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

DOWNLOADS: 1122

PLAYS: 439

(Communists were thought to be everywhere, even comic books)

When we think about paranoia, conspiracy theories and black helicopters today, we think this is a relatively new phenomenon.

Sad to say, no. During the 1950s we were knee-deep in the Red Scare, the all-pervasive paranoia, the trigger-happy finger on the doomsday scenario.

It's no small wonder anti-depressants became popular around this time. It's also no small wonder people drank themselves into comas on an almost daily basis. You would too if you had to endure that much rampant distrust of your fellow human being - convinced every other person was hiding secret marching orders from The Kremlin.

Nasty times.

And so in 1955, one of the hot topics of discussion on mainstream media was just how much freedom Americans were losing, and were we in danger of losing it completely? Was the U.S. Government overrun with Communist subversives, poised to take over at the appointed time?

Then as now, a lot of the hysteria was media manufactured, pumped up by fringe element alarmists bent on scaring the crap out of people. Sending them, terror-stricken for comforting answers.

And as Senator Hubert Humphrey pointed out during the interview:

Sen. Hubert Humphrey: “ I think there are a number of people who would like to have the American people believe that the government is infiltrated by disloyal people and subversives and security risks and that isn’t a fact either. The Government employees are, as a group far above the average employee in the country. They’ve been screened, re-screened and double screened as to their security and as to their loyalty. I do feel however, that there’s been far too much demagoguery about the so-called security risks, the so-called numbers game. Many people have been dismissed from employment that were not disloyal at all. But just were unsuitable employees and then they’ve been tabulated as security risks. I think the sooner we get down to taking a look at our loyalty security program as citizens rather than as partisans, as members of Congress rather than as Republicans or Democrats, the better we’re going to be off and the better the country’s going to be off. We need security and freedom and we can have both.”

Despite the claims and facts to the contrary, the witch hunt kept right on pointing fingers and accusing. And the alarmists kept right on sowing hysteria.

Not much has changed in retrospect. Only the enemy.

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

DOWNLOADS: (1787)

PLAYS: (1532)

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

Fair use is allowed for:

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.

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

DOWNLOADS: 30

PLAYS: 15

(I.F. Stone and friend - even in 1958 the Liberal Media was a myth)

Our news media has gone through countless changes since this interview was conducted in 1958. It was before the days of "breaking news" 24 hour news cycles, Satellite feeds, cable and instant access. It was also the days before media conglomerates, info-tainment and reality TV.

But even in 1958 there were problems. Newspapers at the time were still the main source for getting news, with radio a close second. Most major city newspapers published twice a day. But even with that, a lot of stories just weren't covered. A lot of news items were downplayed and only given cursory mention, usually towards the back of a paper with one or two lines.

This program, part of the Open Mind series featured interviews with prominent newspaper figures of the time. Herbert Brucker, who was chairman of the Freedom of Information Committee of the American Society of Newspaper Editors. William J. Miller, chief Editorial writer for the New York Herald Tribune, and I.F. Stone, publisher of I.F. Stone's Weekly. . .

I.F. Stone: “I think the three things wrong with the American press, a very good press I think. Better than that of most countries, except perhaps England. They have a very good press. The three things wrong with it are these – first of all, as soon as you get away from the Eastern seaboard, there are very few papers in this country that run enough news matter to make possible a considered judgment on public affairs. The average city daily does not run enough news, that’s the first big criticism of it. Second thing is the newspapers, and to a greater degree radio and television are adjuncts of advertisers. Advertisers object to ideas that might disturb anybody. So there’s a tendency, not to spread wicked ideas or bad ideas, but no ideas. So as not to upset any possible customer. And the third thing is, that since it takes a lot of money to own a newspaper, except a small one like mine, most publishers are Republicans.”

So even in 1958 all was not rosy with the media. And the factors in that discontent seem to be the same, despite protests to the contrary.

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

DOWNLOADS: 1097

PLAYS: 840

(Republican angst - hand wringing is timeless)

As the election returns poured in proclaiming Harry Truman the surprise winner in 1948 (much to the dismay of the Mainstream Media, who had declared Thomas Dewey, the Republican candidate, the winner by a landslide, even before votes were counted), a stunned Republican Party wondered aloud if this spelled the end of the GOP.

