Larry King - World-of-Newave.info http://answers.world-of-newave.info/larry-king.htm Latest news and articles about Larry King en-us Copyright (c)2004-2008.§/Newave SARL. All rights reserved. webmaster@world-of-newave.com (Webmaster) Mon, 08 Sep 2008 09:16:26 GMT Mon, 08 Sep 2008 09:16:26 GMT Newave Lisa XML Engine v1.0 - http://www.world-of-newave.info/about.htm 60 http://www.world-of-newave.info/images/wi8831.gif World-of-Newave.info - Knowledge and Informational Database http://www.world-of-newave.info/ 88 31 {ISSUES > BIAS AND BALANCE} - "Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/media-matters-by-jamison-foser-2008096566.htm http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/media-matters-by-jamison-foser-2008096566.htm Sat, 06 Sep 2008 01:32:32 GMT A test for the media On MSNBC on Thursday, Time's Jay Carney offered an assessment of the McCain campaign's most recent assault on the media: "Clearly, the campaign has decided that one way to win is to attack the media. Now, that could work. It does not have a great history of working. 'Annoy the Media: Re-Elect George Bush,' 1992 -- Bush got, I think, 39 percent of the vote or 37 percent of the vote." Carney didn't explicitly say it, but he seems to be under the impression that the point of the McCain campaign's attacks on the media is to win support from voters who dislike the media. And he seems to think the Republicans only occasionally wage a war on his profession. In fact, it is a constant war, the point of which is not to merely win a few votes from people who dislike the media. The point is to make voters distrust the media, to make them believe the media are out to get conservatives and thus cause them to discount news reports that are unfavorable to conservatives, and to cow the media themselves into running fewer such reports. (It serves another purpose, too: It helps a nominee whose heiress wife shows up at the convention in an outfit estimated to cost $300,000 pretend to be a man of the people raging against the "elites." But that's a story better told elsewhere.) And it does indeed have a great history of working. No, it has a spectacularly successful history of working -- of helping conservatives win both short-term and long-term victories. Don't take my word for it: Longtime Washington Post reporter Tom Edsall, now of The Huffington Post, has explained: The conservative movement has been very effective attacking the media (broadcast and print) for its liberal biases. The refusal of the media to disclose and discuss the ideological leanings of reporters and editors, and the broader claim of objectivity, has made the press overly anxious, and inclined to lean over backwards not to offend critics from the right. In many respects, the campaign against the media has been more than a victory: it has turned the press into an unwilling, and often unknowing, ally of the right. Take one example of right-wing media bashing contributing to short-term electoral success: Under fire from the White House and conservative activists, CBS News spiked a report questioning the Bush administration's case for the Iraq war that was supposed to air shortly before the 2004 election. During that year's presidential debates, Bush told Americans, "I'm not so sure it's credible to quote leading news organizations" -- a direct assault on the media from the president of the United States in the biggest forum he had. But that was only a small drop in the steady stream of media criticism that came from Bush and his allies during the 2004 election. If Jay Carney is going to point to election results to assess the success of the GOP's assault on the media, he can't simply cherry-pick the elections the Republicans lost; they've been doing this every election cycle for 40 years. But the conservatives' attacks on the media aren't simply about the next election. They recognize that each such criticism makes voters and the media more likely to believe the next -- so even if the 2004 attacks hadn't worked, they still would have been successful. And there would be nothing wrong with any of that -- if the Republicans' complaints had significant merit. But they frequently do not -- and they often don't even pretend that they do. A few weeks ago, for example, there was a frenzy of conservative whining that Barack Obama had gotten more media coverage than John McCain. Now, the amount of coverage each candidate has gotten, by itself, tells us virtually nothing. What was the content of the coverage? Was it positive? Negative? True? False? Fair? Balanced? The conservative complainers made no attempt to assess this -- they just yelled that Obama was getting more coverage. Well, O.J. Simpson got considerably more coverage than Mother Teresa in 1994 -- anyone want to argue he got more favorable coverage? Anyone want to argue that, by covering Simpson too much, the media were demonstrating that they were in the tank for him? Still, despite glaring flaws with the Republicans' criticism, the media took them seriously, and many journalists adopted the complaints as their own. The past week provides a useful case study of how the Republicans' assault on the media works. Last Friday, John McCain announced that he had chosen Sarah Palin to be his running mate. The media had a few questions -- basically, who is she, and is she ready to be president? So the McCain campaign threw a tantrum, insisting the media were being unfair. As usual, the complaints were short on details and merit -- but the media still took the complaints seriously, treating them as one of the most important topics of the past few week. Perhaps the best example of how phony the GOP's complaints were: the McCain campaign's cancellation of an appearance by McCain on Larry King Live because, they said, CNN anchor Campbell Brown had behaved improperly in interviewing campaign spokesperson Tucker Bounds the night before. They didn't really say what Brown had done wrong -- probably because all she had done was ask simple questions that Bounds couldn't answer. After Bounds said that as governor of Alaska, Palin leads the state's National Guard, Brown asked him for an example of a decision she had made in that capacity. He didn't answer. So she asked him again. That isn't inappropriate; that's exactly what she should have done -- that's journalism. And that drove the McCain campaign crazy. So, did all the complaints work? Consider this: Wednesday night, Sarah Palin falsely claimed she had told Congress she did not want funding for the "bridge to nowhere." She didn't; that was a lie. Congress had said a year before Palin became governor that Alaska need not spend the federal funds on the bridge. And Palin had initially supported the bridge, not opposed it. And once she became governor, Palin kept the money. Palin's false claims Wednesday night were not new: She had said the same thing in previous campaign appearances since McCain picked her -- and several media outlets, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times had debunked the boast. But when Palin told the lie during her convention speech -- after days of McCain complaints that the media had been too hard on Palin -- those newspapers ignored the lie. That wasn't the only false claim in Palin's speech that went un-debunked by the media. She falsely attacked Barack Obama's legislative record -- and media uncritically quoted the false claims. She lied about Obama's tax plans -- she said he "wants to raise" them, even though John McCain's own economic adviser has admitted that is false -- and, again, the media repeated her claim without debunking it. Instead, much of the media gushed over her speech. If you watched MSNBC yesterday, you would have seen reporter after reporter talk about the McCain complaints that the media were too hard on Palin. And you would have seen reporter after reporter lavish praise on Palin's speech. But you wouldn't have seen them say much about the actual content of Palin's speech -- certainly not about whether she told the truth in it. At one point, Andrea Mitchell declared that "what came through" in Palin's address was "the authenticity." Nonsense. "Authenticity" doesn't consist of doing a good job of delivering a speech -- not if the speech is riddled with falsehoods. But most of the media didn't tell you about the falsehoods, they just fell all over themselves praising the speech -- even praising the "authenticity" of someone who stood before the nation and repeated lies she had already been caught telling. So, did the McCain attacks on the media work? They certainly didn't hurt. And this isn't the first time a McCain assault on the media has appeared to pay off. He and his campaign have spent much of the year attacking the press. And it seems to have worked: McCain still hasn't faced the media scrutiny reporters kept insisting would come eventually. The media have told us a lot about Barack Obama and Tony Rezko, for example -- but kept key details about John McCain's relationship with Charles Keating a secret. Did you know that Cindy McCain was business partners with Keating around the time John McCain was meeting with regulators on Keating's behalf? Probably not: The Washington Post hasn't told readers that fact during this campaign; The New York Times has made only brief mention of it. ABC, CBS, NBC -- nothing. Or how about the fact that John and Cindy McCain would save nearly $400,000 a year under John McCain's tax plan -- a tax plan that includes the extension of Bush tax cuts McCain once bashed as unfairly skewed towards the wealthy? Have you seen any media mention to that lately? It wasn't long ago that news organizations thought John Edwards' wealth was important to keep in mind in assessing his policy proposals -- but that apparently doesn't apply to John McCain. The McCain campaign's war against the media shouldn't be surprising; this is what conservatives do. The only real question is what reporters are going to do about it. Are they going to fall for the absurd argument that John McCain -- arguably the national politician who has received the most favorable media coverage over the past decade, if not longer -- is being unfairly treated by reporters who still haven't given him any serious scrutiny? Are they going to cower in the face of right-wing bullying as they have so many times in the past? It's hard to imagine that they won't. But there have been some encouraging signs this week. Time's Carney seems legitimately irritated that the Republican vice-presidential nominee refuses to face reporters. And colleague Joe Klein -- who has, in the past, been awfully kind to McCain -- urged fellow reporters not to back down in the face of the barrage of criticism from the right: There is a tendency in the media to kick ourselves, cringe and withdraw, when we are criticized. But I hope my colleagues stand strong in this case: it is important for the public to know that Palin raised taxes as governor, supported the Bridge to Nowhere before she opposed it, pursued pork-barrel projects as mayor, tried to ban books at the local library and thinks the war in Iraq is "a task from God." The attempts by the McCain campaign to bully us into not reporting such things are not only stupidly aggressive, but unprofessional in the extreme. The next two months will constitute a test for reporters: If they fall for the idea that they're treating unfairly a candidate who has long referred to them as his "base," what won't they fall for? If they won't stand up to these attacks, what will they stand up to? Mediamatters.Org "Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser {new window}   Mediamatters.Org - A test for the media On MSNBC on Thursday, Time's Jay Carney offered an assessment of the McCain campaign's most recent assault on the media: "Clearly, the campaign has decided that one way to win is to attack the media. Now, that could work. It does not have a great history of working. 'Annoy the Media: Re-Elect George Bush,' 1992 -- Bush got, I think, 39 percent of the vote or 37 percent of the vote." Carney didn't explicitly say it, but he seems to be under the impression that the point of the McCain campaign's attacks on the media is to win support from voters who dislike the media. And he seems to think the Republicans only occasionally wage a war on his profession. In fact, it is a constant war, the point of which is not to merely win a few votes from people who dislike the media. The point is to make voters distrust the media, to make them believe the media are out to get conservatives and thus cause them to discount news reports that are unfavorable to conservatives, and to cow the media themselves into running fewer such reports. (It serves another purpose, too: It helps a nominee whose heiress wife shows up at the convention in an outfit estimated to cost $300,000 pretend to be a man of the people raging against the "elites." But that's a story better told elsewhere.) And it does indeed have a great history of working. No, it has a spectacularly successful history of working -- of helping conservatives win both short-term and long-term victories. Don't take my word for it: Longtime Washington Post reporter Tom Edsall, now of The Huffington Post, has explained: The conservative movement has been very effective attacking the media (broadcast and print) for its liberal biases. The refusal of the media to disclose and discuss the ideological leanings of reporters and editors, and the broader claim of objectivity, has made the press overly anxious, and inclined to lean over backwards not to offend critics from the right. In many respects, the campaign against the media has been more than a victory: it has turned the press into an unwilling, and often unknowing, ally of the right. Take one example of right-wing media bashing contributing to short-term electoral success: Under fire from the White House and conservative activists, CBS News spiked a report questioning the Bush administration's case for the Iraq war that was supposed to air shortly before the 2004 election. During that year's presidential debates, Bush told Americans, "I'm not so sure it's credible to quote leading news organizations" -- a direct assault on the media from the president of the United States in the biggest forum he had. But that was only a small drop in the steady stream of media criticism that came from Bush and his allies during the 2004 election. If Jay Carney is going to point to election results to assess the success of the GOP's assault on the media, he can't simply cherry-pick the elections the Republicans lost; they've been doing this every election cycle for 40 years. But the conservatives' attacks on the media aren't simply about the next election. They recognize that each such criticism makes voters and the media more likely to believe the next -- so even if the 2004 attacks hadn't worked, they still would have been successful. And there would be nothing wrong with any of that -- if the Republicans' complaints had significant merit. But they frequently do not -- and they often don't even pretend that they do. A few weeks ago, for example, there was a frenzy of conservative whining that Barack Obama had gotten more media coverage than John McCain. Now, the amount of coverage each candidate has gotten, by itself, tells us virtually nothing. What was the content of the