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…)

On Monday Representative Darrell Issa threatened Attorney General Eric Holder with a contempt of Congress if he does not fulfill Mr. Issa’s subpoena from October 12, 2011. Hardly anyone reported it. But then when I went to Google “Issa Eric Holder” this evening and a bunch of results came up. Unfortunately it was not about Mr. Issa’s statements. Instead it’s all about Mr. Holder and the Department of Justice’s remarks.

I’ve mentioned before it’s unusual for the Old Media to run any Fast and Furious news if the AP didn’t run something first. Same thing with this story. AP didn’t bother to post a story about Mr. Issa, but as soon as Mr. Holder says something they’re all over it. It’s quite pathetic and reminds me of Pavlov’s dog. This is the explanation of Mr. Issa’s letter:

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., made the accusation in a letter threatening to seek a contempt of Congress ruling against Attorney General Eric Holder for failing to turn over congressionally subpoenaed documents that were created after problems with Fast and Furious came to light. Holder was to testify Thursday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which Issa chairs.

That’s it. No mention that this is a response to his subpoena on October 12, 2011. No mention of the emails sent Friday night. But the media goes crazy and reprints this article.

Not every outlet used the AP story though. The Washington Post again had an original piece written by Sari Horwitz! Weird, isn’t it, that she writes original posts when the DOJ and Democrats are on the defense. Surprise surprise! The story is on the front page of the website.

(more…)

Remember this? Yes, last Friday night the DOJ dumped documents on Congress about Fast and Furious. Anyone with an ounce of common sense & critical thinking skills would come to the conclusion based on the emails between Monty Wilkinson, Attorney General Eric Holder’s then deputy chief of staff, and then-US Attorney Dennis Burke, Mr. Holder and quite possible Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer knew about Operation Fast and Furious.

The majority of the media ignored the documents. They took the AP article and printed it, but buried it among other articles. Only NPR, The Daily Caller, and CBS had original articles. The New York Times really buried it: Even if you searched for it you wouldn’t find it. The AP article mentions the emails at the very end, but just repeats the talking points instead of using their common sense. “Mr. Wilkinson does not recall discussing this aspect with the attorney general.” Come on people let’s use our brains! Do you believe Mr. Wilkinson, Mr. Holder’s deputy chief of staff, did NOT tell his boss about this?

But Congressional Democrats and the media don’t think this way. Instead of investigating further they simply take someone’s word, even if it sounds suspicious. This morning I saw an alert from The New York Times. The Democrats on The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee cleared the Obama administration of any wrong doing. This is the same Times that ignored the Friday night document dump. This story appeared on the front page of their US section and is an original piece written by Charlie Savage. Ironically the article by Pete Yost at the AP is the most concise one he’s written about Fast and Furious. Gee, I wonder why. The Huffington Post put Mr. Yost’s article on the front page of their politics section. What’s this I see? The Washington Post actually didn’t publish the AP article, but had Sari Horwirz write an original piece? I believe that hasn’t happened since September.

(more…)

Oh look! The Justice Department decides to dump 500 pages on Congress on a Friday night! If they really want to be secretive or different they’d choose to dump documents on a Tuesday night. We’re almost looking forward to Friday nights because that’s when we can expect anything about Fast and Furious from the Justice Department.

Attorney General Eric Holder is set to testify on Thursday, February 2 in front of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee so it’s no surprise there was a dump last night. I was looking through my timeline when I saw Michelle Malkin’s tweet about the documents. The link led to NPR, which shocked me they would be the ones to have it plus they included nine pages of the documents. They beat the AP! I have found unless the AP writes about Fast and Furious the majority of the Old Media won’t touch it.

I went to sleep around midnight central time and at that time the only major outlets that covered it were AP, CNN, Washington Post, FOX News, and ABC News. This morning I woke up and saw USA Today posted the AP article. The story was the main story on the front page of their national section, but has since been replaced. It’s not even on the front page anymore. I’d give them props, but it appeared before 6AM and taken down before 9AM CDT. Sorry guys, it doesn’t count when you have it up and taken down before the majority of the country wakes up. It’s also nowhere on the FOX News home page and it’s buried in the politics section. Shame on them since they’ve been consistent with Fast and Furious coverage. CNN does receive credit because it’s still on their home page.

