David Shulter on Olbermann

David Shulter defends Keith Olbermann on Reliable Sources. Baltimore Sun David Zurawik actually says that Bill O'Reilly has been more reasonable during the past year than Olberman. O'Reilly defended calling George Tiller a baby Tiller after the doctor's death. On what planet does Zurawik find that reasonable. Zurawik goes on to attack the "Worst Persons" list by comparing Olbermann to Joe McCarthy. Zurawik fails to realize he can't attack Olbermann for using heated rhetoric and then commit the same journalistic sin.

Fun fact: at the end of the video Howard Kurtz says the daytime news shows practice journalism standards. The news shows are unapologeticly anti-Obama.

Obama's State Dept. jokes about Osama but is serious about WikiLeaks

Guest post by Ron Brynaert

Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs Philip “P.J.” Crowley isn't playing around when it comes to WikiLeaks and Julian Assange.

At the Daily Beast, Howard Kurtz reports, "As Julian Assange steps up his rhetoric and his releases of sensitive material, the State Department is becoming increasingly undiplomatic."

With Julian Assange in jail, the State Department steps up its WikiLeaks counteroffensive. Howard Kurtz talks to State brass about his motive and why he should be considered dangerous.

As Julian Assange steps up his rhetoric and his releases of sensitive material, the State Department is becoming increasingly undiplomatic.

“Mr. Assange is not seemingly worried about real lives and real careers which can be put at risk of being intimidated, jailed or killed,” Assistant Secretary P.J. Crowley told The Daily Beast. His most recent statements “really unmasked him.”

Hours after WikiLeaks published a secret memo listing more than 100 factories, labs, and underseas cables that the United States considers critical for world security, Crowley said: “In releasing that kind of information, Mr. Assange is giving a group like al Qaeda a potential targeting list.”

All seriousness now, Mr. Crowley is not in a joke-telling mood.

Unfortunately, when the subject matter is al Qaeda mastermind Osama bin Laden, the State Department flack believes it's his duty to turn into Robin Williams (of the unfunny Patch Adams variety).

On March 29, 2010 at a State Dept. press conference a reporter and Crowley had the following exchange after President Obama made a surprise visit to Afghanistan:

QUESTION: I hope you have some Osama bin Laden soon.

MR. CROWLEY: Hmm?

QUESTION: I hope you have Osama bin Laden coming soon.

MR. CROWLEY: (Laughter.) We all hope for that day.

In May, Crowley's joking on bin Laden attracted a bit more attention.

AFP reported,

The US State Department, after hearing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad say Osama bin Laden was in Washington, joked Wednesday it found no trace of him despite a thorough search.

"We've done an intensive search here at the Department of State -- every nook and cranny, every rock -- and we can safely report that Osama bin Laden is not here," State Department spokesman Philip Crowley said.

"You mean Greater Washington, or you just looked at the State Department?" a reporter asked as he played along with the joke from Crowley, the spokesman for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

"Just the confines of the State Department, but it was reported by the president of Iran that he's here in Washington. That's news to us," Crowley said before turning to the news of the day.

"And thank you for laughing," he said, smiling broadly.

Just a few weeks ago, on November 16, Crowley again elicited laughs when asked about Osama bin Laden, although the transcript seems to be missing the punchline:

Q And -- but just to follow up, should we wait for later in the day? Because the second is that bin Laden is still at large because the U.S. Army has not caught him, you know. So --

MR. CROWLEY: I'm not sure. Is there a question there?

Q He says it is because we haven't caught him. Bin Laden is still out there.

(Cross talk.)

MR. CROWLEY: (Laughs.) That would be true. (Laughs.)

Q So is it -- how do you take it? Like is it that you know where he is and you are just letting him around?

Q (Tell us ?).

MR. CROWLEY: Look, we continue our hunt for and interest in capturing Mr. bin Laden.

The funny thing is, years ago, when Crowley worked for the progressive Center for American Progress, he was more serious about Osama bin Laden.

The blog Jihad Watch reported in June of 2007,

P.J. Crowley, a military analyst at the Center for American Progress and a former national security aide to President Clinton, said the Iraq war has diverted assets that could be used to find bin Laden.