coverage? Was it positive? Negative? True? False? Fair? Balanced? The conservative complainers made no attempt to assess this -- they just yelled that Obama was getting more coverage. Well, O.J. Simpson got considerably more coverage than Mother Teresa in 1994 -- anyone want to argue he got more favorable coverage? Anyone want to argue that, by covering Simpson too much, the media were demonstrating that they were in the tank for him? Still, despite glaring flaws with the Republicans' criticism, the media took them seriously, and many journalists adopted the complaints as their own. The past week provides a useful case study of how the Republicans' assault on the media works. Last Friday, John McCain announced that he had chosen Sarah Palin to be his running mate. The media had a few questions -- basically, who is she, and is she ready to be president? So the McCain campaign threw a tantrum, insisting the media were being unfair. As usual, the complaints were short on details and merit -- but the media still took the complaints seriously, treating them as one of the most important topics of the past few week. Perhaps the best example of how phony the GOP's complaints were: the McCain campaign's cancellation of an appearance by McCain on Larry King Live because, they said, CNN anchor Campbell Brown had behaved improperly in interviewing campaign spokesperson Tucker Bounds the night before. They didn't really say what Brown had done wrong -- probably because all she had done was ask simple questions that Bounds couldn't answer. After Bounds said that as governor of Alaska, Palin leads the state's National Guard, Brown asked him for an example of a decision she had made in that capacity. He didn't answer. So she asked him again. That isn't inappropriate; that's exactly what she should have done -- that's journalism. And that drove the McCain campaign crazy. So, did all the complaints work? Consider this: Wednesday night, Sarah Palin falsely claimed she had told Congress she did not want funding for the "bridge to nowhere." She didn't; that was a lie. Congress had said a year before Palin became governor that Alaska need not spend the federal funds on the bridge. And Palin had initially supported the bridge, not opposed it. And once she became governor, Palin kept the money. Palin's false claims Wednesday night were not new: She had said the same thing in previous campaign appearances since McCain picked her -- and several media outlets, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times had debunked the boast. But when Palin told the lie during her convention speech -- after days of McCain complaints that the media had been too hard on Palin -- those newspapers ignored the lie. That wasn't the only false claim in Palin's speech that went un-debunked by the media. She falsely attacked Barack Obama's legislative record -- and media uncritically quoted the false claims. She lied about Obama's tax plans -- she said he "wants to raise" them, even though John McCain's own economic adviser has admitted that is false -- and, again, the media repeated her claim without debunking it. Instead, much of the media gushed over her speech. If you watched MSNBC yesterday, you would have seen reporter after reporter talk about the McCain complaints that the media were too hard on Palin. And you would have seen reporter after reporter lavish praise on Palin's speech. But you wouldn't have seen them say much about the actual content of Palin's speech -- certainly not about whether she told the truth in it. At one point, Andrea Mitchell declared that "what came through" in Palin's address was "the authenticity." Nonsense. "Authenticity" doesn't consist of doing a good job of delivering a speech -- not if the speech is riddled with falsehoods. But most of the media didn't tell you about the falsehoods, they just fell all over themselves praising the speech -- even praising the "authenticity" of someone who stood before the nation and repeated lies she had already been caught telling. So, did the McCain attacks on the media work? They certainly didn't hurt. And this isn't the first time a McCain assault on the media has appeared to pay off. He and his campaign have spent much of the year attacking the press. And it seems to have worked: McCain still hasn't faced the media scrutiny reporters kept insisting would come eventually. The media have told us a lot about Barack Obama and Tony Rezko, for example -- but kept key details about John McCain's relationship with Charles Keating a secret. Did you know that Cindy McCain was business partners with Keating around the time John McCain was meeting with regulators on Keating's behalf? Probably not: The Washington Post hasn't told readers that fact during this campaign; The New York Times has made only brief mention of it. ABC, CBS, NBC -- nothing. Or how about the fact that John and Cindy McCain would save nearly $400,000 a year under John McCain's tax plan -- a tax plan that includes the extension of Bush tax cuts McCain once bashed as unfairly skewed towards the wealthy? Have you seen any media mention to that lately? It wasn't long ago that news organizations thought John Edwards' wealth was important to keep in mind in assessing his policy proposals -- but that apparently doesn't apply to John McCain. The McCain campaign's war against the media shouldn't be surprising; this is what conservatives do. The only real question is what reporters are going to do about it. Are they going to fall for the absurd argument that John McCain -- arguably the national politician who has received the most favorable media coverage over the past decade, if not longer -- is being unfairly treated by reporters who still haven't given him any serious scrutiny? Are they going to cower in the face of right-wing bullying as they have so many times in the past? It's hard to imagine that they won't. But there have been some encouraging signs this week. Time's Carney seems legitimately irritated that the Republican vice-presidential nominee refuses to face reporters. And colleague Joe Klein -- who has, in the past, been awfully kind to McCain -- urged fellow reporters not to back down in the face of the barrage of criticism from the right: There is a tendency in the media to kick ourselves, cringe and withdraw, when we are criticized. But I hope my colleagues stand strong in this case: it is important for the public to know that Palin raised taxes as governor, supported the Bridge to Nowhere before she opposed it, pursued pork-barrel projects as mayor, tried to ban books at the local library and thinks the war in Iraq is "a task from God." The attempts by the McCain campaign to bully us into not reporting such things are not only stupidly aggressive, but unprofessional in the extreme. The next two months will constitute a test for reporters: If they fall for the idea that they're treating unfairly a candidate who has long referred to them as his "base," what won't they fall for? If they won't stand up to these attacks, what will they stand up to?
Media Matters - "Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser {...}
Published: September 6, 2008, 1:32 am - Indexed: September 6, 2008, 11:16 am - Page Size: 23KB
Category: Society > Issues > Business > Media > Bias and Balance

]]> Society > Issues > Business > Media > Bias and Balance {MOVIES > FAHRENHEIT 9-11} - Dixie Chicks stay defiant for their loyal Canuck fans http://articles.world-of-newave.info/arts/movies/titles/f/fahrenheit-9_11/dixie-chicks-stay-defiant-for-their-loyal-canuck-2008098451.htm http://articles.world-of-newave.info/arts/movies/titles/f/fahrenheit-9_11/dixie-chicks-stay-defiant-for-their-loyal-canuck-2008098451.htm Tue, 02 Sep 2008 23:00:04 GMT Dixie Chicks stay defiant for their loyal Canuck fans Review | Buffeted by U.S. backlash, Texans bask in a warm reception at the ACC Oct. 29, 2006. 01:00 AM VIT WAGNER POP MUSIC CRITIC In TV interviews last week with Oprah and Larry King, the Dixie Chicks were up front about the fact that audiences for the group's current tour have dwindled in some U.S. markets, particularly in the south where F911.Blogspot.Com Dixie Chicks stay defiant for their loyal Canuck fans {new window}   F911.Blogspot.Com - Dixie Chicks stay defiant for their loyal Canuck fans Review | Buffeted by U.S. backlash, Texans bask in a warm reception at the ACC Oct. 29, 2006. 01:00 AM VIT WAGNER POP MUSIC CRITIC In TV interviews last week with Oprah and Larry King, the Dixie Chicks were up front about the fact that audiences for the group's current tour have dwindled in some U.S. markets, particularly in the south where
Fahrenheit 911 (and a half): Dixie Chicks stay defiant for their loyal Canuck fans {...}
Indexed: September 2, 2008, 11:00 pm - Page Size: 40KB
Category: Arts > Movies > Titles > F > Fahrenheit 9-11

]]> Arts > Movies > Titles > F > Fahrenheit 9-11 {ISSUES > BIAS AND BALANCE} - Boehlert: Fox News and Jerome Corsi, living in the past http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/boehlert-fox-news-and-jerome-corsi-living-in-the-20080837517.htm http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/boehlert-fox-news-and-jerome-corsi-living-in-the-20080837517.htm Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:00:57 GMT It sure felt like déjà vu all over again, didn't it? No election watcher could forget the summer of 2004, when Fox News repeatedly invited Swift Boat author John O'Neill onto cable prime time and allowed him to air his scurrilous allegations about Sen. John Kerry's Vietnam War record. Even before the partisan Swift Boat Veterans for Truth group unveiled its infamous television ads, it was on Fox News where the controversy was birthed. It was Fox News that allowed O'Neill a mostly unobstructed platform on August 10, 17, 19, and 24, 2004, to libel Kerry and to gin up a controversy that eventually swamped the Democratic candidate for most of that crucial summer month. Then, almost exactly four years later to the dates (on July 31, August 3, 12, and 14), Fox News presented its White House campaign sequel. It welcomed O'Neill's Swift Boat writing partner, Jerome Corsi, to publicize his new attack book, The Obama Nation. Laying out his fever-swamp allegations about Obama's drug use and his supposed connections to Islam, Corsi enjoyed the type of national exposure, courtesy of Fox News, that every author craves. It was an audience that helped propel The Obama Nation to No. 1 on the bestsellers list, which then ignited wide-scale mainstream coverage for Corsi and his book. In other words, everything was going according to plan. The sequel had been set up -- had been marketed -- just like the Swift Boat predecessor, and now all conservatives had to do was sit back and watch the fun, as the Obama campaign became engulfed in Corsi-led controversy. Right? It hasn't worked that way. The Obama Nation's allegations, as slight and flimsy as they are, have taken a back seat to questions about Corsi's own credibility. In fact, journalists have likely spent more time dissecting the errors in Obama Nation and highlighting Corsi's controversial path, including the hateful, bigoted items he used to post in online forums, than they have focusing on the allegations Corsi wanted to broadcast. As the conservative National Review Online noted with frustration, "The media narrative thus becomes 'Corsi refuted' rather than 'Obama embattled.' " Add in the fact that some conservatives have stepped forward to publically denounce Corsi and his brand of slime, beseeching the movement to divorce itself from Corsi's unsubstantiated attacks, and suddenly the sequel is in real distress. Oh sure, it's selling. (Thanks in part to bulk sales, a right-wing marketing staple.) But in terms of affecting the race, in terms of gumming up the works for the Obama campaign, the book has so far been a bust. What happened? How did a sure-fire follow-up hit turn into such a trouble-plagued production? And why isn't Fox News' Swift Boat formula working? Simple. Both Corsi and the Fox News team are living in the past and failed to realize how dramatically the media landscape has shifted since the shady Swift Boat accusers were able to deftly use the media to spread their lies. First and foremost, the progressive movement has spent the last four years bulking up its infrastructure, and specifically readying itself to respond to media-driven attacks from the right; the way Media Matters for America immediately blanketed The Obama Nation and documented its egregious errors (often floated on Fox News) and also raised doubts about the author's veracity and integrity. And thanks to the larger Netroots community, Corsi hasn't had any breathing room to spread his misinformation. But there were also key marketplace changes within the cable news industry that affected the Corsi coverage, I think. Because remember that in 2004, Fox News drove the Swift Boat saga; it was practically a co-sponsor of the anti-Kerry crusade, devoting endless hours to promoting the Vietnam-era allegations. By sheer force of repetition, Fox News, then the dominant player in cable news, forced its competitors to not only acknowledge the Swift Boat story, but to go all in as well. And soon all the cable news outlets were treating the Swift Boat saga with Fox News-like breathlessness. (CNN aired nearly 300 segments referencing the topic.) And just like Fox, they weren't asking the tough questions. Instead, they gave the Swift Boat accusers the same free ride that Fox News did. They became media enablers, too. Not this time around. With Fox News no longer the dominant cable news king -- and with Fox News no longer driving the campaign narratives -- its competitors opted for a much different approach to covering Corsi. And I think the coverage from the competitors sent a subtle, yet simple, message: We no longer take our cues from Fox News' lead, because they no longer dictate campaign coverage. Instead, we're going to exult in our role as a counterbalance, as a fact-checker, to the Fox News-produced Corsi attack campaign. In fact, we're gonna help pull the curtain back on Corsi. Just look at how MSNBC anchor Contessa Brewer greeted Corsi, as he ventured for the first time beyond the friendly TV confines of Rupert World: BREWER: You say it's a comprehensive look, and yet there are already online bloggers that are going through this book page by page and picking apart what they see as factual errors. ... If they're going through, and they're finding all of these factual errors in your book, why should we give you the credibility? CNN's Campbell Brown introduced a prime-time report by announcing, "Obama Nation is riddled with pretty much every unsubstantiated rumor you ever heard about Obama." And on Larry King Live, Corsi was forced to face off against Media Matters Senior Fellow Paul Waldman, who refused to let the author spread his misinformation uncontested. All the above represented precisely what the press, and most especially the cable outfits, should have done -- but mostly refused to do -- in 2004. They refused to allow articulate, independent critics onto the national stage to debunk the patently false Swift Boat charges. Instead, the press most often treated the Swift Boat story as a political one, which meant amplifying the partisan charges and then going to the Kerry campaign for a quote, or