Administration’s Counter-Terrorism Chief Does Three Network Sunday Shows

Coming up on the first anniversary of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, it will be victory-lap time on Fox News Sunday, CNN’s State of the Union and ABC’s This Week, with counter-terrorism adviser John Brennan as the guest. Andrew Malcolm writes:

You remember Brennan as the one rushed out to the White House briefing room the next day to provide the hungry media with their cherished tick-tock account of the commandos’ penetration into Pakistan and the slaying of the instigator of 9/11.
Unfortunately, so eager was the administration to tell its story quickly, that Brennan’s premature enunciation of the event contained numerous details later adjusted or contradicted, detracting from the anticipated accolades.
By now, however, most of the raid confusion is cleared. And everyone knows that the successful killing was mainly the result of Obama’s brave decision, although the SEALs, the stealth helicopter pilots and the Air Force electronic cloaking crews probably helped a little.
Oh, look, it’s an election year!

Sarcastic much? Allahpundit says you should skip the three-network BrennanFest in favor of Bob Schieffer’s lineup on Face the Nation:

CBS looks like the better bet for OBL coverage, though. They’ve got David Ignatius, whose new column argues that the Islamist trend in the Arab Spring has given Bin Laden the last laugh, and Peter Bergen, who interviewed OBL four years before 9/11 and has a new book on the manhunt for him out on Tuesday.

From that David Ignatius column:

Egypt is a case in point: This has been a year of mostly nonviolent democratic revolution. But it has brought to power some Salafist and Muslim Brotherhood groups that share common theological roots with bin Laden. And the al-Qaeda goal of driving the “apostate,” pro-American President Hosni Mubarak from power has been achieved. . . .
What we’re seeing now in Egypt is something that might be called electoral bin Ladenism. Take the group Gamaa Islamiya, which under its spiritual leader, Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, made the first unsuccessful attempt to destroy the World Trade Center in 1993. Today, the organization has formed a Salafist political party with the benign name Building and Development Party. This organization, which like al-Qaeda traces its roots to the Islamist theorist Sayyid Qutb, has 13 seats in the new Egyptian parliament.

You might also want to check William Jacobson’s argument: “Obama got Osama, but lost the Middle East.”

While you browse your local TV schedule for Sunday show times, a couple more points: CNN’s also has House Speaker John Boehner, while NBC’s Meet the Press goes straight to the presidential campaign, with Ed Gillespie for the Republicans and Robert Gibbs for the Democrats — plus Hilary Rosen and Rachel Maddow!

If any of these people make actual news, I’ll let you know.

Media Matters: Tax-Exempt Group’s Perverse Obsession With Fox News

David Brock, founder of Media Matters for America, promotes his
anti-Fox News book in March C-SPAN “Book TV” appearance

What is the annual budget of Media Matters for America? Why is MMFA considered a tax-exempt charitable organization?

What “charitable” purpose is served by paying people to attack Fox News all day long, every day, 365 days a year? MMFA’s Web site has an entire category devoted to Fox News, and on a single day this week — Thursday, April 26 — they posted no fewer than 11 such items:

How can MMFA possibly defend its status as a 501(c)3 charity, when so much of its effort is devoted to criticizing a single entity? As I have mentioned before, Fox News accounts for barely 1/8th of the total national TV news audience. Ratings for March 30-April 4:

NBC Nightly News ………………. 7.9 million
ABC World News ………………… 6.8 million
CBS Evening News ………………. 5.8 million

Total “Big Three” evening news audience …. 20.5 million

Fox News Channel The O’Reilly Factor ……… 3.3 million

O’Reilly is the top-rated show on Fox, so his numbers represent the maximum estimate of Fox’s average audience. Add in MSNBC (about 1.1 million viewers for their highest-rated program, The Rachel Maddow Show) and CNN (about 600,000 for their highest-rated program, Anderson Cooper 360), and you get a combined national TV news audience (NBC, ABC, CBS, FNC, MSNBC, CNN) of 25.5 million, of which the Fox News Channel’s share is a mere 12.9 percent.

Why, then, is this multimillion-dollar “charity,” Media Matters, devoting such enormous attention to this one cable TV channel?

Providing employment to demented left-wing moonbats whose only “journalism” skill is their venomous hatred of Republicans?

Well, yeah, I guess that could be considered a charitable endeavor, but how does MSNBC manage to do it on a for-profit basis?

 


NYC Investigators Raid Fox News ‘Mole’

For some reason, I never got around to blogging about Joe Muto, who was earning $60,000 a year as an associate producer for “The O’Reilly Factor” when he agreed — for the reported sum of $5,000 — to become a “mole” inside Fox News for Nick Denton’s Gawker blog. Among other things, Muto described the network’s Fox Nation blog as “an unholy mashup of the Drudge Report, the Huffington Post and a Klan meeting.”

