From Accuracy in Media’s Lynn Woolley and Cliff Kincaid:

When the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure made a decision to sever its ties with America’s number one seller of abortions, Planned Parenthood, the media went to war. The media coverage was slanted in such a way that “mainstream” reporters like Andrea Mitchell and Lisa Myers of NBC News were openly advocating for a point of view—pressuring Komen to reverse course and give in to Planned Parenthood.

Why would the media go to war over something as seemingly insignificant as a policy change regarding funding at Komen, a private cancer charity? Part of the answer lies in the fact that, for the media, “women’s rights” take precedence over all other rights, including the rights of children. This is what “feminism” has become and this is what the Komen controversy was supposed to be about. In reality, it had nothing to do with breast cancer because the fact is that most Planned Parenthood affiliates don’t even provide mammograms. That money from Komen was used to refer women at risk of contracting the disease somewhere else.

So the issue was something else as well. While there were references to Planned Parenthood being an “abortion provider,” there was no explanation of what this “service” actually “provides”—a procedure that destroys a human life. This is why the annual March for Life against abortion is mostly ignored by the major media. It is a sad fact that even some conservative women still think that Planned Parenthood is simply an organization that provides information about voluntary family planning.

You saw very little in the mainstream media from pro-life people who supported Komen’s initial decision. The bias is so pronounced that the media long ago adopted the language of the Left. The term “pro-life” is never used. But “pro-choice” is. Newspapers use the term “abortion rights” to describe the political process of terminating the lives of the unborn, but use “anti-abortion” when referring to those of us who value human life. We are “against.” They are for “rights.”

So we made it a point to tune into the Big Three network newscasts on Friday night—hours after Nancy Brinker of Komen had caved. We wanted to see if this story would be treated in a neutral manner, or if the stories would be written from the standpoint that Brinker did the right thing—and, why did it take her so long? We did receive a shock, though it was a mild one. One of the three networks actually did a fairly nice job.

(more…)

Right off the bat C-SPAN should have aired this hearing. There is absolutely no excuse not to air it on TV. Since I had to stream it online I kept my TV on DirecTV News Mix to keep an eye on the news. The only network that had consistent coverage of the testimony was FOX News. I’m not shocked at all. I didn’t see anything about the testimony on the other channels. Jeff Poor from The Daily Caller helped me keep an eye on MSNBC and he didn’t see anything. He said they were hung up on Donald Trump all day. I was informed by a friend on Twitter, Doug Mataconis, that the hearing was discussed on The Situation Room on CNN for about 15 minutes. “Special Report” and The FOX Report both started off with Mr. Holder’s testimony.

Before I continue I noticed some friends on Twitter growing upset that headlines were partisan. The MSM was right: This was a partisan fight and every single Democrat coddled Mr. Holder. The Republicans were the only ones to demand withheld documents and answers from Mr. Holder.

Right after the testimony ended I began searching for coverage of the hearing on Google. First stop was Associated Press. Remember: If the AP doesn’t write anything on Fast & Furious more than likely the rest of the media won’t mention it. Pete Yost did write about the testimony, but hat’s where the excitement ends. Again, he distorts information to favor Mr. Holder and the Department of Justice. Mr. Yost fails to mention the subpoena was issued October 12, 2011. That’s 4 months ago. That is plenty of time to go through the hoops to release the documents. Mr. Yost says, “Though neither side said so, negotiations are almost certain to be the next step.” If you watched the testimony do you honestly think Mr. Issa or Mr. Holder will negotiate? Didn’t think so. Mr. Issa won’t accept anything less than the documents he needs. Then Mr. Yost describes a few dialogues, but doesn’t bother to get down to nitty gritty of the testimony.

(more…)

Just announced from Accuracy in Media:

WASHINGTON, February 1, 2012—Accuracy in Media will honor Dana Loesch and Sharyl Attkisson for their outstanding contributions to journalism in a ceremony taking place at the 2012 Conservative Political Action Conference. The Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award is named for AIM’s founder, who was America’s original media watchdog.

“Accuracy in Media could not be more excited about the 2012 Reed Irvine Awards,” Chairman Don Irvine said. “AIM continues to be impressed with the leadership Dana Loesch has shown to grassroots citizen journalists. Her fearless challenges to biased media narratives are fine examples of citizens rising up in the name of fairness and accuracy. Loesch represents the essence of our Grassroots Journalism Award.

