How Times Have Changed

Here's a nice story that is perhaps more significant than you might at first think:

Two Army captains who met in the “don’t ask, don’t tell” era of the military, became the first active-duty, same-sex couple to get married at West Point when they exchanged vows last weekend.

Capt. Daniel Hall, 30, and Capt. Vinny Franchino, 26, both Apache helicopter pilots, were married at the New York military academy’s picturesque chapel, the New York Times reported on Friday.

They're not the first same-sex couple to be married at West Point, but the first active-duty same-sex couple.

But what struck me is that, if you follow the link above, it will take you to Raw Story, reprinting an article from Newsweek, which references at article from the New York Times. It's not all that long ago that a story like this would have been ignored by the "mainstream" press -- unless there were a riot.

Stenography as "Journalism"

I'm certainly not the first to sound off about this, but this story really points it up:

Florida Senator Marco Rubio admits that the Republican tax cut plan to aid corporations and the wealthy will require cuts to Social Security and Medicare to pay for it.

Rubio told reporters this week that in order to address the federal deficit, which will grow by at least $1 trillion if the tax plan passes, Congress will need to cut entitlement programs such as Social Security. Advocates for the elderly and the poor have warned that entitlement programs would be on the chopping block, but this is the first time a prominent Republican has backed their claims.

OK, we knew that. Republicans have been after Social Security for eighty years, and Medicare almost since it was created. But this is what got me going:

The simple answer is Social Security and Medicare, which together comprise 38 percent of the total federal budget, second only to military spending.

“The driver of our debt is the structure of Social Security and Medicare for future beneficiaries,” said Rubio.

This is total bullshit. Social Security is not part of the federal budget, and neither is Medicare except for administrative costs for Part B.

If you do a search for "social security funding," this is what you get:

Social Security is financed through a dedicated payroll tax. Employers and employees each pay 6.2 percent of wages up to the taxable maximum of $118,500 (in 2016), while the self-employed pay 12.4 percent.

In 2015, $795 billion (85 percent) of total Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance income came from payroll taxes. The remainder was provided by interest earnings ( $93 billion or 10 percent) and revenue from taxation of OASDI benefits ( $32 billion or 3 percent), and $325 million in reimbursements from the General Fund of the Treasury - most resulting from the 2012 payroll tax legislation.

The payroll tax rates are set by law, and for OASI and DI, apply to earnings up to a certain amount. This amount, called the earnings base, rises as average wages increase.

The only funds coming from the General Fund are "reimbursements" -- i.e., paybacks.

Do the same for Medicare:

Medicare Trust Funds

Medicare is paid for through 2 trust fund accounts held by the U.S. Treasury. These funds can only be used for Medicare.

Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund

How is it funded?

Payroll taxes paid by most employees, employers, and people who are self-employed
Other sources, like income taxes paid on Social Security benefits, interest earned on the trust fund investments, and Medicare Part A premiums from people who aren't eligible for premium-free Part A

What does it pay for?

Medicare Part A (Hospital Insurance) benefits, like inpatient hospital care, skilled nursing facility care, home health care, and hospice care
Medicare Program administration, like costs for paying benefits, collecting Medicare taxes, and combating fraud and abuse

Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) Trust Fund

How is it funded?

Funds authorized by Congress
Premiums from people enrolled in Medicare Part B (Medical Insurance) and Medicare prescription drug coverage (Part D)
Other sources, like interest earned on the trust fund investments

What does it pay for?

Part B benefits
Part D
Medicare Program administration, like costs for paying benefits and for combating fraud and abuse.

Even from these summaries, it's obvious that neither Social Security nor Medicare has a large impact on the federal deficit. For that, you need to look to the handouts and tax breaks for millionaires and corporations.

And it would seem that when you're quoting a Republican on Social Security and Medicare (which, by the way, Republicans have spent years equating with welfare, food stamps, etc., as "entitlements" -- the difference being that we pay into SS and Medicare, so you bet your sweet booty we're entitled to something back), some scepticism is in order. That's apparently too much to ask of Newsweek, which goes on to repeat more Republican talking points:

In order to remain solvent, changes do need to be made to entitlement programs. Both Social Security and Medicare programs are on a fiscally unsustainable path — Medicare’s hospital insurance trust fund will be exhausted by 2029 and Social Security’s trust fund will be exhausted by 2034.

It starts to look less like laziness and more like complicity -- the link is to an "analysis" of the trustees' reports by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation. In case you can't quite place the name, this might refresh your memory:

Peter G. Peterson, born June 5, 1926, is a controversial Wall Street billionaire who uses his wealth to underwrite a diversity of organizations and PR campaigns to generate public support for slashing Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, citing concerns over "unsustainable" federal budget deficits.

Looks like Newsweek is getting to be as reliable a source as Fox.

There's an easy fix to the "sustainability" issue for Social Security: remove the tax cap. Currently, wages up to $118,500 are subject to FICA; take off the limit and Social Security will be rolling in money.

For Medicare, there's no cap, but the tax is only 1.45 percent each from employee and employer. A small increase -- and I mean small, like .5% -- would ease the strain.

But, back to the main thesis: if this is the kind of crap that passes for journalism in the mainstream media, we are in real trouble.

Maddow on The Supreme Court and Marriage

Fairly lengthy segment, but worth watching:

There's at last one small factual error in the report -- Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, New Jersey, and either Vermont or New Hampshire (or maybe both) instituted same-sex marriage by state court decisions, not federal. Maine, Maryland, and Washington State accomplished it by referendum, New Mexico had never limited marriage to opposite sex couples -- that was another state court decision -- while the rest of the pre-Windsor marriage states established SSM through legislative action.

But the big, gray, smelly elephant in the room is the substance of the 6th Circuit decision itself and the way in which the Supreme Court framed its order: the majority opinion from the 6th did not address the Equal Protection or Due Process arguments. The best analysis is the dissenting opinion by Martha Craig Daughtrey:

The author of the majority opinion has drafted what would make an engrossing TED Talk or, possibly, an introductory lecture in Political Philosophy. But as an appellate court decision, it wholly fails to grapple with the relevant constitutional question in this appeal: whether a state’s constitutional prohibition of same-sex marriage violates equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead, the majority sets up a false premise—that the question before us is “who should decide?”—and leads us through a largely irrelevant discourse on democracy and federalism. In point of fact, the real issue before us concerns what is at stake in these six cases for the individual plaintiffs and their children, and what should be done about it. Because I reject the majority’s resolution of these questions based on its invocation of vox populi and its reverence for “proceeding with caution” (otherwise known as the “wait and see” approach), I dissent.

Frankly, I'm disappointed in Maddow for this episode. She usually manages to address the real issues, which I outlined here; this one looks like no more than jumping on the "What is the Court going to do?" bandwagon.

"No Go" Zones in Paris?

You may have heard about the Fox News report on the "no go" zones for non-Muslims in Paris -- you know, where the neighborhood is completely under the control of Al Queda and the law is sharia. It must be true -- it was on Fox!

Well, here's the response from France's equivalent to The Daily Show:

I don't think I need to say more, except you don't want to tangle with a French satirist. ("Barbie and Ken"? I love it.)

Via The New Civil Rights Movement.

Faith-Based Reality: The News Media At Work

Here's an article that points up a major failing of the news media in this country. The subject is the reporting on the controversy around the birth-control mandate of the ACA, but the problem extends to just about everything the media touches:

When it comes to women’s health issues like contraception and abortion, why does the press so often present opinion and fact side by side? Recent pieces in Reuters, the New York Times and SCOTUSblog, to name just a few, made an attempt at “balance” by presenting what they see as “both sides of the issue” on contraception. But do facts have two sides? When reporting on medical issues, weighing a religious belief as equal to scientific and medical evidence is disingenuous and confusing to the reader.

The Reuters piece is egregious, but what can you expect from a piece titled "U.S. top court case highlights unsettled science in contraception"? As Lin-Wang Fang points out in the main article, the science is very clear:

FACT: The ACA requires new health insurance plans to cover the full spectrum of FDA-approved forms of birth control. It does not require coverage of abortion or abortifacients.

FACT: No FDA-approved forms of birth control – including emergency contraception pills or the IUD – cause abortions. Emergency contraception pills and IUDs prevent pregnancy, not disrupt pregnancy.

FACT: Pregnancy occurs when a fertilized egg implants into the uterine lining. After implantation, that’s when a pregnancy test turns positive. Even among women not on birth control, not every fertilized egg implants. Therefore, the possibility that the copper IUD could inhibit implantation does not make it an abortifacient. This is not an opinion. This is the shared consensus of the medical and scientific community, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

In light of the facts, it's worth taking a look at the NYT piece, which is really an op ed by the director of a "pro-life" organization -- the comments really rake her over the coals.

Another group that is constantly trying to conflate religious belief with scientific evidence is the creationist contingent:

Creationists are accusing astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson's reboot of "Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey" of being scientifically unbalanced because it doesn't represent their beliefs.

Right Wing Watch posted audio of Danny Faulkner of Answers In Genesis and the Creation Museum speaking Thursday on "The Janet Mefford Show,” in which he blasted deGrasse Tyson for ignoring the creationist point of view.

"Creationists aren’t even on the radar screen for them, they wouldn’t even consider us plausible at all," Faulkner told host Janet Mefford.

