I am still trippin’ out hard over this recent episode of The O’Reilly Factor when host Bill O’Reilly was trying to explain libel and the law to two lawyers. Yeah, that makes a whole lot of nonsense.
BILL O’REILLY, PLAYS AN ATTORNEY (HAS PROBABLY SEEN A FEW EPISODES OF MATLOCK AND A COUPLE OF PERRY MASON MADE-FOR-TV MOVIES): All right now, I was libeled by two newspapers, “The Post,” “The L.A. Times,” “Denver Post,” “L.A. Times,” and legions of other people. I’m famous so I can’t hire you to go in there and sue on my behalf, because I would lose. And I understand that. That’s the law here. But the spirit of the attacks on people, that is a violation of my rights. They’re trying to hurt me for my speech. What say you?
JAMI FLOYD, ATTORNEY: Disagree entirely. First of all, you are right, you couldn’t – well, you could hire me, but you would lose because you haven’t been libeled. Libel is very specifically defined in our law. And calling someone a bigot, quite frankly is, not libel.
But in terms of the spirit, I hear where you’re coming from. You know, I would die to defend your right to speak, right, Bill? But that is not a constitutional right from criticism by others, whether you’re a public or a private citizen.
O’REILLY: The difference between criticism and attacks is the difference between — and I disagree with you. Libel is basically saying something untrue about another person.
FLOYD: But the law is very specific about what libel is.
O’REILLY: It doesn’t matter – I don’t care about the law. My rights were violated here because they tried to punish me for my speech. It’s happening all over the place.
FLOYD: The First Amendment protects us from government action that would violate our right to speak. Not from discourse, however ugly it might get among citizens.
I love the exchange during which Floyd attempts to explain to him that he has not been libeled according to the law and he counters by saying he “don’t care about the law” and that his “rights were violated.” He doesn’t care about the law, but his rights were violated. OK. Frankly, I am going to trust a real and rational lawyer over an irrational and dishonest commentator (Bill O’Reilly) when it comes to law-related issues.
I look at some of the so-called media watchdogs on Fox News and nearly all of them are hardcore right-wing commentators. The once-decent,but now pitiful show Fox News Watch, traditionally, has been stacked with far-right guys like Jim Pinkerton and Cal Thomas. Bill O’Reilly brings on the far-right Bernie Goldberg as his media watchdog and, today, Fox News has far-right Liz Trotta on to analyze the media’s coverage of the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the U.S. Supreme Court. The network needs to do a better job of balancing its news and, even more so, its commentary.
Liz Trotta, a Fox News analyst who joked on the air about killing President Barack Obama (before he became president), is going to be on the air to add some kind of analysis to the stories about the nomination of U.S. Supreme Court justice nominee Sonia Sotomayor. I do have somewhat of a problem with Trotta coming on (since she has an anti-Obama, pro-conservative bias). But, I am more concerned with the lack of balance in terms of having someone from the other perspective to make it more of a fair and balanced conversation. As we know, many times Fox News hosts have a bias on the right-learning network. This morning (earlier this morning) I was watching CNN which, for example, had Donna Brazile (a Democrat) and Ed Gillespie (a Republican) for a balanced discussion with host John King.
Liz Trotta is showing her bias (with no differing perspective on this Fox News segment), but this is no big surprise. I’m changing the channel. I gave her a chance and she lived up to her reputation as a right-wing hack.
Fox News is still beating the grave of a dead horse (whining about voter registration fraud with regard to ACORN). They had a couple of right wingers on trying to portray President Obama and Attorney General Holder as essentially teaming up with the New Black Panther Party. This is a tailor-made Fox News story: (1) They can one again attack Barack Obama and (2) they can portray blacks as racist and scary. I do not support New Black Panther Party and I do not support any acts of voter intimidation or disenfranchisement. Those individuals who are engaged in voter intimidation and voter disenfranchisement need to be investigated (and if warranted) prosecuted. One of the guests on this late-morning segment attempted to smear President Obama by invoking the ghosts of Robert F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. I’ve watched this hack on some other shows attacking President Obama and calling on him to apologize (once again we’re in the apology culture … everyone is demanding an apology for one thing or another).
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham was on Fox News Sunday taking U.S. Supreme Court Justice nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s comments out of context to inflame the Republican base. Sen. Graham, like so many others, chooses to take the comments of Sotomayor out of context to fire up the largely white and very conservative Republican base (this is, of course, why you hear people like Pat Buchanan referring to her as an affirmative action selection).
“What she said is that based on her life experiences is that she thought a Latina woman, somebody with her background, would be a better judge than a guy like me — a white guy from South Carolina,” Graham said. “It is troubling, and it’s inappropriate and I hope she’ll apologize.”