inviting a Kerry campaign surrogate on the air to debate a Swift Boat liar. Rather than forcefully labeling the Swift Boat attacks a charade and IDing the attackers as pranksters, and instead of holding the Swift Boat accusers accountable, the press played dumb and abandoned its traditional campaign role. As Greg Mitchell at Editor & Publisher noted, "The mainstream press gave the charges -- carried in ads, in books and articles, and in major TV appearances -- a free ride for a spell, then a respectful airing mixed with critique, before in many cases finally attempting to shoot them down as overwhelmingly exaggerated or false." In the infamous words of former Washington Post executive editor Len Downie, upon being pressed about the paper's Swift Boat coverage in August 2004: "We are not judging the credibility of Kerry or the [Swift Boat] Veterans, we just print the facts." Talk about abdicating your role as journalists. During the Swift Boat hoax, Downie and his team at the Post essentially walked off the field, refusing to officiate the smear campaign. Wasn't judging the credibility of the previously unknown Swift Boat accusers precisely what the Post and the rest of the press should have been doing in August 2004? Thankfully, that kind of cowardice has been replaced by actual journalism when dealing with the Corsi sequel. And on TV, I'd suggest that about-face has been fueled by Fox News' fall from ratings grace, as its competitors, flush with confidence, realize they no longer have to follow. Instead, they can lead. Of course, the fact that Corsi won't admit or correct obvious errors in his book has only emboldened the press to pose tough questions. His often loopy logic has also not helped him, like suggesting we cannot believe Obama when he said he stopped taking drugs in college because, according to the author, "self-reporting, by people who have used drugs, as to when they stopped is inherently unreliable." When Corsi stumbled down that twisted path on CNN's Larry King Live last week, Media Matters' Waldman was waiting to pounce: WALDMAN: You put up on right-wing websites a whole series of bigoted and hateful posts in 2002 and 2003 that you later had to admit to when you got found out -- all kinds of really vile, malicious stuff. CORSI: OK. If you -- WALDMAN: Now, you say that you've stopped that. You say that you've stopped that and you don't put up those kinds of vile, bigoted, malicious, hateful posts on right-wing websites. But all we have is your word. I mean, do -- can we really trust you? People who do that kind of thing, well, you know, they're not really very trustworthy. CORSI: We have -- WALDMAN: So can we trust you? Are you still doing that? CORSI: You have more than my word. You've got the record of everything I've written since then. WALDMAN: Can you prove that you're not doing it anonymously? Can you prove it? I'm hard-pressed to recall the last time I saw an author get so thoroughly discredited on national television the way Corsi was at the hands of Waldman. (The encounter simply confirmed why conservatives often refuse to go head-to-head with reps from Media Matters in public settings.) That undressing proved infectious within the mainstream media, as it began to spell out, fairly and accurately, what Corsi and his book were about. The Associated Press' Nedra Pickler reported, "Corsi suggests, without a shred of proof, that Obama may be using drugs today. Obama has acknowledged using marijuana and cocaine as a teenager but says he quit when he went to college and hasn't used drugs since." The New York Times' political blog, The Caucus, set aside space to detail Corsi's touting of radical 9-11 theories that suggest explosives detonated inside the Twin Towers were also responsible for the destruction, not just the terrorist-piloted jumbo jets. And Politico noted how Corsi had "left a trail of wild theories, vitriol and dogma that have called into question his credibility." Is it some sort of collective penance journalists are serving for the media's Swift Boat failures of 2004? Who knows? But it's exactly what journalists ought to be doing when mischief-makers like Corsi climb onto the national stage (ladder, courtesy of Simon & Schuster), and start making unsubstantiated charges about presidential contenders. Conservatives now whine about the press taking sides, that it's teaming up on Corsi. In fact, the press is simply doing exactly what it should have done in 2004, and that's vet the accuser. Period. The game has changed. But somebody forgot to tell Corsi and his friends at Fox News. Mediamatters.Org Boehlert: Fox News and Jerome Corsi, living in the past {new window}   Mediamatters.Org - It sure felt like déjà vu all over again, didn't it? No election watcher could forget the summer of 2004, when Fox News repeatedly invited Swift Boat author John O'Neill onto cable prime time and allowed him to air his scurrilous allegations about Sen. John Kerry's Vietnam War record. Even before the partisan Swift Boat Veterans for Truth group unveiled its infamous television ads, it was on Fox News where the controversy was birthed. It was Fox News that allowed O'Neill a mostly unobstructed platform on August 10, 17, 19, and 24, 2004, to libel Kerry and to gin up a controversy that eventually swamped the Democratic candidate for most of that crucial summer month. Then, almost exactly four years later to the dates (on July 31, August 3, 12, and 14), Fox News presented its White House campaign sequel. It welcomed O'Neill's Swift Boat writing partner, Jerome Corsi, to publicize his new attack book, The Obama Nation. Laying out his fever-swamp allegations about Obama's drug use and his supposed connections to Islam, Corsi enjoyed the type of national exposure, courtesy of Fox News, that every author craves. It was an audience that helped propel The Obama Nation to No. 1 on the bestsellers list, which then ignited wide-scale mainstream coverage for Corsi and his book. In other words, everything was going according to plan. The sequel had been set up -- had been marketed -- just like the Swift Boat predecessor, and now all conservatives had to do was sit back and watch the fun, as the Obama campaign became engulfed in Corsi-led controversy. Right? It hasn't worked that way. The Obama Nation's allegations, as slight and flimsy as they are, have taken a back seat to questions about Corsi's own credibility. In fact, journalists have likely spent more time dissecting the errors in Obama Nation and highlighting Corsi's controversial path, including the hateful, bigoted items he used to post in online forums, than they have focusing on the allegations Corsi wanted to broadcast. As the conservative National Review Online noted with frustration, "The media narrative thus becomes 'Corsi refuted' rather than 'Obama embattled.' " Add in the fact that some conservatives have stepped forward to publically denounce Corsi and his brand of slime, beseeching the movement to divorce itself from Corsi's unsubstantiated attacks, and suddenly the sequel is in real distress. Oh sure, it's selling. (Thanks in part to bulk sales, a right-wing marketing staple.) But in terms of affecting the race, in terms of gumming up the works for the Obama campaign, the book has so far been a bust. What happened? How did a sure-fire follow-up hit turn into such a trouble-plagued production? And why isn't Fox News' Swift Boat formula working? Simple. Both Corsi and the Fox News team are living in the past and failed to realize how dramatically the media landscape has shifted since the shady Swift Boat accusers were able to deftly use the media to spread their lies. First and foremost, the progressive movement has spent the last four years bulking up its infrastructure, and specifically readying itself to respond to media-driven attacks from the right; the way Media Matters for America immediately blanketed The Obama Nation and documented its egregious errors (often floated on Fox News) and also raised doubts about the author's veracity and integrity. And thanks to the larger Netroots community, Corsi hasn't had any breathing room to spread his misinformation. But there were also key marketplace changes within the cable news industry that affected the Corsi coverage, I think. Because remember that in 2004, Fox News drove the Swift Boat saga; it was practically a co-sponsor of the anti-Kerry crusade, devoting endless hours to promoting the Vietnam-era allegations. By sheer force of repetition, Fox News, then the dominant player in cable news, forced its competitors to not only acknowledge the Swift Boat story, but to go all in as well. And soon all the cable news outlets were treating the Swift Boat saga with Fox News-like breathlessness. (CNN aired nearly 300 segments referencing the topic.) And just like Fox, they weren't asking the tough questions. Instead, they gave the Swift Boat accusers the same free ride that Fox News did. They became media enablers, too. Not this time around. With Fox News no longer the dominant cable news king -- and with Fox News no longer driving the campaign narratives -- its competitors opted for a much different approach to covering Corsi. And I think the coverage from the competitors sent a subtle, yet simple, message: We no longer take our cues from Fox News' lead, because they no longer dictate campaign coverage. Instead, we're going to exult in our role as a counterbalance, as a fact-checker, to the Fox News-produced Corsi attack campaign. In fact, we're gonna help pull the curtain back on Corsi. Just look at how MSNBC anchor Contessa Brewer greeted Corsi, as he ventured for the first time beyond the friendly TV confines of Rupert World: BREWER: You say it's a comprehensive look, and yet there are already online bloggers that are going through this book page by page and picking apart what they see as factual errors. ... If they're going through, and they're finding all of these factual errors in your book, why should we give you the credibility? CNN's Campbell Brown introduced a prime-time report by announcing, "Obama Nation is riddled with pretty much every unsubstantiated rumor you ever heard about Obama." And on Larry King Live, Corsi was forced to face off against Media Matters Senior Fellow Paul Waldman, who refused to let the author spread his misinformation uncontested. All the above represented precisely what the press, and most especially the cable outfits, should have done -- but mostly refused to do -- in 2004. They refused to allow articulate, independent critics onto the national stage to debunk the patently false Swift Boat charges. Instead, the press most often treated the Swift Boat story as a political one, which meant amplifying the partisan charges and then going to the Kerry campaign for a quote, or inviting a Kerry campaign surrogate on the air to debate a Swift Boat liar. Rather than forcefully labeling the Swift Boat attacks a charade and IDing the attackers as pranksters, and instead of holding the Swift Boat accusers accountable, the press played dumb and abandoned its traditional campaign role. As Greg Mitchell at Editor & Publisher noted, "The mainstream press gave the charges -- carried in ads, in books and articles, and in major TV appearances -- a free ride for a spell, then a respectful airing mixed with critique, before in many cases finally attempting to shoot them down as overwhelmingly exaggerated or false." In the infamous words of former Washington Post executive editor Len Downie, upon being pressed about the paper's Swift Boat coverage in August 2004: "We are not judging the credibility of Kerry or the [Swift Boat] Veterans, we just print the facts." Talk about abdicating your role as journalists. During the Swift Boat hoax, Downie and his team at the Post essentially walked off the field, refusing to officiate the smear campaign. Wasn't judging the credibility of the previously unknown Swift Boat accusers precisely what the Post and the rest of the press should have been doing in August 2004? Thankfully, that kind of cowardice has been replaced by actual journalism when dealing with the Corsi sequel. And on TV, I'd suggest that about-face has been fueled by Fox News' fall from ratings grace, as its competitors, flush with confidence, realize they no longer have to follow. Instead, they can lead. Of course, the fact that Corsi won't admit or correct obvious errors in his book has only emboldened the press to pose tough questions. His often loopy logic has also not helped him, like suggesting we cannot believe Obama when he said he stopped taking drugs in college because, according to the author, "self-reporting, by people who have used drugs, as to when they stopped is inherently unreliable." When Corsi stumbled down that twisted path on CNN's Larry King Live last week, Media Matters' Waldman was waiting to pounce: WALDMAN: You put up on right-wing websites a whole series of bigoted and hateful posts in 2002 and 2003 that you later had to admit to when you got found out -- all kinds of really vile, malicious stuff. CORSI: OK. If you -- WALDMAN: Now, you say that you've stopped that. You say that you've stopped that and you don't put up those kinds of vile, bigoted, malicious, hateful posts on right-wing websites. But all we have is your word. I mean, do -- can we really trust you? People who do that kind of thing, well, you know, they're not really very trustworthy. CORSI: We have -- WALDMAN: So can we trust you? Are you still doing that? CORSI: You have more than my word. You've got the record of everything I've written since then. WALDMAN: Can you prove that you're not doing it anonymously? Can you prove it? I'm hard-pressed to recall the last time I saw an author get so thoroughly discredited on national television the way Corsi was at the hands of Waldman. (The encounter simply confirmed why conservatives often refuse to go head-to-head with reps from Media Matters in public settings.) That undressing proved infectious within the mainstream media, as it began to spell out, fairly and accurately, what Corsi and his book were about. The Associated Press' Nedra Pickler reported, "Corsi suggests, without a shred of proof, that Obama may be using drugs today. Obama has acknowledged using marijuana and cocaine as a teenager but says he quit when he went to college and hasn't used drugs since." The New York Times' political blog, The Caucus, set aside space to detail Corsi's touting of radical 9-11 theories that suggest explosives detonated inside the Twin Towers were also responsible for the destruction, not just the terrorist-piloted jumbo jets. And Politico noted how Corsi had "left a trail of wild theories, vitriol and dogma that have called into question his credibility." Is it some sort of collective penance journalists are serving for the media's Swift Boat failures of 2004? Who knows? But it's exactly what journalists ought to be doing when mischief-makers like Corsi climb onto the national stage (ladder, courtesy of Simon & Schuster), and start making unsubstantiated charges about presidential contenders. Conservatives now whine about the press taking sides, that it's teaming up on Corsi. In fact, the press is simply doing exactly what it should have done in 2004, and that's vet the accuser. Period. The game has changed. But somebody forgot to tell Corsi and his friends at Fox News.
