All the News That Fits

There are times when I vaguely regret not having cable or satellite for my TV, if only to be able to check on what the networks are not covering. The BBC news feed shows nothing -- oh, I take that back, this just appeared:

Thousands of anti-corporate greed demonstrators have closed one of America's busiest ports.

A spokesman for the Port of Oakland in California said maritime operations had effectively halted.

The shutdown capped a day in which hundreds of city workers, including teachers, joined the call for a strike.

The crowds also stopped traffic at a junction where a military veteran was seriously injured last week as protesters clashed with police.

I'd just done a Google search, and the first result was from the Guardian in Britain, whose live news feed agreed that the Port of Oakland had been shut down by the strike.

At National Public Radio's site I found this AP story, headlined "Oakland Protesters Halt Operations at Port" on the main page, but it only says that

On Wednesday morning, the port was operating as normal and most longshoremen had shown up for work, according to port and union officials.

I guess they couldn't update it all day. What a shame. (And now I'm listening to the midnight NPR news summary, which doesn't admit that the Port was closed by the strike either. That's a bit less excusable, and a lot more shameful. All Hail the Liberal Media, with their uncritical support of these anti-American rabble! ... Oh, now they're talking about Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" at the 2004 Superbowl! Thanks to NPR for their up-to-the-minute coverage!)

CNN's soft-pedaling it.

Demonstrators in Oakland, California, appeared to carry out a successful strike of downtown businesses Wednesday, as most merchants and retailers shuttered their doors during a largely peaceful protest.

"Appeared", eh? All right. And this too:

Unlike prior protests in downtown Oakland, no uniformed police officers were visible during the demonstrations as of Wednesday afternoon. Oakland gained national attention during a recent clash between protesters and police, who fired tear gas upon the demonstrators after they allegedly threw objects at officers, police said.

Oakland Mayor Jean Quan apologized for authorities' confrontations with demonstrators. The clashes led to the hospitalization of an Iraq war veteran.

That's not strictly a lie, but it's not honest either, as though "the hospitalization of an Iraq war veteran" had nothing to do with the "tear gas fired upon the demonstrators by police." If you didn't know -- if you hadn't already been informed by more honest news coverage -- you might think that poor veteran got so worked up by the sight of dirty hippies spitting on America that he had a conniption and needed treatment. C'mon, CNN, even Fox News did a better job, though they seem to have borrowed some quotations from other sources (like the AP) without attribution.

CNN also has an opinion piece by a reporter who says he's covered both Zuccoli Park and Tahrir Square, and the two are not alike, you guys, okay? -- even if some Egyptians have declared their support for Occupy Oakland.

Not one Occupy Wall Street protester is risking his or her life to publicly proclaim their demands. In New York, police resorted to pepper spray and clubbings; in Oakland, California, police sprayed tear gas and are seen in videos apparently throwing stun grenades. Protesters display serious wounds they say were inflicted by rubber bullets. But even that excessive force cannot compare to the threat demonstrators in the Middle East and North Africa faced for displaying their dissatisfaction.

Not a word about a man who suffered concussion and brain swelling from the impact of a tear gas cannister. He could have died, but he didn't. The writer's evasions are similar to those Mubarak's regime would have made about injured protesters in Tahrir Square. And these are just the opening salvos of state repression of free speech and assembly. But it's okay, it doesn't matter, they don't have to be exactly the same. Did anyone really think so?

Uniquely among the big American news organizations I've looked at so far tonight, MSNBC put the strike up front. They got the basic situation right, it seems, but had to remind us that

Black-dressed and masked marchers threw paint balls, ripped up a picket fence and broke windows at a Whole Foods market before about two dozen protesters forced them to stop. There was lots of shoving and punches thrown, the Oakland Tribune reported.

At least MSNBC drew a line between the troublemakers and the "protesters" who "forced them to stop." Again, I think the masked guys should be presumed to be police provocateurs until proven otherwise.

