[PAA-Discuss] Media Matters: After Times Square plot, conservatives pass Glenn Beck en...

[Juli3 at aol.com]

       May 07,  2010      
Media Matters: After Times Square plot, conservatives pass  Glenn Beck en 
route to crazytown 
When the right-wing media attack machine gets revved up these days,  it's a 
rare thing not to find Glenn Beck in the driver's seat. That said,  it's 
unheard of that Beck, who expresses his frustrations with the Obama  
administration by pretending to _light people on fire_ 
(http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200904090036?lid=1113376&rid=46097952) , would actually stand athwart his  
colleagues' hyperbolic attacks on the White House and actually come off as  a 
voice of (relative) reason. 
But these are strange times, and that's exactly the  situation we found 
ourselves in this week as conservatives grasped at each  and every straw in 
attempting to _politicize_ 
(http://mediamatters.org/research/201005030019?lid=1113377&rid=46097952)  the failed car-bombing in Times Square and  blame it 
all on President Obama. 
When word got out that the authorities had arrested  Faisal Shahzad as the 
suspected would-be bomber, Fox News immediately  began complaining that 
Shahzad, a naturalized U.S. citizen, might be read  his Miranda rights. 
Confronted with Fox & Friends host Brian  Kilmeade's scenario that Shahzad might 
"know information that could wipe  out some of your friends and family," Beck 
_supported_ 
(http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201005040007?lid=1113378&rid=46097952)  giving Shahzad his constitutionally protected  rights. Of course, 
Beck's commitment to good civics was selective and  short-lived, and just a few 
hours later, he _expressed_ 
(http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201005040016?lid=1113379&rid=46097952)  his desire to personally waterboard another  terrorism 
suspect and _otherwise torture_ 
(http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201005040050?lid=1113380&rid=46097952)  non-U.S. citizens.  
But still, it's a sad commentary on the state of the  right-wing media when 
Glenn "_OLIGARH_ 
(http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200908270038?lid=1113381&rid=46097952) " Beck comes off as (slightly) more reasonable  than the company 
he keeps.  
And just how out-of-hand did things get? Right from the  get-go, 
conservatives were claiming that the Times Square plot shows that  the White House 
doesn't care about terrorism, or is actually  inviting terrorism by being too 
nice to Muslims. Former CIA  employee and _longtime sayer of crazy things_ 
(http://mediamatters.org/research/201005040023?lid=1113382&rid=46097952)  
Michael Scheuer  pronounced the failed attack a "100 percent success" for 
terrorists and  attacked the president, saying he "has made things much, much 
worse  because he promised the Muslim world things that he will never do" and  
"bowed to the Saudi king," showing "subservience." New York Post  columnist 
and _longtime_ 
(http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200911100050?lid=1113383&rid=46097952)  _sayer_ 
(http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200909100056?lid=1113384&rid=46097952)  _of_ 
(http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200909150001?lid=1113385&rid=46097952)  _crazy_ 
(http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907070034?lid=1113386&rid=46097952)  _things_ 
(http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200906080009?lid=1113387&rid=46097952)  Ralph Peters _wrote_ 
(http://mediamatters.org/blog/201005050031?lid=1113388&rid=46097952)  that the administration "goes to absurd lengths 
to  convince Muslim radicals that we respect their views," and this sort of 
 "appeasement" emboldened Shahzad. 
The _reality_ 
(http://mediamatters.org/research/201005040028?lid=1113389&rid=46097952)  of the situation is that the administration has  been killing, 
capturing, and convicting terrorists like it's their job.  Because, you 
know, it is. In fact, Shahzad reportedly told authorities  that he was driven to 
attack the United States because we've become _way too good at killing 
terrorists_ 
(http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nypost.com%2Fp%2Fnews%2Flocal%2Ftaliban_lackey_Su3wybDRpAYfahVx03zskI%2F0&lid=1113390&rid=4609795
2) . 
Then there came word that the Obama administration  might have removed 
Shahzad from a terrorist "watch list" prior to the  attempted attack. The 
third-rate right-wing blogger who _started this story_ 
(http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fgatewaypundit.firstthings.com%2F2010%2F05%2Fbreaking-obama-a
dministration-removed-faisal-shahzad-from-terror-surveilance-list-before-att
ack%2F&lid=1113391&rid=46097952)  (which predictably jumped to Fox  News) 
_based the claim_ 
(http://mediamatters.org/blog/201005070015?lid=1113392&rid=46097952)  on a CBS News report saying that Shahzad  was on the list from 
1999 to 2008. For those of us with even a semi-firm  grasp of the American 
political system and the immutable progress of time,  it was immediately clear 
that Barack Obama could not have removed Shahzad  from that list because he 
was president for exactly zero days between 1999  and 2008. 