Media Matters - Fox News and Jerome Corsi, living in the past {...}
Published: August 19, 2008, 4:00 pm - Indexed: August 20, 2008, 11:12 am - Page Size: 25KB
Category: Society > Issues > Business > Media > Bias and Balance

]]> Society > Issues > Business > Media > Bias and Balance {MOVIES > FAHRENHEIT 9-11} - Dixie Chicks stay defiant for their loyal Canuck fans http://articles.world-of-newave.info/arts/movies/titles/f/fahrenheit-9_11/dixie-chicks-stay-defiant-for-their-loyal-canuck-20080891419.htm http://articles.world-of-newave.info/arts/movies/titles/f/fahrenheit-9_11/dixie-chicks-stay-defiant-for-their-loyal-canuck-20080891419.htm Mon, 18 Aug 2008 22:06:43 GMT Dixie Chicks stay defiant for their loyal Canuck fans Review | Buffeted by U.S. backlash, Texans bask in a warm reception at the ACC Oct. 29, 2006. 01:00 AM VIT WAGNER POP MUSIC CRITIC In TV interviews last week with Oprah and Larry King, the Dixie Chicks were up front about the fact that audiences for the group's current tour have dwindled in some U.S. markets, particularly in the south where F911.Blogspot.Com Dixie Chicks stay defiant for their loyal Canuck fans {new window}   F911.Blogspot.Com - Dixie Chicks stay defiant for their loyal Canuck fans Review | Buffeted by U.S. backlash, Texans bask in a warm reception at the ACC Oct. 29, 2006. 01:00 AM VIT WAGNER POP MUSIC CRITIC In TV interviews last week with Oprah and Larry King, the Dixie Chicks were up front about the fact that audiences for the group's current tour have dwindled in some U.S. markets, particularly in the south where
Fahrenheit 911 (and a half): Dixie Chicks stay defiant for their loyal Canuck fans {...}
Indexed: August 18, 2008, 10:06 pm - Page Size: 40KB
Category: Arts > Movies > Titles > F > Fahrenheit 9-11

]]> Arts > Movies > Titles > F > Fahrenheit 9-11 {ISSUES > BIAS AND BALANCE} - Media denounce Corsi's anti-Obama book http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/media-denounce-corsi-s-anti-obama-book-20080853313.htm http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/media-denounce-corsi-s-anti-obama-book-20080853313.htm Sat, 16 Aug 2008 03:00:37 GMT While the recent anti-Obama book by Jerome Corsi, The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality (Threshold Editions), will debut atop the New York Times bestseller list, many in the media are challenging the book, noting its numerous falsehoods as well as its author's track record, which includes a slew of bigoted posts on the conservative website Free Republic and co-authorship of a discredited book attacking Sen. John Kerry during the 2004 presidential campaign. The media's reaction to The Obama Nation stands in stark contrast to coverage of that 2004 book, Unfit for Command. As Media Matters for America has noted, the media were sharply criticized for taking too long to challenge Unfit's numerous smears and falsehoods. In an August 15 article in Editor & Publisher, Greg Mitchell noted the contrast in the media's reaction to the two books: Four years ago this month, with E&P's Joe Strupp, I explored in a number of articles the belated or conflicted media response to the "swiftboating" of Sen. John Kerry, then the Democratic nominee for president. The mainstream press gave the charges-- carried in ads, in books and articles, and in major TV appearances -- a free ride for a spell, then a respectful airing mixed with critique, before in many cases finally attempting to shoot them down as overwhelmingly exaggerated or false. This delay, along with Kerry's own reluctance to face the matter squarely, quite possibly cost the Democrat the White House. Now, this month, a bestselling anti-Obama book -- by a co-author of the most prominent "swiftboat" anti-Kerry book in 2004 -- has predictably been published (by Mary Matalin's imprint) and has gained immediate and wide attention in the mainstream. But this time, in many cases, the media response has been a "swift" kick to its credibility. Below are numerous examples of the media responding with "a 'swift' kick" to The Obama Nation's credibility: From an August 15 Washington Post column by Eugene Robinson: The "author," and I use the term loosely, whose vicious lies damaged John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign has crawled back out from under his rock to spew vicious lies about Barack Obama. Right-wing radio talk-show hosts are dutifully transmitting this concocted venom. This presidential campaign has officially gotten ugly. The "author" I'm talking about is a man named Jerome Corsi. In a book published last year, "The Late Great USA: The Coming Merger with Mexico and Canada," Corsi claimed that George W. Bush was at the heart of a secret conspiracy to subsume the United States into a post-national, one-worldish North American Union. Corsi's writings on far-right blogs have been even more paranoid and delusional. He has written that pedophilia, for which he used a more graphic term, "is OK with the Pope as long as it isn't reported by the liberal press." He has referred to Muslims as "ragheads." Corsi would be known as just another visitor from the outer fringe if he had not been the co-author of "Unfit for Command," the book that slimed Kerry's exemplary record as a Swift boat commander in Vietnam. The allegations in that book were discredited, but not before they had been amplified by the right-wing echo chamber to the point where they raised questions in some voters' minds -- perhaps enough to swing the election. From an August 13 Politico article by Kenneth P. Vogel: The folks behind "The Obama Nation," the wildly successful but factually disputed new book trashing presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, are casting it as a scholarly, thoroughly researched work. But its author has left a trail of wild theories, vitriol and dogma that have called into question his credibility. Jerome Corsi, who rose to prominence as the co-author of a book attacking 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, penned another tome asserting oil is a nearly infinite resource that continues to generate naturally, and posted a series of online comments through 2004, including suggestions that Hillary Rodham Clinton is a lesbian and Muslims worship Satan. From the August 13 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann: RACHEL MADDOW (guest host): You may remember Corsi for his sober allegations that Hillary Clinton is a lesbian, that John Kerry is both a Jew and a Communist, and his allegations that Muslims actually worship Satan. You may remember Jerome Corsi for his recent book attacking the liberal myth that oil is a finite resource, since he, Jerome Corsi, has learned how to make new oil. You may remember Corsi for his scholarly rebuke of George W. Bush's secret plan to merge the United States into Mexico. OK, honestly, you probably don't remember Jerome Corsi at all, because why would you pay attention to someone with a record like that? But Corsi's new anti-Obama book will be number one on that bestseller list for at least two weeks running, despite fact checking by news organizations, including The New York Times, showing it to be rife with errors and inaccuracies. And the Obama camp is now firing back, issuing a 40-page rebuttal titled "Unfit for Publication," soon appearing at Obama's Fight the Smears website. The campaign promising to forcefully respond with all means at their disposal. Nonetheless, the book is selling well, due, essentially, to hundreds of right wing talk show interviews, and large volume bulk sales to right-wing organizations, a tactic to be discussed now with my next guest. From the 9 a.m. ET hour of the August 5 edition of MSNBC Live: BREWER: You say it's a comprehensive look, and yet there are already online bloggers that are going through this book page by page and picking apart what they see as factual errors. Let me give you an example. You say in this book, "Interestingly, Obama did not dedicate Dreams from My Father to his mother or to his father, Barack Sr., or to his Indonesian stepfather," and Media Matters, the online organization, says in his book, he actually says on a -- on the last page of the introduction, "It is to my family, though, my mother, my grandparents, my siblings, stretched across oceans and continents that I owe the deepest gratitude and to whom I dedicated this book." So if they're going through, and they're finding all of these factual errors in your book, why should we give you the credibility? CORSI: Let's discuss that one. If you'll read carefully what Media Matters said, they point out there is no dedication page even in the second edition. BREWER: But it says right in the introduction that it's dedicated to his family. CORSI: In the introduction that he wrote after, this was going with the second book. And the original book had no dedication page and this is not the typical way that you dedicate a book. So I'm making the distinction there is no dedication page in the book at all, never has been. BREWER: Media Matters has some eight, nine, 10 pages of factual errors. CORSI: And I'd be happy to go through each one of them with you. BREWER: And we're not going to do that. But I'm saying, if they are finding one, then why do you get credibility for the book? CORSI: Well, I've already objected to the one they found. I think Media Matters is wrong, and I would argue with every one of them. From the August 13 edition of MSNBC's Verdict with Dan Abrams: DAN ABRAMS (host): Yeah. I mean, look, you know, and again, among the accusations, Brad, debunked from this book -- drug use in the U.S. Senate, that he didn't dedicate his book to his family, he wanted to decrease the size of the military. I mean, the list goes on of the things that were debunked from this book. From the August 13 edition of CNN's Larry King Live: LARRY KING (host): Jerome, you write in your book that Senator Obama has, quote, "yet to answer whether he stopped using marijuana and cocaine completely in college or whether his drug usage extended to his law school days or beyond." CORSI: Yes. KING: But Obama wrote in his memoir Dreams from My Father -- which you repeatedly cite in your book -- that when he moved to New York in the early '80s, quote, "I stopped getting high. I ran three miles a day and I fasted on Sunday." So are you saying he's lying? CORSI: What I'm saying in the book is that people who admit that they've used drugs -- and Obama -- Obama said he used drugs through Occidental. And it was a lot of drugs. He said it was -- it had become virtually habitual with marijuana and cocaine. My argument is that the self-reporting of people who use drugs as to when they quit is not reliable. That's the argument I was making. From an August 15 post to Commentary magazine's Contentions blog by Peter Wehner, titled "The Obama Smears": As for the book: it seems to be riddled with factual errors-some relatively minor (like asserting that Obama does not mention the birth of his half-sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng, in Dreams from My Father; Obama does mention her), and some significant (suggesting that Obama favors withdrawing troops from Afghanistan; he wants to do the opposite). But more problematic, I think, is Corsi's claim that Obama has "extensive connections to Islam" and his suggestion that Obama is a recent drug user. Those claims are, from everything I can tell, unsubstantiated. (When challenged to produce the evidence, Corsi counters with the "prove you're not beating your wife" defense.) For example, Obama, who in his book admitted using drugs in his youth, says he hasn't used any since he was 20 years old. Corsi, in an interview, said Obama's words can't be trusted because "self-reporting, by people who have used drugs, as to when they stopped is inherently unreliable." And Corsi's effort to tie Obama to the Muslim faith-claims based on questionable sources, reaching back to Obama's youth in Indonesia-is especially troubling, since the subtext here is attaching Obama to militant Islam and suggesting that he's somehow alien to America and its values (when in fact his candidacy is a confirmation of the viability of those values). Corsi's approach to politics is both destructive and self-destructive. If Senator Obama loses, he should lose on the merits: his record in public life and his political philosophy. And while it's legitimate to take into account Obama's past associations with people like the Reverend Jeremiah Wright-especially for someone like Obama, about whom relatively little is known-it wrong and reckless to throw out unsubstantiated charges and smears against Senator Obama. Conservatism has been an intellectual home to people like Burke and Buckley. The GOP is the party that gave us Lincoln and Reagan. It seems to me that its leaders ought to make it clear that they find what Dr. Corsi is doing to be both wrong and repellent. To have their movement and their party associated with such a figure would be a terrible thing and it will only help the cause of those who hold both the GOP and the conservative movement in contempt. From an August 12 Los Angeles Times article by Kate Linthicum: Right-wing author Jerome Corsi hit it big in 2004 with a book attacking John F. Kerry. "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry" soared to No. 1 on the New York Times bestseller list. Now Corsi has done it again -- taking aim at a different Democratic presidential candidate. Corsi's latest, "The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality," will top the Aug. 17 New York Times hard-cover nonfiction bestseller list. The book lashes out at Barack Obama and alleges, among other things, that the politician has a secret radical Islamic agenda. But being No. 1 doesn't necessarily mean being accurate. Obama is a Christian. From the August 13 edition of CNN's Election Center: CAMPBELL BROWN (host): There's a new book out about Barack Obama. It's number one right now on The New York Times bestseller list. I can guarantee you, though, nobody in the Obama camp is happy at all -- at all happy about that. And here's why. It is called Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality. The author, Jerome Corsi, also co-wrote the book Unfit for Command, which started the Swift Boating of John Kerry. Obama Nation is riddled with pretty much every unsubstantiated rumor you ever heard about Obama. Jessica Yellin found out for us that it's also turning into a major campaign headache. And, Jessica, I know -- we know that some of the most damaging charges in this book just aren't true. The author admits he's on a mission to take down Barack Obama. He's been slammed for books