Democracy Now! did their daily broadcast in the morning, New York time, so they won't have a story up until tomorrow's broadcast. I'll be interested to see what the print media headlines look like too.

The strike is very impressive, a major early success for the movement. The relative lack of violence, due to the police standing back, is a reminder that the violence has been overwhelmingly police violence. I suspect many people in nice offices around the country, from the West Coast to the Beltway, are feeling nervous tonight.

All the News That Fits

There are times when I vaguely regret not having cable or satellite for my TV, if only to be able to check on what the networks are not covering. The BBC news feed shows nothing -- oh, I take that back, this just appeared:

Thousands of anti-corporate greed demonstrators have closed one of America's busiest ports.

A spokesman for the Port of Oakland in California said maritime operations had effectively halted.

The shutdown capped a day in which hundreds of city workers, including teachers, joined the call for a strike.

The crowds also stopped traffic at a junction where a military veteran was seriously injured last week as protesters clashed with police.

I'd just done a Google search, and the first result was from the Guardian in Britain, whose live news feed agreed that the Port of Oakland had been shut down by the strike.

At National Public Radio's site I found this AP story, headlined "Oakland Protesters Halt Operations at Port" on the main page, but it only says that

On Wednesday morning, the port was operating as normal and most longshoremen had shown up for work, according to port and union officials.

I guess they couldn't update it all day. What a shame. (And now I'm listening to the midnight NPR news summary, which doesn't admit that the Port was closed by the strike either. That's a bit less excusable, and a lot more shameful. All Hail the Liberal Media, with their uncritical support of these anti-American rabble! ... Oh, now they're talking about Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" at the 2004 Superbowl! Thanks to NPR for their up-to-the-minute coverage!)

CNN's soft-pedaling it.

Demonstrators in Oakland, California, appeared to carry out a successful strike of downtown businesses Wednesday, as most merchants and retailers shuttered their doors during a largely peaceful protest.

"Appeared", eh? All right. And this too:

Unlike prior protests in downtown Oakland, no uniformed police officers were visible during the demonstrations as of Wednesday afternoon. Oakland gained national attention during a recent clash between protesters and police, who fired tear gas upon the demonstrators after they allegedly threw objects at officers, police said.

Oakland Mayor Jean Quan apologized for authorities' confrontations with demonstrators. The clashes led to the hospitalization of an Iraq war veteran.

That's not strictly a lie, but it's not honest either, as though "the hospitalization of an Iraq war veteran" had nothing to do with the "tear gas fired upon the demonstrators by police." If you didn't know -- if you hadn't already been informed by more honest news coverage -- you might think that poor veteran got so worked up by the sight of dirty hippies spitting on America that he had a conniption and needed treatment. C'mon, CNN, even Fox News did a better job, though they seem to have borrowed some quotations from other sources (like the AP) without attribution.

CNN also has an opinion piece by a reporter who says he's covered both Zuccoli Park and Tahrir Square, and the two are not alike, you guys, okay? -- even if some Egyptians have declared their support for Occupy Oakland.

Not one Occupy Wall Street protester is risking his or her life to publicly proclaim their demands. In New York, police resorted to pepper spray and clubbings; in Oakland, California, police sprayed tear gas and are seen in videos apparently throwing stun grenades. Protesters display serious wounds they say were inflicted by rubber bullets. But even that excessive force cannot compare to the threat demonstrators in the Middle East and North Africa faced for displaying their dissatisfaction.

Not a word about a man who suffered concussion and brain swelling from the impact of a tear gas cannister. He could have died, but he didn't. The writer's evasions are similar to those Mubarak's regime would have made about injured protesters in Tahrir Square. And these are just the opening salvos of state repression of free speech and assembly. But it's okay, it doesn't matter, they don't have to be exactly the same. Did anyone really think so?

Uniquely among the big American news organizations I've looked at so far tonight, MSNBC put the strike up front. They got the basic situation right, it seems, but had to remind us that

Black-dressed and masked marchers threw paint balls, ripped up a picket fence and broke windows at a Whole Foods market before about two dozen protesters forced them to stop. There was lots of shoving and punches thrown, the Oakland Tribune reported.

