Pummel Him

Illinois governor J.B. Pritzker did not handle this well. Fox News handled it, well, as you would expect Fox News to handle it.

This is incredible

Bret Baier: “Why does Chicago have the highest murder rate of all the big cities?”

JB Pritzker: “We’re not in the top 30”

Baier shows him a map showing Chicago is #1

Pritzker: "Look, you can pull statistics up ... our murder rate has been cut in half” pic.twitter.com/a360hDRrmv

— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) October 24, 2025

Yahoo!news has posted the transcript of the exchange. (And what's with the exclamation point!?):

Baier: Why does Chicago have the highest murder rate of all the big cities?

Pritzker: Well, we are not in the top 30 in terms of our murder rate. Indeed, Our murder rate has been cut in half over the last four years and every year it's gone down by double digits and if you look at all of the violent crime over the last four years...they've all gone down

Baier: Here's a map most populous US cities 17.47 per 100,000 population Chicago's number one over Philadelphia, Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Phoenix, Los Angeles, New York, and San Diego.

Pritzker: What I'm explaining to you is

Baier: Now, you're talking about violent crime.

Pritzker: Look, you can pull statistics up; I can, too.

Baier: No, no, these are murders

Pritzker: I'm explaining to you that our murder rate has been cut in half and very importantly Brett, and you gotta hear this very importantly we've been doing the things that are necessary to bring crime down right we've invested in community violence interruption we've invested in police

According to Yahoo! News, the FBI Crime Data Explorer for 2024 "shows Chicago with the worst murder rate of U.S. cities bigger than 1 million population. Lead Stories calculated the same rate per 100,000 that Baier cited to Pritzker: 17.47. However, the "2024 Homicide Statistics for 24 U.S. Cities" compiled by the Center for Public Safety Initiatives of Rochester University listed Chicago as having the 8th highest murder rate.

For what it's worth, USA Facts, a non-partisan government data publisher found that per capita, Cook County- which includes the greater Chicago metropolitan area, per capita "ranked 17th among 63 large-central metro US counties with reliable data." Given that those numbers include municipalities other than the city itself, this should be of little solace to the mayor of Chicago but significant to the governor of Illinois.

The map provided Fox News viewers was headlined "Murder Rates in Most Populous U.S. Cities." It was technically correct because the city of Chicago in 2024 had the worst murder rate of cities over one million in population. It was misleading, however, because there were seven major cities with a higher rate in the same year.

There were, according to the Chicago Police Department, 797 homicides in Chicago in 2021 and as the RIT study indicates, 573 homicides in the city in 2024. It appears they're down further in 2025 and it's possible that when Pritzker contended the rate has been cut in half, he was including the statistics- incomplete- for 2025. 

Admittedly, though, any statistics which Pritzker might mention are of little interest to viewers. Moreover, few viewers care that Illinois has "invested in police" which, presumably, means an increase in officers but no one knows. And people don't know what "community violence interruption" is unless it's explained, and then most of them wouldn't care.

With the rise of social media and of Donald Trump, the only defense now, unfortunately, is a good offense.  The goal should be to indict by argument the President for being not only unconcerned about crime, but for being pro-crime.

The black lives matter movement is over and the public has signaled repeatedly that it doesn't find imprisonment offensive. The Illinois governor could have started by criticizing the President for cutting funds to states and localities for law enforcement. Police recruitment is curtailed and fewer judges can be hired to lock people up. Throw in the January 6 argument and emphasize that, unlike Trump, Illinoisans do not consider criminals who batter and assault police to be "hostages." 

The last step should be to make a public offer to the President resembling that made by Maryland governor Wes Moore, who in August challenged Trump to hit the streets of Baltimore with him. "Donald Trump, if you are not willing to walk our communities, keep our name out of your mouth," Moore boldly stated.

A wise and scared Trump turned him down. But that's alright. If Pritzker had urged Trump to take a walk in Chicago with him, he could have spiced it up with "if you're man enough." (That's not the kind of language Democrats usually use but last year, Kamala Harris lost and Donald Trump won, and Democrats should take notice.) Donald probably would reject Pritzker's office but, again, alright. At that point the governor could reacquaint Trump with the term "coward." And in the unlikely event Trump accepted, better yet.

If Democrats such as J.B. Pritzker are going to appear on Fox News, they need to be ready to have stuff- true, false, or misleading- thrown at them.  After this interview, Democrats have no excuse. Donald Trump has demonstrated that the media pays attention only to AI stunts, personal attacks, unsubstantiated accusations, and rhetoric about unrelated issues.  Go after the Trump Crime Wave. And don't forget the Epstein ballroom. 

. 

Share |

Canny President

Those missiles have a mind of their own, I tell 'ya!

As CNN reported

As the ceasefire teetered on the brink of collapse Tuesday morning, Trump, who has promised to end longstanding wars during his presidency and has openly angled for a Nobel Peace Prize, didn’t hide his frustration at both Israel and Iran for violating the deal he had heralded one day earlier.

“We have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don’t know what the fuck they’re doing,” Trump told reporters on the White House lawn before departing to meet with NATO allies in the Netherlands.

The president also suggested that the two countries might not have broken the ceasefire intentionally but quickly added that he planned to speak with Israeli leaders to persuade them to call off additional attacks.

            

Fox News, at least a little favorable to the Trump Administration, does not understand the politics of profanity, circa 2025. In its telling

"I'm not happy with Israel. You know, when I say, okay, now you have 12 hours, you don't go out in the first hour and just drop everything you have on them. So I'm not happy with them. I'm not happy with Iran either, but I'm really unhappy if Israel is going out this morning," Trump said.

He continued, "We basically have two countries that have been fighting for so long and so hard that they don't know what the **** they're doing."

A mere three months after Donald Trump first was inaugurated as President- over eight years ago- CNN noticed

Swearing has become such a part of Democratic stump speeches that profane clips have become routine in Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez’s speeches. With children on stage behind him, Perez told an audience in Las Vegas this weekend that Trump “doesn’t give a shit about health care.”

