Voice of Freedom’s Weblog

Recently, the U.S. Air Force loosed 100,000 pounds of explosives in about 10 days on Arab Jabour, a small Sunni farming region just south of Baghdad. In The New York Times, this figure was buried in a single sentence deep inside a piece that led with an account of an IED explosion in the same region that killed an American soldier; in the Los Angeles Times, it made it into the last paragraphs of a piece that led off with a suicide bombing in al-Anbar Province. As Tom Engelhardt points out, “When it comes to the mainstream media, bombing is generally only significant if it’s of the roadside or suicide variety; if, that is, the ‘bombs’ can be produced at approximately the cost of a pizza (as IEDs sometimes are), or if the vehicles delivering them are cars or simply fiendishly well-rigged human bodies. From the air, even 100,000 pounds of bombs just doesn’t have the ring of something that matters.”As it happens, according to some accounts, in April 1937, the German Condor Legion dropped 100,000 pounds of explosives on the Spanish town of Guernica, destroying the place, causing many civilian casualties, and sparking international outrage over the self-evident barbarism of the event. From international headlines to the last two paragraphs of a piece in 71 years — that, in a way, is the modern tale of the normalization of our attitudes toward air power.

It’s in this context that Engelhardt discusses the 130,000 or more total pounds of explosives dropped in Iraq recently (according to Air Force spokesmen), reviews the ABCs of American air power in the region, considers the intensifying air campaign of the last year — the much ignored “air surge” — and finally gives some thought as to why reporters in Iraq have largely refused to look up.

Nowhere else will you find a piece that brings this set of information together. Thinking about Picasso’s Guernica, perhaps the most famous painting of the last century, Engelhardt concludes this way:

“Maybe, sooner or later, American mainstream journalists in Iraq (and editors back in the U.S.) will actually look up, notice those contrails in the skies, register those ‘precision’ bombs and missiles landing, and consider whether it really is a ho-hum, no-news period when the U.S. Air Force looses 100,000 pounds of explosives on a farming district on the edge of Baghdad. Maybe artists will once again begin pouring their outrage over the very nature of air war into works of art, at least one of which will become iconic, and travel the world reminding us just what, almost five years later, the ‘liberation’ of Iraq has really meant for Iraqis.

“In the meantime, brace yourself. Air war is on the way.”

The race for the Republican nomination narrowed to a sharp-edged duel between Sen. John McCain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney Wednesday, cresting in an often acerbic debate that included sustained attacks on each candidate’s record, credibility and even integrity…

…”We should be debating foreign policy,” Paul said, “whether we should have interventionism or non-interventionism, whether we should be defending this country or whether we should be the policemen of the world, whether we should be running our empire or not, and how are we going to have guns and butter … The dollar is crashing, and you’re talking about these technicalities about who said what when?”

Chicago Tribune

You would think that - the issues in this country would be what the people want to hear.  Apparently the republican party thinks otherwise, well all but Ron Paul that is.

Eight questions reporters should ask Huckabee
ASK THIS | January 17, 2008 Todd Gitlin is struck by the significant questions that go unasked — or at least not asked very often or insistently — of the major presidential candidates.

By Todd Gitlin

The campaign lurches along under more journalistic surveillance than ever before, but like other observers I’m often struck by questions — significant questions, in my estimation — that go unasked, or at least not asked very often or insistently. Of course, since I don’t read everything, it’s hard to know whether someone, sometime, has asked a given question of a given candidate. But if you think the public has the right to answers, and concede that only small slivers of the public are paying attention at any given time, it follows that significant or revelatory questions need to be asked more than once.

Here are some questions for the Republican candidate and former governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee. In the coming weeks, I’ll be posing questions for others, alternating Democrats and Republicans. Next: Barack Obama.

Questions for Mike Huckabee

1. In an interview on the Rev. Kenneth Copeland’s television show, “Believer’s Voice of Victory,” posted on his Web site, you said the following: “If we see any part of our society and culture that’s decaying, what’s going to keep it from rotting? The Christians. God’s people.” Do you believe that people who are not Christians are not “God’s people”?