Clearly, history proved otherwise, but in 1948 it was the subject of much gnashing of teeth, weeping and soul searching on behalf of pundits and party members alike.

On December of 1948, a few weeks after the stunning upset, The University of Chicago Round Table hosted a panel discussing the subject "Is the Republican Party Over?". The panel featured Senators Raymond E. Baldwin (R - Conn.), Ralph E. Flanders (R- Vermont) and Congressman Clifford Hope (R-Kansas). The moderator Robert Horn set the tone:

Robert Horn: “I am a Republican and I am disturbed about the future of the Republican Party. After the shock of the election, I am beginning to wonder like millions of others what the future holds for the Republican Party or whether it has any future. This year marked the fifth consecutive defeat for Republican Presidential candidates. This Presidential election was the closest one since 1916. But Governor Dewey in 1948 received fewer votes than he got in 1944, although more votes were cast this year than in 1944. And Republican Congressional candidates generally ran below Dewey this year. In fact, Governor Dewey received only 600,000 more votes than Herbert Hoover received in 1928, although there are many more million potential and actual voters now than there were twenty years ago. Moreover, this fifth consecutive defeat means that the Republicans by 1952 will be out of the White House for the longest time that either the Democrats or the Republicans have been out of power since the end of the Civil War. The Republicans can no longer claim to be the majority part of the country. Many people are saying that unless the Republican Party changes it will die. If I were a Democrat I would also be disturbed about the future of the Republican Party.”

The obvious difference between the Republican Party of 1948 and the Republican Party of 2009 is the absence of the lunatic fringe then, which today appears to be driving away all those sane and moderate voices that would otherwise aid in the healing process and perhaps steer the party in a constructive direction.

Nothing like that appears to be anywhere on the horizon I'm afraid.

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

DOWNLOADS: 35

PLAYS: 17

(VP Spiro Agnew - ran around threatening revoked FCC licenses)

At the height of the war between the White House and the Media, The National Press Club ran a panel discussion featuring Bill Monroe of NBC News, Ben Bagdikian and Fred Friendly of CBS. Members of the White House Communications staff were invited; Herb Klein, Pat Buchanan and Dean Burch, but declined. The subject was The Media and The Administration and a few interesting myths were put to rest.

Ben Bagdikian: “The fact is, that the press of this country is overwhelmingly conservative and Republican. We are in danger of not enough criticism of government, not too much. Most of the new that leaves this town (D.C.) is pretty much what public officials say, with not enough time and energy put into testing the validity of what they say. It’s only human that a public official wants it that way, but it happens to be lousy journalism and bad for democracy. Now Democrats weren’t in love with the press either in their time. And we shouldn’t expect to be loved. We dish it out and we ought to be able to take it when it’s given back to us. But when it comes to the press, I think there’s a difference between Republicans and Democrats. The Republicans have had a sympathetic press for so long and in so many places, that they now regard any departure from this as a theft of a natural right. Now it’s not really the Republicans fault either. It’s the fault of the majority of papers in this country who’ve conditioned their local conservative readers to believe that it is the natural born duty of every publication to support Republicans. Let me be specific: a paper’s endorsing a Presidential candidate in 1968, 80% endorsed Nixon, which is about what it’s been with one exception, for Republican candidates in every Presidential race in this generation. And its not just the small town papers. Endorsement by circulation size is about the same percentage. And if we’re talking about a press out of step, how about 80% for Nixon, while the readers vote 43 ½% for Nixon?”

Bagdikian says pretty much what most everyone felt, even as far back as 1972. The idea that mainstream media is a bastion of liberal thought is really a myth cooked up by the GOP. And it's plain to see this myth still holds true today, even more so.

It's interesting to note that the systematic dismantling of network news departments and FCC regulations being abandoned really started with the Nixon administration. It's only been the past 20 odd years we've actually witnessed the long-term effects of those massacres.

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

DOWNLOADS: 22

PLAYS: 22

(Tyranny Of Teenagers in 1963 - Forever going to hell in a handbasket)

A few months ago I ran a post about the supposed "teenage problem" in 1953, hosted by Justice William O. Douglas which included the collective shoulder shrug that "kids today are just messed up". Ten years later, in 1963, kids were still messed up.

Strange to think these perceived out-of-control hormone cases are now the parents and grandparents of the current crop of perceived malcontents. But some things just never change.

