December, 22 2009, 03:51pm EDT
The 2009 P.U.-Litzer Awards
WASHINGTON
For 17 years our colleagues Jeff
Cohen and Norman Solomon have worked with FAIR to present the
P.U.-Litzers, a year-end review of some of the stinkiest examples of
corporate media malfeasance, spin and just plain outrageousness.
Starting this year, FAIR has the somewhat dubious honor of reviewing
the nominees and selecting the winners. It's a dirty job, but someone
has to do it. So, without further ado, we present the 2009
P.U.-Litzers.
--The Remembering Reagan Award
WINNER: Joe Klein, Time
Time columnist Joe Klein (12/3/09), not altogether impressed by
Obama's announcement of a troop escalation in Afghanistan, wrote that a
president "must lead the charge--passionately and, yes, with a touch of
anger."
He described the better way to do this:
Ronald Reagan would have done it differently.
He would have told a story. It might not have been a true story, but it
would have had resonance. He might have found, or created, a grieving
spouse--a young investment banker whose wife had died in the World
Trade Center--who enlisted immediately after the attacks...and then
gave his life, heroically, defending a school for girls in Kandahar.
Reagan would have inspired tears, outrage, passion, a rush to
recruiting centers across the nation.
Ah, Reagan--now there was a president who could inspire people to fight and die based on lies.
--The Cheney 2012 Award
WINNER: Jon Meacham, Newsweek
Newsweek editor Jon Meacham declared (12/7/09) that Dick Cheney
running for president in 2012 would be "good for the Republicans and
good for the country." He explained that "Cheney is a man of
conviction, has a record on which he can be judged, and whatever the
result, there could be no ambiguity about the will of the people.... A
campaign would also give us an occasion that history denied us in 2008:
an opportunity to adjudicate the George W. Bush years in a direct way."
While the 2008 election might have seemed a sufficient judgment of the
Bush years, it's worth pointing out that at beginning of the year
(1/19/09), Meacham was adamantly opposed to re-hashing Cheney's record,
calling it "the rough equivalent of pornography--briefly engaging,
perhaps, but utterly predictable and finally repetitive." The
difference? That was in response to the idea that Cheney should be held
accountable for lawbreaking. Apparently a few months later, the same
record is grounds for a White House run.
--The Them Not Us Award
WINNER: Martin Fackler, New York Times
The New York Times (11/21/09) describes the severe problems
with Japan's elite media--a horror show where "reporters from major
news media outlets are stationed inside government offices and enjoy
close, constant access to officials. The system has long been
criticized as antidemocratic by both foreign and Japanese analysts, who
charge that it has produced a relatively spineless press that feels
more accountable to its official sources than to the public. In their
apparent reluctance to criticize the government, the critics say, the
news media fail to serve as an effective check on authority."
The mind reels.
--Thin-Skinned Pundits Award
WINNER: Dana Milbank, Washington Post
Washington Post reporters Dana Milbank and Chris Cilizza got
into trouble when, in an episode of their "Mouthpiece Theater" web
video series, they suggested brands of beer that would be appropriate
for various politicians. What would Hillary Clinton drink? Apparently
something called "Mad Bitch." The video, unsurprisingly, was roundly
criticized, and was pulled from the Post site. So what lesson was
learned? Milbank complained (8/6/09) that "it's a brutal world out
there in the blogosphere.... I'm often surprised by the ferocity out
there, but I probably shouldn't be."
Yes, the problem with calling someone a "bitch" is the "ferocity" of your critics.
--The Sheer O'Reillyness Award
WINNER: Bill O'Reilly, Fox News Channel--TWICE!
1) Asked by a Canadian viewer, "Has anyone noticed that life expectancy
in Canada under our health system is higher than the USA?," Fox's
O'Reilly (7/27/09) responded: "Well, that's to be expected, Peter,
because we have 10 times as many people as you do. That translates to
10 times as many accidents, crimes, down the line."
2) Drumming up fear of Democrats' tax plans: "Nancy Pelosi and her
far-left crew want to raise the top federal tax rate to 45 percent.
That's not capitalism. That's Fidel Castro stuff, confiscating wages
that people honestly earn."
Perhaps Castro was president of the United States in 1982-86, when the
top rate was 50 percent. Or maybe all of the 1970s, when it was 70
percent. Or from 1950-63, when it was 91 percent.
--The Less Talk, More Bombs Award
WINNER: David Broder, Washington Post
Post columnist Broder expressed the conventional wisdom on
Barack Obama's deliberations on the Afghanistan War, writing under the
headline "Enough Afghan Debate" (11/15/09):
It is evident from the length of this
deliberative process and from the flood of leaks that have emerged from
Kabul and Washington that the perfect course of action does not exist.
