Marketplace, the daily business program produced by American Public Media (APM) and broadcast by public radio stations throughout the country, has been doing its best lately to support the decrepit Occupy Wall Street movement. While odd, perhaps, for a program ostensibly focused on financial news, the obsession with promoting Occupy has become a feature of public radio in general, and Marketplace is no exception to that rule.

Yesterday, for example, Marketplace’s Kai Ryssdal hosted an organizer from Occupy and a leader of the Tahrir Square protests in Egypt to explore “common ground” and connections between the two groups. The intent was clearly to flatter Occupy by association with the success and idealism of the Tahrir Square revolution–although the fact that Islamist parties swept the vote in Egypt’s recent elections was not mentioned in the segment.

Curiously, the political advice offered by the Tahrir Square activist at times spoke more to the concerns of the Tea Party about big government, and inadvertently punctured some of the socialist pretensions of Occupy: “[You should] engage those 1 percent and you tell them: ‘Take bureaucracy and take away corruption. We could do way much better.’”

Nonetheless, in a related story by Ryssdal and Mitchell Hartman from Jan. 24, Marketplace sought to find the inspiration for the Occupy Wall Street protests in the Arab Spring: “Young people feeling squeezed, demanding better opportunities and a fair deal. The issues sound similar — from Maged in Cairo, to Max and Brian in Portland.”

At one point, Hartman even compared the protests against former Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak to the protests against Wisconsin’s new Republican governor, Scott Walker, last spring–an inflammatory comparison favored by public sector unions in their attempt to demonize Walker and his collective bargaining reforms. Hartman suggests that the symbolism of the Wisconsin protests may have inspired the Occupy demonstrations–without noting the financial and institutional role played by public sector unions in both.

While casting the Occupy movement in a heroic mold, Marketplace often attempts to downplay and debunk the Tea Party and its concerns.

On Jan. 23, for example, the show featured a story entitled, “Why Saul Alinsky Matters in the 2012 Election.” Instead of shedding light on who Alinsky was, what he believed, and why he is important to understanding President Barack Obama and the organized left, Ryssdal and interviewee Bob Bruno from the University of Illinois attempted to obscure the true nature of Alinsky and his ideas: (more…)

Ahead of the opening of Congress and the renewed debt ceiling controversy, National Public Radio is attempting to frame the debate against Republicans by pushing hard on the issue of tax increases.

On today’s Morning Edition, NPR used reports from the ongoing national conference of mayors in Washington, D.C. to target Republicans by suggesting they were denying federal spending to needy cities, and that they were hypocrites for raising taxes in the cities that they govern.

In one news bulletin, NPR reported that mayors–both Democrats and Republicans–were critical of “ideologues” in “Congress” (i.e. the Republican-controlled House of Representatives) over spending cuts.

Steve Inskeep then caught up with Mick Cornett, who is mayor of Oklahoma City and President of the Republican Mayors and Local Officials (RMLO).

Cornett pointed out that much of the spending shortfall had to do with financial problems at the state government level, not in Congress (which has slowed the growth of spending but has not yet cut overall federal spending.

But Inskeep pressed further, pushing Cornett to explain why he, as mayor of Oklahoma City, had managed to raise sales taxes and extend those tax hikes in order to pay for public infrastructure. Cornett gave the reasonable answer that the Democratic Party and the media refuse to hear: the city had kept spending and debt under control, and had spent the money efficiently and transparently for the public benefit–precisely what the federal government, and many state governments, have failed to do. (more…)

Today, the Associated Press and National Public Radio reported on a new study by the federal government that suggests that the rate of growth in health care spending has slowed. Health care spending was up 3.9 percent in 2011 from the year before–still somewhat higher than inflation (3.4%), but relatively low. Health care spending had increased 3.8 percent in 2010.

Both the AP and NPR proclaimed that the new study by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services “provided relief for a jittery White House facing a 2012 reelection campaign in which President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul is a top target for Republicans.” NPR went even further on its health news blog, stating that the new study contradicted Republican claims that ObamaCare would increase health care costs.