At least MSNBC drew a line between the troublemakers and the "protesters" who "forced them to stop." Again, I think the masked guys should be presumed to be police provocateurs until proven otherwise.

Democracy Now! did their daily broadcast in the morning, New York time, so they won't have a story up until tomorrow's broadcast. I'll be interested to see what the print media headlines look like too.

The strike is very impressive, a major early success for the movement. The relative lack of violence, due to the police standing back, is a reminder that the violence has been overwhelmingly police violence. I suspect many people in nice offices around the country, from the West Coast to the Beltway, are feeling nervous tonight.

Violence Begets Violence, or the Other Way Around

Here's another one of those things that reveals a strange attitude in our media -- strange when you think about it, anyway, or when I think about it.

The Huffington Post posted a story on the Occupy Wall Street protests, headlining the corporate media's favorite Catholic fascist and former Nixon toady, Pat Buchanan. For a supposed extremist, Buchanan has enjoyed a very comfortable ongoing relationship with the mainstream, even more comfortable than Rush Limbaugh's. But anyway, today was Buchanan's day for some concern trolling about OWS:

“It’s going to end very, very badly with these folks in the winter and they’re not going to be getting publicity and they’re going to be acting up and acting badly like the worst of the demonstrators in the 60s," Buchanan said. "They’re going to start fighting with the cops.”

This was on The McLaughlin Group, a weekly program with a notable right-wing slant; so of course it originated on the commie Public Broadcasting System, though in 2007 it began airing on some CBS stations.

The HuffPost story then offered anecdotes which I suppose were intended to support or illustrate Buchanan's prediction.

Occupy Wall Street took a violent turn this week as Oakland police unleashed tear gas on protesters and injured an Iraq war veteran.

On Saturday, scores were arrested in Denver after protesters clashed with local law enforcement. When cops began to spray Mace on the crowd, several protestors reportedly retaliated by kicking and pushing police.

So, it was OWS that "took a violent turn" in Oakland -- not the police, who initiated the attack. And in Denver, when the police just began innocently and nonviolently "to spray Mace on the crowd," some protesters fought back. True, OWS has declared a nonviolent stance, which usually means non-retaliation even to police violence. But still, wouldn't it have been more accurate to write something like

The Oakland Police turned violent Thursday against Occupy Oakland, unleashing teargas against nonviolent demonstrators and critically injuring an Iraq war veteran.

or

On Saturday, scores of OWS protesters were arrested in Denver after some fought back mildly against an unprovoked police attack.

Even that is granting the Denver police too much, since they doubtless intended to arrest scores of protesters whether they fought back or not. I suppose this sort of reportage and commentary is a preview of propaganda and state violence to come.

Violence Begets Violence, or the Other Way Around

Here's another one of those things that reveals a strange attitude in our media -- strange when you think about it, anyway, or when I think about it.

The Huffington Post posted a story on the Occupy Wall Street protests, headlining the corporate media's favorite Catholic fascist and former Nixon toady, Pat Buchanan. For a supposed extremist, Buchanan has enjoyed a very comfortable ongoing relationship with the mainstream, even more comfortable than Rush Limbaugh's. But anyway, today was Buchanan's day for some concern trolling about OWS:

“It’s going to end very, very badly with these folks in the winter and they’re not going to be getting publicity and they’re going to be acting up and acting badly like the worst of the demonstrators in the 60s," Buchanan said. "They’re going to start fighting with the cops.”

This was on The McLaughlin Group, a weekly program with a notable right-wing slant; so of course it originated on the commie Public Broadcasting System, though in 2007 it began airing on some CBS stations.

The HuffPost story then offered anecdotes which I suppose were intended to support or illustrate Buchanan's prediction.

Occupy Wall Street took a violent turn this week as Oakland police unleashed tear gas on protesters and injured an Iraq war veteran.

