assassination attempt in March 2001.</p>
<p>So how could the <strong>Washington Times</strong> have gotten it so wrong? A <a title="Media Matters: See second comment" href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/200904290007" target="_blank">commenter</a> on Media Matters' website traced this right-wing talking point back to a blog post by Judith Apter Klinghoffer on the <strong>History News Network</strong> (<a title="OBAMA'S POLL NUMBERS TRAIL THOSE OF W.; GALLUP COVERS IT UP" href="http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/79295.html" target="_blank">3/24/09</a>). Klinghoffer declared that "Obama's Poll Numbers Trail Those of W."--a conclusion she reached by comparing Bush's job-approval rating to a number she calculated by combining the ratings of "excellent" and "good" received by Obama when people were asked what kind of job they thought he was doing.</p>
<p>Needless to say, you can't directly compare the answers to two different polling questions--particularly not when you can compare the results of the <em>same</em> question being asked. But the apples-to-oranges comparison produced results that were appealing to the right, so you soon saw James Pinkerton citing this bogus finding on <strong>Fox News Channel</strong> (4/25/09): "Judith Klinghoffer, writing for the <strong>History News Network</strong>, made the point that Obama ranked seventh out of the last nine presidents in Gallup poll opinion ratings. So seventh out of nine is not so good." Three days later, the <strong>Washington Times</strong> was making the same argument--and then it ends up on the not-so-well-named <strong>Reliable Sources</strong>.</p>
<p>Kurtz did take issue, sort of, with Holmes' claim, which ran counter to a wealth of  <a title="Polling Report: Obama: Job Ratings" href="http://www.pollingreport.com/obama_job.htm" target="_blank">polling data</a> on Obama's approval ratings: "Although his numbers, we have to say, are pretty good." But when Holmes retorted: "They're pretty good, but comparatively. You're asking comparatively, how does  the press treat these politicians different, and they do," Kurtz conceded: "OK. Fair enough."</p>
<p>Actually, that doesn't seem very fair at all.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/05/04/the-rights-echo-chamber-reverberates-on-reliable-sources/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>More Jokes From Howard Kurtz</title>
		<link>http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/03/31/more-jokes-from-howard-kurtz/</link>
		<comments>http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/03/31/more-jokes-from-howard-kurtz/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:36:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gabriel Voiles</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CNN]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Headline News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Howard Kurtz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nadya Suleman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reliable Sources]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Washington Post]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fair.org/blog/?p=7867</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Quoting Washington Post/CNN media "critic" Howard Kurtz slamming Headline News for "talking about this constantly on cable for more than a week" and "feasting on this terrible situation," Brad Jacobson (Media Bloodhound, 3/30/09) also cites Kurtz railing against media obsession with octuplet mother Nadya Suleman on CNN: "The media were demonizing her....all the while capitalizing [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Quoting <strong>Washington Post</strong>/<strong>CNN</strong> media "<a href="http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/03/27/howard-kurtz-media-critic-and-comedian/">critic</a>" Howard Kurtz slamming <strong>Headline News</strong> for "talking about this constantly on cable for more than a week" and "feasting on this terrible situation," Brad Jacobson (<strong>Media Bloodhound</strong>, <a href="http://mediabloodhound.typepad.com/weblog/2009/03/howard-kurtzs-octomom-moment-he-was-against-exploiting-it-for-ratings-before-he-was-for-it.html" target="_blank">3/30/09</a>) also cites Kurtz railing against media obsession with octuplet mother Nadya Suleman on <strong>CNN</strong>: "The media were <a href="http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/03/13/sensationalism-overwhelms-substance-in-octomom-story/">demonizing her</a>....all the while capitalizing on America's latest soap opera."</p>
<p>But, lo and behold, a "<strong>Crossfire</strong>-like vapid shouting match" couldn't be resisted:</p>
<blockquote><p>Kurtz dedicated an <a href="http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0903/29/sotu.02.html" target="_blank">entire segment</a> of this past Sunday's <strong>Reliable Sources</strong> to a gratuitous pie fight between two players involved in Nadya "Octomom" Suleman's never-ending nationally televised freak show. But a little over a month ago, Kurtz <a href="http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0902/15/sotu.02.html" target="_blank">decried</a> the media's exploitation of the octuplet mother for ratings and for doing so under the false pretense that concern for her babies' well-being drove their 24/7 coverage.</p></blockquote>
<p><!--preview-break--><br />
While seeing <a href="http://twitter.com/HowardKurtz/status/1412947370" target="_blank">evidence</a> that "Kurtz seems to signal that he's in on the joke," as Jacobson sees it, "the problem is, he's not just in on the joke, he's part of the joke of which he's supposed to be critiquing." Picking from among "scores of worthy topics [that] were open for a substantive media discussion," Jacobson writes that Kurtz instead</p>
<blockquote><p>might have covered the fact that, according to LexisNexis, not one broadcast or cable network news program--including <strong>CNN</strong>--reported last week's <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/24/binyam-mohamed-us-military" target="_blank">revelations</a> that Bush administration prosecutors tried to pressure former Guantánamo Bay detainee Binyam Mohamed, after <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/aug/02/terrorism.humanrights1" target="_blank">years</a> of being brutally <a href="http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/binyam-mohamed/" target="_blank">tortured</a> and having <a href="http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2009/03/25/binyam-mohameds-plea-bargain-trading-torture-for-freedom/" target="_blank">never been charged</a> with a crime, to sign a statement saying he was never tortured and that he committed terrorist acts he didn't commit in return for his release.</p></blockquote>
<p>Even though "it's no Octomom," Jacobson says this is "merely the kind of story that, consciously or not, affects every single American when millions of them are deprived of its coverage."</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/03/31/more-jokes-from-howard-kurtz/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