"But when you have so many scientists who simply do not accept Darwinian evolution, it seems to me that that might be something to throw in there," Mefford said. "You know, the old, ‘some scientists say this, others disagree and think this,’ but that’s not even allowed."

OK, it's Janet Mefferd's show, so we know we're dealing with the fringe, but notice the bald assertion that "there are so many scientists who simply do not accept Darwinian evolution." That's at best a misrepresentation -- I have no doubt that Mefferd is including engineers, mathematicians, what-have-you as scientists. They have no chops when it comes to evolutionary theory.

And it's the "equal time" mantra again, and of course, the real question is Why should a program devoted to science be including religious belief? RightWing Watch sums it up:

Arguing that evolution, the foundation of modern biology, and one of many theological beliefs on human creation are simply “two sides” that merit competing time on a science program is much like the equally absurd argument Creationists use when trying to undermine the teaching of evolution in public schools.

But you won't find the mainstream news media pointing that out. Blame Fox News, with its specious "fair and balanced" meme, which it seems just about everyone has bought into. News flash: "balanced" is not necessarily "fair," and these days it's seldom accurate.

Footnote: It's worth looking again at Judge Bernard Friedman's take-down of Mark Regnerus' "study" in the Michigan marriage ban trial. That's called "critical thinking" and it's another thing that the religious nuts want to do away with -- for good reason.

Celebrity News

Let's face it, we live in a world where what celebrities do is news -- even if their claim to fame is merely that they're "celebrities" of some unspecified nature. (I think you can come up with some names that fit that category.) The latest example of that is Tom Daley's "coming out" and the speculation on who his boyfriend is.

Now, this is the sort of thing I usually ignore -- there are a lot of things happening in the world that are way more important, but this one has some meat to it, starting with Daley's manner of revealing his current status -- in his own words, in his own time, and eschewing any labels or specifics. One of the few news sources I've seen that has displayed any integrity in this whole thing is Pink News, which had this to say about why they are not repeating the speculation about the lucky man:

Many reports have taken speculation about who Tom Daley is dating as gospel, and some have gone further to bring up old issues over past private issues.

Until one of the pair decide to confirm reports, and make a statement about their relationship, PinkNews will not report or speculate about it, in the same way that (after some lessons quickly learned) we would not apply a label to his sexuality.

Working in this industry it is easy to lose track of things, or make snap decisions in following a big story (trust me, I’ve had to make a few), but what this comes down to is that Tom Daley is a 19-year-old dealing with coming out, with the added pressure of attention from the world’s media.

I commend him for making the decision to publicly reveal that he is dating a man, but who that man is is only his business, unless an announcement is made.

My sentiments exactly. Otherwise, you turn into Drudge or Politico. Or Fox News. (Benghazi!!1!)

And yes, I included a picture of Daley because he is just plain cute.

Benghazi!!1!

Well, this had to happen -- it seems that the "key witness" to the debacle at the consulate in Benghazi has some credibility problems:

Dylan Davies claims to have been there the night terrorists attacked the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya.  Davies’ account of that evening, and what he calls massive security failures leading up to the attack, were so damning that Republican Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) put a hold on all Obama administration nominations until he gets to the bottom of Davies’ serious allegations.

Then Davies’ story went poof! — and was no more.

Unfortunately for Senator Graham and Davies, Davies’ story imploded last night in the face of a New York Times blockbuster alleging that Davie’s explosive account of events at the US consulate that he gave CBS’ 60 Minutes, and his book publisher, flat-out contradict the story he told federal agents during an FBI interview.

The publisher has pulled the book (because they always write books), CBS has apologized (hint for the future -- try taking a little time to do some fact-checking in your rush for a sensational headline), And Lindsey Graham -- uh, Sen. Graham? Are you there?

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) trumpeted the recent "60 Minutes" piece on last year's attack in Benghazi perhaps louder than any other Republican, but he's been mostly silent since CBS News retracted the report on Friday.

After TPM submitted multiple requests for comment, a spokesman for Graham finally responded with an email saying that the senator "will be a guest on CNN State of the Union discussing the latest on Benghazi and the Iranian nuclear program" this Sunday.

He's waiting to talk about it on State of the Nation because he knows he won't be asked anything that's really embarrassing or that calls into question his standing as a Very Serious Person. He also won't have to admit that he behaved irresponsibly for partisan political purposes. He doesn't have the balls to admit he was wrong.

And this man is a United States Senator of some seniority. Do you wonder why the government's in the shape it's in?

OK -- How Desperate Are They?

I'm not talking about the Republicans, necessarily -- I'm talking about the mainstream media. You have to wonder when you spot a headline like this:

Race is on to define Hillary Clinton’s potential presidential candidacy

That's the lead story in this morning's online edition of WaPo.

