Bias Against Democrats

Fox Is News, Bad News

davidswanson — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:04:16 -0400

By David Swanson

As someone who believes the producers of Fox News should be behind bars for promoting illegal wars and instigating domestic violence, and as someone who advocates never watching it, I feel compelled to speak up against the notion that Fox News is not a news outlet.

Now, Fox News does little investigative reporting. Mostly it chitters and chatters and re-processes. Nor does it stick with reliable information. It intentionally lies and distorts. It also screams and yells, demonizes and infantilizes. But these behaviors just make Fox News a small-time and untrustworthy news outlet that degrades the content and the form of our public discourse. These are not the reasons being widely offered for the declaration that Fox is not a news outlet at all.

To make that claim, we are being told that Fox News has an agenda and engages in activism. But every news outlet has an agenda, and I would like nothing more than to see the better ones engage in activism. Fox is owned by an international corporation, and generates xenophobic rallies against "socialistic fascism." This raises serious questions of foreign interference in our politics as well as pathetic ironies and sad hilarities. But, the central objection seems to be that Fox News has a right-wing agenda opposed by most Americans. That is true enough, and I almost always oppose Fox's agenda quite passionately. That more majoritarian agendas are not advanced by any major television networks is a severe defect in our system, not evidence of what constitutes real news.

The non-Fox television networks that we do have, with a few satellite, cable, and online exceptions, have agendas that are not terribly far removed from that of Fox. When Fox tells you to go out and rally against healthcare and explains what votes are coming up in Congress, it is doing something MORE democratic than what ABC News does when it reports on Congressional votes after the fact, explains them from the same corporate viewpoint as Fox, and makes clear that citizens are in no way involved in the process.

One of the best summaries of the "Fox is not news" argument is found in Adele Stan's "8 Reasons Fox Is Not a News Organization" on Alternet. This is an intelligent argument from a talented writer on an excellent news site. But it is a news site with an agenda and a great deal of admirable and beneficial advocacy of activism. And I wouldn't want it any other way. Stan writes:

"Setting Fox apart from the two other cable news networks is its ownership by a corporation whose CEO and major shareholder is a mogul with an ideological agenda . . . ."

CNN and MSNBC don't have ideological agendas? Surely that's not seriously what's being claimed here. These news outlets oppose healthcare favored by most Americans, back wars opposed by most Americans, and generally advance a minority corporate agenda on a wide range of issues. MSNBC has begun including a few talking heads who sometimes stray from its overall agenda, but they are distinctly labeled as doing so, whereas most MSNBC reporting advances the same agenda as always, and under the obscuring banner of "objectivity" and the powerful pretense of no point of view at all. Thankfully, Alternet itself has quite a good agenda and provides a far better service to our nation than MSNBC or CNN. The accuracy of its reporting does not seem to be in any way put in doubt by its activism.

"Fox News Channel," Stan writes, "is anything but a news operation." Instead it's "a massive media campaign for the consolidation of wealth through unfettered markets." Of course Fox could be both of those things, but it isn't. It wants the markets very much fettered to the advantage of mega-corporate interests and against the rest of us. That does not, however, prevent its being a news organization, any more than the Nation Magazine's preference for socialistic solutions (a preference I share) prevents it from reporting news.

The "Fox is not news" campaign criticizes Fox for, in Stan's words, "declaring war" on President Obama. But I don't recall Alternet objecting to Keith Olbermann's rants against President Bush on MSNBC. What has happened is not that Fox has ceased to report news. What has happened is that Fox has begun criticizing a president in a way that most of the corporate media refuses to ever criticize any president, and a way that progressive media outlets are happy to criticize only Republican presidents. Now, Alternet has published criticism of Obama, including some written by me. And Fox New's fantastic racist falsehoods are not something I want to see emulated. But the general notion -- which, following the Bush-Cheney years, ought to be absurd on its face -- that a media outlet disqualifies itself by criticizing a president, is as much a function of the partisan loyalties of those diagnosing Fox's status as it is of Fox itself.

