Yes, This Really Happened

Jack Cafferty on Sarah Palin

Television Journalists Are Awful, And We Should All Be Embarrassed By Them

This is how many times they mentioned the word "lipstick" between Wednesday and Thursday:

CNN: 69

MSNBC: 100

Fox News: 98

This is how many times they mentioned Fannie Mae in the same time period:

CNN: 20

MSNBC: 11

Fox news: 20

Every four years, when we make an important decision that has world-wide consequences, all of our information gets filtered through a pack of idiots.

Cable News and Politics

Pew has conducted a new survey of the political leanings of cable news viewers:

CNN: 51% Democrats, 18% Republicans, 23% independents

MSNBC: 45% Democrats, 18% Republicans, 27% independents

Fox News: 33% Democrats, 39% Republicans, 22% independents

I'm actually a little surprised to see so many Democratic and Independent viewers at FOX.

CNN and Coal - Again

You might remember that the coal industry sponsored CNN's presidential debates, and that the only energy and environment questions asked related to the problems with nuclear waste storage. No questions on the problems with coal, on the candidates' cap-and-trade proposals, or on renewable energy portfolios.

Well, it looks like that's not the end of it:

CNN senior business correspondent Ali Velshi has been promoting coal-to-liquids technology and praising “clean coal, 99 percent clean” for an entire month. On Tuesday, CNN held a no-holds-barred coalfest, promoting coal-to-liquids and coal gasification technologies, calling coal “seductive,” and criticizing “blogs” who “go nuts” and “environmentalists” who “want to get rid of coal.”

What’s motivating CNN to closely mirror coal-industry talking points?

One hopes it has nothing to do with this:

The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity is a $45 million front group for over 40 companies in the coal industry.

The Most Trusted Name in News

Regular readers here know that I've been critical of the three big cable news channels for some time now. Particularly in the past week or two, they have passed over two major stories: (1) a new report showing political interference in the E.P.A., and (2) the Pentagon's use of seemingly neutral retired military officials to pass along their talking points to the cable news networks. But to put things in perspective, let's take a look at one of the issues that they did cover. On CNN the other day, they brought on a "Consumer Expert" to discuss "How to Save Money at the Grocery Store." This is from the transcript:

LEMON: All right, looking to save some money in this economy? Of course you are. Who isn't? Well, give us couple of minutes now. We'll save you some bucks. Our simple solution to the rising cost of food.

Here's a trip to the grocery store with a consumer expert and CNN's T.J. Holmes.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

T.J. HOLMES, CNN ANCHOR: We haven't made it to a single item, no groceries at all, no food, but still, we need to be working right now and be mindful of what's going on, what's happening here.

ROBYN SPIZMAN, CONSUMER EXPERT: Exactly, before you put your foot in the door, you want to check out the stores.

The first thing I'm going to do is I'm going to look at the store circulars, see if there's any manufacturer coupons. And already, I've hit the big one. Just pages and pages of coupons right here, ready for me to use. And then, I might look to see how long they're good for, which this says all month. So, now I know if I don't have time to use them now, I can use them later.

HOLMES: One of the first things you often see when you come into the store are ...

SPIZMAN: Deals.

HOLMES: Deals, the signs. They often have these very kiosks like this set up. And you look through them, buy one, get one free, two for this, two for that. These are important to stop at always -- why?

SPIZMAN: Why, because first of all, take a look at them, take a second. It doesn't mean spend all day.

HOLMES: Right.

SPIZMAN: I'm going to spend just a few minutes. But for example, this vinegar, it's two for $4, it's a name brand that I use all the time. And I'm saving $2.38 on buying two.

HOLMES: A lot of people pantries are full of stuff -- we don't even know what's in there.

SPIZMAN: I promise you that most -- and most women in particularly, like we have 10 bottles of salad dressing. Not all of us, but some of us. And so, you want to start looking at what are you really using and running out of, so you don't have to run out every time.

The rule is to look high and to look low because store brands and manufacturers of popular brands often will pay more for what's called a slotting fee. And according to the grocers that I've spoken to, they say that's why, you know, there's these brands in the middle. They paid for that right.

Seasonal is so important because one, that means the price is going to be better. And then, it also means that the product is in season, so it's going to be juicier. You're going to get the value.

I think the goal is to be a conscious society and also, we can save money in the interim by buying smart, sometimes buying less and knowing what you're buying. And there's great power in that because you only have to learn it once. And once you know, you're ready to go.