It took every bit of 24 hours from the time of his first Gawker “mole” post for Fox executives to discover Muto’s identity and fire him. And now Muto may be facing criminal charges:

A “polite” crew from the District Attorney’s office served Fox Mole Joe Muto with a search warrant at 6:30 this morning, Mr. Muto said on Twitter.
Officers took his iPhone, laptop and old notebooks, he wrote, adding that, according to the warrant, he is being investigated for charges including grand larceny.

Muto used the occasion to to sling more snark at Fox, which prompted some helpful advice from FishbowlNY’s Chris O’Shea:

Uh, maybe — and we could be wrong here — the time to shut-up is after police raid your apartment.

No point trying to teach a punk like Joe Muto. In my experience, gossipy backstabbing malcontents who think they’re smarter than everyone else aren’t nearly as smart as they think they are, because no one could possibly be as smart as they think they are.

 

Aww, Shucks, Ma’am, ‘Tweren’t Nothin’ …

After yesterday’s post about Jennifer Stefano, Bob Beckel’s F-bomb and Neal Boortz’s “rabid shrew” comments, the ladies at AFP Pennsylvania hail me as a “BeckelGate Hero.”

If a blog could blush . . .

UPDATE: She shares her side of the story:

What I want people to take away
from my exchange with Bob Beckel

UPDATE II: The video, in case you missed it:

No kidding: Despite his ideological liberalism and Democratic partisanship, Bob Beckel is beloved by (almost) everyone who knows him. Beckel is a recovering alcoholic who has helped counsel many others with similar problems. And being the token Democrat on Fox News has got to be a tough job.

Also, you should be sure to follow Jennifer Stefano, Katy Abrams and AFP Pennsylvania on Twitter.

Boortz Blames ‘Rabid Shrew’ Tea Party Mom for Bob Beckel’s F-Bomb Eruption UPDATE: Boortz Says ‘I Was Wrong’

If you are familiar with the Tea Party movement, you almost certainly know that Jennifer Stefano of AFP Pennsylvania is one of the movement’s most feisty, outspoken leaders.

Last night on Hannity, veteran Democratic Party operative Bob Beckel blew up at Stefano and shouted — live, on the air — “You don’t know what the f–k you’re talking about!”

The third member of Hannity’s “Great American” panel, Neal Boortz, took to Twitter to explain:

OK. Look — truth is the blond lady was on Beckel like a rabid shrew during the break.  He reacted. I might have done the same thing.

More:

Breaks are not a time to continue the assault. Time to sit back, take a breather, and plan your attack when the red light comes back on.

More:

Guess I’m not Jennifer’s fave right now. But relentless and shrill attack on @RobertGBeckel during break was unnecessary.

More:

@katyabram Not trying to make enemies here … but she bored in on Bob and would NOT let go.  Not even during a break.

More:

@katyabram Reminded me of female attorneys in the late ’70s when I starter practicing.  Relentless … giving no quarter.

Hmmmm. Is there some kind of “boys club” thing going on here? Grant that going after an antagonist during the commercial break is probably considered “unprofessional” among TV commentators. But the protective circle-the-wagons defense of Beckel would seem to be rather — what’s that fancy word the feminists use? — gendered.

We’ll let the feminists decide whether the token Democrat on Fox News is guilty of being a MISOGYNISTIC PATRIARCHAL OPPRESSOR, and just give props to our favorite “rabid shrew.”

Everybody follow Jennifer Stefano on Twitter!

UPDATE: Frances Martel at Mediaite:

Bob Beckel didn’t realize when the commercial break ended during tonight’s final segment of Hannity, caught in a heated off-camera argument with fellow panelist Jennifer Stefano. . . .
In a blooper that is as hilarious as it increasingly becomes painful, it slowly dawns on Beckel what actually happened, as Hannity insists he apologize and Beckel, after saying he won’t several times, finally realizes the cameras are actually rolling. When he finally figured it out, he told Hannity to “run your show better,” then covered his head in shame and refused to speak, other than to say “I’m going to be fired.”

P.S.: Stefano says she actually likes Beckel. Scary to imagine what it would be like with someone she didn’t like. (Note to self: Avoid arguments with “rabid shrew.”)

UPDATE II: Boortz apologizes on Twitter:

I was wrong to use the word “shrew”. She’s a patriot, and she was relentless. Whole episode was unfortunate.

“Unfortunate,” and also kinda hilarious.