And, of course, no high-profile act of violence can be  committed on U.S. 
soil without the right claiming that the perpetrator is  a liberal Democrat, 
and thus Rush Limbaugh, picking up where the  blogosphere left off, 
_proclaimed_ (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201005040025?lid=1113393&rid=46097952) : 
"Guess what? Faisal Shahzad is a registered  Democrat." To be a "registered 
Democrat," however, one has to register to  vote, and Shahzad had _not 
fulfilled that requirement_ 
(http://mediamatters.org/research/201005050022?lid=1113394&rid=46097952) .  
The lesson to take away from all of this is that  right-wingers make these 
sorts of ludicrous statements about Obama  ignoring terrorism and appeasing 
our enemies not just because they  themselves are detached from reality, but 
because they really have no  other option. As Slate.com's John Dickerson 
_observed_ 
(http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slate.com%2Fid%2F2253100%2F&lid=1113395&rid=46097952) , Obama "has spent a lot of time 
formulating and  putting in place anti-terrorist policies and giving speeches 
devoted to  the more efficient killing of terrorists," and that strategy has been  
effectively implemented. Sure, they could argue as to whether the  strategy 
best serves U.S. interests, but why engage in an informed  discussion about 
terrorism when there's politics to be played? 
Other stories this week:

Heckuva damage control job, Fox 
It wouldn't be a normal week without a scandal over the  complete lack of 
journalistic standards at Fox News. Once again, they  didn't disappoint.  
On Monday, Neil Cavuto hosted disgraced former FEMA  director Michael Brown 
to discuss the catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf  of Mexico. Rather than 
share his expert advice on how to properly  mismanage disaster relief and 
judge show horses, Brown used the time to  throw around insane conspiracy 
theories about the Obama administration's  response to the spill.  
Brown _repeatedly suggested_ 
(http://mediamatters.org/blog/201005040066?lid=1113396&rid=46097952)  that the administration  deliberately let the spill 
worsen so it would have an excuse to "shut down  offshore drilling." This 
apparently didn't bother host Neil Cavuto, who  offered no pushback.  
On Tuesday, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs _called out_ 
(http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201005040047?lid=1113397&rid=46097952)  Fox for its 
failure to challenge Brown's  absurd conspiracy. In response, Fox publicly 
reprimanded Cavuto and  apologized for helping to promote outlandish conspiracy 
theories on its  "news" network.  
Just kidding -- Fox hosts attacked Gibbs and completely  misrepresented the 
Brown interview in order to cover their tracks. _Discussing_ 
(http://mediamatters.org/blog/201005040066?lid=1113398&rid=46097952)  Gibbs' criticism on 
Fox's flagship "news"  program, Special Report, that night, senior political 
analyst  Brit Hume and anchor Bret Baier zeroed in on a mostly 
insignificant  distinction between Gibbs' characterization of what Brown said and 
Brown's  actual remarks. To further obscure Cavuto's failure to challenge Brown,  
Baier and Hume refused to air, quote, or accurately describe Brown's  
controversial remarks. 
On Wednesday morning, Bill O'Reilly got involved,  telling ABC's George 
Stephanopoulos on Good Morning America that  he "would have slapped" Brown if 
he had made the comments on the  Factor, "but he was on another program." 
While this certainly  sounded like a repudiation of Cavuto, O'Reilly was 
singing another tune  when he returned to his own show, _falsely claiming_ 
(http://mediamatters.org/research/201005050067?lid=1113399&rid=46097952)  that 
Cavuto "stuck up" for Obama during  the Brown interview. 
Cavuto was apparently so impressed with Baier and  Hume's dishonest defense 
that he _adopted it_ 
(http://mediamatters.org/blog/201005050068?lid=1113400&rid=46097952)  on his own show the next day -- focusing on  the same 
insignificant distinction and refusing to air the worst of  Brown's comments (or 
discuss his complete failure to challenge them).  According to Fox's 
response, the fact that Brown only suggested  that the administration let the spill 
worsen on purpose rather than claim  it started it isn't too troubling. 
