Here are the two tweets Mr. Martin was suspended for after GLAAD pretended to take offense:

“If a dude at your Super Bowl party is hyped about David Beckham’s H&M underwear ad, smack the ish out of him! #superbowl.”

“Who the hell was that New England Patriot they just showed in a head to toe pink suit? Oh, he needs a visit from #teamwhipdatass.”

The word “gay” appears nowhere, and it is painfully obvious that Martin is mocking the game of soccer as something less than masculine. But by no rational, reasonable, or fair standard is what Martin tweeted in any way offensive or out of line. Martin’s only sin is that his tweets weren’t politically correct.

In fact, the only bigotry at work here is coming from Politico’s Dylan Byers, the Washington Post’s Erik Wemple, and GLAAD – those who automatically equate a lack of masculinity to homosexuality, when nothing could be further from the truth. I know plenty of gay men who are plenty masculine and I know more than a few straight metrosexuals who aren’t. Equating a lack of masculinity to homosexuality is like equating “food stamps” to black people. The bigotry and homophobia is coming from those making the connection, not the other way around. 

But those fascistic scalp-hunters over at GLAAD and their blacklisting soul-mates over at Politico and the Washington Post wanted a scalp, and so CNN gave them one. 

But what are the rules? That’s the problem. There are none. The rules are Orwellian and will be made up as we go along.

Eurasia?

Eastasia?

We’ll let you know in Room 101.

Below are two examples of events that, unlike Mr. Martin’s tweets, occurred on the air — one at CNN and the other at MSNBC. No one involved was reprimanded or suspended. Granted, I’m most certainly on record making an issue out of both of these shameful examples of bias and the raging double standard currently at work in our corrupt media, but the thought of demanding anyone be fired or even suspended was the furthest thing from my mind. That, frankly, would be un-American:

—–

—–

CNN poster boy Anderson Cooper wasn’t suspended for trashing millions of every day Americans with an obscene sexual slur on the air.

MSNBC’s Chuck Todd and Politico’s Jonathan –He Who Investigates Private Citizens To Protect His Precious One – Martin weren’t suspended for spouting what many regard as a racial slur, on the air.

Which is as it should be. This is a free country, and personally I’m all in favor of allowing people to be open about their prejudices and biases. The honesty is revealing and helpful. Obviously, you have to draw a line somewhere, but if that line was up to me, “tea bagging” and “cracker” would be a helluva lot closer to it than Roland Martin’s silly tweets.

But I go back to my original point about the deafening silence we’re hearing from those who work within the mainstream media, those who should be the primary defenders of free speech and free expression. Those who should be outraged by this non-stop attempt to institutionalize speech crimes within the very institution where speech should be the most protected.

Instead, they’re either behaving as sheep or — and this is a frightening thought — someday hoping to be the ones who will choose between Eurasia and Eastasia.

SIDE NOTE: It’s worth mentioning that Roland Martin has been a shameless race-baiter at times, one of those who automatically equates criticism of President Obama with racist motives. The Daily Caller’s “Jim Treacher” addresses this New Irony perfectly:

I think it’s ridiculous to suspend Martin for this, but maybe some good will come of it. Maybe now he’ll think twice before he complains about “dog whistles.” Maybe now he sees firsthand how unfair it is when other people decide what your motives are for you.

What happened to Roland Martin was wrong and un-American, but that doesn’t mean I’m losing sleep sympathizing with him.

Oh, and enjoy the “re-education” Roland.  

Say hello to Brett Ratner and Tracy Morgan for us!