Granted, the Republicans are already in panic mode over the prospect of a potential Clinton candidacy -- as witness RNC Chairman Reince Preibus' threat to pull GOP primary debates from those networks if they go ahead with planned Hillary documentaries, not to mention Benghazi-gate, which they tried to pin on her -- but is this what "the news" has come to? Stories about possible reactions to and pre-emptive strikes against a potential candidacy for an election that's three years away? Here's the lede:

The 2016 presidential contest is more than two years away, and Hillary Rodham Clinton has not decided whether she will be a part of it. But the race to define her potential candidacy is well underway — and far outside her control.

I think some of these people need to get out of Washington from time to time.

AP and "Teh Gay"

John Aravosis has been reporting on this for a few days. It marks a particularly bone-headed move on AP's part, almost on the order of threatening legal action if anyone quotes one of their stories. Here's the bones, via Jim Romenesko. From the first leaked memo:

From: AP Standards
Sent: Mon 2/11/2013 2:45 PM

STYLE WATCH

SAME-SEX COUPLES: We were asked how to report about same-sex couples who call themselves “husband” and “wife.” Our view is that such terms may be used in AP stories with attribution. Generally AP uses couples or partners to describe people in civil unions or same-sex marriages.

Tom Kent
Dave Minthorn

That's outrageous enough, but here's the "fix":

SAME-SEX COUPLES: We were asked how to report about same-sex couples who call themselves “husband” and “wife.” Our view is that such terms may be used in AP content if those involved have regularly used those terms (“Smith is survived by his husband, John Jones”) or in quotes attributed to them. Generally AP uses couples or partners to describe people in civil unions or same-sex marriages.

WTF? That fixes something? Excuse me gentlemen -- these people are married.

Aravosis points up something that struck me as well:

And what about this:

Generally AP uses couples or partners to describe people in civil unions or same-sex marriages.

So clearly AP is admitting that it has a different standard for legally-wed gay couples than it has for legally-wed straight couples. What possible reason does AP have? Marriage is not a federal issue, it’s a state issue – states decide who is married. The feds can say they’re not going to give benefits, but they don’t overrule the state’s marriage – gays are still married in those states, just as straight people arte. Who is AP to say they don’t agree with the states’ legal determination as to who is married?

AP is overruling the 9 states and the District of Columbia that have legal marriages for gay couples. AP says no. They’re not really marriages.

And what about foreign marriages? Same-sex couples can marry in a growing number of countries now. AP has also decided that they’re not really married either.

What business is it of the Associated Press to determine that it doesn’t believe legally wed gay couples, in the US or abroad, are actually legally wed?

OK -- Aravosis gets to be a bit shrill sometimes, but he has a very good point: why the double standard? And as he points out, this comes on the heels of AP banning the use of the word "homophobia" for its reporters.

I've noticed a subtle anti-gay bias in AP stories before this -- as I say, it's subtle, but it's there. What surprises me is that they'd be so blatant about their prejudice, especially considering the general acceptance of gay people in society.

Here's the story on the latest wrinkle from Chris Geidner at BuzzFeed:

The Associated Press is holding firm against criticism — some of it internal — of a Feb. 11 guidance issued to its reporters and editors that they were to "[g]enerally ... [use] couples or partners to describe people in civil unions or same-sex marriages."

AP spokesman Paul Colford told BuzzFeed Thursday evening, "This week's style guidance reaffirmed AP's existing practice. We've used husband and wife in the past for same-sex married couples and have made clear that reporters can continue to do so going forward."

When covering same-sex couples who have waited decades in some cases for that marriage license, however, the idea that the AP would treat those couples' marriages like civil unions — and not like opposite-sex couples' marriages — has sparked questioning responses from some of AP's own reporters and calls for a change from LGBT organizations and activists.

According to Aravosis, this is so much bull-pucky. He quotes AP Style Guidance:

1. When one of the gay spouses being written about mentions the term husband or wife in a quote, and AP uses the quote. (I.e., The couple could call themselves “blueberries,” and AP would quote it, since publishing a quote doesn’t necessarily mean that AP agrees with, or endorses, the substance of that quote. This is a modified version of the scare-quote defense: “If it’s in quotes, we don’t really mean it.”)

2. AP reporters may use the terms husband and wife if the gay couple “regularly uses” the terms husband or wife about themselves. (And no one has any idea what “regularly uses” means.)

Read Geidner's whole article -- some of the reactions are great. My favorite is from the Fake AP Stylbook (which for some reason I can't copy and embed):

Fake AP Stylebook
@FakeAPStylebook

Avoid using "husband" or "wife" in reference to same-sex married couples; instead use "roommates" or "confirmed co-bachelors."

