Hey, how 'bout a blog devoted to a critique of the corporate press? One day, I'll tell a story here...
--j.
Thursday, April 23, 2015
Monday, October 6, 2014
The One About Carrie Underwood's New Song: Anatomy of a Persecution Narrative [Updated Below]
Convincing people they're
persecuted can generate a strong emotional reaction, eh? The American right has, for years, forged phony persecution
narratives into a potent propaganda weapon. When weaving their
particular variants on these narratives, those of the Religious
Right[tm] persuasion have made a habit of portraying those who criticize
them--criticism almost invariably aimed at their politics, not their
religion--as calling for persecution of "Christians," positioning themselves as the
representatives of the entire Christian faith who are victimized by any disapproval of their backwards, authoritarian political views. The entire political program of the Religious Right[tm] is, of course, directed at persecuting huge swathes of the population; at their most comical, they present themselves as victims of persecution if they're disallowed from persecuting everyone else.
I go on about this today because, on and off since this morning, I've been tracking the latest Religious Right[tm] persecution narrative. Singer Carrie Underwood recently released a new song dealing with her Christian faith, "Something In the Water," and right-wing blogs across the internet are claiming atheists are just fuming over it.
"Atheists Outraged By Carrie Underwood's Latest Song," proclaims the headline at TellMeNow,. The article informs readers that "Atheists are outraged that such a hit-maker as Underwood would dare to sing about Christianity, but Carrie doesn’t seem to care."
Mr. Conservative sayeth, "Atheists Outraged By Carrie Underwood's Latest Song," an article that asserts, "Atheists are outraged that such a hit-maker as Underwood would dare to sing about Christianity, but Carrie doesn’t seem to care."
Clash Daily: "Whiny Punk Atheists Will Hate This New Carrie Underwood Song."
The Political Insider asserts, "Carrie Underwood Is Known For Being Nice, But She Has A TOUGH Message For Atheists Attacking Her New Song."
The tale began to grow. The Conservative Tribune claims "Atheists have a new target in their sights and it’s country music star Carrie Underwood, who recently released a new song expressing her Christian faith and values... According to TheBlaze, Underwood has always been an outspoken defender of singing about religious themes and has a message for all the liberals and atheists who are whining and complaining about the lyrical content of her new hit... With the current state of pop culture being radically opposed to religion, especially Christianity, and traditional values, its refreshing and uplifting to see someone as popular as Carrie Underwood take a bold stand on her convictions and refuse to be silenced by atheist bullies."
With American News, the tale gets even taller: "Atheists Viciously Attack Carrie Underwood's New Song, Want It Banned." The article says "As part of their constant attack on religious freedom and anything Christian, it appears that atheists have founds a new target: Carrie Underwood." But, it says, Underwood is standing up to those no-accounts.
Two days later, American News made another pass at it. Under the headline "Carrie Underwood Fires Back Against Radical Atheists: 'If You Don't Like My Song...," we get the reiteration of the original charge: "As we recently reported, country singer Carrie Underwood has become a new target for atheist activists, following her release of 'Something in the Water', which expresses her feelings towards God and highlights experiences like baptism."
TheFrisky.com even quotes Underwood in its headline: "Carrie Underwood Addresses Her Atheists Haters: 'If You Don't Like It, Change The Channel." The accompanying story asserts that the new song
Astute readers who wade through these articles will notice something about all of them (besides the plagiarism, that is): Not one of them cites a single actual atheist, liberal or anyone else who is outraged, upset or expressing any critical sentiment at all toward the song in question, much less trying to bully anyone over it, ban it or any of the rest. There are no quotes. There aren't even any direct references to anyone doing anything of the kind.
Poking around the major atheist and freethought sites today, I haven't been able to come up with any either. I did find one writer at Patheos who had discovered this "controversy." Hemant Mehta's headline: "Atheists Don't Give A Damn About Carrie Underwood's New Song." He notes that "none of [these stories] actually name any atheist groups, websites, or even random individuals who have a problem with the song."
All of the articles use the Blaze, Glenn Beck's sewer, as their source, which is a big warning-sign, but surprisingly enough, Beck and his minions appear to be blameless in this matter. The original Blaze article to which they're all linking is just a 30 Sept. puff-piece for Underwood and the song. The Blaze, in turn, uses Deseret News as its source, but the article there is, likewise, puff. Neither make any claims about angry atheists raving against or trying to persecute poor, rich, white Christian girl singers.
All of the articles offering the false narrative suggest or directly insist Underwood has responded to these liberal/atheist attacks and two claim to directly quote her as doing so. Underwood could hardly respond to attacks that have never, in fact, occurred. A quick Google search for the "if you don't like my song" quote attributed to her by American News turns up nothing; it appears to be entirely fabricated. The "if you don't like it" quote attributed to her by TheFrisky, on the other hand, appears at both the Blaze and the Deseret News. It does appear to be real and does come from Glamour magazine, just as TheFrisky said, but contrary to TheFrisky's tale, Underwood didn't offer it in response to those (non-existent) attacks on "Something In The Water" and neither the Blaze nor Deseret News ever claim she did. As reported on Taste of Country, Underwood made those remarks over two years ago, long before that song existed, in response to a question about how her fans reacted to an even older Christian-themed song ("Jesus Take The Wheel") she'd done earlier in her career:
The image proffered by this phony story are very familiar to those who follow these matters, an heroic Christian standing up to persecuting liberal/atheist bullies who seethe at mere public expressions of Christianity and want to actively silence it. When one draws back the curtain, all of those villains are revealed to be merely a string of ugly fictions conjured up by conservative "Christians," who feel no compunction against freely lying in order to demonize those whom they despise, projecting on to those people their own sick hatred. There's something in the water they're drinking, alright. One suspects it isn't Jesus.
--j.
UPDATE (7 Nov., 2014) - The bullshit just keeps getting deeper. From axs: "Carrie Underwood Stirs Up Controversy With Atheists On 'Something In The Water'." The article claims "Atheist fans are speaking out and they don't like it [the song]. Well the thing is, Underwood doesn't care what they think about it."
From Headline Politics, now more than a month after the rest of these stories: "Christian Carrie Underwood's NEW MUSIC VIDEO is Making Atheists FURIOUS!" From the brief article:
"Unlike many young pop stars, Carrie Underwood is proud to proclaim her belief in the Bible and Jesus Christ. So when she release the new hit song 'Something In The Water' and its music video (above), left-wing Atheists across America were repeatedly attacking her for the lyrics and standing up for her faith in the public square.
As you can tell from this music video, Ms. Underwood is not backing down from a fight."
