From The Colbert Report:
President Obama's speech to send 30,000 troops to Afghanistan was missing passion and a certain word.
Best line of the clip going after the Fox talking heads saying we need to "win" in Afghanistan:
Colbert: Yeah, do as George Bush said, not as he didn't do!
Countdown's Worst Person's for Nov. 19, 2009 with winner Glenn Beck. Runners up Rupert Murdoch and Rep. Louis Gohmert.
All the news yesterday out of Rupert Murdoch's interview with Sky News was about Murdoch's endorsement of Glenn Beck's claim that President Obama is a racist who hates white people. But the rest of the interview had some even more disturbing remarks in it -- especially early on, when talking about his plan to make everyone pay for their Internet content.
Rupert, Rupert, Rupert. He just doesn't understand how the Internet works. If he continues to actively try to destroy the "fair use" of content, readers from all across the political spectrum will revolt against him. Even from his own side. Murdoch hates Google and every other search engine because he thinks by having Google linking to his stories, they are kleptomaniacs and robbing him. When asked why he just doesn't remove his websites from Google searches now, he replies that he will after he turns them all into "just for pay" only sites. If he feels they are ripping him off then why doesn't he do it now? The answer is he can't afford to do that. I dare him to do it.
newsroomamerica writes:
When challenged that his news organisations could just remove themselves from the search engines, he said "I think we will. But that's when we start charging. We do it already with the Wall Street Journal. We have a wall but its not right to the ceiling, you get the first paragraph of each story. If you are not a paying subscriber of WSJ.com you get a paragraph and a subscription form.
Was this WSJ model what we can expect to see in other online publications? "Maybe, maybe. There's a doctrine called 'fair use', which we believe could be challenged in the courts and bar it all together. But it's ok, we are getting a lot of advertising revenue so we will take that slowly."
The doctrine of fair use defines the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as news reporting, and is a content gathering cornerstone for most mainstream media, including publications owned by Mr Murdoch.
The NY Times already tried the firewall approach and failed.
Jamie Holly emailed me and said:
When a search engine goes to a website it reads a file called robots.txt. This is like an instruction manual for search engines on what to search and not to search. You can view my robots.txt file here.
So what does the robots.txt file on foxnews.com say?
Well look at that. Not only is Fox allowing Google, but they are giving specific directions to Google to read files and index those items. So in an analogy sense this is like inviting someone into your home, pointing out all your valuables and asking them to take them. You even help them carry them out the door and wave good bye with a big old smile, then go inside and call the police reporting you've just been robbed.
And Murdoch going after "fair use" is really interesting. The big question under section 107 of the copyright law has always been this:
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research.
Google only shows a headline and around 128 characters, which a lot of times isn't even a full sentence for their "news" service, which is also considered a very valuable "research" tool. If he thinks some judge would rule that as not being fair use then he is dumber than I thought.
I really hope Murdoch does go after Google legally on this. It would be so much fun to watch. Of course the only lawyer that I think would take Murdoch's case is Orly Taitz.
Glenn Beck joins the Net Neutrality fight by standing with Rupert and the wealthy as usual. Beck says Net Neutrality would 'destroy the free market that created the Internet'. Oh really?
Yes ma'am, may I have another?
Glenn Beck's idea of 'freedom': Letting corporations control what you read on the Internet
Does Murdoch really believe that every other content provider in one form or another will suddenly join up with him and boycott Google and turn the net into a pay-per-view outlet?
I can only imagine the fun hackers would have at destroying his website security if he actually tried to implement it.
The Political Carnival: It's not okay to listen to Obama's education speech at school, but watching the Fort Hood funeral, even if it causes deep emotional distress? That's a go. (h/t Relaxed Politics)
Figleaf (not work-safe): A perfect analogy to why 'no means no.'
Mock Paper Scissors: No, really, Peggy Noonan, it's a distinction to be the only person left from the Reagan administration "brand" that is not in jail, senile, or dead.
The Plum Line: Obama not taking the 'racist' bait of that moron Rupert Murdoch.
Off the beaten path, hey kids, it's Comic Panel Remix!!!
Rupert Murdoch, probably the most powerful media mogul in history, submitted to an interview with Sky News Australia's David Speers last week that was incredibly revealing. (We'll have a follow-up post to some of the other things he said. The full interview is here.)