As Digby points out, this segment has taught us (1) to think about what we need before we start to shop, (2) that "seasonal" means a product is in season, (3) that ladies love salad dressing, and (4) to try to buy items that are "on sale" (which means that they cost less than they normally do).

From this, we can only conclude that either (1) CNN is run by morons, or (2) CNN thinks that we're a bunch of morons.

Ridiculous Campaign Coverage

This is how CNN covers the most important issues in America:





That's right. One long, tortured analogy comparing the candidates to King Kong and Godzilla. Complete with shaky graphics, as if due to nearby monster footsteps. The comparison made no sense. No substantive issues were covered.

You might remember that Wolf Blitzer has previously covered the candidates by investigating who is a cat person and who is a dog person.

The inescapable conclusion is that CNN thinks we're all idiots.

UPDATE: Here is the video itself.

John King Interviews Mike McConnell

CNN's John King recently interviewed Michael McConnell about FISA, while confessing his ignorance on the topic and praising McConnell's apolitical nature (despite the fact that he was caught lying to Congress about FISA, has reneged on a legislative agreement back in August, etc.). Glenn Greenwald writes about it here. I'd just like to say again the Glenn Greenwald should be required reading for everybody.

UPDATE: Maybe John King will write another whiny email to Greenwald about this Salon piece.

Poll: CNN Reporting

Wolf Blitzer on Mike Huckabee on Mormonism

Wolf Blitzer hosted Mike Huckabee on the Situation Room, and asked him this question:

BLITZER (12/12/07): All right. The New York Times Sunday magazine has a long profile of you, and one line has jumped out and is causing a lot of commotion right now.

When you asked this question to the interviewer, the reporter who wrote the story, you said this: "Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?" Now, as you know, Mormons say that's a canard, they don't believe that, that's been a canard spread by people who don't like Mormonism.

I want you to explain what you were doing by even raising that question.

Is this really just "a canard spread by people who don't like Mormonism"? This is what the official Latter Day Saints website says:

On first hearing, the doctrine that Lucifer and our Lord, Jesus Christ, are brothers may seem surprising to some—especially to those unacquainted with latter-day revelations. But both the scriptures and the prophets affirm that Jesus Christ and Lucifer are indeed offspring of our Heavenly Father and, therefore, spirit brothers. Jesus Christ was with the Father from the beginning. Lucifer, too, was an angel “who was in authority in the presence of God,” a “son of the morning.” (See Isa. 14:12; D&C 76:25–27.) Both Jesus and Lucifer were strong leaders with great knowledge and influence. But as the Firstborn of the Father, Jesus was Lucifer’s older brother. (See Col. 1:15; D&C 93:21.)

How could two such great spirits become so totally opposite? The answer lies in the principle of agency, which has existed from all eternity. (See D&C 93:30–31.) Of Lucifer, the scripture says that because of rebellion “he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies.” (Moses 4:4.) Note that he was not created evil, but became Satan by his own choice.

When our Father in Heaven presented his plan of salvation, Jesus sustained the plan and his part in it, giving the glory to God, to whom it properly belonged. Lucifer, on the other hand, sought power, honor, and glory only for himself. (See Isa. 14:13–14; Moses 4:1–2.) When his modification of the Father’s plan was rejected, he rebelled against God and was subsequently cast out of heaven with those who had sided with him. (See Rev. 12:7–9; D&C 29:36–37.)

That brothers would make dramatically different choices is not unusual. It has happened time and again, as the scriptures attest: Cain chose to serve Satan; Abel chose to serve God. (See Moses 5:16–18.) Esau “despised his birthright”; Jacob wanted to honor it. (Gen. 25:29–34.) Joseph’s brothers sought to kill him; he sought to preserve them. (Gen. 37:12–24; Gen. 45:3–11.)

Is it really too much to ask for CNN to do a little bit of research before devolving into the he-said-she-said style of journalism?

CNN Praises Huckabee For Dodging Questions

Back in June, CNN hosted a Republican debate. When asked if the earth was literally created in a six-day period 6,000 years ago (a scientifically untenable position), creationist candidate Mike Huckabee dodged the question, simply making a joke about not being there. The correct answer was no. Nonetheless, all of the commentators at CNN thought this was a brilliant answer. According to the easily impressed Anderson Cooper, "the question of creationism came up tonight. Mike Huckabee talked about it very eloquently." Never mind the substance of the question, and the fact that the answer was unresponsive. The guy's a smooth talker, and that's apparently all the cable news pundits care about.