In 1963 the current events panel program The Open Mind tried, in their own mainstream media way, to examine just what was going wrong with the youth in America.

And so heading up the panel were Al Capp, creator of the Lil' Abner comic strip of the 1940's and 50s, Grace Hechinger, whose book "Teenage Tyranny" was the basis for the panel, and singer Paul Anka, who represented "the kids".

Anka confesses he knew nothing about the premise of the panel and denied he fit into the perceived mold since he was a: Canadian and b: no longer a teenager.

Rather than stop the panel dead in its tracks, they muddled on with Anka trying to maintain a respectful distance while Capp yucked it up with a stream of pithy anti-kid sayings.

Al Capp: “I must say I enjoy music for teenagers and uh . . . I don’t understand it, I don’t understand the fascination of teenagers with death, for instance. Most of their songs concern themselves with a sudden a violent death with the beloved who is 14 ½ years old and has stolen his fathers car and rammed it into a wall. Isn’t there a song that’s sort of like that?

Paul Anka: “That’s one of a million. If you go back a little further, I think it was the day of the balladeers the songs were more tragic. That’s how your music and poetry started. Your balladeer. I mean if you read, and I’m sure you have and remembered the minstrel that wandered through Sherwood Forest . . Robin Hood, which is now a commercial selling point, not due to the teenagers . . we won’t go into that either. But this guy sang about death and John Brown’s baby being swallowed by a dragon, I mean this is worse than the . . . .

Al Capp: “Yeah but the . . . you can talk about death in the words of Shakespeare or Shelley or you can talk about death in the language of Tin-Pan alley. One – the poet makes death a noble and immense event. Tin-Pan Alley makes death an incident on which to base some frivolous little lament, so the subject isn’t important, it’s the treatment of it and I think the treatment of poetry in teenage music is abysmal.”

And it slides downhill from there.

The panel is interesting and funny in its quaint way with Hechinger maintaining a position that is probably best described as archaic, even by 1963's standards. Capp epitomizes what became known as the Generation Gap and it's clear to see why the 60s were as combative as they became.

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

DOWNLOADS: (1008)

PLAYS: (2829)

I went on Countdown last night to chat with Lawrence O'Donnell -- who was filling in for Keith Olbermann -- about Bill Clinton's remarks the other day about the never-ending bloodlust of the "vast right-wing conspiracy".

O'Donnell was critical of Clinton for suggesting that the power of the conspiracy was less today than what he faced -- and regarding that aspect of Clinton's remarks, I agree with him. The reality, as I explained in the segment, is that the spread and reach of the really virulent wingnuttery that plagued Clinton -- the black-helicopter conspiracy theories like Mena, or the Vince Foster suicide, or the Clinton Body Count -- was largely relegated, until later in his tenure, to the fringes of the militia movement.

Obama, by contrast, is not even through his first year as president and he's already being plagued by Birthers and Tenthers and Teabaggers and Death Panels (along with, of course, the obligatory "He's Going To Grab Our Guns" conspiracies).

And it's true, moreover, the Clinton is right that the country has changed demographically since he was president, which means they do not possess the actual political power they held during much of his tenure. But they've made up for the lack of power with a much deeper reach into the mainstream. I dunno about you, but it sure looks to me like the Teabaggers are the new Patriots -- and there's a hell of a lot more of them.

Perhaps more to the point, they've already demonstrated -- by at least temporarily derailing the debate over health-care reform with wingnutty distractions like the "death panels" and the gun-brandishing nutcases showing up at health-care town hall forums -- that they continue to have an outsize influence on the national discourse. Especially because of Fox News and the rest of the mainstream media's willingness to be bullied by them -- led, as always, by the wise media poobahs of the Beltway Village.

That is -- and you can file this under the L'esprit de l'escalier Dept., since I meant to say it in this segment -- what they lack in power they've more than made up for by continuing to pull the media reins and shape the national discourse. They're able to move the media needles still -- which is, of course, the problem. The Village gives movement conservatives far more respect than they deserve, especially at this juncture, with the movement fully in the hands of nutty populist demagogues.

Glenn Beck is as popular as he is because everyone in the "mainstream" is too busy running fawning puff pieces to point out his actual extremism. No one has the guts to explain that these people are driving the Republicans over a cliff into political oblivion.