"Now that he is in the tribal areas, I doubt that a bounty of any number will be helpful," Crowley said "Given tribal relationships, they will protect him."

But after being tapped to Obama's State Department in May of 2009, Crowley began to dismiss bin Laden's relevance.

From an Associated Press article in January shortly after the failed underwear bomb attempt,

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said that while bin Laden remains a "catalyst" for terrorist activities by groups affiliated with his organization, there is no indication that he or his lieutenants have a direct hand in ordering attacks.

"They offer strategic guidance and rely on their affiliates to carry out that strategic guidance," Crowley said in an interview. The audio tape made public Sunday offers no evidence that bin Laden's relationship with affiliates such as al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, based in Yemen, has changed, Crowley said.

"He's trying to continue to appear relevant" by talking up an attempted attack by an affiliate, Crowley added.

This October 15, 2001 interview of Crowley, when he was vice president of the Insurance Information Institute, is very revealing in a post-WikiLeaks sense.

TERENCE SMITH: Colonel Crowley, Dr. Rice told reporters today that analysts were still studying the messages to see if there was any imbedded message to al-Qaida's followers in it but had not yet detected any. Do you feel it was a legitimate request to limit the exposure of these?

P.J. CROWLEY: I think it is unusual but not necessarily unprecedented. In every crisis there's always going to be times where the news media is in possession of information that, as you evaluate the national interest, it's better that they not broadcast right away or not broadcast at all. This is a little bit unusual in the nature of the delivery system where al-Qaida will pass a videotape to al Jazeera and then from there to the networks, but, you know, bin Laden is not the President of the United States. He should not be able to have unfettered access to our airwaves any time one of those tapes gets past.

I do agree with Bob that this is something where we need to have the administration make its case. If they have concerns that there are codes being passed, they need to be able to substantiate that. I also agree that over time these guys don't wear well. As we saw, for example, in the crisis in Kosovo, the more we heard from Slobodan Milosevic, the stronger the international resolve was to defeat him. I think that could be well the case in this instance, but I think early on where we have this kind of very strong emotion and unprecedented kind of situation caution is appropriate.

"It could well be that it's putting television at a slight reportorial disadvantage but television, on many occasions agrees to restrictions in return for access," Crowley said in October of 2001.

Quote of the Day: Glenn Beck Edition

"If I may make a prediction, they are going to make this into a talking point, a regular talking point. You are going to hear the liberals come out and start to throw MSNBC under the bus, and throw them under the bus hard, and here’s why, MSNBC is marked for death. If it is sold to Comcast, Comcast will run it like a business. If it remains liberal, it will just be a good liberal station. It will just run things that will actually get ratings. If it’s not, it will most likely just be a news channel, or I mean, I don’t know what they’re going to do with it, but it won’t feature Keith Olbermann and they know that."

Glenn Beck, on his radio show. MSNBC is not going to get rid of Keith Olbermann. The reason is Olbermann is the network's star and brings in the most advertising revenue. Corporations care more about money than politics.

Beck must have watched Network one too many times. How is an entire corporation like MSNBC "marked for death"? Beck fails to explain this bit of hyperbole.

Bonus quote:

"So just like everyone as soon as they start to outlive their usefulness for radicals and revolutionaries, they shoot them in the head, and that’s exactly what’s going to happen to MSNBC, and they’ll offer up a false choice, they’ll say look we’re willing to get rid of MSNBC and you get rid of Fox and we can have real news. Mark my words, that’s that what they’ll say. We’ll get rid of MSNBC, and you get rid of Fox. Yeah, really you’ll do that? You shoot the shows that nobody watches on one that’s marked for death anyway? Well, how big of you. I don’t think so."

Can Beck give names who who will be pulling the trigger and committing murder? If Beck really is psychic and can see into the future, doesn't he have a civic responsibility to prevent murder?

Beck will get called out on his latest conspiracy theory and will use the defense that he is just an entertainer. Beck has been honest about why he makes bizarre statements.

With a deadpan, Beck insists that he is not political: "I could give a flying crap about the political process." Making money, on the other hand, is to be taken very seriously, and controversy is its own coinage. "We're an entertainment company," Beck says.