The study found that health care spending was largely independent of ObamaCare, because most of its provisions have not been implemented yet. But neither AP nor NPR bothered to comment on President Obama and Democrats’ claims that ObamaCare would “bend the cost curve down.” They simply singled out Republicans.
(more…)

Every once in a while, there is a story in the mainstream media that goes so far beyond ordinary liberal bias that it deserves special recognition. To highlight such extraordinarily egregious propaganda masquerading as news, we at Big Journalism are creating the Red Star Award–named for the symbol that the Soviet Union elevated to a global emblem of communism.

The inaugural recipient of the Red Star is Scott Horsley of NPR, for his story on today’s Morning Edition: “Obama: Recess Appointment Was An ‘Obligation’”

The story concerns President Barack Obama’s appointment of Richard Cordray to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Republicans oppose the appointment of Cordray–or anyone–to the Bureau until concerns about the lack of congressional oversight are resolved. Despite Democrats’ previous outrage over recess appointments, Obama chose to ignore Congress and appoint Cordray while the Senate was in recess.

Except–it wasn’t. The Senate used pro forma sessions to stay open–a tactic once used by Democrats to prevent some of President George W. Bush’s appointments. And why did Bush, that alleged tyrant of the “unitary executive,” fail to do what President Obama has just done? The answer–as even many liberals agree–is that it is unconstitutional, and in this case even unlawful, exceeding any power grab President Bush ever attempted.

Scott Horsley’s story does not address any of the constitutional or legal problems with President Obama’s unprecedented abuse of power. Instead, it breathlessly recounts the appointment as a tale in political courage–“the President, and his lawyers, had had enough”–and repeats Obama’s campaign messages about fighting for the “middle class” against a “do-nothing Congress,” evil financial firms, and “armies of lobbyists.” (more…)

She had the courage to be who she was.

Source: New York Daily News

From the New York Daily News:

On the radio, Samuels was exactly what much of the country thinks New York sounds like. She had a city accent she never tried to hide or soften, even when her bosses suggested it would prevent her from ever getting a radio job outside the city.

“This is who I am,” she said.

“She was unique beyond words,” said John Mainelli, her WABC program director and longtime friend. “I’m so glad I knew her.”

Samuels was a self-described progressive who often threw curveballs. She was a long-standing critic of President Obama, saying she didn’t believe he ever really had progressive credentials.

Her periodic unpredictability didn’t serve her well in today’s party-line talk radio, but helped give her a long run in the earlier, looser talk era.

Her criticism of conservatives often extended to her fellow radio hosts, but she would add that she liked a number of them personally. She became close friends with conservative host and writer Matt Drudge, serving for a time as his call screener.

(more…)

Even in a far-left city such as San Francisco no one listens to progressive talk radio. Green 960 will be replaced by a conservative talker KNEW, and KNEW’s old spot on the dial 910 AM will be relaunched as KKSF AM, another conservative talker. Both stations are owned by Clear Channel, which was obviously tired of bleeding money on the previous failed enterprise.

Predictably, progressives immediately developed the vapors. Comments via JWF:

“Obama should have fixed this mess by nationalizing radio. Then the good stations like KGO could re-hire all the people they let go. Green 960 could stay on the air.”

“Dec 1st and near 70f here in the eastbay…and conservative radio will never even accept global warming..so Neanderthal talk will thrive.”

“Conservatives have time to listen to these cranks because they are sitting around in dead-end jobs, if they work at all, blaming their failures on liberals instead of their own stupidity. Liberals are too busy. ”

“Why don’t we liberals listen to talk radio? Because we don’t need the constant reinforcement that perpetually insecure, professionally paranoid conservatives do to valid our political ideas. Conservatives desperately need their “bubble.” But I recall seeing an article forecasting the end of conservative talk blather in the next 5-10 years, as its 55-dead demographic is both dying off and unattractive to sponsors. “

The first reaction is to blame the FCC over a private entity’s legal decision; secondly, to call for Obama to “nationalize” radio a la Mother Russia; and third, to claim that progressives are “too busy.” Really? Then why all the free time to “occupy” Wall Street?