She has nothing to apologize for with regard to those comments. What Sen. Graham and others on the right should apologize for is taking what she said out of context. Perhaps if they put it into context, to be fair, and then called for an apology … they might have a (shaky) leg to stand on.
News Hounds is reporting on the attacks against President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama going out on a date in New York.
Here is an excerpt:
The biggest headline on Foxnews.com tonight, bigger than General Motors’ looming bankruptcy and bigger than Obama’s health plan was the GOP “scrutiny” of the Obamas’ date night last night (5/30/09). Fox helpfully spelled out that scrutiny for its readers in the subtitle to the article: President, first lady’s NYC date night draws criticism from GOP, who question the night of entertainment during a recession and while automakers struggle to survive. The same story was repeated on GretaWire, too.
Whiners in the Republican Party are crying because President Barack Obama has the nerve to go out in New York with his wife. It wasn’t all that long ago they cried (particularly the crybaby governor of Nevada, Jim Gibbons) because he was supposedly discouraging people from spending too much money in Vegas and hurting the economy. Now they’re complaining that he is going out with his wife in New York.
I’m not sure if Republican Party head Rush Limbaugh approved this particular message (although I am sure he approves of any anti-Obama message):
The Republican National Committee issued a news release that chastised Obama for saying he understands American’s troubles, but then hopping up to New York for “a night on the town.”
That is a funny comment coming from the party that (throughout last year) criticized Barack Obama for being a community organizer in the city of Chicago (where he was working with working-class people and not making a lot of money doing it). Conservatives turned “community organizer” into some kind of evil term. Now, coming full circle, the Republicans are trying to portray him as some out-of-touch elitist. It won’t fly and it just looks plain silly for the conservatives who are grasping at straws trying to attack President Obama.
I guess the conservatives (Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter and others) are taking a break from mischaracterizing and smearing Judge Sonia Sotmayor (a U.S. Supreme Court justice nominee) while inexplicably and inappropriately painting her as a racist (funny coming from some of these far-right conservatives). With a break from that comes this manufactured nontroversy over President Obama going out with his wife.
Those who know me really well know at least a little bit about my affinity for women’s college softball. Softball is far and away one of my favorite sports to watch (live or on television). At this very moment, I am watching Michigan (from my home state GO BLUE!) play Georgia in the Women’s College Softball World Series. But, the more I watch some of these women’s college softball games, particularly the ones at the major college level, the more I am becoming increasingly convinced that the field dimensions are becoming too small as the athletes are becoming bigger, stronger and better. I’ve heard some college coaches discuss the issue. I wouldn’t say it was consensus, but the sentiment seemed to be that there were a good number of people appreciative of seeing more home runs … and, thus, fewer long outs. Now, from an excitement standpoint, clearly there is a value to the home run. But, as these outstanding women athletes become bigger, stronger and better … when do softball officials consider moving the fence back a bit to keep up with the positive evolution of the players?
I was reading an editorial from the Washington Times (reported on the Fox News Web site) about alleged voter intimidation on the part of the New Black Panther Party for Self Defense. Now, it’s blind-as-a-bat obvious why Fox News would highlight such an editorial (it attempts to paint President Obama and his administration in a negative light, it highlights black extremists and it attempts to frighten white conservatives). It’s very likely this is the same reason the Washington Times, a very conservative-leaning newspaper, also would run such an editorial. Trust me. You do not have to read too deep into the editorial to see the strong right-wing lean of the paper (or, at the very least, its editorial board).
Now, that being said … I do not in any way, shape or form condone acts of voter intimidation or acts to purposely and unfairly disenfranchise voters. I didn’t like it when it happened in Florida and elsewhere in 2000, either. However, it’s difficult to respect the Washington Times editorial since it flat out poo-poos voter intimidation and voter disenfranchisement in Florida in 2000 (as one example) and throws a fit about the Black Panthers.
The editorial would have far more credibility if it did not go out of its way to blow off all the people who were blown off in Florida in 2000 (including thousands who were inaccurately labeled as criminals and were not allowed to vote). Voting intimidation is wrong … whether it favors Democrats or Republicans.
Lets balance it out.
Consider this (as just one small example from the Web site Project Vote):
The most flagrant example of voter intimidation is the commission of violence, or the threat of violence, against a particular group of voters. Polling places in low-income, minority, and heavily Democratic areas may be targeted for vandalism or destruction, causing both psychological and physical impediments to voting. Voters are also intimidated when they are informed falsely that, for example, they will be arrested at the polling place if they owe child support or have outstanding parking tickets.