UPDATE (12 Jan., 2015) - Months after these stories came and went, this same bullshit has reappeared, this time being peddled by Breitbart (6 Jan., 2015), one of the most popular nut-right sewers on the internet: "Atheists Won't Stop Carrie Underwood From Singing About Faith: 'If You Don't Like It, Change the Channel.'" The article asserts, "Here is a sample of the lyrics that struck a nerve with various atheist groups," then reprints some of the song's lyrics. "Underwood, who stands for traditional American values, issued the following statement in response to the attacks on her new song, which just hit #1 on the Country charts this week," and then the years-old Glamour quote is recycled.
On the positive side, fact-checker Snopes debunked these false claims, noting along the way that they'd spread to Twitter as well:
"Claims that atheists are trying to ban Underwood’s song 'Something in the Water' are faulty on multiple levels. No atheists have complained about the song’s content; and Underwood’s remarks implying otherwise were made years prior to the track’s release and in response to a completely unrelated question."
I go on about this today because, on and off since this morning, I've been tracking the latest Religious Right[tm] persecution narrative. Singer Carrie Underwood recently released a new song dealing with her Christian faith, "Something In the Water," and right-wing blogs across the internet are claiming atheists are just fuming over it.
"Atheists Outraged By Carrie Underwood's Latest Song," proclaims the headline at TellMeNow,. The article informs readers that "Atheists are outraged that such a hit-maker as Underwood would dare to sing about Christianity, but Carrie doesn’t seem to care."
Mr. Conservative sayeth, "Atheists Outraged By Carrie Underwood's Latest Song," an article that asserts, "Atheists are outraged that such a hit-maker as Underwood would dare to sing about Christianity, but Carrie doesn’t seem to care."
Clash Daily: "Whiny Punk Atheists Will Hate This New Carrie Underwood Song."
The Political Insider asserts, "Carrie Underwood Is Known For Being Nice, But She Has A TOUGH Message For Atheists Attacking Her New Song."
The tale began to grow. The Conservative Tribune claims "Atheists have a new target in their sights and it’s country music star Carrie Underwood, who recently released a new song expressing her Christian faith and values... According to TheBlaze, Underwood has always been an outspoken defender of singing about religious themes and has a message for all the liberals and atheists who are whining and complaining about the lyrical content of her new hit... With the current state of pop culture being radically opposed to religion, especially Christianity, and traditional values, its refreshing and uplifting to see someone as popular as Carrie Underwood take a bold stand on her convictions and refuse to be silenced by atheist bullies."
With American News, the tale gets even taller: "Atheists Viciously Attack Carrie Underwood's New Song, Want It Banned." The article says "As part of their constant attack on religious freedom and anything Christian, it appears that atheists have founds a new target: Carrie Underwood." But, it says, Underwood is standing up to those no-accounts.
Two days later, American News made another pass at it. Under the headline "Carrie Underwood Fires Back Against Radical Atheists: 'If You Don't Like My Song...," we get the reiteration of the original charge: "As we recently reported, country singer Carrie Underwood has become a new target for atheist activists, following her release of 'Something in the Water', which expresses her feelings towards God and highlights experiences like baptism."
TheFrisky.com even quotes Underwood in its headline: "Carrie Underwood Addresses Her Atheists Haters: 'If You Don't Like It, Change The Channel." The accompanying story asserts that the new song
"has left some of her atheist fans less than thrilled. But despite the criticism, Carrie told Glamour that she’s not sorry for singing about her personal faith, and she’s certainly not planning on changing her tune.And so on.
"'Country music is different. You have that Bible Belt-ness about it. I’m not the first person to sing about God, Jesus, faith [or] any of that, and I won’t be the last. And it won’t be the last for me, either. If you don’t like it, change the channel.'"
Astute readers who wade through these articles will notice something about all of them (besides the plagiarism, that is): Not one of them cites a single actual atheist, liberal or anyone else who is outraged, upset or expressing any critical sentiment at all toward the song in question, much less trying to bully anyone over it, ban it or any of the rest. There are no quotes. There aren't even any direct references to anyone doing anything of the kind.
Poking around the major atheist and freethought sites today, I haven't been able to come up with any either. I did find one writer at Patheos who had discovered this "controversy." Hemant Mehta's headline: "Atheists Don't Give A Damn About Carrie Underwood's New Song." He notes that "none of [these stories] actually name any atheist groups, websites, or even random individuals who have a problem with the song."
All of the articles use the Blaze, Glenn Beck's sewer, as their source, which is a big warning-sign, but surprisingly enough, Beck and his minions appear to be blameless in this matter. The original Blaze article to which they're all linking is just a 30 Sept. puff-piece for Underwood and the song. The Blaze, in turn, uses Deseret News as its source, but the article there is, likewise, puff. Neither make any claims about angry atheists raving against or trying to persecute poor, rich, white Christian girl singers.
All of the articles offering the false narrative suggest or directly insist Underwood has responded to these liberal/atheist attacks and two claim to directly quote her as doing so. Underwood could hardly respond to attacks that have never, in fact, occurred. A quick Google search for the "if you don't like my song" quote attributed to her by American News turns up nothing; it appears to be entirely fabricated. The "if you don't like it" quote attributed to her by TheFrisky, on the other hand, appears at both the Blaze and the Deseret News. It does appear to be real and does come from Glamour magazine, just as TheFrisky said, but contrary to TheFrisky's tale, Underwood didn't offer it in response to those (non-existent) attacks on "Something In The Water" and neither the Blaze nor Deseret News ever claim she did. As reported on Taste of Country, Underwood made those remarks over two years ago, long before that song existed, in response to a question about how her fans reacted to an even older Christian-themed song ("Jesus Take The Wheel") she'd done earlier in her career:
From the start, Carrie Underwood
was never shy about her personal beliefs, especially when releasing her
single, ‘Jesus Take the Wheel’ in the early part of her career. The
song went on to become a powerful smash in country music, landing the
‘American Idol’ winner her first chart-topping hit.
In a recent interview with Glamour magazine, Underwood said the song’s content never worried her as far as how fans would embrace her or the song. “It wasn’t a worry to me at all,” she says in the magazine. “Country music is different. You have that Bible Belt-ness about it. I’m not the first person to sing about God, Jesus, faith [or] any of that, and I won’t be the last. And it won’t be the last for me, either. If you don’t like it, change the channel.”
Read More: Carrie Underwood Takes Pride in Using Religion in Her Music | http://tasteofcountry.com/carrie-underwood-using-religion-in-music/?trackback=tsmclip
In a recent interview with Glamour magazine, Underwood said the song’s content never worried her as far as how fans would embrace her or the song. “It wasn’t a worry to me at all,” she says in the magazine. “Country music is different. You have that Bible Belt-ness about it. I’m not the first person to sing about God, Jesus, faith [or] any of that, and I won’t be the last. And it won’t be the last for me, either. If you don’t like it, change the channel.”
