<?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; Think Progress</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.fair.org/blog/tag/think-progress/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>Sarah Palin&#039;s Incomprehensible Press Criticism</title>
		<link>http://www.fair.org/blog/2010/06/07/sarah-palins-incomprehensible-press-criticism/</link>
		<comments>http://www.fair.org/blog/2010/06/07/sarah-palins-incomprehensible-press-criticism/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jun 2010 22:12:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jim Naureckas</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Israel/Palestine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Helen Thomas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sarah Palin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Think Progress]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fair.org/blog/?p=14696</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Think Progress (6/7/10) claims Sarah Palin's criticism of the press regarding Helen Thomas is wrong, but I can't even figure out what she's trying to say. Here's Palin's Twitter statement:
Helen Thomas press pals condone racism? Heaven forbid "esteemed" press corps represent society's enlightened elite; Rest of us choose truth.
"Enlightened elite" would seem to be sarcasm--Palin [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Think Progress</strong> (<a title="Think Progress: Like Beck, Palin Imagines Press Bias Against Israel Without Checking Basic Facts " href="http://thinkprogress.org/2010/06/07/beck-palin-israel-media/" target="_blank">6/7/10</a>) claims Sarah Palin's criticism of the press regarding Helen Thomas is wrong, but I can't even figure out what she's trying to say. Here's Palin's Twitter statement:</p>
<blockquote><p>Helen Thomas press pals condone racism? Heaven forbid "esteemed" press corps represent society's enlightened elite; Rest of us choose truth.</p></blockquote>
<p>"Enlightened elite" would seem to be sarcasm--Palin does not actually think the "elite" is "enlightened"--but so would "Heaven forbid," suggesting that she thinks the press corps actually <em>should</em> represent this non-enlightened elite.  I honestly can't puzzle out her intended message. <!--preview-break--></p>
<p>As for Thomas' statement itself, the message was all too clear: It was a call for ethnic cleansing, and she was right to apologize for it. It's a sad way to end an admirable career. I would note, though, along with <a title="Salon: Our Hardcore Adversarial Press Corps" href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/06/07/washington/index.html" target="_blank">Glenn Greenwald</a>, that the acceptability of calls for ethnic cleansing in the U.S. corporate media depends on <a title="Extra!: After the 'Humanitarian' War" href="http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1481" target="_self">which ethnicity</a> is <a title="Extra! Update: Crime Against Humanity—or Matter of Opinion?" href="http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2650" target="_self">to be cleansed</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.fair.org/blog/2010/06/07/sarah-palins-incomprehensible-press-criticism/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>38</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fox Still Leads in Misinforming Viewers</title>
		<link>http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/08/21/fox-still-leads-in-misinforming-viewers/</link>
		<comments>http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/08/21/fox-still-leads-in-misinforming-viewers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Aug 2009 15:08:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gabriel Voiles</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Healthcare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fox]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Matt Corley]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[msnbc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Think Progress]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fair.org/blog/?p=12321</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Think Progress' Matt Corley (8/19/09) has the depressing, if predictable, news that recent polling shows "'all the misinformation out there' about health care reform proposals in Congress is taking root with many Americans."