Progressives have been falling over themselves to get Loesch and Erickson fired from CNN since CNN decided it wasn’t going to actually attempt to make money and offer a variety of opinion. Progressives hate variety, they loathe diversity of thought. The George Soros mouthpiece, Media Matters for America actually pays people to listen to Erickson and Loesch’s radio shows, record them, and try to trump up outrage over nothing. For instance, last week Loesch said that women can use birth control methods such as pills, condoms, and natural family planning as their “choice,” as opposed to the “choice” of murdering a baby. Eric Boehlert, a man who, to our knowledge, is not a licensed OB/GYN and has not, to our knowledge, ever been a woman at any time, mocked the idea that a woman is smart enough on her own to actually prevent pregnancy naturally. Because they don’t teach about menstrual cycles in high school, or the most fertile times of the month for a woman, information Boehlert apparently missed out on in school. They tried to get CNN’s attention with it on Twitter after posting it to their site.

Erickson joked about violent, raping, drug peddling occupiers getting tased — the violent movement MMfA endorsed — and MMfA/Boehlert put the clip on their site and also tried to get CNN’s attention with it. MMfA endorsed Occupy, defended it, and said nothing with this hit a cop in the face with a brick, when women were being raped, drugs being sold, absolutely nothing when the White House was shot up and smoke bombs were thrown by occupy campers. That wasn’t bad enough to earn their condemnation but cracking a joke when one of them is so out of control they have to be tasered for the safety of the police — and the person who cracked the joke is the bad guy. Those are their priorities.

They failed. They did the same thing last month as well, completely proving the point Loesch was making about hysterical reactions to the Marines appearing to urinate on the bodies of dead terrorists who had just tried to kill them in battle.

CNN didn’t fire Loesch, they didn’t fire Erickson, either which enraged Boehlert and MMfA. It showed their impotence, their weakness, that no one truly gives a damn what they do all day over on their little corner of the Internet.

Roland Martin spent Super Bowl Sunday writing #rolandsrules, jokes about watching the Super Bowl. I cannot stand the man’s politics and I damn near hated him during the midterm elections because he was one of the racial demagogues who called tea partiers every name in the book. His Tweets were funny. He joked about appetizers, about soccer — because soccer is stupid — and David Beckham’s underwear. His Tweets angered GLAAD, who believe that they have the patent on soccer and David Beckham’s underwear, thus if you insult and/or mock them, they will take it as gay bashing. Advocacy to GLAAD is trolling Twitter trying to see how many different ways innocuous Tweets can offend them.

GLAAD does more to make a mockery of themselves than Martin or anyone else could ever do.

CNN suspended Martin over the Tweets as they are close with GLAAD.

Writes SooperMexican:

The filthy liberals at Think Progress are so hellbent on getting conservative Tea Party activist Dana Loesch fired from CNN, they’ll go as far as toequate homosexuals to the Taliban.

Bets that GLAAD won’t chirp a word about that? No, they won’t, just like they didn’t say anything about the “teabagging” example above.

Progressives have comically eaten one of their own, and now are fighting with each other over whom to blame. Through it all they’ve also managed to turn it into a race issue: that somehow Erickson and Loesch weren’t fired because they’re white and Martin was suspended because he’s black.

No, Martin was suspended because CNN doesn’t want to hurt relations with GLAAD and GLAAD find offense where non exists. That’s right: GLAAD is more powerful than the Soros media. They can fabricate an offense out of thin air and hurt someone professionally over it. It’s not just fascism, it’s defamation. But that’s how progressives roll. They won’t point the fingers at GLAAD, no, they’ll double down on the stupidity.

Martin likened conservative tea partiers to racists before. Funny how those are the only people sticking up for his free speech now. You remember that, Roland Martin. Remember who really gives a damn about free speech, because it sure as hell isn’t your ideological brethren. Progressives did this to you.

Funny how white progressives attacked a black liberal and attributed an offense to him that he did not make. Funny how Think Progress decided to use something GLAAD accused Martin of doing to attack Loesch and Erickson. Think Progress won’t dare criticize the progressives actually responsible for Martin’s suspension.

But really, it’s not funny, none of it. It’s sad. It’s sad that some people are so desperate to win an argument that they compromise the very things for which they claim to stand, things like speech and real diversity.

Fascistic GLAAD wins another scalp.