Perez, President Barack Obama’s former labor secretary, made similar comments earlier this year.

“They call it a skinny budget, I call it a shitty budget,” Perez said in Portland, Maine.

Maybe it’s a calculated move to conjure up excitement. Maybe it’s a direct response to the President Donald Trump, who repeatedly riled up campaign crowds with expletives incorporated into policy pronouncements. Whatever the motivation, it appears to be a trend – and it’s not just Perez.

Perhaps not coincidentally, this propensity has reappeared in recent months. Acknowledging, "cursing, of course, is not new in American politics," Politico nonetheless recognizes

.... the breadth of swearing is unmistakable, newly fashionable among members of a party in the wilderness who are looking for shortcuts to authenticity to channel voters’ rage.

In recent days, Sen. Ruben Gallego of Arizona said he wanted the “intern” at the National Republican Campaign Congressional Committee who posted “racist shit” on X fired. And appraising the landscape of Trump’s America, Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii noted this week that the “stock market is down but at least everything is more expensive and services are getting shittier.”

Politics, the late Andrew Breitbart once observed, is downstream of culture. And linguistically speaking, Democrats are up a certain creek.

Trump beat them to it, using curses increasingly in his march back to the White House, though for some Democrats it is part of their native tongue.

“I mean, I was swearing before Trump, so I can’t really blame it on him,” Gallego told POLITICO. “I’m gonna blame it more on being in the Marines for as long as I was.”

Of course, that was at least 18 years ago, when Gallego was in his low-to-mid '20s, and he's now a worldly, mature individual. Well, at least worldly.

There is a reason Democrats do this. Donald Trump started it, and he now has won the presidency twice. Positive reinforcement.

Caitlin Legacki, described as "a Democratic campaign veteran," remarked

If elected officials are going to cuss, they have to mean it. If it's authentic to who they are and how they're feeling, voters will probably be fine with it and even relate to it. But if it's not authentic, there's nothing more cringeworthy."

Oh, give me a break. These are national party leaders or officials elected district-wide or statewide. They know precisely what they're doing or saying. It's not authentic but it works because there is nothing more important to be a successful politician than to be able to fake authenticity.

As we should expect, there is no one who can fake authenticity better than an actor. That's the point of acting- convincing viewers you're someone you're not.

And as luck would have it, we have a bad businessman and very good actor in the White House. He's someone who can believably remark "We have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don't know what the fuck they're doing." 

Trump may have been channeling the zeitgeist and the fears of the public. The current conflict has only contributed to the long-held perspective of Americans that opposing parties in the Middle East always have been fighting and always will. Further, the common instinct (in this and other unpleasant matters) is to howl "they don't know what they're doing."

The cherry on top is for Trump to invoke a profanity. H.L. Mencken is said to have once quipped "nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American. (Underestimate or overestimate anything long enough and you will go broke, but you know what he meant.) Here comes along an excellent actor turned politician who once said "I love the poorly educated," and this remark, complete with expletive, is stated perfectly.

Of course, Iran and Israel both know what they're doing, and they've been doing it. In May, "Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei called Israel a 'cancerous tumor' that he vowed would be 'eradicated,'" a boast consistent with previous rhetoric and effort to become a nuclear power. Israel responded with a bombing attack it claimed has set Iran's program back by "two to three years" and, not incidentally, decimated the nation's air defense.

 

The USA then bombed three Iranian nuclear facilities, setting Tehran's goal back by anywhere from a few months to several years.  In response, Iran launched a bunch of missiles at a U.S. military base in the Middle East, which (at least according to President Trump) it warned the USA of.  This resulted- as apparently expected- in little damage and no lives lost. hence no American response which might have decimated the country. Quite a sensible move on the regional chessboard by a country clearly quite aware of what it was, and is, doing.

So President Trump's reaction to this lacked credibility, never a priority of his. However, it was an accurate reflection of the emotional response of most Americans and further degrades the credibility of Iran and Israel in their eyes. He will more likely be considered the consummate dealmaker if there is an agreement because "they don't know what the ( ) they're doing." 

Iran and Israel know what they're doing. So, too, does Donald Trump, given that his goal is to win the Nobel Peace Prize, whatever his contribution- or lack thereof- to stability in the region.

Share |

Could Have Been Worse

There are a few things wrong with Katie Phang's perspective here.

It’s disrespectful to cut off Kamala Harris and not allow her to respond to the question.

If you don’t want to hear her answer, then don’t invite her to do the interview. https://t.co/fdoKhJQ6nI

— Katie Phang (@KatiePhang) October 16, 2024

Brett Baier was not disrespectful to Kamala Harris, whom he respectfully called "ma'am." If you don't want to be cut off, try not to filibuster, a common tactic because there is only so much time allotted for the interview. Harris no doubt was aware of that and thus showed up late and ended the interview early. Further, if you don't want to do an interview with a particular journalist, maybe not request him as the interviewer.

Harris dodged Baier's question "how many illegal immigrants would you estimate your administration has released into the country over the last three and a half years?"  So Baier asked "do you regret the decision to terminate the remain in Mexico at the beginning of your administration?" The Vice President then noted

within practically hours of taking the oath, the first bill that we offered Congress, before we worked on infrastructure, before the Inflation Reduction Act, before the Chips and Science Act, before the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, the first bill, practically within hours of taking the oath, was a bill to fix our immigration system.

Aside from the last phrase, that is accurate. On the morning of January 29, 2021, Vox explained

On his first day as president on Wednesday, Joe Biden will send an ambitious immigration reform bill to Congress that would create an eight-year path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, bolster border security with new screening technologies, and deliver aid to Central America.

The bill, known as the US Citizenship Act of 2021 and outlined in a four-page summary shared with reporters, would represent the most sweeping immigration reform package passed since 1986.

