You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (595)

PLAYS: (2299)

Bill O'Reilly decided to bring in Fox's newest big-name hire, John Stossel, to help buck up his annual pledge drive in the War on Christmas.

And Stossel -- who is no innocent in the ways of ideological reporting himself -- actually seemed embarrassed by it all -- mainly because O'Reilly was stooping to the lowest reporting methods possible to make his point.

Namely, he was citing as somehow authoritative ("I trust the folks") an online poll from an outfit called "StandForChristmas.com". Stossel briefly mentions that it actually was run by another group, and O'Reilly talks over him and emphasizes that it's "StandForChristmas."

Of course, "StandForChristmas" is actually run by the religious-right cranks at James Dobson's Focus on the Family. So there's an obvious bias built into the poll and its potential viewers in the first place. And then to treat the results of any open online poll as meaningful in any real sense is just palpable nonsense.

Stossel obviously understands this, and mostly tries to work his way around O'Reilly's insistence that the poll means something by just repeating its results.

But the whole thing goes completely off the rails and into another universe when O'Reilly tries to claim that corporate chiefs telling their employees what to say is "just fascist":

O'Reilly: But my point is, that I thought it was fascist -- fascism, which offends a libertarian like you -- for a CEO or a store manager to tell their employees, 'You better not say Merry Christmas' -- even though the reason we're selling stuff is because of Christmas. Isn't that fascism?

Stossel: No, it's ownership. He built the business, if he says, 'Stand on your head and sing when people come in,' you don't have to work there, you can quit, it's his business.

You realize from exchanges like this just how long it's been since Bill O'Reilly has had anything even remotely like a real job. Because in most people's real jobs -- especially in the retail biz -- employees are instructed all the time in exactly the kinds of things they're supposed to say. That's not fascist, it's just business.

Indeed, Bill O'Reilly has himself on numerous occasions demanded that people in various positions be fired for saying things he believes reflect badly on their employers -- remember his attacks on Rosie O'Donnell? Guess that makes him a fascist, by his own definition.

What would Christmas be without a warm cup of Bill O'Reilly hypocrisy?

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (901)

PLAYS: (3008)

Kenneth Gladney is doing his best to cash in on his 15 seconds of fame, following his fake "brutal assault" at the hands of SEIU supporters outside a St. Louis "town hall" on health care. Today he went on Fox and Friends with his attorney, Dave Brown, who announced that he wanted local prosecutors to pursue the case as a "hate crime."

Mr. Brown appears to be confused about just what constitutes a "hate crime". Namely, it take more than merely the matter of Gladney being a black man to qualify as such a crime; indeed, the main qualification has to be that a bias motivation has to be present. That is, prosecutors would have to establish that the people being charged were motivated by the victim's race.

Gladney claims that he was called the N-word -- but the man using that word was another black man. Proving a motivation of bias against blacks will be pretty difficult under those circumstances.

Moreover, if you go back and look at the tape, a couple of other things are worth noting:

-- It's the black man with whom Gladney apparently first had a verbal altercation who we see lying on his back on the street when the tape opens. If anyone can claim to be assaulted here, it's this man.

-- It's not clear that any actual assault occurred here at all. Gladney is pushed to the ground by someone trying to clear space for his friend. Certainly, given that Gladney appears to be just fine for most of the rest of the video, there's no evidence that he suffered any harm whatsoever in the incident.

And in order to file a hate-crime charge, any prosecutor will have to prove first that a crime was committed -- well before he can even look into the question of whether it was committed with a bias motivation. Considering that both appear extremely unlikely, Brown and Gladney are clearly both just grandstanding.

Besides ... aren't conservatives opposed to hate-crimes laws as a matter of principle?

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (50)

PLAYS: (75)

Sen. Jeff Sessions attacked People for the American Way on Face the Nation Sunday morning because they are exposing the right wing attacks on Judge Sonia Sotomayor by calling into question Frank Ricci's litigious nature.

SCHIEFFER: Let me just bring up something about the firefighters'case. This was the case where she ruled against the firefighters who claimed they were discriminated against because they didn't get a
promotion up here in Connecticut because minorities did not score high enough on the same test and the whole test was thrown out. Now the Supreme Court reversed her on that case. But People For The American Way, which is a liberal group that supports Sonia Sotomayor, is calling attention to what they call Frank Ricci. He's the central character in this, his litigious and background. And they say, they point out that that he has been fired from another fire department,that he claimed discrimination because he was dyslexic. Did they have a point here?

SESSIONS: No. That's just typical of the personal attacks of People For The American Way and the hard left that is supporting this nomination. These were 18 firefighters who filed this lawsuit, not just Frank Ricci, his name was the first one on the case but 18 of
them.

And when you show empathy for one party, Bob, you unnecessarily show a bias against another group. And this is the thing -- I just want to say I think Pat and I would agree on this. We need to think through how we handle these cases today. And do it in a way that is effective legally and her opinion was rejected by the Supreme Court. It was a very important opinion.

Exposing pertinent information about a man that is going in front of Congress to testify against Sonia is not a personal attack. It's called due diligence. Maybe he should read Dahlia Lithwick's piece on Mr. Ricci: The New Haven firefighter is no stranger to employment disputes.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1608)

PLAYS: (3859)

David Neiwert posted about David Zurawik's frothy appearance with Howard Kurtz last weekend as he bashed MSNBC. On 'Reliable Sources,' David Zurawik decries heated cable talk by shrieking about MSNBC's 'fascism'

Zurawik felt compelled to explain himself in a little more detail online.

