Blogs

Here’s the fundamental problem: right-wing pundits declare that the media is biased against conservatives. Mainstream media pundits generally agree with them, since it makes it much more convenient for them to embrace the pro-corporate viewpoint than to talk about the exclusion of progressive voices. Last night, the CBS Evening News did a story repeating the "Obama getting too much coverage" nonsense.

It's no small irony that the accusation of liberal media bias is believed precisely because the conservative media repeat the charge endlessly and the public never hears the progressive viewpoint refuting the charge. The myth of "liberal media bias" is itself evidence of conservative media bias. If the media was actually so liberal and biased, why would they allow this accusation to be heard so often without the progressive view being heard?

Yesterday, Howard Kurtz on Reliable Sources played a similar game: invite right-winger David Frum to denounce liberal media bias. Invite two centrist journalists to passively go along with the theory, have no one to argue about the media bias for McCain, and then Kurtz concludes with an attack on the media bias: "How can that imbalance be fair?"

It’s true that Obama has been getting more coverage than McCain. And that’s precisely what has hurt Obama: Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, "flip-flops" and all of the other nonsense stories that the media has given oversaturated attention to, while ignoring the flaws of McCain.

I’m currently writing a lengthy article about the myth of media bias for Obama, so I welcome any examples of this right-wing argument, as well as any counter-examples.

Crossposted at DailyKos.

Byrne give us more "baloney." Byrne claims that Obama’s campaign is "disingenuous" for writing in a fundraising email, "we are at a disadvantage." To prove his case, Byrne cites a news story that Obama "probably will" raise more money than McCain. Perhaps Byrne ought to learn more about tenses before he falsely accuses people of lying. The Obama campaign email is correct that Obama began the general election campaign at a disadvantage. According to OpenSecrets.org, the Republican National Committee has more than $53.5 million cash on hand, while the Democratic National Committee (DNC) has less than $4 million. Would Byrne be willing to admit that a $50 million deficit might rationally be considered a "disadvantage" even if Obama manages to raise more money in the future?

Byrne accuses Obama’s campaign of "shading the truth" because "it implies that all the money comes from small contributions of $5, $10 or $20." Unless Byrne can come up with a single example where Obama’s campaign claimed that all of its money comes from $20 donations or less, he’s "shading the truth" and owes Obama–and his readers–an apology.

Byrne also engages in a particularly absurd kind of intellectual fraud by claiming that it doesn’t matter if Obama refuses donations from PACs and lobbyists because he takes money from "special interests." Byrne then gives us a long list of industries where the employees gave money to Obama. Everybody, including Byrne, works for an industry of one kind or another that has an interest in legislation. But an individual’s donation has nothing to do with the corporation and cannot be called "corporate contributors" as Byrne does. I challenge Byrne to identify a single donor to any campaign who would not qualify as a member of a "special interest" according to Byrne’s definition. If everyone is a "special interest," then the term is meaningless.

Finally, Byrne concludes his column by accurately reporting one fact which contradicts every smear he’s been trying to deploy against the Obama campaign. Byrne notes that in 2004, PACs provided one-tenth of the DNC’s total fundraising. The fact that Obama rejected party funding from PACs that were so important says a lot of his integrity, particularly because Obama could have allowed this funding without breaking the promise for his campaign. The fact that this is one of the few accurate statements in the column says a lot about Byrne’s integrity.

Crossposted at DailyKos.

Similar falsehoods litter the AP article. According to Loven, Obama "now supports broader authority for the government's eavesdropping program and legal immunity for telecommunications companies that participated in it..." This is false. Obama continues to oppose immunity. He supported a compromise bill on eavesdropping even though he disliked parts of it. That’s not a flip-flop; Obama has always been clear in his willingness to make political compromises. Every senator votes for bills that include provisions they oppose. The left is angry at Obama and other Democrats for making compromises and breaking a promise to a filibuster, but it’s not a flip-flop in Obama’s basic position.