And probably the most revealing was his full-throated defense of Fox News and its War on Obama -- and particularly Glenn Beck for calling President Obama a racist.
When Murdoch poo-poohed the notion that Fox's news coverage was slanted, while its opinion shows like Beck's were supposed to be opinionated, Speers pointed out that the problem was how far Beck was going:
Speers: Glenn Beck who you mentioned has called Barack Obama a racist, and he helped organize a protest against him and others on Fox have likened him (Obama) to Stalin is that defensible?
Murdoch: No, no, no, not Stalin, I don't think, ah, not one of our people.
On the racist thing, that caused a (unintelligible). But he (Obama) did make a very racist comment. Ahhh -- about, you know, blacks and whites and so on, and which he said in his campaign he would be completely above. And um, that was something which perhaps shouldn't have been said about the President, but if you actually assess what he was talking about, he was right.
Well, just for anyone interested, we've provided both in the video above and in transcript below exactly what everybody said.
First, here's what Beck actually said that Murdoch thinks was "right":
Beck: This president has exposed himself as a guy, over and over and over again, who has a deep-seated hatred for white people, or the white culture, I don't know what it is. But you can’t sit in a pew with Jeremiah Wright for twenty years and not hear some of that stuff and not have it wash over you.
... This guy has a social justice – he is going to set all the wrongs of the past right.
... I’m not saying that he doesn’t like white people. I’m saying he has a problem – he has a – this guy is, I believe, a racist. Look at the things that he has been surrounded by. Let’s look at his new green-jobs czar.
Now, what exactly was it that Obama said that brought Beck to this conclusion -- and which Murdoch claims was a "racist" thing for him to say? Well, he was talking about the Henry Louis Gates arrest:
Now, I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts what role race played in that, but I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry. Number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home and, number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. And that's just a fact.
As you know, Lynn, when I was in the state legislature in Illinois we worked on a racial profiling bill because there was indisputable evidence that blacks and hispanics were being stopped disproportionately. And that is a sign, an example of how, you know, race remains a factor in this society. That doesn't lessen the incredible progress that has been made. I am standing here as testimony to the progress that's been made. And yet, the fact of the matter is that, you know, this still haunts us. And even when there are honest misunderstandings, the fact that blacks and hispanics are picked up more frequently and often time for no cause cast suspicion even when there is good cause, and that's why I think the more that we're working with local law enforcement to improve policing techniques so that we're eliminating potential bias, the safer everybody's going to be.
And this was racist exactly how?
I suppose if you redefined "racism" to include "bringing up historically and factually accurate information about racist behavior of white people", then I suppose you could say that. I don't think we're there yet, but Rupert Murdoch is obviously working on it.
No matter how big his media empire, or how staunch his devotion to conservatism, Rupert Murdoch's enduring legacy is, from this day forward, that he brought to the world Glenn Beck boiling a handful of rubber frogs as a metaphor for "The American People."
Open Thread below....
The stupid, it hurts. From the LA Times- Glenn Beck and the Society for (In)sanity in Art:
Last night Fox News ranter Glenn Beck went off on the art made more than 70 years ago for Rockefeller Center, corporate headquarters of NBC and -- not coincidentally -- supposed arch-enemy of Rupert Murdoch's television empire. To the surprise of no one, but to the great amusement of the blogosphere (here, here and here) -- Beck donned his art critic's tin-foil conspiracy hat to find hidden evidence of "progressives, fascists and communists" in the carved reliefs and paintings of a landmark Manhattan building complex that was made a national historic monument in 1987. (Let's see; who was president that year? Oh, yeah: Commie-symp Ronald Reagan.)
How nutty did Beck get? As nutty as usual. He pointed to a portrait of Lenin in Mexican master Diego Rivera's destroyed Rockefeller lobby mural, "Man at the Crossroads," but forgot to mention that old John D. had the mural removed because of it. (Facts are stubborn things -- even more stubborn than demagoguery.) With comedy stylings like that, Beck is turning out to be the Harold Harby of our day.
Who was Harold Harby? A Los Angeles city councilman in the early 1950s, Harby took up propaganda-arms with a paranoid group of right-wing loonies called the Society for Sanity in Art. They made it their patriotic duty to search out Communist symbols they just knew were hidden in that weird, postwar abstract art.