that he's written before. They're also discredited. But it's still getting an awful lot of traction. From the August 13 edition of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360: JESSICA YELLIN (CNN Capitol Hill correspondent): To prove his point, Corsi says the book is meticulously researched and fact-checked. But when we checked his facts, we found he's wrong on many points. Here are a few. The book claims Obama didn't dedicate his first book, Dreams from My Father, to his family members. He did. He dedicated it to his mother, his grandmother, and his siblings. Corsi cites a report saying Obama was in church when Reverend Jeremiah Wright made comments about race on July 22. But Obama was out of state, a full time zone away. And Corsi writes Obama has yet to answer questions about whether he ever stopped using drugs. But in his first book, Obama said he stopped getting high during college. From an August 12 New York Times article by Jim Rutenberg and Julie Bosman: In the summer of 2004 the conservative gadfly Jerome R. Corsi shot to the top of the best-seller lists as co-author of "Unfit for Command," the book attacking Senator John Kerry's record on a Vietnam War Swift boat that began the larger damaging campaign against Mr. Kerry's war credentials as he sought the presidency. Almost exactly four years after that campaign began, Mr. Corsi has released a new attack book painting Senator Barack Obama, the Democrats' presumed presidential nominee, as a stealth radical liberal who has tried to cover up "extensive connections to Islam" -- Mr. Obama is Christian -- and questioning whether his admitted experimentation with drugs in high school and college ever ceased. Significant parts of the book, whose subtitle is "Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality," have already been challenged as misleading or false in the days since its debut on Aug. 1. Nonetheless, it is to make its first appearance on The New York Times best-seller list for nonfiction hardcovers this Sunday -- at No. 1. [...] Several of the book's accusations, in fact, are unsubstantiated, misleading or inaccurate. From the August 14 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes: ALAN COLMES (co-host): The substance of the book -- [crosstalk] COLMES: -- we have already seen in the book. He was wrong about a sermon that Barack Obama attended. He got the date wrong. He was wrong about the dedication in the book. He was wrong about Obama saying that he stopped using drugs. He was not truthful about that. He was wrong about a number of things in the book -- HUGH HEWITT (syndicated radio host): Actually, stop there, Alan. That's not true -- COLMES: -- there have been a number of things in the book that have been discredited. From an August 14 Washington Post article by Eli Saslow: Corsi's "The Obama Nation" lacks major revelations and has been dismissed by Obama's campaign as a series of lies from a serial liar. Parts of the book have also been disproved by the mainstream media. In 2004, Corsi co-wrote "Unfit for Command," in which Swift boat veterans criticized Sen. John F. Kerry's Vietnam War record. That book was also widely disproved. From an August 15 Washington Post editorial: Unfortunately but unsurprisingly, given his earlier hit job on the last Democratic nominee, Mr. Corsi's latest is rife with inaccuracies and innuendo. If the fundamental smear of "Unfit for Command" was that John F. Kerry was no war hero, the insinuation of Mr. Corsi's latest is that Mr. Obama is a closet Muslim and militant, black activist drug-user. [...] He gets facts wrong, from the date of Mr. Obama's marriage to whether he dedicated his autobiography to his family (he did) to whether he revealed that he took his future wife on his second trip to Kenya (he did.) He makes offensive statements: "The sexual attraction of his mother to her African husband jumps out from the page." When facts are lacking, Mr. Corsi makes his point by suggestive questions. Noting that Life magazine could find no record of an article that Mr. Obama remembered reading as a child about a black man who tried to lighten his skin, Mr. Corsi asks, "How much more imagining, hypothetical lying, or just plain lying is Obama capable of doing?" When facts are present, he twists them to make Mr. Obama bad. From an August 14 Associated Press article by Nedra Pickler: Jerome Corsi's anti-Obama book, "The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality," claims the Illinois senator is a dangerous, radical candidate for president. The book is a compilation of all the innuendo and false rumors against Obama -- that he was raised a Muslim, attended a radical, black church and secretly has a "black rage" hidden beneath the surface. In fact, Obama is a Christian who attended Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. [...] Corsi suggests, without a shred of proof, that Obama may be using drugs today. Obama has acknowledged using marijuana and cocaine as a teenager but says he quit when he went to college and hasn't used drugs since. Corsi makes an issue of the fact that, before he quit smoking cigarettes, Obama didn't want it widely known that he smoked. "If Obama takes pains to hide his smoking from us, what else does he take pains to hide?" Corsi asks in the book. Corsi also dwells on Obama's mother marrying Obama's African father and later marrying someone from Indonesia -- whom Corsi describes as "a second man of color to be her mate." The Obama campaign says the description is one of many examples of Corsi's "offensive language" in the book. He claims Obama received extensive Islamic religious education as a boy in Indonesia, education that was only offered to the truly faithful. Actually, Obama is a Christian and as a boy he attended both Catholic school and Indonesian public schools where some basic study of the Koran was offered. He accuses Obama of wanting to weaken the military even though Obama's campaign calls for adding 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines. From an August 13 post by Joe Klein on Time magazine's Swampland blog: I heard about Jerome Corsi's book a few weeks ago from my mother, who said that her great fear--that Barack Obama has covert Islamic associations--had been confirmed by a new book. I told her not to worry, that many reputable people had looked into the matter and Obama was more likely to be spotted in Whole Foods than praying in a mosque. (Since my mother has never been to Whole Foods, so she didn't quite get my wry allusion.) "I hope so," she said, dubiously. So we know the market for trash is there, and not so far from home. And we know, that Mary Matalin, who appears regularly on mainstream media programs like Meet the Press called the Corsi book in the New York Times today: "a piece of scholarship, and a good one at that." But hey, Mary stands to make big bucks off this scholarship, which I'm sure was submitted for peer review and otherwise held to the highest editorial standards--and I'm sure her reputation and mediagenicity won't be damaged by this poisonous crap, and we're all friends here, aren't we? And, yknow, they say politics ain't beanbag...and it's all in the game to tell innocent, well-intentioned people that Barack Obama is a secret Muslim or that John Kerry wasn't really a hero in Vietnam. Or, as George W. Bush, once told a rightly outraged John McCain--whose wife and daughter Bush's minions had smeared--"It's just politics." An August 13 post on Jonathan Martin's blog at Politico.com: The power of Fox News and talk radio: Jerome Corsi's The Obama Nation "is to make its first appearance on The New York Times best-seller list for nonfiction hardcovers this Sunday -- at No. 1.," according to a front-page story by Jim Rutenberg and Julie Bosman in the Times today that will only help sell more books. As Rutenberg and Bosman note, the book has its share of errors. But Corsi delved into the drug-and-Muslim fever swamps, which, regardless of accuracy, is what many on the right want to believe about Obama. The best part of the piece, though, is this: "He said he was planning to aid several conservative groups that intend to run advertisements against Mr. Obama this fall, though he would not name them." A third-party anti-Obama effort still may form, but methinks there is a reason here why Corsi "would not name them." Mediamatters.Org Media denounce Corsi's anti-Obama book {new window}   Mediamatters.Org - While the recent anti-Obama book by Jerome Corsi, The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality (Threshold Editions), will debut atop the New York Times bestseller list, many in the media are challenging the book, noting its numerous falsehoods as well as its author's track record, which includes a slew of bigoted posts on the conservative website Free Republic and co-authorship of a discredited book attacking Sen. John Kerry during the 2004 presidential campaign. The media's reaction to The Obama Nation stands in stark contrast to coverage of that 2004 book, Unfit for Command. As Media Matters for America has noted, the media were sharply criticized for taking too long to challenge Unfit's numerous smears and falsehoods. In an August 15 article in Editor & Publisher, Greg Mitchell noted the contrast in the media's reaction to the two books: Four years ago this month, with E&P's Joe Strupp, I explored in a number of articles the belated or conflicted media response to the "swiftboating" of Sen. John Kerry, then the Democratic nominee for president. The mainstream press gave the charges-- carried in ads, in books and articles, and in major TV appearances -- a free ride for a spell, then a respectful airing mixed with critique, before in many cases finally attempting to shoot them down as overwhelmingly exaggerated or false. This delay, along with Kerry's own reluctance to face the matter squarely, quite possibly cost the Democrat the White House. Now, this month, a bestselling anti-Obama book -- by a co-author of the most prominent "swiftboat" anti-Kerry book in 2004 -- has predictably been published (by Mary Matalin's imprint) and has gained immediate and wide attention in the mainstream. But this time, in many cases, the media response has been a "swift" kick to its credibility. Below are numerous examples of the media responding with "a 'swift' kick" to The Obama Nation's credibility: From an August 15 Washington Post column by Eugene Robinson: The "author," and I use the term loosely, whose vicious lies damaged John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign has crawled back out from under his rock to spew vicious lies about Barack Obama. Right-wing radio talk-show hosts are dutifully transmitting this concocted venom. This presidential campaign has officially gotten ugly. The "author" I'm talking about is a man named Jerome Corsi. In a book published last year, "The Late Great USA: The Coming Merger with Mexico and Canada," Corsi claimed that George W. Bush was at the heart of a secret conspiracy to subsume the United States into a post-national, one-worldish North American Union. Corsi's writings on far-right blogs have been even more paranoid and delusional. He has written that pedophilia, for which he used a more graphic term, "is OK with the Pope as long as it isn't reported by the liberal press." He has referred to Muslims as "ragheads." Corsi would be known as just another visitor from the outer fringe if he had not been the co-author of "Unfit for Command," the book that slimed Kerry's exemplary record as a Swift boat commander in Vietnam. The allegations in that book were discredited, but not before they had been amplified by the right-wing echo chamber to the point where they raised questions in some voters' minds -- perhaps enough to swing the election. From an August 13 Politico article by Kenneth P. Vogel: The folks behind "The Obama Nation," the wildly successful but factually disputed new book trashing presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, are casting it as a scholarly, thoroughly researched work. But its author has left a trail of wild theories, vitriol and dogma that have called into question his credibility. Jerome Corsi, who rose to prominence as the co-author of a book attacking 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, penned another tome asserting oil is a nearly infinite resource that continues to generate naturally, and posted a series of online comments through 2004, including suggestions that Hillary Rodham Clinton is a lesbian and Muslims worship Satan. From the August 13 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann: RACHEL MADDOW (guest host): You may remember Corsi for his sober allegations that Hillary Clinton is a lesbian, that John Kerry is both a Jew and a Communist, and his allegations that Muslims actually worship Satan. You may remember Jerome Corsi for his recent book attacking the liberal myth that oil is a finite resource, since he, Jerome Corsi, has learned how to make new oil. You may remember Corsi for his scholarly rebuke of George W. Bush's secret plan to merge the United States into Mexico. OK, honestly, you probably don't remember Jerome Corsi at all, because why would you pay attention to someone with a record like that? But Corsi's new anti-Obama book will be number one on that bestseller list for at least two weeks running, despite fact checking by news organizations, including The New York Times, showing it to be rife with errors and inaccuracies. And the Obama camp is now firing back, issuing a 40-page rebuttal titled "Unfit for Publication," soon appearing at Obama's Fight the Smears website. The campaign promising to forcefully respond with all means at their disposal. Nonetheless, the book is selling well, due, essentially, to hundreds of right wing talk show interviews, and large volume bulk sales to right-wing organizations, a tactic to be discussed now with my next guest. From the 9 a.m. ET hour of the August 5 edition of MSNBC Live: BREWER: You say it's a comprehensive look, and yet there are already online bloggers that are going through this book page by page and picking apart what they see as factual errors. Let me give you an example. You say in this book, "Interestingly, Obama did not dedicate Dreams from My Father to his mother or to his father, Barack Sr., or to his Indonesian stepfather," and Media Matters, the online organization, says in his book, he actually says on a -- on the last page of the introduction, "It is to my family, though, my mother, my grandparents, my siblings, stretched across oceans and continents that I owe the deepest gratitude and to whom I dedicated this book." So