Read More: Carrie Underwood Takes Pride in Using Religion in Her Music | http://tasteofcountry.com/carrie-underwood-using-religion-in-music/?trackback=tsmclip
From the start, Carrie Underwood
was never shy about her personal beliefs, especially when releasing her
single, ‘Jesus Take the Wheel’ in the early part of her career. The
song went on to become a powerful smash in country music, landing the
‘American Idol’ winner her first chart-topping hit.
In a recent interview with Glamour magazine, Underwood said the song’s content never worried her as far as how fans would embrace her or the song. “It wasn’t a worry to me at all,” she says in the magazine. “Country music is different. You have that Bible Belt-ness about it. I’m not the first person to sing about God, Jesus, faith [or] any of that, and I won’t be the last. And it won’t be the last for me, either. If you don’t like it, change the channel.”
Read More: Carrie Underwood Takes Pride in Using Religion in Her Music | http://tasteofcountry.com/carrie-underwood-using-religion-in-music/?trackback=tsmclip
In a recent interview with Glamour magazine, Underwood said the song’s content never worried her as far as how fans would embrace her or the song. “It wasn’t a worry to me at all,” she says in the magazine. “Country music is different. You have that Bible Belt-ness about it. I’m not the first person to sing about God, Jesus, faith [or] any of that, and I won’t be the last. And it won’t be the last for me, either. If you don’t like it, change the channel.”
Read More: Carrie Underwood Takes Pride in Using Religion in Her Music | http://tasteofcountry.com/carrie-underwood-using-religion-in-music/?trackback=tsmclip
"From the start, Carrie Underwood was never shy about her personal beliefs, especially when releasing her single, 'Jesus Take the Wheel' in the early part of her career. The song went on to become a powerful smash in country music, landing the 'American Idol' winner her first chart-topping hit.Underwood released "Jesus Take The Wheel" back in 2005 and, just to dot every i, please note that even these comments regarding it weren't a response to any criticism that song was alleged to have received.
"In a recent interview with Glamour magazine, Underwood said the song’s content never worried her as far as how fans would embrace her or the song. 'It wasn’t a worry to me at all,' she says in the magazine. 'Country music is different. You have that Bible Belt-ness about it. I’m not the first person to sing about God, Jesus, faith [or] any of that, and I won’t be the last. And it won’t be the last for me, either. If you don’t like it, change the channel.'"
The image proffered by this phony story are very familiar to those who follow these matters, an heroic Christian standing up to persecuting liberal/atheist bullies who seethe at mere public expressions of Christianity and want to actively silence it. When one draws back the curtain, all of those villains are revealed to be merely a string of ugly fictions conjured up by conservative "Christians," who feel no compunction against freely lying in order to demonize those whom they despise, projecting on to those people their own sick hatred. There's something in the water they're drinking, alright. One suspects it isn't Jesus.
--j.
UPDATE (7 Nov., 2014) - The bullshit just keeps getting deeper. From axs: "Carrie Underwood Stirs Up Controversy With Atheists On 'Something In The Water'." The article claims "Atheist fans are speaking out and they don't like it [the song]. Well the thing is, Underwood doesn't care what they think about it."
From Headline Politics, now more than a month after the rest of these stories: "Christian Carrie Underwood's NEW MUSIC VIDEO is Making Atheists FURIOUS!" From the brief article:
"Unlike many young pop stars, Carrie Underwood is proud to proclaim her belief in the Bible and Jesus Christ. So when she release the new hit song 'Something In The Water' and its music video (above), left-wing Atheists across America were repeatedly attacking her for the lyrics and standing up for her faith in the public square.
UPDATE (12 Jan., 2015) - Months after these stories came and went, this same bullshit has reappeared, this time being peddled by Breitbart (6 Jan., 2015), one of the most popular nut-right sewers on the internet: "Atheists Won't Stop Carrie Underwood From Singing About Faith: 'If You Don't Like It, Change the Channel.'" The article asserts, "Here is a sample of the lyrics that struck a nerve with various atheist groups," then reprints some of the song's lyrics. "Underwood, who stands for traditional American values, issued the following statement in response to the attacks on her new song, which just hit #1 on the Country charts this week," and then the years-old Glamour quote is recycled.
On the positive side, fact-checker Snopes debunked these false claims, noting along the way that they'd spread to Twitter as well:
"Claims that atheists are trying to ban Underwood’s song 'Something in the Water' are faulty on multiple levels. No atheists have complained about the song’s content; and Underwood’s remarks implying otherwise were made years prior to the track’s release and in response to a completely unrelated question."
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Clay Waters Defends Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, Leaves Out The Defense Part (And The “Republican” Part)
MRCWatch Dept. - The recent antics of newly-minted Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz,
offered in opposition to the nomination of Chuck Hagel for Secretary of
Defense, have provoked comparisons to McCarthyism from some of Cruz’s
Senate colleagues. Clay Waters, on Monday, whined
that the New York Times, in a news story and op-ed column, had reported
said comparisons. Waters declined to detail why Cruz is being subjected
to them or to make any case for either the comparisons or the reporting
of them being inappropriate. Waters’ article is unexceptional--basically
Newsbusters’ usual nonsense--but it is a useful spotlight for the state
of affairs in the Newsbusters' corner of the far-right fever swamp.
It's a standard Newsbusters technique to identify any view not emerging from that particular plot of ideological bottom-land as "liberal" and thus that of a blood enemy, even when it's being voiced by other conservatives--the kind of conservatives not approved by Newsbusters. The present fantasy narrative of the far-right’s activist base--the element of American politics the press carelessly labels "the Tea Party"[1]--is that of embattled reactionary rebels fighting not only an omni-powerful liberal Establishment but a hopelessly liberal, treacherous and entrenched Republican Establishment as well.[2]
Reflecting this fantasy, Waters’ headline refers to "Tea Party Sen. Ted Cruz" rather than “Republican Senator.” His opening identifies Cruz as a "Tea Party politician." Though Waters offers excerpts from some articles that identify Cruz as a Republican, he at no point does this himself. A particularly interesting departure given the fact that it's a standing gripe by Newsbusters that the press sometimes declines to provide a party identification for Democratic politicians caught in scandal.[3] Today alone, in fact, Newsbusters ran three different articles about various press organs failing to identify former Illinois Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. as a Democrat.