And here he finishing up his rant about MSNBC.
Countdown's Worst Persons for Sept. 3, 2009 with winner double-talker Alberto Gonzales. Runners up those starting the "did Glenn Beck blank" rumors and Rupert Murdoch for putting Don Imus on Fox Business Channel.
WhyTF would David Gregory use a newspaper that is the lowest form of journalism tabloid crap when it comes to politics? Rupert Murdoch's pet paper is a conservative teabaggers' guide to Crazyland and NOBODY takes them seriously in any way.
ESPN even cut off their sports reporters because the NY POST published nude pictures of Erin Andrews when she had her privacy violated and every other publication chose not to do so. It infuriated ESPN so much that they refused to put any of them on the air.
ESPN retaliated Wednesday against the New York Post for its decision to use still images of Erin Andrews from a surreptitiously obtained videotape, banning Post staffers from its various outlets, including its TV networks and 1050 ESPN Radio.
"In light of the New York Post's decision to run graphic photos of ESPN reporter Erin Andrews, we have decided to stop utilizing Post reporters on any of our outlets," ESPN's senior VP of communications, Chris LaPlaca said.
It's infuriating that the Sunday Talk Shows repeatedly will quote conservative columnists like Kristol, Brooks, Will and Krauthammer and ask a Democratic guest to respond. Rarely does a David Gregory reverse that and read a headline or column from a liberal columnist like a Rick Perlstein. EVER. The talking heads do their best to elevate conservative beliefs and transmitters to the highest status possible to the American public.
UPDATE: Glenn Greenwald dedicates an entire column to make the point that the beltway weenies always blame the left for everything. No matter how many Blue Dogs and Baucus Dogs block health care, it's still our fault.
The prevailing Beltway wisdom has now ossified that the problem with the health care debate is that those hardened Leftist ideologues cling childishly and petulantly to their little "public option" fetish and their refusal to give it up is jeopardizing enactment of a reform bill. Just see The Washington Post Editorial Page, Post columnist Steve Pearlstein and Joe Klein -- and especially the below-documented behavior from Newsweek's Jonathan Alter -- this week blaming The Left, as always, for their childish extremism in the health care debate. As always, the obedient servitude of Blue Dogs and "centrists" to the industries that own Congress aren't obstructionist at all.
Somehow, the refusal of Blue Dogs to vote for a plan with a "public option" isn't impeding anything; there's no reason they should give anything up, because they're just being moderate and "centrist." As always, the way things should be done in Washington is that the proper scorn should be heaped on The Left until they're bullied into giving up what they believe so that Things Can Get Done (i.e., so that corporate dictates can be fulfilled)...read on
Countdown's Worst Persons for August 3, 2009 with winner Rupert Murdoch. Runners up Bill O'Reilly and Brian Stelter.
[Note: I confirmed earlier today that my interview with Anderson Cooper regarding "lone wolf" violence will air on AC360 tonight, so be sure to catch it on CNN.]
When that Homeland Security bulletin on right-wing extremism was issued two months, C&L was among the first to point out the report's complete factual accuracy. In retrospect, there are some methodological issues with the bulletin, which Leonard Zeskind ably limns; and the report's political framing unfortunately left it open to political attack.
Yet, as we've seen this week, it was clearly prescient in warning about the dangers posed by lone wolves and small-cell terrorists. Shepard Smith notwithstanding, everyone at Fox has been pushing hard to convince the public once again the DHS report was wrong. Next: Rupert Murdoch is the King of the Moon.
Among them: Neil Cavuto yesterday on his daily Fox News program. He invited a Gulf War vet named Matthew Burden on to talk about how wrong the report was. This produced some real howlers.
Burden: Well, first of all, this report was poorly written, and it was a completely unprovoked attack on our veterans.
Well, regardless of its literary qualities, the report in fact was not only perfectly accurate -- it was in fact issued largely in response to the shooting of three police officers in by a right-wing extremist Pittsburgh the week prior. Moreover, the warning raised regarding veterans was strictly about the effort by right-wing extremist groups, particularly neo-Nazi organizations, to recruit returning veterans -- a fact that had already been long established.