Economic voter intimidation also exists, where an employer or supervisor threatens a person’s job if he votes for a particular candidate or party against the wishes of the company or union. Former felons suffer intimidation when they are told that they are ineligible to vote when they are eligible or banning non-felons due to record-keeping errors. Conversely, in Florida during the 2000 presidential election, almost 20,000 people with names similar to felons were disenfranchised when an error-ridden list of “felons” was used to bar them from voting. In the 2004 presidential election, voters received phone calls with false information about changes in voting locations or misinforming them that they should vote on Wednesday instead of Tuesday.
The 2008 presidential election was one of the most competitive elections in our history, which led to many instances of voter intimidation. For example:
In October 2008, the ACLU of New Mexico and Project Vote filed a lawsuit charging a Republican New Mexico State Representative and a private investigator with voter intimidation and invasion of privacy. Newly-registered minority voters were declared in a press conference by the NM State Representative to have fraudulently voted in the state primary elections. A private investigator was later hired by a party official to go to the homes of these voters and interrogate them about their citizenship status.
After a rally in Fayetteville, North Carolina, supporters of Barack Obama went to a nearby early voting center, where they were heckled and harassed by a group of protesters as they went in to vote. Nearly all of the early voters were black, and nearly all of the protesters were white.
In Virginia, students at Virginia Tech were told that if they registered to vote in Virginia, it could affect their scholarship or tax dependency status and would obligate them to change their car registration and driver’s license to their permanent address.
Finally, a poll worker in Dearborn, Michigan was perceived to be intimidating Muslim Americans, of which Dearborn has a large concentration. Two Michigan precincts also reported the presence of police scanning the long lines for voters with outstanding warrants, with one person being arrested.
It happens all the time, but Fox News and the Washington Times should be more consistent and balanced in coverage and opinion
It’s supremely difficult to have much respect for an opinion when it is based on statements not put into the proper context. Once again, the conservatives of this nation are taking comments made by U.S. Supreme Court Justice nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor out of context – in a savage attempt to paint her as a racist. The latest (not the first and surely not the last) is Fox News Republican political commentator Andrea Tantaros, who proves only slightly better (because she at least recognizes how politically stupid this line of attack is) than notorious bigots/haters Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich.
Here is an excerpt from her column on the Fox News Web site:
The verdict is in: Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich think Obama’s Supreme Court pick, Sonia Sotomayor, is a racist. Why? They start (and finish) with these remarks:
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
Yup, sounds like racism to me. And of course if any white man would have said the reverse he’d be vilified.
Any Republican assault that appears shrill to the electorate will backfire and damage our brand.
However, calling her a racist — though intellectually honest — is politically most unwise. The visual is even worse: two, old white guys angrily battling a minority female (I’m having flashbacks of the partial birth abortion bill passage when President Bush was flanked by all men in dark suits and grey hair. Not a woman in sight. It wasn’t pretty). This is not the picture, or the fight, we want.
Tantaros joins the same sad extreme right-wing talking points and tries to paint Judge Sotomayor as a racist with out-of-context comments. It’s intellectually dishonest and highly intentional.
It looks bad, for Republicans, because it is bad, for the diversity-challenged and empathy-resistant Republicans.
In his eagerness to continue to attack U.S. Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh tries to set Hispanic men and women against each other, in this rant, and finishes this latest example of madness by calling Native Americans “clowns.”
It has been a couple of years since I worked in the newspaper business, but I am having a difficult time understanding how something like this slips by:
Warren Times Observer Publisher John Elchert says the ad appeared Thursday. It read, “May Obama follow in the steps of Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley and Kennedy!” The four presidents were all assassinated.
That is unbelievable and, quite frankly, inexcusable. It sounds like the information has been turned over to the police and the Secret Service.
I am now convinced that conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh (the true head of the Republican Party), secretly, is a Democratic operative who has been placed in the GOP to destroy it from within.
Consider these comments documented by Media Matters for America regarding Rush Limbaugh’s latest vicious attack of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, who would be the first Hispanic woman to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court:
LIMBAUGH: I care about whether she’s qualified, and I think she’s disqualified herself. Not only does she lack the often-discussed appropriate judicial temperament, it’s worse than that. She brings a form of bigotry or racism to the court. I don’t care – we’re not supposed to say it, we’re supposed to pretend it didn’t happen, we’re supposed to look at other things, but it’s the elephant in the room. The real question here that needs to be asked – and nobody on our side, from a columnist to a TV commentator to anybody in our party has the guts to ask: How can a president nominate such a candidate? And how can a party get behind such a candidate? That’s what would be asked if somebody were foolish enough to nominate David Duke or pick somebody even less offensive.
So, now he is comparing Judge Sotomayor to David Duke … DAVID DUKE!
The man has lost his mind.
I don’t know how the Democrats got him (perhaps they used the Jedi mind trick from the old-school Star Wars movies … something) to infiltrate the GOP and destroy it from within.