The Fox Factor: Newt, Sarah, Mitt, Rick, Bias and ‘The Mother of All Spin-Jobs’

Newt Gingrich tells the truth:

During a meeting with 18 Delaware Tea Party leaders here on Wednesday, Newt Gingrich lambasted FOX News Channel, accusing the cable network of having been in the tank for Mitt Romney from the beginning of the Republican presidential fight. An employee himself of the news outlet as recently as last year, he also cited former colleagues for attacking him out of what he characterized as personal jealousy.
“I think FOX has been for Romney all the way through,” Gingrich said during the private meeting — to which RealClearPolitics was granted access — at Wesley College. “In our experience, Callista and I both believe CNN is less biased than FOX this year. We are more likely to get neutral coverage out of CNN than we are of FOX, and we’re more likely to get distortion out of FOX. That’s just a fact.” . . .
“I assume it’s because Murdoch at some point [who] said, ‘I want Romney,’ and so ‘fair and balanced’ became ‘Romney,’ ” Gingrich said. “And there’s no question that Fox had a lot to do with stopping my campaign because such a high percentage of our base watches FOX.”

Four quick points:

  1. Newt can say this, now that his campaign is $4 million in debt and he’s got zero chance of winning the nomination.
  2. Newt used to work for Fox. I suspect he’s been talking to CNN executives about a future gig.
  3. It’s not Murdoch who makes the calls, but Roger Ailes and top executives and producers who are the shot-callers at Fox News.
  4. Scott Conroy does something here that annoys my inner copy editor, namely writing FOX in all caps, as if it were an acronym, which it’s not. The name originated as 20th Century Fox, a company that was purchased by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. and re-branded, first as the Fox broadcast TV network and then in such cable spinoffs as Fox News Channel (FNC). But the word “Fox” is not an acronym, and people who want to write it “FOX” — evidently trying to match the acronyms by which other networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, etc.) are known — are simply wrong, and must be corrected, lest the erroneous example be imitated.

Scott Conroy has done excellent work in his career — scooped me on my own beat more than once — but that one little thing gets on my nerves so bad I could scream. However, I digress . . .

Having closely scrutinized coverage of this year’s campaign, I know what Newt’s talking about, and certain stipulations must be made: Sean Hannity and Greta Van Susteren were quite even-handed in their treatment of the GOP candidates. Sean and Greta both gave time to underdog candidates, including Rick Santorum and Herman Cain during the months when they seemed permanently stuck in the campaign purgatory of “second-tier” status.

Coverage of the campaign by the dayside programs on Fox News, however, seemed to be dictated by behind-the-scenes producers who exhibited a clear bias toward front-runners and even — as during the ludicrous Donald Trump faux-candidacy — toward certain Big Names that were merely the objects of ill-informed presidential speculation.

Let’s just say it, OK?

I love Sarah Palin, and would have loved to cover her campaign if she had run, but once Rick Perry jumped in (and remember, Palin had endorsed Perry in his 2010 primary against Kay Bailey Hutchison) it seemed blindingly obvious that Palin wasn’t running. The subsequent six-week will-she-or-won’t-she game struck me as a made-for-TV drama cleverly scripted by Roger Ailes for the specific purpose of boosting his own network’s ratings.

There: Now, I’ve said it.

In terms of political judgment, Bill O’Reilly is a nincompoop, his entire worldview shaped by his New York D’Amato/Giuliani Republican Party machine frame of reference. The commentators who appear most frequently on Fox’s D.C.-based programs — Chris Stirewalt, Stephen Hayes, etc. — all bring to the table their own prejudices. And the network’s reverential touch-the-hem-of-his-garment attitude toward Karl Rove makes me want to puke. Continue reading The Fox Factor: Newt, Sarah, Mitt, Rick, Bias and ‘The Mother of All Spin-Jobs’ →

Roll Over for Romney?

Kiss my ass!

Between his inevitability and his electability, Romney’s advocates would have you believe their man is an unstoppable electoral juggernaut, a lead-pipe cinch to become the next President of the United States, and they’ve managed to sell that proposition with the assistance of journalists who seem suspiciously eager to ignore all evidence to the contrary. So when Santorum won his 11th victory Saturday in Louisiana by a margin much larger than anyone had predicted, the media went out of their way to pretend that this result was neither surprising nor significant. Fox News actually interrupted coverage of Santorum’s victory speech in order to permit their reporter Carl Cameron to provide the pro-Romney angle on the Louisiana vote. Sunday morning, Fox brought on Romney surrogate John Sununu and gave him 10 minutes of airtime to pour cold water on any notion that Santorum’s 22-point margin of victory in Louisiana might portend any meaningful revival of conservative resistance to Mitt. . . .

