The national media watch group
Updated: 2 hours 20 min ago
This week: US media go into overdrive over Russia/Ukraine, painting the conflict as proof that Barack Obama isn't feared enough. Plus pundits laugh at Putin's delusion–but what about John Kerry's? And a big anti-Keystone XL rally at the White House hardly makes the news. Watch:
The public strongly supports building the Keystone pipeline--and they wrongly think it will create a lot of jobs. Aren't media to blame for failing to set that straight?
When a USA Today headline declares, "We're $9,800,000,000 Richer," who exactly does the "we" in the headline refer to?
To maintain a simple good vs. evil framework, the fact that Ukraine's neo-fascist movement had a significant role in the opposition to Yanukovych--and the government that replaced him--was downplayed or even outright denied.
Right-wing columnist Jonah Goldberg slams Obama for expressing support for a 'nuclear free world'-- which was what Reagan said too.
Media are suggesting that Russian leader Vladimir Putin's defense of his actions in Ukraine suggests he is delusional. But what do they call it when US leaders appear unable to remember US invasions of other countries?
What happens when hundreds of Keystone activists get arrested in front of the White House? Not much, judging by the lack of media interest.
The complex anti-government protest movements in both Venezuela and Ukraine were boiled down by US corporate media to send a clear message to their domestic audience: These are the good guys.
Leaving the Washington Post, Robert Kaiser revealed his frustration that the "rules" of elite journalism do not allow one to call out lying politicians. He also demonstrated another key Beltway tendency: pretending that both sides are equally guilty of similar offenses.
Pundits worry about US 'prestige' and the weakness of Barack Obama.
Paul Ryan apparently has some big, bold ideas about how to fight poverty--mostly what the government is doing is all wrong. But why does the Washington Post fail to cite any critics of Ryan, and spend so much time quoting him and other Republicans?
Pundits were mad about the news that Barack Obama was backing away from "chained CPI" Social Security cuts. An announcement about troop cuts caused some reporters to panic. And Arizona's discriminatory SB 1062 is given the "some say" media treatment.
The new issue of Time magazine (3/10/14) takes a look at the debate over raising the minimum wage, in a piece by Eliza Gray. But the very first paragraph just doesn't make much sense: If you want to make some new friends and just as many enemies, here's a helpful shortcut: take a position on raising the federal minimum wage. The question of how much workers at the bottom should be paid is fast becoming one of the most divisive issues in Washington. Liberals say a wage hike is the most immediate and fair tool we have to address growing […]
Activists call on the New York Times to correct a faulty report on Venezuela-- and they do.
Today's New York Times has a piece about whether the Obama administration is as committed to a policy of "democracy promotion" as the Bush administration had been. To anyone familiar with US history of inhibiting and undermining democracies, the whole concept must seem rather absurd.
While the only questions regarding Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman's prosecution appear to be where and when, things were different when it came to prosecuting the institution that supported what Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director John Morton called "the lifeblood" of the Sinoloa Cartel's operations.
Is the Heritage Foundation really drifting away from its scholarly roots--or has it always been more of a corporate-funded right-wing lobby?
New York Times media columnist David Carr (2/24/14) seems to think the relationship between CNN and Piers Morgan was doomed from the start: It's been an unhappy collision between a British television personality who refuses to assimilate–the only football he cares about is round and his lectures on guns were rife with contempt–and a CNN audience that is intrinsically provincial. After all, the people who tune into a cable news network are, by their nature, deeply interested in America. That's a peculiar way to define "provincial"; surely one can be deeply interested in the United States and deeply interested in […]
Media comments after the Obama administration backed off attempts to cut Social Security benefits exhibited a curious notion about where the "middle" is and what "majority support" means.
How trustworthy are reports that "state-sponsored paramilitaries" are "shooting at anyone who seemed like he might be protesting" against the government of Venezuela?