It marks both a symbolic and substantive break with the restrictionist immigration policies that have defined the last four years under Donald Trump, setting the tone for what Biden promises will be a more welcoming era for immigrants in the US. At its core is a long-awaited proposal to legalize the more than 10.5 million undocumented immigrants currently living in the US, many of whom have lived in fear of being deported and uprooted from their families for years.

If that was "a bill to fix our broken immigration system," "fix" is used very loosely. As Vox implied- without using the loaded term- this was, at base, largely a bill promoting amnesty. In its Fact Sheet, the White House asserted

The bill allows undocumented individuals to apply for temporary legal status, with the ability to apply for green cards after five years if they pass criminal and national security background checks and pay their taxes. Dreamers, TPS holders, and immigrant farmworkers who meet specific requirements are eligible for green cards immediately under the legislation. After three years, all green card holders who pass additional background checks and demonstrate knowledge of English and U.S. civics can apply to become citizens.

Eventually, after complicated legal proceedings, "Remain in Mexico" was reinstated. Eventually, too, a bipartisan bill was crafted but shelved after, learning that the White House supported passage, Donald Trump successfully leaned on Speaker Mike Johnson to refuse to post the bill. The former President was eager to block passage of legislation designed in part to ease pressure on the border and Democrats haven't let him forget it. In the transaction which offended Phang, Harris argued 

..... we worked on supporting what was a bipartisan effort, including some of the most conservative members of the United States Congress, to actually strengthen the border (but Trump) leaned about that bill and told them to kill it because he preferred to run on a problem instead of fixing a problem.

If the former President is at all self-aware, he rues the day he lobbied against the bill because his attitude has become the go-to answer for any Democrat pressed on the border crisis.

On social media, supporters of Kamala Harris have either whined about allegedly disrespectful treatment of the Democratic candidate or maintained that Harris gave Baier an ass-whipping. However, neither assessment is accurate.  As Bill O'Reilly, critical of Baier and especially of Harris, recognized "when the Vice President did not answer direct questions, Baier should have said that to audience, not in a disrespectful way but point out that the question was not answered, 'would you like another chance to answer the question that was asked?'"

Baier did not do that, nor ,when he cut off the interview prematurely because the candidate's handlers so insisted, did he report that to the audience. The supporters of Kamala Harris should be thankful that her campaign remains in effect, virtually unharmed, by an interview which could have gone much worse.

Share |

The Joy Is Gone

On Wednesday evening, Kamala Harris sat down with Fox News’ Brett Baier for what Politifact termed “a frequently contentious, sometimes testy exchange.” 

Most news outlets described the faceoff in similar terms. Forbes called it “a contentious interview” in which, The Hill noted, “the two sparred frequently.” The Washington Post noticed the candidate “sat for a contentious interview with Fox News” while Roll Call remarked that Harris “jousted with Fox News anchor Brett Baier in an interview (which was) her most contentious so far.” For The New York Times, it was "the most adversarial interview of her campaign."

The Democratic nominee aiming to be the first black female president had been interviewed by the National Association of Black Journalists; black entertainer Charlemagne tha God; 60 Minutes- which generously saw fit to edit its interview; liberal radio host Howard Stern; Oprah Winfrey, who first noticed politics when Barack Obama ran for President; and the Call Her Daddy podcast. So any exchange in which the questioner was not already in her corner would have to be “her most contentious so far.” Good job in assembling an Amen choir, Ms. Harris.

Nonetheless, the Fox News confrontation was less a friendly chit-chat than an interrogation, which should defined interviews with all serious presidential candidates, and as would be an interview with Donald Trump were he man enough to accept one.

My, how times have changed! In very early September Errin Haines, editor-in-chief of weekly newsletter The Amendment, spoke for conventional wisdom when she observed

Kamala Harris’ campaign for president has been largely defined by joy — which some people seem to think is a bad thing….

(But) For many Black Americans – particularly Black women – joy has long been a form of resilience and resistance, a method of survival. For Harris, it is also now political, as a key pillar of her campaign that is resonating with many Democrats. It’s attracting Americans who may be curious about her and this new feeling in our politics and tired of the divisive climate that has dominated much of the last decade.

Harris’ joy is also a visible rejection of the idea of the “angry Black woman,” a stereotype rooted in racism and misogyny that has long worked to dismiss and diminish Black women’s voices, leadership and agency across society. In this campaign, it is Trump who is the angry one, lashing out at Harris with personal attacks.

Her joy is a tactic that has disarmed Trump….

Well, evidently Ms. Harris has concluded that the strategy of joy has not sufficiently disarmed Trump. The Vice-President, justifiably or otherwise, was visibly annoyed at the questions she was asked and at being interrupted by Mr. Baier a she characteristically veered off-topic to attack Donald Trump and avoid answering the questions posed. Being challenged is very uncomfortable for the former Senator and state Attorney General.  There is no indication yet whether Ms. Haines, who decried the notion of the "angry Black woman," is pleased that Harris has helped confirm the stereotype.

The nominee's strategy, whatever it is now, may be more effective than the alternative of leveling with voters and still marks her as more honest and forthright than her opponent. In turn, that highlights the best argument for the election of Kamala Harris to the presidency: we are given a binary choice, and if Donald Trump’s opponent were only a dead armadillo or a live groundhog, he still would be the less qualified option.

 

Share |

"Colored" Rears Its Ugly Head- Or Not

This tweet is fine- well, sort of- if accurate.

“A COLORED sorority” … in 2024 on national tv… this clown thought it was correct and appropriate to use the term “colored” to describe a distinguished and historic African American sorority.

But what is even worse… a Black man sat a few feet away on that couch and didn’t… https://t.co/DLjkfst8u3

— Jaime Harrison (@harrisonjaime) July 24, 2024

 Maybe not, however, as

A clip that went viral on X, formerly Twitter, shows Fox & Friends hosts discussing Harris’ having not given a sit-down media interview yet, with Kilmeade arguing that the vice president had instead chosen to address a “college sorority” — referring to her plans to address the historically Black sorority Zeta Phi Beta at its annual convention in Indianapolis on Wednesday in one of her first campaign stops.