if they're going through, and they're finding all of these factual errors in your book, why should we give you the credibility? CORSI: Let's discuss that one. If you'll read carefully what Media Matters said, they point out there is no dedication page even in the second edition. BREWER: But it says right in the introduction that it's dedicated to his family. CORSI: In the introduction that he wrote after, this was going with the second book. And the original book had no dedication page and this is not the typical way that you dedicate a book. So I'm making the distinction there is no dedication page in the book at all, never has been. BREWER: Media Matters has some eight, nine, 10 pages of factual errors. CORSI: And I'd be happy to go through each one of them with you. BREWER: And we're not going to do that. But I'm saying, if they are finding one, then why do you get credibility for the book? CORSI: Well, I've already objected to the one they found. I think Media Matters is wrong, and I would argue with every one of them. From the August 13 edition of MSNBC's Verdict with Dan Abrams: DAN ABRAMS (host): Yeah. I mean, look, you know, and again, among the accusations, Brad, debunked from this book -- drug use in the U.S. Senate, that he didn't dedicate his book to his family, he wanted to decrease the size of the military. I mean, the list goes on of the things that were debunked from this book. From the August 13 edition of CNN's Larry King Live: LARRY KING (host): Jerome, you write in your book that Senator Obama has, quote, "yet to answer whether he stopped using marijuana and cocaine completely in college or whether his drug usage extended to his law school days or beyond." CORSI: Yes. KING: But Obama wrote in his memoir Dreams from My Father -- which you repeatedly cite in your book -- that when he moved to New York in the early '80s, quote, "I stopped getting high. I ran three miles a day and I fasted on Sunday." So are you saying he's lying? CORSI: What I'm saying in the book is that people who admit that they've used drugs -- and Obama -- Obama said he used drugs through Occidental. And it was a lot of drugs. He said it was -- it had become virtually habitual with marijuana and cocaine. My argument is that the self-reporting of people who use drugs as to when they quit is not reliable. That's the argument I was making. From an August 15 post to Commentary magazine's Contentions blog by Peter Wehner, titled "The Obama Smears": As for the book: it seems to be riddled with factual errors-some relatively minor (like asserting that Obama does not mention the birth of his half-sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng, in Dreams from My Father; Obama does mention her), and some significant (suggesting that Obama favors withdrawing troops from Afghanistan; he wants to do the opposite). But more problematic, I think, is Corsi's claim that Obama has "extensive connections to Islam" and his suggestion that Obama is a recent drug user. Those claims are, from everything I can tell, unsubstantiated. (When challenged to produce the evidence, Corsi counters with the "prove you're not beating your wife" defense.) For example, Obama, who in his book admitted using drugs in his youth, says he hasn't used any since he was 20 years old. Corsi, in an interview, said Obama's words can't be trusted because "self-reporting, by people who have used drugs, as to when they stopped is inherently unreliable." And Corsi's effort to tie Obama to the Muslim faith-claims based on questionable sources, reaching back to Obama's youth in Indonesia-is especially troubling, since the subtext here is attaching Obama to militant Islam and suggesting that he's somehow alien to America and its values (when in fact his candidacy is a confirmation of the viability of those values). Corsi's approach to politics is both destructive and self-destructive. If Senator Obama loses, he should lose on the merits: his record in public life and his political philosophy. And while it's legitimate to take into account Obama's past associations with people like the Reverend Jeremiah Wright-especially for someone like Obama, about whom relatively little is known-it wrong and reckless to throw out unsubstantiated charges and smears against Senator Obama. Conservatism has been an intellectual home to people like Burke and Buckley. The GOP is the party that gave us Lincoln and Reagan. It seems to me that its leaders ought to make it clear that they find what Dr. Corsi is doing to be both wrong and repellent. To have their movement and their party associated with such a figure would be a terrible thing and it will only help the cause of those who hold both the GOP and the conservative movement in contempt. From an August 12 Los Angeles Times article by Kate Linthicum: Right-wing author Jerome Corsi hit it big in 2004 with a book attacking John F. Kerry. "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry" soared to No. 1 on the New York Times bestseller list. Now Corsi has done it again -- taking aim at a different Democratic presidential candidate. Corsi's latest, "The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality," will top the Aug. 17 New York Times hard-cover nonfiction bestseller list. The book lashes out at Barack Obama and alleges, among other things, that the politician has a secret radical Islamic agenda. But being No. 1 doesn't necessarily mean being accurate. Obama is a Christian. From the August 13 edition of CNN's Election Center: CAMPBELL BROWN (host): There's a new book out about Barack Obama. It's number one right now on The New York Times bestseller list. I can guarantee you, though, nobody in the Obama camp is happy at all -- at all happy about that. And here's why. It is called Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality. The author, Jerome Corsi, also co-wrote the book Unfit for Command, which started the Swift Boating of John Kerry. Obama Nation is riddled with pretty much every unsubstantiated rumor you ever heard about Obama. Jessica Yellin found out for us that it's also turning into a major campaign headache. And, Jessica, I know -- we know that some of the most damaging charges in this book just aren't true. The author admits he's on a mission to take down Barack Obama. He's been slammed for books that he's written before. They're also discredited. But it's still getting an awful lot of traction. From the August 13 edition of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360: JESSICA YELLIN (CNN Capitol Hill correspondent): To prove his point, Corsi says the book is meticulously researched and fact-checked. But when we checked his facts, we found he's wrong on many points. Here are a few. The book claims Obama didn't dedicate his first book, Dreams from My Father, to his family members. He did. He dedicated it to his mother, his grandmother, and his siblings. Corsi cites a report saying Obama was in church when Reverend Jeremiah Wright made comments about race on July 22. But Obama was out of state, a full time zone away. And Corsi writes Obama has yet to answer questions about whether he ever stopped using drugs. But in his first book, Obama said he stopped getting high during college. From an August 12 New York Times article by Jim Rutenberg and Julie Bosman: In the summer of 2004 the conservative gadfly Jerome R. Corsi shot to the top of the best-seller lists as co-author of "Unfit for Command," the book attacking Senator John Kerry's record on a Vietnam War Swift boat that began the larger damaging campaign against Mr. Kerry's war credentials as he sought the presidency. Almost exactly four years after that campaign began, Mr. Corsi has released a new attack book painting Senator Barack Obama, the Democrats' presumed presidential nominee, as a stealth radical liberal who has tried to cover up "extensive connections to Islam" -- Mr. Obama is Christian -- and questioning whether his admitted experimentation with drugs in high school and college ever ceased. Significant parts of the book, whose subtitle is "Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality," have already been challenged as misleading or false in the days since its debut on Aug. 1. Nonetheless, it is to make its first appearance on The New York Times best-seller list for nonfiction hardcovers this Sunday -- at No. 1. [...] Several of the book's accusations, in fact, are unsubstantiated, misleading or inaccurate. From the August 14 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes: ALAN COLMES (co-host): The substance of the book -- [crosstalk] COLMES: -- we have already seen in the book. He was wrong about a sermon that Barack Obama attended. He got the date wrong. He was wrong about the dedication in the book. He was wrong about Obama saying that he stopped using drugs. He was not truthful about that. He was wrong about a number of things in the book -- HUGH HEWITT (syndicated radio host): Actually, stop there, Alan. That's not true -- COLMES: -- there have been a number of things in the book that have been discredited. From an August 14 Washington Post article by Eli Saslow: Corsi's "The Obama Nation" lacks major revelations and has been dismissed by Obama's campaign as a series of lies from a serial liar. Parts of the book have also been disproved by the mainstream media. In 2004, Corsi co-wrote "Unfit for Command," in which Swift boat veterans criticized Sen. John F. Kerry's Vietnam War record. That book was also widely disproved. From an August 15 Washington Post editorial: Unfortunately but unsurprisingly, given his earlier hit job on the last Democratic nominee, Mr. Corsi's latest is rife with inaccuracies and innuendo. If the fundamental smear of "Unfit for Command" was that John F. Kerry was no war hero, the insinuation of Mr. Corsi's latest is that Mr. Obama is a closet Muslim and militant, black activist drug-user. [...] He gets facts wrong, from the date of Mr. Obama's marriage to whether he dedicated his autobiography to his family (he did) to whether he revealed that he took his future wife on his second trip to Kenya (he did.) He makes offensive statements: "The sexual attraction of his mother to her African husband jumps out from the page." When facts are lacking, Mr. Corsi makes his point by suggestive questions. Noting that Life magazine could find no record of an article that Mr. Obama remembered reading as a child about a black man who tried to lighten his skin, Mr. Corsi asks, "How much more imagining, hypothetical lying, or just plain lying is Obama capable of doing?" When facts are present, he twists them to make Mr. Obama bad. From an August 14 Associated Press article by Nedra Pickler: Jerome Corsi's anti-Obama book, "The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality," claims the Illinois senator is a dangerous, radical candidate for president. The book is a compilation of all the innuendo and false rumors against Obama -- that he was raised a Muslim, attended a radical, black church and secretly has a "black rage" hidden beneath the surface. In fact, Obama is a Christian who attended Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. [...] Corsi suggests, without a shred of proof, that Obama may be using drugs today. Obama has acknowledged using marijuana and cocaine as a teenager but says he quit when he went to college and hasn't used drugs since. Corsi makes an issue of the fact that, before he quit smoking cigarettes, Obama didn't want it widely known that he smoked. "If Obama takes pains to hide his smoking from us, what else does he take pains to hide?" Corsi asks in the book. Corsi also dwells on Obama's mother marrying Obama's African father and later marrying someone from Indonesia -- whom Corsi describes as "a second man of color to be her mate." The Obama campaign says the description is one of many examples of Corsi's "offensive language" in the book. He claims Obama received extensive Islamic religious education as a boy in Indonesia, education that was only offered to the truly faithful. Actually, Obama is a Christian and as a boy he attended both Catholic school and Indonesian public schools where some basic study of the Koran was offered. He accuses Obama of wanting to weaken the military even though Obama's campaign calls for adding 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines. From an August 13 post by Joe Klein on Time magazine's Swampland blog: I heard about Jerome Corsi's book a few weeks ago from my mother, who said that her great fear--that Barack Obama has covert Islamic associations--had been confirmed by a new book. I told her not to worry, that many reputable people had looked into the matter and Obama was more likely to be spotted in Whole Foods than praying in a mosque. (Since my mother has never been to Whole Foods, so she didn't quite get my wry allusion.) "I hope so," she said, dubiously. So we know the market for trash is there, and not so far from home. And we know, that Mary Matalin, who appears regularly on mainstream media programs like Meet the Press called the Corsi book in the New York Times today: "a piece of scholarship, and a good one at that." But hey, Mary stands to make big bucks off this scholarship, which I'm sure was submitted for peer review and otherwise held to the highest editorial standards--and I'm sure her reputation and mediagenicity won't be damaged by this poisonous crap, and we're all friends here, aren't we? And, yknow, they say politics ain't beanbag...and it's all in the game to tell innocent, well-intentioned people that Barack Obama is a secret Muslim or that John Kerry wasn't really a hero in Vietnam. Or, as George W. Bush, once told a rightly outraged John McCain--whose wife and daughter Bush's minions had smeared--"It's just politics." An August 13 post on Jonathan Martin's blog at Politico.com: The power of Fox News and talk radio: Jerome Corsi's The Obama Nation "is to make its first appearance on The New York Times best-seller list for nonfiction hardcovers this Sunday -- at No. 1.," according to a front-page story by Jim Rutenberg and Julie Bosman in the Times today that will only help sell more books. As Rutenberg and Bosman note, the book has its share of errors. But Corsi delved into the drug-and-Muslim fever swamps, which, regardless of accuracy, is what many on the right want to believe about Obama. The best part of the piece, though, is this: "He said he was planning to aid several conservative groups that intend to run advertisements against Mr. Obama this fall, though he would not name them." A third-party anti-Obama effort still may form, but methinks there is a reason here why Corsi "would not name them."