Loven also claims about Obama, "The handgun control proponent reacted to the Supreme Court overturning the District of Columbia's gun ban by saying he favors both an individual's right to own a gun as well as government's right to regulate ownership." Once again, this isn’t a flip-flop. Obama has said for a while that the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals, but that doesn’t prevent reasonable regulations.

Of course, like nearly all stories on Obama’s "flip-flops," Loven omits the far more massive and proven flip-flops by John (I was against the Bush tax cuts before I was for them) McCain. When it comes to double standards, the media have no shame.

On July 3, the media reported another imaginary "flip-flop" after Obama’s remark that he would "continue to refine my policy" on the timetable for getting out of Iraq. Obama’s stand on Iraq has been consistent for a long time: get out, but get out carefully. His policy has not changed at all. Every policy consists of goals, plans, and implementation. Obama’s goal (ending the war in Iraq by removing the bulk of the troops) has never changed. His plan to do so (removing a brigade or two every month, which would take approximately 16 months) also has not changed. And he has consistently said, the exact time would be determined by circumstances on the ground in Iraq.

As Loven admits, "Obama has always said his promise to end the war would require consultations with military commanders and, possibly, flexibility. This, in fact, is the only reasonable stance for a U.S. commander in chief to take." It’s not the only reasonable stance, but it is Obama’s stance. Yet after admitting that most of the accusations of flip-flopping aren’t true, Loven concludes by declaring, "he's not handling the shifts quietly enough — and maybe not forgivably either."

The AP certainly is not alone in its coverage of the Obama "flip-flops." The media monster has already tried to put its scaly tentacles around the Obama campaign by repeatedly lying about his stand on public financing. George Stephanopoulos proclaimed this a "flip-flop" and added, "this is a clear flip." (Loven repeats this lie by claiming that Obama broke "earlier promises to accept it.") As I noted on FAIR’s Counterspin radio show, Obama never made any unconditional promise to take public funding.

When Obama’s "biggest flip-flop" (to quote Ruth Marcus in the Washington Post) isn’t a flip-flop at all, it shows how distorted the media views are.

While McCain desperately tries to tar Obama "a long series of reversals," the media can either accurately report Obama’s positions, or they can become the transcription agency for the Republican Party.

The only giant flip-flops here are in the overactive imagination of Republicans desperately repeating an old line of attack, and the subservient corporate media who are willing, once again, to repeat the right-wing lies.

Crossposted at DailyKos.

In his radio show, Dobson attacks Obama for a June 28, 2006 speech in which Obama declared, "Even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would it be James Dobson's or Al Sharpton's?"

Dobson’s host called Al Sharpton "a black racist" and Dobson said, "Obviously, that is offensive to me," bizarrely complaining that he himself was being accused of racist by the mere comparison with Sharpton.

Dobson also attacked Obama for discussing Biblical passages that defend slavery, ban eating shellfish, and urge stoning of a misbehaving son. Obama noted about Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, that it "a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application." According to Dobson, "He’s taking a direct shot at the Defense Department." In reality, Obama was simply pointing out that many Biblical ideas can be taken out of context and wrongly applied to public policy.

Dobson accused Obama of wrongly equating Old Testament texts and dietary codes, that Dobson says no longer apply, to Jesus' teachings in the New Testament. Dobson said, "I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology... He is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter."

Of course, none of this is true. Obama was simply pointing out how ridiculous Biblical literalism, and why it cannot be used the sole basis of political decision-making..

Dobson also accused Obama making "a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution." Why? Obama made a statement in his 2006 speech about how, in arguing for legislation, we shouldn’t invoke God’s will but instead make an argument on principles that transcend a particular faith. Dobson bizarre claims that this means "he’s trying to make the case that it is anti-democratic to fight for moral principles." Dobson claimed, "Am I required in a democracy to conform my efforts in the political arena to his bloody notion of what is right with regard to the lives of tiny babies? What he's trying to say here is unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe." According to Dobson, "we don’t have to go to the lowest common denominator of morality, which he is suggesting."