On Saturday, scores were arrested in Denver after protesters clashed with local law enforcement. When cops began to spray Mace on the crowd, several protestors reportedly retaliated by kicking and pushing police.

So, it was OWS that "took a violent turn" in Oakland -- not the police, who initiated the attack. And in Denver, when the police just began innocently and nonviolently "to spray Mace on the crowd," some protesters fought back. True, OWS has declared a nonviolent stance, which usually means non-retaliation even to police violence. But still, wouldn't it have been more accurate to write something like

The Oakland Police turned violent Thursday against Occupy Oakland, unleashing teargas against nonviolent demonstrators and critically injuring an Iraq war veteran.

or

On Saturday, scores of OWS protesters were arrested in Denver after some fought back mildly against an unprovoked police attack.

Even that is granting the Denver police too much, since they doubtless intended to arrest scores of protesters whether they fought back or not. I suppose this sort of reportage and commentary is a preview of propaganda and state violence to come.

Are You Or Have You Ever Been a Negro, Dr. King?

This (via) is fascinating. Thanks to FAIR for posting it on their blog.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The full program is divided up into segments, so if you can, click on the second one where there is some very intelligent discussion. What particularly struck me about the excerpts from Meet the Press in 1960 and 1965 is that in a just world they'd put an end to certain liberals' yammering about the bygone days when the media spoke truth to power, and were adversary, dammit! They were objective instead of putting their opinions into everything! As you can see, Meet the Press was adversary in those days, all right -- but not to the powerful.

Are You Or Have You Ever Been a Negro, Dr. King?

This (via) is fascinating. Thanks to FAIR for posting it on their blog.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The full program is divided up into segments, so if you can, click on the second one where there is some very intelligent discussion. What particularly struck me about the excerpts from Meet the Press in 1960 and 1965 is that in a just world they'd put an end to certain liberals' yammering about the bygone days when the media spoke truth to power, and were adversary, dammit! They were objective instead of putting their opinions into everything! As you can see, Meet the Press was adversary in those days, all right -- but not to the powerful.

Buzzword of the Day: "Historic"

I happened to have NPR's news report turned on just now, and it began with the newscaster saying that the Democrats face "historic losses" on Tuesday. Considering how often right-wing pundits and propagandists have been throwing around the word "historic" lately in connection with elections, that little word package grated on my nerves. C'mon, every election can't be historic. (Was the 2006 upset that put Democrats back in control of Congress "historic"? Kerry's defeat in 2004? Bush's theft of the election in 2000?)

And then toward the end of the short broadcast, the newscaster announced the death of longtime Democratic hack Theodore Sorenson, who, she said, helped John Fitzgerald Kennedy craft his "historic" inaugural speech. It was almost a rhyme, and an odd overuse of such a vacuous word in so short a time.

Buzzword of the Day: "Historic"

I happened to have NPR's news report turned on just now, and it began with the newscaster saying that the Democrats face "historic losses" on Tuesday. Considering how often right-wing pundits and propagandists have been throwing around the word "historic" lately in connection with elections, that little word package grated on my nerves. C'mon, every election can't be historic. (Was the 2006 upset that put Democrats back in control of Congress "historic"? Kerry's defeat in 2004? Bush's theft of the election in 2000?)

And then toward the end of the short broadcast, the newscaster announced the death of longtime Democratic hack Theodore Sorenson, who, she said, helped John Fitzgerald Kennedy craft his "historic" inaugural speech. It was almost a rhyme, and an odd overuse of such a vacuous word in so short a time.

The Queen of America Goes to Washington City

My friend the ambivalent Obama supporter sent me a link to an article from the Washington Post called "Five Myths About Sarah Palin." That sounded like a come-on, but also mildly diverting, so I clicked through. It turns out Five Myths is a series at the Post: "A challenge to everything you think you know." Oh, really?