Media Matters - Media denounce Corsi's anti-Obama book {...} Many in the media are challenging Jerome Corsi's The Obama Nation , noting its numerous falsehoods and its author's track record. Their reaction stands in stark contrast to coverage of Corsi's 2004 book, Unfit for Command . The media were sharply criticized for taking too long to challenge that book's numerous smears and falsehoods. {...}
Published: August 16, 2008, 3:00 am - Indexed: August 16, 2008, 12:22 pm - Page Size: 39KB
Category: Society > Issues > Business > Media > Bias and Balance

]]> Society > Issues > Business > Media > Bias and Balance {ISSUES > BIAS AND BALANCE} - "[P]ro-White" radio host Edwards asks of Media Matters' funders: "[W]hat do you want to bet that a lot of those 'wealthy liberals' have funny last names?" http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/p-ro-white-radio-host-edwards-asks-of-media-matters-20080880817.htm http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/p-ro-white-radio-host-edwards-asks-of-media-matters-20080880817.htm Sat, 16 Aug 2008 01:01:44 GMT In an August 15 blog post, James Edwards, co-host of the "pro-White" Political Cesspool Radio Show, responded to a Media Matters for America item noting that Jerome Corsi, author of The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality, appeared on the July 20 edition of the show and is reportedly scheduled to appear in its August 17 broadcast. In his post, headlined "Gays, liberals attack Jerome Corsi," Edwards wrote that Media Matters was "founded and is run by homosexual David Brock." After asserting that Media Matters is funded by "a bunch of 'wealthy liberals,' " Edwards said: "And what do you want to bet that a lot of those 'wealthy liberals' have funny last names?" Edwards also wrote: "And notice that no one ever refutes anything I've written. They can't. But they hate the fact that I'm telling the truth on my blog and on the radio show, so, because they can't refute me, they simply resort to name calling." In fact, Media Matters highlighted some of Edwards' comments. Edwards has asserted on his blog that "[i]nterracial sex is white genocide" and called British historian David Irving -- who was, according to BBC News, "jailed by an Austrian court after pleading guilty to denying that the Holocaust took place" -- a "real hero" and "a survivor of the Jewish Holocaust against free speech." As Media Matters noted, his radio show has on its website a "Statement of Principles" saying that the show "represent[s] a philosophy that is pro-White" and which "heartily endorse[s] and accept[s] as our own, the founding tenets of the Council of Conservative Citizens [CCC]." In a second August 15 post responding to how his "blog has been getting a ton of traffic over the past two days thanks to the liberal/homosexual assault being waged against Jerome Corsi on behalf of the Barack Obama campaign," Edwards said of himself and his Political Cesspool co-hosts, "We are not rooting for either candidate. We're rooting for white people." Edwards further asserted: "Between McCain and Obama, we couldn't care less who wins. In fact, we think an Obama victory would be fitting. The only countries in the world that have black heads of state are third world countries, and as massive demographic changes in this country will soon make much of America a third world country, a black president would be entirely appropriate." Edwards' post also referred to "the left wing homosexuals over at Media Matters." From Edwards' first August 15 post, headlined "Gays, liberals attack Jerome Corsi": Jerome Corsi, author of the #1 bestseller The Obama Nation, is scheduled to appear on The Political Cesspool this Sunday. Yesterday the liberal hate machine went into high gear in a massive, coordinated attack campaign against Mr. Corsi, which is no doubt being managed and directed by the Obama campaign. They remember how devastatingly effective his book Unfit For Command was in keeping John Kerry out of the White House, and they're going to do their darndest to try to keep him from repeating his success with Obama. And what's their latest angle of attack? They're trumpeting the fact that he's going to talk about his book on The Cesspool. The first big story came yesterday from the far left wing Media Matters, which was founded and is run by homosexual David Brock. You can read it here. Summary: Despite stating that he had apologized for what was described as a "series of bigoted and hateful posts," Jerome Corsi, author of The Obama Nation, is scheduled to appear with host James Edwards on the August 17 edition of The Political Cesspool Radio Show, which, according to its "Statement of Principles," "represent[s] a philosophy that is pro-White." In a blog post, Edwards has stated that "[i]nterracial sex is white genocide." Then the equally far left wing Huffington Post came after Corsi and The Cesspool. You can read their diatribe here. [...] And notice that no one ever refutes anything I've written. They can't. But they hate the fact that I'm telling the truth on my blog and on the radio show, so, because they can't refute me, they simply resort to name calling. And then they attack Dr. Corsi for appearing on my show, as if every guest on every radio show endorses every opinion and action of the host of that show. Which is insane. There are lots of things I've written that Dr. Corsi doesn't agree with, and there are lots of things he's written that I don't agree with. Appearing on a show to promote your book in no way implies anything, let alone that you agree with the radio host 100%. Corsi appeared on Larry King Live the other night, but no one ever accuses guests of Larry King of endorsing being married 7 times, not to mention King's criminal background, which includes charges of bribery, corruption, grand larceny, and passing 14 bad checks. Besides, what conservative wouldn't be proud to be attacked by these freaks? Like David Brock, the former "conservative" writer for The American Spectator, who's now openly homosexual and a flaming liberal, who wrote in one of his books about arranging a dinner/interview with Matt Drudge. But Drudge misunderstood -- he thought it was a date, and brought a dozen roses for Brock, and took him gay bar hopping. Drudge later wrote to Brock that some were saying that Drudge and Brock were gay lovers and "I should only be so lucky." Brock, the former "conservative", then went on to found Media Matters which exists to expose "the lies of the right wing media." And guess who's funding this little venture? The notorious Moveon.org, for one, and a bunch of "wealthy liberals." And what do you want to bet that a lot of those "wealthy liberals" have funny last names? From Edwards' second post, headlined "Note for our newer readers": My blog has been getting a ton of traffic over the past two days thanks to the liberal/homosexual assault being waged against Jerome Corsi on behalf of the Barack Obama campaign. Most of the liberal bloggers/websites that have mentioned us do nothing but call us names, lifting passages directly from a hate piece by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Many of them give the impression that we're McCain supporters. Some make outrageously false accusations that we "malign" Jews and non-whites. These are both lies. I am the furthest thing possible from a McCain supporter. The same is true of all my co-hosts on The Political Cesspool radio program. We've never been McCain supporters, nor Bush supporters. We are NOT Republicans. We are pro-white, and seek what's best for white people. (We are not "white supremacists" as all these gay/liberal liars are saying.) We believe the interests of white people come first, and we want what's best for our people. A McCain victory would not be in the interests of white people by any stretch of the imagination. Between McCain and Obama, we couldn't care less who wins. In fact, we think an Obama victory would be fitting. The only countries in the world that have black heads of state are third world countries, and as massive demographic changes in this country will soon make much of America a third world country, a black president would be entirely appropriate. We are not rooting for either candidate. We're rooting for white people. Nor do we malign any racial group. We tell the truth about racial differences, and unlike the mainstream media, we don't cover up the racial angles of important news stories. Unlike some people, we don't consider pointing out that a Jew is a Jew to be "anti-semitic", any more than pointing out that Obama is black is "anti-black." And the very people attacking us as racists, the left wing homosexuals over at Media Matters, have no compunctions at all about highlighting people's race when it suits their purposes. Of course, when they do it, it's not "racism", it's just "honest reporting", etc. Mediamatters.Org "[P]ro-White" radio host Edwards asks of Media Matters' funders: "[W]hat do you want to bet that a lot of those 'wealthy liberals' have funny last names?" {new window}   Mediamatters.Org - In an August 15 blog post, James Edwards, co-host of the "pro-White" Political Cesspool Radio Show, responded to a Media Matters for America item noting that Jerome Corsi, author of The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality, appeared on the July 20 edition of the show and is reportedly scheduled to appear in its August 17 broadcast. In his post, headlined "Gays, liberals attack Jerome Corsi," Edwards wrote that Media Matters was "founded and is run by homosexual David Brock." After asserting that Media Matters is funded by "a bunch of 'wealthy liberals,' " Edwards said: "And what do you want to bet that a lot of those 'wealthy liberals' have funny last names?" Edwards also wrote: "And notice that no one ever refutes anything I've written. They can't. But they hate the fact that I'm telling the truth on my blog and on the radio show, so, because they can't refute me, they simply resort to name calling." In fact, Media Matters highlighted some of Edwards' comments. Edwards has asserted on his blog that "[i]nterracial sex is white genocide" and called British historian David Irving -- who was, according to BBC News, "jailed by an Austrian court after pleading guilty to denying that the Holocaust took place" -- a "real hero" and "a survivor of the Jewish Holocaust against free speech." As Media Matters noted, his radio show has on its website a "Statement of Principles" saying that the show "represent[s] a philosophy that is pro-White" and which "heartily endorse[s] and accept[s] as our own, the founding tenets of the Council of Conservative Citizens [CCC]." In a second August 15 post responding to how his "blog has been getting a ton of traffic over the past two days thanks to the liberal/homosexual assault being waged against Jerome Corsi on behalf of the Barack Obama campaign," Edwards said of himself and his Political Cesspool co-hosts, "We are not rooting for either candidate. We're rooting for white people." Edwards further asserted: "Between McCain and Obama, we couldn't care less who wins. In fact, we think an Obama victory would be fitting. The only countries in the world that have black heads of state are third world countries, and as massive demographic changes in this country will soon make much of America a third world country, a black president would be entirely appropriate." Edwards' post also referred to "the left wing homosexuals over at Media Matters." From Edwards' first August 15 post, headlined "Gays, liberals attack Jerome Corsi": Jerome Corsi, author of the #1 bestseller The Obama Nation, is scheduled to appear on The Political Cesspool this Sunday. Yesterday the liberal hate machine went into high gear in a massive, coordinated attack campaign against Mr. Corsi, which is no doubt being managed and directed by the Obama campaign. They remember how devastatingly effective his book Unfit For Command was in keeping John Kerry out of the White House, and they're going to do their darndest to try to keep him from repeating his success with Obama. And what's their latest angle of attack? They're trumpeting the fact that he's going to talk about his book on The Cesspool. The first big story came yesterday from the far left wing Media Matters, which was founded and is run by homosexual David Brock. You can read it here. Summary: Despite stating that he had apologized for what was described as a "series of bigoted and hateful posts," Jerome Corsi, author of The Obama Nation, is scheduled to appear with host James Edwards on the August 17 edition of The Political Cesspool Radio Show, which, according to its "Statement of Principles," "represent[s] a philosophy that is pro-White." In a blog post, Edwards has stated that "[i]nterracial sex