Corley is discouraged to see that, "for instance, 45 percent believe the false claim that legislation includes 'death panels' while 55 percent believe [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Think Progress</strong>' Matt Corley (<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/19/fox-news-viewers-misinformed/" target="_blank">8/19/09</a>) has the depressing, if predictable, news that recent polling shows "'all the <a href="http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/08/19/2036015.aspx" target="_blank">misinformation</a> out there' about health care reform proposals in Congress is taking root with many Americans."</p>
<p>Corley is discouraged to see that, "for instance, <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/08/18/nbc-poll-myths-endure-on-health-care-highlighting-doubts-on-overhaul/" target="_blank">45 percent</a> believe the false claim that legislation includes '<a href="http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/08/19/how-death-panels-became-a-justifiable-political-claim/">death panels</a>' while <a href="http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/aug/10/palin-death-panel-remark-sets-truth-o-meter-fire/" target="_blank">55 percent</a> believe the <a href="http://factcheck.org/2009/07/misleading-gop-health-care-claims/" target="_blank">false claim</a> that coverage will be extended to illegal immigrants"--and an <strong>MSNBC</strong> <a href="http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/08/19/2036015.aspx" target="_blank">passage</a> says that, in particular,</p>
<blockquote><p>self-identified viewers of <strong>Fox News</strong> are <a href="http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1160">disproportionately misinformed</a>":<br />
<!--preview-break--></p>
<blockquote><p>In our poll, 72 percent of self-identified <strong>Fox News</strong> viewers believe the health-care plan will give coverage to illegal immigrants, 79 percent of them say it will lead to a government takeover, 69 percent think that it will use taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions, and 75 percent believe that it will allow the government to make decisions about when to stop providing care for the elderly....</p></blockquote>
<p>As <strong>ThinkProgress</strong> has <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/13/report-fox-health-coverage/" target="_blank">pointed out</a>, <strong>Fox News</strong> <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/17/luntz-scare-reform/" target="_blank">regularly</a> <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/12/steele-death-panels-proper/" target="_blank">distorts</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200908190005" target="_blank">the</a> <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/12/fox-analyst-kill-old-people/" target="_blank">truth</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/200908180016" target="_blank">about</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200908140037" target="_blank">health</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/200908130044" target="_blank">care</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/200908100054" target="_blank">reform</a>.</p></blockquote>
<p>In fact, just "last week, Media Matters found that over a two day period opponents of health care reform outnumbered supporters by a <a href="http://mediamatters.org/reports/200908120046" target="_blank">6-to-1 margin</a> on <strong>Fox</strong>." Hear a strong corrective to all this deceit on FAIR's radio show <strong>CounterSpin:</strong> "Trudy Lieberman on Health Care Reform" (<a href="http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3858">8/14/09</a>).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/08/21/fox-still-leads-in-misinforming-viewers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>CNBC&#039;s Jim Cramer Still on Air--Still Wrong</title>
		<link>http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/06/19/cnbcs-jim-cramer-still-on-air-still-wrong/</link>
		<comments>http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/06/19/cnbcs-jim-cramer-still-on-air-still-wrong/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2009 15:37:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gabriel Voiles</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Amanda Terkel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jim Cramer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[msnbc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stimlus package]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Think Progress]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fair.org/blog/?p=10008</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Amanda Terkel of Think Progress (6/18/09) has posted video and transcript of an MSNBC segment in which Joe Scarborough asked CNBC's Jim Cramer about "a stunning poll the New York Times has this morning suggesting that Americans are more concerned about deficits than stimulus":
Cramer claimed that Americans aren't buying into healthcare reform right now because [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Amanda Terkel of <strong>Think Progress</strong> (<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/18/cramer-obama-go/" target="_blank">6/18/09</a>) has posted <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gtbm2k2GQcQ&amp;feature=channel_page" target="_blank">video</a> and transcript of an <strong>MSNBC</strong> segment in which Joe Scarborough asked <strong>CNBC</strong>'s Jim Cramer about "a stunning <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/18/us/politics/18poll.html" target="_blank">poll</a> the <strong>New York Times</strong> has this morning suggesting that Americans are more concerned about deficits than stimulus":</p>