Beck told the New York Times that he is a "rodeo clown."

He added later: “I say on the air all time, ‘if you take what I say as gospel, you’re an idiot.’ ”

Beck made his career as a Morning Zoo shock jock. Beck plays with puppets on his Fox News show. Off-the-record Fox News employees told Howard Kurtz that Beck practices crying in rehearsals for his show. Beck is the professional wrestling version of broadcast journalism. Beck lets people know it is an act. People still hang on every banal utterance preached by Beck.

Beck is actually worse than right-wing pundits like Sean Hannity who makes no attempt to hide his love of the Republican Party. Beck uses his inflammatory rhetoric to full-fill his greed and desperate need for attention. Beck is the Paris Hilton of Fox News.

Establishment Media Protects Power

Joy-Ann Reid noticed something I didn't pick on in my post of Joe Sacrborough accusing John Boehner of spending more time in bars then working. Politico reporter Jim Vandehei ducked Scarborough's repeated questioning of if Boehner is a hard worker. Mark Halperin confirmed Scarborough's accusation that many Washington Republicans feels Boehner is lazy.

Politico then ran an attack article on Scarborough for his questioning of Vandehei. Politico reporter Jake Sherman ran a quote from Boehner's spokesman Michael Steel that Boehner only goes to Washington bars for fundraisers. Sherman didn't list the candidates Boehner fundraised for in Washington bars.Sherman ran no quotes from Republicans on or off-the-record about Boehner's work ethic. This was an opportunity for Sherman to find out if Scarborough is telling the truth. The only quote Sherman sought out was from Boehner's spokeman.

Sherman's last paragraph slaps down Scarborough for attacking Boehner.

Scarborough and Boehner served in the House together from 1995 to 2001. Scarborough owes at least some of his success to Boehner. The Ohio Republican played a key role in authoring the Contract With America, the 1994 GOP road map that helped bring Scarborough and a Republican majority to Washington.

How dare Scarborough diss Boehner's work ethic. Doesn't Scarborough realize he owes Boehner? Actually, Grover Norquist is responsible for the Contract With America. President Clinton failing to pass health care reform and the political climate in the country had more to do with Scarborough getting elected than Boehner.

To Politico, the story isn't that the House Minority Leader maybe lazy or has a drinking problem. Politico feels they must protect a powerful member of Congress. The same thing has happened with the media reaction to Michael Hastings' article on Gen. Stanley McChrystal. CBS News News foreign correspondent Lara Logan tells Howard Kurtz that the establishment media has a responsibility not to print anything embarrassing of people in power. I am serious.

KURTZ: When you are out with the troops and you're living together and sleeping together, is there an unspoken agreement --

LOGAN: Absolutely.

KURTZ: -- that you're not going to embarrass them by reporting insults and banter?

LOGAN: Yes.

KURTZ: Tell me about that.

LOGAN: Yes, absolutely. There is an element of trust.

And what I find is the most telling thing about what Michael Hastings said in your interview is that he talked about his manner as pretending to build an illusion of trust and, you know, he's laid out there what his game is. That is exactly the kind of damaging type of attitude that makes it difficult for reporters who are genuine about what they do, who don't -- I don't go around in my personal life pretending to be one thing and then being something else. I mean, I find it egregious that anyone would do that in their professional life.

And, I mean, I take that to the point of, even when I plan to interview someone about something difficult, and they want to know the areas of the interview, I might not say, well, we're going to spend the whole interview on this, but I will list that. I will list that controversial issue.

The banter between members of McChrystal's team showed their dysfunction, rowdy drunken behavior and their belief the mission in Afghanistan is failing. Logan believes the American people do not need to know McChrystal and members of President Obama's national security team are war against each other. This is why people do not know why the Afghanistan war is a mess. Logan fails to understand that her responsibility is to her viewers and not the military establishment. The media hero worship of McChrystal is so embarrassing. A classic example is Geraldo Rivera comparing McChrystal to Lou Gehrig. Really? Did McChrystal geraldo ever bat .379 in a season?