is white genocide." Then the equally far left wing Huffington Post came after Corsi and The Cesspool. You can read their diatribe here. [...] And notice that no one ever refutes anything I've written. They can't. But they hate the fact that I'm telling the truth on my blog and on the radio show, so, because they can't refute me, they simply resort to name calling. And then they attack Dr. Corsi for appearing on my show, as if every guest on every radio show endorses every opinion and action of the host of that show. Which is insane. There are lots of things I've written that Dr. Corsi doesn't agree with, and there are lots of things he's written that I don't agree with. Appearing on a show to promote your book in no way implies anything, let alone that you agree with the radio host 100%. Corsi appeared on Larry King Live the other night, but no one ever accuses guests of Larry King of endorsing being married 7 times, not to mention King's criminal background, which includes charges of bribery, corruption, grand larceny, and passing 14 bad checks. Besides, what conservative wouldn't be proud to be attacked by these freaks? Like David Brock, the former "conservative" writer for The American Spectator, who's now openly homosexual and a flaming liberal, who wrote in one of his books about arranging a dinner/interview with Matt Drudge. But Drudge misunderstood -- he thought it was a date, and brought a dozen roses for Brock, and took him gay bar hopping. Drudge later wrote to Brock that some were saying that Drudge and Brock were gay lovers and "I should only be so lucky." Brock, the former "conservative", then went on to found Media Matters which exists to expose "the lies of the right wing media." And guess who's funding this little venture? The notorious Moveon.org, for one, and a bunch of "wealthy liberals." And what do you want to bet that a lot of those "wealthy liberals" have funny last names? From Edwards' second post, headlined "Note for our newer readers": My blog has been getting a ton of traffic over the past two days thanks to the liberal/homosexual assault being waged against Jerome Corsi on behalf of the Barack Obama campaign. Most of the liberal bloggers/websites that have mentioned us do nothing but call us names, lifting passages directly from a hate piece by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Many of them give the impression that we're McCain supporters. Some make outrageously false accusations that we "malign" Jews and non-whites. These are both lies. I am the furthest thing possible from a McCain supporter. The same is true of all my co-hosts on The Political Cesspool radio program. We've never been McCain supporters, nor Bush supporters. We are NOT Republicans. We are pro-white, and seek what's best for white people. (We are not "white supremacists" as all these gay/liberal liars are saying.) We believe the interests of white people come first, and we want what's best for our people. A McCain victory would not be in the interests of white people by any stretch of the imagination. Between McCain and Obama, we couldn't care less who wins. In fact, we think an Obama victory would be fitting. The only countries in the world that have black heads of state are third world countries, and as massive demographic changes in this country will soon make much of America a third world country, a black president would be entirely appropriate. We are not rooting for either candidate. We're rooting for white people. Nor do we malign any racial group. We tell the truth about racial differences, and unlike the mainstream media, we don't cover up the racial angles of important news stories. Unlike some people, we don't consider pointing out that a Jew is a Jew to be "anti-semitic", any more than pointing out that Obama is black is "anti-black." And the very people attacking us as racists, the left wing homosexuals over at Media Matters, have no compunctions at all about highlighting people's race when it suits their purposes. Of course, when they do it, it's not "racism", it's just "honest reporting", etc.
Media Matters - "[P]ro-White" radio host Edwards asks of Media Matters' funders: "[W]hat do you want to bet that a lot of those 'wealthy liberals' have funny last names?" {...} Responding to a Media Matters item, James Edwards, co-host of the "pro-White" Political Cesspool Radio Show , asserted that Media Matters is funded by "a bunch of 'wealthy liberals,' " and said: "And what do you want to bet that a lot of those 'wealthy liberals' have funny last names?" Edwards also said of himself and his Political Cesspool co-hosts, "We are not rooting for either candidate. We're rooting for white people." {...}
Published: August 16, 2008, 1:01 am - Indexed: August 16, 2008, 12:22 pm - Page Size: 25KB
Category: Society > Issues > Business > Media > Bias and Balance

]]> Society > Issues > Business > Media > Bias and Balance {ISSUES > BIAS AND BALANCE} - CNN's Amy Holmes falsely accused Hillary Clinton of fostering doubt about Obama's religion http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/cnn-s-amy-holmes-falsely-accused-hillary-clinton-2008088029.htm http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/cnn-s-amy-holmes-falsely-accused-hillary-clinton-2008088029.htm Fri, 15 Aug 2008 00:24:18 GMT On the August 13 edition of CNN's Larry King Live, CNN political contributor and Republican strategist Amy Holmes accused Sen. Hillary Clinton of fostering doubt about Sen. Barack Obama's religion. Holmes mischaracterized Clinton's response during a March 2 60 Minutes interview to the question of whether Clinton "believe[d] that Senator Obama is a Muslim," falsely asserting that "Hillary Clinton herself said she wasn't -- she thought he was Christian, as far as she knew." As Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, contrary to Holmes' claim, Clinton's first three words in response to the question were, "Of course not." Indeed, during the interview with CBS correspondent Steve Kroft, Clinton equated the false rumors about Obama's religion to false rumors about her: "Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time." From the March 2 edition of CBS' 60 Minutes: KROFT: You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim? CLINTON: Of course not. I mean, that's -- you know, there is no basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that. KROFT: And you said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not a Muslim. CLINTON: Right. Right. KROFT: You don't believe that he's a Muslim -- CLINTON: No. No. Why would I? There's no -- KROFT: -- or implying, right? CLINTON: No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know. KROFT: It's just scurrilous -- CLINTON: Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time. From the August 13 edition of CNN's Larry King Live: HOLMES: I agree with Peter [Beinart, Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow]. I don't think Barack Obama should give this any more attention, any more oxygen. But I would like to say that so much of this criticism in this book is being laid at the feet of the GOP, as if this is a conservative -- concerted conservative smear machine, which it's not. And let's remember, back in the Democratic primary, it was Bill Clinton questioning Barack Obama's love of country, when he said that he thought if McCain and Hillary ran that you would have two candidates who loved their country and were devoted to their country. So I would like to, you know, kind of put this out on the table, that a lot of this was coming from Democrats, long before this [Jerome] Corsi put out this book. BEINART: Well, but Mary Matalin is the head of this publishing house. LARRY KING (host): Yeah. Mary Matalin is. HOLMES: I understand that. I understand that. But so much of the attacks on this is that this is only the GOP and that it's somehow coordinated and concerted, when, in fact, in the Democratic primary, we saw left-wing blogs attacking Barack Obama on religion. Hillary Clinton herself said she wasn't -- she thought he was Christian, as far as she knew. Mediamatters.Org CNN's Amy Holmes falsely accused Hillary Clinton of fostering doubt about Obama's religion {new window}   Mediamatters.Org - On the August 13 edition of CNN's Larry King Live, CNN political contributor and Republican strategist Amy Holmes accused Sen. Hillary Clinton of fostering doubt about Sen. Barack Obama's religion. Holmes mischaracterized Clinton's response during a March 2 60 Minutes interview to the question of whether Clinton "believe[d] that Senator Obama is a Muslim," falsely asserting that "Hillary Clinton herself said she wasn't -- she thought he was Christian, as far as she knew." As Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, contrary to Holmes' claim, Clinton's first three words in response to the question were, "Of course not." Indeed, during the interview with CBS correspondent Steve Kroft, Clinton equated the false rumors about Obama's religion to false rumors about her: "Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time." From the March 2 edition of CBS' 60 Minutes: KROFT: You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim? CLINTON: Of course not. I mean, that's -- you know, there is no basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that. KROFT: And you said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not a Muslim. CLINTON: Right. Right. KROFT: You don't believe that he's a Muslim -- CLINTON: No. No. Why would I? There's no -- KROFT: -- or implying, right? CLINTON: No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know. KROFT: It's just scurrilous -- CLINTON: Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time. From the August 13 edition of CNN's Larry King Live: HOLMES: I agree with Peter [Beinart, Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow]. I don't think Barack Obama should give this any more attention, any more oxygen. But I would like to say that so much of this criticism in this book is being laid at the feet of the GOP, as if this is a conservative -- concerted conservative smear machine, which it's not. And let's remember, back in the Democratic primary, it was Bill Clinton questioning Barack Obama's love of country, when he said that he thought if McCain and Hillary ran that you would have two candidates who loved their country and were devoted to their country. So I would like to, you know, kind of put this out on the table, that a lot of this was coming from Democrats, long before this [Jerome] Corsi put out this book. BEINART: Well, but Mary Matalin is the head of this publishing house. LARRY KING (host): Yeah. Mary Matalin is. HOLMES: I understand that. I understand that. But so much of the attacks on this is that this is only the GOP and that it's somehow coordinated and concerted, when, in fact, in the Democratic primary, we saw left-wing blogs attacking Barack Obama on religion. Hillary Clinton herself said she wasn't -- she thought he was Christian, as far as she knew.
Media Matters - CNN's Amy Holmes falsely accused Hillary Clinton of fostering doubt about Obama's religion {...} On Larry King Live , Amy Holmes falsely asserted that "Hillary Clinton herself said she wasn't -- she thought he [Sen. Barack Obama] was Christian, as far as she knew." In fact, during the 60 Minutes interview to which Holmes was referring, when Clinton was asked whether she "believe[d] that Senator Obama is a Muslim," the first three words of her response were, "Of course not." {...}
Published: August 15, 2008, 12:24 am - Indexed: August 15, 2008, 3:25 pm - Page Size: 20KB
Category: Society > Issues > Business > Media > Bias and Balance

]]> Society > Issues > Business > Media > Bias and Balance {ISSUES > BIAS AND BALANCE} - Despite "all my apologies" for bigoted comments, Corsi reportedly scheduled to appear on "pro-White" radio show http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/despite-all-my-apologies-for-bigoted-comments-corsi-20080878614.htm http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/despite-all-my-apologies-for-bigoted-comments-corsi-20080878614.htm Wed, 13 Aug 2008 20:26:39 GMT In an appearance on the August 13 edition of CNN's Larry King Live, after Media Matters for America Senior Fellow Paul Waldman noted that Jerome Corsi, author of The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality, had "put up on right-wing Web sites a whole series of bigoted and hateful posts," Corsi replied that "you haven't mentioned all my apologies for those statements." But notwithstanding Corsi's apologies for his comments, Corsi is reportedly scheduled to appear with host James Edwards on the August 17 edition of The Political Cesspool Radio Show, which, according to its "Statement of Principles," "represent[s] a philosophy that is pro-