In The Eliminationists, I do talk a lot about how vicious the campaign against Clinton got to be -- and how many bridges and alliances were built between the far right and mainstream conservatives during those years as a result, particularly in the way right-wing talkers started picking up and transmitting memes from the far right.

Finally, I should add that, while I disagree with Clinton on this point, I generally agreed with the overall thrust of his recent comments, particularly his warning that the "conspiracy" (as it were) remains a potent force, capable of undermining Obama's presidency in unexpected ways. One can't help but suspect that Obama has been naive on this front -- how many times does he have to reach out to Republicans and come back with a chewed-up hand to get it? -- and I suspect Clinton intended to point out the cold reality. To which I can only add: Hear! Hear!

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

DOWNLOADS: 48

PLAYS: 12

(John Daly - insisted on calling Hunter S. Thompsons writing style "Bongo Journalism")

In lieu of the recent Senate Bill that questions validity of citizen bloggers, I went back to a National Town Meeting broadcast from 1974 to hear what the status of the media was then. It wasn't that much better, particularly if you were judged to be in the "alternative media" which meant the Underground press back then. However, in all fairness, in 1974 Broadcast news departments were ten times the size they are now. The hours spent on documentaries and special news programming was huge and newspapers offered a plethora of in-depth reports and daily investigative journalism. Unrecognizable from what they are today.

The panel on this broadcast consisted of Pat Buchanan, Richard Harwood of The Washington Post, Richard Goodwin of Rolling Stone and Thomas Asher of the Media Access Project. The program was moderated (and somewhat mangled) by , former newscaster for ABC and CBS, game show host and professional personality.

The subject was "Critiquing The Media" and of course Buchanan spends much time railing against the injustices of the "librul media" and complaining about imbalance. This coming from a man who was deeply entrenched in the Nixon White House.

The subject of Hunter S. Thompson comes up and that's when Daly lets his disconnect be known. Unable to say the words "gonzo Journalism" he insists on a variation of either Bongo and Bonzo Journalism and dismisses it, as does Buchanan who dismisses Rolling Stone in general as no representation of actual news reporting - the only news to be had was from The New York Times or The Washington Post and perhaps Time Magazine.

Richard Goodwin: “I’m not in favor of fictional journalism, and the headline I gave an example, is not intended as fiction, but as fact. I think one of the problems that you have is, even use of the word fact and what constitutes a fact. You’re talking about convictions, attitudes, opinions, judgments. These aren’t facts in the sense that a glass of water is a fact. They require that you impose your own judgment. Somebody says something; is he lying, does he mean it, is it true? And simply to say that he said it, in itself is an assertion, at least to the people who read it, that perhaps or probably what he said is true. It’s a fact that he said it, but he may not be speaking facts or the truth. And unfortunately, most things, most interesting or complicated things in the world are not very, it’s not often easy to decide what the facts are without bringing to it a set of values and personal convictions. And if you withdraw from that you allow those who make the presentation to you to determine what the truth is . . .”

Continue reading »

I always knew that the media would find a way to turn back to right-wing ideology after America voted out the conservatives who almost destroyed the country and the financial global economy. But I didn't know they would use a minor story like ACORN as their catalyst.

You know how the WaPost feels about liberals who complain, don't you? This is very troubling indeed. Apparently the Washington Post thinks it should be paying more attention to the crazed rantings of Glenn Beck and incorporate it into their news coverage.

Now you understand what we'll be up against the rest of Obama's term:

Conservative bloggers and commentators know how to turn up the heat on mainstream media. Glenn Beck did it one day last week on his Fox News program. Theatrically unhinged, he directed viewers to call their local newspaper and demand coverage of ACORN, the national community action group targeted in an embarrassing hidden video sting.

"Right now, get off the couch. While I'm talking, you pick up the phone. You call the newspaper," he commanded. If ACORN hasn't been on the front page, or if the paper isn't investigating the group's local activities, "then what the hell are they good for?"

Shortly, The Post and other papers were flooded with angry calls and e-mails.

It's tempting to dismiss such gimmicks. Fox News, joined by right-leaning talk radio and bloggers, often hypes stories to apocalyptic proportions while casting competitors as too liberal or too lazy to report the truth.

But they're also occasionally pumping legitimate stories. I thought that was the case with ACORN and, before it, the Fox-fueled controversy that led to the resignation of White House environmental adviser Van Jones.
{}

Post Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli said he worries "that we are not well-enough informed about conservative issues. It's particularly a problem in a town so dominated by Democrats and the Democratic point of view."