Given that reality, the urgent necessity is to make a decision--whether
or not it is right.
--The Racism Is Dead Award
WINNER: Richard Cohen, Washington Post
Post columnist Richard Cohen wrote (5/5/09): "The justification
for affirmative action gets weaker and weaker. Maybe once it was
possible to argue that some innocent people had to suffer in the name
of progress, but a glance at the White House strongly suggests that
things have changed. For most Americans, race has become supremely
irrelevant. Everyone knows this. Every poll shows this."
For the record, "every poll" does not actually show this; the vast
majority of Americans continues to recognize that racism is still a
problem. Cohen went on to write months later--still presumably living
in his racism-free world--that he did not believe Iran's claims about
its nuclear program, because "these Persians lie like a rug."
--The When in Doubt, Talk to the Boss Award
WINNER: Matt Lauer, NBC News
Today show host Lauer announced a special guest on April 15: "If
you really want to know how the economy is affecting the average
American, he's the guy to talk to." Who was Lauer talking about?
Wal-Mart CEO Mike Duke. The ensuing interview touched on the Employee
Free Choice Act, which Lauer noted was supported by many unions but
opposed by some large corporations--leading him to ask Duke, "What's
the truth?" Yes, look for "the truth" about a proposed pro-labor bill
from the new CEO of an adamantly anti-labor corporation.
--The Socialist Menace Award
WINNER: Michael Freedman, Newsweek
Newsweek's "We Are All Socialists Now" cover (2/16/09) certainly
turned heads, but one of the stories inside explained in more detail
the real threat. As senior editor Michael Freedman asked: "Have you
noticed that Barack Obama sounds more like the president of France
every day?"
The real problem, though, is what that's going to do to us Americans,
says Freedman: "If job numbers continue to look dismal, or get even
worse, an ever-greater number of people will start looking to the
government for support.... It's very easy to imagine a chorus of former
American individualists demanding cushy French-style pensions and free
British-style healthcare if their private stock funds fail to recover
and unemployment inches upward toward 10 percent and remains there."
Pensions and healthcare for all--this is worse than we thought!
--The Iraq All Over Again Award
WINNER: Too Many to Name
After the invasion of Iraq, countless journalists who had treated
allegations about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction as facts were
embarrassed when there were no such weapons to be found. So you'd think
they'd be more careful about thinly sourced claims that Iran is seeking
nuclear weapons. But in 2009, many journalists are still willing to
treat such allegations as facts.
-NBC's Chris Matthews (10/4/09): "As if Afghanistan were not enough, now there's Iran's move to get nuclear weapons."
-NBC's David Gregory (10/4/09). "Iran--will talks push that country to give up its nuclear weapons program?"
-Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly (9/25/09): "All hell
breaking loose as a new nuclear weapons facility is discovered in Iran,
proving the mullahs have been lying for years.... Iran's nuclear
weapons program has now reached critical mass. And worldwide conflict
is very possible. Friday, President Obama, British Prime Minister Brown
and French President Sarkozy revealed a secret nuclear weapons facility
located inside Iran."
Some even went further, turning allegations of a nuclear weapons program into the discovery of actual nuclear weapons:
-ABC's Good Morning America host Bill Weir (9/26/09):
"President Obama and a united front of world leaders charge Iran with
secretly building nuclear weapons."
--The Talking Like a Terrorist Award
WINNER: Thomas Friedman, New York Times
In a January 14 column, New York Times
superstar pundit Tom Friedman explained Israel's war on Lebanon as an
attempt to "educate" the enemy by killing civilians: The Israeli
strategy was to "inflict substantial property damage and collateral
casualties on Lebanon at large. It was not pretty, but it was logical."
Friedman added, "The only long-term source of deterrence was to exact
enough pain on the civilians--the families and employers of the
militants--to restrain Hezbollah in the future." That strategy of
targeting civilians to advance a political agenda is usually known as
terrorism; Osama bin Laden couldn't have explained it much better.
--The It Only Bothers Us Now Award
WINNER: Wall Street Journal editorial page
When Barack Obama only called on journalists from a list during a press conference, the Wall Street Journal
did not like the new protocol (2/12/09):"We doubt that President Bush,
who was notorious for being parsimonious with follow-ups, would have
gotten away with prescreening his interlocutors."
Actually, Bush was famous for calling only on reporters on an approved
list; as he joked at a press conference on the eve of the Iraq War
(3/6/03), "This is scripted."