This really is a "fruitcake interpretation" of Obama’s words. All that Obama was saying is that in the political realm, we should make arguments that appeal to reason and people of all faiths, rather than simply invoking the Bible to prove our claims. It’s a perfectly reasonable position to take. More importantly, it has absolutely nothing to do with interpreting the Constitution, and Obama was in no way talking about government restrictions how people argue about politics.

Note, Dobson also condemned McCain in the broadcast for not expressing support for the Arizona legislature’s efforts to put an anti-gay resolution on the ballot. In the past Dobson has said that he would not vote for McCain.

As a critique by Frederick Clarkson noted, Dobson has a shaky understanding of the Constitution.

Dobson has plenty of odd ideas, such as urging a father to educate his son about manhood by showing the kid his penis:

He can even take his son with him into the shower, where the boy cannot help but notice that Dad has a penis, just like his, only bigger.

In his best-selling 1970 book, Dare to Discipline, Dobson urged beating children from the age of 18 months to 12 years old, using a switch or a paddle, and called for hitting kids with "sufficient magnitude to cause the child to cry genuinely."

Dobson suggests that heterosexual marriage rates in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden are falling due to the recognition of same-sex relationships. According to Dobson, "There is no issue today that is more significant to our culture than the defense of the family. Not even the war on terror eclipses it."

Dobson believes that because of bills prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, "every woman and little girl will have to fear that a predator, bisexual, cross-dresser or even a homosexual or heterosexual male might walk in and relieve himself in their presence."

At one event, Dobson appeared with a "policeman suspended from service for joining a violent abortion protest while on duty."

Dobson has also said, "Patrick Leahy is a God's people hater. I don't know if he hates God, but he hates God's people."

Some conservatives have dared to speak out openly about Dobson’s lunatic beliefs.

Gil Alexander-Moegerle, a former Focus on the Family, noted in his 1997 book James Dobson’s War on America:

James Dobson believes that he has been entirely sanctified, morally perfected, that he does not and cannot sin. Now you know why he and moralists like him make a life of condemning what he believes to be the sins of others. He is perfect.

Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey declared:

The criteria of choice in just about every behavior you see in Congress today is politics. Where in the hell did this Terri Schiavo thing come from? There’s not a conservative, Constitution-loving, separation-of-powers guy alive in the world that could have wanted that bill on the floor. That was pure, blatant pandering to James Dobson. That’s all that was. It was silly, stupid, and irresponsible. Nobody serious about the Constitution would do that. But the question was will this energize our Christian conservative base for the next election.

Armey added:

To a large extent because Dobson and his gang of thugs are real nasty bullies. I pray devoutly every day, but being a Christian is no excuse for being stupid. There’s a high demagoguery coefficient to issues like prayer in schools. Demagoguery doesn’t work unless it’s dumb, shallowas water on a plate. These issues are easy for the intellectually lazy and can appeal to a large demographic. These issues become bigger than life, largely because they’re easy. There ain’t no thinking.

Yet Dobson’s political power continues. In 2007, Dobson led 25 evangelicals who called for the ouster of Rev. Richard Cizik from the National Association of Evangelicals for opposing global warming, accusing Cizik of "using the global warming controversy to shift the emphasis away from the great moral issues of our time."

Dobson also has a connection to the disgraced Republican Jack Abramoff, by following former Christian Coalition head Ralph Reed's request in 2002 for Dobson to help Abramoff in opposing a casino license sought by a competitor to Abramoff’s casino interests. Focus on the Family compounded this evil by lying and claiming that "there is no connection" between Dobson and Reed’s efforts for Abramoff. But three days after Reed guaranteed to Abramoff that "Dr. Dobson would privately urge Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton to oppose the Jena Choctaw casino," Dobson wrote a letter to Norton doing exactly that. Focus on the Family’s radio show also did a "special edition" radio broadcast aired only in that state on behalf of Abramoff’s cause.

As a kid, Dobson recalls that he tried to become a bully and targeted a boy he regarded as a "sissy." When the boy beat up Dobson instead, Dobson decided to use words rather than fists to launch a movement aimed at bullying children and "sissies" on a much larger scale.

Dobson’s attacks on Obama reveal what Dobson truly is: a right-wing nut with delusional interpretations of Bible who wields enormous influence within the Republican Party.