After all, Brown was merely echoing Fox's Eric Bolling,  who pushed almost 
the _exact same conspiracy theory_ 
(http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201005030005?lid=1113401&rid=46097952)  on Fox & Friends  on Monday morning. As Media 
Matters president Eric Burns _noted_ 
(http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201005050059?lid=1113402&rid=46097952)  on MSNBC, by pushing these absurd oil spill  
conspiracy theories, Fox is putting itself "in a league with the 9-11  
truthers." 
The Phoenix Suns, "Protesting the American  Dream" of racial profiling 
The controversy over the recently passed Arizona  immigration law crossed 
over into the sports world this week, and  conservative media figures 
responded with their usual combination of  smears and dishonesty. 
On Tuesday, the Phoenix Suns announced they would wear  their "Los Suns" 
jerseys during a May 5th playoff game in order to, in the  words of managing 
partner Robert Sarver, "honor our Latino community" and  the "diversity of 
our league." Sarver expressed concerns about the law's  effects on "basic 
principles of equal rights and protection." Suns star  Steve Nash _echoed_ 
(http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.orlandosentinel.com%2Fsports-sen
tinel-sports-now%2F2010%2F05%2F05%2Farizona-law-steve-nash-speaks-out-on-esp
ns-pardon-the-interruption%2F&lid=1113403&rid=46097952)  Sarver's concerns 
by saying the law "really  damages our civil liberties." 
Apparently not convinced by Nash and Sarver, Fox News  _ran with_ 
(http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201005050007?lid=1113404&rid=46097952)  a slightly 
different interpretation of the  Suns' protest: 
 
Fox _wasn't alone_ 
(http://mediamatters.org/research/201005060006?lid=1113405&rid=46097952)  in attacking the Suns. Limbaugh called the  protest 
"cowardice," and Michelle Malkin labeled the team the  "open-borders sympathizing 
Phoenix Suns." Despite the fact that the team  unanimously agreed to wear 
the jerseys, Brian Kilmeade _decided_ 
(http://mediamatters.org/research/201005060006?lid=1113406&rid=46097952)  the players were forced to be used "as  
billboards." 
Of course, the Suns' political statement wasn't the  only angle 
conservatives found to mislead on immigration policy this week.  Since the start of the 
debate over the immigration law, numerous  conservatives have cited violent 
crime in Arizona as a reason the new law  is important.  
As Media Matters _documented_ (http://mediamatters.org
/research/201005060024?lid=1113407&rid=46097952) , Phoenix police chief Jack Harris rejected  the 
conservative argument, pointing out that it's not "true" that "the new  law 
provides a tool for local law enforcement." Others in law enforcement  
officials agree that the new law could distort police priorities.  Additionally, 
despite the prevailing narrative among conservative media  figures, crime 
rates in Arizona are at their lowest point in decades. 
Promoting conservatives' fearmongering over crime and  immigration, Fox & 
Friends _ran with_ 
(http://mediamatters.org/research/201005060034?lid=1113408&rid=46097952)  an absurd "estimate" from Family Security  Matters that 
there are "2,158 killed by illegals every year." The "crude"  statistic relied 
on baseless assumptions about immigrants' crime rates. As  we noted, less 
ridiculous studies have found that immigrants in general  are less likely to be 
incarcerated, and there is no credible evidence that  undocumented 
immigrants commit a disproportionate amount of crime. Other  than that, though, it 
was very responsible of Fox News to run with this  "estimate."  
With this latest "study" debunked, Family Security  Matters can return to 
the important business of _promoting_ 
(http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.familysecuritymatters.org%2Fpublications%2Fid.1583%2Fpub_detail.asp&
lid=1113409&rid=46097952)  the birther conspiracy theory. 
This weekly wrap-up was compiled by Simon Maloy and Ben  Dimiero. 
 (http://mediamatters.org/users/sign_up)  (http://mediamatters.org/)  
(http://mediamatters.org/donate)  (http://mediamatters.org/action_center/)  
Forward This E-mail To A Friend
Share your concern  about conservative misinformation  
Sign up
Did a friend forward you this email? _Click here to sign up to  receive 
Media Matters for America email alerts._ 
(http://mediamatters.org/users/sign_up)     
_You  can unsubscribe at any time by clicking here_ 
(http://mediamatters.org/users/unsubscribe?u=412733488db46995c1d306d98ab4e355&rid=46097952)  
© 2010 Media Matters for America
455  Massachusetts Ave, NW, Suite 600, Washington, D.C. 20001  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://paa-tx.org/pipermail/discuss_paa-tx.org/attachments/20100508/6723b97a/attachment.htm>