Over the years, CNN’s Roland Martin has said some awfully outrageous stuff about Republicans and the Tea Party — and not on his Twitter feed, but on the air at CNN. He’s pretty much accused us of being everything  just short of Nazis due only to legitimate policy differences we’ve had with his precious Barack Obama. As a response, the left-wing speech police — who disguise themselves as “media watchdogs” — have never (according to memory and Google) put any pressure on CNN to have Martin fired, suspended, or reprimanded.  

And they shouldn’t. Martin has every right to be a racial demagogue, and CNN has every right to broadcast him. I don’t like the guy, but the thought of trying to silence him is anathema to everything I believe in. Unfortunately for Martin, the Washington Post and Politico aren’t big fans of the First Amendment and, as a result, just a few minutes ago it was reported that CNN has suspended Mr. Martin “for the time being.”

Martin’s sin? Tweeting a few childish jokes only a fascistic outlet like GLAAD could get away with pretending they are offended by. 

Martin’s mistake? Martin inadvertently stepped into a trap he probably didn’t know existed, and as a result he is now receiving an invaluable lesson about today’s politically-correct hierarchy, where gay trumps black. 

Naturally, media watchdogs who, in the past, have taken no issue with Martin’s race-baiting, are now into day three of their passive-aggressive censorship crusade that pushed CNN into taking the kind of action that puts another win in the column of GLAAD’s ongoing censorship crusade.  

Both the Washington Post, and by extension, our old friend at Politico, Dylan Byers (who is Media Matters’ bestest friend ever), just kept forcing the issue, even though Roland Martin apologized.

But.

That.

Wasn’t.

Good.

Enough.

Because, and try not to laugh…

CNN’s refusal to go on the record is starting to make a statement of its own. And it’s an ugly one: We don’t care about anti-gay violence.

Talk about bullying.

You see, when Martin is race-baiting the Right (on the air!), he’s a sacred cow. But when Martin’s having a few childish laughs that some sacred-er cow, like GLAAD, finds offensive, left-wing outlets like the Washington Post and Politico man their blacklist battle stations. 

In a right-side-up world, media watchdogs would be the primary defenders of free speech. But as we’re learning, especially with Byers, just the opposite is true. In reality and practice, they are speech-enforcers for the very worst and least tolerant on the left, and through this kind of pressure, intimidation and bullying, the goal is to regulate what people say, both on the air and off.

It just doesn’t it get any more un-American than this.

That’s what we’ve been sold for the past six months. Tonight inevitability was rejected in three states.

Numerous talking heads discounted the “beauty contests,” especially Missouri’s, which holds a separate caucus for its 52 delegates in March due to state-level silliness. Coincidentally, these are the same folks, Karl Rove and Company, who seem to save their most favorable comments for Romney. Iowa was important until it was realized Santorum won. South Carolina didn’t matter because hey, they were all bigots and hillbillies. Only the states that went Romney seemed to count.

Colorado was a telling state as Romney took it by a landslide 60% in 2008. It ended up a nail biter, but the man crowned as Colorado inevitable lost. The supposed most “electable” guy in the race has lost five of the eight early elections thus far.

So much for narratives.

Ari Fleischer, former press secretary for George W. Bush and prominent right-wing pundit, was secretly involved in the Komen Foundation’s strategy regarding Planned Parenthood. Fleischer personally interviewed candidates for the position of “Senior Vice President for Communications and External Relations” at Komen last December. According to a source with first-hand knowledge, Fleischer drilled prospective candidates during their interviews on how they would handle the controversy about Komen’s relationship with Planned Parenthood.

Fleischer’s relationship with Komen and the Planned Parenthood controversy was previously undisclosed.

A slick move, to blame the other team for your side’s transgressions in order to deflect. Sources close to the Komen Foundation tell me Fleischer wasn’t involved in any way with Komen’s Planned Parenthood strategy. The person Komen did bring in to lead the effort is none other than Brendan Daly, Nancy Pelosi’s former press secretary, who is heading a team from Ogilvy PR. While Fleischer was assisting Komen CEO Nancy Brinker in finding a qualified PR person, Fleischer wasn’t directing decisions in the resulting Komen/Planned Parenthood debacle; it was Daly.