At The Washington Post and ABC News you have to go a search for Fast and Furious in order to find their AP article. The New York Times also buried the AP article. In order to find it you have to go to the bottom of their home page and find the tiny cube for “More News From AP and Reuters.” Click on AP and it’s under AP Politics. But you have to click AP Politics and scroll to the bottom. Even if you search “Fast and Furious” it doesn’t bring up the article. I consider this as NOT covering it New York Times! I’m very disappointed The Washington Times hasn’t even mentioned it. I haven’t seen anything on CBS News either. MSNBC buried the AP article.

Here’s the thing. I know these outlets have investigative reporters. The emails gave me more questions than answers and I’m wondering why no one in the Old Media is pointing this out. I receive Google Alerts for Eric Holder and Operation Fast and Furious. This morning a blog post from Stop The ACLU popped up addressing the same questions I had. NPR brings up this part in the emails, but ignores it and doesn’t realize the importance. Right after Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry passed away Monty Wilkinson, Mr. Holder’s deputy chief of staff,  emails Dennis Burke (bold my emphasis), “Tragic. I’ve alerted the AG, the Acting DAG, Lisa, etc.”

(more…)

Media outlets didn’t cover March For Life while it happened, despite knowing it was going to happen and hundreds of thousands of people there. News outlets do have stories on it now, but of course the number of people there are distorted and the stories are pretty bland. Again, remember how much effort went into Occupy Wall Street coverage. Reporters were at the scenes. News stations were always on them. Also if they had anyone on the scene at March For Life they’d have a more accurate number of people.

Photo Credit Michelle Fields from The Daily Caller

The best coverage belongs to Judge Andrew Napolitano on his show  ”Freedom Watch” on FOX Business Network. Judge Napolitano is a fierce pro-life advocate and doesn’t shy away from the issue. At the end of every show he signs off with “The Plain Truth” and yesterday it was about abortion.

His guest was Rep. Renee Ellmers who discussed the defense of life. This was the most coverage by anyone in the media. Thank you, Judge Napolitano.

I then went to FOX News and I’ll admit, I was disappointed. The article was written by Shannon Bream and just like C-SPAN she called the protestors anti-abortion. Yes they are anti-abortion, but why doesn’t anyone ever call them pro-life? Why do they have to be constantly addressed as anti? When pro-choice protesters march they’re referred to as pro-choice, not anti-life. She did, however, give a reasonable estimate of people there, tens of thousands. Trust me, that’s much better than some of the others.

(more…)

From Accuracy in Media’s Cliff Kincaid:

When Anita Dunn hasn’t been on CNN or MSNBC bashing the Republican presidential candidates and/or praising President Obama, she has been successfully lobbying for a Washington Post subsidiary by the name of Kaplan University.

You may remember Dunn as the Obama aide who once said communist mass murderer Mao and Mother Teresa were “two of my favorite political philosophers.” The Soros-funded Media Matters said she was taken out of context.

Dunn is now claiming that she is not a lobbyist, even though she works for a firm that does lobbying. Will the progressives defend this, too?

We have written in the past about Kaplan, which is the cash cow for the Post Company, whose newspaper has been losing money and readers. Steven Pearlstein of the Post wrote that Kaplan “has provided the handsome profits that have helped to cover this newspaper’s operating losses” and that “Although we in the Post newsroom have nothing to do with Kaplan, we’ve all benefited from its financial success.”

But that success came at the expense of students, including veterans, who got educated through Kaplan and found that some of their degrees were worthless.

After congressional investigations exposed abuses in the $30 billion for-profit education industry, Kaplan and other companies got very concerned that proposed regulations from the Obama Administration would potentially “cut off the huge flow of federal aid” to private sector colleges declared unfit to receive the money, The New York Times reported.

In the end, “after a ferocious response that administration officials called one of the most intense they had seen, the Education Department produced a much-weakened final plan that almost certainly will have far less impact as it goes into effect” this year.

Former Obama official Dunn played a key role in making sure the for-profit education companies will continue largely with business as usual.

Military columnist Tom Philpott, a former Coast Guardsman, has led the criticism of what he calls the “predatory for-profit schools” that “rob veterans of their Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits.” He quotes Theodore (Ted) L. Daywalt, chief executive officer and president of VetJobs, an online job search firm for military veterans, as saying that he learned about the problem through working with disappointed vets who thought they had used their GI Bill to earn credible degrees only to learn they were “worthless.”