As you can see from the video, I am harder on MSNBC than Fox, because this NBC sister channel has outrageously decided it doesn't have to cover news on weekends and holidays -- and yet, still calls itself a news channel.I have to admit, it is a great business moldel: Don't cover the news. let someone fulfill that expensive task. We'll just put on ideologues like Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow and let them mock our opponents as we opine about the news that others like CNN went to trouble and expense of gathering and verifying.

He's upset because they choose to run some of those Locked Up episodes during the weekend, really? Here's a little info for Z: MSNBC does cover the news on the weekends, they just don't do it 24/7. He should probably check their schedule sometime before making the claim that they don't cover the news on Saturday and Sunday. And WTF does that have to do with how they cover the news in general or if they are biased in their reporting? Which is worse, showing some non-news shows on the weekend, or pushing a political agenda 24 hours a day, seven days a week for as many years as they've been on the air?

Fox News tries to shrug off their right-wing bias by saying they have opinion talking heads, so they don't consider those shows to be news. But if anyone -- and that means you, David -- were to watch Fox News, starting with Fox and Friends right up through Neil Cavuto, you would see a right-wing bias that would make your head spin -- all dressed up as news reporting. Heavy anti-union messages, insane free-market Wall Streeters and anti-Obama segments dominate their coverage, but somehow Z isn't outraged by that behavior as much.

Sure, MSNBC's opinion lineup, from Hardball to Maddow is largely center-left commentators, but they start their mornings with three hours of Joe Scarborough before going into seven straight hours of news blocks that for the most part interview politicians from both parties along with the usual battle of the consultants. Andrea Mitchell has her own hour and you can't call her a lefty.

So while I agree with some of Z's complaints, please get some basic facts straight. And his criticism of MSNBC gives us a look into the window of the mind of a Villager critic.

And yes, these cable shows have hurt America, because they are always looking for a "conflict" which will increase ratings rather than examine the news and issues at hand with an emphasis to inform us rather than persuade of. This approach aided Bush and Cheney in their quest to go and invade Iraq, and look where that has taken us: Thousands dead, innocents lost, billions of dollars spent, torture, military commissions and wiretapping soon followed. Good job, cable news.

How dumb are the right wing bloggers and pundits? I don't have enough time to tell you, but this latest crazed outburst of supposed "media bias" over the treatment of George W. Bush is proof enough that they are suffering a deep and dark depression.

Patrick Gavin posts a very short video clip, all of twenty two seconds that's supposedly a complete media critique of the way the White House press reporters loathe George Bush and just fawn over Barack Obama. Hot Air's Allahpundit writes:

This one’s making the rounds but I’m not sure why. Isn’t this standard chivalrous behavior when you’re in love? If The One were forced to trod upon a muddy path, wouldn’t you expect Chuck Todd or Helen Thomas to lay their coats over it for him? Actually, there’s a more mundane explanation. Sort of.

--

Doesn’t that … basically prove the point of the video? Okay, fine, they’re not anti-Bush. They’re just really, really pro-Obama. Whew!

I know, I should have some pity on their poor souls, but how can I pity idiocy?

Not that I need to link to something that explains away this lunacy, but I will anyway.

John Dickerson:

A video, put together by Politico's Patrick Gavin, is making the rounds showing two presidential visits to the White House briefing room. In one, George Bush arrives for a press conference in February 2008, and the press remains seated. In the second, from last Friday, Barack Obama surprises the press by appearing in the midst of the daily briefing. They stand to greet him. (Given that the press is supposedly in the tank for Obama, shouldn't critics be happy they didn't kneel?)

This may seem silly, but it's symbolic: The discrepancy in treatment is all the proof a Republican needs to show that the press shows special deference to the new Democratic president. It's a distorted picture, though. We stood all the time for President Bush. Reporters customarily do so to show respect for the office of the presidency. In the East Room of the White House, we stood not only when the president came in but to ask questions. Some reporters said thank you to the president even before asking their questions. This practice continues under President Obama....read on

I would tell Allahpundit to just hold his breath until he turns blue whenever he sees media bias when there isn't any, but he might forget to breathe altogether.

Tbogg finds some more.

(photo via Reuters)
I was going to write that this didn't surprise me, but it actually does because it's not the FOX News channel.

The network is turning down the president's request to show his prime-time news conference on Wednesday. The news conference marks Obama's 100th day in office. Instead of the president, Fox viewers will see an episode of the Tim Roth drama "Lie to Me."

It's the first time a broadcast network has refused Obama's request. This will be the third prime-time news conference in Obama's presidency. ABC, CBS and NBC are airing it.

Fox Broadcasting Company issued a statement on their motives:

"The Fox Broadcasting Company will not air the Presidential News Conference," Fox said in a statement. "Fox's sister networks, Fox News Channel and the Fox Business Network, will air the press conference in its entirety. Fox will be alerting viewers with an onscreen graphic at the top of the 8:00 PM (ET) hour that the press conference is available on Fox News Channel and the Fox Business Network.

If John McCain or George Bush were giving a prime time news conference, FOX would be giving it wall to wall coverage. Being the only network not to broadcast it kind of hits home the right wing bias that Rupert Murdock has brought to television. If Bill O'Reilly or Chris Wallace start whining about President Obama not appearing on their network they can only look at their own behavior, but this is much bigger than that. This is the president giving a speech to the nation at a critical time in our history and FOX just passed.