<blockquote><p><a href="http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/03/13/jim-cramer-calm-sober-wild-man/">Cramer</a> claimed that Americans aren't buying into healthcare reform right now because "it just means tax increases, and there's got to be someone who pays for it." According to Cramer, the solution that "everybody" wants is for Obama to "go away": "But until we get the economy moving again, I think everybody wishes that Obama would just kind of go away for a little bit."<br />
<!--preview-break--><br />
If Cramer <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/18/headlines-make-up-poll-results/" target="_blank">looked closer</a> at the poll, it also shows that <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/18/us/politics/18poll.html" target="_blank">57 percent</a> of the American public approve of what Obama is doing on the economy overall. Of course, Cramer is someone who <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/04/poll-obama-responsible/" target="_blank">claimed</a> that Obama's policies have resulted in “the most, greatest wealth destruction I've seen by a president” and is known for his irresponsible financial <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/10/jon-stewart-slams-jim-cra_n_173738.html" target="_blank">cheerleading</a> (e.g., “<a href="http://www.cnbc.com/id/23575614/" target="_blank">Bear Stearns is not in trouble</a>“).</p></blockquote>
<p>Terkel has to wonder if, in actuality, "maybe it's not Obama who Americans want to 'just kind of go away for a little bit.'”</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/06/19/cnbcs-jim-cramer-still-on-air-still-wrong/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>WSJ Distorts Tax Rate for the Rich</title>
		<link>http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/04/20/wsj-distorts-tax-rate-for-the-rich/</link>
		<comments>http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/04/20/wsj-distorts-tax-rate-for-the-rich/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2009 19:20:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gabriel Voiles</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street Journal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gary Fields]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Matthew Yglesias]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[taxes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Think Progress]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fair.org/blog/?p=8110</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Reading Wall Street Journal reporter Gary Fields' "point that a family making slightly over $250,000 doesn’t necessarily feel all that 'rich' when it comes to facing a tax hike from Barack Obama," Matthew Yglesias (Think Progress, 4/17/09) dubs his story "The Not-So-Compelling Plight of the Somewhat Rich" and notes that "what the story doesn't do [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Reading <strong>Wall Street Journal</strong> reporter Gary Fields' "point that a family making slightly over $250,000 doesn’t necessarily feel all that 'rich' when it comes to facing a tax hike from Barack Obama," Matthew Yglesias (<strong>Think Progress</strong>, <a href="http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/04/the_not_so_compelling_plight_of_the_somewhat_rich.php" target="_blank">4/17/09</a>) dubs his <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123983744241222865.html" target="_blank">story</a> "The Not-So-Compelling Plight of the Somewhat Rich" and notes that "what the story doesn't do is put this issue in the appropriate context of what an increase in the marginal rate really implies":</p>
<blockquote><p>If you raise taxes on "people making over $250,000," that means an increase only in the <em>250,001st dollar and <a href="http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/03/27/wapo-op-eder-unnamed-as-aig-flack/">onward</a></em>. It's not, in other words, as if a guy earning $249,999 and a guy earning $250,001 will be paying radically different amounts of taxes. In other words, though if you're earning $5 million a year, Obama's plan really will saddle you with a big tax increase, a person who's earning $260,000 and feels that he's facing a basically middle-class economic situation is only going to be facing a very small tax increase. And however much our $260,000 a year guy may feel not so rich, surely he can agree that $260,000 is a lot more than $130,000 or $65,000 so it's hardly absurd that he might pay a slightly higher rate.</p></blockquote>
<p>After writing that, "even if you grant the premise of the story there's no actual problem here," Yglesias goes on to suggest ideas no career-minded corporate reporter would dare print:</p>
<blockquote><p>That said, I wouldn't have a problem with launching a new, slightly higher rate, <!--preview-break--> starting at $500,000 and a higher one starting at $1 million and another at $2 million another at $4 million another at $8 million and another at $16 million. I don’t see any reason to think that the progressivity of the scale should max out at $250,000 when obviously there's a huge difference between someone earning that much money and someone earning 10 times that amount.</p></blockquote>
<p>While big media generally are <a href="http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/04/13/centrism-boosting-at-the-washington-post/">terrified</a> at the thought of such policies, a <a href="http://www.pollingreport.com/budget.htm" target="_blank">Gallup poll</a> from this April 6-9 has 60 percent of respondents considering that "upper-income people" are "paying too little" federal taxes. (Fully 67 percent said the same of "Corporations.")</p>
<p>For more on corporate media having difficulty with the concept of marginal tax rates, see <strong>FAIR Action Alert: </strong>"CBS Cheats on Tax Coverage" (<a title="FAIR Action Alert: CBS Cheats on Tax Coverage" href="http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3619" target="_self">9/22/08</a>).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/04/20/wsj-distorts-tax-rate-for-the-rich/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

