The national media watch group
Updated: 2 hours 57 min ago
Reading the Washington Post opinion pages can be like reading dispatches from a parallel universe. You get that sense of alternative history from Post deputy editorial editor Jackson Diehl's latest.
USA Today could have averaged several recent years to see if there was a meaningful trend. But instead the newspaper decided to feed the narrative that police officers are under attack.
Do you have too much money? The New York Times has some shopping tips for you.
The second paragraph of the Washington Post's news story (12/17/14) on President Obama normalizing relations with Cuba begins, "Cuba is a flyspeck of an island that long ago ceased to be a threat to the United States."
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush announced that he sort of could be running for the Republican presidential nomination. Of course, that drew substantial media attention.
The Washington Post's poll most likely found that a small minority of Americans thought torture was justified after 9/11. In other words, pretty much the opposite of what the Post's headline said.
To argue that Elizabeth Warren is the left equivalent of Jim DeMint, one must exhibit no interest in the substance of politics.
Every lone wolf terrorist has been Muslim, says the no spin Fox host.
Meet the Press covers US drone attacks. But why do they want viewers to think it's too hard to know how many innocents have died?
Media coverage portrays populist Democrats as presenting a "threat" to pragmatic centrism.
This is an update to "Refusing to Take Sides, NPR Takes Sides With Torture Deniers" (FAIR Blog, 12/12/14). As Romenesko (12/12/14) points out, NPR's ethics department has been issuing guidance on the use of the word "torture." The first memo, issued August 8, cites a message from then-NPR vice president for news Ellen Weiss, written in November 2009: Contrary to some commentaries, NPR did not ban the word "torture." Rather, we gave our journalists guidance about how to avoid loaded language about interrogation techniques, realizing that no matter what words are chosen, we risk the appearance of taking one side […]
This week: ABC World News prepared viewers for the Senate report on CIA torture…by warning that its publication could harm Americans. Plus TV news covers the torture report by giving a platform to torture advocates. And a pundit who was dead wrong about the Iraq War shares his thoughts about the need for Rolling Stone to do better factchecking. Watch:
National Public Radio, following the lead of the Washington Post, tries to avoid applying the word "torture" in its own voice when covering US torture.
Many would think there was something wrong with an investigative reporter who consults directly with an advertiser to think of ways for them to profit from the news. But, here we are.
The Senate report revealed shocking, even sickening treatment of the CIA's captives. But ABC's focus wasn't on the US government abuses detailed in the report, but "the fear that its release could threaten American lives."
The Washington Post doesn't call torture by its name because that would be 'contentious.'
"Rush Limbaugh talks race relations." You know, that Rush Limbaugh--the guy who once quipped, "Have you ever noticed how all newspaper composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?"
The Senate's report on CIA torture will be released in a matter of days, so why the need to give defenders of torture a platform to excuse themselves in advance?
There are reporters at outlets like the Washington Post who raised real questions about Rolling Stone's story about rape at the University of Virginia. And then are also those like National Review editor Rich Lowry,
"Black lives matter" is the rallying cry of the burgeoning movement against police killings. The Associated Press, covering that movement, has produced a perfect example of what journalism looks like when black lives don't matter.