Here are excerpts from Stan's eight reasons that Fox News is not news:

"1. Glenn Beck, the community organizer -- No other news operation in memory has ever hired its own community organizer, at least not one tasked with the mission of organizing paranoid people to march through the streets of the nation's capital with signs depicting the president of the United States as a mass murderer."

Huh? Every protest I've ever helped organize in the streets of our nation's capital to depict Bush as a mass murderer has been promoted and energized by Pacifica Radio, Air America Radio, and all sorts of other online and radio news outlets, often including Alternet.

"2. Fox's alliance with the corporate-funded astroturf group Americans for Prosperity -- We've scratched our heads trying to come up with an analogous relationship between a cable news channel and a corporate-funded group that organizes fearful people to disrupt public meetings, but we came up empty."

Fox News has encouraged threats, intimidation, and violence. It may indeed be guilty of crimes, and that should be investigated. It certainly encourages rudeness and incivility on behalf of a murderous agenda. But when Ed Schultz reported on advocates of single-payer healthcare nonviolently and eloquently disrupting a Senate hearing on behalf of a majority of Americans and after having attempted all other approaches, he did so encouragingly -- and many were encouraged to use the same technique. Of course we didn't pay Schultz to do that. We couldn't have afforded to. (Although he was paid a handsome sum when he switched from rightwing to leftwing talk show host.) But the corrupting force that money has on our communications system is obscured rather than revealed when we oppose advocacy journalism too broadly.

"3. On-air fundraising for Republican PACs -- Fox News personalities encourage viewers to contribute money to, and visit the Web sites of, specific Republican-affiliated political action committees. We can't find a single instance of either CNN or MSNBC doing anything of the kind for Democratic causes."

But we CAN find that, and better than that, at good media outlets, and why wouldn't we want good media outlets to continue behaving that way if the current cartel were busted?

"4. Bill O'Reilly, stalker of those whose opinions he doesn't like -- We exhausted all avenues of research trying to find a news show host at another cable news channel who pays his producer to stalk people whose opinions he or she doesn't like."

Yet some of the best video reporting on the Fox- and CNN-promoted nonsense regarding Obama's place of birth, aired on all the channels, was generated by Mike Stark at FireDogLake.com. The best footage of Congress members' opinions on wars and healthcare are produced by roving "stalkers", because the corporate press corps does not ask useful questions. Fox News demonstrates that useful questions could be asked. It would just take an anti-Fox to do it.

"5. Sunday talk-show host who promotes Republican falsehoods."

Promoting falsehoods is, indeed, a serious argument that what is happening is not news. But Republican falsehoods doesn't seem essentially less newsy than the bipartisan falsehoods promoted on every channel (Iran's got nukes, Social Security is broke, Single-payer is unpopular, etc.).

"6. Fox News anchors, show hosts and pundits parrot GOP press releases."

Well, how the heck do you think the New York Times sold us the war on Iraq? This is bad news, not non-news.

"7. Fox News hosts urge viewers to join a particular political group."

Well, shouldn't they? In a nation where we had other media outlets with the same reach promoting other groups, wouldn't this be far preferable to, say, John Stewart promoting cynical scorn for everyone and everything?

"8. Glenn Beck, deranged inventor of paranoid conspiracies."

Yes, falsehoods is definitely to the point. Perhaps Fox News pushes too many falsehoods to count as news. But that's a distinct argument that should be made without all of these partisan, anti-activist encumbrances.

Why? Because it matters. It matters because there is a more destructive force in our communications system than a transparently rightwing buffoons gallery. That destructive force is the persistent myth of "objective" "viewpoint-free" reporting. When the "respectable" news outlets tell us that "objectively" we are going to have to escalate wars in order to be safe, and when they quote two "opposing" experts who both agree with that claim, thereby providing "balance," and they neither scream nor rant nor suggest that we citizens have any role to play, we are persuaded and disempowered.