At this week's CNN/Youtube Republican debate, Huckabee did it again. When asked "What would Jesus do?" with regard to the death penalty, Mike Huckabee said "Jesus was too smart to ever run for public office, Anderson. That's what Jesus would do." Once again, the easily impressed Anderson Cooper has looked back on the night and expressed his admiration for what he thought was "certainly, probably one of the best answers you could possibly come up to, to that question."

Personally, I think that Jesus probably wouldn't rely on the death penalty. According to the Sermon on the Mount: "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you." When a woman was about to be stoned (the death penalty) for adultery, Jesus came to her aid and said "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." I'm not aware of any Jesus quotes endorsing retribution (the Old Testament God, on the other hand, suggested that we use the death penalty to kill homosexuals and disobedient children). Plus, he might be a bit sensitive about how he was subject to the death penalty, himself.

UPDATE: It looks like somebody asked Huckabee this question (WWJD) before. Here is his response from 1997:

“Interestingly enough,” Huckabee allowed, “if there was ever an occasion for someone to have argued against the death penalty, I think Jesus could have done so on the cross and said, ‘This is an unjust punishment and I deserve clemency’.”

Hm. At least it's more of a direct answer. But to take the fact that he didn't specifically condemn it (while he was busy being tortured), and to infer from that that he endorses it (or at least tacitly approves of it) seems a little absurd to me. Especially given his specific repudiation of "an eye for an eye" in the Sermon on the Mount speech.

Gays In The Military

UPDATE: It looks like CNN failed to disclose something here:

The retired general who asked about gays and lesbians serving in the military at the CNN/YouTube Republican debate on Wednesday is a co-chair of Hillary Clinton's National Military Veterans group.

UPDATE II: Oh.

Wolf Blitzer: Awful Questioner

At the Democratic debate, Wolf Blitzer asked Dennis Kucinich the following question:

We’re talking about education right now, and I want to bring Congressman Kucinich in because I know you’re a strong supporter of the unions. The teachers’ union, very powerful—teachers’ unions, very powerful. Are there any issues with unions—teachers’ unions, or other unions for that matter—with which you disagree?

Seriously. This kind of question does nothing but waste everyone's time.

CNN Democratic Debate

One thing in particular bothered me about last night's CNN debate (which also bothered me about the last MSNBC debate). I think that Digby really nails it here:

Blitzer: Driver's licenses! Yes or No!

Obama: It's not so simple. We need comprehensive immigration reform and I think ...

Blitzer: Yes or no! What about the driver's licenses?!

Richardson: The congress has failed to act. It's a matter of public safety...

Blitzer: Yes or no! Yes or no! Yes or no!

Edwards: It's a complicated problem...

Blitzer: Huh? Driver's licenses! Yes or No!

Kucinich: There is no such thing as an illegal human being. I would repeal Nafta.

Blitzer: NAFTA??? WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING??? DRIVER'S LICENSES! YES OR NO!!!

Biden: No



* Not a real transcript. More of an impressionistic collage.

Blitzer refused to let any of them explain their positions on immigration but rather insisted on this ridiculous, parochial question about driver's licenses as if the fate of the world depended on getting a yes or no answer. He particularly dogged Obama who has a nuanced and reasonable position that requires explication, just as Russert did to Hillary Clinton last week on the same stupid topic. (She just caved, which is being touted by the gasbags as a very savvy move.)

Obama's real response is at 17:54 of the debate (full video and [real] transcript here).

Also, that last question was simply horrible. "Do you prefer diamonds or pearls?" Are you kidding me? That question was neither substantive nor funny. It's just demeaning to everyone involved. As a member of the audience, I felt as if CNN was basically saying, "Everyone who's watching this is an idiot."

UPDATE: It looks like the student who asked that horrible diamonds/pearls question would have preferred to ask something more substantive, but was only allowed by CNN to ask that awful puff question. Of course she wasn't forced to ask the question (she wrote it herself) or anything like that, but this really just underscores how poorly CNN runs these debates.

UPDATE II: I don't mean to put on my tin-foil hat or anything, but does anybody else think it's funny how this coal-sponsored debate's only mention of energy policy centered on the problems related to nuclear power? Anybody at all?

Also, why was there no mention or debate of Clinton's recently released climate and energy plan? That seems like the kind of question that's ripe for debate (at least more so than "Do you prefer diamonds or pearls?").

UPDATE III: TPM has a short video of the night's highlights here:

CNN's Coal-Sponsored Debate

(via ThinkProgress)



UPDATE: I just watched the debate, and the only energy/climate questions asked focused on the problems inherent in nuclear power. Go figure.