Read the whole thing. (Hey, if Rick can yell “bulls–t” at the New York Times, I think I’m OK yelling “kiss my ass” at Al Cardenas.)

UPDATE: Daria DiGiovanni stands by Santorum:

It’s refreshing to watch a GOP candidate for President express the outrage so many of us are currently feeling.

Read the whole thing.

Rick Santorum in Cavuto Interview: ‘This Is the Hatchet-Job of All Time’ (Video Added)

BATON ROUGE, Louisiana
Rick Santorum says it is “absurd” for anyone to suggest he would not support the Republican Party’s nominee against President Obama.

“This is the hatchet-job of all time,” the former Pennsylvania senator told Neil Cavuto during an often-contentious Friday afternoon interview on Fox News about Santorum’s comments at a Thursday event in Texas. “I’ve said repeatedly the number-one priority is beating Barack Obama. I’d support anybody. They said, ‘Would you support Ron Paul?’ Of course, I’d support anybody on the Republican ticket and I’ve said it throughout the course of this campaign.”

Santorum blasted the controversy over his remarks during an appearance Thursday in San Antonio as “a made-up story.” During that Texas speech, Santorum reiterated his argument for offering a conservative alternative to Obama by saying that if Republicans nominate Mitt Romney, “we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk with what may be the Etch A Sketch candidate of the future.” (Click here to see full quote and video of Santorum’s San Antonio comments.)

In his Friday interview with Cavuto, Santorum clarified that remark, saying said he has been “traveling around this country saying that the highest priority is to defeat Barack Obama, and what I was saying there is that, if we don’t have a choice, then the American public, y’know, may decide to keep Barack Obama. That’s all I said. I’ve said it in every speech.”

The latest polls show Santorum with a double-digit lead among Louisiana Republicans on the eve of Saturday’s primary here.

I will have more quotes from Santorum’s interview with Cavuto, and will add reaction to his interview and video as they become available.

UPDATE: Alex Alvarez at the liberal Mediaite blog headlines this, “Neil Cavuto Hammers Rick Santorum Over Obama/Romney Comparison,” and calls the interview “a shouting match.” Cavuto was (a) at the very least playing devil’s advocate or (b) possibly even pushing Romney talking points. But I repeat myself.

Anyway, here’s the video:

UPDATE II: Fox News calls this a “fiery interview” and, indeed, Cavuto’s viewers saw the fiery side of Rick Santorum. Clearly, he has gotten sick and tired of what’s been happening the past few weeks: Reporters playing journalistic “gotcha” games, knowing that if they can be the first to find two “controversial” sentences in an hour-long Santorum speech and turn it into a catchy headline, they’re guaranteed a Drudge link.

Let those of you who are not Santorum fans ask yourself this important question: What if you were in Rick Santorum’s shoes?

What if you had spent all those months criss-crossing Iowa in a pickup truck, speaking to small groups of Republican voters. Sometimes less than a half-dozen would show up, but Rick would give them the full treatment, as if they were the most powerful and influential Republicans in Iowa — and, as it turned out, they were: When push came to shove, after the Perry bandwagon ran into the ditch, after the Cain Train ran off the rails, after Newt imploded, all those voters Santorum had been shaking hands with said to themselves, “You know something? We ought to vote for Rick. He’s earned it.”

And he earned it when nobody believed he could do it, when all he had was determination in the face of relentless discouragement.

Santorum didn’t have big money. He didn’t have praise from big-name pundits. He didn’t have the GOP Establishment on his side, and the major media gave him quite nearly zero coverage. But he kept plugging away — “Steady Eddie,” as he said — until he finally broke through.

So he did all that, campaigning for nearly a year, and now that he’s the leading rival to Mr. Inevitable, what kind of coverage does he get? “Gotcha”!

And too many conservatives, who should be defending Santorum against these attacks, are instead playing along with the media “gotcha” game, ready to throw Santorum under the Romney bus.

Let me tell you something: I remember when Charles Johnson tried to throw Pamela Geller under the wheels of his Little Green Bus, and I stood up and said not just no, but hell, no.

Maybe Rick Santorum’s not your favorite candidate. Maybe Pamela Geller’s not your favorite blogger. Maybe Rush Limbaugh’s not your favorite talk-radio host, but conservatives can’t let liberals tell us who our friends are.

Don’t let liberals tell you what to think. Don’t play along with the “gotcha” game. Don’t help them defame people’s reputations.

By God, REMEMBER BREITBART!

Update III (Smitty): thank you, Instapundit! I think Stacy may be in need of encouragement down in the Big Easy.

Update IV (Smitty): linked by CrackMC in a long meditation with quite a few interesting images and thoughts. Have to re-read that one.