When Fox News, in contrast, pushes its "fair and balanced" bullshit, we fight back. But the way to fight back is to build truly democratic media that promotes what we believe in without apology, and yet without the dishonesty that has damaged Fox in so many minds. The way to fight Fox is not to suggest that there is something respectable or praiseworthy about the bulk of the infofascistainment found on MSNBC and CNN.

Fox is owned by a nut job. MSNBC is owned by a weapons company. Where are our priorities? Do not support CNN or MSNBC. Support Alternet instead.

David Swanson is the author of the new book "Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union" by Seven Stories Press. You can order it and find out when tour will be in your town: http://davidswanson.org/book.

Who Will Win the Coveted Gannon Award at Tonight's Presser?

Bob Fertik — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 13:27:21 -0400

George Bush and Karl Rove welcomed $200/hr man-whore Jeff Gannon into several White House press conferences to ask idiotic rightwing questions that only made sense to wackos.

Progressive bloggers exposed (heh) Gannon's past, but his "legacy" is kept alive by White House reporters who continue to ask idiotic rightwing questions. Is there something we can do to put Gannon's legacy to rest?

One strategy that often works is shame. So tonight we will start offering an "award" to the "reporter" who asks the stupidest rightwing question. And what better name could we give this award than The Gannon?

If past pressers are a guide, The Gannon is likely to go to one of the following:

Major Garrett (FOX): Major would have won The Gannon at Obama's last presser on June 23, when the topic was Iran. Frequent statements about the fast-moving events from Robert Gibbs and Obama himself weren't good enough for Garrett and his FOX wingnut audience. So Major used his precious time to spit on the President of the United States:

In your opening remarks, sir, you said about Iran that you were appalled and outraged. What took you so long?

Chip Reid (CBS): Chip would have won The Gannon at Obama's first presser on February 9. After just 20 days in office, Obama and the Democrats were trying to prevent a Great Depression by passing an economic stimulus bill. Despite promises of bipartisanship, nearly every Republican opposed the stimulus, echoing Rush Limbaugh's infamous declaration: "I hope he fails!" But instead of blaming Republicans, Chip blamed Obama:

You have often said that bipartisanship is extraordinarily important, overall and in this stimulus package, but now, when we ask your advisers about the lack of bipartisanship so far -- zero votes in the House, three in the Senate -- they say, "Well, it's not the number of votes that matters; it's the number of jobs that will be created."

Is that a sign that you are moving away -- your White House is moving away from this emphasis on bipartisanship?

Chuck Todd (NBC): Chuck is known for his level-headed analysis of U.S. politics. But at Obama's 100-day presser on April 29, Chuck mysteriously decided to play Rambo, badgering Obama about his super-secret plans to seize Pakistan's nuclear weapons:

Pakistan appears to be at war with the Taliban inside their own country. Can you reassure the American people that if necessary America could secure Pakistan's nuclear arsenal and keep it from getting into the Taliban's hands or, worst case scenario, even al Qaeda's hands?...

QUESTION: But in a worst-case scenario...

OBAMA: I'm not going to engage in...

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) military could secure this nuclear...

OBAMA: I'm not going to engage in -- in hypotheticals of that sort. I feel confident that that nuclear arsenal will remain out of militant hands.

So who do you think will win The Gannon tonight?

David Gregory's Daily Right

Bob Fertik — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 08:47:09 -0400

David Gregory recently began tweeting his Daily Reads, and I quickly noticed his overwhelming bias towards neocons, paleocons, and so-called "liberals" who supported Bush's criminal invasion of Iraq and the rest of his disastrous right-wing policies.

Conspicuously absent from Gregory's Daily Reads were progressives who opposed Bush's war and the rest of his policies. He ignores all of us who were right about Iraq when it counted, who marched in the streets by the millions but were blacked out by the Corporate Media, including MSNBC, which fired its only progressive (Phil Donahue) because he dared to even question the mad neocon rush to war.

Of course those of us who opposed the war were always the majority, despite biased polls which assumed insignificant deaths and costs. We proved it in 2006 and 2008 when we swept pro-war Republicans out of power and replaced them with with as many anti-war Democrats as we could find. And we'll keep proving it election after election until our troops return safely home.

After noticing the pattern, when Gregory posted his Daily Read on 6/17, I tweeted about it.

Truth in twittering: @davidgregory tweets should all be called "neocon war criminal reads for today" http://tr.im/oQCM

And when he posted his Daily Read on 6/18, I tweeted again.

Progress! @davidgregory only read 1 neocon war criminal today - Rove (chair of WHIG lies and Plame outer) http://tr.im/oYJ8

This time, Gregory replied:

@bobfertik I'm reading all sides. And the pieces I sent yesterday had two diff points of view. Come on.

I'm extremely grateful for Gregory's reply. But all sides? Really??

Not wanting to be unfair, I went back a month to count. Surprise! The first progressive (Gene Lyons) in a month's worth of posts appeared today - the day after my first tweet.

Based on the month's worth of data, the pattern is clear:

1. Gregory's Daily Read is weighted - usually heavily - to the right. The far-right Wall Street Journal editorial page is Gregory's favorite read.

2. Karl Rove completely "owns" David Gregory - Rove's posts go straight to the top of Gregory's list. It doesn't matter to Gregory that Rove chaired the White House Iraq Group (WHIG) which manufactured all the pre-war propaganda that NBC helped "catapult," which produced the biggest foreign policy disaster in American history. It doesn't matter that Rove helped "out" Valerie Plame to punish her husband for exposing just one WHIG lie (Iraq seeking uranium from Niger), which was a genuine act of treason (helping our terrorist enemies). It doesn't matter that Rove corrupted the entire Federal government, especially the Justice Department. It doesn't even matter that Rove's so-called political "genius" was proved dead wrong in 2006 and 2008, which is by far the least of his moral sins, but the obvious reason why his "punditry" should be ignored.

3. With the possible exception of Gene Lyons and Paul Krugman, Gregory appears to read none of the best progressive bloggers - John Amato & Co. at CrooksandLiars, Markos Moulitsas & Co. at DailyKos, Howie Klein & Co. at DownWithTyranny, Jane Hamsher & Co. at FireDogLake, Arianna Huffington & Co. at HuffingtonPost, Digby & Co. at Hullabaloo, Chris Bowers & Co. at OpenLeft, Glenn Greenwald and Joan Walsh at Salon, Josh Marshall & Co. at TalkingPointsMemo, Katrina vanden Heuvel & Co. at The Nation, as well as Consortium News, MediaMatters, Mother Jones, MyDD, ThinkProgress, and so many other great reads. And there is no hint of influence from MSNBC's own progressive stars - Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, and Ed Schultz.

4. Even if Gregory's Daily Read was balanced 50/50, it would still be completely out of touch with the American people, who prefer (progressive) Democrats over (conservative) Republicans by nearly 2:1 - 45%-25% according to MSNBC's own poll.

As I said above, I greatly appreciate Gregory's reply. So I'll keep tracking his Daily Reads, in the hope that someday his progressive/conservative ratio reflects the nation's overwhelming opposition to rightwing policies that produced the current disasters in Afghanistan, Iraq, Wall Street, the entire American economy, and the planet Earth.

Update 1: Hooray! 6/19 is the first day progressives (Paul Krugman and Ellen Goodman) outnumber conservatives (David Ignatius).

Update 2: Boo! 6/21 Meet the Press is for warmongers only - Benjamin Netanyahu, Sam Nunn, and Fred Thompson.

Update 3: 6/24 A new low - Gregory hearts Jonah Goldberg.

Update 4: 6/25 A pair of unrepentant war criminals: Karl Rove and Elliott Abrams

WaPo Credibility Vanishes with Richard Shelby

Bob Fertik — Sun, 24 May 2009 16:33:21 -0400

On Saturday, the Pentagon Post decided to "double down" on the failed Republican smear of Nancy Pelosi, as Marcy Wheeler describes:

Here's the WaPo's math, then, if I'm reading the sourcing correctly here: Two Democratic members of Congress, one Republican member of Congress, one Republican staffer, and one of the intelligence briefers (and Graham's meticulous notebooks, plus another former intelligence official who was familiar with the intent of the briefing), all supporting an argument that they weren't briefed that torture was already used. Those five or six people, against Richard Shelby's story, which was at first quite wishy-washy. According to the WaPo, it did that math and decided it would write a story about irresolvable conflict.