To guard against it, he said, "I challenge our reporters and editors with great frequency to look at what is going on across the political spectrum . . . at the extremes, among the rabble-rousers, as well as among policymakers." He said he pressed the National desk this week to provide more ACORN coverage.

The Post does not survey its staff to determine its ideological makeup.

The most authoritative recent research into the political leanings of newsrooms (including television, radio, magazines and wire services) shows they are considerably more liberal than the general public. At daily newspapers, those who "lean to the left still far outnumber those who lean to the right," said Indiana University journalism professor David H. Weaver, whose researchers surveyed 1,149 journalists in 2002 and recently conducted a follow-up study of 400.

A recent Pew Research nationwide survey said only 26 percent of those questioned believe news organizations try to protect against political bias, while 60 percent said news organizations are biased.

Beck is more provocateur than newsman. And Fox caters to conservatives. Working in concert, they and other right-leaning media have a large audience. Beck averages 2.25 million viewers.

The Post should follow its own news standards, not theirs. But it should pay attention to what they report.

The pseudo-elites who sit atop the media dogpile do think that conservatives represent the one true America, so they've found another reason to justify their actions and will submit to the new Matt Drudge of the right, Glenn Beck.

Please read the article thoroughly and then contact Andrew Alexander at 202-334-7582 or at ombudsman@washpost.com.

Please be civil and articulate.

Digby writes a lot more on this issue:

The methods of dissemination are the same as they ever were. They push the "scandal" through the right wing noise machine, work the refs hard (which isn't hard to do because the villagers are convinced that the right wing represents "Real America") and they create the illusion that something "doesn't pass the smell test." Here, we see that the wingnuts have convinced the Washington Post that "something is wrong," that the "Van Jones story" was a huge deal which they failed to cover and that they need to be more vigilant about ferreting out these important issues.

Continue reading »

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

DOWNLOADS: (58)

PLAYS: (96)

From Democracy Now:

A group of Iraqi labor leaders are here in the United States trying to bring international attention to the lack of a basic labor law in Iraq guaranteeing the right to unionize without repression. Although the United States has scrapped several Saddam Hussein-era laws since the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq, a 1987 law banning unions in all public-sector workplaces remains in place. Last week the AFL-CIO adopted a resolution defending Iraqi labor rights. We speak to Iraqi labor leaders Rasim Awadi and Falah Alwan.

Once again, Amy Goodman is covering the stories the mainstream media won't touch. Most of their coverage of Iraq has fallen completely off the map. I'm glad to see the AFL-CIO getting involved in trying to do something to make these people's lives better after we went over there and blew up their country.

AMY GOODMAN: We turn now to Iraq, where Vice President Biden recently pressed Iraqi leaders to enact further regulatory and financial protections to make Iraq more attractive to foreign investors. Speaking to Iraqi officials in Baghdad’s Green Zone last week, Biden called for the Iraqi Parliament to adopt laws to offer more incentives on oil concessions. He also noted the Iraq Business and Investment Conference in Washington next month could encourage private US investment in the country.

Well, as the Vice President was in Iraq promoting privatization last week, a group of Iraqi labor leaders were here in the United States attending the AFL-CIO convention, trying to bring international attention to the lack of basic labor law in Iraq guaranteeing the right to unionize without repression.

Although the United States has scrapped several Saddam Hussein-era laws since the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq, a 1987 law banning unions in all public-sector workplaces remains in place.

The AFL-CIO adopted a resolution defending Iraqi labor rights last week, and US Labor Against the War is urging Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to press the Iraqi government to protect labor rights.

You can watch the rest of the interview and read the transcript at Democracy Now's web site.

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

DOWNLOADS: (127)

PLAYS: (515)

The panel discussion from this week's Real Time with Bill Maher on the media's constant quest for false balance and pretending there are always two equally valid sides to every issue. This is something that any of us who monitor the cable news daily nonsense already know but it was nice to hear some of these things said aloud for once.

Too many of the talking heads on television are nothing but out of work political consultants. They want a left and right person to battle it out for ratings instead of bringing in people who are actually knowledgeable on a subject. They give cranks equal weight in a debate when they deserve to be dismissed rather than given air time, and they confuse balance for accuracy.