RIVERA: This reporter from "Rolling Stone", he was a rat in an eagle's nest. What he did was to become part of the background, part of the scenery, knowing full well, given his political ideology--

O'REILLY: All right, let's walk through.

RIVERA: --and everything else, his altitude, he knew what he wanted to do.

O'REILLY: Okay, I'm not disputing, look--

RIVERA: And I disagree with Chris Wallace. This was not a 280- hitter. General Stanley McCrystal is no 280-hitter. If General Petraeus is Babe Ruth, and I agree with that analogy, Stanley McCrystal is Lou Gehrig.

The Young Turrk has the clips of Logan and Rivera for defending McCrystal.

Paging Senator Rachel Maddow

Washington Post columnist Howard Kurtz tweets that Sen. Scott Bown sent a fundraising letter complaining Rachel Maddow will run for his seat. Maddow's producer told Kurtz this is bogus.

Rachel Maddow, interviewed by producer, says not running for MA-Sen despite Scott Brown fundraising letter citing her as possible challenger.

I'm looking forward to Brown's next fundraising e-mail on the threat of a Ben Affleck candidacy.

Quote of the Day

"Is a speech to Congress Obama's best move on health care? Shouldn't he be twisting congressional arms in private?"

Howard Kurtz, Washington Post columnist

Howard Kurtz's Obsession With Lara Logan

Jon Stewart asks Lara Logan if she watches American news coverage of the Iraq and Afghanisthan wars.

"No," Logan said. "If I were to watch the news you hear in the United States, I would just blow my brains out because it would just drive me nuts."

Logan answers critics that make the silly accusation that her war coverage is hurting America.

Jon Stewart: Have we lost our humanity with the entire situation?

Lara Logan: Yeah, we have.

Logan: I was asked once, "Do you feel responsible for the American public having a bad view, a negative view about the war in Iraq." And I looked at the reporter and said, "Tell me the last time you saw the body of a dead American soldier? What does that look like?" Who in America knows what that looks like because I know what that looks like. And I feel responsible for the fact that no one else does. That's what I feel responsible for that nobody really understands.

Logan: And the soldiers feel forgotten. They do. No doubt. From Afghanisthan to Iraq they absolutely feel...

Logan's exasperation with her media colleagues is understandable. The interview Howard Kurtz did of Logan started with the question if she is helping terrorists spread their message. Kurtz then asked her why she isn't covering more positive stories. Logan told Kurtz that it is hard to be all sunshine when so many American and Iraqis are dying. Logan rightfully told Kurtz she "resented" people questioning her reporting.

Logan called it "an outrage" for critics question her coverage, when journalists can not travel without military or private security. It's clear that Logan is angry with Kurtz. Her voice and body language becomes increasingly agitated. The latter defended Laura Ingraham attacks on Iraq war correspondents by pointing out the conservative talk show host spent eight days in Iraq. Logan sarcasticly retorted, "For Eight days."

It is bizarre for a media critic wanting journalists like Logan to do Iraq fluff stories. Kurtz publicly criticized Logan for refusing to do a story about female sailors keeping virtual online pets. Kurtz complaint as a media critic is that Logan is not furthering the White House's fantasy-based narrative.

In case you haven't figured it out: Howard Kurtz is the unnamed journalist Logan spoke of to Jon Stewart. I have watched the Logan/Kurtz interview several times. Kurtz's passive-aggressive anger on Logan staggering. Logan looks like she wants to get on the next plane from Baghdad to personally smack the shit out of Kurtz. John McCain was publicly laughed at for stating the streets of Baghdad were safe for Americans to go on a stroll. Kurtz hammers Logan Fox News-style for not promoting such propaganda.

The most cowardly thing about Kurtz's attack is he hides behind so-called "critics" of Logan. It is Kurtz whom is obsessed about Logan's reporting. No one on in the Bush administration has publicly condemned Logan for not doing more virtual pet stories. At least Bill O'Reilly will personally lambast Bill Moyers. Kurtz cites unnamed conservatives against Logan to mask his personal contempt. Ingraham did not personally go after Logan. (I can't find an Ingraham quote before the Kurtz interview.) Howard Kurtz did and behind a woman to attack Logan. Kurtz hardly displayed the kind of moral courage that would actually go into a warzone to find those feel good stories.