--The No Comment Award
WINNERS: MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski and Rush Limbaugh
When asked by Politico (10/16/09) to name her favorite
guest, MSNBC host Mika Brzezinski named arch-conservative Pat Buchanan
"because he says what we are all thinking."
Rush Limbaugh on Obama (Fox News Channel, 1/21/09): "We are
being told that we have to hope he succeeds, that we have to bend over,
grab the ankles...because his father was black."
FAIR, the national media watch group, has been offering well-documented criticism of media bias and censorship since 1986. We work to invigorate the First Amendment by advocating for greater diversity in the press and by scrutinizing media practices that marginalize public interest, minority and dissenting viewpoints.
LATEST NEWS
Gavin Newsom Wants a 'Big Tent Party,' But Opposes Wealth Tax Supported by Large Majority of Americans
"A wealth tax is a big tent policy unless the only people you care about are billionaires," said one progressive organizer.
Dec 05, 2025
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, considered by some to be the frontrunner to be the next Democratic presidential nominee, said during a panel on Wednesday that he wants his party to be a “big tent” that welcomes large numbers of people into the fold. But he’s “adamantly against” one of the most popular proposals Democrats have to offer: a wealth tax.
In October, progressive economists Emmanuel Saez and Robert Reich joined forces with one of California's most powerful unions, the Service Employees International Union's (SEIU) United Healthcare Workers West, to propose that California put the nation’s first-ever wealth tax on the ballot in November 2026.
They described the measure as an "emergency billionaires tax" aimed at recouping the tens of billions of dollars that will be stripped from California's 15 million Medicaid recipients over the next five years, after Republicans enacted historic cuts to the program in July with President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which dramatically reduced taxes for the wealthiest Americans.
Among those beneficiaries were the approximately 200 billionaires living in California, whose average annual income, Saez pointed out, has risen by 7.5% per year, compared with 1.5% for median-income residents.
Under the proposal, they would pay a one-time 5% tax on their total net worth, which is estimated to raise $100 billion. The vast majority of the funds, about 90%, would be used to restore Medicaid funding, while the rest would go towards funding K-12 education, which the GOP has also slashed.
The proposal in California has strong support from unions and healthcare groups. But Newsom has called it “bad policy” and “another attempt to grab money for special purposes.”
Meanwhile, several of his longtime consultants, including Dan Newman and Brian Brokaw, have launched a campaign alongside “business and tech leaders” to kill the measure, which they’ve dubbed “Stop the Squeeze." They've issued familiar warnings that pinching the wealthy too hard will drive them from the state, along with the critical tax base they provide.
At Wednesday's New York Times DealBook Summit, Andrew Ross Sorkin asked Newsom about his opposition to the wealth tax idea, comparing it to a proposal by recent New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, who pledged to increase the income taxes of New Yorkers who earn more than $1 million per year by 2% in order to fund his city-wide free buses, universal childcare, and city-owned grocery store programs.
Mamdani's proposal was met with a litany of similar warnings from Big Apple bigwigs who threatened to flee the city and others around the country who said they'd never move in.
But as Robin Kaiser-Schatzlein explained in October for the American Prospect: "The evidence for this is thin: mostly memes shared by tech and finance people... Research shows that the truth of the matter is closer to the opposite. Wealthy individuals and their income move at lower rates than other income brackets, even in response to an increase of personal income tax." Many of those who sulked about Mamdani's victory have notably begun making amends with the incoming mayor.
Moreover, the comparison between Mamdani's plan and the one proposed in California is faulty to begin with. As Harold Meyerson explained, also for the Prospect: "It is a one-time-only tax, to be levied exclusively on billionaires’ current (i.e., 2025) net worth. Even if they move to Tasmania, they will still be liable for 5% of this year’s net worth."
"Crucially, the tax won’t crimp the fortunes of any billionaire who moves into the state next year or any later year, as it only applies to the billionaires living in the state this year," he added. "Therefore... the horrific specter of billionaire flight can’t be levied against the California proposal."
Nevertheless, Sorkin framed Newsom as being in an existential battle of ideas with Mamdani, asking how the two could both represent the Democratic Party when they are so "diametrically opposed."
"Well, I want to be a big-tent party," Newsom replied. "It's about addition, not subtraction."
Pushed on the question of whether there should be a "unifying theory of the case," Newsom responded that “we all want to be protected, we all want to be respected, we all want to be connected to something bigger than ourselves. We have fundamental values that I think define our party, about social justice, economic justice.”