The media has done their best to dumb down the American electorate which unfortunately doesn't always need any help in that department, and as Bill points out, sadly they're doing a good job.

Thom Hartmann talks to Jeremy Scahill about his run in with Chuck Todd on Real Time with Bill Maher this past Friday.

Maybe it's just me, but I think we're hurtling towards a Howard Beale moment between the blogosphere (the *new* media) and the mainstream media. You have cozy little holidays between politicos and the "journalists" scheduled to interview them like George's tweet above, oblivious to the appearance of conflict. And you have DFH bloggers trying to explain to corporate journos like Marc Ambinder, Chuck Todd and Joe Klein that we actually do know what we're talking about and moreover, we're correct more often than they are, much to their consternation. With the ridiculousness that passes for top stories, how much longer will it be before we all collectively yell out that we're not going to take it any more?

Aside from the aforementioned lovefest between Georgie and McCain, the same ol' complainers are on: Grassley on Face The Nation; Orrin Hatch on Meet the Press and Lieberman on State of the Union. Ironically, the death of newspapers is the subject of The Chris Matthews Show. Betcha not one of the journalists will accept responsibility for the demise because of their abdication of their journalistic integrity.

ABC's "This Week" - Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

CBS' "Face the Nation" - Sens. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Kent Conrad, D-N.D.; former national Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean.

NBC's "Meet the Press" - Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.; Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Karl Eikenberry, U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan.

NBC's "The Chris Matthews Show" - Panel: Bob Woodward, Tina Brown, Gloria Borger and Joe Klein. Topics: Can America survive without newspapers? Will online news fill the void? When city papers fold, who's going to watch City Hall? Meter Questions: Will outspoken fringe players dominate GOP for the rest of Obama's term? YES: 9 NO: 3; If unemployment is still high next year, will Obama revise his tax proposals? YES: 11 No: 1.

CNN's "State of the Union" - Mullen; Eikenberry; Sens. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and Ben Cardin, D-Md.; Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo.

CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS" - Encore presentation of Fareed's Emmy nominated interview with China's Premier Wen Jiabao. Plus, the always interesting Malcolm Gladwell tells us how to get to Carnegie Hall and more.

"Fox News Sunday" - Jim Towey, president of Saint Vincent College and former director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives; Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa.; Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis.; Tammy Duckworth, an assistant Veterans Affairs secretary.

So, what's catching your eye this morning?

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

DOWNLOADS: (3466)

PLAYS: (23358)

Chuck Todd got called out on Real Time by Jeremy Scahill for calling investigations into torture "political catnip". Apparently Todd has taken no lessons from his back and forth with Glenn Greenwald on the issue since he was still as defensive as ever when someone with well more than an ounce of journalistic integrity calls him out for his lack of it.

Todd went on Morning Joe defending Cheney, and Glenn Greenwald ripped him for the same thing Scahill took him to task for on Real Time:

NBC's Chuck Todd -- who, remember, is billed as a reporter covering the White House, not a pundit expressing opinions -- was on MSNBC's Morning Joe on Tuesday discussing reports that Eric Holder is likely to appoint a prosecutor to investigate Bush torture crimes. Needless to say, everyone agreed without question that investigations were a ridiculous distraction from what really matters and would be terribly unfair. This, along with Mika Brzezinski and Pat Buchanan, is what Todd argued after he was asked about the Holder story and the Cheney/CIA story (video is below):

Todd: Look, let's take all of these stories in one big thing: really, the only important thing -- the most important thing -- the President has to focus on is getting the public's trust on the economy, and pushing health care. Cheney, the CIA, and in some respects Sotomayor are cable catnip --

Brzezinski: Yep.

Todd: It's news catnip - but they're sort of clouding the two most important issues the President's got to get his arms around this week: winning back trust of the middle on the economy and pushing health care through.

Brzezinski: I would completely agree with you, yet the questions are being raised by news organizations like the New York Times. Pat Buchanan, chime in, because as I've been reporting [sic], and I'll say it for Chuck's benefit here: speaking to a former senior intelligence official yesterday on the phone for quite some time, saying that this program that Cheney was apparently blocking the CIA from giving Congressional intelligence officials information on, was not even a program -- it was not operational -- it was not even at the stage where you would tell Congress about it or talk to high-level administration officials about it.

Is this much ado about nothing to get the attention off what needs to be done?