So the Pentagon Post is staking its entire credibility on Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL). How credible is Shelby? Here's what he told John King this morning:

KING: Vice President Cheney wants other memos released. Should we just have full disclosure on all fronts here, transparency, let the American people decide?

SHELBY: Well, that's a tough road to go down. What we are basically doing is weakening our intelligence agencies and we will pay dearly for that. I was in that meeting, Senator Graham, Congressman Goss, Congresswoman Pelosi at that time, four of us were in the meeting.

Really? All the others - Graham, Goss, Pelosi, and even the CIA! - agree Shelby (and Graham) were not at the briefing for Pelosi and Goss on 9/4/02. Marcy gives Shelby the "respect" he richly deserves:

Uh, if four of you were in the meeting, then the CIA's records are wrong, which means we shouldn't trust their version of that briefing. And if not--as seems to be the case--then Shelby's wrong even about the basic circumstances of the briefing. Shelby's follow-on, "they are the ones that were there. It has been seven years" seems like a giant hedge. Or maybe a confession on Shelby's part that even when he's "there," he's not all there.

ROTFL! And once again the Pentagon Post got punk'd when it staked its credibility on a Republican.

Corporate Media Lies About Pelosi Torture Briefings

Bob Fertik — Fri, 08 May 2009 00:19:06 -0400

Republicans (led by Dick Cheney) are fighting every effort to expose the Torture Scandal, with one glaring exception: they are moving at warp speed to "prove" Nancy Pelosi approved waterboarding.

Only she didn't. So they're lying. And so is the Corporate Media.

Abu Zubaydah was the first prisoner waterboarded by the CIA. He was waterboarded 83 times in August 2002. Pelosi received her first briefing on "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" (EIT) on September 4, 2002. But the CIA didn't tell her they had just waterboarded Abu Zubaydah!

Here's what Pelosi said on April 23:

"We were not, I repeat, we were not told that waterboarding or any of these other interrogation methods were used. What they did tell us was they had some legislative counsel opinions. And if and when they would be used, they would brief Congress at that time."

Here's the CIA's vague version of the briefing:

“Briefing on EITs including use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah, background on authorities, and a description of particular EITs that had been employed.”

It's entirely possible the CIA is wrong when they say they briefed on "use of EITs." But even if we give them the benefit of the doubt, which EIT's did they tell Pelosi about? It's a very long way from loud music and face-slapping to waterboarding. As Marcy Wheeler writes,

even the CIA never asserts it told any Democrat about waterboarding until after the 2004 IG Report came out.

So how on earth could Pelosi have approved something she knew nothing about?

Nevertheless, ABC's Rick Klein is calling Pelosi a liar:

The report, submitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee and other Capitol Hill officials Wednesday, appears to contradict Pelosi’s statement last month that she was never told about the use of waterboarding or other special interrogation tactics. Instead, she has said, she was told only that the Bush administration had legal opinions that would have supported the use of such techniques.

The report does not contradict Pelosi's statement because it does not say Pelosi was told about waterboarding in 2002.

Greg Miller of the LA Times peddles similar lies:

A chart compiled by the CIA shows that Pelosi (D-San Francisco) was briefed on Sept. 4, 2002, on the agency's interrogation of alleged Al Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah, and that the session covered "the particular [enhanced interrogation techniques] that had been employed." The chart does not list the specific methods covered during the briefing. But during the preceding month, the CIA had used the simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding on Abu Zubaydah at least 83 times, according to a Justice Department memo released last month.

Just because the CIA used waterboarding doesn't mean they actually told Pelosi about it! Does anyone at the CIA say they actually did? No! Miller relies entirely on assumption, not evidence.