That sort of says it, I think.

This By You Is Journalism?

Granted, it's an "opinion" piece, but once upon a time even opinion pieces had to have some grounding in reality. This piece by Dennis Byrne for the Chicago Tribune is notable not only for its blatant one-sidedness, but for the inflammatory language Byrne uses.

First, a gross exaggeration of the study's substance:

This is a debate-changing study, especially because it challenges more recent court findings in which judges cite the "no difference evidence" as a reason for overturning laws that define marriage as between a man and a woman.

No, it's not that at all. One key factor that Byrne conveniently forgets to mention is that the internal audit by Social Science Research, the journal that published the study, found that the peer-review process was badly flawed, marked by numerous conflicts of interest, and that the study itself is so bereft of scientific integrity that it never should have been published.

[Daniel E.] Sherkat was given access to all the reviews and correspondence connected with the paper, and was told the identities of the reviewers. According to Sherkat, Regnerus’s paper should never have been published. His assessment of it, in an interview, was concise: “It’s bullshit,” he said.

I find it hard to believe that Byrne was unaware of this, since it's been widely publicized -- but judging from his post, he limits his reading to The Weekly Standard and NOM's blog.

As for the rest of his post, it's pretty bad -- playing the victim card on Regnerus' behalf, lambasting those who have quite legitimate concerns about the closed circle of funders, consultants, and advocates (one notable link is Prof. Robert E. George, a major opponent of marriage equality and a co-founder of NOM), not to mention Regnerus' own statements that his religious beliefs "inform" his research, and dismissing the challenges to Regenerus' methodology, which are quite germane.

Another reason why I seldom read the Trib.

Ah, Yes -- A Free and Independent Press

Don't get your hopes up.

I've railed against the corporate press before, but things seem to be coming to a head lately.

The first salvo was this article by the Times' public editor, Arthur Brisbane:

I’m looking for reader input on whether and when New York Times news reporters should challenge “facts” that are asserted by newsmakers they write about.

"WTF?" you say, "Isn't that what journalists do?" Apparently not, at least not any more. Well, the blowback was tremendous, starting with the comments to the article itself. This one is representative:

You are joking, right? You can't be this stupid. The New York Times and journalism as a profession can't have sunk this low that you'd dare to ask such a question. Is this The Onion or the paper of record? Holy Cow! Can't want til Jon Stewart vivisects you on Monday.

And another, with a bit of history:

This is a question? It's part of a reporters job to fact check. Journalism 101! And when did reporting become simply, "Parroting back whatever officials say"? I like the fact-check sidebar next to candidates' statements because you can't force the candidate to tell the truth and you have to print their exact words. A fact-check bar lets you do your job: objectively report. In all other articles (aside from those on the editorial page) journalists should be required to report both what people say, and to compare what people say to existing records of fact. Otherwise, why not just print press releases and official statements.... owait. You often do. :-/

"... how can The Times do this in a way that is objective and fair? Is it possible to be objective and fair when the reporter is choosing to correct one fact over another?"

What kind of question is this? It sounds like you wouldn't want people to be biased by... the truth. A journalist who only corrects half the facts in an article is still promoting lies. In short, s/he's not doing a good job of fact checking. You're the New York Times, for goodness sake. One would think that you could hire reporters who can be relied upon to do a professional job. It's not a matter of "correcting one fact over another." All facts should be checked, period. If journalists had done their homework properly, for example, nobody would have bought the bogus story of WMDs in Iraq, and it would have saved us a war.

The shit-storm over this is amazing -- just google "truth vigilante" and take a look at the reactions -- especially from the blogosphere.

Paul Krugman weighs in on the issue, rather adroitly (and ironically enough, in the pages of the Times):

I was deeply radicalized by the 2000 election. At first I couldn’t believe that then-candidate George W. Bush was saying so many clearly, provably false things; then I couldn’t believe that nobody in the news media was willing to point out the lies. (At the time, the Times actually told me that I couldn’t use the l-word either). That was when I formulated my “views differ on shape of planet” motto.

Now, however, Mitt Romney seems determined to rehabilitate Bush’s reputation, by running a campaign so dishonest that it makes Bush look like a model of truth-telling.

I mean, is there anything at all in Romney’s stump speech that’s true? It’s all based on attacking Obama for apologizing for America, which he didn’t, on making deep cuts in defense, which he also didn’t, and on being a radical redistributionist who wants equality of outcomes, which he isn’t. When the issue turns to jobs, Romney makes false assertions both about Obama’s record and about his own. I can’t find a single true assertion anywhere.