Buchanan: Well it's exactly what Chuck said, it's a massive distraction . . . . Let me ask Chuck this: it seems to me you got a real problem for the administration if you go forward at Holder's level --

Todd: Right.

Buchanan: and they appoint a Special Counsel, the first thing the CIA guys do is say is: yeah, we did it; we waterboarded them; and here's the authorization from these lawyers who said we could do it --- the lawyers come in and say we were asked for our opinion and Cheney was the guy who asked us, and the President told us to go ahead and do it. Aren't you right into the White House of the Bush administration as soon as you appoint that independent counsel?

Todd: And I think that's why, in the President's gut, he doesn't want to do this. They've made that clear they don't want to do this. I think that's what you see a lot of the West Wing -- they don't want to get into this because of what you're saying.

Ultimately, a lawyer gets paid to not tell you what the law is -- but to interpret the law, to tell you how far you can push things until you cross a line that a judge will say is illegal. That's what lawyers get paid to do: they get paid to interpret the law, and interpret the law in a way that allows you to stretch things.

You are on a slippery slope - this is a very dangerous aspect to go after, because these CIA guys will say, as you said Pat, we got the letter from these lawyers in the Bush Justice Department that said we can do this. You can't suddenly change the law retroactively because there's another interpretation of this. I'm sure there are a legal minds that will fight and say I don't know what I'm talking about here, but it seems to me that's a legal and a political slippery slope.

This is about as typical a discussion as it gets among media stars as to why investigations are so very, very wrong and unfair and unwise. Still, this discussion in particular vividly highlights several important points worth noting about the role of the establishment media.

Todd later tried to defend himself by doing an interview with Glenn as anyone who reads this blog may recall. Todd didn't fare much better with Scahill on Real Time and was making the same sorry arguments that Glenn already ripped him apart on. Heaven forbid that might stop him from doing it again with an audience that probably had no idea what Scahill was talking about.

It's always enjoyable to me watching these beltway bobble heads who are in love with cozying up to power have to answer to someone who is not, and who actually wants some real reporting to take place, and to see how they react. I look forward to reading Glenn Greenwald's response to Todd's statements tonight if he decides it's worth taking the time to write about.

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

DOWNLOADS: 296

PLAYS: 10

(Sen. Claude Pepper - withstood many attempts at mud-slinging)

It's always interesting (and sometimes gratifying) to hear Sunday Morning talk shows from the past, just as a way of reminding yourself things were never as bad as they are now with mainstream media.

Case in point is certainly Meet The Press. Originally begun in 1946 as a feature on the Mutual Broadcast System Radio Network before switching to NBC in 1947, it was the brainchild of Martha Rountree and Lawrence Spivak and produced in association with American Mercury Magazine (of which Spivak was Publisher), Meet The Press pulled no punches and offered some serious grilling to whatever guest happened to be invited on. It prided itself in not asking canned questions and sometimes the results were newsworthy in themselves.

This episode, from November 27, 1947 features Senator Claude Pepper (D-Florida), himself an outspoken FDR Democrat, talking about our Post-war foreign aid policy and what needed to be done about it in view of the increasing presence of Communism in Eastern Europe.

Sen. Claude Pepper: “I’m in favor of spreading democracy in every part of the world. But there are many ways to spread democracy. You can’t cram democracy down the throats of people. And you can’t buy them off from Communism. We haven’t got enough money to buy the people of the world off from Communism. The best way, in my opinion, to spread democracy is to establish democracy so firmly here, that we’ll be able to propagate it to all nations and peoples of the world, we’ll be able to help them, we’ll set them a good example and the like . . not to buy them or cram it down their throats. . .

Lawrence Spivak: “ . . but certainly Senator we oughtn’t help those who are spreading totalitarianism . . or should we?

Pepper: Mister Spivak, we and the Communists have been living in this world a good many years together. Karl Marx started talking about Communism as you know in the last century. And it seems to me that unless we are willing to be blown to some other world to get away from a world where communism exists, we’ve got to live in a world with Communism. And they’ve got to live in a world with Capitalism. And the sensible thing to do is to learn to live together. We’ve got to live together whether we like it or not.”

Needless to say, Pepper didn't endear himself to the right wing fear mongers in the Senate, who nicknamed him "Red Pepper" and repeatedly attempted to smear him during the 1950's.

Times have changed - so have the people and so have the politicians.