Is there any wonder, now, why the Republican Party lacks diversity?
All I have to say to Rush is: Keeping talking big man!
Fox News reporter Major Garrett had an opportunity to ask White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs a question … and asks a dumb, partisan one about the shutdowns of Chrysler dealerships.
It’s nice to see Gibbs let Garrett down gently after a puzzling question.
News Corp Chairman Rupert Murdoch believes that at some point in the future we will have to pay up to read our “favorite newspaper(s)” on the Internet. To some extent, I think Murdoch could prove to be correct. I suspect many newspapers (those that do not die) are going to attempt to charge readers for online news content. Printing newspapers is becoming increasingly expensive and many papers are either folding or cutting back the number of days they’re printing physical newspapers. More and more, people are going online to find their news.
MURDOCH: You’re going to have to pay for your favorite newspaper on the Web. (Free content online) is going to stop. Newspapers will be selling subscriptions on the Web. The whole thing (premium content) will be there. The Web as it is today will be vastly improved, they’ll be much in them and you’ll pay for them.
Sure, newspapers could attempt such an approach. But, what that might open up is an opportunity for citizen journalists – particularly in larger cities. You will still be able to get your news for free on the radio, television and with blogs. Radio, television and bloggers (who will always be able to find content to blog about) could be helped most by newspapers attempting to charge for what previously has been (for the most part) free content. Newspapers are banking on people being willing to pay for (online) what they are not as willing to pay for right now (in print).
Time will tell what happens with a newspaper industry that is in serious trouble right now, and desperately seeking some answers in an increasingly technological world.
Those hard-working men and women running newspaper printing presses (and the people making the deliveries to stores and coin boxes) are the ones who could be in trouble in the years to come.
It’s difficult right now to say what will happen in the newspaper industry.
It’s good tosee Republican Sen. John Cornyn, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, trying to keep an open mind in a party that is working hard to attack U.S. Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor on a number of racial, racist and sexist fronts. Leading the attacks have been the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Pat Buchanan and others. Other Republican leaders need to step forward and wrest control of the party away from the far-right extremists.
“I think it’s terrible. This is not the kind of tone any of us want to set when it comes to performing our constitutional responsibilities of advise and consent.”
The attacks just keep on coming against U.S. Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Conservatives have gone beyond questioning her record and qualifications – both of which are fair game. Many on the far right are questioning Judge Sotomayor’s intellect, labeling her as angry and as a bully and referring to her as an “affirmative-action” pick. Here is a radio exchange by a pair of old-school right wingers: Fred Barnes and Bill Bennett.
BARNES: I think you can make the case that she’s one of those who has benefited from affirmative action over the years tremendously.
BENNETT: Yeah, well, maybe so. Did she get into Princeton on affirmative action, one wonders.
BARNES: One wonders.
BENNETT: Summa Cum Laude, I don’t think you get on affirmative action. I don’t know what her major was, but Summa Cum Laude’s a pretty big deal.
BARNES: I guess it is, but you know, there’s some schools and maybe Princeton’s not one of them, where if you don’t get Summa Cum Laude then or some kind of Cum Laude, you then, you’re a D+ student.
Note to Fred Barnes: You know your opinion is extreme when you have a hard time convincing even someone like Bill Bennett, who is highly conservative.
Some on the right continue to use affirmative action as a weapon to attack and to marginalize the accomplishments of people of color, and probably always will.
Conservative commentator Greg Gutfeld is at it again with his nasty comments aimed at U.S. Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor, who would be the first Hispanic woman to be confirmed as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. As we know, a growing number of conservatives have been reaching for ammunition (both real and imagined) to use against the well-qualified Judge Sotomayor (this includes taking her statements out of context and, the irony of all ironies, calling her a racist).
Here is an excerpt from a blog written by Greg Gutfeld:
So President Barack Obama just named federal appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor as the nominee for the next Supreme Court Justice.
So what do we know about her?
Well, she’s Hispanic.
Also, she’s Puerto Rican.
And…she’s Hispanic.
Plus, she’s Puerto Rican.
Case closed.
That’s the joy of racial politics and the media that swallows it– all you need to know about a person is their racial makeup - and in the words of the cop grimly taping off the bedroom in my vacation condo, there’s “nothing more to see here.”
Gutfeld takes a well-qualified judge, a scholar (a 1976 graduate of Princeton and and a 1979 graduate of Yale Law School) who has worked her way up from meager beginnings, and reduces her to little more than a Hispanic/Puerto Rican woman – as if she is just a token pick. It’s a shameful and unfair smear of a well-qualified judge by the same moron who got his smearing practice by disparaging the Canadian military.
Sandy Gholston