“For much of her 30 year career as a news anchor and reporter, Sharyl Attkisson has offered a clear example of what an investigative journalist should be doing. She has flown in a B-52 on a combat mission over Kosovo, shed light on TARP, dared to report on Operation Fast and Furious and has recently exposed dubious green energy loans from the Obama Administration. We are honored to present her with the Investigative Journalism Award.”

(more…)

If you want a case of clear bias, the Washington D.C. affiliate of CBS will surely fill the bill for its bias against pro-life supporters. On January 23 the DC affiliate featured on its website a photo slide show of pictures taken at the March for Life rally held annually at the nation’s capitol. Curiously, though, there wasn’t a single photo of any pro-lifers. Instead, the photo essay featured only photos of abortion-supporting protesters who stood on the sidelines taunting the pro-life marchers.

The photo slide show initially featured seven photos of abortion supporters, such as one of marchers holding signs saying “Family Planning Saves Lives Worldwide,” one featuring women holding signs saying that abortion should be kept legal, and another showing a woman sporting an abortion on demand sticker.

Upwards of 50,000 pro-life supporters turned out in the DC cold to participate in the March for Life, yet apparently CBS could only find the small handful of pro-abortion supporters to photograph.

Pro-life advocates like Jill Stanek were incredulous, and it wasn’t long before the comments section on the CBS website exploded with pro-lifers crying foul. Dozens of unhappy commenters remarked how badly the bias of CBS galled them.

Finally, a day or so later, CBS altered its slide show and added some photos of some of the actual participants of the pro-life march. The slide show now features seven photos of pro-lifers and an equal amount of pro-abortion supporters.

(more…)

Let’s call it what it is now, folks. The biggest SuperPAC out there right now is the one working overtime to destroy any Republican wh0 might be so bold as want to take on the media’s Dear Leader in the White House.

Stephen Colbert won’t be parodying this SuperPAC, because he can’t make fun of his friends, but there is plenty of material out there he could use.

The Activist Old Media has two very specific goals in mind here, 1) keep the “horse-race” going as long as possible because it will help ratings and revenue, 2) work to damage whomever becomes the GOP winner. Oh, they call it good journalism, or whatever line they want to use, but the facts show otherwise. They have never been this aggressive towards Democrat candidates. The only time they go after a Democrat Presidential candidate to this degree is when he has been so damaged by his own actions that the candidate is finished and they have no other choice, then they pile on to make it look like they’re doing their job.  See: John Edwards (hey, didn’t the National Enquirer break those stories?)

Take your pick, Mitt or Newt, the media has the long knives out. Mitt Romney has already been called by some in the media, “one of the wealthiest candidates to ever run for President,” like that is some sort of negative. Let’s see here, I believe Jon Carry (intentional mis-spelling, click the link to remember why) was rather wealthy, in fact, he has four times as much money as Romney and his wealth was not an issue in 2004. Of course, Romney made his money on his own (he donated his inheritance to charity) and Kerry married his billion dollar fortune. To the media, Romney is the bad guy here, Kerry the good guy,  and he could not be put on the spot for finding a Heinz flavored Sugar Mama.

Romney has been ripped for donating to his church. 10% of his income, possibly more. Kerry donated 0 dollars to charity on his 2003 tax returns. I guess when you are the media and you are running the Obama SuperPAC you can rip candidates for donating to charity.

Romney has been ripped for paying the required 15% income tax on capital gains, Kerry paid 12%. I don’t recall that being an issue in 2004. BTW, don’t give me this garbage that it matters now because the media says it’s supposed to matter now, they would change the landscape of “what matters now” to whatever they want to fit their needs. They will pull out the class-envy card whenever it needs to be played, and since their candidate is using in now, they will belly-up to the table and unload the entire deck.

With Romney, the media has already stated that his religion will be a major issue and at the same time, Obama’s Media SuperPAC has virtually declared Reverend Wright off-limits. No, they have not vetted this issue already. Of course, now they will say this is old news and they covered it in ‘08, when they did not. NBC has yet to air audio of Reverend Wright—I saw them air video briefly once when they referred to some sort of controversy, but the audio is still too damaging to Dear Leader to have NBC put it on air.

(more…)

More proof the MSM is done hiding their biases in 2012.

We all know, including the mainstream media, that New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is a GOP star, a devastatingly effective critic of President Obama’s failed policies, a superb communicator, and one of GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney’s strongest allies. All of this adds up to trouble for President FailureTeleprompter, which is why his media Palace Guards have ginned up a story that would only be too stupid to be believed if the MSM didn’t exist.