Gren 960 makes its money from its advertisers, who are sold on ratings. For the picture book crowd: the number of listeners makes up your ratings. Clear Channel exists to make money, not to do progressives’ bidding. If operating Green 960 made money for Clear Channel, the company would keep it on the dial. All progressives had to do was listen and support the advertisers.

(more…)

The mainstream media, embarrassed by the violence of yesterday’s Occupy Oakland protests, is desperately trying to save the image of the movement it has propped up as an ostensibly legitimate voice of populist support for economic redistribution and a liberal alternative to the Tea Party.

Almost uniformly, media reports today about the violence at the “general strike”–including vandalism, clashes with police, and burning barricades–have attempted to describe the Occupy Oakland demonstration as “largely peaceful.”

When the media have described violent acts, they have suggested, unreasonably, that these have been separate from the Occupy Oakland protests. The media seem uninterested in holding Occupy Oakland organizers responsible for the violence, or even in asking them for statements of condemnation.

National Public Radio’s report on the Occupy Oakland violence is typical of today’s mainstream media spin but hardly unique (as Stanley Kurtz points out, citing CBS coverage).

There’s quiet now in the streets of Oakland, the local Tribune reports.

But what began as a “mostly peaceful” general strike that “drew thousands Wednesday for rallies and marches … turned chaotic early Thursday after protesters took over a vacant building and police moved in, firing tear gas and flashbang grenades.”

Note that the violence is described–misleadingly–as having started after the “general strike” protest. And note that the Occupy Oakland activists themselves are never blamed directly.

Instead, we are told–much later in the story–that “Oakland protesters inspired by the Occupy Wall Street movement” were responsible. Inspired by, but not belonging to, Occupy.

(more…)

Earlier this morning, James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas released a new video that sheds light on the way the New York Times promotes its favored candidates and causes, from Barack Obama to Occupy Wall Street.

The video is an undercover recording of a recent seminar at New York University’s Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute, taught jointly by professors Jay Rosen and Clay Shirky. Both have done work for the Times in the past–Rosen as a writer, and Shirky apparently as a consultant.

Rosen and Shirky openly admit that the Times is a “liberal” newspaper. In fact, they also argue that it should be more open about its bias, in order to regain the trust of its readers.

And Rosen and Shirky discuss the “dilemma” the Times faces as it shapes current events through its coverage without admitting to its readers, or even to itself, that it is doing so.

Shirky describes, for example, the way that the Times tried to legitimize Obama’s early candidacy for president–without appearing to do so, lest it be accused of bias: (more…)

Forced to choose between left-wing bias and federal stimulus, National Public Radio is choosing left-wing bias.

And that’s something to welcome.

As reported yesterday morning by NPR’s David Folkenflik, after the scandals and resignations of the past year, the organization has quietly begun plans to wean itself from federal funding:

Behind the scenes, NPR executives quietly mapped out what the public radio system might look like without those federal dollars.

The questions were not easily resolved. What cuts would that entail? Which stations would falter? Would the creation of a major new endowment for NPR allow the network to reduce the fees paid by stations to carry its programs? Or would such an endowment better belong to the entire system?

NPR’s board, which is dominated by member station officials, is far from unified on this subject. But the discussion itself was notable.

Former CEO Vivian Schiller–now working for NBC, and regarding NPR as a competitor–tweeted her opposition to federal funding over the weekend:

(more…)

From Accuracy in Media’s Benjamin Johnson:

Is there a better way to bring in the weekend than by chatting with top newsmakers over drinks? Sure, the bar talk and news commentary device has been used before, but that was just a sound stage. Today Accuracy in Media introduces our new video series, Bar Stool Confessions, which offers a closer look at those who break and shape the news.

(more…)

Nestled in the hills of Laguna Beach, CA overlooking the Orange County coastline, a slight hint of salt in the breeze as Gen Y TV spoke with documentary filmmaker and political commentator, Stephen K. Bannon. With his latest film, “The Undefeated,” about to debut in 80 million homes through major cable and satellite companies, Bannon’s eagerness to talk to youthful viewers pushed his personal victory aside. For the next hour, I spoke with this truly humble gentleman about the existing opportunities and challenges that face my generation.