It's rather sad that you have to go to the opinion pages to find someone who's willing to question a politician's bullshit.

(Full disclosure: I work for an alt weekly that has regularly won awards for investigative journalism. We have interns to cut their teeth on the journalism business by fact-checking -- everything we publish. We regularly commit journalism, and the mayor's office doesn't like us very much. And no, before you ask, I do not write for them.)

NYT Does It Again (Updated)

An article that could have been -- well, it could have been a lot of things, but don't look for any real insights here. It's all a surface reading, and the surface isn't even right. Like this:

In fact, the two movements do share key traits. They emerged out of nowhere but quickly became potent political forces, driven by anxiety about the economy, a belief that big institutions favor the reckless over the hard-working, grievances that are inchoate and even contradictory, and an insistence that they are “leaderless.” “End the Fed” signs — and even some of those yellow Gadsden flags — have found a place at Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street protests alike.

Where they differ is in where they place the blame. While Occupy forces find fault in the banks and super-rich, the Tea Party movement blames the government for the economic calamity brought on by the mortgage crisis, and sees the wealthy as job creators who will lift the country out of its economic malaise. To them, the solution is less regulation of banks, not more.

Start with the "where they came from part." It's widely known at this time that the Tea Party movement was initially organized by conservative campaign consultants funded by, among others, the Koch brothers. Their first target was health-care reform, followed quickly by the social safety net in general. Come on, people, these "protesters" were being bussed in to town hall meetings with other people's Congressional representatives with instructions to disrupt the proceedings as much as possible. This is "inchoate and even contradictory"? These people were all but scripted.

The article merely echoes the right-wing blogosphere and conservative media characterizations, with little evidence of anything even remotely resembling fact-checking, and certainly no trace of skepticism. Sorry, but if you note that the right wing is portraying the Occupy Wall Street crowd as anti-Semitic, let's have some real analysis of the accuracy of that statement. And the article is full of assertions that raised flags for me, none of them examined at all.

It doesn't even rise to the level of "he said, she said" -- it's all "he said."

Recommended use: liner for litter box.

Update: There is some ray of hope here, although I can't credit the Times in particular -- just some of its contributors. Nicholas Kristof has a very lucid layout of the major focus of the Occupy protesters,and Paul Krugman, as might be expected, ha been on it for a while. (Check here, here, and here.

Best quote:

The modern lords of finance look at the protesters and ask, Don’t they understand what we’ve done for the U.S. economy?

The answer is: yes, many of the protesters do understand what Wall Street and more generally the nation’s economic elite have done for us. And that’s why they’re protesting.

Dumb Headline of the Day

From WaPo:

Obama’s numbers down, but he’s still a 2012 contender

Ya think?

The Light at the End of the Tunnel

Sort of. In spite of the insanity we can expect from Washington (which is one reason I haven't been posting much lately -- it's just too depressing), I'm beginning to see some hope in the media. Here's an excellent example from CNN on the "raunchy videos" produced by the then-XO and now captain of the U.S.S. Enterprise:



Notice how Parker even corrects Cmdr. Kirk Whipple -- former commander of the U.S.S. Cole -- about the frequency of occurrence -- he insists that it was a "one-time" happening, and she notes (finally -- it did take awhile) that there were a series of these videos. She also points out that it's not just offensive, but threatening to women and any gay sailors who may have been part of the crew.

On the whole, I agree with Whipple that there should be a thorough investigation before any action is taken against Capt. Honors, but I don't trust the Navy to do that, although it is possible, given the impending repeal of DADT and the resultant spotlight on bigotry in the military, they'll be a little less cavalier.

But I'm still delighted that Spitzer and Parker are actually challenging Whipple on this while still allowing him to say his piece. That's progress.

Wikileaks

This clip of Glenn Greenwald vs. Fran Townsend and Jessica Yellin is fascinating:



Everyone expects Townsend to be a shill for Big Gov, and I suppose no one should be surprised that Yellin has no clue as to what journalism is about, but note that their only counter to Greenwald is to repeat what they said before.

And Yellin's obvious agenda is shameful.

Update:

Here's Greenwald's post about the segment.

And more from Digby.

Social Security and the Press

Here's a great interview from the Columbia Journalism Review on the realities of the Social Security "crisis" and how the press has fallen down on it.

The bare facts:

Opponents of Social Security are deliberately confusing Social Security with Medicare; they are distorting reality. There are simple facts that should be reported: 1) Social Security never contributed a dime to the deficit; 2) Social Security softened the impact of the Reagan deficits by building up a surplus; 3) the federal government borrowed the money and spent it on other things; 4) the federal government has to pay this money back because it really belongs to the working people who paid their FICA deductions every pay day. The elites in both parties know the day is approaching when the federal government has to come up with the trillions it borrowed from the workers. That is the crisis the politicians don’t want to deal with, so they create a phony argument that slyly blames working people for their problem. That’s the propaganda they want the public to believe.

And the role of the press:

WG: I am daring reporters to go and find out the truth about this and report it. I’m not asking them to draw big conclusions or to assert their opinions. Just be honest reporters. It’s so frustrating to see the coverage. I’m not asking reporters to change any minds. I’m just asking them to do some real reporting. I mean, go to the facts—the actuarial records—and talk to a variety of experts. Reporters ring up the same sources and ask them how to think about Social Security.

TL: What does the public understand about what is happening?

WG: Not everyone understands what is happening. But most do. Most people know they have paid money into Social Security all these years and the money belongs to them, not the federal government. This is not welfare. It’s probably the best-understood program in the federal government. In fact, polls indicate in these troubled times the public believes people need increased benefits.

TL: Why hasn’t the press talked about Social Security as social insurance?

WG: My guess is that very few reporters understand what it is, or know that the concept of social insurance originated as a conservative idea—conserving social solidarity. It was first proposed more than one hundred years ago in Germany by Bismarck—not exactly a left-winger. Today’s critics style it as an entitlement program, and therefore reporters think that it’s like welfare. It’s not something the government gives to greedy old people. Alan Simpson has been relentless on this point. The press has picked up on Simpson’s language and made it sound like it’s a hand-out.

It's a great interview. Read the whole thing -- and then write your senators.

The In-Crowd

Excellent post by Jay Rosen on the press reaction to the McChrystal interview in Rolling Stone, focusing on a very interesting little maneuver by Politico:

The Politico was so hopped up about the story that it took the extraordinary step of posting on its site a PDF of Rolling Stone’s article because Rolling Stone had not put it online fast enough. In one of the many articles The Politico ran about the episode the following observation was made by reporters Gordon Lubold and Carol E. Lee:

McChrystal, an expert on counterterrorism and counterinsurgency, has long been thought to be uniquely qualified to lead in Afghanistan. But he is not known for being media savvy. Hastings, who has covered the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for two years, according to the magazine, is not well-known within the Defense Department. And as a freelance reporter, Hastings would be considered a bigger risk to be given unfettered access, compared with a beat reporter, who would not risk burning bridges by publishing many of McChrystal’s remarks.

Now this seemed to several observers—and I was one—a reveal. Think about what the Politico is saying: an experienced beat reporter is less of a risk for a powerful figure like McChrystal because an experienced beat reporter would probably not want to “burn bridges” with key sources by telling the world what happens when those sources let their guard down.

He goes on to enumerate some of the outlets -- mostly online -- that picked it up. It's a very revealing little episode that sets out baldly what those outside the Beltway have been saying about the corporate press for a while: they are part of a club that doesn't include their audience -- known once upon a time as the "rubes" -- but does include the people they are supposed to be examining. He's right -- it's a tremendously revealing paragraph that soon disappeared, with a certain amount of stonewalling by Politico, followed by a lame excuse.

And be sure to watch the video of Jon Stewart's take-down of the press -- it's devastating:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
McChrystal's Balls - Honorable Discharge
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Maybe the Washington insiders will eventually realize that they have become little more than a source for satire. Not anytime soon, though, I think.

And then, for dessert, try this story by Susie Madrak about Dave Weigel. You know, WaPo seems to be batting a thousand so far -- in terms of getting rid of reporters and commentators who are actually doing their jobs.

Speaking of WaPo, check this out -- four days later, the pro-McChrystal side is calling "foul" and they don't even seem to realize how revealing their comments are:

A U.S. military spokesman in Kabul, Air Force Lt. Col. Edward T. Sholtis, acknowledged that Hastings, like other reporters who have interviewed McChrystal over the past year, was not required to sign written ground rules. "We typically manage ground rules on a verbal basis," Sholtis said. "We trust in the professionalism of the people we're working with."

One man's professionalism is another man's sycophancy, and how typical of those in power: unwritten rules are pretty easy to manipulate, wouldn't you agree?

In the Land of the Clueless

Peggy Noonan stands head and shoulders above the rest. In what is rumored to be her last OpEd for WSJ, that bastion of fairness and equality, Noonan proves once again that she just doesn't get it.

But we are concerned about other things, too, and there are often signs in various polls that those things may dwarf economic concerns. Americans are worried about the core and character of the American nation, and about our culture.

It is one thing to grouse that dreadful people who don't care about us control our economy, but another, and in a way more personal, thing to say that people who don't care about us control our culture.