“The eighth for-profit company among the top 10 institutions getting GI Bill payments is Kaplan, owned by The Washington Post. Its Post-9/11 GI Bill payments climbed in 12 months from $17 million to $44 million,” noted Philpott. These are the payments that help pay the salaries of the liberal editorial writers and columnists at the Post newspaper.

In a sign that some news competition is in play among the big papers and that some criticism of the Obama Administration is still permitted in print, the Times noted the key role played by Dunn, “a close friend of President Obama and his former White House communications director.” She had “worked with” Kaplan, the paper said. “And politically well-connected investors, including Donald E. Graham, chief executive of the Washington Post Company, which owns Kaplan, and John Sperling, founder of the University of Phoenix and a longtime friend of the House minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, made impassioned appeals,” the paper added.

Dunn had left the Obama Administration to make money at SKDKnickerbocker (SKDK), which describes itself as “a nationally recognized strategic communications consulting firm.” This is what lobbying is called these days. Dunn’s work in the media is highlighted in her bio, where she is described as “a frequent guest on cable and network television, including The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, 60 Minutes, Today, Meet the Press and many more.”

(more…)

I’m not happy. Operation Fast and Furious was finally brought up in a debate, but it received one question and two responses. Growing up my mother told me to either go all the way with something or don’t bother with it because sometimes going half-way is worse than not doing anything at all. This is one of those cases. I don’t blame the media for ignoring the ONE question with TWO responses on Fast and Furious. If the moderators asked Speaker Gingrich or Governor Romney maybe the media would have given it a shout out.

I couldn’t find it anywhere in The New York Times. I found a part of the Fast and Furious segment in the Fact Check article at The Washinton Post. They didn’t mention that this Rick Perry quote came from his answer on the Fast and Furious question.

“Venezuela has the largest Iranian embassy in the world there.”

— Rick Perry

This is a dubious statement, especially since Iran has much deeper interests in countries closer to Tehran, such as Iraq and Syria. The extent of Iranian influence in Latin America is often overstated. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was embarrassed in 2009 when it turned out her claim that Iran was building a mega-embassy in Nicaragua was untrue.

The rest of the articles at the Post didn’t mention Fast and Furious. There’s a blog post at MSNBC about Rick Perry, but it doesn’t mention his response to Fast and Furious. Matthew Boyle and Katie Pavlich wrote about it.

But I fault Fox News on this more than the rest of the media. Operation Fast and Furious deserved the attention gay marriage and abortion received if not more. So many people on Twitter were demanding questions be asked that Fast and Furious was even trending on Twitter.

(more…)

Despite the fact the social media has eliminated the traditional media cycle, the Obama administration still thinks Friday afternoon document dumps will curtail reporting on what the documents entail. Our wonderful Department of Justice dumped over 1,000 pages with details on how they gave inaccurate information. The Associated Press broke the story at 6:16PM EST. Since then, Old Media has been slow reporting. I would usually give them a day, but I decided to check them out tonight. SHOCKER: The majority posted the AP story–NOT A SHOCKER: The majority buried it.

Before I start I need to give credit to Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News. Once again she shows what we need in the Old Media: She didn’t just copy and paste the AP article. She actually wrote an original piece on it. Thank you so much Mrs. Attkisson. (I also prefer her piece over the AP’s article.)

It’s honestly sad I am not shocked The New York Times didn’t have it anywhere on their website. I searched “Justice Department” and “Eric Holder” and there were no results for the document dump. Not one single word. [Update: New York Times published a piece on this Friday night around 9:30 pm EST several hours after this post published.]

The other media outlets (ABC, NBC, MSNBC, The Washington Post, Huffington Post) did copy and paste the AP story, but there is one major problem: you have to search for the story. It’s not on the front page. I couldn’t find it under US, National, Politics sections. Instead I went to the search box and punched in “Justice Department” and the first hit was the AP article.

I also need to note AP got an important fact wrong. Brian Terry was NOT a customs agent. He was a Border Patrol Agent.

(more…)

Fifty-two Congressmen, including Representative and GOP presidential candidate Michele Bachmann, are demanding Attorney General Eric Holder’s resignation over Operation Fast and Furious. While the new media has reached out to Congress, there is still no excuse for the Old Media to not say anything, especially since these Congressmen held a press conference Tuesday, November 15.