But Waters, of course, doesn’t think Cruz’s behavior is scandalous and, in fact, doesn’t even tell his readers why it's being compared to that of Joe McCarthy. He just wants to write off the comparison as a smear, which necessitates leaving his readers in the dark about the messy details. Times reporter Jonathan Weisman, Waters breathlessly fumes, "even put a mike in front of not one but two liberal Democratic senators who likened Cruz to notorious Sen. Joe McCarthy." A big deal, perhaps, in Newsbusters Land, where any coverage of any comment by any liberal Democrat is portrayed as a scandal, but hardly a basis for any real complaint. That Weisman also "put a mike in front of not one but two" conservative Republican Senators, who also criticized Cruz along exactly the same lines, doesn’t slow Waters’ roll at all.
Rather, he approvingly quotes crackpot National Review writer Michael Auslin’s reaction:
"Having largely dropped the charge of racism once leveled against tea partiers, the MSM has clearly looked for another slander, and now they’ve found it. Expect to hear McCarthyism dropped around a lot in coming months, whenever Republicans push back hard against Barack (I’m Not The Emperor) Obama’s hard-left choices in his second term. [The NY Times' Jonathan] Weisman's reporting is too vapid to actually explore the reasons Cruz and his conservative Senate compatriots have voted the way they have; rather, it is interested only in portraying them as slightly less deranged than General Jack Ripper in Dr. Strangelove."
The present push-back, identified as a reaction against one of "Obama’s hard-left choices," is, in fact, aimed at Obama’s nomination of Chuck Hagel to head the Defense Department. Hagel is, in the real world, an extremely conservative Republican. A former Senator sporting an 83.7% lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union, Hagel would more readily serve as an example of Obama’s persistent habit, throughout his administration, of stabbing his liberal constituents in the back by choosing more conservative nominees for nearly every major post to which he's made an appointment.
Though Waters wants to write off the McCarthy comparisons as a smear, he declines to challenge their validity in any way, other than merely labeling them as a smear, an approach not unlike that of McCarthy himself. Challenging them would require telling his readers exactly what Cruz had been doing and that would both validate the McCarthyism charge and expose the smear talk for what it really is.
When Chuck Hagel got the Defense chief appointment, Cruz apparently decided that nomination was so noxious that he could justify throwing away anything remotely resembling moral or ethical standards when it came to opposing it. For example:
"We do not know... if he [Hagel] received compensation for giving paid speeches at extreme or radical groups... It may be that he spoke at radical or extreme groups or anti-Israel groups and accepted financial compensation."
Sounds rather serious, until one learns that the charges were based on nothing at all. Cruz pulled them straight out of an orifice. We don’t know if Hagel did such a thing in the same we we don’t know if he’s secretly Santa Clause--both propositions are equally credible and have equal evidence in their favor.
Cruz was just getting started. Hagel had, for two years, worked for Corsair Capital, a private equity firm, work for which he was paid a total of $200,000. Like most employees, he didn’t know where his employer got the money with which it paid him, and Cruz saw this as an opportunity to inject even more poison:
"It is, at a minimum, relevant to know if that $200,000 that he deposited in his bank account came directly from Saudi Arabia, came directly from North Korea."
Propositions for which there is, again, no support at all. Cruz wasn’t finished:
"We saw with this nomination something truly extraordinary, which is the government of Iran formally and publicly praising the nomination of a defense secretary. I would suggest to you that to my knowledge, that is unprecedented to see a foreign nation like Iran publicly celebrating a nomination.”
...which is a bald-faced lie, a smear with, again, no basis in reality.
And so on. This is the business Waters is hiding from his readers, the reason Cruz’s behavior is being labeled “McCarthyism,” a characterization that is not only applicable but inescapable but that Waters would have us think is just a smear aimed by mean press liberals at a “Tea Party” pol.
--j.
---
[1] The “Tea Party” was nothing more than a faux “movement” created by professional astroturfers and elements of the far-right press. It had no numbers, no power and couldn’t elect anyone. The goal of astroturf though, is to present the illusion of a popular movement and in adopting "Tea Party" as shorthand for a portion of the same far-right activist base that has always been with us, the press is doing the astroturfers' jobs for them.
[2] In recent days, Karl Rove has become the poster child for this “Republican Establishment” and a hate-figure on the far right because of his just-stated goal of trying to support far-right Republicans who can actually win at the polls and of defeating the kind of openly batshit-crazy reactionaries who have no chance of winning a general election.
[3] When the press fails to provide the party identity of scandalized Republicans, Newsbusters is silent.
It's a standard Newsbusters technique to identify any view not emerging from that particular plot of ideological bottom-land as "liberal" and thus that of a blood enemy, even when it's being voiced by other conservatives--the kind of conservatives not approved by Newsbusters. The present fantasy narrative of the far-right’s activist base--the element of American politics the press carelessly labels "the Tea Party"[1]--is that of embattled reactionary rebels fighting not only an omni-powerful liberal Establishment but a hopelessly liberal, treacherous and entrenched Republican Establishment as well.[2]
Reflecting this fantasy, Waters’ headline refers to "Tea Party Sen. Ted Cruz" rather than “Republican Senator.” His opening identifies Cruz as a "Tea Party politician." Though Waters offers excerpts from some articles that identify Cruz as a Republican, he at no point does this himself. A particularly interesting departure given the fact that it's a standing gripe by Newsbusters that the press sometimes declines to provide a party identification for Democratic politicians caught in scandal.[3] Today alone, in fact, Newsbusters ran three different articles about various press organs failing to identify former Illinois Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. as a Democrat.
But Waters, of course, doesn’t think Cruz’s behavior is scandalous and, in fact, doesn’t even tell his readers why it's being compared to that of Joe McCarthy. He just wants to write off the comparison as a smear, which necessitates leaving his readers in the dark about the messy details. Times reporter Jonathan Weisman, Waters breathlessly fumes, "even put a mike in front of not one but two liberal Democratic senators who likened Cruz to notorious Sen. Joe McCarthy." A big deal, perhaps, in Newsbusters Land, where any coverage of any comment by any liberal Democrat is portrayed as a scandal, but hardly a basis for any real complaint. That Weisman also "put a mike in front of not one but two" conservative Republican Senators, who also criticized Cruz along exactly the same lines, doesn’t slow Waters’ roll at all.
Rather, he approvingly quotes crackpot National Review writer Michael Auslin’s reaction:
"Having largely dropped the charge of racism once leveled against tea partiers, the MSM has clearly looked for another slander, and now they’ve found it. Expect to hear McCarthyism dropped around a lot in coming months, whenever Republicans push back hard against Barack (I’m Not The Emperor) Obama’s hard-left choices in his second term. [The NY Times' Jonathan] Weisman's reporting is too vapid to actually explore the reasons Cruz and his conservative Senate compatriots have voted the way they have; rather, it is interested only in portraying them as slightly less deranged than General Jack Ripper in Dr. Strangelove."