Republican congressional officials familiar with the document and other still-classified records on congressional briefings said it would have been negligent for CIA briefers to fail to mention the use of waterboarding after Abu Zubaydah had been subjected to the method so extensively.

Just because it "would have been negligent" doesn't mean the CIA wasn't ... negligent! In the fall of 2002, the CIA was aiding and abetting Bush's flat-out lies about Iraq. Of course that's how the U.S. got sucked into the disastrous invasion.

Take action! Email greg.miller@latimes.com

Hardball Covers TeaParty But Not ANewWayForward

Bob Fertik — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 17:59:51 -0400

Hardball just emailed this:

Next up - what's the story with these anti-tax "tea party" protests? They're popping up across the country but what exactly do they stand for and does it make any sense? That's what we'll ask radio talk show host Michael Smerconish and the Wall Street Journal's Stephen Moore.

For more on the "tea party" protests, go to:
http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/09/tea-party-taxes-opinions-columnists-bartlett.html

Is Chris Matthews just a rightwing stooge? He doesn't even mention Saturday's anti-bailout protests by A New Way Forward. Send your protests to hardball@msnbc.com

Chris Matthews Slams 'Democrat Party' Smear

Bob Fertik — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 19:47:42 -0500

Chris Matthews smacked Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) for using the idiotic rightwing phrase "Democrat Party." Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) tweaked Issa by saying "Republicanistical Party," but it would be much simpler for Democrats (and pundits) to just ask Republicans if they belong to the "Republic Party"?

NBC Lies About Small Business Taxes

Bob Fertik — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:32:54 -0500

On MSNBC's Morning Joe, CNBC's Maria Bartiromo lied about tax increases for small business, and MediaMatters busted her:

small businesses, you know, are putting $250,000 in revenue out there, and they're going to get impacted -- and this is the single largest creator of jobs.

So Bartiromo says small business taxes will be raised if the business grosses over $250,000 in revenue. But that's a lie.

First, a small business that is not a personal business is taxed at corporate tax rates, which will not change under Obama's plan.

Second, a small business that is a personal business will only see higher taxes on the profit (i.e. personal income) that exceeds $250,000, not the gross revenue.

So how many small businesses would be affected? Just 1.5% (481,000) of all small businesses, according to the Tax Policy Center. In other words, 98.5% of small businesses will get a tax cut!

Even for the unlucky 1.5%, the tax increase is tiny: the value of tax deductions for families earning over $250,000 would drop from 35% to 28%. So $10,000 in deductions would save a wealthy taxpayer $2,800 in taxes instead of $3,500 - a small net tax increase of $700. Amazingly enough, that's how deductions worked in the 1986 tax bill signed by Saint Ronald Reagan.

The core rightwing argument is that this tiny tax hike will cause small businesses to cut back or even shut down. This is a Big Lie - obviously it will have no impact on small businesses whatsoever.

So where is this Big Lie coming from? House Republican Leader John Boehner and the stenographers at the Pentagon Post

If the tax-deduction cap is enacted, it is likely to hit many small businesses, said House Republican Leader John A. Boehner (Ohio).

"Everyone agrees that all Americans deserve access to affordable health care," he said, "but is increasing taxes during an economic recession, especially on small businesses, the right way to accomplish that goal?"

and the Telmex Times:

"Everyone agrees that all Americans deserve access to affordable health care," Mr. Boehner said in a statement, "but is increasing taxes during an economic recession, especially on small businesses, the right way to accomplish that goal?"

Update 1: Joe later echoed Maria's lie on Twitter:

$250k also drags in small businesses, who generate 75% of US jobs. Bad news for economy.

Update 2: Sean Quinn reports on the incredible attack on Robert Gibbs by White House "reporters" who mostly make over $250K themselves

Gibbs: I think the President was pretty clear on Tuesday. We are talking about people who earn in excess of a quarter of a million dollars a year.

Reid: And a huge percentage of those people are small business owners.

Gibbs: Some of them are, sure. Some of them are big business owners. Some of them are home run hitters in Major League Baseball. Some of them run kickoffs back for a living. Some of them are the President of the United States.