2. In this same interview you referred to “God’s absolutes.” Could you tell us what “God’s absolutes” are?

3. You support a flat sales tax of 23 percent to replace all existing federal taxes, and you insist that its total effects will be “revenue-neutral.” Since lower-income people pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than higher-income people, the result of your plan would be that a higher percentage of total taxes collected would be paid by lower-income people. Do you think this proposal is compatible with Christian beliefs? As a Christian, do you think it is consonant with the principles of Jesus to support the abolition of taxes on capital gains and interest?

4. In your book, From Hope to Higher Ground, you wrote: “Wal-Mart is a case study in the genius of the American marketplace.” Yet despite some recent improvements, most of Wal-Mart’s employees were not covered by the company’s health insurance. (Another round of improvements scheduled for January 2008 still requires an annual premium of $2,000 for a company whose employees often earn less than $20,000.) Moreover, the company has been forced to pay more than $200 million to employees they forced to work off the clock, and according to the Web site Walmartwatch.com, “Wal-Mart is currently facing the largest workplace-bias lawsuit in U.S. history for widespread discrimination against women employees; a class action lawsuit filed by African-American truck drivers; and numerous other cases involving discrimination against workers with disabilities.” What is your reaction?

5. Speaking about the children of illegal immigrants, you said recently that “we’re a better country than to punish children for what their parents did.” Today, the children of poor people are penalized for their parents’ poverty. Obviously, they inherit less. Their schools are inferior. So are their job prospects. What would you do about this?

6. The other day, you said this: “Long before God ever created a government structure, the basic structure was the family.” When did God create a government structure? Did He create the government of the United States? Did He create the government of Iran? Pakistan? Afghanistan? Iraq? Did He create the government of Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany? If not, who did?

7. There are many Biblical verses that support female submissiveness. Do you agree with them?

8. “I would love to see a human life amendment to our constitution,” you said last September. “Human life begins at conception.” According to some physicians, intrauterine devices (IUDs), emergency contraception (the “morning after pill,” or “Plan B”), the pill, the patch, and the Depo-Provera shot may work by preventing the implantation of fertilized eggs—after conception. Does this mean that you support the banning not only of abortion but of any or all of these methods of contraception?

[Research assistance by Michael Meyer.]

Todd Gitlin is an author, essayist, and professor of journalism and sociology at Columbia University.

How about you folks, are YOU tired of the constant barrage of silliness coming from so called news or political pundit shows?

Truly, it is not just one show.  It is many mainstream pundits and mainstream - so called - news shows.   I am tired of hearing the denigration of women on these shows coming out of the mouths of people that have such a great influence on American people. 

The owners of these media shows should be aware if they are not already, that there could be a backlash from women.  Women know how to turn off the television sets (seems like the pundits think they don’t know how though).  Women can organize faster than any groups I have ever seen.   

NBC, don’t be surprised if they start contacting your advertisers and letting them know how they think and feel about the shows the advertisers are paying to broadcast on, too.  The stations that advertise so many things that WOMEN buy.   (heh, veiled threat there huh)

Chime in and post what you think when you finish reading this letter from CEO, David Brock of Media Matters to the president of NBC News, Steve Capus.

Open letter posted in its entirety below.

January 16, 2008

Steve Capus

President, NBC News
NBC Television Network
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10112

Dear Mr. Capus:

I’m writing today to express urgent concern over the appalling on-air conduct of MSNBC Hardball host Chris Matthews and to ask that you engage Media Matters for America and other concerned parties in the broader community of NBC viewers in a constructive dialogue about appropriate remedies to this most unfortunate state of affairs at NBC’s cable news channel MSNBC.

As you know, the event precipitating the current firestorm surrounding Matthews’ conduct occurred on MSNBC last week in the wake of Senator Hillary Clinton’s victory in the Democratic primary in New Hampshire. During MSNBC’s coverage that night, Matthews said he would “never underestimate Hillary Clinton again” — an apparent reference to his long-standing pattern of on-air denigration of Senator Clinton’s candidacy and persona — documented in a Media Matters survey of Hardball with Chris Matthews published December 18, 2007 (attached). The following morning, on the MSNBC program Morning Joe, Matthews said of Clinton, “the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around” and that “she didn’t win [New York] on her merits.” These statements were demonstrably false, utterly disrespectful, and, as the ensuing controversy has revealed, deeply offensive to many Americans.