Then again, are you shocked NBC Nightly News and ABC World News didn’t cover the press conference? We know all year Mr. Williams and Ms. Sawyer have never mentioned Operation Fast and Furious once. If they covered the press conference they’d be forced to talk and explain Operation Fast and Furious. I’m disappointed CBS didn’t run a story on the press conference, but since they’ve been on top of the story I’m willing to forgive them. Here are some topics NBC and ABC thought were more important than congressmen calling for Mr. Holder’s resignation:

• Low cost Lipitor!
• Annie Leibovitz says go iPhone!
• Texas court says dogs have sentimental value
• ACL injuries
• New Kennedy tapes

They will do anything to avoid talking about Operation Fast and Furious. Like Cam Edwards said they’d run an entire 30 minute show on Brian Williams and puppies before they talk about Fast & Furious. (more…)

I need to thank my friend Sean Arther for bringing this to my attention on Twitter. (Thank you!) He read my article on Dana Milbank, an op-ed columnist for The Washington Post, who claims Operation Fast and Furious is not a scandal. He remembered the intense media coverage in November 2000 when someone leaked George Bush’s 1976 DUI arrest. The media coverage was so intense that the LA Times ran an article about the coverage. One part caught my eye. [bold my emphasis]

Only a few major dailies–among them the Washington Post, the Baltimore Sun and the Dallas Morning News–considered it front-page news. Others, such as the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times, mentioned the arrest on Page One but ran a full story inside.

Editors at the Washington Post initially decided to keep the story inside. But they changed course as the story gathered steam during the night on the news wires.

“In the end, after a lot of discussion back and forth, . . . I decided that this was front-page news pure and simple,” said Executive Editor Leonard Downie. Bush’s acknowledgment that he had withheld the information, Downie said, “struck me as a newsworthy decision, to not disclose this when there was a long-standing issue about his personal conduct in the past.“

Interesting! Let me see if I have this right. A DUI arrest from 1976 deserves the front page. A federal funded operation that has resulted in the death of hundreds, including federal agents, does not deserve the front page.

Wait, what? I don’t see the logic. (more…)

Bloomberg recently published a horribly inaccurate post by Jonathan Alter titled, “The Obama Miracle, a White House Free of Scandal.” It’s time for Mr. Alter to wake up, remove the rose colored glasses, and come back to reality. President Obama’s administration has a huge scandal on their watch and it’s called Operation Fast & Furious.

I sent an email to him and the editor responsible for the article.

Dear Mr. Alter & Mr. Lavin:

My name is Mary Chastain and I’m a writer for Andrew Breitbart’s Big Journalism. Lately I’ve been keeping an eye on the mainstream media and their Operation Fast and Furious coverage. I have one question for you: Are you serious?!? President Obama is scandal free?!? You said How much research did you do? Sir, you have to take off the rose colored glasses and allow me to introduce you to Operation Fast & Furious. Have you heard of that scandal? Probably not since the only mainstream media outlet covering it is CBS and I can tell from your article you don’t put much effort into your research.

Operation Fast & Furious (part of Project Gunrunner) started in fall 2009. The federal government approved the sale of illegal guns to Mexican drug cartels KNOWING they’d be walked into Mexico and used in crimes. Yes sir. The Obama administration told gun shop owners in border states to allow straw purchasers to buy these guns even though they knew these people would give them to Mexican drug cartels and be used in crimes. Do I need to repeat myself?

The Obama administration approved an operation that told gun shop owners in border states to sell illegal guns to straw purchasers KNOWING they’d be walked across the border into the hands of Mexican drug cartels and be used in crimes.

Do you know what ended Operation Fast & Furious? The vicious murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry on December 14, 2010 in Arizona. Yes that’s right. Not all the guns crossed the border. Many have been found at crime scenes in AMERICA! One was used to MURDER Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. I’ve attached a picture of him.

I love this part of your article the most because we all know you’re alluding to Operation Fast & Furious, thus proving you DO know about it and PURPOSELY forgot about it.

Every time Representative Darrell Issa, the Republican from California who leads a House investigative committee, calls the Obama administration “corrupt” without offering any evidence, he hurts his cause. It’s much harder to make a story register as a bona fide scandal when the political motivation is so obvious.