Q (off mike): -- create jobs?

Gibbs: Certainly some of them, that's what their job is. But I would reject this overall premise that when we're asking for tax fairness from the American people, that this is going to kill jobs. I guess if I follow the logic of the Republicans on Capitol Hill, how do you explain last month's unemployment figures? (Pause.) Under current tax rates? 550,000 jobs.

Reid: (Long pause) It's a unique moment.

Gibbs: (Laughs heartily) Apparently, it always is.... The president ran specifically on the promises that are contained in what he believes is a blueprint and a vision for our future. And that's what the the American people, that's the result they rendered in November.

Who Killed American Newspapers?

Bob Fertik — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 13:24:55 -0500

Craig Crawford thinks our near-Depression will kill the newspaper industry.

This is a business that was already in free fall before this recession hit. Readership and advertising revenue had been on the decline for some time. Make no mistake about it: For newspapers, this is a full blown depression.

Without decent ad revenues, newspapers cannot survive.

The newspaper business model is usually described as a function of total readership because that attracts the biggest advertisers. But the essential ingredient to newspaper success is quality readership. USA Today has more readers than the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, but trails both in the quality of their readers.

Unfortunately, big city newspapers like the New York Times are losing those quality readers for two reasons: the pull of high-quality blogs and the push of low-quality reporting and editorializing.

The quality of newspapers like the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times started dropping right after Watergate. When Ronald Reagan mobilized the right to sweep into power in 1980, the Washington Press Corpse dropped to its knees and remained there for 12 long years.

They only rose from their knees to attack Bill Clinton with the Whitewater smear campaign led by Jeff Gerth of the New York Times. And for eight long years, they attacked Clinton relentlessly. Despite Monicagate, they failed to destroy Clinton, but that only made them more determined to destroy Al Gore - and they succeeded.

Big city newspapers might have redeemed themselves if they were as critical of Bush as they were of Clinton. But they helped him steal the election in Florida and then enthusiastically supported his $1.35 trillion tax redistribution to the rich. And in 2002-2003, they actively helped him defraud the nation into an invasion of Iraq, despite knowing Iraq had no WMD's.

After the Iraq debacle, there was no reason for an intelligent person to read a major newspaper. When the obituary of American newspapers is written, it will be the editors-in-chief of those papers - especially Len Downie Jr. of the Post along with Howell Raines and Bill Keller of the Times - who deserve the blame.

David Gregory's Alternative Universe

Bob Fertik — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 12:04:39 -0500

It's great that Meet The Press host David Gregory has a blog and a twitter feed - so those of us outside the Beltway Bubble can see how completely divorced he is from reality.

As we prepare for Sunday - Betsy and I have begun the more intense part of our prep - I keep coming back to the major issue for the program: the role of government. The states collectively face budget shortfalls of nearly 84 billion dollars. They need this money, and yet our guests this morning highlight a tense political divide. Republicans sense they have, they think, a winning political issue in opposing the mammoth expansion of the federal government's role in solving this crisis. They also have principled beliefs about the need for smaller government.

Republicans controlled the entire Federal government for the first six years of the Bush Administration. Did the Federal government get the slightest bit smaller? No - it grew completely out of control. Gregory himself admits that in the next paragraph:

Remember Senator McCain railing against President Bush and republicans in congress spending like drunken sailors?

Yes we do. And we also know that Bush doubled the national debt from $5 trillion to $10 trillion thanks in part to massive spending programs led by the $656 billion (and counting) invasion of Iraq, the intentionally wasteful prescription drug program that prohibited price negotiation, and the multi-trillion dollar bailout of Wall Street.

So at the macro level, the idea that Republicans have "principled beliefs about the need for smaller government" is absurd. And it's equally absurd at the micro level. How was it "smaller government" when Republicans passed a special law to impose the full weight of the Federal government in the middle of the Terry Schiavo family tragedy? That was the defining moment for the American people when Republicans lost the "smaller government" battle forever.

It is only in David Gregory's alternative universe that Republicans have "principled beliefs about the need for smaller government."