She offers no support for this -- is this a majority who are concerned about "people who don't care about us" controlling our culture? Or is this an extension of polls reflecting concern about torture, unaccountability, greed in high places, a Congress that seems to be a wholly-owned subsidiary of (insert favorite corporate complex here), and a president who doesn't seem to believe in anything that actually requires action.

No, actually, it's all about Adam Lambert.

For years now, without anyone declaring it or even noticing it, we've had a compromise on television. Do you want, or will you allow into your home, dramas and comedies that, however good or bad, are graphically violent, highly sexualized, or reflective of cultural messages that you believe may be destructive? Fine, get cable. Pay for it. Buy your premium package, it's your money, spend it as you like.

But the big broadcast networks are for everyone. They are free, they are available on every television set in the nation, and we watch them with our children. The whole family's watching. Higher, stricter standards must maintain.

This was behind the resentment at the Adam Lambert incident on ABC in November. The compromise was breached. It was a broadcast network, it was prime time, it was the American Music Awards featuring singers your 11-year-old wants to see, and your 8-year-old. And Mr. Lambert came on and—again, in front of your children, in the living room, in the middle of your peaceful evening—uncorked an act in which he, in the words of various news reports the next day, performed "faux oral sex" featuring "S&M play," "bondage gear," "same-sex makeouts" and "walking a man and woman around the stage on a leash."

People were offended, and they complained.

I think what upset people was not that such actions occurred, but that they occurred publicly and without shame. It's one thing to participate in these sorts of things in private (even as a voyeur), is the thinking, but to be open and honest about it is unforgivable. And to be quite honest, most people could care less. She cites 1500 calls to ABC about the show. My first question is, out of how many viewers? Answer that, and if the percentage is significant, I might listen to you.

And then the Great Conflation:

All these things—plus Wall Street and Washington and the general sense that most of our great institutions have forgotten their essential mission—add up and produce a fear that the biggest deterioration in America isn't economic but something else, something more characterological.All these things—plus Wall Street and Washington and the general sense that most of our great institutions have forgotten their essential mission—add up and produce a fear that the biggest deterioration in America isn't economic but something else, something more characterological.

A few things apparently haven't occurred to Noonan. These people are participants in this culture. They watch these programs, they buy the newspapers and magazines that trumpet the latest indiscretions of celebrities -- indiscretions that are only indiscreet because "journalists" are busily digging up dirt to publish for the voracious appetites of the moralists in Middle America. Nothing is being forced on anyone, but it's a good excuse to avoid taking responsibility for watching what you watch and reading what you read. This stuff is happening, being broadcast, being written up in newspapers and magazines, because there's a market for it.

The purpose served by the bread and circuses is simply to draw attention away from Wall Street, away from Washington, away from the bullshit that is passing for governance in this country these days. And it's because of these distractions that the bullshit has become so firmly entrenched. (And let me point out that Peggy Noonan is part and parcel of this endeavor, making her as big a hypocrite as anyone else in the media. The alternative explanation, of course, is that she really is an idiot.)

Let's give Ms. Noonan some other numbers to work with: the parts of the county with the highest divorce rates, the highest rates of teenage pregnancy, the highest consumption of pornography, are the areas that are most "offended" by Adam Lambert.

Maybe Peggy Noonan should open her eyes, find the last shreds of her integriy, and write a piece about that.

Oh, Lord -- Spare Me

Ran across this piece of snark disguised as a report while looking for something else. It's pretty sad.

Nickelback is the top group of the decade, according to Billboard magazine. . . .

Readers of the U.K.'s Word Magazine recently voted Nickelback the worst band in the world, with Kroeger and company locking down an impressive 20 per cent of the vote. Looks like not everyone is a fan of greasy, bleached hair and enlightening, philosophical song titles such as Something in Your Mouth and S.E.X.

Sample lyrics: "Maybe in the parking lot / Better bring your friend along / Better rock together / Than just one at a time / S is for the simplety / E is for the ecstasy / X is just to mark the spot / 'Cause that's the one you really want."

Someone's agenda is hanging out.

I did leave a comment, to the effect that this little gem of an "article" wasn't even tabloid-worthy. It's not -- it's a hit piece disguised as journalism. Looks like the American media aren't the only ones who can't to their jobs.

(Full disclosure: if you read this blog, you already know that I think Nickelback is a very good band. Maybe not the "best" -- that's too much a matter of personal taste -- but up there.)

My thoughts on some of Nickelback's music:

All the Right Reasons

Dark Horse

Health Care Reform via the MSM

Take a look at this article from NYT and try to find anything about what's actually in the bill other than the abortion restrictions. Also, check the links in the sidebars to "related articles" and the like, and see if you can find anything that summarizes the contents of the bill.

It's all about the kabuki. Two pages of kabuki.

Do I really have to say it?