I felt a sinking feeling when I looked at number one: "Palin cost McCain the 2008 election." Of course, the author says not: "CNN's 2008 national exit poll, for example, asked voters whether Palin was a factor when they stepped into the voting booth. Those who said yes broke for McCain 56 percent to 43 percent." This is a bit unclear. The writer takes it to mean that people "for whom Palin was a factor" (what kind of factor?) weren't bothered by her, but it also means that people who liked Palin voted for McCain -- who were they going to vote for, Obama? -- but not enough people liked her to swing the election. "In the end," the writer concedes, "it's impossible to know how McCain would have performed if he hadn't selected Palin -- politics does not allow for control experiments." So this isn't a "myth" after all, though it isn't gospel either.

Two: Resigning as governor was rash. Ditto: The writer makes a case that resigning the governorship wasn't totally nuts, but not that it wasn't "rash"; it may have saved her political career, such as it is. It's arguable that without the "liberal media" slobbering over her with prurient fascination, she'd have a much lower profile than she does.

Three: Palin and the tea party are destroying the GOP. Not so!

In the wake of Obama's historic victory, she and countless other grass-roots activists could have abandoned the GOP and turned the tea party into a conservative third party. They didn't. They decided instead to refashion the Republican Party from the ground up, pressuring it to live up to its limited-government ideals. Now, two years after Obama's win, Republicans are poised to reap major gains in the midterm elections. Palin and the tea party haven't hurt the GOP one bit.

As the writer concedes, the GOP was in such bad shape after Obama's election that destroying it was the least of anyone's worries. However, as a former governor and vice-presidential candidate, Sarah Palin is not "grass-roots." Nor is the Tea Party a grassroots movement, with its tycoon funding and the boost it gets from national right-wing media -- and from the supposedly liberal corporate media, which has inflated Tea Party numbers and exaggerated its impact from the start. "Countless"? Hardly. As for the coming midterms, it isn't that the Republicans and their (snort) "limited-government ideals" have suddenly become popular again, it's that the Democrats have alienated many past supporters:

This year isn't getting away from the Democrats because voters are moving toward the Republicans en masse. But the enthusiasm gap is turning races that would otherwise be lean Democratic into toss ups, turning toss ups into leaning Republican, and turning leaning Republican into solid Republican.

Four: Palin is extreme. This is a judgment call, and the writer doesn't make a good case, relying on polls tracking how "the public has moved to the right -- not on just one or two issues but on a whole constellation of them" but that don't, in fact, support his case very well. The Gallup Poll that found a bare majority (51%) of Americans labelling themselves "pro-life," for example, though that one showed a large majority (75%) of respondents still supported legal abortion under different conditions. Only 23% opposed legal abortion absolutely, so the poll mainly indicated confusion about what "pro-life" means. "Extreme" is a null word anyway.

Five: Palin is unelectable. Another judgment call, and since the writer concedes Palin's unpopularity, all he really say to the contrary is that things might change -- Hope and Change, baby, Hope and Change. I myself don't think she necessarily is unelectable; I just hope it never happens.

Bonus round, six: The author, Matthew Continetti, is opinion editor at the ultraright Weekly Standard, which is like being a biggie at Fox News or the Washington Times -- what's he doing in the allegedly ultralib Washington Post? He's also the author of a pro-Palin tract published by the right-wing Penguin imprint Sentinel HC, a sort of stealth Regnery Publications. The piece is practically an infomercial.

P.S. According to Joan Walsh at Salon.com, Palin is in California, but the major Republican candidates are avoiding her. That could be because

More than half of California voters in last week's Field Poll -- and two-thirds of independents -- said Palin's endorsing a candidate would make them less inclined to vote for that candidate. A larger proportion of Californians say Palin's not qualified to be president, and yet the state's right-wing faithful could be crucial to a Palin presidential run, with both money and primary votes.

The Queen of America Goes to Washington City

My friend the ambivalent Obama supporter sent me a link to an article from the Washington Post called "Five Myths About Sarah Palin." That sounded like a come-on, but also mildly diverting, so I clicked through. It turns out Five Myths is a series at the Post: "A challenge to everything you think you know." Oh, really?