The present push-back, identified as a reaction against one of "Obama’s hard-left choices," is, in fact, aimed at Obama’s nomination of Chuck Hagel to head the Defense Department. Hagel is, in the real world, an extremely conservative Republican. A former Senator sporting an 83.7% lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union, Hagel would more readily serve as an example of Obama’s persistent habit, throughout his administration, of stabbing his liberal constituents in the back by choosing more conservative nominees for nearly every major post to which he's made an appointment.
Though Waters wants to write off the McCarthy comparisons as a smear, he declines to challenge their validity in any way, other than merely labeling them as a smear, an approach not unlike that of McCarthy himself. Challenging them would require telling his readers exactly what Cruz had been doing and that would both validate the McCarthyism charge and expose the smear talk for what it really is.
When Chuck Hagel got the Defense chief appointment, Cruz apparently decided that nomination was so noxious that he could justify throwing away anything remotely resembling moral or ethical standards when it came to opposing it. For example:
"We do not know... if he [Hagel] received compensation for giving paid speeches at extreme or radical groups... It may be that he spoke at radical or extreme groups or anti-Israel groups and accepted financial compensation."
Sounds rather serious, until one learns that the charges were based on nothing at all. Cruz pulled them straight out of an orifice. We don’t know if Hagel did such a thing in the same we we don’t know if he’s secretly Santa Clause--both propositions are equally credible and have equal evidence in their favor.
Cruz was just getting started. Hagel had, for two years, worked for Corsair Capital, a private equity firm, work for which he was paid a total of $200,000. Like most employees, he didn’t know where his employer got the money with which it paid him, and Cruz saw this as an opportunity to inject even more poison:
"It is, at a minimum, relevant to know if that $200,000 that he deposited in his bank account came directly from Saudi Arabia, came directly from North Korea."
Propositions for which there is, again, no support at all. Cruz wasn’t finished:
"We saw with this nomination something truly extraordinary, which is the government of Iran formally and publicly praising the nomination of a defense secretary. I would suggest to you that to my knowledge, that is unprecedented to see a foreign nation like Iran publicly celebrating a nomination.”
...which is a bald-faced lie, a smear with, again, no basis in reality.
And so on. This is the business Waters is hiding from his readers, the reason Cruz’s behavior is being labeled “McCarthyism,” a characterization that is not only applicable but inescapable but that Waters would have us think is just a smear aimed by mean press liberals at a “Tea Party” pol.
--j.
---
[1] The “Tea Party” was nothing more than a faux “movement” created by professional astroturfers and elements of the far-right press. It had no numbers, no power and couldn’t elect anyone. The goal of astroturf though, is to present the illusion of a popular movement and in adopting "Tea Party" as shorthand for a portion of the same far-right activist base that has always been with us, the press is doing the astroturfers' jobs for them.
[2] In recent days, Karl Rove has become the poster child for this “Republican Establishment” and a hate-figure on the far right because of his just-stated goal of trying to support far-right Republicans who can actually win at the polls and of defeating the kind of openly batshit-crazy reactionaries who have no chance of winning a general election.
[3] When the press fails to provide the party identity of scandalized Republicans, Newsbusters is silent.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Papyrus Strips Ryan Robertson’s Objections Naked
MRCWatch Dept. - Get this: A strip of ancient papyrus has recently surfaced.
On it is written, in ancient Coptic, what appear to be references, by
Jesus (as in the Christ), to Mary, presumably Mary Magdalene, references
in which he describes her as “my disciple” and as “my wife.” The
document from which the papyrus comes is unknown, the translation of it
open to question and it may even be an elaborate forgery but whatever
the case may be, the major news networks picked up the story today,
which really got Ryan Robertson’s goat. He’s full of that patented Newsbusters Outrage
over the fact that while an anti-Muslim film "is still
being blamed for the riots and murders in the Middle East, the national
news media has no problem running a speculative story that disrespects
the teachings of the Christian faith."
Robertson whines that by giving this a little time today, “the major networks treated the story as if it deserved a considerable amount of attention.” An odd conclusion, as, by Robertson's own account, the networks didn’t give it a considerable amount of attention.
As a rule, such discoveries are treated as, well, ancient history by the national news media. They're rarely given much coverage and what little is offered is usually quite flawed, a state of affairs that has contributed to Americans’ generally spectacular ignorance of these matters. The network coverage of this strip of papyrus was certainly sensationalistic and, as usual, ill-informed[1] and if Robertson had any interest beyond peddling to his backwards readers his show of being outraged, he could have made a case for both. With regard to Karen King, the Harvard Divinity professor who has presented the papyrus scrap, Robertson notes that "King has her share of critics, both among practicing Christians and secular scholars," but while he insists "neglecting to mention that fact is a deplorable oversight by the networks," he offers no details himself to make his case,[2] nor does he make any case that scholarly disagreement with King would discredit the papyrus itself.
That is what he's suggesting though.
One of Newsbusters’ specialties is, of course, libelous character assassination and though he can’t be bothered to build a substantive case against the coverage in this matter, Robertson can’t resist repeating an outrageous second-hand libel aimed at King by Bill Donohue. Donohue (whose name Robertson misspells) is, among other things, an associate of MRC founder Brent Bozell, the public face of the Catholic League, and a vocal defender of sexually abusive priests (did you see what I just did?). In what Robertson quotes, Donohue wrote of the professor:
"King is known for her fertile imagination. For example, she previously claimed that Mary Magdalene was one of the apostles. Even better, in the book in which she made this extraordinary claim, she 'rejects his [Jesus'] suffering and death as the path to eternal life.' Not much left after that."
None of these are examples of King's "fertile imagination" though, nor are they examples of her expressing her own opinion. Rather, they are examples of King accurately relaying the contents of the non-canonical Gospel of Mary, in a book she wrote on the subject entitled "The Gospel of Mary of Magdala: Jesus and the First Woman Apostle." Donahue would be advised to pray to his god that King is merciful toward libels.
--j.
---
[1] Jesus’ marital status was treated as a great mystery this could help solve, there were references to Dan Brown’s godawful “DaVinci Code” and so on.
[2] One would be that King argues for an earlier date for authorship of the non-canonical Gospel of Mary than most scholars allow.
Robertson whines that by giving this a little time today, “the major networks treated the story as if it deserved a considerable amount of attention.” An odd conclusion, as, by Robertson's own account, the networks didn’t give it a considerable amount of attention.