Finally, it must be pointed out that the DHS report in fact accurately predicted that the most significant domestic-terrorism threat Americans faced was going to come from "lone wolf" and small-cell terrorists motivated by right-wing extremism. Not that Neil or his guest ever bother to discuss this point.
Cavuto: I always wonder if -- the prior administration had said the exact same thing, you know, how differently that might have been treated.
Good question, Neil -- because, as Catherine Herridge and Shepard Smith reported on Fox they did say "the exact same thing" -- this report was in fact commissioned by the Bush administration.
So we wonder, indeed, how this would have been reported if any of the rest of Greater Wingnuttia had bothered to report that fact as well?
Most of all, Cavuto wants to emphasize the portion of the report that discussed veterans -- but ignores the fact that most right-wingers were outraged not just over that portion, but over what they saw as conflation of right-wing extremists with their own mainstream conservatism. Of course, what they mostly were intent on doing was futilely scrubbing to get that nasty right-wing extremist stain out.
Fortunately, all you had to do was switch the channel to MSNBC to get a reasonable and intelligent discussion of the DHS memo between Mark Potok of the SPLC and Keith Olbermann:
Now, that's what I call a conspiracy theory: Andrew Breitbart told Glenn Beck on Friday that he thinks that Oprah Winfrey is the real power behind the Obama throne:
Breitbart: Well, this doesn’t surprise me. Does it surprise you? This is the Oprah Winfrey presidency. She was his biggest supporter, and I think that she’s been behind the scenes orchestrating this presidency as a media presidency, photo ops, giving billions of dollars of gifts away to people and to companies like General Electric, and until the mainstream media starts realizing --
Beck: Wait a minute. Are you suggesting that Barack Obama walks into a room and goes, "GE CEOs, look under your seat!"
Breitbart: I think that's exactly what it is.
Beck: You've got a bailout. Is that what you're suggesting?
Breitbart: That's exactly what I'm suggesting. It is the Oprah Winfrey presidency.
You know, it's funny: Fox never featured hosts who were upset about Fox' cozy relationships with the Republicans who made Rupert Murdoch's massive American media acquisitions possible for the past decade.
It never featured reports or talk-show hosts who even talked about former GE CEO Jack Welch's cozy relationship with the GOP and the Bush administration earlier this decade.
Evidently, they only object to such political coziness when Democrats do it. OK, we got that.
But what, exactly, does Oprah have to do with GE? The only business connection is that NBC bought Oxygen, the network Oprah cofounded, in 2007. But GE does not own Oprah's production company or have much of a relationship. (Her long-running TV show is distributed through King World Productions, a CBS operation.)
These people having been breathing some kind of exhaust and it's messing with their heads. Probably their own.
Of course, in the case of Breitbart, he's just being his usual a-hole self. Nothing new there.
Now that Joe's run away, do we have to re-shoot The Wingnut Family photo?
First row seated (L - R): Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck.
Second row standing (L - R): Joe the Quitter, Rupert Murdoch, Brit Hume.
Open Thread below....
Countdown's Worst Person segment for April 29, 2009 with winners Michelle Bachmann, Rupert Murdoch and Virginia Foxx.
From AmericaBlog on Foxx:
The House Republican chosen to lead the charge against including women, people with disabilities, and gays in America's already-existing hate crimes law - existing law already counts violent crime based on the race, religion or national origin of the victim as a "hate crime" - just referred on the US House floor to Matthew Shepard's murder as "a hoax."
You will recall that Matthew Shepard was the young gay man in Laramie, Wyoming who, a decade ago, was tied to a fence, Jesus-like, pistol whipped in the head some 50 times, then left for dead in the cold fall night, only to be found a day later clinging to life. Shepard died five days later. Even though Shepard's murderers admitted that they killed him because he was gay, the far-right bigots who control the Republican party couldn't resist the opportunity to gay-bash Shepard one last time. Now by referring to his brutal murder as a hoax.
[...]
Watch the video for yourself. Then feel free to call this sorry excuse for a human being and tell her what you think of her bigotry.
Phone: (202) 225-2071
Phone: (336) 778-0211
Phone: (828) 265-0240
Keith's Worst Person for March 12 with winners Rupert Murdoch, Victoria Jackson and Newt Gingrich.