"We have pre-distribution Democrats, and we have re-distribution Democrats," he continued. "Therein lies the dialectic and therein lies the debate."
Polling is scarce so far on the likelihood of such a measure passing in California. But nationally, polls suggest that the vast majority of Democrats fall on the "re-distribution" side of Newsom's "dialectic." In fact, the majority of all Americans do, regardless of party affiliation.
Last year, Inequality.org examined 55 national and state polls about a number of different taxation policies and found:
A billionaire income tax garnered the most support across party identification. On average, two out of three (67%) of Americans supported the tax including 84% of Democrats, 64% of Independents, and 51% of Republicans.
In national polls, a wealth tax had similarly high levels of support. More than three out of five Americans supported the tax including 78% of Democrats, 62% of Independents, and 51% of Republicans.
That sentiment only seems to have grown since the return of President Donald Trump. An Economist/YouGov poll released in early November found that 72% of Americans said that taxes on billionaires should be raised—including 95% of Democrats, 75% of independents, and 48% of Republicans. Across the board, just 15% said they should not be raised.
Support remains high when the proposal is more specific as well. On the eve of Mamdani's election, despitre months of fearmongering, 64% of New Yorkers said they backed his proposal, including a slight plurality of self-identified conservatives, according to a Siena College poll.
Many observers were perplexed by how Newsom proposes to maintain a “big tent” while opposing policies supported by most of the people inside it.
"A wealth tax is a big tent policy unless the only people you care about are billionaires," wrote Jonathan Cohn, the political director for Progressive Mass, a grassroots organization in Massachusetts, on social media.
"Gavin Newsom—estimated net worth between $20 and $30 million—says he's opposed to a billionaire wealth tax. Color me shocked," wrote the Columbia University lecturer Anthony Zenkus. "Democrats holding him up as a potential savior for 2028 is a clear example of not reading the room."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case That Could Bless Trump's Bid to End Birthright Citizenship
"That the Supreme Court is actually entertaining Trump’s unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship is the clearest example yet that the Roberts Court is broken beyond repair," said one critic.
Dec 05, 2025
The United States Supreme Court on Friday agreed to decide whether US President Donald Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship—as guaranteed under the 14th Amendment for more than 150 years—is constitutional.
Next spring, the justices will hear oral arguments in Trump's appeal of a lower court ruling that struck down parts of an executive order—titled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship—signed on the first day of the president's second term. Under the directive, which has not taken effect due to legal challenges, people born in the United States would not be automatically entitled to US citizenship if their parents are in the country temporarily or without legal authorization.
Enacted in 1868, the 14th Amendment affirms that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
While the Trump administration argues that the 14th Amendment was adopted to grant US citizenship to freed slaves, not travelers or undocumented immigrants, two key Supreme Court cases have affirmed birthright citizenship under the Constitution—United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and Afroyim v. Rusk (1967).
Here is the question presented. It's a relatively clean vehicle for the Supreme Court to finally decide whether it is lawful for the president to deny birthright citizenship to the children of immigrants. www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...
[image or embed]
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjsdc.bsky.social) December 5, 2025 at 10:55 AM
Several district court judges have issued universal preliminary injunctions to block Trump's order. However, the Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority found in June that “universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts."
In July, a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit unanimously ruled that executive order is an unconstitutional violation of the plain language of the 14th Amendment. In total, four federal courts and two appellate courts have blocked Trump's order.
“No president can change the 14th Amendment’s fundamental promise of citizenship,” Cecillia Wang, national legal director at the ACLU—which is leading the nationwide class action challenge to Trump's order—said in a statement Friday. “We look forward to putting this issue to rest once and for all in the Supreme Court this term.”
Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and political affairs at the advocacy group Stand Up America, was among those who suggested that the high court justices should have refused to hear the case given the long-settled precedent regarding the 14th Amendment.
“This case is a right-wing fantasy, full stop. That the Supreme Court is actually entertaining Trump’s unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship is the clearest example yet that the Roberts Court is broken beyond repair," Edkins continued, referring to Chief Justice John Roberts.
"Even if the court ultimately rules against Trump, in a laughable display of its supposed independence, the fact that fringe attacks on our most basic rights as citizens are being seriously considered is outrageous and alarming," he added.
Aarti Kohli, executive director of the Asian Law Caucus, said that “it’s deeply troubling that we must waste precious judicial resources relitigating what has been settled constitutional law for over a century," adding that "every federal judge who has considered this executive order has found it unconstitutional."
Tianna Mays, legal director for Democracy Defenders Fund, asserted, “The attack on the fundamental right of birthright citizenship is an attack on the 14th Amendment and our Constitution."