Below is a video of the incident in question — below that, the corrupt MSM’s intentional misrepresentation of the incident.

—–

CBS New York:

While stumping for Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney in New Hampshire, this weekend, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie addresse

It’s not surprising that the loquacious governor responded to a heckler, but what he said is: “You know something may go down tonight, but it ain’t gonna be jobs sweetheart,” Christie can be heard saying to the woman.

Christie’s spokesman wouldn’t comment or clarify — only to urge you keep perspective over the nugget that dropped from Christie’s mouth, 1010 WINS’ Steve Sandberg reported.

(more…)

Time’s Mark Halperin wondered openly this morning whether the mainstream media might be “rooting for” Sen. Rick Santorum in the Republican primary. That could happen if journalists decide that Santorum would be a weaker general election threat to President Barack Obama than the presumed Republican nominee, Gov. Mitt Romney.

But Halperin’s theory is wishful thinking, and obscures one of the most important factors in Santorum’s come-from-nowhere success in the Iowa caucuses last night: the former Pennsylvania senator has thrashed the mainstream media relentlessly in the past few weeks, making it clear he has the courage to stand up to the Democrats’ Greek chorus.

Most recently, Santorum schooled NBC’s David Gregory and CNN’s Candy Crowley on the subject of Obama’s “appeasement” in foreign policy. Santorum showed a patient deftness in drawing a stark contrast with Obama, then defending it with hard facts and fresh, alternative ideas. The journalists, expecting easy prey, were dumbstruck.

Santorum also endured a truly low blow from Alan Colmes, and overcame bizarre attempts by NPR and CBS to cast him as a racist. He irritates the mainstream media, and for good reason–because so far, he is beating them.

In a way, Santorum has picked up where former House speaker Newt Gingrich had left off. Gingrich rose through the polls after targeting the media rather than fellow Republicans. His clashes with Romney knocked Gingrich off that message. Yet Santorum also has discipline and an knock for retail politics. He takes his fight with the media off air and offline. (more…)

Yesterday, NPR reported an unclear snippet of audio as former Senator Rick Santorum having said the word “black” when discussing individuals becoming dependent on government’s redistribution of wealth, as opposed to being able to go out and earn their money themselves.

As per Tommy Christopher at Mediaite, a new, cleaner version of the clip does not support that conclusion.

NPR’s Ted Robbins noted: “Santorum did not elaborate on why he singled out blacks who rely on federal assistance. The voters here didn’t seem to care.”

CBS doubled down on the error, offering a brief transcript with the clip:

While campaigning in Sioux City, Iowa Sunday, GOP presidential hopeful Rick Santorum said if elected he plans to cut regulations and entitlements and he doesn’t want to “make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money.”

(more…)

Come on Media Matters for America, you’re making it way too easy to prove you’re an Obama propaganda machine and should not be tax exempt. I would prefer a better challenge. I’ve already had to fix one of Chris Brown’s articles and now he has another out there filled with misinformation.

Mr. Brown wrote about the NRA’s “conspiracy theories” and, of course, one of them was about Operation Fast and Furious. Mr. Brown titles this part, “What the … Botched ATF Operation Initiated To Promote Gun Control?” First of all, Fast and Furious was NOT botched. This is how it was suppose to work. Secondly, this isn’t a “ridiculous claim” because it’s true. I already had to point out to Mr. Brown that Sharyl Attkisson at CBS News has documents proving the ATF was using Fast and Furious as a way to implement tougher gun control laws.

Mr. Brown says, “What’s truly breathtaking is LaPierre’s willingness to push such wild conjecture absent any evidence.” No, Mr. Brown it’s truly breath taking that no matter how much evidence is presented you and MMfA keep on the rose colored glasses. Again, look at the documents Ms. Attkisson provided in her report. There is evidence the ATF was using Operation Fast and Furious to promote tougher gun control.

(more…)

The Department of Justice released a statement about the uproar caused by Eric Holder using the race card.

“That is a complete distortion of the attorney general’s comment. His comments both in the article and elsewhere made clear that he believes much of the criticism is launched against him are unfortunately the typical Washington gotcha game. A simple reading of those comments show he was referring to how he is identified with the president given their close relationship and all they share in common including their ideology. The position of the attorney general has been a target for partisan attacks, and given the critical work that this attorney general he is doing at the Department of Justice, it’s no surprise that some are engaging in such tactics. His critics rightly view the attorney general is a progressive force, and given our current political environment, there will those who use any opportunity to score political points.”

Here’s what we supposedly confused [bold my emphasis]:

Of that group of critics, Mr. Holder said he believed that a few — the “more extreme segment” — were motivated by animus against Mr. Obama and that he served as a stand-in for him. “This is a way to get at the president because of the way I can be identified with him,” he said, “both due to the nature of our relationship and, you know, the fact that we’re both African-American.”

So exactly what did we distort? There’s a key word in Mr. Savage’s sentence: animus. This is Merriam-Webster’s definition:

1: basic attitude or governing spirit : disposition, intention

2: a usually prejudiced and often spiteful or malevolent ill will

3: an inner masculine part of the female personality in the analytic psychology of C. G. Jung — compare anima

I’m going with definition 2. Those of the “most extreme segment” which, let’s be honest here, include Sharyl Attkisson, Cam Edwards, Matthew Boyle, Katie Pavlich, and myself, have a spiteful or malevolent ill will towards President Obama and Mr. Holder because of their relationship and they’re African American. Could the DOJ please explain to us how that doesn’t mean he played the race card? Mr. Holder said we have a prejudiced and often spiteful or malevolent ill will against him and President Obama because of their skin color. That’s calling us a racist. RACIST. Yes Mr. Holder played the race card. He said we are attacking him because he is African American.

(more…)

From Newsbusters:

George Washington was the father of our country.

Eh! No big deal. Barack Obama is better…at least in his own mind. Such was the laughably absurd claim of President Obama on 60 Minutes last Sunday. What? You didn’t see it? That was because 60 Minutes conveniently left it out of its broadcast. If you want to see Obama engage in this latest bit of over the top braggadocio you can only see it at the online 60 Minutes Overtime which has a video of the entire interview. You can catch Obama’s excessive praise of himself at the tail end of the interview starting with Steve Kroft’s question just before the 55 minute mark:

KROFT: Tell me, what do you consider your major accomplishments? If this is your last speech. What have you accomplished?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, we’re not done yet. I’ve got five more years of stuff to do. But not only saving this country from a great depression. Not only saving the auto industry. But putting in place a system in which we’re gonna start lowering health care costs and you’re never gonna go bankrupt because you get sick or somebody in your family gets sick. Making sure that we have reformed the financial system, so we never again have taxpayer-funded bailouts, and the system is more stable and secure. Making sure that we’ve got millions of kids out here who are able to go to college because we’ve expanded student loans and made college more affordable. Ending Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Decimating al Qaeda, including Bin Laden being taken off the field. Restoring America’s respect around the world.

The issue here is not gonna be a list of accomplishments. As you said yourself, Steve, you know, I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president — with the possible exceptions of Johnson, F.D.R., and Lincoln — just in terms of what we’ve gotten done in modern history. But, you know, but when it comes to the economy, we’ve got a lot more work to do. And we’re gonna keep on at it.

(more…)

Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has caused something of a storm with his latest statements on foreign policy.

Earlier in the week he threw the leftist MSM into a bit of a tizzy with his promise to appoint John Bolton to head up the State Department. Now, in a bit leaked from an interview with The Jewish Channel, Gingrich has once again stepped on a sacred cow by calling the Palestinians an “invented people.” This has, predictably, drawn the ire of all sorts of people, sending the press scurrying around for outraged statements from Arabs and the politicians who support them.

In the hundreds of news articles that have been written on that short blurb none that I managed to see actually spoke to any historians. Most quoted various Palestinians saying Gingrich is wrong, but without bringing any real arguments to the table. Several articles did make an effort to mention some history as well as comment that, being the Jewish Sabbath in Israel, that no Israeli politicians were available for comment; though this seems to have been a rare occurrence of actual journalism.

(more…)

It almost seems unfair to give CBS News’ investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson a “Credit Where It’s Due.” That gives the impression that this is an anomaly when, in reality, Ms. Attkisson’s consistency in fair and robust reporting on the brewing “Fast and Furious” scandal has been exemplary, a reminder of what Legacy Media is still capable of when the only agenda is truth and watchdogging the powerful.

Today, Ms. Attkisson reported what could very well be a game changer in a story few of Obama’s Media Palace Guards desire to cover. Probably because they fear the story might take them directly to a point such as this: [emphasis mine]

Documents obtained by CBS News show that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) discussed using their covert operation “Fast and Furious” to argue for controversial new rules about gun sales.

In Fast and Furious, ATF secretly encouraged gun dealers to sell to suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels to go after the “big fish.” But ATF whistleblowers told CBS News and Congress it was a dangerous practice called “gunwalking,” and it put thousands of weapons on the street. Many were used in violent crimes in Mexico. Two were found at the murder scene of a U.S. Border Patrol agent.

ATF officials didn’t intend to publicly disclose their own role in letting Mexican cartels obtain the weapons, but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called “Demand Letter 3″. That would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or “long guns.” Demand Letter 3 was so named because it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information.

On July 14, 2010 after ATF headquarters in Washington D.C. received an update on Fast and Furious, ATF Field Ops Assistant Director Mark Chait emailed Bill Newell, ATF’s Phoenix Special Agent in Charge of Fast and Furious:

“Bill – can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks.”

In the past, others have floated the idea that gun control might have been one of the agendas behind an operation that is now looking  much less like it was botched and much more like it was calculated. But if you read the emails embedded in the story, that theory appears to have been confirmed.

(more…)

And it’s legal. Legal and the government doesn’t disclose the details. Mary Chastain has been all over Fast and Furious for the past several weeks. You’d think such a story as this would be headline news, considering we’re talking about thousands and thousands and thousands of firearms sold to Mexico over the past several years. The numbers keep going up, but the most Transparent Administration Ever stopped disclosing the number of sales. Sharyl Attkisson has been performing top-notch journalism in uncovering this and other stories similar to the Fast and Furious program.

(more…)

Monday night’s episode of The O’Reilly Factor, the number one show in cable news, features an unusual collaboration between FOX and CBS as Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes joins Throw Them All Out author and Breitbart editor Peter Schweizer to discuss insider trading in Congress.

In less than a week, Schweizer’s book–which documents suspicious trades by members and leaders of both parties has upended Washington, DC, prompting hearings to be scheduled in both the Senate and House and shining public scrutiny on a previously hidden avenue of potential corruption and political self-enrichment.

(more…)

Sunday night, CBS aired an edition of “60 Minutes” that took a rare look at corruption in Washington on both sides of the aisle. It even took a book by a conservative journalist and Big Peace editor, Peter Schweizer’s Throw Them All Out, as the basis for its investigations.

Yet as Noel Sheppard of NewsBusters points out, “60 Minutes” “cherry picked” Republican examples from Schweizer’s book–so much so that four out of the five targets of its investigation were Republican, even though “60 to 70 percent” of the politicians described in Schweizer’s book are Democrats.

Eighty percent Republican was still too much for Politico, whose journalists appear on the majority of daily shows on the far-left, hyper-partisan MSNBC network, according to a Daily Caller report today. The Washington-based political digest panned the CBS story.

Nevertheless, CBS seems to have revealed that a 4-to-1 ratio of Republican to Democrat targets is the minimum threshold that a mainstream media outlet must reach before it exposes massive corruption in Washington. (more…)

Faced with a groundbreaking investigation by investigative journalist and Breitbart editor Peter Schweizer that reveals corrupt self-dealing on both sides of the aisle in Congress, the mainstream media had two options:

1. Criticize both sides in proportion to their involvement.
2. Defend both sides, in order to protect Democrats in power.

Yesterday, Politico chose #2. Today, Huffington Post has joined it, defending the Republican speaker it routinely derides, in order to protect the former Democrat speaker that many of its contributors hope to reinstate.

Screen grab by NewsBusters.org

As Noel Sheppard of NewsBusters points out:

As far-left outlets like the Huffington Post applaud what’s happening with the Occupy Wall Street movement around the country, you would think they’d welcome the sunlight being brought by Schweizer and 60 Minutes exposing a little known way that lawmakers use their access to further their own nests.

Pelosi is said to be worth $35 million. If she is using her position in Congress to add to her riches, shouldn’t the Huffington Post, as an unapologetic supporter of the Occupy Wall Street movement, applaud efforts to end such graft as it’s being exposed? (more…)

In response to this evening’s groundbreaking report on 60 Minutes, which targeted both Republicans and Democrats for insider trading in Congress, Politico has circled the wagons around Washington’s political elite.

The CBS story was based on original research by Hoover Institution fellow and Big Peace editor Peter Schweizer for his new book, Throw Them All Out: How Politicians and Their Friends Get Rich Off Insider Stock Tips, Land Deals, and Cronyism That Would Send the Rest of Us to Prison.

That, apparently, was enough to send Politico–and the clowns at Media Matters for America–into a panic.

While hyper-partisan Media Matters has vomited a torrent of non-sequiturs to defend House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi from charges of inside deals (she paid high wages to her non-union farm workers? really?), Politico has attempted to defend Washington’s political class as a whole.

First, says Politico’s John Bresnahan–before describing the 60 Minutes report in any detail–Schweizer is a conservative. Hence, by implication, he has an agenda (unlike Politico, of course).

Second, Bresnahan claims, Schweizer’s allegations are old charges–nothing to see here:

The allegations regarding Bachus, Hastert and Gregg [all Republicans!] covered by 60 Minutes are several years old and have received extensive media coverage already.

Curiously, Bresnahan does not link to previous reports by Politico on these individuals. (Perhaps they were at the bottom of the page somewhere, near the Solyndra scandal.)

Third, Bresnahan adds, Pelosi and House Speaker John Boehner (also criticized in Schweizer’s book and the 60 Minutes report) are innocent of wrongdoing, because… because… they say so:

“I have not made any decisions on day-to-day trading activities of my account and haven’t for years. I do not do it, haven’t done it and wouldn’t do it,” Boehner said during a Nov. 3 press conference when asked about the transactions by Steve Kroft.

Boehner’s office dismissed the 60 Minutes report as absurd…

“First of all, what you’re contending is not true,” Pelosi said. “Second of all, we are very proud of our record of what happened.”

Instead of following up original research by Schweizer–and by CBS, which did its own, independent investigations–Politico has stepped in to act as mouthpiece for the leaders of the Washington elite.

(more…)

Rep. Michele Bachmann’s campaign put CBS analyst John Dickerson on blast after Dickerson accidentally sent an email admitting that the Congresswoman wasn’t going to receive many questions at the CBS/National Journal debate because she’s polling in sixth place:

Minnesota Congresswoman’s Michele Bachmann’s campaign staff went ballistic after one of her communications director, Alice Stewart, was mistakenly CC’d on an internal CBS News email. In the message, newly minted political director John Dickerson said he’d rather interview someone else on his post-debate webshow. Congresswoman Bachmann’s staffers responded by accusing CBS of bias and calling for Mr. Dickerson’s head.

In the email, which was sent hours prior to the debate, CBS News senior politics producer Caroline Horn told Mr. Dickerson she could arrange to have Ms. Bachmann on his show.

Frankly, I think the candidates should have walked off stage in unison the moment Scott Pelley forgot his responsibility as a moderator and thought himself a candidate, able to debate the other contenders.

(more…)

Hey, I’m stealing the line that Leslie Stahl used in her interview with lobbyist Jack Abramoff on “60 Minutes.” I’m mad at you, Leslie.

To Abramoff, she said, “I’m mad at you” when he confessed to her on camera that he was buying politicians (old news, yes, but it must be brought up again.)

It was classic TV drama, Stahl with facial expressions and comments made it clear that she was angry at how Abramoff was ruining the country.

“I really think that what you were doing was subverting the essence of our system,” said Stahl.

“I’m mad at you, I’m not kidding, I’m not kidding,” as she closed her eyes and shook her head in disdain.

“I’m sick to my stomach…’cuz it’s hurting our country.”

Okay, Leslie, we got it. You’re mad.

I guess I’m mad at you because I wish you would show even a portion of the same anger towards those in power “subverting the essence of our system” as we speak.

First, you go after people who are no longer in power. That’s easy, that’s a layup. How hard is it to be mad at corrupt people no longer in power? I’ll join you. I’m mad a Jack Abramoff too (but since he’s a corrupt Republican selling a book, he gets airtime.) There; we’re all mad at Jack Abramoff. Grrr. I’m going to growl to show how mad I am. While we’re at it, can we get mad at Nixon again?

Second, my theory in reporting is that it is 10 times better to go after the people in power who choose to be “bought” by the lobbyists, than it is to go after the lobbyists. The corruption lies in those who succumb to the temptation, not so much the tempters. The temptation to be a corrupt politician will always be there, no matter how you try to legislate against it (as you suggested at the end of your piece,) let’s focus on politicians who are being bought.

(more…)