A graduate of Harvard Business School, a Surface Warfare Officer for the US Navy, and a former investment banker for Goldman Sachs, Bannon is a remarkable example of how filmmaking can come at any age and point in one’s life. Technology has enabled anyone with a digital camera to creatively express opinions as entertainment, and as a result, Bannon has written and directed four documentary films in less than two years. With our country’s finances spiraling out of control, Bannon has particularly shed light on issues that are currently affecting America’s wellbeing. He emphasized the importance of storytelling and the necessity for being passionate about the topic you are conveying. He further explained the amount of time and effort that must be committed to a project, and said, “be prepared to spend a year of your life” hashing out the story.

Moving into the specifics of his work, I asked why he chose to dedicate a film to Sarah Palin, to which he replied, because “her story has never been told.” He immediately followed with, “she is an incredibly accomplished executive who took on a corrupt and compromised political class virtually single-handed.”

The many misconceptions of Palin personified by the mainstream media opened Bannon’s film. He used this approach to gain an emotional reaction from the audience and demonstrate the influence pop culture has on the younger generation. But what started out as a conversation about independent filmmaking quickly turned to the state of the economy and the daunting problems that are soon to be inherited by those 18-35 years-old.

(more…)

Today, National Public Radio (NPR) did its best to promote a unilateral declaration of independence (UDI) by the Palestinian Authority, which has rejected negotiations with Israel in favor of a strategy of isolating Israel through the United Nations General Assembly and other international institutions.

Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep set the context for NPR’s coverage by whitewashing the long history of Palestinian war, terror, and rejection of statehood:

For Palestinians, the symbolism of this moment could hardly be better. Back in the 1940s, the United Nations approved the creation of Israel. A second state, a Palestinian state, never came into being…

Inskeep’s use of the passive voice is an attempt to avoid talking about the wars repeatedly waged by Palestinians and Israel’s Arab neighbors–first to prevent the creation of the Jewish state, then to destroy it. Palestinian leaders only belatedly, and reluctantly, embraced the “two-state solution”–but continue to deny Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.

Following Inskeep’s introduction, NPR aired a story by NPR’s Michele Kelemen about Palestinian diplomatic efforts at the UN, which repeated Palestinian complaints about “arm-twisting by Western diplomats and threats by U.S. congressmen to cut off aid to Palestinians,” but failed to mention reports that Muslim and Arab nations are using threats of “punitive measures” against countries that fail to vote for Palestinian statehood.

The story that followed, by Lourdes Garcia-Navarro, was even worse. Garcia-Navarro, reporting from Jerusalem and the West Bank, attempted to show “both sides” of the argument by interviewing Palestinians who support the statehood bid, and Israelis who… also support the statehood bid. (more…)

The actual story? Members of both parties are conflicted about whether to let the payroll tax cut expire in order to pay for Social Security benefits.

The way AP reported it?

News flash: Congressional Republicans want to raise your taxes.

Impossible, right? GOP lawmakers are so virulently anti-tax, surely they will fight to prevent a payroll tax increase on virtually every wage-earner starting Jan. 1, right?

Apparently not.

Many of the same Republicans who fought hammer-and-tong to keep the George W. Bush-era income tax cuts from expiring on schedule are now saying a different “temporary” tax cut should end as planned. By their own definition, that amounts to a tax increase.

The tax break extension they oppose is sought by President Barack Obama.

Many NPR affiliates repeated the same line in its news bulletins yesterday, telling listeners that many of the same Republicans who wouldn’t let the Bush tax cuts expire are now eager to start the payroll tax again. They’ll tax the poor, but not the rich.

The problem? Neither the AP nor NPR presented a single quote from a Republican who explicitly advocates the return of the payroll tax. All the quotes from Republicans in the original AP story discuss the policy implications of the payroll tax, but do not actually express a position on whether it should stay suspended.

(more…)

On MSNBC, John Kerry told us that Tea Party ideas are not “real” ideas, not “factual,” and thinks that the media should stop reporting on anything that smacks of ideas or news coming from Tea Partiers. If this isn’t proof of how Democrats and leftists would use the power of government to quash free political speech, what is?

