The national media watch group
Updated: 4 hours 15 min ago
Politico says bankers are fond of Hillary Clinton, in part because of "Obama’s hot, anti-Wall Street rhetoric." What are they talking about?
Zakaria has a different standard for ignorant citizens and ignorant politicians--not to mention ignorant media pundits.
CBS presented a very moving and dramatic account of the fight against ebola in Liberia. But no Liberians spoke in the piece.
Perhaps it is fitting that George W. Bush would say, "When you say something as president, you better mean it"--and then say something so demonstrably false.
ABC World News hardly covered the midterm elections--but when they did, it looked more like an ad for a Republican candidate. Plus we look at an example of campaign coverage done right, and a curious climate change segment on CNN.
When reporters talk about what "the world" thinks about Iran, they really just mean the United States.
Even when it's barely covering the issue of climate change, Fox News reporters know that they're supposed to include what climate change deniers have to say.
For a news story that promises to be about a conservative candidate's TV commercial, ABC sure delivered.
A CNN host explains that debating climate change is a bad thing. What came next? A debate over climate change.
A new poll out of Harvard's Institute of Politics is getting a lot of attention, probably because it appears to send a surprising message: Young voters are moving towards the GOP. But some caution is in order.
This week: Time slams public school teachers; what did their "bad apples" cover story get wrong? Plus we look at how ABC is framing the climate change debate among Republican politicians, and we note that election season pundits shouldn't confuse the message they're hearing from a minority of the population that votes with "the public."
The chatter around Kill the Messenger, the film based on the life of investigative reporter Gary Webb, has mostly faded. But this week USA Today ran a column that mangled the basic facts of Webb's reporting.
The front page of the New York Times dwells on how Democrats are playing on "racial fears" in campaign advertising. But are the ads actually unfair--or do they simply talk about issues the corporate media would rather not discuss?
When pundits talk about what 'the public' thinks in an election season, remember that they're not really talking about the whole public.
The Russian president delivered a conspiratorial, factually challenged rant against the United States, according to the Washington Post. So why can't they point to any evidence?
The New York Times' James Stewart made clear which side we should be rooting for in the Brazilian presidential elections: the side that lost.
A more evasive kind of climate change denial isn't really a "middle ground."
On this week's episode: Pundits say now would be a great time to have a surgeon general–but that hasn't happened, thanks to "Washington dysfunction." Is that really what's happening here? Plus Time magazine promotes Rand Paul, and says his critics–like MSNBC's Rachel Maddow–are unfairly tarnishing his record. And we'll take a look at the new law in Pennsylvania that attempts to silence prisoners like Mumia Abu-Jamal. It's a blatant assault on the First Amendment. So where's the press? Watch:
Time's teacher-bashing cover story buries the lead--and somehow neglected to talk to any teachers.
Chuck Todd wants to make Meet the Press more diverse--but he doesn't appear willing to try all that hard.