A social media post by independent Fox News watchdog Bad Fox Graphics on X, however, shared the video and misquoted Kilmeade’s comment, claiming instead that he had said “colored sorority.”

Afterward, Democratic National Committee chairperson Jaime Harrison posted his own tweet criticizing the remark of the Fox News host and

A number of journalists shared the claim as well, including Politico Playbook writer Eugene Daniels, who later deleted his tweet and noted that a Fox representative had reached out to correct the accusation. “Eugene Daniels’ now deleted tweet completely misquoted and unnecessarily maligned Brian Kilmeade who clearly said college sorority,” Fox News said in a statement.

Fox also referred Mediaite to a rebuttal by Kilmeade’s co-host Lawrence Jones who was sitting beside him in the studio during the moment, and confirmed that his co-host said “college.”

The right-wing Jones went too far, though, when he "slammed Harrison for being 'so damn dishonest." 

Harrison wasn't being dishonest; he jumped to a conclusion, probably a wrong one. 

Listening to the video carefully, most individuals would hear "college." However, Kilmeade seems to pronounce the "o" in "college" slightly differently (a very subtle difference) than it typically is. It sounds more like the "o" in "colored" than in "college." I don't discount the possibility that Kilmeade was thinking "colored," thought better of it, and switched to "college." Nor is it impossible that he always intended to say "college" but for whatever reason was thinking of the other word. 

So Jaime Harrison very likely was mistaken, but not dishonest, for thinking the Fox News host had said "colored." That would have been totally inappropriate, referring to a "colored sorority." One should never say "colored sorority" any more than he should say "people of color." Really.

Share |

Victory is Theirs

News quiz: Which best describes the outcome for Fox News yesterday in the lawsuit filed by Dominion Voting Systems?

a) a victory

b) a huge victory

c) a phenomenal victory

A usually sober congressman, evidently not sober at the moment he hit send or "tweet":

I don’t think much about Tucker Carlson. But I guess he spends a lot of time thinking about me. So it’s pretty goddamn sweet that the day Tucker’s employer confessed that Tucker is a 24 karat liar Tucker goes on to spend his first post-confession show lying about me.

— Rep. Eric Swalwell (@RepSwalwell) April 19, 2023

The press release in question reads

We are pleased to have reached a settlement of our dispute with Dominion Voting Systems. We acknowledge the court’s rulings finding certain claims about Dominion to be false. This settlement reflects Fox’s continued commitment to the highest journalistic standards. We are hopeful that our decision to resolve this dispute with Dominion amicably, instead of the acrimony of a divisive trial, allows the country to move forward from these issues.

Fox News therein did not specify any particular host or which claims they were talking about. It did not admit that either the network and/or any particular host was responsible for the claims. They did not concede that any claim was knowingly inaccurate and merely acknowledged the court's rulings- not that they were accurate. Other than that, it was a true confession.

Jeremy Peters and Katie Robertson of The New York Times reported

Fox News abruptly agreed on Tuesday to pay $787.5 million to resolve a defamation suit filed by Dominion Voting Systems over the network’s promotion of misinformation about the 2020 election, averting a lengthy and embarrassing trial just as a packed courtroom was seated in anticipation of hearing opening statements.

Particularly important to the American people

Fox News’s last-minute settlement with Dominion Voting Systems on Tuesday earned banner coverage on every television news network but one: Fox News.

The $787.5 million settlement was covered only three times by Fox News in about four hours after the settlement became public, amounting to about six minutes of coverage. For most of the day, including during the network’s prime-time shows, hosts appeared to be focusing on other issues, like illegal immigration and Covid-19’s possible origins.

And the figurative bottom line is

Under the terms of the settlement, Fox News will not have to apologize or admit to spreading false claims on network programming, according to a person familiar with the details of the agreement.

The question thus arises as to why Dominion would have agreed to a settlement which allows Fox News to continue to do what it does best, manipulate its viewers.

CNN and MSNBC punditry, though inclusive of lawyers, journalists, and others, is dominated by lawyers, especially on matters related to the law.

Few of them will tell the truth. In some cases they are not lying but really, truly believe in their profession. In this case, several have said that the deal has now revealed that Fox News was lying. This is intentionally misleading because they are aware that consumers of MSNBC, CNN, or a national newspaper already knew the network was fabricating. Most viewers of Fox News, whose coverage of the matter was virtually nonexistent, didn't know and still don't. 

A welcome exception, Elie Mystal gets close to divulging the bias of civil litigators.

They had Fox by the absolute neck and let them go for 787.5 million dollars. WHICH IS A LOT OF MONEY for a corporation. But also not a lot of money when weighed against Fox's damage to American democracy.

I get it. And it's bullcrap. Two things can be true at the same time.

— Elie Mystal (@ElieNYC) April 18, 2023

 

If I were their lawyers, I probably would have told them to take the money. The preference of most civil litigators is to take the money and run. In some cases- not this one- there is a significant chance that the jury would rule against them if the case were taken to trial. 

But even in this case, in which there was little chance that the defendant would win at trial or that the decision would be overturned on appeal, there is serious pressure for the plaintiff to settle. Their attorneys get their cut and they get it relatively promptly. The plaintiff usually believes there is a principle involved, in this case that their business should not be irrepairably harmed  but that motivation can be overcome because a media company lies about it in order to promote a myth about a presidential election.

Understandably, however, their attorneys, who themselves were not slandered, don't care about viewers being intentionally misled. Given the common approach for litigants, it wouldn't be surprising if Dominion's attorneys convinced their client that the only real principle involved is that the offending party be penalized severely for damaging the company- and that the better part of a billion dollars would go a long way toward that.