Given Matthews’ history of animus toward both Senator Clinton and President Bill Clinton, these remarks might be seen as just par for the course. After all, MSNBC has entrusted Matthews — as Hardball host, frequent on-air news anchor for MSNBC, and host of the syndicated Chris Matthews Show run on the NBC broadcast network — with a prominent role in political campaign coverage throughout the last year, despite his 2001 statement referencing Clinton reported by the Philadelphia Inquirer magazine: “I hate her. I hate her. All that she stands for.” To my knowledge, Matthews has not disputed the quote, which betrays an ugly and unprofessional personal bias that unfairly skews political coverage of one of the leading candidates for President of the United States night after night on MSNBC.

Matthews has referred to Clinton as a “She Devil,” compared her to a “strip-teaser” and referred to her as “witchy.” He has referred to men who support her as “castratos in the eunuch chorus.” He has suggested Clinton is not “a convincing mom,” and said “modern women” like Clinton are unacceptable to “Midwest guys.” Even Matthews’ journalistic guests have called out Matthews for using sexist rhetoric. On one episode of Hardball devoted to what Matthews repeatedly referred to as Clinton’s “cackle,” Politico reporter Mike Allen broke in and said, “Chris, first of all, ‘cackle’ is a very sexist term.” Matthews has hosted right-wing radio host Michael Graham, who said on Hardball:

“Anyone listening to Hillary Rodham in her speech last week about patriotism, that screaming, screeching fingernail, I wanted to bludgeon her with a tire iron. That’s what I wanted to do.” (Matthews is quoted on the jacket of one of Graham’s books endorsing the radio host as “the funniest political observer in the country. The guy turns the truth into a punch.”)

According to a Media Matters count, over the course of two weeks in 2006, Matthews barraged his guests with 90 separate questions about what Matthews has variously described as Bill Clinton’s purported “lifestyle,” “social life,” “personal behavior,” and “personal life.” This pattern of obsessive personal attacks on the Clintons has, of course, been glaringly on display for years; back in 1998, Salon memorably described Hardball as the “official cable club house for Clinton-haters.”

But last week — with America engaged in an invigorating democratic process, in a moment freighted with the potential for historic progress and promise in the hearts and minds of millions of Americans as, for the first time in our history, both a woman and an African-American are leading candidates for the presidency — Matthews’ sexist attack struck a nerve.

Senator Clinton’s candidacy aside, Matthews’ degrading attacks on women constitute a broader and more troubling pattern that has unfolded over the years. During his coverage of the 2000 presidential race, Matthews repeatedly referred to author Naomi Wolf as “the political equivalent of Viagra.” His on-air treatment of CNBC anchor Erin Burnett (”Could you get a little closer to the camera? …You’re beautiful. …You’re a knockout.”) has been described by Emily’s List President Ellen Malcolm as “sexual harassment brought to you by MSNBC.” Matthews once ended an interview with right-wing radio host and author Laura Ingraham by saying, “I get in trouble for this, but you’re great looking, obviously. You’re one of the gods’ gifts to men in this country. But also, you are a hell of a writer.”

During coverage of a presidential debate last spring, NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell appeared compelled to remind Matthews that Democratic Senator Barack Obama’s wife, Michelle, is a Harvard-educated lawyer as Matthews focused obsessively on her physical appearance, stating she “looked perfect,” “well-turned out … attractive — classy, as we used to say. Like Frank Sinatra, ‘classy.’ “

Why NBC apparently believes such conduct and speech to be informative, appropriate or responsible broadcasting in the public interest is a question for you and for General Electric’s management and Board of Directors. In this regard, I should note that gender-based attacks have also been documented by Media Matters on MSNBC’s show Tucker, hosted by Tucker Carlson. Carlson invoked Lorena Bobbitt to claim that Clinton is tapping into women’s anger toward men, and on another broadcast of Tucker, said of Clinton: “[W]hen she comes on television, I involuntarily cross my legs.” During a discussion of how gender might play into Senator Clinton’s candidacy, Carlson’s right-wing guest Cliff May said, “At least call her a Vaginal-American.”

My concern about your network’s broadcast standards is not limited to sexism. In 2006, Matthews hosted right-wing pundit Ann Coulter the day after she had posited on another NBC cable network, CNBC, on The Big Idea with Donny Deutsch, that Bill Clinton is gay. Questioned about the remark by Matthews, Coulter offered a bizarre theory to conclude Clinton “shows some level of latent homosexuality.” She continued, “I don’t know if he’s gay, but Al Gore — total fag.” Matthews concluded the interview with, “Well, thanks, Ann, you’re great.”

In Warp Speed: America in the Age of Mixed Media, the esteemed media critics Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel wrote, ” ‘Hardball’ has no grounding in reporting, no basic news function, is not designed to elicit facts or explore issues with policy-makers.”

That judgment notwithstanding, as you well know, programs like Hardball define wider media narratives and agendas and shape public perceptions about public affairs, especially, as is the case now, when the nation is poised to make critical choices about its future direction. Given Matthews’ record detailed above, I fear that he will continue to insult, misinform, and ultimately disserve the public as we continue to engage in a basic process of our democracy in the coming months.

My concerns are based in fact. According to a study by the nonpartisan Project for Excellence in Journalism of political media coverage in 2000, Hardball accounted for 12 percent of all media reports that discussed presidential candidate Al Gore’s purported “tendency to exaggerate,” a false campaign narrative perpetuated by the Republican National Committee. Indeed, Matthews seemed so unfair in his treatment of Gore that NBC Today show host Matt Lauer upbraided him on the air, saying, “Let’s be honest here. Al Gore irritates you.” “The public has been saying that too,” Matthews replied.

The aforementioned Media Matters study examined Matthews’ statements on Hardball about the two then-front-running candidates in each political party, Clinton and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, in the months of September, October, and November 2007. The results showed Matthews made 10 negative remarks about Clinton for every negative remark he made about Giuliani. Moreover, Matthews made nearly three times as many positive remarks about Giuliani as about Clinton.

In addition, Matthews has said on Hardball that he believes Republican Senator John McCain “deserves to be president.”

Mr. Capus, during the controversy last spring surrounding Don Imus’ racist and sexist remarks broadcast on MSNBC — remarks first documented by Media Matters — we commended your acknowledgement that NBC has a responsibility to protect the network’s trusted reputation for fair and equal coverage and to “continue the dialogue about what is appropriate conduct and speech” on its air. In the case of Chris Matthews, I implore you to once again consider the gravity of that responsibility.

I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

David Brock
President & CEO
Media Matters for America

Regarding Chris Matthews assertion that Clinton did not win on her own merits……

Mika Brzezinski: Do you think…that there was a turn at the last minute for some voters, given the really sharp twist in the media in terms of how they went negative…

Chris Matthews: It’s not in the polling. I’m just saying, it’s not in the polling data. [snip] Matthews: I think the Hillary appeal has always been about the mix of toughness and sympathy. Let’s not forget, and I’ll be brutal, the reason she’s a US Senator, the reason she’s a candidate for President, the reason she may be a front runner, is that her husband messed around.

Brzezinski: Yeah, but…

Matthews: That’s how she got to be a Senator from New York. We keep forgetting it. She didn’t win it on her merit, she won because everybody felt, “My God, this woman stood up under humiliation,” right? That’s what happened. That’s how it happened. In 1998, she went to NY and campaigned for Chuck Schumer as almost like the grieving widow of absurdity, and she did it so well and courageously. But it was about the humilation of Bill Clinton.

What the hell is wrong with Chris Matthews? With all of the media people? Their personal loathing of Hillary Clinton has tainted every disdainful, contemptous pundit show’s opinion this week.

Matthews asserts that Ms. Clinton’s standing is a result of her husbands sex habits? and he is STILL on the air?

Mr. Matthews is so full of himself that he has no problem telling every voter who voted for Ms. Clinton that you voted for her due to your sympathy for her humiliation by her cheating husband. Such audacity is appalling to the senses. How stupid of the masses!

And so…….it is the medias failure to grasp what the first serious female Presidential candidacy means for women, including those who are not committed Clinton supporters, or fully decided on any candidate, that had consequences in New Hampshire. Consequences I am sure hackled the hairs of many media pundits and it showed in their subsequent broadcasts.

The media should wake up to the fact that people don’t vote for a woman because they feel sorry for her, or because she is a woman. Indeed, increasingly, women don’t have to vote for men simply because they have no other choice. That holds so very true for the race card now too.

The “White Man Only” club is about to be broken and they are shaking in their boots!