"We are confident the court will affirm this basic right, which has stood for over a century," Mays added. "Millions of families across the country deserve and require that clarity and stability.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
62,000 African Penguins Starving to Death Highlights Humanity-Driven Extinction Crisis
"If a species as iconic as the African penguin is struggling to survive," said one researcher, "it raises the question of how many other species are disappearing without us even noticing."
Dec 05, 2025
A study published this week about tens of thousands of starving African penguins is highlighting what scientists warn is the planet's sixth mass extinction event, driven by human activity, and efforts to save as many species as possible.
Researchers from the South African Department of Forestry, Fisheries, and the Environment (DFFE), the United Kingdom's University of Exeter, and other institutions examined a pair of breeding colonies north of Cape Town, South Africa, and published their findings Thursday in Ostrich: Journal of African Ornithology.
"These two sites are two of the most important breeding colonies historically—holding around 25,000 (Dassen) and around 9,000 (Robben) breeding pairs in the early 2000s. As such, they are also the locations of long-term monitoring programs," said study co-author Azwianewi Makhado from the DFFE in a statement.
As the study explains: "African Penguins moult annually, coming ashore and fasting for 21 days, when they shed and replace all their feathers. Failure to fatten sufficiently to moult, or to regain condition afterwards, results in death."
The team found that "between 2004 and 2011, the sardine stock off west South Africa was consistently below 25% of its peak abundance, and this appears to have caused severe food shortage for African penguins, leading to an estimated loss of about 62,000 breeding individuals," said co-author and Exeter associate professor Richard Sherley.
The paper notes that "although some adults moulted at a colony to the southeast, where food may have been more plentiful, much of the mortality likely resulted from failure of birds to fatten sufficiently to moult. The fishery exploitation rate of sardines west of Cape Agulhas was consistently above 20% between 2005 and 2010."
Sherley said that "high sardine exploitation rates—that briefly reached 80% in 2006—in a period when sardine was declining because of environmental changes likely worsened penguin mortality."
Humanity's reliance on fossil fuels is warming ocean water and impacting how salty it is. For the penguins' prey, said Sherley, "changes in the temperature and salinity of the spawning areas off the west and south coasts of South Africa made spawning in the historically important west coast spawning areas less successful, and spawning off the south coast more successful."
The researcher also stressed that "these declines are mirrored elsewhere," pointing out that the species' global population has dropped nearly 80% in the last three decades. With fewer than 10,000 breeding pairs left, the African penguin was uplisted to "critically endangered" on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species last year.
Sherley told Mongabay at the time that the IUCN update "highlights a much bigger problem with the health of our environment."
"Despite being well-known and studied, these penguins are still facing extinction, showing just how severe the damage to our ecosystems has become," he said. "If a species as iconic as the African penguin is struggling to survive, it raises the question of how many other species are disappearing without us even noticing. We need to act now—not just for penguins, but to protect the broader biodiversity that is crucial for the planet's future."
Looks like the combined effects of climate change and over fishing are key factors in decimating the populations of these penguins.www.washingtonpost.com/climate-envi...
[image or embed]
— Margot Hodson (@margothodson.bsky.social) December 5, 2025 at 4:46 AM
Fearful that the iconic penguin species could be extinct within a decade, the conservation organizations BirdLife South Africa and the Southern African Foundation for the Conservation of Coastal Birds (SANCCOB) last year pursued a first-of-its-kind legal battle in the country, resulting in a settlement with the commercial fishing sector and DFFE.
The settlement, reached just days before a planned court hearing this past March, led to no-go zones for the commercial anchovy and sardine fishing vessels around six penguin breeding colonies: Stony Point, as well as Bird, Dassen, Dyer, Robben, and St. Croix islands.
"The threats facing the African penguin are complex and ongoing—and the order itself requires monitoring, enforcement, and continued cooperation from industry and the government processes which monitor and allocate sardine and anchovy populations for commercial purposes," Nicky Stander, head of conservation at SANCCOB, said in March.
The study also acknowledges hopes that "the revised closures—which will operate year-round until at least 2033—will decrease mortality of African penguins and improve their breeding success at the six colonies around which they have been implemented."
"However," it adds, "in the face of the ongoing impact of climate change on the abundance and distribution of their key prey, other interventions are likely to be needed."
Lorien Pichegru, a marine biology professor at South Africa's Nelson Mandela University who was not involved in the study, called the findings "extremely concerning" and warned the Guardian that the low fish numbers require urgent action "not only for African penguins but also for other endemic species depending on these stocks."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