As a rule, such discoveries are treated as, well, ancient history by the national news media. They're rarely given much coverage and what little is offered is usually quite flawed, a state of affairs that has contributed to Americans’ generally spectacular ignorance of these matters. The network coverage of this strip of papyrus was certainly sensationalistic and, as usual, ill-informed[1] and if Robertson had any interest beyond peddling to his backwards readers his show of being outraged, he could have made a case for both. With regard to Karen King, the Harvard Divinity professor who has presented the papyrus scrap, Robertson notes that "King has her share of critics, both among practicing Christians and secular scholars," but while he insists "neglecting to mention that fact is a deplorable oversight by the networks," he offers no details himself to make his case,[2] nor does he make any case that scholarly disagreement with King would discredit the papyrus itself.
That is what he's suggesting though.
One of Newsbusters’ specialties is, of course, libelous character assassination and though he can’t be bothered to build a substantive case against the coverage in this matter, Robertson can’t resist repeating an outrageous second-hand libel aimed at King by Bill Donohue. Donohue (whose name Robertson misspells) is, among other things, an associate of MRC founder Brent Bozell, the public face of the Catholic League, and a vocal defender of sexually abusive priests (did you see what I just did?). In what Robertson quotes, Donohue wrote of the professor:
"King is known for her fertile imagination. For example, she previously claimed that Mary Magdalene was one of the apostles. Even better, in the book in which she made this extraordinary claim, she 'rejects his [Jesus'] suffering and death as the path to eternal life.' Not much left after that."
None of these are examples of King's "fertile imagination" though, nor are they examples of her expressing her own opinion. Rather, they are examples of King accurately relaying the contents of the non-canonical Gospel of Mary, in a book she wrote on the subject entitled "The Gospel of Mary of Magdala: Jesus and the First Woman Apostle." Donahue would be advised to pray to his god that King is merciful toward libels.
--j.
---
[1] Jesus’ marital status was treated as a great mystery this could help solve, there were references to Dan Brown’s godawful “DaVinci Code” and so on.
[2] One would be that King argues for an earlier date for authorship of the non-canonical Gospel of Mary than most scholars allow.
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Tim Graham Sews Confusion on NPR and Anti-Gay Pol
MRCWatch Dept. - Once upon a time, not so long ago, there was a fellow in Maryland who
sent a letter to Baltimore Ravens owner Steve Bisciotti. It was an ugly
letter, from a politician with an ugly anti-gay history. The
politician, a state legislator (and Baptist minister) who answered to
the name of Emmet C. Burns, had noticed that Ravens linebacker Brendon
Ayabedejo was campaigning against a ballot initiative in Maryland aimed
at overturning the state’s law allowing for same-sex marriage. He didn’t
like that very much. When he wrote that ugly letter, it was to demand
that the Ravens owner make Ayabedejo shut up, and not talk about this
anymore. As he sat on the state legislature’s committee charged with
regulating the Baltimore Ravens, this letter was rather threatening.
Less than a week ago, Ken Shepherd got his wires royally crossed and penned a brief whine about the very little coverage this story was receiving. Shepherd had become so lost in a political persecution fantasy--his view was that the story would be getting lots of coverage if the state legislator had been a Republican, rather than a Democrat--that he never seemed to realize the extent to which this lack of coverage worked so violently against Newsbusters' central premise of a "liberal press." An anti-gay state legislator tried to silence a same-sex marriage advocate and the press, for the most part, didn’t care.
A few days went by and National Public Radio did cover the story. Is Newsbusters happy?
No.
Newsbusters is complaining.
NPR interviewed Ayabedejo and Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe, who had written an open letter in response to Burns. That open letter becomes the point of attack today for NB’s Tim Graham, who called it “a profane, nasty open letter” and went on to pout:
"It's a little bit bizarre that NPR, that alleged beacon of quiet and civil discourse, wouldn’t take exception or even ask Kluwe about his profanity and rudeness."
Of course, Kluwe was responding to a hate-mongering politician who was trying to throw his weight around and get the owner of the Ravens to stifle the speech of one of his players. It’s hard to argue that a great deal of nastiness, profanity and rudeness isn’t entirely appropriate in such a situation but that’s exactly the case Graham tries to make. In the process, he turns reality on its head in classic Newsbuster fashion:
"His [Kluwe’s] first sentence was 'I find it inconceivable that you are an elected official of Maryland’s state government. Your vitriolic hatred and bigotry make me ashamed and disgusted to think that you are in any way responsible for shaping policy at any level.' Kluwe’s one of those intolerant leftists who thinks conservatives should never speak or have a place at the table. No wonder NPR likes him."
So as Graham sees it, Burns, who actually did try to silence someone, isn’t the one who gets this abuse. Instead, Kluwe, for objecting to this effort, is the intolerant fellow who would silence those with whom he disagrees.
Graham also complains that the interview offered "no consideration of conservative questions" (from the questions he lists to demonstrate this, it offered no consideration of any liberal ones, either) and asserts that "one way the 'mainstream' media makes the liberal position the 'mainstream' is by ignoring the religious, conservative opposition..."[*] That persecution narrative again. The "religious, conservative opposition" in this case is a politician whose hatred of gays led him to blatantly use his position to try to silence someone for the crime of publicly disagreeing over same-sex marriage. Can anyone other than Graham seriously argue we should feel bad that he wasn’t interviewed, as well?
--j.
---
[*] The press doesn’t have to make "the liberal position the ‘mainstream'"; it already is the mainstream. Polling has shown overwhelming public support for official recognition of same-sex relationships extending back at least 8 years and majority public support for same-sex marriage since May 2011.
Less than a week ago, Ken Shepherd got his wires royally crossed and penned a brief whine about the very little coverage this story was receiving. Shepherd had become so lost in a political persecution fantasy--his view was that the story would be getting lots of coverage if the state legislator had been a Republican, rather than a Democrat--that he never seemed to realize the extent to which this lack of coverage worked so violently against Newsbusters' central premise of a "liberal press." An anti-gay state legislator tried to silence a same-sex marriage advocate and the press, for the most part, didn’t care.
A few days went by and National Public Radio did cover the story. Is Newsbusters happy?
No.
Newsbusters is complaining.
NPR interviewed Ayabedejo and Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe, who had written an open letter in response to Burns. That open letter becomes the point of attack today for NB’s Tim Graham, who called it “a profane, nasty open letter” and went on to pout:
"It's a little bit bizarre that NPR, that alleged beacon of quiet and civil discourse, wouldn’t take exception or even ask Kluwe about his profanity and rudeness."
Of course, Kluwe was responding to a hate-mongering politician who was trying to throw his weight around and get the owner of the Ravens to stifle the speech of one of his players. It’s hard to argue that a great deal of nastiness, profanity and rudeness isn’t entirely appropriate in such a situation but that’s exactly the case Graham tries to make. In the process, he turns reality on its head in classic Newsbuster fashion:
"His [Kluwe’s] first sentence was 'I find it inconceivable that you are an elected official of Maryland’s state government. Your vitriolic hatred and bigotry make me ashamed and disgusted to think that you are in any way responsible for shaping policy at any level.' Kluwe’s one of those intolerant leftists who thinks conservatives should never speak or have a place at the table. No wonder NPR likes him."
