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
Critics Blast 'Reckless and Impossible' Bid to Start Operating Mountain Valley Pipeline
"The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over," said one environmental campaigner.
Apr 23, 2024
Environmental defenders on Tuesday ripped the company behind the Mountain Valley Pipeline for asking the federal government—on Earth Day—for permission to start sending methane gas through the 303-mile conduit despite a worsening climate emergency caused largely by burning fossil fuels.
Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC sent a letter Monday to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Acting Secretary Debbie-Anne Reese seeking final permission to begin operation on the MVP next month, even while acknowledging that much of the Virginia portion of the pipeline route remains unfinished and developers have yet to fully comply with safety requirements.
"In a manner typical of its ongoing disrespect for the environment, Mountain Valley Pipeline marked Earth Day by asking FERC for authorization to place its dangerous, unnecessary pipeline into service in late May," said Jessica Sims, the Virginia field coordinator for Appalachian Voices.
"MVP brazenly asks for this authorization while simultaneously notifying FERC that the company has completed less than two-thirds of the project to final restoration and with the mere promise that it will notify the commission when it fully complies with the requirements of a consent decree it entered into with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration last fall," she continued.
"Requesting an in-service decision by May 23 leaves the company very little time to implement the safety measures required by its agreement with PHMSA," Sims added. "There is no rush, other than to satisfy MVP's capacity customers' contracts—a situation of the company's own making. We remain deeply concerned about the construction methods and the safety of communities along the route of MVP."
Russell Chisholm, co-director of the Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights (POWHR) Coalition—which called MVP's request "reckless and impossible"—said in a statement that "we are watching our worst nightmare unfold in real-time: The reckless MVP is barreling towards completion."
"During construction, MVP has contaminated our water sources, destroyed our streams, and split the earth beneath our homes. Now they want to run methane gas through their degraded pipes and shoddy work," Chisholm added. "The MVP is a glaring human rights violation that is indicative of the widespread failures of our government to act on the climate crisis in service of the fossil fuel industry."
POWHR and activists representing frontline communities affected by the pipeline are set to take part in a May 8 demonstration outside project financier Bank of America's headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Appalachian Voices noted that MVP's request comes days before pipeline developer Equitrans Midstream is set to release its 2024 first-quarter earnings information on April 30.
MVP is set to traverse much of Virginia and West Virginia, with the Southgate extension running into North Carolina. Outgoing U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and other pipeline proponents fought to include expedited construction of the project in the debt ceiling deal negotiated between President Joe Biden and congressional Republicans last year.
On Monday, climate and environmental defenders also petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, challenging FERC's approval of the MVP's planned Southgate extension, contending that the project is so different from original plans that the government's previous assent is now irrelevant.
"Federal, state, and local elected officials have spoken out against this unneeded proposal to ship more methane gas into North Carolina," said Sierra Club senior field organizer Caroline Hansley. "The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over. After MVP Southgate requested a time extension for a project that it no longer plans to construct, it should be sent back to the drawing board for this newly proposed project."
David Sligh, conservation director at Wild Virginia, said: "Approving the Southgate project is irresponsible. This project will pose the same kinds of threats of damage to the environment and the people along its path as we have seen caused by the Mountain Valley Pipeline during the last six years."
"FERC has again failed to protect the public interest, instead favoring a profit-making corporation," Sligh added.
Others renewed warnings about the dangers MVP poses to wildlife.
"The endangered bats, fish, mussels, and plants in this boondoggle's path of destruction deserve to be protected from killing and habitat destruction by a project that never received proper approvals in the first place," Center for Biological Diversity attorney Perrin de Jong said. "Our organization will continue fighting this terrible idea to the bitter end."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Seismic Win for Workers': FTC Bans Noncompete Clauses
Advocates praised the FTC "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
Apr 23, 2024
U.S. workers' rights advocates and groups celebrated on Tuesday after the Federal Trade Commission voted 3-2 along party lines to approve a ban on most noncompete clauses, which Democratic FTC Chair Lina Khansaid "keep wages low, suppress new ideas, and rob the American economy of dynamism."
"The FTC's final rule to ban noncompetes will ensure Americans have the freedom to pursue a new job, start a new business, or bring a new idea to market," Khan added, pointing to the commission's estimates that the policy could mean another $524 for the average worker, over 8,500 new startups, and 17,000 to 29,000 more patents each year.
As Economic Policy Institute (EPI) president Heidi Shierholz explained, "Noncompete agreements are employment provisions that ban workers at one company from working for, or starting, a competing business within a certain period of time after leaving a job."
"These agreements are ubiquitous," she noted, applauding the ban. "EPI research finds that more than 1 out of every 4 private-sector workers—including low-wage workers—are required to enter noncompete agreements as a condition of employment."
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has suggested it plans to file a lawsuit that, as The American Prospectdetailed, "could more broadly threaten the rulemaking authority the FTC cited when proposing to ban noncompetes."
Already, the tax services and software provider Ryan has filed a legal challenge in federal court in Texas, arguing that the FTC is unconstitutionally structured.
Still, the Democratic commissioners' vote was still heralded as a "seismic win for workers." Echoing Khan's critiques of such noncompetes, Public Citizen executive vice president Lisa Gilbert declared that such clauses "inflict devastating harms on tens of millions of workers across the economy."