So Think Progress is accusing Ari Fleischer for Brendan Daly’s decisions. Don’t they have an editor fact-checking such things over there?

In fact, Fleischer’s job of finding Komen a reputable PR person is arguably now more difficult due to the current PR efforts headed up by Daly.

Think Progress needs to correct their story and offer an apology to Fleischer.

*UPDATE: After publishing the initial article and blaming Fleischer for Daly’s decisions (they spelled it “Dailey” on Twitter), Think Progress spoke with Komen CEO Nancy Brinker who discussed the scope of Fleischer’s advice to the organization. After the proverbial trash hit the fan Brinker had asked Fleischer of his opinion on the matter. Think Progress, eager to avoid a retraction, pounced on this to justify their earlier smear, done before speaking to anyone at the foundation. They probably feel as though they just escaped the guillotine. Unfortunately for them, my point still stands, and yes, they still blamed Fleischer for decisions made by a former Pelosi aide. Komen asking Fleischer’s opinion after the fact has no effect on the validity of my accusation made against Think Progress. It does however, place greater significance on how hard they’re working to deflect any and all blame towards a former Pelosi aide.

You have to wonder what’s going on with Glenn Beck.

Beck’s fall from grace started when his site, The Blaze, falsely attacked James O’Keefe — to the delight of the very people who used to attack Beck. Then Beck, of all things, betrayed the Tea Party in the worst way any conservative could. I thought he’d hit bottom with that. After all, how much lower can you go than selling out to the mainstream media?

Well, yesterday, what I thought had been a rhetorical question was answered when The Blaze went full Andrew Sullivan, full Politico, full Wonkette, and and attacked Sarah Palin over a situation involving her family. 

The Governor’s sin? Composing what amounts to a touching article about her family’s life with Trig – Todd and Sarah Palin’s youngest son with Down Syndrome.

To understand how misleading the Blaze attack is, you first have to read what Beck’s writer, a piece of work named Eddie Scarry (more on him below), wrote:

What’s the first thing that came to mind when you heard that Rick Santorum‘s special needs child was in the hospital with pneumonia late last month? I bet all of Mitt Romney‘s money it wasn’t Sarah Palin unless you are Sarah Palin. …

Of the roughly 900-word article, 123 of them relate to Santorum and his daughter Bella who was born with Trisomy 18, a disability similar to Down syndrome.

It’s all downhill from there. For more perspective, the names “Rick” and “Santorum” appear three times total and are all found in the first paragraph. The word “my,” in reference to Palin herself, appears 15 times throughout the rest.

What the Blaze is intentionally doing here, is misleading its readers into believing Governor Palin was supposed to write a piece about the Santorum family and their daughter Bella. Moreover, The Blaze obviously wants their readers to believe that Palin selfishly exploited what happened to the Santorums so that she could write something all about herself.

That’s the only explanation for why the Blaze counts the number of times “Rick” and “Santorum” are used, or why there’s a count of how many words are dedicated to the Santorums. Why would those word counts matter otherwise?

The lie the Blaze tells here, is one of omission. But it’s a lie nonetheless, because the truth happens to be the COMPLETE opposite. Which leads me to a bigger question…

What are we to make of the fall of Glenn Beck when we’re forced to use the Huffington Post to correct his site’s misinformation … about Sarah Palin?

Yes, what just flew past your window was a pig, because today ”the truth has no agenda” at the Huffington Post:

[A] Daily Beast spokesperson says the Palin piece was assigned last week following the news that Rick Santorum’s daughter, Bella, had been hospitalized and he was briefly leaving the campaign trail.

“We asked Sarah Palin if she would like to share her personal story about life with a child with special needs upon learning about Senator Santorum’s decision last week to place his campaign on hold to be with his daughter,” the spokesperson emailed.

In other words, in the wake of what happened to Bella Santorum, Newsweek reached out to Sarah Palin — and I’m going to repeat this carefully for the Beck-impaired — to… share… her… personal… story… about… life… with… a… child… with… special… needs…

So what is Sarah Palin guilty of here? Writing the piece she was asked to write.

But what is The Blaze guilty of here? Again, telling a lie of omission and, just like Wonkette and Andrew Sullivan, using Palin’s family as a weapon against her. After nearly four years, this tactic is well-honed and easy to spot. Anytime the Governor writes about or speaks of or is seen with her family, some bottom-feeder weaponizes the event, weaponizes her own family, to beat her senseless with. And that’s exactly what The Blaze did.

And what kind lowlifes does Beck hire, anyway? When Stacy Drake, a Conservatives For Palin writer, challenged Scarry about his story via Twitter, he responded by calling her a “whore”:

—–

Scarry also writes for FishbowlDC , where degrading conservative women is a resume enhancer, so no surprise there. But it looks as though when Glenn Beck talked about, how did he put it again? — oh, yes,”Restoring Honor” — he must’ve meant other people’s honor.

In an attempt to discredit my Sunday morning remarks on Planned Parenthood and mammograms, a Crooks and Liars blogger promoted a debunked narrative on the Live Action investigation of Planned Parenthood and mammograms. This is what happens when you confuse knowledge with partisan agenda.

To what does Crooks and Liars link? The debunked Media Matters story. Behold:

Yeah, about that lack of mammography machines … turns out, the whole thing was a sham.

Actually, it wasn’t:

Every defense they have put up about their story has been thoroughly discredited:

Media Matters Still Has Trouble With the Word “Provider,” Owes Correction

Media Matters Proves Why Planned Parenthood Doesn’t Need Taxpayer Funding

Media Matters Refuses To Retract Factual Error

CORRECTION REQUEST STANDS: Media Matters Fudged Truth On Planned Parenthood Mammograms

We ask again for Media Matters to live up to the purpose described for the organization and correct their bad information. Stubbornly clinging to information proven unarguably false isn’t journalism, it’s devotion to propaganda over truth. Media Matters must choose: ideology or journalism.

It’s humorous how one Soros associated blog attempts to bail out another Soros blog using the first Soros blog’s bad and discredited information that they refuse to correct.

Komen didn’t retract funds because Planned Parenthood doesn’t offer mammograms. It never has. I’ve had a wellness check-up from Planned Parenthood (I was between jobs and didn’t have insurance for about a year) and it included a manual breast examination as well as instructions on the proper methods of self-examination (an important tool in early detection, which leads to higher survival rates). Had they detected anything or if I had belonged to any of the high risk groups, they would have referred me for a mammogram. That service could save potentially thousands of women’s lives.

And waste-of-intelligence hack pundits like Dana Loesch want to keep that from them.

I would advise that the next time “Nicole Belle” attempts to deconstruct my remarks, she does so while practicing listening comprehension. Planned Parenthood doesn’t do mammograms, as I clearly and explicitly stated, they provide the “most basic of screenings,” which scores of clinics (not to mention Medicaid) provide to low-income women. If  Crooks and Liars’ blogger needed a mammogram, she would have been referred to another clinic entirely by her Planned Parenthood clinic. Why? Because Planned Parenthood does not offer mammograms.

Mary Ruth Duncan Women’s Health Center
1121 Ross Avenue
PO Box 1518
Waco, TX 76703
p: 254.759.5750

PP: This is Cindy, how may I help you?
Caller: Hi, I was wondering if I could come in for a mammogram appointment?
PP: No, we don’t do mammograms here at Planned Parenthood.

Audre Rapaport Women’s Health Center
1927 Columbus Ave
P.O. Box 1459
Waco, TX 76701
p: 254.759.5772

Caller: Hi Alice, I was hoping to schedule a mammogram appointment at Planned Parenthood. Do you provide mammograms?
PP: Have you–okay, you want to schedule a mammogram appointment? We don’t do mammograms here at Planned Parenthood.

Jean Hoffman Health Center
529 W. Wetmore Rd.
Tucson, AZ 85705
p: 520.884.5562

PP: Thank you for calling Planned Parenthood Arizona, my name is Melissa, how may I assist you?
Caller: Hi, I was wondering if I could schedule a mammogram appointment? Do you provide mammograms?
PP: No, we don’t, I’m sorry.

Breitbart’s Retracto the Correction Alpaca requested a retraction of Media Matters’ inaccurate reporting that Planned Parenthood clinics in Waco, TX and Tucson, AZ do in fact provide mammograms.

Live Action called clinics in 27 different states, the above is just a sampling. “Nicole Belle” can’t be bothered to Google-check her source for accuracy before publishing a post, so why would we expect her to actually call these clinics herself? The facts are irrefutable.

What “hack pundits” like myself want to keep is liberals from politicizing breast cancer and cyber-bullying a private charity who wishes to spends its money on clinics that actually provide mammograms and save women’s lives — not end them in abortion-for-profit. The first step is by making them tell the truth.

I deserve a correction and an apology from Crooks and Liars for such ridiculousness but since the site is utterly uninterested in truth over agenda, I’ll likely not receive one.

We all know how well I get along with Mr. Savage. His articles are notorious for being incredibly pro-Holder. This one is no different. Actually, it’s very anti-Darrell Issa. There isn’t anything negative about Mr. Holder or the Democrats on the committee. The more I read it I realize it’s not really about the hearing: It’s almost as if Mr. Savage and the Times used it as an excuse to write an article to prop up Mr. Holder. Mr. Savage completely glosses over anything the Republicans brought up.

First off, Mr. Savage, Operation Fast and Furious was not botched. Katie Pavlich at Townhall wrote about it here. It worked exactly the way it was suppose to. It was not botched. It did not fail. If anything, Operation Fast and Furious worked out the exact way it should.

Mr. Savage is right: The Republicans did rip into Mr. Holder, but for good reason. He forgets to mention the reason why the Republicans are so mad. They gave Mr. Holder and the DOJ a subpoena on October 12, 2011 and the department has given them the bare minimum. The department is stonewalling them. They’re mad because the documents were dumped on a Friday night. Again. Mr. Savage only brings up a quote from Representative Burton about Mr. Holder stonewalling them. He could have talked about Mr. Issa’s opening statement about the DOJ not cooperating.

Instead, Mr. Savage jumps to the ranking Democrat, Representative Elijah Cummings. Of course Savage brings up Mr. Cummings criticizing Issa and the other Republicans. Actually, all of the Democrats mentioned in some way this is a witch hunt. Cummings insists Issa just wants to make this political instead of getting to the truth. Cummings said Issa promotes unsubstantial allegations and wants to escalate controversy. Yes, Issa clearly doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

But as we know from my post on the document dump last Friday Issa does know what he’s talking and Savage doesn’t bring this up. I don’t think Savage read the documents because The New York Times ran the AP article. Well, Mr. Savage, THIS is what the Republicans were talking about.

The Republicans are upset because an email from the document dump is extremely suspicious Savage. They want to know why Holder didn’t know about Fast & Furious until last February when Burke told Wilkinson about it right after Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry’s death. But he doesn’t mention the emails from the document dump about Breuer’s trip to Mexico City. I’m going to take a wild guess Savage didn’t read the documents. I’m glad Mr. Savage did bring up the memorandum Issa released before the hearing, which discussed Breuer and Weinstein’s involvement with wiretaps.

But no, Savage returns to his favorite people, the Democrats, and goes on at length about their attacks on Issa. If anything, Savage helped out the Republicans by giving the readers proof the Democrats will do anything to help Holder cover up and Department of Justice involvement in Operation Fast and Furious. It must be nice to live life behind rose colored glasses.

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.

The article at FOX News was more straight to the point. It didn’t bother with the stuff that wasn’t about Operation Fast & Furious. Also, right after the testimony the website had it as their main story.

Reuters had a decent article right after the hearing. They even mentioned the $25 million dollar lawsuit the Terry family filed against the government. They kept it straight to the point, non of the mumbo jumbo from the Democrats. Reuters knows the hearing was suppose to be about Operation Fast and Furious.

Ah, The Washington Post. Once again, since this would require Sari Horwitz to talk about Republicans and quite possibly Mr. Holder in a not so good light, the Post decided to use the AP article. But I will give them props. Right after the testimony they posted the article and put the link under their Top Headlines column on the front page. As of this writing it’s still under the column, but still only the AP article. Under the “Politics” section they don’t have a link to this story, but do still have the link to Ms. Horwitz’s story.

This one was the biggest surprise. I went to the MSNBC website and I saw this:

I literally spit out my Diet Coke. I could not believe MSNBC not only had it on their front page, but it was the main story! Now, they didn’t write their own story, but it’s a baby step. MSNBC actually had the testimony as their main story. I’m proud of you MSNBC.

Not long after I received a tweet from Jay Caruso with this picture:

This made me cry. Thank you so much CNN for making a story on Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry your main story. This wasn’t about testimony. This wasn’t about about papers. This story by Moni Basu was all about the wonderful Brian Terry, who lost his life by people using weapons from Operation Fast and Furious. This is what needs to be known. If the MSM would just put a face to this tragedy maybe more people would pay attention and want to know about this. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry must not be forgotten. It’s their most popular story. People want, need to know about this!

CNN also wrote an original article. It included the Terry family lawsuit and concentrated on Operation Fast and Furious. Could this be a turning point? It was a pretty fair and balanced article offering Mr. Issa’s argument and Mr. Holder’s argument. They included Mr. Issa blasting Mr. Holder for once again dumping a bunch of documents on Congress on a late Friday night.

USA Today had an original article as well. It started off as if it would be all about Mr. Holder, but the author, Kevin Johnson, included a lot of dialogue from the Republicans. Mr. Johnson did a good job keeping it in the confines of Operation Fast and Furious. However, USA Today decided it wasn’t nearly as important as Drew Barrymore’s new movie. Nope, the movie received the big picture and story.

The Washington Times has done a decent job with Fast and Furious and they didn’t disappoint with the testimony. First off, it was the main story on their front page and they wrote an original article. I enjoy how Jerry Saper wrote out a lot of Mr. Issa’s strong arguments. Mr. Seper did include the report the Congressional Democrats released on Wednesday morning.

Good for The Huffington Post. Their story on the testimony is on the front page. Granted it’s a way down, but it is on the front page. However, the article is a complete joke. No quotes from Mr. Issa or discussion on the documents. Instead John Rudolf gives us Mr. Holder’s answers and then decides to concentrate solely on the Democrats.

My colleague John Nolte wrote an article on Politico’s lackluster coverage. You can check out his article here.

All in all I have to say I was impressed. Maybe it’s finally going to get the coverage it deserves. I won’t hold my breath, but baby steps. I’ll continue keeping an eye on the media’s coverage of this scandal. Stay tuned!

Rest In Peace Agent Brian Terry

It was an onslaught of savvy PR tactics yesterday that brought the Susan G. Komen Foundation to its knees, apparently prompting the organization’s retreat today from its initial decision to cut its funding to Planned Parenthood.  As Politico reported this morning:

On a day when the breast cancer charity’s top official made the rounds with the national media, insisting the organization’s decision to stop giving grants to Planned Parenthood wasn’t political, the firestorm only got worse. Top Democrats piled on; the head of the Komen chapter in Los Angeles quit; and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is giving a $250,000 matching gift to Planned Parenthood.

The Atlantic Wire reports that the Susan G. Komen foundation’s website was even hacked, for some period displaying a banner that had been changed from “help us get 26.2 or 13.1 miles closer to a world without breast cancer“  to read, “help us run over poor women on our way to the bank.”  And the long repeated myth that the current Komen CEO takes home a half a million dollar salary was brought back to life yesterday – even though the truth is that Komen’s current CEO, Nancy Brinker, takes home $0 in annual salary.

But hey, breast cancer isn’t supposed to be political, right?

Officials with the Susan G. Komen foundation had insisted the initial decision was never political, that it was about providing more direct mammography screening services for women, according to Nancy Brinker, the charity’s founder and CEO.  From Politico:

“We’ve always had the right to cancel contracts if a group was under investigation,” Brinker said on a conference call with reporters. “We simply extended that right to organizations who apply for funding. Three of the 19 Planned Parenthood affiliates will continue to receive funding, and there will be no gap in services for any woman who needs care.”

Brinker said there was broad consensus from Komen’s board over the new policies. Additionally, she said the charity was trying to refocus grants on providers that are able to perform mammography services rather than just breast screenings. Planned Parenthood does not have mammography equipment and refers women to providers for the service.

Susan G. Komen Foundation paid $46,861,000 overall in 2010 on breast cancer screenings, according to the foundation’s most recently available annual report from 2010.  The Associated Press reports that Planned Parenthood received $580,000 in grants from the foundation for screenings that year, and that Planned Parenthood says it has performed 170,000 breast exams over the past five years as a result of Komen grants.  That would average out to 34,000 screenings annually, a small percentage of Susan G. Komen’s total screenings.  Given that Planned Parenthood merely serves a pass-through and refers women to other providers for mammogram screenings, the foundation could certainly maximize its spending by cutting out the middle man and funding such providers directly, especially those that provide all the screening tests in one location.

But after taking to social media yesterday to whip Planned Parenthood supporters into a frenzy, liberal outlets today are claiming a victory for women’s wellness, calling Susan G. Komen foundation “bullies” who would have hurt low-income women who turn to Planned Parenthood for health care.  Over the course of the day, the fury drummed up $3 million for Planned Parenthood for breast care services – a number that far outweighs what Susan G. Komen was providing annually.

To those who are skeptical that Planned Parenthood is the bastion of women’s wellness with all the best interests of women in mind that its fervent supporters claim it is, Slate points out that there are in fact some legitimate concerns regarding Planned Parenthood.

“…in reading  the report put together by Americans United for Life, which helped launch the investigation, there are some legitimate concerns. Planned Parenthood offices in California, New Jersey, New York, and Washington state have at various times been audited by state and federal authorizes and discovered to have been overbilling state agencies and committing other improper billing practices. Further, Planned Parenthood has a record of not reporting instances of sexual abuse—and I’m not talking about 16-year-old girls who come in with their 19-year-old boyfriends. The AUL report documents a case in which a 13-year-old girl was raped by an older foster brother and was impregnated—twice. Planned Parenthood is required, if it wants to receive federal funds, to comply with mandatory reporting laws.”

In viewing the 181 page report from Americans United for Life, there are a key number of claims against Planned Parenthood that initiated those investigations:

• Misuse of federal health care and family planning funds.
• Failure to report criminal child sexual abuse.
• Failure to comply with parental involvement laws.
• Assisting those engaged in prostitution and/or sex trafficking.
• Dangerous misuse of the abortion drug RU-486.
• Misinformation about so-called “emergency contraception,” including ella.
• Willingness to provide women with inaccurate and misleading information.
• Willingness to refer to substandard clinics.

Meanwhile, before Susan G. Komen foundation had reversed its funding decision today, it had received numerous donations from supporters who are pro-life and do not agree with Planned Parenthood’s business model, which they say is primarily focused on providing abortions.  So the remaining question is, will those people who donated to Susan G. Komen  now demand the return of their donations?  Most legal experts say that unless donations are made on a conditional basis up front, they’re not likely to see that money again, not unless Susan G. Komen voluntarily offers to return it.  But that doesn’t necessarily mean Komen’s new donors couldn’t (or shouldn’t) try.