So you can call it a "huge" or a "phenomenal" victory. But unless you're Representative Swalwell (not coincidentally, a lawyer) or take at their word some of the shills for the legal profession on cable news, you'll know it as a very good day indeed for Fox News and its parent company.

            

 Share |

The Fox News Difference

In its $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox and its parent company, Dominion Voting System maintains that

In the days and weeks after the 2020 elections, the Fox News Channel repeatedly broadcast false claims that then-President Donald Trump had been cheated of victory.

Off the air, the network's stars, producers and executives expressed contempt for those same conspiracies, calling them "mind-blowingly nuts," "totally off the rails" and "completely bs" - often in far earthier terms.

The network's top primetime stars - Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity - texted contemptuously of the claims in group chats, but also denounced colleagues pointing that out publicly or on television.

Ingraham called Trump campaign attorney Sidney Powell "a bit nuts." Carlson, who famously demanded evidence from Powell on the air, privately used a vulgar epithet for women to describe her. A top network programming executive wrote privately that he did not believe the shows of Carlson, Hannity and Jeanine Pirro were credible sources of news.

Even so, top executives strategized about how to make it up to their viewers - among Trump's strongest supporters - after Fox News' election-night team correctly called the pivotal state of Arizona for Democratic nominee Joe Biden before other networks. A sense of desperation pervades the private notes from Fox's top stars, reflecting an obsession with collapsing ratings.

So it was an amazing case of bad timing (or chutzpah/gall) that the very night after this revelation, the host of "Dan Abrams Live" commented

One of the reasons so few trust the mainstream media is that so many refuse to accept and admit their biases. They're just neutral observers focusing on the fact. At least Fox News, their prime time folks admit that they're basically in the tank for the GOP. They speak at conservative events and many outright admit that they support Republicans and they'll bask President Biden at every opportunity.

But most of the left-leaning media and the left wing media insist they just play it straight. They play this game of just trying to pretend that they're not biased, even on a network as left-leaning as MSNBC.

Abrams, who presents himself as opinionated yet balanced, objective, and non-partisan, charged

Transparency is the foundation upon which journalism is built, except when it applies to them. And this lack of transparency or self-awareness about their own beliefs is a big part of the problem why the public's trust in media has eroded so much.

It's a misconception that erasing the line between journalist (or media personality) and partisan political hack constitutes transparency. And if there is any truth to Dominion's argument, prominent Fox News personalities knew Trump had lost but promoted the lie that the presidential election had been stolen. They were "in the tank for the GOP," honesty and transparency be damned.  Until Dan Abrams- or anyone- credibly suggests that MSNBC or CNN engages has allowed its bias even to approach that level of deception, Fox News stands alone among the three major cable news networks in its contempt for truth and accuracy.

So, you'll enjoy this: we put what Fox hosts Carlson, Hannity, and Ingraham said, on air, side by side with what they were saying to each other on text, in private, when the cameras stopped rolling.

It's a must-watch and it's pretty shocking:pic.twitter.com/tkrkzpF5tY

— Mehdi Hasan (@mehdirhasan) February 18, 2023

Share |

Ignoring the Real Culprit(s)

According to CNN, Maggie Haberman's upcoming book will feature the New York Times reporter and CNN contributor writing

that in the immediate aftermath of the November 3 elections, Trump seemed to recognize he had lost to Biden. He asked advisers to tell him what had gone wrong. He comforted one adviser, saying, "We did our best." Trump told junior press aides, "I thought we had it," seemingly almost embarrassed by the outcome, according to Haberman.

But at some point, Trump's mood changed, Haberman writes, and he abruptly informed aides he had no intention of departing the White House in late January 2021 for Biden to move in.

Left Twitter was not amused:

John Pavlovitz- Maggie Haberman is another in a long line of people who were willing to let democracy die on the altar of a book deal.

Keith Olbermann- Trump: "I'm just not going to leave." Oh good, another fact, vital to the safety and continuation of the nation, that @maggieNYT withheld from the public for many months if not a year-and-a-half so she could put it in her fucking book

Michael J. Stern- Maggie Haberman's new book includes Trump being so unhinged, he refused to leave the White House after losing. Journalists who write books have a conflict of interest when they withhold valuable information so they can include it in their book, years in the future. It stinks.

Amie Wexler- Why didn’t Maggie Haberman report on this in real time? Don’t buy her book. Don’t reward this behavior.

And more, virtually all reflecting one or more these sentiments.

It's not clear how the not-quite lame duck period between November 3, 2020 and January 20, 2021 would have been altered had we been informed earlier- even assuming Haberman knew as it occurred- that President Trump was considering staying put. There was an attempted coup on January 6, 2021 even though Bill Maher and a few other individuals had been warning that Trump would not go quietly.

Still, let's stipulate that if a knowing journalist had righteously spilled the beans, the attempted insurrection would have been aborted before the mob arrived to try to take over the Capitol.  

Maggie Haberman earns a very fine salary, very likely somewhere this side of $200,000 annually, as a reporter for The New York Times.  Whatever her faults or prejudices, she has been able to maintain employment for approximately seven years at arguably the greatest newspaper in the world, and that's no mean feat.

By contrast, the most successful, by audience share, host on one of the three cable news networks is reputed to take down (by one estimate) in the vicinity of $30 million per year. That's real money. Rachel Maddow appears on air typically once a week and otherwise on election nights and at other, selected, times, in addition to working on special projects. It is not a daunting schedule.

If NBC Universal offered me this sweet deal, I'd take it, as would virtually every other human being, and evidently she's a cash cow for the network.  Nonetheless, it's a tremendous amount of money, which the network wouldn't be offering if it couldn't afford to do so- and didn't have more money where it came from.

Sure, The New York Times, frequently slammed for its imperfections by Soledad O'Brien and other liberal critics, could do more investigative reporting. But the Times, The Washington Post, and the (very) few other newspapers of national scope perform quite well their primary function, presenting the news fully and objectively.

