The press still thinks [global warming] is controversial. So they find the 1% of the scientists and put them up as if they’re 50% of the research results. You in the public would have no idea that this is basically a done deal and that we’re on to other problems, because the journalists are trying to give it a 50/50 story. It’s not a 50/50 story. It’s not. Period.
All that happened here is that groups applying to the IRS for special tax status were checked to see if they were engaged in political activity. They were checked, not targeted. Only one-third of the groups checked were conservative groups.
Don’t believe the hype that concern over Newtown has gone cool.
Of course, it’s entirely likely that Congress will not reflect the public’s view on gun laws and will fail to do much of anything. But reporters shouldn’t blame that on the public–and leave it to liberal-leaning roundtable guests to point out the facts they’re leaving out of the discussion. (via Did the Public Really Give Up on Gun Control?)
When the Boy Scouts announced in late January that it would be reviewing its ban on openly gay members, it should have sparked a national conversation about discrimination against LGBT youth. Instead, mainstream media outlets allowed their coverage to be hijacked by anti-gay conservatives fear mongering that gay scout leaders might sexually abuse young boys. (via Report: How The Media Turned The Boy Scouts Story Into A Debate Over Pedophilia | Blog | Media Matters for America)
It is about time.
Coverage of climate change from television news outlets has dropped precipitously since 2009. And during the lead-up and arrival of Superstorm Sandy, the climate connection to extreme weather was conspicuously absent.
But as broadcast journalists transition from tracking Superstorm Sandy to covering its aftermath, some television outlets are starting to explore the role of climate change in more detail. Starting yesterday afternoon, there was an increase in climate-related stories, with extensive segments appearing on Al Jazeera, Current TV, MSNBC, and NBC. (via Watch: Television News Starts Covering The Link Between Climate Change And Superstorm Sandy | ThinkProgress)
…[F]or all that is wrong about Fannie and Freddie, they were not the main reason for the financial crisis. Instead, they are a convenient red herring for politicians trying to shift blame and for Wall Street interests trying to fight off new regulations.
If a tree falls in the forest, and corporate media don’t cover it, doesn’t the majority still want it to fall?
05/11/2011 by Peter Hart
I saw a press release yesterday announcing that Rep. Jim McDermott (D.-Wash) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I.-Vt.) were introducing a single-payer healthcare bill in both houses of Congress. Unless there was a drastic change in the corporate media, this news wasn’t going to be, well, news.
And it hasn’t been so far. There were mentions in independent outlets like Democracy Now!, GritTV and the Nation. But in the corporate media, next to nothing— except for one brief mention on CNN, thanks to Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuvel:
VANDEN HEUVEL: The progressive caucus, which put out a people’s budget which is fair, did not get attention because the media slighted it and marginalized it. That is a mainstream budget.
SPITZER: One second, you’ll get your turn.
VANDEN HEUVEL: No, but I do think, when Bernie Sanders and McDermott put forth a Medicare-for-all, that is a majority position.
In coverage of the budget negotiations in Washington, which have largely revolved around how much money will be cut from the federal budget, it’s rarely acknowledged that the standard economic assumption is that reducing government spending at a time of diminished economic activity will destroy jobs. As a rule of thumb, every $1 billion in spending cuts eliminates roughly 10,000 jobs. (The Economic Policy Institute provides a slightly more sophisticated explanation here.)
Given the the public consistently tells pollsters that job creation should be the country’s top priority—often picked over deficit reduction by wide margins—this information should be included in every article on the budget debate. Thus when the New York Times (4/8/11) says that the Obama administration has agreed to $34.5 billion in cuts, and House Speaker John Boehner is pushing for $39 billion, the paper should note that the administration’s position would cost approximately 345,000 jobs, while Boehner’s would reduce employment by about 390,000.
I suspect that the inclusion of this information would rapidly change the debate.