Howard Kurtz on Graeme Frost Controversy

I'm glad Josh Marshall reads those boring Washington Post chat transcripts so I don't have to. Howard Kurtz shows his compassionate conservatism for Graeme Frost. Short answer: the wingnut bloggers did nothing wrong going after the teen. Even though their facts were wrong.

Rockville Md.: I have a question that has been bugging me for some time and I hope you can address it. I have folloewd the recent stories about Graeme Frost, the child who gave the Democratic response about SCHIP, and what some commentators are calling the "Swift Boating" of Frost by right-wing groups. Realizing that the jury may still be out about Frost: It is one thing when politicians slam each other, but when someone goes after a private citizen, don't libel and slander laws ever come into play?

Howard Kurtz: Libel and slander laws only come into play when you say something that is both inaccurate and damaging about someone. Whether or not the Frost family should be considered too well-off to qualify for federal health benefits doesn't seem to fall in that category. When the parents agreed to make their son available to the Democratic Party as a spokesman for the program, surely they must have expected that their financial situation would become part of the debate. I am not, for the record, in favor of beating up on 12-year-old boys, but the family did willingly step into the political arena.

Kurtz does the Glenn Reynolds-style defense of the Right and then adds the disclaimer on the end.

Howard Kurtz On the Daily Show

Howard Kurtz tells Jon Stewart that that bad news from Iraq is being "framed" and not enough positive coverage is being done. This is the same guy who ran with Power Line's bogus fake Terri Schiavo memo.

While there is no hard evidence that the memo is fake, there are several strange things about it, including the basic fact that no one seems to know who wrote it and that the noncontroversial part of it is lifted from a Republican senator's press release.

The memo came from Mel Martinez and his office.

The point is Kurtz is a hack shrill pretending to be a columnist.

Lara Logan Stands Up For Journalists Covering Iraq

This video is from last year, but is worth posting.

Howard Kurtz insanely asks Lara Logan about the lack of postive Iraq news coverage from journalist. Logan explains that the country is in shambles and proceeds to passionately defend her colleagues. Kurtz is unmoved and proceeds to play a tape of Laura Ingraham bashing the press.

Ingraham: To do a show from Iraq means to talk to the Iraqi military. To go out with the Iraqi military. To actually have a conversation with the people, instead of reporting from hotel room balconies about the lates IEDs going off.

Logan said Ingraham's comment is easy to make "from the comforts of the United States." Logan points out it is impossible for journalists (and Iraqis) to freely drive around the country. Ingraham is living in John McCain's fantasy.

"I do want to point out that Laura Ingraham was in Iraq for 8 days," Kurtz said.

"8 days," laughed Logan. She was not impressed.

Kurtz's fair and balanced sthick of bashing Irsq coverage is really getting fucking old.

Update: Lara Logan gives an eloquent response to commenters who attacked her CNN interview.

The reason we are unable to go cover every school or bridge opening or “good news” story, is not because of concern over our own safety - it is first and foremost because of concern over the safety of those involved in the project.

Where schools have been highlighted in the media, teachers have been executed and the buildings bombed. Where reconstruction projects have been highlighted by the media, workers have been murdered and the projects bombed.

Following media reports about the Baghdad soccer team, soccer matches have been bombed, with almost a hundred players and civilian spectators killed in multiple attacks.

It is very often those involved in the projects that ask us to stay away.

And for those who question my moral courage I would like to point out the following:

- At age 17 I was counting the bodies from the weekend violence in our local morgue, fire station and hospitals during the anti-Apartheid struggle.

- Since then I have lived with, (often on my own, the only woman for a sustained period of time) Unita rebel troops on the frontline in Angola, Afghan Northern Alliance forces during their war against the Taliban, Palestinians fighting Israelis in the occupied West Bank and Gaza and Albanian rebels in Tetovo, Macedonia, to name a few examples.

Let's just get this out of the way. Lara Logan is the best damn journalist in television media. She is also breathtakingly beautiful.