Their reporters strive, usually successfully, to provide explanation and context lacking in cable news.  They work more hours at a more difficult job (typically) being paid less money than the talking heads at Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC.

It is not Rachel Maddow's fault that she has become extremely wealthy without laboring in the vineyards with the likes of Maggie Haberman. The blame should not attach primarily to Maddow and her colleagues but to NBC Universal, CNN Global (and ultimately Warner Brothers Discovery), and Fox News Media. Each has available to it 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year to offer its viewers actual in-depth information.

None will do it. None will do it because broadcast news has no incentive other than to present the most charismatic and most entertaining hosts for the pleasure of their viewers, most of whom are more interested in having their own views echoed by their personal favorites than in becoming more informed on any subject. It is past time for the left, on Twitter and elsewhere, to affix blame for corporate irresponsibility where it belongs, and it's not on the print media.

Maggie Haberman or major newspapers are often blasted for revealing information later than they should. Meanwhile, individuals such as Sean Hannity, Jake Tapper, and Rachel Maddow rarely reveal or uncover anything we didn't already know, are paid eight figure salaries, and are treated like rock stars. It's enough to make the angels weep.

Share |

A New Low, Them A New Low Until The Next One

Deceive (Merriam-Webster):  the act of causing someone to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid

 

Can anything be any more deceptive than this from a Fox News host?

Brian Kilmeade, filling in for Tucker Carlson tonight, shared a clearly fake, photoshopped image of the judge involved in approving the Mar-a-Lago warrant pic.twitter.com/W3cxHdy6id

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 12, 2022

 

It's also a great display of cowardice. If Kilmeade had any backbone, he would own the image he had shown and defend it, even though it was the head of Judge Bruce Reinhart on the body of Jeffrey Epstein, who was with Ghislaine Maxwell at that moment. If he had any integrity, he would apologize. If he had at least a sense of shame, he would move on and forget it even happened. Instead, he couldn't- or wouldn't- resist the lure of deceit and, after relentless criticism on social media....

Last night while subbing for Tucker Carlson, we showed you an image of Judge Bruce Reinhart w/ Ghislaine Maxwell that was sourced on screen to a meme pulled from Twitter & wasn’t real. This depiction never took place & we wanted to make clear that we were showing a meme in jest.

— Brian Kilmeade (@kilmeade) August 12, 2022

 

Brian Kilmeade did the nearly impossible. On Day 2, he exceeded the frightfully high bar for deceit he had set on Day 1.  He did not apologize, concede error, or ignored the controversy. He did the worst- he lied again. He lied about his lie.  He is truly a credit to Trump TV.

 

Share |

Smear Undone

On Wednesday, CBS News reported

An Ohio man has been charged with raping a 10-year-old girl whose case drew national attention following a doctor's comments that the child had to travel to Indiana for an abortion, an account that had led some prominent Republicans – including Ohio's attorney general and a congressman – to suggest it was fabricated.

Democratic President Joe Biden highlighted the case last week at the signing of an executive order aimed at protecting access to abortion as state after Republican-led state, including Ohio, enacted near-total restrictions after the U.S. Supreme Court's recent landmark ruling.

The President's reference to the case bothered many conservatives, with Fox News online attempting to discredit the account as "repeated by President Biden last week, but the widely shared story is facing increased skepticism and hasn't been verified by even left-leaning fact checkers," Shockingly, "even left-wing fact-checker Snopes could not determine if the story was true." (Of course, a fact-checker leans left because facts have a liberal bias.)

CBS News added

A detective testified Wednesday at an initial court appearance for the 27-year-old suspect that Columbus police learned about the girl's pregnancy through a referral by Franklin County Children Services that was made by her mother June 22, and that she had an abortion in Indianapolis on June 30, The Columbus Dispatch reported.

The detective said DNA from the Indianapolis abortion clinic was being tested to confirm paternity.

An Indianapolis physician who provides abortion services, Dr. Caitlin Bernard, had told The Indianapolis Star that an abortion had been provided for such a child because the girl couldn't get the procedure in Ohio under a newly imposed state ban on abortions at the first detectable "fetal heartbeat." A judge lifted a stay on the ban after the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling overturning Roe v. Wade.

As Judd Legum details, an entire right-wing campaign was unleashed. Tucker Carlson declared the news item "not true." Further

Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost appeared on another Fox News show, Jesse Watters Primetime, to attack the Indianapolis Star report. "We have regular contact with prosecutors and local police and sheriffs — not a whisper anywhere," Yost said. In a subsequent interview with USA Today, Yost said that there was "not a damn scintilla of evidence" to support the story, which he described as a likely "fabrication." Watters himself concluded that the story "fits a pretty dangerous pattern of politically timed disinformation."

 

The Ohio congressman to whom CBS referred was the famous, more deservingly infamous, Jim Jordan:

A 10-year-old girl was raped in @Jim_Jordan's home state of Ohio.

Jordan publicly called the story a lie.

Then, after the rapist was arrested and confessed, Jordan deleted the tweet without any acknowledgment or apology. pic.twitter.com/ot4SaDtbBz

— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) July 13, 2022

 

Conservatives understood that Americans might realize that if an abortion could be denied to a 10-year-old rape victim, every woman would be in jeopardy. Among the worst offenders was the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, which called Indianapolis Star Shari

Rudavsky's report a "fanciful tale[]" that was "too good to confirm." Ignoring Bernard's first-hand account, the editorial claimed there is "no evidence the girl exists." The piece criticizes Bernard for not providing details that could expose the identity of the 10-year-old including "where the alleged crime occurred" and "the Ohio doctor who referred the case." They suggested that Bernard perpetrated a hoax because she has "a long history of abortion activism in the media."

 Legum, again:

5. The other issue seized on by the right-wing, and then @GlennKesslerWP at the Washington Post, is under Ohio law that it is mandatory a rape to a child welfare agency.