Not long ago, several Democrats tried to once again raise the ugly head of the defunct Fairness Doctrine that was killed during the Reagan administration in order to limit the free political speech of conservatives. In those dark days when Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House of Representatives, several Republicans talked about forever outlawing the anti-free speech rule. Democrats at the time spoke up in favor of the Fairness Doctrine and countered that they wanted to bring it back.

Fortunately, the Fairness Doctrine has not come back. But this un-American policy idea has been talked about by leftists every few years since it was torpedoed by Reagan in 1987. They would love to bring it back. And despite what they claim, the left would use a new Fairness Doctrine to squelch the free political speech of those on the right.

Want proof? Then let’s look at what Democrat Senator John Kerry said on MSNBC this week.

SEN. JOHN KERRY: And I have to tell you, I say this to you politely. The media in America has a bigger responsibility than it’s exercising today. The media has got to begin to not give equal time or equal balance to an absolutely absurd notion just because somebody asserts it or simply because somebody says something which everybody knows is not factual.

It doesn’t deserve the same credit as a legitimate idea about what you do. And the problem is everything is put into this tit-for-tat equal battle and America is losing any sense of what’s real, of who’s accountable, of who is not accountable, of who’s real, who isn’t, who’s serious, who isn’t?

(more…)

Al Sharpton makes $700,000 per year to host his daily talk radio show for Radio One, a national, urban radio syndicate.  Al Sharpton makes $700,000 per year so that his daily radio show can broadcast in only 28 markets (only 15 of which are in the top 50 largest markets in America).  Al Sharpton makes $700,000 per year to host his daily talk show that has been on for six years and yet still has only cleared 28 markets in the country.  Al Sharpton makes $700,000 per year to host his daily talk show that does not rank in Talkers Magazine’s Top 100 “Heavy Hitters” which not only measures ratings, but also goes out of its way to reflect the industry’s diversity and influence.

In short, Al Sharpton makes $700,000 per year to host his daily talk radio show even though it is neither popular, widely distributed, influential or relevant.  Al Sharpton makes $700,000 per year to host his daily talk radio show because Al Sharpton has brought something else to his employer that is far more important than ratings.  More on that later.

To understand the astounding salary that Sharpton receives to host what can only be described as a vanity show at this point, I contacted a veteran industry insider who wished to remain anonymous.  Their first response was “Al Sharpton has a talk radio show?”  I confirmed that he did and it’s been on the air for six years.  My contact said, “Who knew?”

Once past the initial shock that a radio syndicate actually turns over their microphone to the polarizing Al Sharpton (who many believe is anti-Semitic, a race-baiter and was proven to be a defaming liar in the Tawana Brawley case) my source confirmed that given the shows clearance and ratings the $700,000 salary is way beyond industry standards and makes no sense at all.  “He must be doing something else for them to justify that salary,” my source told me.

Yes, he must be.

As Wayne Barrett in the Daily Beast reports, it appears Sharpton provided Radio One a huge service by giving Comcast special “diversity protection” when the Comcast/NBC merger was under fire from the FCC.  As we reported here yesterday, Sharpton and his National Action Network assured the FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn, (a political appointee put in place by Barack Obama after he rode to office thanks to Clyburn’s father’s support in the South Carolina Democratic primary) that the new Comcast/NBC corporate entity would bend over backwards to ensure “diversity”.  With the diversity protection firmly in place (thanks to $170,000 paid to Sharpton’s National Action network by Comcast over the past two years) the FCC voted for the merger thanks to Clyburn’s support.

One of the examples of Comcast’s commitment to “diversity” as noted in a memorandum signed by Sharpton and delivered to the FCC, was their huge ownership stake in TV One, a cable network aimed at the African-American community.  Comcast is part of TV One’s ownership team along with TV One’s single largest share-holder, Radio One, Sharpton’s radio syndicate.

(more…)

The left is always a bundle of contradictions. On one hand leftists set themselves up as the ultimate in “tolerance” and a guarantor of “freedom” to do as one wishes. Most leftists imagine themselves interested in making sure everyone is free to do as they wish to the point where that they are almost libertine about it. Until … until it comes to the freedoms of those they oppose. Then, all of a sudden, their tendency toward fascist group-think comes out in full force.