CNN Misuses Pelosi Quote

James Inhofe on Anderson Cooper

CNN Starts to Fact-Check Giuliani

It's a good start, but this still leaves a lot to be desired. First of all, Wolf leads off by saying, "Some are now questioning whether the Republican front-runner got his facts straight." No, they're not. They're telling you that he got his facts wrong. And they're absolutely right (see here and here). Furthermore, not only were the facts just plain wrong, but they were also misleading on another level (something that shouldn't be ignored, either).

Wolf's CNN correspondent doesn't do much better. According to her, "Well, according to a lot of the folks we talked to, in fact, all of the folks we talked to, they said he did not get his numbers right." When every expert you talk to says that Giuliani's 44% figure was wrong (almost by half), it's safe for you to call it "wrong," instead of devolving into the normal he-said-she-said journalism. Furthermore, it's safe to call Giuliani a liar and a dissembler when he keeps on repeating the claims he knows to be false and misleading.

Perhaps due to this lazy-to-nonexistant journalism, Rudy Giuliani has stuck by his false claims, and says that he will keep on repeating them. Yet for some reason, the media keeps on focusing on Clinton's non-existent playing of "the gender card," and keeps on ignoring this outright false claim. Where are your priorities, people?

UPDATE: The Washington Post does a better job here, but the headline is still way off (the figures are not "questionable" - they're "spectacularly wrong").

Glenn Beck Passes Along Discredited Memes

If you like listening to hysterical people on the radio, then have I got a treat for you. This is from CNN host Glenn Beck's radio show:

Audio

BECK: We'll tell you the truth. We'll tell you the things that are politically incorrect. I'll go on and I'll tell you the fires have very little to do with global warming, if anything. The globe was the hottest in 19 -- was it 1934, Stu [executive producer Steve "Stu" Burguiere], or '37? -- '34, 1934 was the hottest year. A stat, by the way, that was, I believe, intentionally distorted by the guy the left holds up as the scientist on global warming. America's temperature peaked in 1934. Since 1934, the hottest year on record was 1998. It has not gotten warmer since 1998. That's a fact.

Nope. The globe was not the hottest in 1934. Earlier this year, NASA corrected its data for the continental United States only. Whereas previously 1998 was thought to be 0.01ºC warmer than 1934 in the U.S. rankings, it now turned out to be 0.02ºC cooler after the temperature correction.

The story was immediately picked up by FOX News columnist Steve Milloy, the Wall Street Journal's James Taranto, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, etc. They all shouted this story from the hilltops, conveniently leaving out the part where the global temperature rankings did not change at all, and the continental United States temperatures changed only by a statistically insignificant amount. Rather, they chose to pretend that 1934 was the new hottest year for the globe, and that global warming must surely be a hoax. This claim is apparently still reverberating in the echo chamber.

Also, what's this about James Hansen "intentionally distorting" the data? Do you have any reason to think that, other than the fact that this guy (a NASA scientist with many peer-reviewed papers on the topic) disagrees with you on a matter you know nothing about?

Beck goes on:

BECK: Now, why are these fires burning out of control? Al Gore and everybody else will have you believe that it is all about global warming. Well, really? A one-degree temperature change that happened at the first part of the century, not in the last part of the century, at least most of it, and a temperature change that hasn't changed since 1998 is causing superfires in California and only California? Only America? It's in the American borders. How is that possible?

Actually, let's take a look at the global temperature graph from the past century:


[Note: This is actually the pre-correction temperatures overlaid on top of the post-correction temperatures - notice how they are identical to within 1/1,000th of a degree]

According to a recent NASA report:

Global warming is now 0.6°C [1.08° F] in the past three decades and 0.8°C [1.44° F] in the past century. It is no longer correct to say that "most global warming occurred before 1940". More specifically, there was slow global warming, with large fluctuations, over the century up to 1975 and subsequent rapid warming of almost 0.2°C [0.36° F] per decade.

Whoops, I guess you got that one wrong, too.

Also, who are these "hippie California environmentalists that won't let you touch the landscape, wont let you clear the brush on the side of the hills where your house is because that's natural"? I've certainly neither seen nor heard of these people. Perhaps next time, you can cite something to back up your reckless claims that the California wildfires were caused by environmentalists.

One more thing: Why does CNN give this guy his own show? This seriously puzzles me.

Richard Carmona on CNN

Former Surgeon General Richard Carmona speaks to CNN about political interference with his job:

My favorite part is where Carmona says that he was stopped from speaking at the Special Olympics simply because the Kennedys ("those people") also supported the event.