That is true.

But it's not mandatory for those reports to be made PUBLIC. https://t.co/OrmuZLtI7m

— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) July 14, 2022

Yost is unrepentant. Jordan is unrepentant. No Republican will admit to error because to forced-birth advocates, no error was made.

8. Ohio could have included a rape or incest exemption. It did not.

Instead, it included an ambiguous health exemption that may or may not apply to this 10-year-old girl.

It makes sense for a doctor to refer her out of state to avoid potential prosecution.

— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) July 14, 2022

 

A safe prediction:

This is the first documented case of a child rape survivor having to flee her state to secure an abortion but it will not be the last. https://t.co/y7u0EHncE3

— Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) July 14, 2022

 

It will not be the last. Donald Trump is the GOP hero and the only Republican with a serious chance of heading him off is the similarly cruel Florida governor, Ron DeSantis. Pro-life is not the point for party officials. Cruelty, and coercion of women- even rape victims- are on their wish list.

 

Share |

Gillibrand Proves Warren's Point

Elizabeth Warren was right, though it took another candidate- Kirsten Gillibrand- to prove it.  On May 14, Senator Warren defended herdecision not to bolster Fox News' bottom line and give the network cover against advertisers queasy about a far-right network in Donald Trump's pocket. She

used a series of Twitter messages to accuse the network of giving “a megaphone to racists and conspiracists” and providing cover for corruption. She also returned to one of her campaign’s central themes, framing the channel as the sort of corporate “profit machine” she has railed against.

  

“Hate-for-profit works only if there’s profit, so Fox News balances a mix of bigotry, racism, and outright lies with enough legit journalism to make the claim to advertisers that it’s a reputable news outlet,” Ms. Warren wrote. “It’s all about dragging in ad money — big ad money.”

“A Democratic town hall gives the Fox News sales team a way to tell potential sponsors it’s safe to buy ads on Fox,” she continued. “I won’t ask millions of Democratic primary voters to tune into an outlet that profits from racism and hate.”

Refusing to perform (and it is a performance) at a town hall must have been a difficult decision because nobody has failed to come out smelling like a rose in this venue since President George Herbert Walker Bush repeatedly looked at his watch while debating Bill Clinton in 1992. It's set up that way, and no politician fails to charm the audience.

So Warren's position was an outlier, for which the Massachusetts senator has faced some criticism. Yet if not earlier, it became clear what the objective of these affairs is when

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) challenged Fox News’ coverage of abortion during a town hall event on Sunday, accusing the network of peddling disinformation to the chagrin of host Chris Wallace.

Gillibrand, the latest Democratic candidate among a crowded field to appear on the network for an hourlong Q&A session, used a question about late-term abortions to pivot toward Fox News’ coverage of the issue. Just over 1% of abortions across the country are performed at 21 weeks or later, according the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, but such procedures get outspoken criticism by groups against reproductive rights.

“What we’ve created, unfortunately, is a false choice and a false narrative. Chris, I want to talk about the role Fox News plays in this, because it’s a problem,” Gillibrand said in response to the question. “I can tell you before President Trump gave his State of the Union, Fox News talked about infanticide. Infanticide doesn’t exist.”

Wallace quickly cut the senator off, saying that the network had invited her there as a guest and had thus far been treating her “fairly.”

“I understand, maybe to make your credentials with the Democrats who are not appearing on Fox News, you are going to attack us,” Wallace said. “I’m not sure, frankly, it’s not very polite when we’ve invited you to be here.”

Gillibrand said she would address her concerns politely, and continued on.

She continued (inserting criticism of Fox News), passionately defending her position on abortion while avoiding answering the actual question asked. That was satisfactory to the Fox News host because these events aren't really about information, anyway.

We don't know Senator Gillibrand's view of late-term abortion specifically, but we do know that these "town halls" are a charade, with the intent to normalize an extreme cable "news" network among advertisers. We know that as long as Fox News can host good little boys and girls who participate in the charade by avoiding criticizing Fox News, everyone wins.

Thus far, Gillibrand, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, and Bernie Sanders have appeared, with Julian Castro due later this week and Bill deBlasio negotiating. Those who have or will show up know what the deal is. It's not necessarily with the devil, but it is in return for the inevitable applause, good optics, and favorable news coverage. However, with Warren's emphatic refusal and the decision of Kamala Harris not to participate, we're learning which candidates aren't going to play ball with Trump TV and the expectation that candidates show deference to it.

Share |

First, Pierce Inevitability

At his recent town hall meeting on Fox News, Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg remarked

When you’ve got Tucker Carlson saying that immigrants make America dirty. When you’ve got Laura Ingraham comparing detention centers with children in cages to summer camps. There is a reason why anybody has to swallow hard and think twice before participating in this media ecosystem.

Though- or maybe because- it was accurate, Buttigieg was slammed the morning after by a Fox News host complaining "Don’t hop on our channel and continue to put down the other hosts on the channel, or the channel. If you feel that negative about it, don’t come." Elizabeth Warren "felt" so negatively that she made the courageous, controversial decision not to do a town hall on the network, thus denying Trump TV further credibility.

Yet, Elizabeth Warren, on (considerable) merit, always has been considered a viable candidate for the nomination, whereas Buttigieg has not. One foreign policy expert, though touting the military experience of the South Bend mayor, as well as that of Seth Moulton and Tulsi Gabbard, lumps Buttigieg in with Moulton and Gabbard as having no "more than a very outside chance of winning the nomination."

Yet, Buttiegieg's messaging has been extraordinary, propelling his rise from someone known only to members of the Democratic National Committee to a candidate with support eclipsed only by the well-known Warren, Harris, Sanders, and Biden.