I felt a sinking feeling when I looked at number one: "Palin cost McCain the 2008 election." Of course, the author says not: "CNN's 2008 national exit poll, for example, asked voters whether Palin was a factor when they stepped into the voting booth. Those who said yes broke for McCain 56 percent to 43 percent." This is a bit unclear. The writer takes it to mean that people "for whom Palin was a factor" (what kind of factor?) weren't bothered by her, but it also means that people who liked Palin voted for McCain -- who were they going to vote for, Obama? -- but not enough people liked her to swing the election. "In the end," the writer concedes, "it's impossible to know how McCain would have performed if he hadn't selected Palin -- politics does not allow for control experiments." So this isn't a "myth" after all, though it isn't gospel either.

Two: Resigning as governor was rash. Ditto: The writer makes a case that resigning the governorship wasn't totally nuts, but not that it wasn't "rash"; it may have saved her political career, such as it is. It's arguable that without the "liberal media" slobbering over her with prurient fascination, she'd have a much lower profile than she does.

Three: Palin and the tea party are destroying the GOP. Not so!

In the wake of Obama's historic victory, she and countless other grass-roots activists could have abandoned the GOP and turned the tea party into a conservative third party. They didn't. They decided instead to refashion the Republican Party from the ground up, pressuring it to live up to its limited-government ideals. Now, two years after Obama's win, Republicans are poised to reap major gains in the midterm elections. Palin and the tea party haven't hurt the GOP one bit.

As the writer concedes, the GOP was in such bad shape after Obama's election that destroying it was the least of anyone's worries. However, as a former governor and vice-presidential candidate, Sarah Palin is not "grass-roots." Nor is the Tea Party a grassroots movement, with its tycoon funding and the boost it gets from national right-wing media -- and from the supposedly liberal corporate media, which has inflated Tea Party numbers and exaggerated its impact from the start. "Countless"? Hardly. As for the coming midterms, it isn't that the Republicans and their (snort) "limited-government ideals" have suddenly become popular again, it's that the Democrats have alienated many past supporters:

This year isn't getting away from the Democrats because voters are moving toward the Republicans en masse. But the enthusiasm gap is turning races that would otherwise be lean Democratic into toss ups, turning toss ups into leaning Republican, and turning leaning Republican into solid Republican.

Four: Palin is extreme. This is a judgment call, and the writer doesn't make a good case, relying on polls tracking how "the public has moved to the right -- not on just one or two issues but on a whole constellation of them" but that don't, in fact, support his case very well. The Gallup Poll that found a bare majority (51%) of Americans labelling themselves "pro-life," for example, though that one showed a large majority (75%) of respondents still supported legal abortion under different conditions. Only 23% opposed legal abortion absolutely, so the poll mainly indicated confusion about what "pro-life" means. "Extreme" is a null word anyway.

Five: Palin is unelectable. Another judgment call, and since the writer concedes Palin's unpopularity, all he really say to the contrary is that things might change -- Hope and Change, baby, Hope and Change. I myself don't think she necessarily is unelectable; I just hope it never happens.

Bonus round, six: The author, Matthew Continetti, is opinion editor at the ultraright Weekly Standard, which is like being a biggie at Fox News or the Washington Times -- what's he doing in the allegedly ultralib Washington Post? He's also the author of a pro-Palin tract published by the right-wing Penguin imprint Sentinel HC, a sort of stealth Regnery Publications. The piece is practically an infomercial.

P.S. According to Joan Walsh at Salon.com, Palin is in California, but the major Republican candidates are avoiding her. That could be because

More than half of California voters in last week's Field Poll -- and two-thirds of independents -- said Palin's endorsing a candidate would make them less inclined to vote for that candidate. A larger proportion of Californians say Palin's not qualified to be president, and yet the state's right-wing faithful could be crucial to a Palin presidential run, with both money and primary votes.