Crossposed at DailyKos.

The New York Times wrote about his "decision to break an earlier pledge to take public money." NPR claimed, "Earlier, Obama had said he would participate in public financing if his Republican rival, Arizona Sen. John McCain, did the same." Chris Matthews on June 19 claimed it was "breaking his principles, breaking his word...It sounds like he’s changed his tune....Something he promised before." David Gregory on his MSNBC show on June 19 claimed it was a "broken pledge by Obama" and declared, "They had a deal." The New York Post headline was, "GOING BARACK ON HIS WORD."

A Wall Street Journal editorial called it a "flip-flop." That line of attack became particularly common: "It was a flip-flop of epic proportions," said Mark Shields on the Lehrer News Hour on June 20, and David Brooks added this it was "the low point of the Obama candidacy" and "epic hypocrisy."

CBS News reported that Obama "abandoned a campaign pledge." NBC News claimed that Obama "did promise to observe the limits if his opponent did." But the most extensive misinformation came from ABC World News. On June 19, Charles Gibson proclaimed, "This is a direct contradiction to what Obama said." George Stephanopoulos proclaimed this a "flip-flop" and added, "this is a clear flip." Continuing the same story for a second day, Gibson proclaimed at the opening of the ABC World News on June 20, "Flip-flop flack: Mounting criticism of Barack Obama for refusing public financing."

And according to ABC’s Jake Tapper, "Obama's stark abandonment of a pledge he repeatedly made during the Democratic primaries has dinged his reputation as a government reformer, and it clearly gave his critics ammunition to attack his character and paint him as a Democratic flip-flopper."

Even progressives fell into this trap. Rachel Maddow declared on June 20 that his stand was "a reversal from his previous position." Joan Walsh of Salon.com proclaimed that Obama "flip-flopped on campaign finance law."(Race to the White House, June 20) Nick Baumann of Mother Jones wrote, "Obama is making a politically expedient decision and essentially going back on his ‘Yes’ answer to a questionnaire that asked whether he would forgo private financing if his opponents did the same."

So what’s the truth. Below is every single case I could find reporting in the media about Obama’s comments on public financing:

1. Even in February 2007, before Obama’s massive fundraising became evident, Obama’s staffers were explicit in stating that public financing in the general election was an "option" and not a commitment.
2. The March 2, 2007 New York Times reported Obama’s campaign saying that he would "aggressively pursue an agreement."

So from the very beginning, the Obama campaign stated over and over again that public financing in general election would require an extensive agreement that went beyond merely having both parties accept the funding.

3. In response to a November 2007 questionnaire to the Midwest Democracy Network and Common Cause, Obama wrote: "My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election....If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."

No one could read this answer as suggesting that Obama would accept public financing under any condition. Obama explicitly "requires" a promise by the Republican to adopt a "fundraising truce"–meaning not using the parties or 527s as a way to cheat the system.

4. In a December 23, 2007 speech in Iowa cited by ABC News on June 19 (a search on the internet and Lexis-Nexis finds no instances of the press reporting on this at the time) Obama said: "I wrote a letter to the FEC saying if my Republican opponent is willing to abide by public financing, I would abide by public financing as well...." At most, if this quote was not taken out of context (ABC News cuts off the end of it), it shows that Obama simply made a mistake in a speech that was never reported on by the press and which he was never asked to explain. Clearly, since his letter to the FEC never made any pledge like that, Obama was simply using an oversimplified explanation to a crowd in one case. No one can imagine that this misstatement amounted to a pledge.

 5. In a February 20, 2008 op-ed for USA Today, Obama explained that such an agreement would have to be carefully negotiated to produce a meaningful agreement in good faith that results in real spending limits. The candidates will have to commit to discouraging cheating by their supporters; to refusing fundraising help to outside groups; and to limiting their own parties to legal forms of involvement. And the agreement may have to address the amounts that Senator McCain, the presumptive nominee of his party, will spend for the general election while the Democratic primary contest continues.