Joe Schoffstall of the Media Research Center highlighted that liberal “for me but not for thee” tendency in a recent video in which he asked a handful of Washington D.C. liberals if they’d like to sign a petition that bans conservative’s free political speech. Naturally, they were happy to do so.

One of Joe’s signers had that liberal confusion down pat. “I think there is freedom of speech,” the young woman said, “but sometimes … there has to be some kind of control. I mean, look at the tea party, you have all this hate going on,” she blathered. She went on to say that freedom of speech is “not something this country needs any more.”

One would imagine that if her freedom to speak were curtailed she’d suddenly find that hoary old First Amendment something she could not live without.

(more…)

Yesterday I spoke with Frank Bailey, author of the new book “Blind Allegiance to Sarah Palin” which takes a critical and much contested view of the former governor’s ethics and record.

(more…)

A great piece from the LA Times on the important role local radio is playing as the community struggles to come to grips with the aftermath of the worst tornado in over 60 years.

Reporting from Joplin, Mo.—

Radio host Rob Meyer — homeless and haggard since a tornado destroyed his house Sunday — had another shift coming up soon. He had slept for only five of the previous 48 hours, filling the rest with coffee and soda. And talk.

Hours and hours of talk, in fact, many with the confused and enterprising residents of Joplin. Callers’ voices broke as they asked if anyone had heard news about their daughters, friends and nephews who had disappeared during the storm or its aftermath. Others asked seemingly unanswerable self-help questions, such as: If the bank is destroyed, how can I get my safe-deposit box?

“We’ve just been answering phones live and seeing what people have to say,” Meyer said.

(more…)

What drove Glenn Beck to tell an increasingly large series of lies about his participation in the Shirley Sherrod story that broke back in July, 2010?

Why would he tell both TV and live audiences things like this….

Shirley Sherrod, is the next example. We didn’t rush to condemn her. This is another seemingly “redistribution of wealth” woman — who I would bet that I vehemently disagree with on probably everything. But she asked for the rest of the tape to be heard, the farmers in the story backed her up. It was a turning point story. We defended her and said her side of the story demanded to be heard — because context matters…

or this?

I have a story I want to share with you that I haven’t shared yet. Do you know why I didn’t do the Shirley Sherrod story? Did anyone think that story was uncommon for the people that we have in the White House? That there might be some prejudice that is happening? No. I stood in my office with my entire team, and I said, “something’s wrong, don’t do this story.”That’s what saved me: the Sword of the Spirit.

As you’ll see, both of those statements are totally false. Glenn Beck not only didn’t initially defend Sherrod but he actually dropped the entire context that Sherrod’s video clip was originally presented in. Close to a year later, Beck still hasn’t been honest about his initial context dropping attacks on Sherrod.

So – why? Did Beck start spinning a story and was unable to discern truth from fiction? Did he enjoy the praise he got from left wing sources, who believed his spin?

(more…)

John Avlon, of no-labels shame, who also writes at the Daily Beast, has penned another hit piece on the supposed demise of conservative talk radio: The Right-Wing Talk-Radio Flame Out. My, oh my, … however will Conor with one N control himself? But this alleged demise has been predicted for 20 years.  Still, Avlon can hope - after all, he has another book to sell.

Avlon believes the future is ideologically muddled radio, the likes of Michael Smerconish and John Batchelor.  That’s right, muddle will drive listeners to the radio.  In fact, Avalon’s a frequent guest on Batchelor’s show, should we be surprised?  I can enjoy and have enjoyed Batchelor for his overseas and war reporting via various correspondents. But he tends to be muddled on domestic politics.

What Avlon conveniently ignores are the various host’s total syndication numbers and time-slots. Not only are the hosts he mentions barely syndicated, I’m unaware of any station that has built their entire schedule around one of them, as so many have done and still do with Rush, for example. And given their time slots, perhaps who Avlon is really missing is Art Bell. He could probably do a phone in from Schenectady in the evening and dominate the numbers; not to slight George Noory, or anything!

(more…)