So as Graham sees it, Burns, who actually did try to silence someone, isn’t the one who gets this abuse. Instead, Kluwe, for objecting to this effort, is the intolerant fellow who would silence those with whom he disagrees.
Graham also complains that the interview offered "no consideration of conservative questions" (from the questions he lists to demonstrate this, it offered no consideration of any liberal ones, either) and asserts that "one way the 'mainstream' media makes the liberal position the 'mainstream' is by ignoring the religious, conservative opposition..."[*] That persecution narrative again. The "religious, conservative opposition" in this case is a politician whose hatred of gays led him to blatantly use his position to try to silence someone for the crime of publicly disagreeing over same-sex marriage. Can anyone other than Graham seriously argue we should feel bad that he wasn’t interviewed, as well?
--j.
---
[*] The press doesn’t have to make "the liberal position the ‘mainstream'"; it already is the mainstream. Polling has shown overwhelming public support for official recognition of same-sex relationships extending back at least 8 years and majority public support for same-sex marriage since May 2011.
P.J. Gladnick Rewrites History of Occupy Wall Street Coverage
MRCWatch Dept. - Marking the first anniversary of Occupy Wall Street, P.J. Gladnick turned his Smarminess Meter up to 11 and attempted a major revision of history with regard to the early coverage offered that movement:
In the real world, of course, the journalistic scandal of 2011 was the almost-complete lack of any significant coverage of Occupy Wall Street in its earliest days. Much of what little notice was paid the movement by the national press was sneering, contemptuous and dismissive.
Five days after the demonstrations began, the initial press blackout of the OWS demonstrations drew a rebuke from Current TV’s Keith Olbermann. Later, Jim Naureckas of liberal press watchdog Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) would punch the ol’ Nexis buttons for newspaper stories that mentioned Occupy Wall Street during the 5 days leading up to that broadcast. There were 17 articles, 10 of which were in foreign newspapers and 4 of which were in the same small Missouri paper. There was 1 article each in 3 different New York papers. And that’s all. Two days after Olbermann's objection, FAIR echoed it, rhetorically asking, “What if the Tea Party occupied Wall Street?” The article provided some info on the coverage to date:
This is Gladnick's "extreme media hype."
Today's article wasn't Gladnick's first effort at sending this history down a Memory Hole. Back in February, he challenged the conclusion about the OWS coverage offered by a Current TV documentary:
Gladnick's "wall of general acclaim the OWS received from the MSM."
It’s worth noting that, while Gladnick slams Current’s Putzel for allegedly being "forced to show only clips from FOX News" to back up the charge that the press had portrayed OWS in an unflattering light, Gladnick himself, in grasping for a substantive example to support his case that OWS was "given a boost at birth with extreme media hype,"[2] not only offered the same comment by NBC’s Brian Williams in both his article today and in the one from back in February but also had to completely misrepresent it to use even it. Here’s what Williams said on NBC Nightly News on 5 Oct., 2011 (weeks, it should be said, after OWS began):
Sort of says it all, doesn’t it?
--j.
---
[1] After some weeks, OWS started getting regular coverage but mostly because of the insanely violent law-enforcement attacks on demonstrators.
[2] In the February piece, he also referenced a general Media Research Center "study" of coverage. For a look at what, in every case, passes for a “study” from the MRC, see here and here and here and here.
"Reuters has noted the one year anniversary coming this Monday of the Coffee Party, oops, I mean Occupy Wall Street. I can be forgiven for the error since both proved to be as big a flop as Joe Scarborough’s No Labels. All of these failed movements had one other thing in common: they were given a boost at birth with extreme media hype."Later, he asserted that the Occupiers "must feel really down after the artificial buildup given to them by the MSM shortly after their birth last year."
In the real world, of course, the journalistic scandal of 2011 was the almost-complete lack of any significant coverage of Occupy Wall Street in its earliest days. Much of what little notice was paid the movement by the national press was sneering, contemptuous and dismissive.
Five days after the demonstrations began, the initial press blackout of the OWS demonstrations drew a rebuke from Current TV’s Keith Olbermann. Later, Jim Naureckas of liberal press watchdog Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) would punch the ol’ Nexis buttons for newspaper stories that mentioned Occupy Wall Street during the 5 days leading up to that broadcast. There were 17 articles, 10 of which were in foreign newspapers and 4 of which were in the same small Missouri paper. There was 1 article each in 3 different New York papers. And that’s all. Two days after Olbermann's objection, FAIR echoed it, rhetorically asking, “What if the Tea Party occupied Wall Street?” The article provided some info on the coverage to date:
"The anti-corporate protests have been lightly covered in the hometown New York Times: One piece (9/18/11) largely about how the police blocked access to Wall Street, and one photo (9/22/11) with the caption 'Wall Street Protest Whirls On.'The complaints about this lack of coverage didn't lead to any real coverage at first either. Instead, parts of the press began to cover their own non-coverage and to cook up rationalizations for not covering the demonstrations.
"The protests have been treated with brief mentions on CNN, like this one from host Wolf Blitzer (9/19/11): 'Protests here in New York on Wall Street entering a third day. Should New Yorkers be worried at all about what’s going on?'
"From the ABC, CBS and NBC network news, we could find nothing at all in the Nexis news database. On the PBS NewsHour (9/19/11), the protests got a brief reference, tacked on to the end of the stock market report."
This is Gladnick's "extreme media hype."
Today's article wasn't Gladnick's first effort at sending this history down a Memory Hole. Back in February, he challenged the conclusion about the OWS coverage offered by a Current TV documentary:
"Few people watch Current TV so perhaps Christof Putzel, correspondent of that channel’s Vanguard show, thought he could broadcast a whopper on The 99 Percent episode about the Occupy Wall Street protests without being called on it. And Putzel’s grand fib (as one would politely label it) was his claim that 'much of the mainstream media mocked and dismissed the Occupy Wall Street movement.' Later in the show, Putzel doubled down on his whopper and flat out declared with no qualifiers that 'The mainstream media paints an unflattering portrait of the Occupy Wall Street movement.'In fact, Putzel or anyone else examing the matter will, with fairly minimal effort, find a wealth of examples of the "unflattering portrait" of OWS painted by a lot of the press. On 21 Sept. 2011, the same day Olbermann complained about the press blackout, the Associated Press offered a piece that would come to typify the sneering contempt a lot of the “mainstream media” offered OWS:
"And what samples does Putzel cite for this supposed disrespect for OWS? Since he can’t find any from the alphabet networks of NBC, CBS, ABC, and PBS which have broadcast overwhelmingly glowing reviews of OWS, he was forced to show only clips from FOX News which sounded some discordant notes amidst the wall of general acclaim the OWS received from the MSM."
"In a small granite plaza a block from the New York Stock Exchange, a group of 20-somethings in flannel pajama pants and tie-dyed T-shirts are plotting the demise of Wall Street as we know it… Welcome to the headquarters of 'Occupy Wall Street,' a place where topless women stood Wednesday morning on the corner shouting 'I can't afford a shirt!'"Two days later, the New York Times ran its first major article on the demonstrations, an utterly contemptuous rant against OWS by Ginia Bellafante. Three days later, the Boston Globe’s Joanna Weiss wrote:
"It’s hard to take a protest fully seriously when it looks more like a circus–some participants seem to have taken a chute straight from Burning Man..."A few days after this, the sarcasm-laden contempt was virtually seeping through the pores of CNN anchor Erin Burnett--so much so that it seemed to get in her eyes and she didn’t bother to get her story straight. At the New Republic, Alex Klein was telling the same story. Appearing on CNN on 16 Oct., the Wall Street Journal’s Bret Stephens asserted that OWS was made up of “the same kind of extreme fringe you find at Ramsey Clarke marches.” Then, of course, there’s what the far-right press was saying about it. And on, and on, and on.[1]
Gladnick's "wall of general acclaim the OWS received from the MSM."
It’s worth noting that, while Gladnick slams Current’s Putzel for allegedly being "forced to show only clips from FOX News" to back up the charge that the press had portrayed OWS in an unflattering light, Gladnick himself, in grasping for a substantive example to support his case that OWS was "given a boost at birth with extreme media hype,"[2] not only offered the same comment by NBC’s Brian Williams in both his article today and in the one from back in February but also had to completely misrepresent it to use even it. Here’s what Williams said on NBC Nightly News on 5 Oct., 2011 (weeks, it should be said, after OWS began):
"We begin tonight with what has become by any measure a pretty massive protest movement. While it goes by the official name 'Occupy Wall Street,' it has spread steadily and far beyond Wall Street, and it could well turn out to be the protest of this current era."Gladnick describes this as a "loving paean" to OWS and "the most laughable of the media hype" of OWS.
Sort of says it all, doesn’t it?
--j.
---
[1] After some weeks, OWS started getting regular coverage but mostly because of the insanely violent law-enforcement attacks on demonstrators.
[2] In the February piece, he also referenced a general Media Research Center "study" of coverage. For a look at what, in every case, passes for a “study” from the MRC, see here and here and here and here.
Friday, September 14, 2012
Sheppard Misleads His Flock In Fact-Checking Fact-Check
MRCWatch Dept. - Noel Sheppard has attempted to fact-check
a fact-check offered by Minneapolis CBS affiliate WCCO-TV of an
Americans for Prosperity ad. The ad is a blatantly misleading attack on
Obamacare and admirably, the local news operation challenged it. That
got Sheppard's dander up but lacking any real basis for his a priori
conclusion that the fact-check was "truly bogus," Sheppard reverts to
telling his sheep to believe his words rather than their own lying
eyes.
The ad tells the story of a Canadian woman named Shona with a "life-threatening brain condition." She allegedly sought care in her home country, was allegedly told it would be months before she could see the relevant specialists--a title card says "Canada’s government-run health-care system was failing her"--and came to the U.S. for treatment instead. "I knew then that the [Canadian] system had become far more dangerous for patients than I had ever realized," she tells the camera. A title-card reads "But under President Obama, America’s health care is becoming more like the Canadian system that failed Shona." Shona tells the camera "the American system was there for me when I needed it and its time for Americans to get engaged in this debate" and the ad ends with an announcer intoning, "To protect America’s patient-centered care, we must replace President Obama."
The WCCO criticism of this was rather extensive and quite damning[1] but Sheppard zeroes in on only a single element of it:
"The Americans for Prosperity ad is based on a false premise--that the new healthcare law creates a government-run system. But it’s just not true. The U.S. has a private, insurance-run program."
This is where Sheppard objects; he says it's "not true" that the ad says Obamacare creates a government-run system. Apparently so confident that his readers will believe him rather than their lying eyes, he even provides a transcript of the ad. "Maybe WCCO needs a fact-checker to fact-check itself and its reporters," he suggests. Or maybe certain Newsbusters could benefit from some remedial classes in basic reading comprehension.
--j.
[1] The fact-check noted that Shona was afflicted with a Rathke cyst, which, WCCO reports, is “a slow-growing, benign lesion that causes vision loss.” The Mayo Clinic, where Shona sought treatment, diplomatically notes this is not something that is “typically fatal.” There is, in fact, no waiting period in Canada for treatment of life-threatening illnesses. WCCO cites figures that 8% of Canadians requiring surgery do wait up to 6 months but “only for non-threatening elective operations.” Sheppard doesn’t touch any of this.
The ad tells the story of a Canadian woman named Shona with a "life-threatening brain condition." She allegedly sought care in her home country, was allegedly told it would be months before she could see the relevant specialists--a title card says "Canada’s government-run health-care system was failing her"--and came to the U.S. for treatment instead. "I knew then that the [Canadian] system had become far more dangerous for patients than I had ever realized," she tells the camera. A title-card reads "But under President Obama, America’s health care is becoming more like the Canadian system that failed Shona." Shona tells the camera "the American system was there for me when I needed it and its time for Americans to get engaged in this debate" and the ad ends with an announcer intoning, "To protect America’s patient-centered care, we must replace President Obama."
The WCCO criticism of this was rather extensive and quite damning[1] but Sheppard zeroes in on only a single element of it:
"The Americans for Prosperity ad is based on a false premise--that the new healthcare law creates a government-run system. But it’s just not true. The U.S. has a private, insurance-run program."
This is where Sheppard objects; he says it's "not true" that the ad says Obamacare creates a government-run system. Apparently so confident that his readers will believe him rather than their lying eyes, he even provides a transcript of the ad. "Maybe WCCO needs a fact-checker to fact-check itself and its reporters," he suggests. Or maybe certain Newsbusters could benefit from some remedial classes in basic reading comprehension.
--j.
[1] The fact-check noted that Shona was afflicted with a Rathke cyst, which, WCCO reports, is “a slow-growing, benign lesion that causes vision loss.” The Mayo Clinic, where Shona sought treatment, diplomatically notes this is not something that is “typically fatal.” There is, in fact, no waiting period in Canada for treatment of life-threatening illnesses. WCCO cites figures that 8% of Canadians requiring surgery do wait up to 6 months but “only for non-threatening elective operations.” Sheppard doesn’t touch any of this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)