Interviewed Thursday by the Washington Post's Bob Costa, the South Bend mayor characterized Donald Trump as "somebody who... took advantage of the fact that he was a child of a multimillionaire in order to pretend to be disabled, so that somebody could go to war in his place." When Buttigieg was ridiculed by Trump, the mayor previously had responded "You can't get too worried about the name calling and the games he play. I was thinking of a Chinese proverb that goes, 'When the wind changes, some people build walls and some people build windmills.'"

Of the Vice-President, Buttigieg rhetorically asks "How could he allow himself to be the cheerleader of the porn star presidency?" That is a good line. Deftly employing humblebrag, Buttigieg claims "I am not skilled enough or energetic enough to craft a persona. I just have to be who I am and hope people like it."

Fox News' Brit Hume has recognized that Buttigieg is "as fluid as he can be, [and] he seems to have something to say about nearly every issue."And so Pete Buttigieg, emerging as the master of the put-down to the deserving, is just the right person to throw a hard right at Joe Biden's jaw.  

It will have to be done by someone, probably at a debate, and soon, before Biden expands his lead and puts his competitors to bed.  One political science professor maintains that "to pierce the Biden veil of inevitability," a successful candidate will have to convince older Democrats that Biden is not the candidate most likely to defeat Donald Trump and to "peel off" black voters "by prodding Biden without hitting Obama or his cherished liberal legacy."

The first condition will be met if and when the second condition is met.

A Democratic candidate can claim that Biden's candidacy is about nothing more than "a noun, a verb, and Barack Obama," a charge all the more important because it a) would be used against the former vice-president in a general election; and b) is accurate. Presumably, Biden would react by wrapping himself ever more securely in the warm, fuzzy blanket of Obamism.

At that point, the candidate could effectively respond "o.k. but the American people are looking to the future, not the past, even the recent past."  And there is no candidate better positioned to do that than one adept in political framing who has drawn comparisons to Barack Obama himself. For extra points, that candidate is a military veteran, young, and gay, a powerful combination for rebutting Biden on the issue of the past vs. the future. Additionally, Buttigieg, still (barely) a dark horse, may have nothing to lose, especially because he already is seen as something of a political outsider.

Admittedly, this is an unlikely scenario. It not only would require serious political courage, and the mayor has Obama veterans working with him. Nor would Buttigieg be the best President among the Democratic candidates- and he has much to answer for.  However, it's a necessary, and someone has to do it, not only to block Biden's quest for the nomination, but to break the Obama fever which has infected Democratic voters far too long. 

Questioning President Obama's legacy in a Democratic debate would be more difficult than standing up to President Trump. Nonetheless, it would most easily be done by someone asserting "I don't have a problem standing up to somebody who was working on season 7 (of) Celebrity Apprentice when I was packing my bags for Afghanistan."

Share |

Going With The Flow, As Usual

On Monday evening, former President Barack Obama took the stage at the Baker Institute at Rice University with professional Republican James A Baker and historian Jon Meacham in an event geared to celebrate bipartisanship.

Obama brought his characteristic wit, intellect, insight, charm, and great good humor (edited video here). In his final response, he displayed the last when he stated "not only did I not get indicted, nobody in my Administration got indicted." Turning toward Baker, he added "which, by the way, was the only Administration in modern history that that can be said about." (The passive-aggressive manner made the crack about past GOP presidencies only more poignant.)

Stating "whether it was Cronkite or Brinkley or what have you" (the "what have you" could have included the great Dan Rather, but... Obama), the former president remarked (at 26:39 of the video below)

there was a common set of facts, a baseline around which both parties had to, uh, adapt and respond to and by the time I take office what you increasingly had is a media environment in which if you are a Fox News viewer, you had an entire different reality then if you are a New York Times reader.

Oh, yes. Barack Obama suggested that the credibility of Fox News is roughly that of the New York Times.  We should let that sink in.

He later (at 39:21) argued

When it comes to gerrymandering, it is absolutely true that Democrats do the same thing that Republicans do. If they're in control, then they will try to maximize the number of seats they have and vice-versa.

Up to a point, sir.  Before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in January 2018 found the congressional districts gerrymandered by a GOP legislature unconstitutional and effected a redrawn map

in 2012, Democratic candidates won slightly more votes in US House elections and Barack Obama won the state. But the state’s 18 House seats didn’t split 9-9 between the parties — instead, Republicans won 13 seats there, and Democrats just won five. No seats changed partisan hands in the 2014 or 2016 elections, either.

Vox noted earlier this year that in an ongoing saga in which congressional districts were radically gerrymandered

North Carolina is evenly or nearly evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, Republicans currently hold 10 of the state’s 13 House seats. In their quest for a House majority, even one or two newly competitive seats in North Carolina would be a major boost to Democrats’ chances of taking over at least one chamber of Congress....

But if you look at its congressional maps, Republicans have an incredibly lopsided advantage. That’s intentional; Republican state Rep. Dave Lewis admitted as much in 2016, during the redistricting process.

“I propose that we draw the maps to give a partisan advantage to 10 Republicans and three Democrats, because I do not believe it’s possible to draw a map with 11 Republicans and two Democrats,” Lewis said at a state House hearing.

The map was not redrawn before the elections, and thus the GOP  held on to at least nine of those seats (one still undetermined).  That's how they win elections.

It shouldn't be too difficult for a former Democratic president, consistently opposed and continuously attacked by Republicans- and especially by GOP TV- for being a Democrat to acknowledge that there are big and consequential differences between the two parties. But Barack Obama won't do that, uttering "Republican Party" or "Republicans" only to add to bothsiderism.

Unfortunately, that is none too surprising. Neither is it surprising that when evaluating his accomplishments at the end of the event, former President Obama noted how much he had helped the energy sector and big business generally.

He did not mention the Affordable Care Act or whatever other progressive initiatives he may have implemented. That may be because of the audience to which he was speaking. It may instead have been that he was particularly proud of policies which should have satisfied Republicans, or because there was little else he was responsible for. Whatever it is, one day, liberals or progressives will have to take an objective look at the years 2009-2016. Or not.

Share |