6. At the Democratic Presidential Debate in Cleveland on February 26, Tim Russert asked Obama, "So you may opt out of public financing. You may break your word." Obama responded: "What I – what I have said is, at the point where I'm the nominee, at the point where it's appropriate, I will sit down with John McCain and make sure that we have a system that works for everybody."

7. However, Obama’s promise meant speaking with McCain’s campaign, not necessarily McCain himself. Obama told reporters in February 2008, "If I am the nominee, then I will make sure our people talk to John McCain’s people to make sure we abide by the same rules....My folks will sit down and see whether we can arrive at common sense ground rules."

8. During an April 27 appearance on Fox News, Obama declared, "I have promised that I will sit down with John McCain and talk about can we preserve a public system." Chris Wallace asked: "If you can get that agreement, you would go for a publicly financed campaign?" Obama: "What I don't intend to do is to allow huge amounts of money to be spent by the RNC, the Republican National Committee, or by organizations like the Swift Boat organization, and just stand there without – " Wallace: "But if you get that agreement?" Obama: "I would be very interested in pursuing public financing, because I think not every candidate is going to be able to do what I've done in this campaign, and I think it's important to think about future campaigns."

Obama has been completely consistent from the beginning of his campaign to now on public financing: He would only accept it if the Republicans were willing to meet his conditions for restraining spending by the parties and outside groups.

By contrast to Obama’s consistent commitment to his pledge, McCain’s campaign has shown a clear desire not meet Obama’s standards on campaign finance. As Media Matters noted, the mainstream press such as USA Today, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal failed to mention the fact that McCain, not Obama, had violated the campaign finance laws.

McCain has also indicated, both in words and actions, that he is unwilling to meet Obama’s standards. At the end of May, the Republican National Committee (aided by McCain’s joint fundraising) had almost $54 million, compared to $4 for the Democratic National Committee. McCain flip-flopped and endorsed a North Carolina Republican Party ad attacking Obama. And McCain opened the door for right-wing 527 attacks on Obama, declaring that "I can’t be a referee."

Unlike McCain, Obama asked independent groups to avoid creating 527s and Moveon.org on June 20 announced that it would close its 527 in accord with Obama’s wishes.

The Obama campaign was fully justified in concluding, after an satisfactory meeting between their lawyers, that McCain would not meet the conditions he has explained from the start. Perhaps Obama is guilty of not being aggressive enough in begging McCain to follow these rules, but that’s fundamentally different from violating an unconditional pledge to take public financing–a pledge that Obama never made, and a pledge that the media keep saying he has broken.

Why is the media repeating this lie over and over again?

One reason is the inability of the mainstream media to understand complexity. The notion that Obama could attach conditions to his support of public financing is deemed a cop-out, even if those conditions are entirely rational and consistently given. As Keith Olbermann (a rare exception to the media parade of conformity) noted on June 19 in criticizing Gibson and Stephanopoulos, "you guys have bigger IQs than that. Can't you read the whole paperwork?"

A second reason is the effectiveness of the right-wing in promoting the myth that the media are pro-Obama. This puts pressure on the press to find issues to attack Obama, even when they aren’t true.

A third reason is the "gotcha" mentality of the press toward political reformers. The media believe that anyone who calls for reform should be attacked more viciously than corrupt politicians because of the reformer’s "hypocrisy" and arrogance.

In reality, the media are helping McCain cover up a huge tactical error. McCain could have announced that he would take public financing and publicly agreed to Obama’s requirement for a "fundraising truce." Instead, he failed to push Obama, and embraced the Republican Party and right-wing 527s. McCain foolishly waited until Obama’s announcement, in order to attack Obama. In doing so, McCain lost his only hope for financial parity with Obama, who might have felt obligated to take public financing if McCain had been willing to meet all of the conditions.

Unable to gain a financial advantage by limiting the Obama campaign’s spending and using the Republican party and 527s to smear him, McCain this week turned to his only hope in this campaign: that the mainstream press will lie about Obama, ignore the misconduct of McCain, and help McCain win by misinformation. We can’t let the media get away with distortion of reality.

Crossposted at DailyKos.