Again, how much research did you do? Would you like to use all the research I’ve done? If you go to CBS News and use keyword Sharyl Attkisson (their investigative reporter who is on top of this SCANDAL) you receive 50+ hits on Fast & Furious.

You can go to Townhall and look at the the excellent work done by Katie Pavlich.

I can’t forget the awesome work done by Matthew Boyle and others.

Also check out Cam Edwards on Cam and Company at NRA News every night from 8-11PM CDT at http://www.nranews.com because he talks about it every night.

Here’s a link to my page at Big Journalism. http://bigjournalism.com/author/mchastain/

I will let you read through all of their hard work, which includes the EVIDENCE Congressman Issa has against the administration. I guess you missed out on all of the memos PROVING Mr. Holder was briefed on Fast & Furious as far back as July 2010. You should also check out Congressman Issa’s appearance on Face The Nation a few weeks ago. He again showed the evidence he has. You can easily find that appearance in the link I provided from CBS News.

Mr. Lavin, I know you put a disclaimer that said these are Mr. Alter’s opinions and not Bloomberg’s. But in all honesty this horrible and bias piece reflects incredibly bad upon YOU. I cannot believe you published an article that is filled with obvious LIES.

Respond back to me ASAP. I’ll have a piece up at Big Journalism soon. I’ll make sure to email it to you as soon as it’s posted.
Mary Chastain

(more…)

Surprise surprise. Dana Milbank, an op-ed writer at The Washington Post, doesn’t think Operation Fast & Furious is a scandal. Of course I sent him an email because I want to know why he doesn’t think this is a scandal.

Dear Dana:

I am a writer for Big Journalism and I’ve been keeping on eye on the media’s coverage of Operation Fast and Furious. My main question for you is what qualifies for a scandal? Please explain to my readers, editor, and me why this isn’t a scandal. Would you care to explain to Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry’s family why this isn’t a scandal?

You admit the operation was a debacle and acknowledge the bloodshed caused by this operation. Yet you claim it hasn’t reached the level of a political scandal? Sir, what would you call this? Guns have been found at hundreds of crime scenes in America. AMERICA. These guns have caused 200+ deaths in Mexico. Our federal government allowed guns to get into the hands of dangerous drug cartels. OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. How is that not a political scandal? People have died. People like Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

There’s no smoking gun? How about the numerous memos from July 2010 proving Eric Holder was briefed on this operation? That’s not a smoking gun? Actually there have been smoking guns. about 1400+ smoking guns! I know The Washington Post isn’t covering the story that well, but you should look at CBS and Sharyl Atkisson. She has interviews of ATF agents detailing the operation. Her coverage proves this is scandal going somewhere fast.

So would you like it if they just agreed to never do this again? You don’t want them to get to the bottom of this? You don’t want to find justice for Brian Terry and his family?

I’ve attached a picture of Brian Terry. Please respond ASAP. I will be emailing until I receive a response.

Thank you,
Mary Chastain

Mr. Milbank actually wrote about the operation being a debacle and the bloodshed, but somehow that still isn’t enough to be called a scandal? I am dying to know what qualifies as a political scandal. I also love how he doesn’t think there hasn’t been a smoking gun. Yes Mr. Milbank. At least 1,400+ smoking guns! (I must credit my wonderful husband with that one) He appears to not care that one of those smoking guns appeared at Brian Terry’s murder scene. Who cares that Brian Terry died, who cares that 200+ Mexican civilians have died because of these guns, is that what we’re saying? Who cares these guns have shown up at hundreds of crime scenes in America!

(more…)

I read the Washington Post’s article, “Violence and the occupy movement,” expecting to see a discussion of the sexual assaults and rapes being reported during the Wall Street protests. Instead, the author, Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, writes about “the violence of systems that create and sustain economic and social injustice on a wide scale.” She is apparently talking about capitalism, a system that has lifted more people out of poverty than any in human history.

Brandon Darby broke the story at Andrew Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com that the protests “pose special dangers for women” because of the rapes and sexual assaults taking place. He notes several such incidents:

• A 14-year-old runaway was allegedly sexually assaulted at Occupy Dallas.
• A 19-year-old student activist was allegedly raped at Occupy Cleveland.
• A man was arrested on charges of indecent exposure to children at Occupy Seattle.
• A female reporter was threatened by activists at Occupy Oakland.

Also at BigGovernment, John Nolte wrote about the protesters’ “rap sheet,” which numbers 119 cases of sexual assault, violence, vandalism, anti-Semitism, extortion, perversion, and lawlessness. These are hardly law-abiding protesters, as the lawyers at the National Lawyers Guild and Center for Constitutional Rights maintain. These incidents are occurring because of the complete breakdown of law and order in the makeshift tent cities of the Occupy movement. Under political pressure, the local and even federal authorities have ceded the space to the protesters, effectively abdicating law enforcement’s role. As a result, when police finally do move into these places, as we saw in Oakland, they are met with violence from organizers of the protests. When the police defend themselves, they are accused of police brutality. This accusation was a prominent charge made in Thistlethwaite’s piece.

(more…)

Why is it so hard to answer such a simple question? I’m having the same problem with The Washington Post. Their ombudsman, Patrick Pexton, emailed me a short note:

Hi Mary:
I actually am not a spokesman for The Post, although I do monitor everything it does. I speak out on issues as they come up and as I think they need raising. As I have pointed out in my last e-mail to you, I have addressed Fast and Furious in my column and in my blog, and have urged that it be covered thoroughly and that the coverage continue. I have also raised this issue internally.
I don’t think the fact that a Post story raised an earlier, similar operation under President Bush’s administration, makes that story partisan. It makes it contextual.
The Post is doing an excellent job on the Solyndra scandal, and in fact has led on that story. It is doing reasonably well on Fast and Furious. But these stories take time, digging, and resources. The Post is not unlimited in any of those.
Thanks for reading The Post.

I’m glad Mr. Pexton is keeping pressure on to keep Operation Fast & Furious a priority and is telling those that readers have been wanting more coverage. However, we still haven’t received an answer as to why readers have to search and comb the website to find articles on Fast & Furious. I repeated my questions to him in my response.

Dear Mr. Pexton:

(Before we start I know you pointed out I write on conservative site Big Journalism. However, I’m NOT a conservative. I’m a Libertarian.)

Thank you for your response. I’m thankful you’re staying on top of this and urging to keep this story going. I just wish the people would listen to you because they had no problem putting in a lot of effort making sure America was kept up to date on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’s firing of 7 US attorneys.

I decided to compare the two more thoroughly and I’ll share with you guys the results. Now, since the subpoenas for Eric Holder were just now issued I’ll only compare the coverage from when the story broke to the issuing of the subpoenas.

The US attorney’s scandal first appeared in the Post on January 19, 2007 and the actual subpoenas were issued on March 8, 2007. Between those dates 20 articles, blogs, editorials, discussions were published. Another thing to note: All were written by Post writers, not taken from other news sources like AP. Those pieces weren’t just developments either. Some were about different people in Congress calling for Gonzales to resign.

The first piece I saw at the Post was January 30, 2011 and I admit the pieces from January to about June/July were great. But once it was revealed that the scandal went deeper than the ATF the articles started to dampen. I also cannot find an article about Issa questioning Holder on May 4.

I noticed when there were talks of sending Gonzales a subpoena the Post actually had a Post writer write an authentic article. However, when there were talks of sending Holder a subpoena the Post published the AP article. When Gonzales was sent a subpoena the Post wrote another authentic article. Yet when Holder was sent a subpoena the Post used the AP again. I’ve also noticed recently you guys have been using the AP and CBS articles a lot more for Fast & Furious coverage.

Plus, like I said before, us readers should not have to search and comb your website to find any information on Operation Fast & Furious. We shouldn’t have to write to you Mr. Pexton about where we can find Fast & Furious information on the website. A scandal like this should be on the front page or at least the front page of the US or Politics page. Instead when the memos were released and talks of subpoenas were going on we had articles about Mr. Perry’s rock or Romney’s faith on those front pages.

Again, why does the Post deem Fast and Furious not important? If you can’t give me the answer please point me to the person who can. Readers like myself need to know. Should I contact Ms. Horwitz?

Thank you,
Mary

(more…)

If you want to get in touch with The Washington Post, email them. The people on the phone are incredibly rude, but then again, when you ask them why their coverage of Operation Fast and Furious is subpar, you can’t blame them for being a little defensive, right? Yes, you can, because they’re still part of the dinosaur media that hides behind the façade of “objectivity,” and as long as they create that standard for themselves, they should be non-partisan in their news coverage.

Right after I called The New York Times, I called The Washington Post and was treated extremely rudely. The first individual I spoke with actually asked me, “‘Fast and Furious’ the movie?” Really? I would call The Washington Post about their lack of coverage for a 2009 sequel to a drag racing movie? Trying not to laugh, I explained the difference between that and OPERATION Fast and Furious. I was transferred to the national desk, and when I brought up Operation Fast and Furious, the man on the other end talked extremely quickly and asked if I wanted to be transferred to the ombudsman. I said no, but before I could explain why, he said “thank you” and hung up on me.

Oh, I don’t think so! (more…)

The day before the release of Jacqueline Kennedy: Historic Conversations on Life with John F. Kennedy, the Washington Post’s “Reliable Source” column ran a few of the juicier tidbits from Mrs. Kennedy’s taped interviews. Among those tidbits: “She calls [Martin Luther] King ‘a phony.’”

Oh, but don’t worry! The Post wants us all to know that Jackie’s opinions, about King and other prominent figures of her time, “aren’t that shocking.” A little “catty,” maybe. “But,” the writers add helpfully, “they underscore that Jackie was smarter and more politically astute than she let on.”

Time for Round 5,290,367 of “If a Republican Had Said That … ” Because you know exactly what would have happened if a Republican had. Adjectives like “smart” and “astute” wouldn’t be allowed within a hundred miles of the conversation. On the contrary, such remarks about a civil rights leader would be taken as incontrovertible proof that said Republican’s entire party was made up of hateful, ignorant Neanderthals, none of whom deserved to be elected dogcatcher.

In fact, because God has a sense of humor, this article was published in the print version of the Post on the same day that papers around the country—the Post included—ran a smear about Sarah Palin’s alleged racism, courtesy of author Joe McGinniss and cartoonist Garry Trudeau. Show of hands: Who expects either man to give Jackie Kennedy the same treatment any time soon? Yeah, that’s what I thought.

(more…)

From Accuracy in Media’s Cliff Kincaid:

Abdirizak Bihi, director of the Somali Education and Social Advocacy Center, testifies during a House Homeland Security Committee hearing on the extent of radicalization in the American Muslim community and the community's response, on Capitol Hill in Washington on March 10, 2011. UPI/Kevin Dietsch

In the “better-late-than-never” department, The Washington Post has devoted 3,783 words to Abdirizak Bihi, a Muslim activist trying to counter radical Islamic activities in Minnesota and the recruitment of Muslim youth in America by a “shadowy network of recruiters.” This is the same individual who got little attention from the Post when he testified on March 10 before Rep. Peter King’s Homeland Security Committee.

The Post is finally confirming in dramatic detail the nature of the internal terrorist threat in the United States.

But you may recall that the liberal media tried to demonize King for even holding the hearings.

This is how the Post then reported on Bihi: “Abdirizak Bihi, a Somali American from Minnesota, described how a nephew turned radical and left to fight with an Islamic militia in Somalia. He said religious leaders had discouraged him from going to the authorities, warning that ‘you will have eternal fire and hell’ for betraying Islam.”

We noted at the time that the media, including the Post, had focused on Rep. Keith Ellison’s testimony, during which he broke down in tears, but that Bihi, Director of the Somali Education and Social Advocacy Center in Minneapolis, had been offering something more newsworthy—an indictment of Ellison, the first Muslim member of Congress, himself.

As noted in advance by the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, “Bihi has been publicly critical of Ellison’s handling of the disappearance of some 20 Somali youths recruited by a Jihadist group in their native country.” Bihi’s nephew Burhan Hassan was killed in Somalia after traveling there to join al-Shabab, a terrorist organization working to overthrow the Somali government.

What the Post failed to report on, at the time of King’s hearings, was Bihi’s statement, “The Extent of Radicalization in the American Muslim Community and that Community’s Response.”

The Post now seems to be taking the problem seriously. It reports:

“There have been 51 homegrown jihadist plots or attacks in the United States since Sept. 11, 2001, according to law enforcement reports, and their frequency is increasing. Nowhere else is the problem of radicalization so concentrated as in Bihi’s section of downtown Minneapolis, where about 10,000 Somali immigrants live in a collection of faded apartment towers bordering the freeway. At least 25 young men have disappeared from here to fight for al-Shabab in the past three years, and dozens more are being investigated on suspicion of recruiting or fundraising on behalf of the terrorist organization. None so far have tried to attack in the United States, but intelligence gathered by law enforcement suggests that they will.”

Notice how the number of missing youth has gone from 20 to 25.

Yet, in its Sunday follow-up article, there is no mention of the role of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) in discouraging a legitimate inquiry and solution to the problem in America’s Muslim communities.

(more…)

From Accuracy in Media‘s Cliff Kincaid:

Always anxious to put the best possible face on the illegal actions of the Obama Administration, the Saturday Washington Post story by David A. Fahrenthold reported that President Obama had “missed a legal deadline” requiring that he obtain congressional approval for U.S. military operations in Libya. The word “missed” implies an oversight or mistake, rather than a deliberate action. Hence, the Post wants to avoid the issue of whether Obama’s unauthorized attack on Libya was an impeachable offense.

The Post failed to note that Obama, when he was running for office, said, “The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” There was no threat to the U.S. from Libya.

Indeed, The Post failed to explicitly note that the War Powers Resolution, with the 60 day deadline, authorizes the use of force only in situations “where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.”

The law states that “The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to

(1) a declaration of war,

(2) specific statutory authorization, or

(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”

Since there was no declaration of war or statutory authorization for the Libya action, there has to be a national emergency created by an attack on the U.S. There was none in the Libya case.

(more…)

From Accuracy in Media’s Cliff Kincaid:

Washington Post chairman Donald E. Graham, a former police officer, said on Thursday at the company’s annual meeting that he had no comment on the White House hosting a rapper who had performed a song praising a convicted cop-killer, Joanne Chesimard, who escaped prison and fled to Cuba.

“Thank you for informing me of something that I didn’t know,” he replied. “The question is an interesting one.” But he had no comment.

For someone in the news business, it was an embarrassing moment. A story about the rapper’s White House performance was on the front page of the “Style” section in papers handed out to shareholders and others attending the meeting.

AIM, a Post shareholder, questioned Graham about various news-related matters.

Further embarrassment ensued when Graham essentially took the Fifth and refused to name the members of the House and Senate he has personally lobbied in order to stave off proposed federal regulations that will cut into the profits of a Washington Post Company subsidiary, Kaplan. “No,” Graham curtly responded, when asked if he would name members that he has met with.

Graham acknowledged that the Post has been hurt financially by recent congressional hearings and negative publicity over the controversial business practices of Kaplan and other for-profit colleges and universities, which are accused of ripping off students, many of them disadvantaged and poor. Kaplan “has provided the handsome profits that have helped to cover this newspaper’s operating losses,” admitted Post reporter Steven Pearlstein in an extraordinary August 11, 2010, column. “Although we in the Post newsroom have nothing to do with Kaplan, we’ve all benefited from its financial success.”

Hence, the need for Graham to personally lobby for the survival of his company.

(more…)

Jerry Brown’s campaign conspired to commit political rape, calling Meg Whitman, his female political opponent, a “whore.” And he got N.O.W.’s political endorsement for doing so. The liberal beauty mask is so off the wrinkled, geriatric, age-spotted National Organization of Whores (yes, only a woman could write that so I just did).

Yet for all the mild hand-wringing over whether the “w-word” should have been used, no one in the Make-Believe Media is even questioning N.O.W.’s endorsement much less mocking the utter hypocrisy of it all. A women’s organization rewarding a politician for calling a woman a whore and no one notices. They’re all too busy with damage control for Brown’s campaign.

Stephanie Schriock, the leader of the prominent pro-abortion group Emily’s List, ever so gently criticized Brown in a remarkably tepid and muted way, concluding that, “It’s unfortunate to hear it in any place.”

“It’s inappropriate; it’s just wrong,” said Stephanie Schriock, the leader of EMILY’S List, a Democratic group dedicated to electing pro-choice women, on C-SPAN’s “Newsmakers.” Such words “just shouldn’t be used anywhere by anyone, period. It is just not what our democracy is about. It’s unfortunate to hear it in any place.”

Unfortunate?!? “Unfortunate” is when it rains on your newly washed car or you break a nail. How about “vile” or “despicable” or “reprehensible”? Get a thesaurus, Ms. Schriock.

(more…)