"The pervasive use of noncompete clauses limits worker mobility, drives down wages, keeps Americans from pursuing entrepreneurial dreams and creating new businesses, causes more concentrated markets, and keeps workers stuck in unsafe or hostile workplaces," she said. "Noncompete clauses are both an unfair method of competition and aggressively harmful to regular people. The FTC was right to tackle this issue and to finalize this strong rule."
Morgan Harper, director of policy and advocacy at the American Economic Liberties Project, praised the FTC for "listening to the comments of thousands of entrepreneurs and workers of all income levels across industries" and finalizing a rule that "is a clear-cut win."
Demand Progress' Emily Peterson-Cassin similarly commended the commission "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
While such agreements are common across various industries, Teófilo Reyes, chief of staff at the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, said that "many restaurant workers have been stuck at their job, earning as low as $2.13 per hour, because of the noncompete clause that they agreed to have in their contract."
"They didn't know that it would affect their wages and livelihood," Reyes stressed. "Most workers cannot negotiate their way out of a noncompete clause because noncompetes are buried in the fine print of employment contracts. A full third of noncompete clauses are presented after a worker has accepted a job."
Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) executive director Mike Pierce pointed out that the FTC on Tuesday "recognized the harmful role debt plays in the workplace, including the growing use of training repayment agreement provisions, or TRAPs, and took action to outlaw TRAPs and all other employer-driven debt that serve the same functions as noncompete agreements."
Sandeep Vaheesan, legal director at Open Markets Institute, highlighted that the addition came after his group, SBPC, and others submitted comments on the "significant gap" in the commission's initial January 2023 proposal, and also welcomed that "the final rule prohibits both conventional noncompete clauses and newfangled versions like TRAPs."
Jonathan Harris, a Loyola Marymount University law professor and SBPC senior fellow, said that "by also banning functional noncompetes, the rule stays one step ahead of employers who use 'stay-or-pay' contracts as workarounds to existing restrictions on traditional noncompetes. The FTC has decided to try to avoid a game of whack-a-mole with employers and their creative attorneys, which worker advocates will applaud."
Among those applauding was Jean Ross, president of National Nurses United, who said that "the new FTC rule will limit the ability of employers to use debt to lock nurses into unsafe jobs and will protect their role as patient advocates."
Angela Huffman, president of Farm Action, also cheered the effort to stop corporations from holding employees "hostage," saying that "this rule is a critical step for protecting our nation's workers and making labor markets fairer and more competitive."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Discriminatory' North Carolina Law Criminalizing Felon Voting Struck Down
One plaintiffs' attorney said the ruling "makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society."
Apr 23, 2024
Democracy defenders on Tuesday hailed a ruling from a U.S. federal judge striking down a 19th-century North Carolina law criminalizing people who vote while on parole, probation, or post-release supervision due to a felony conviction.
In Monday's decision, U.S. District Judge Loretta C. Biggs—an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama—sided with the North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute and Action NC, who argued that the 1877 law discriminated against Black people.
"The challenged statute was enacted with discriminatory intent, has not been cleansed of its discriminatory taint, and continues to disproportionately impact Black voters," Biggs wrote in her 25-page ruling.
Therefore, according to the judge, the 1877 law violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.
"We are ecstatic that the court found in our favor and struck down this racially discriminatory law that has been arbitrarily enforced over time," Action NC executive director Pat McCoy said in a statement. "We will now be able to help more people become civically engaged without fear of prosecution for innocent mistakes. Democracy truly won today!"
Voting rights tracker Democracy Docket noted that Monday's ruling "does not have any bearing on North Carolina's strict felony disenfranchisement law, which denies the right to vote for those with felony convictions who remain on probation, parole, or a suspended sentence—often leaving individuals without voting rights for many years after release from incarceration."
However, Mitchell Brown, an attorney for one of the plaintiffs, said that "Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to reengage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
"It also makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society, specifically Black voters who were the target of this law," Brown added.
North Carolina officials have not said whether they will appeal Biggs' ruling. The state Department of Justice said it was reviewing the decision.
According to Forward Justice—a nonpartisan law, policy, and strategy center dedicated to advancing racial, social, and economic justice in the U.S. South, "Although Black people constitute 21% of the voting-age population in North Carolina, they represent 42% of the people disenfranchised while on probation, parole, or post-release supervision."
The group notes that in 44 North Carolina counties, "the disenfranchisement rate for Black people is more than three times the rate of the white population."
"Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to re-engage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
In what one civil rights leader called "the largest expansion of voting rights in this state since the 1965 Voting Rights Act," a three-judge state court panel voted 2-1 in 2021 to restore voting rights to approximately 55,000 formerly incarcerated felons. The decision made North Carolina the only Southern state to automatically restore former felons' voting rights.
Republican state legislators appealed that ruling to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which in 2022 granted their request for a stay—but only temporarily, as the court allowed a previous injunction against any felony disenfranchisement based on fees or fines to stand.
However, last April the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the three-judge panel decision, stripping voting rights from thousands of North Carolinians previously convicted of felonies. Dissenting Justice Anita Earls opined that "the majority's decision in this case will one day be repudiated on two grounds."
"First, because it seeks to justify the denial of a basic human right to citizens and thereby perpetuates a vestige of slavery, and second, because the majority violates a basic tenant of appellate review by ignoring the facts as found by the trial court and substituting its own," she wrote.
As similar battles play out in other states, Democratic U.S. lawmakers led by Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont in December introduced legislation to end former felon disenfranchisement in federal elections and guarantee incarcerated people the right to vote.
Currently, only Maine, Vermont, and the District of Columbia allow all incarcerated people to vote behind bars.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular