MediaBloodhound

The Wounded-Courier: CNN's John King Calls Off Wedding, Moves In with Map

John King, chief national correspondent for CNN, broke off his engagement to colleague Dana Bash Thursday after revealing a months-long affair with his interactive election map.

Wolf Blitzer, lead anchor for the network's 2008 election coverage, said he'd grown increasingly uncomfortable with King's infatuation over his touchscreen sidekick. But Blitzer claimed he didn't know until the Pennsylvania primary that King and his "magic map" were counting more than votes.

"We were all very excited about Pennsylvania. Another big night for the best political team on television. But the truth is," explained Blitzer, "viewers only saw John with his map on-camera. Off-camera, he didn't leave her side. John didn't step away for refreshments the entire evening. Not even for a Skittle." Blitzer, suddenly visibly upset, composed himself before adding, "Later that night, long after Pennsylvania had been called for Clinton and most of us had already gone home, one of our producers brought a Krispy Kreme over to John. She found him with his pants around his ankles and his hand on Florida. I won't get into what was resting on New Jersey."

Little is known about the coquettish wall map. Her interface is called Perceptive Pixel Multi-Touch Screen. King and the "magic wall," another one of her nicknames, only began working together on January 8, the day of the New Hampshire primary. But their chemistry blossomed with each successive night of primary and caucus coverage, each passionate wave of King's hand, each poke and tap into one of our nation's voting precincts.

Still, most friends and family were shocked. Mr. King and Ms. Bash, whom he also met on the job at CNN, seemed very much in love and looking forward to their future together. A Catholic, King even converted to Judaism for his now former fiancée. In a February interview with The Forward, he compared the excruciating pain of his adult circumcision to sitting through the 2005 Broadway production of Fiddler on the Roof, starring Rosie O'Donnell and Harvey Fierstein.

CNN's Larry King (no relation to John), who's been married sixteen times in between thirty-seven heart attacks, offered his colleague advice several weeks prior to the bombshell revelations. "I told John, 'Look, these things happen. People understand that. But you can't keep this from Dana. Trust me, everyone will be more upset with the cheating than the fact you've been sodomizing a state-of-the-art map for four months.'"

Ms. Bash's father, Stu Schwartz, a longtime producer on Good Morning America, said of King, "I pleaded with her. 'Find a Jewish man!' These goyim with all their facocta gadgets. I warned her something like this would happen. Relations with a map? This is a man? He may have already converted, but you know what? You can have him back!"

Opening last night's broadcast, NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams said, "Good evening. We have much to cover tonight. The death toll in Myanmar grows, the price of gas keeps rising and more troops were killed today in Iraq. But first, a truly shocking story about a newsman, his map and the unpredictability of the human heart. To help us sort through the details is our own NBC News special correspondent Tom Brokaw. Tom, tell me, in all your years in the news business, have you ever seen something like this John King affair?"

"You know, Brian, I can't say I have," said Brokaw. "I guess the closest example I can think of would be the 1982 rumor of Roger Mudd's affair with a rather fetching filing cabinet. But Roger and his wife Emma Jeanne weathered that storm. And to this day, he denies those allegations."

Ms. Bash, still reeling from the news, released the following statement through her publicist today: "I wish John King all the best. I'll cherish the moments we shared. You know, sometimes a girl meets her prince and lives happily ever after. And sometimes that prince turns out to be f***ing a Perceptive Pixel Multi-Touch Screen map behind your back. That's just life."

Story of the Day: Leading Newspapers Perpetuated Obama-Muslim Mython Day of IN Primary

Media Matters posted a piece this afternoon about how the right-wing Washington Times today "quoted  [an] Indiana man saying Obama is 'a Muslim' without noting the assertion is false."

A fine catch.

Media Matters also smartly showed how a responsible journalist reports such incidents:

By contrast, after quoting the same man in its own article, the Chicago Sun-Times wrote that "Obama has never been a Muslim, but bogus e-mails accuse him of being a Muslim who put his hand on a copy of the Quran to be sworn into the U.S. Senate and refusing to say the Pledge of Allegiance."

An additional search, however, reveals the decidedly more credible Los Angeles Times, Washington Post and Baltimore Sun also reported the same scene without pointing out the man's claim was false. Except they published their reports yesterday, on the day of the Indiana and North Carolina primaries. Specifically, the failure of these newspapers - two of which, along with The New York Times, are considered our nation's papers of record - to clarify the man's misstatement was potentially directly damaging to Obama's chances in Indiana. Whereas today's Washington Times piece, published in a disreputable rag the day after the Indiana primary, might impact voters' opinions for the general election and, possibly, still undecided superdelegates.

Here's the breakdown:

Los Angeles Times (5/6/08), as reported by Peter Nicholas:

One of his first encounters went poorly. He approached a man sitting alone at a table and was waved away. The man told me afterward he had no interest in meeting Obama.

"I can't stand him," he said. "He's a Muslim. He's not even pro-American as far as I'm concerned."

Obama seemed unfazed. He had better luck at a round table where several men were eating.

At no point, prior to or following this anecdote, did Nicholas clarify that Obama is a Christian and has never been a Muslim.

Washington Post (5/6/08), as reported online by Shailagh Murray:

Obama arrived at the Greenwood restaurant about 7:40 a.m. and received a mixed response. One man waved the senator away from his table, later telling the pool reporter on the scene that "I can't stand him. He's a Muslim. He's not even pro-American as far as I'm concerned."
      
At another table, a group of regulars dubbed the "Johnson County Roundtable" greeted Obama warmly.

Murray failed as well as to cite Obama's actual religion.

Baltimore Sun (5/6/08), as reported  online by John McCormick: 

One of his first table stops did not go well. As he approached a man sitting alone at a table, Obama was waved away. The man later told a Los Angeles Times reporter that he was not interested in meeting Obama.

"I can't stand him,'' he said. "He's a Muslim. He's not even pro-American as far as I'm concerned."

McCormick and the Baltimore Sun even did WaPo and the LA Times one better, not only excluding clarification of Obama's religion but also creating an original claim of their own in the very next sentence:

Obama got another surprise at another table. While talking to a trio of men eating breakfast, one handed him the bill. "This will seal the thing,'' the man said. The somewhat tightwad senator accepted the check and later took it to the cashier and paid it.

"The somewhat tightwad senator"? Nice of McCormick to back up this assertion with somewhat zero factual information. What's more, as McCormick reports himself, Obama paid for the three men's breakfasts. And, notably, without hesitation. So is Obama a "somewhat tightwad senator" because he didn't pick up every diners' breakfast during that stop or the breakfast of every diner he's met along the campaign trail?

To paraphrase Joe Pesci's character in Goodfellas: What exactly does McCormick mean, Obama's a somewhat tightwad senator? You tell us! Somewhat a tightwad how? How is Obama a partial tightwad? What are his miserly attributes? Tell us, tell us! What about him makes him such a tightwad?! (Of course, Pesci's character soon revealed he was joking around with the other character; McCormick, on the other hand, to be a credible journalist, must supply supporting facts when making such claims.)

In a more nuanced offense - exemplifying why words do indeed matter - McCormick and the Sun provide this gem later in the piece: 

Obama prowled the building's parking lot looking for people on their way in to cast ballots.

Yes, not searched or canvassed or even scoured. Is McCormick oblivious to the inarguably pejorative meaning of the word prowl, the primary definition of which on Dictionary.com (an aggregate of the most authoritative dictionaries) is "to rove or go about stealthily, as in search of prey, something to steal, etc." 

Let us pray this coverage improves.

Story of the Day: Bob Schieffer, Company Man

Bob Schieffer's coverage during the George W. Bush years, weighed against his hushed compromising relationship with the president, belies the CBS newsman's projected image as an unimpeachably principled journalist and typifies the way our media class operates.

In a Sunday post on Crooks and Liars, under the headline "Schieffer Wakes Up to Life in the Bush Administration," Nicole Belle wrote: "I don’t know where Bob Schieffer’s been these last seven years, but he thinks that the White House might have an credibility problem." She was reacting to Schieffer's Face the Nation commentary on the Lurita Doan scandal:

SCHIEFFER: I saw a story in the Washington Post the other day, where a reporter granted a government official anonymity in order as the newspaper put it, ‘for the government official to speak more candidly.’ Well, that made me wonder. Do we no longer expect government officials to tell the whole story if they must take responsibility for what they say? Even worse, do we believe that is acceptable?

For sure, the White House won no prize for candor last week; it gave the outgoing head of the General Services Administration, Lurita Doan, a big send off by thanking her for making government buildings more energy-efficient or some such, when in truth, she was forced out. She was the object of multiple investigations, suspicious dealings on government contracts, and asking government employees what they could do to help political candidates, which is, of course, against the law. Even the government’s watchdog agency recommended she be disciplined to the fullest extent. Yet the White House spokesman declined to say if her resignation had anything to do with any of that. From the White House came only thanks and confirmation she was gone. The government saw no obligation to say why, which leads me to this: have decades of secrecy, spin and stonewalling conditioned us to accept less than the whole story from the government? Is telling the whole truth no longer a given? Frankly, I’m not sure. What I do know is more and more people seem skeptical of everything the government says and does. What we saw last week may be one reason why.

Belle then pointed out the underlying absurdity:

The Lurita Doan scandal is such a minor one relative to all the other lies, spin, incompetence and outright negligence of the Bush administration that it’s tragically laughable that this is the one that Schieffer thinks exemplifies why the American people are skeptical to what comes out of the White House.

This also epitomizes Schieffer's reporting on the administration, which has treaded between muted criticism and outright fawning. It's no wonder after Dan Rather's departure from CBS Evening News, President Bush gladly granted Schieffer an exclusive interview. Something he never afforded Rather.

In a March 2003 interview, Schieffer was asked "if the Pentagon's decision to allow reporters to embed with troops" will "make it difficult for journalists to remain objective?" His answer was telling:

BOB SCHIEFFER: No, I don't think so at all. I think it was a very good decision. I must tell you on this one, I'm sort of like Ronald Reagan who used to say of the Soviet Union, "Trust but verify." I take them at their word at the Pentagon, if they're going to let these reporters go along and give us a view of this war if it does come. But I'm going to wait until the shooting starts until I give a final opinion. So far, they are saying all the right things. I give them the benefit of the doubt. I think they're going to try to do the right thing. But we'll see once the shooting starts if they follow up. If they do what they say they're going to do, it would be a very good thing. I also think it's not just good for the American people to have independent observers along, I think it's also good for the military. Had there been a reporter along with Lieutenant Calley when he massacred those people in Vietnam, I think that probably wouldn't have happened.

The truth is, however, in covering the Bush administration, Schieffer has been overly willing to trust and, whenever discrepancies between administration claims and the facts are verified, ever reluctant to hold anyone accountable. The ideal company man. Affable and avuncular yet trusted and above the fray. Walter Cronkite without that pesky willingness to speak truth to power. In the end, Schieffer might as well replace "trust but verify" with "ask but don't follow up."

Throughout his January 2006 interview with Bush, Schieffer responded "Um-hmm" and "Okay" and jarringly changed topics when the president's absurd answers demanded further inquiry. His misplaced deference lent credence to Bush's specious, unconstitutional explanations on everything from wiretaps, speaking with our enemies, the state of Iraq, Katrina, healthcare and energy independence. Moreover, Schieffer's final three questions were embarrassing softballs: "Has the presidency changed you, Mr. President?"; "What has been the worst part?"; and "What has been the impact on your family?"

The Wounded-Courier: Networks Announce Politically Inspired Summer Pilots

Major broadcast networks ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX are gearing up to run summer pilots that take advantage of this popular political season. The following is a list of promos currently being sent to network affiliates across the country:

HUCK, CHUCK AND JESUS (CBS) - In this righteously funny action series from the creators of “Friends” and “Walker, Texas Ranger,” Mike Huckabee and Chuck Norris play cross-country-roaming door-to-door life insurance salesmen who find trouble wherever they go. Fortunately, Huck and Chuck - armed with a portable Total Gym®, a five-year supply of Just for Men® and an endless reserve of roundhouse kicks - also have Jesus on their speed-dial.

ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF OCCUPATION (FOX) - Very loosely inspired by Gabriel García Márquez’s international bestseller One Hundred Years of Solitude, John McCain leads this all-star Washington cast of Pentagon-fed TV military analysts, Bush administration lackeys and mainstream stenographers in a bid to occupy Iraq for the next hundred years. But McCain’s scandalous long-distance affair with Suad Ali (actress Salma Hayek), an Iraqi cabinet minister’s fetching wife, threatens to unravel the Republican presidential nominee’s occupation plans.

THAT HAGEE AIN'T WRIGHT (NBC) - Can a racist, homophobic, Catholic-denigrating deranged TV evangelist live with a nutty narcissistic pastor steeped in black liberation theology - without driving each other crazy? Or crazier? Find out in this “Odd Couple”-inspired reality series, when Rev. John Hagee and Rev. Jeremiah Wright share a Manhattan apartment in Chelsea this summer. God help them? God help us.

WHO LOVES AMERICA MORE, AMERICA? (ABC) - A cross between “American Idol” and an appearance in front of the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC). George Stephanopoulos hosts this game show where, following a series of opening statements by contestants and a McCarthy-era cross-examination by Stephanopoulos, viewers vote for who they think has their flag pin in the right place. If you know what we mean.

WHITE HOUSE PRESS CORPSE (NBC) – Reminiscent of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers," "Night of the Living Dead" and "The West Wing," veteran White House press corps member Helen Thomas plays herself in this episodic horror series. Surrounded by Washington journalists turned propaganda-consuming zombies, Thomas alone battles the high priestess of White House spin, brain-eating press secretary Dana Perino. 

NOW, THAT BROTHA'S ANGRY! (FOX) – “Last Comic Standing” meets “Cops” as closest racist Pat Buchanan, iconic celebrity Mr. T, and current Guinness World Records “whitest man on earth” P.J. O'Rourke judge contestants who try to top each for the title of angriest brotha. Make sure your V-Chip is in place, lock your doors and protect your white women. These guys are not f*&%ing around, motherf*&$ers!

AMERICA'S WORST BOWLER (CBS) - Barack Obama famously bowled a 37. Celebrity juggernaut and host William Shatner begins each program bellowing, “C'mon, I've seen lobsters bowl better frames!" In this innovative game show, before tossing their bowling balls down the lane, contestants are blindfolded, plied with low-shelf tequila and spun at G-force speeds. The winners, those closest to duplicating Obama's score, then compete against each other in a bowl-off. The last one standing faces Obama himself for the title of "America's Worst Bowler."

Story of the Day: Miley Cyrus Trumps Voter ID Ruling on NBC Nightly News; On Same Day, NBC Anchor Slammed NYT's Fluff

Last night, NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams allotted eighty seconds to yesterday's momentous Supreme Court ruling that there's nothing unconstitutional with Indiana's law requiring a photo ID to vote. Meanwhile, during the same broadcast, it spent over two minutes on the concern caused by photos of teen star Miley Cyrus in Vanity Fair.

That would be embarrassing enough for a news organization purporting to be credible.

But earlier in the day on the Nightly News blog The Daily Nightly, anchor and managing editor Brian Williams (in a post titled "What Times Is It?") actually took The New York Times to task for publishing puff pieces. Now, Williams won't get an argument from me on The Times' penchant for such reporting in between serious news items, which can bump a crucial story to the back pages (that's why "NYT Front|Back" is an ongoing series here). But Williams is either in bunker-mentality denial or gallingly disingenuous to suggest he and his newscast - not to mention his network news colleagues and the mainstream media at large - don't regularly focus attention on the same kind of tripe at the expense of substantive news.

Talk about your glass houses.

How big has Williams' bubble grown? Did it not cross his mind that people might read his post, then watch his newscast and call him out on his hypocritical, cognitive dissonant analysis? Does he realize that even though he might wish to remain in his Big Media bubble, that it's precisely this kind of intellectual dishonesty and brain-dead hackery that drove, and continues to drive, millions of formerly trusting viewers to seek their news elsewhere?

What's more, Williams and NBC poorly handled those eighty whole seconds they allocated to the Supreme Court ruling on voter IDs. They not only failed to present one dissenting viewpoint - whether from a Supreme Court Justice, legal scholar, civil rights lawyer or voters in Indiana - but also to point out how this ruling will impact the upcoming primary in Indiana, where, as the Associated Press reported yesterday, "more than 20 percent of black voters do not have access to a valid photo ID."

Instead, ignoring substantive context, dissenting views and serious implications on the constitutional right to vote, Brian Williams framed the issue for NBC justice correspondent Pete Williams (former longtime aide to Dick Cheney) through a Fox News-like lens:

BRIAN WILLIAMS: Pete, let's come at this a little differently. In a nation where in the post-9/11 era, we need a photo ID to fly, why was it a big story today, this court ruling that we need it to vote?

Yeah, what's all the fuss about, Pete? I mean, sure, we're only spending eighty seconds on this story, but let's take it from the angle of questioning why we should cover it at all.

Of course, Brian turned to the right correspondent to take a complex issue involving civil liberties and the Constitution and, for all intents and purposes, reduce it down to corporate media stenography and Bush administration talking points. A skilled piece of journalistic hackery in short form:

PETE WILLIAMS: Well, showing a photo ID at the airport has been upheld because of the need for security. Now the Supreme Court said that states can require voter ID at the polls to prevent voter fraud. Georgia, Florida and Michigan have laws like Indiana's and seventeen other states were waiting for today's decision before considering laws of their own to make voting another part of American life requiring a photo ID, just like flying. Today's vote was six-to-three, with one of the most liberal justices, John Paul Stevens, in the majority. He said most people do already have a photo ID and that for those who don't, who are poor, elderly or handicapped, this may add to their burden. But he said it was not enough to overcome the state's interest in discouraging fraud, Brian.

Our curious anchor's follow-up?

BRIAN WILLIAMS: All right. Pete Williams in Washington for us. Pete, thanks.

Adding insult to injury, this clip is not currently available on its own on MSNBC's Nightly News website (it's only accessible through watching a video of the full broadcast). But fear not, Brian's two-minute-plus Miley Cyrus (aka, Hannah Montana) report, covered by NBC correspondent Rehema Ellis, is there in all its gratuitously vapid glory.

Never mind how the Supreme Court's decision will directly affect the Indiana Democratic primary, the presidential election in November, and, potentially, voting rights of US citizens for years to come. NBC Nightly News and Brian Williams provided their viewers with a much more valuable piece of information: the "ruckus" over teen sensation Miley Cyrus' photo spread in Vanity Fair and an answer to the question that's keeping most Americans awake at night:

REHEMA ELLIS, NBC CORRESPONDENT: How could this affect the pop star's career?

Editor's Note: Appreciate this post? Subscribe to receive MediaBloodhound email alerts so you don't miss the next one. MBH doesn't post daily, so it's a great way to keep up with the latest. And it's easy to subscribe: 1) Enter your email address above the "Subscribe" button in top right-hand column of this site and click button; 2) Check your inbox for auto email from "confirmations@emailenfuego.com" (if you don't see it, check your spam folder); 3) Open email, click confirm link and you're done. Thanks for your readership. - Brad Jacobson

The Wounded-Courier: McCain Targets "Sadrists" Stewart and Colbert

After recent gaffes confusing Sunnis and Shiites, John McCain has now mixed up Sadrists - followers of Iraqi Shiite militia leader Muqtada al-Sadr - with satirists.

Aboard his campaign plane yesterday afternoon, the Republican presidential candidate answered a question about the dangers of Sadrists waging an all-out war on US troops, saying, "Well, here's some straight talk for you - I think Sadrists like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have been waging a war on our troops for years. And it's about time, my friends, that we face this reality and confront them head-on."

Attempting to correct the Arizona senator, New York Times journalist Elizabeth Bumiller, the reporter who had asked him the question, said, "Uh, Senator. I don't think Stewart and Colbert are the Sadrists I was referring to."

But McCain, vigorously reiterating his position, replied, "Well, maybe not. But they're two of the most popular out there. Ratings are high, kids love 'em. Here's some more straight talk - I've been on Jon's show but I'll admit I was wrong to do it, and I hope my Democratic opponents will have the courage to denounce their associations with him, too. The point is, anyone with military chops knows the best strategy for victory is to cut the snake off at the head. My friends, it's time we take these jokers out."

When Bumiller tried to correct him one last time, McCain erupted, "Look, I don't come to your office at the Times, elbow my way threw that Third World newsroom of Marxist homosexual terrorists, and stand over your desk telling you how to type! So, please - please - my friend, don't tell me how to win a war!"

Senator Joe Lieberman (?!-CT), a fixture at McCain's side throughout his presidential run, was unable to step forward this time and whisper facts into McCain's ear as he did during one of the two previous Sunni-Shiite blunders. Lieberman, observing the Passover holiday, had relegated himself to the Kosher for Passover section of the campaign aircraft.

Stephen Colbert, who responded in character during the taping of Thursday's scheduled Colbert Report, said, "This is further proof that Senator John McCain has what it takes to lead this country - a limited yet firm grip of the facts, a tenuous hold on reality, and Bunyanesque balls of stainless steel. Senator McCain, if posing as your patsy to win this war is wrong, then I don't want to be right. Hand me a Crave Case of White Castles and an elephant tranquilizer gun, and I'll take down Michael Moore for you, sir!"

When notified of John McCain's comment on the set of The Daily Show, host Jon Stewart stammered, loosened his tie and said, "Huh...is it hot in here, or is it me?" Breaking into a Woody Allen impression, he then added, "Well, I, uh, that's very interesting. You'll have to excuse me. I, I seem to remember I, I have a plane to catch...to Peru."

On MSNBC's Hardball last night, guest John Amato, proprietor of the popular blog Crooks and Liars, said, "So now we know what to expect. George W. Bush averted attention away from al Qaeda and Afghanistan to attack Iraq, and John McCain wants to avert attention away from the Sadrists to attack the satirists. You know, Chris, if Terry Southern and Stanley Kubrick were alive today, they wouldn't need a script."

But MSNBC commentator Pat Buchanan countered, "Look, what we have here is a case of turning lemons into lemonade. Did McCain confuse Sadrists and satirists? Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. But whatever happened, he brought attention to a growing problem - homegrown insurgents, like Stewart and Colbert, who are doing our troops a grave disservice. I'm with McCain, I say take 'em out."

McCain, however, did note that he would spare 70-year-old comedy legend Rich Little, considering both Little's magnanimous White House Correspondents Dinner routine the year following, as the senator put it, "Mr. Colbert's Tet Offensive of comedy," and because he considers Little more an impressionist than a Sadrist.

Swatting at imaginary flies above his head for a moment, McCain then added, "He's one Sadrist who's proved his loyalty to the United States and I honor him for his service."

Op-Ed Column: Networks Win Pennsylvania in Landslide!

Have you ever been dreaming, entertaining whatever loopy narrative your unconscious mind is unleashing, and then suddenly you recognize it's only a dream and you wake up?

Well, during MSNBC's election coverage last night, in between all the manufactured melodrama of the network's ensemble cast, Chris Matthews seemed to experience such a moment when, as if delivering an on-stage soliloquy sans the dimming lights, he said:

"But I really do think it’s a strange time because we’re all watching to see who won, but as Nora pointed out, 4 out of 5, or so, of the Hillary voters today believe she’s still in the running. That this is still up in the air and I think that was probably a mistake of the media. I think in the effort of the media, to try to keep this game going, we’ve created the delusion that somehow this race is still open. I don’t think it is open. I think if you look at the numbers Barack has to really blow it in the weeks ahead to lose."

Credible political analysts, such as #1 MSNBC number cruncher and political director Chuck Todd, have been quietly noting this for weeks. Of course, Todd's checks are also cut by the same network with a huge stake in stoking the "delusion" that this race is still neck and neck. (Just as this unreality benefits all the networks and the mainstream media at large.) So these waking moments supplied by Todd - conveniently, the most soft-spoken figure on network news - are fleeting. Rare glimpses of light before we're plunged back into the ratings-generating, Iago-like gaming of Tim Russert, Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan and, yes, Chris Matthews.

Todd reminded us again of this reality last night. Only now, Clinton's chances, ironically, are bleaker than they were before her Pennsylvania victory. Breaking down the numbers, Todd noted that "the pledged delegate count is basically over" and "it now appears like it's going to be impossible for Obama to lose his lead." And it's clear why Todd hedges ever so slightly, softening this dash of sobriety with the words "basically" and "appears": MSNBC desires thousands of miles more out of this nearly broken-down vehicle.

Today on Morning Joe, Matthews, along with Joe Scarborough and the rest of the panel, hailed Clinton's victory and, like Groundhog Day, picked up their ever-extended Thrilla in Manila narrative where they left off. To give him mild credit, Matthews did provide a seconds-long allusion to the reality of Chuck Todd's stark numbers, before he leaped back into the chorus and saddled up for another day at the horse track.

So if you're rooting for Clinton and you're still flush from this latest victory, or your candidate is Obama and you're still licking your wounds, remember this: the biggest winner last night was once again the networks and their ratings, with John McCain and the GOP right behind them.

Buckle up, Democrats, and proceed with caution. Right now, more than any one entity, the indiscriminate knife twisters in the mainstream media have the strongest hand on the wheel and they are driving this nomination process toward a cliff. Keep playing this game of chicken, keep operating within their craven frame of a never-ending steel-cage death match, and the only viable candidate standing - viable as in capable of winning in November - might soon be John McCain.

To corporate media chiefs, along with their friends in the GOP and their advertising sponsor pals in the defense, energy and pharmaceutical industries, this ongoing cutthroat nomination process and its very possible outcome (say hello to President McCain!) would be a tremendous win-win. And a classic demonstration of the Democratic Party's uncanny ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Especially when you consider President Bush just received the highest job disapproval rating in Gallup Poll's history (69%) and over 80% of Americans think this country's on the wrong track.

Of course, the more tattered the Democratic nominee is by the end, the closer the presidential race - and thus the higher the ratings - will be in the fall.

Make no mistake, the networks are also looking ahead to November. And their Lord of the Flies mentality has them salivating.

The Wounded-Courier (EXCLUSIVE): Transcript of Untelevised Portion of ABC Debate

ABC News' handling of the Democratic debate on Wednesday generated thousands of negative comments from viewers and also excoriating critiques from members alternative and mainstream media alike. In response, ABC News President David Westin has decided to release a transcript of the untelevised portion of the debate, which took place subsequent to the one Americans watched on Wednesday night.

Westin, speaking with The Wounded-Courier, said, "While I think, on the whole, Charlie and George did an admirable job, I believe the most substantive part of the debate occurred after the cameras were turned off." Westin added, "I've decided to release this transcript to make clear ABC's commitment to excellence in journalism. We're confident you'll agree that the questions asked in these remaining minutes address substantive issues that are of the utmost concern to Pennsylvanians and every American."

Courtesy of ABC News, here is the untelevised transcript in its entirety:

CHARLES GIBSON, ABC ANCHOR: For the televised portion of this debate, we began segments with brief quotes from the Constitution apropos to what we would be discussing. For the untelevised portion, we will move away from the Constitution and quote liberally in a wild card fashion from whatever source seems appropriate. OK, so let's continue. "Sitting on a cornflake, waiting for the van to come. Corporation tee-shirt, stupid bloody Tuesday. Man, you been a naughty boy, you let your face grow long. I am the eggman, they are the eggmen, I am the walrus, goo goo g'joob."

GIBSON: That is a quote from The Beatles drug-inspired anthem "I Am the Walrus." Senator Obama, exactly how stoned were you the first time you heard this song? And did the bong hits, combined with the tabs of acid you ingested, make this song less or more enjoyable?

SENATOR BARACK OBAMA: You know, Charlie, I've already addressed my slight dabbling with drugs when I was a confused youth. I think I went through what many troubled youths go through when --

GIBSON: But how wasted were you the first time you heard "I Am the Walrus," Senator, and did your psychotic drug binge -- which may have caused you to black out for days on end while committing unspeakable acts you don't remember -- add or subtract from your listening pleasure?

OBAMA: Again, Charlie, I'm not sure how this helps get Americans health insurance, brings home our troops, or fixes the economy.

GIBSON: I'll take your response as an admission that pot and acid do, in fact, make this song better. But shooting heroin and the possible murders you committed during your unconscious fugue state detracted somewhat from the overall listening experience.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC ANCHOR: Senator Clinton, if a tree falls in the woods but no one is there to hear it, did it make a sound?

SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON: George, that is something which has been debated for centuries.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you admit there was no gunfire that day you landed in Bosnia?

CLINTON: Well, you know, George, I've already conceded that I misspoke on that issue. If you're campaigning as much as Barack and I have --

(STEPHANOPOULOS brandishes a revolver and fires a few feet above Sen. Clinton's head.)

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you would've remembered that, right?

CLINTON: Of course.

OBAMA: Can I just say something? I don't see where this is getting us. George, you could've just killed someone in here. That's not a toy you've got in your hand there.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Right you are, Senator. And that leads us to our next question. Charlie?

GIBSON: "I shot a man in Reno, just to watch him die." A line from Johnny Cash's "Folsom Prison Blues."

STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Obama, your childhood friend Jimmy Choi told us that as a six-year-old boy living in Honolulu, one day you were both engaged in a typical game of cops and robbers, running around your yard with plastic guns, when suddenly little Jimmy tripped and fell. Before you helped little Jimmy back to his feet, you stood over him and said, "Pow! Pow! Pow!" over and over again, seemingly taking great pleasure in unloading your fake gun into your supposed friend. How can Democrats vote for a candidate who has shown, beginning at the age of six, to have such little regard for human life?

OBAMA: You're serious.

Special Report: NYT Iraq War Timeline Whitewashes History (Part III: Burying News of Iraqi Dead)

To mark the recent fifth anniversary of the Iraq War, The New York Times published an interactive timeline. This is the third in a series of posts exploring the most misleading statements and glaring omissions from its Iraq War history. (If you missed either of the first two parts, you can read them here and here).

Timeline Entry: W.H.O.'s Iraqi Civilian Death Toll

This entry reads in full: "January 9, 2008, W.H.O. Estimates Deaths: The World Health Organization publishes a study estimating the number of Iraqi civilian deaths from the start of the war through June 2006 as between 104,000 and 223,000. It estimated that the actual total was 151,000."

In the accompanying article filed on Jan. 10, 2008 (linked under the timeline), The Times does note the John Hopkins study, which estimated "about 600,000 [Iraqi civilian] dead between the war’s start, in March 2003, and July 2006." So why, then, isn't this acknowledged in the timeline? Moreover, nine paragraphs into that same companion article, The Times mentions in passing:

In any case, the study [W.H.O.'s] ended four months after the bombing of a revered Shiite shrine in Samarra helped set off a wave of killings throughout Baghdad and other mixed Sunni-Shiite areas. So because of its timing, the study missed the period of what is believed to be the worst sectarian killings, during the latter half of 2006 and the first eight months of 2007.

FACT: This not only undercuts W.H.O.'s count but, considering the John Hopkins study only covered through the following month (July 2006), it also illuminates the shockingly high number of Iraqi civilian deaths by John Hopkin's estimate, which was counted before the "worst sectarian killings, during the latter half of 2006 and the first eight months of 2007."

The Times' omission of the John Hopkin's study is not surprising, considering it's framed in the accompanying article as having "come under criticism for its methodology." In reality, its methodology was almost solely criticized by the White House (President Bush falsely claimed that "the methodology has been pretty well discredited"), the Pentagon, and partisan pro-war supporters in the media.

The Wounded-Courier: Penn Leaves PR Firm to Work Directly for Satan

"It was time to cut out the middle man," said Mark Penn, who recently stepped down as Hillary Clinton's chief campaign strategist. Penn, speaking from Satan's lair in an undisclosed circle of Hell, told The New York Times yesterday that the Devil contacted him as soon as he heard Penn had relinquished his top tactical role for Clinton.

"He texted me immediately - 'IMHO, you still rock.' Then he called me directly on his cell. Needless to say, I was pretty flattered," admitted Penn. "I've worked for Blackwater but this was Beelzebub. Not Erik Prince - the Prince of Darkness. He's the best in the business. When he put an offer on the table, I said, 'Where do you want me to sign and when do you want me there [Hell]?'"

Once he accepted Lucifer's offer, Penn stepped down as CEO of PR/lobbying giant Burson-Marsteller, where he gained valuable experience that will inform his new endeavor. Burson-Marsteller - rumored to have long retained Mephistopheles as a silent partner - has not only consulted private military contractor Blackwater USA but many other challenging clients, including embattled mortgage lender Countrywide, nuclear behemoth Entergy (whose tagline is "The Power of People"), and the unfortunately named SpinMaster, Canadian manufacturer of the poisonous Aqua Dots toy.

Penn, however, will continue to do polling and consulting work for the Clinton camp.

Commenting on his new role with the Overlord of the Underworld, Sen. Hillary Clinton said, "I wish Mark all the best. He worked his heart out for us and I'm sure he'll do the same for Satan, who, full disclosure, counseled me on my decision in 2006 to vote against banning cluster bombs in civilian areas. That wasn't easy. My gut said I have to vote for this - contrary to what Samantha Power thinks, I'm not a monster. But the Devil made clear it wasn't worth jeopardizing my copious financial support from the defense industry. And that turned out to be a prudent choice."

Satan, who stopped by The View this morning, feels it's high time to dust off his image, which, he said, "Really hasn't changed much over millennia." Noted the King of Hell, "For example, most people today have no idea I started my career as an angel."

"That's deep," said View co-host Whoopi Goodberg. "But you do admit you've done some horrible stuff."

"Of course," he acknowledged. "But, Whoopi, that's only one side of the story. Not a balanced view. I think working with Mark will help people see the real me." Rolling his eyes, Satan explained, "You know, I'm so much more than the scary guy with the pitchfork and the horns spreading war and pestilence. I have feelings, too. I shed a tear when Suharto passed away. I enjoy gardening in my downtime, catching the latest American Idol, inciting suicidal ideation. Like regular people, I also get a little acid reflux if I snack too late. And puppies almost make me smile."

Sources close to Satan say he and Penn are already developing a new reality show inspired by Donald Trump's The Apprentice. Each week the Devil will review the lives of terminally ill cast members. At the close of every episode, he'll tell one or more unlucky participants, "You're going to Hell."

Polled: AP's Stupidest Poll Findings of the Primary Season

Polled, a new feature on MediaBloodhound, will cover the most inane polls from now through the November election and beyond.

Congratulations to the Associated Press for being the recipient of the inaugural post in Polled!

Here's the AP's lede in a story drawing striking conclusions from Democratic primary exit polls:

Add this to the divisive debate over race in the presidential campaign: Whites who said race was important in picking their candidate have been about twice as likely to back Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as Sen. Barack Obama.

Exit polls of voters in Democratic primaries also show that whites who considered the contender's race — Clinton is white, Obama is black — were three times likelier to say they would only be satisfied with Clinton as the nominee than if Obama were chosen.

Imagine that. Whites who said race would be a deciding factor chose Clinton over Obama.

And just as shocking:

Eighty-eight percent of blacks who said race was an important factor voted for Obama, compared to 81 percent of those who said they did not consider race.

Now I'm no polling expert or statistical analyst, but I'd wager that the majority of, say, insecure, mean-spirited, male chauvinists who would call their wives a "cunt" are more likely to vote for Sen. John McCain. But is that noteworthy?

AP writer Alan Fram, who penned this most insightful article, notes:

The data is from exit polls in Democratic primaries conducted for The Associated Press and television networks in Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, Mississippi, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Vermont.

Clearly, however, no one told Fram - or his editors at the AP - that not every finding in every poll is worthy of an article. Or in some cases, such as this, even a sentence.

Here are some other data the AP failed to mention from these exit polls*:

• Members of the KKK are twice as likely to own a backup set of white sheets than are non-KKK members.

• Raving lunatics are more likely to believe little blue men are following them than realize they've lost touch with reality.

• Vegetarians consume roughly 100% less meat per year than do meat eaters.

• People who claim Kenny G. is a "great jazz musician" own considerably fewer recordings of John Coltrane, Miles Davis, Louis Armstrong and Charles Mingus, and most have undergone full lobotomies.

• A majority of men prefer waking to an alarm clock in the morning rather than being kicked in the testicles; while a predominance of women reported that childbirth is actually more painful than a pedicure.

* As difficult as it is to believe, everything up to this point was documented by the AP; what follows is satire.

Feel free to add some of your own surprising statistical findings in the comments.

The Wounded-Courier Editorial: Why Obama's Bowling Would've Lost Dr. King's Support (satire)

"I don’t know whether to kill myself or go bowling."
- Unknown

On this day, the 40th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s death, we believe there is no better time to address Sen. Barack Obama's pitiful bowling display this week in Pennsylvania.

First, though The Wounded-Courier has not endorsed any candidate for president, after witnessing Mr. Obama toss that gutter ball again and again on that 24-hour media loop, let’s just say we are officially not endorsing him.

Why? It's only bowling, you say?

Well, it wasn't only bowling to Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy, all of whom (as most Americans know) not only looked comfortable in their bright stripped shoes and loved those miniature pencils, but actually based their foreign policies on proven bowling techniques and strategies.

While Dr. King laid the groundwork for a black man to run for president in 2008, we're sure that even Dr. King would conclude that any man or woman – black, white, brown, yellow or purple – must keep that bowling ball out of the gutter if he or she is truly ready to lead America.

Dr. King did not give his life so one day some bowling delinquent like Barack Obama could land in the White House. (And if there isn’t a law against bowling with a tie on, we believe there should be.) King knew how crucial bowling was to not only improving US foreign policy and ensuring national security but to helping the poor, upgrading education, fixing our healthcare system and keeping the economy strong.

But he also knew America was not ready at the time to have an honest discussion about the issue of bowling. In fact, while some of his aides and confidantes, including Andrew Young and Harry Belafonte, pressed King to incorporate bowling into his "I Have a Dream" speech, King, in the end, believed it would be too controversial. Even in his "Beyond Vietnam" address, as he assailed US actions in Southeast Asia and gross neglect of the poor here at home, he dared not suggest bowling as a remedy for what ailed our nation.

But few people know that in earlier drafts of this speech, the line "A time comes when silence is betrayal" originally read, "A time comes when silence is betrayal and bowling is the only path to right a nation’s wrongs."

There are those who see a bowling ball and ask, "Why is this thing so f***ing heavy?" We see Barack Hussein Obama delivering a gutter ball and ask, “How do you expect to protect America?"

Special Report: NYT Iraq War Timeline Whitewashes History (Part II: Record Day of Global Protest Disappeared)

To mark the recent fifth anniversary of the Iraq War, The New York Times published an interactive timeline. This is the second in a series of posts exploring the most misleading statements and glaring omissions from its Iraq War history (read Part I here).

Timeline Entry: DC Antiwar Protest

This entry reads in full: "Jan. 18, 2003, Antiwar Demonstration: Tens of thousands of demonstrators converge on Washington to protest the threatened use of force in Iraq."

FACT: First of all, a demonstration of equal or greater size (according to varying estimates) occurred in San Francisco on the same day. The Times did report the San Francisco protest in its corresponding 2003 article (a link is provided beneath the timeline). So, to put it mildly, it's a peculiar omission. Additionally, employing terminology such as "tens of thousands" rather than, say, 200,000 - the estimated number of participants in both DC and San Francisco on Jan. 18, 2003 - is patently misleading. (The San Francisco police department's original calculations, by the way, were 40,000 before it altered its count several times, from 55,000 to 100,000-125,000 a few days later, to then stating 150,000 a "safe estimate," while also conceding it could've been closer to 200,000.) The mainstream media, led by The Times, has regularly used such language to describe the number of Iraq War protesters. Such statistically blunting nomenclature has been a gift to the Bush White House and an assault on the most American of activities: peaceful dissent.

As the Jan. 26, 2003 editorial in the Santa Rosa Press Democrat noted: "A demonstration of 40,000 is newsworthy. A protest of 150,000 to 200,000 is historic."

Yet even more egregious than this entry was the timeline's failure to mention what was arguably the single largest day of protest in recorded human history: February 15, 2003, in which up to 30 million people in over 600 towns and cities across the globe protested the imminent invasion of Iraq. Roughly half a million people gathered in New York City alone. The 3 million who protested in Rome entered the Guinness World Records as the "Largest Anti-War Rally" ever.

What's more, in a February 17, 2003 front-page news analysis by reporter Patrick Tyler, The Times itself printed:

The fracturing of the Western alliance over Iraq and the huge antiwar demonstrations around the world this weekend are reminders that there may still be two superpowers on the planet: the United States and world public opinion.

In his campaign to disarm Iraq, by war if necessary, President Bush appears to be eyeball to eyeball with a tenacious new adversary: millions of people who flooded the streets of New York and dozens of other world cities to say they are against war based on the evidence at hand.

[...]

For the moment, an exceptional phenomenon has appeared on the streets of world cities. It may not be as profound as the people's revolutions across Eastern Europe in 1989 or in Europe's class struggles of 1848, but politicians and leaders are unlikely to ignore it.

Of course our politicians and leaders - the ones with the power to prevent this war - did ignore this. Five years later, so has The New York Times.

In other words, our paper of record presents an Iraq War timeline in which it includes one mention of one protest in one city, yet fails to record the largest coordinated global protest in the history of the human race.

Not Fox News. Not the Bush administration up on its White House website. The New York Times. This is ineptitude or censorship on a truly staggering level.

Special Report: President Bush Mourns Every Loss?

In the last line of "The Unfeeling President," novelist E.L. Doctorow’s masterful 2004 essay on President Bush, he wrote: "He cannot mourn but is a figure of such moral vacancy as to make us mourn for ourselves."

Many Americans would have agreed with Doctorow's assessment four years ago. Today, far more have accepted this reality about the man who sends our sons and daughters off to die in his never-ending war of choice. Yet, by and large, our national press corps still covers President Bush as if he were a king, treating him with a deference and submissiveness equal to the contempt and belligerence he affords its members, the American people, world opinion and the rule of law. 

In a telling prelude to the grim milestone of 4,000 American dead in Iraq (of which 97% were killed after the president, with his "Mission Accomplished" banner aloft, declared major combat operations over), Mr. Bush, less than two weeks ago, gushed about how "romantic" it would be to fight right now on the "front lines" in Afghanistan. You know, trudging through clouds of depleted uranium while sniper bullets whiz by your head, wondering if the next roadside bomb has your name on it. On March 13, in a videoconference with U.S. military and civilian personnel stationed in Afghanistan, our president spoke of war as if it were a videogame (to date, roughly 482 US troops have died in Afghanistan):

"I must say, I'm a little envious," Bush said. "If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed.

"It must be exciting for you ... in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You're really making history, and thanks," Bush said.

Adding insult to injury, on that very same day, March 13, the Pentagon released an exhaustive study confirming that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.

Meanwhile, our uber chickenhawk of a president - who, along with his multiple draft-deferring vice president, avoided serving in Vietnam - had expressed a similar callous, G.I. Joe vision of warfare in September 2007. Writing for the Washington Post, Dan Froomkin reported on Bush's "misguided sense of bravado":

President Bush wishes that he could be alongside the troops in Iraq -- except that he's too old. At least that's what he reportedly told a blogger embedded with U.S. troops in Iraq...."N.Z. Bear," one of the eight guests sitting around a table with Bush at the White House, reported: "Responding to one of the bloggers in Iraq he expressed envy that they could be there, and said he'd like to be there but 'One, I'm too old to be out there, and two, they would notice me.'"

Froomkin also noted that since declaring an end to major combat missions operations on May 1, 2003, Bush, through September 2007, had only visited Iraq three times, for a total of fewer than 15 hours. Here's the courageous breakdown:

Bush's first trip was a two-and-a-half-hour visit to the Baghdad airport on Thanksgiving 2003, where he teared up at the sight of the soldiers and was famously photographed posing with a prop turkey.

In June 2006, Bush spent five hours visiting Iraqi political leaders in Baghdad, although he didn't let the prime minister know he was coming.

During his most recent trip, two weeks ago, Bush was on the ground for seven hours, never leaving the confines of a military base known as Camp Cupcake, a heavily fortified American outpost for 10,000 troops with a 13-mile perimeter.

And how does Bush's vice president soften the oncoming blow of 4,000 American dead? In response to ABC's Martha Raddich pointing out that two-thirds of Americans think the war was a mistake, Dick Cheney replied, "So?"

And so, now this: 4,000 Americans have fallen in Iraq but nothing changes. President Bush and Vice President Cheney can say and do anything with seeming impunity. The blood of 4,000 American men and women is spilled and the press corps' questions - in context to this administration's seven-and-a-half years of death, destruction and brazen criminality - still aren't much tougher than they were on the eve of the invasion, when one of their sharpest inquiries was: "Mr. President, as the nation is at odds over war, with many organizations like the Congressional Black Caucus pushing for continued diplomacy through the U.N., how is your faith guiding you?" During that same press conference, President Bush himself, in a bizarre and now forgotten meta-gaffe, admitted the question and answer session was a farce. The White House press corps reacted by chuckling along in complicity:

PRESIDENT BUSH: The risk of doing nothing, the risk of hoping that Saddam Hussein changes his mind and becomes a gentle soul, the risk that somehow -- that inaction will make the world safer, is a risk I'm not willing to take for the American people. We'll be there in a minute. King, John King. This is a scripted -- (laughter.)

Flash forward five years later from that press conference and here's how the Associated Press frames Mr. Bush's handling of the 4,000 American soldiers, in an article titled "Bush Sympathetic As War Toll Hits 4,000":

Grim milestones such as new death toll often go unremarked by Bush. But he chose on this occasion to note the losses, albeit briefly and without taking questions from reporters.

As always, his message was determination.

Special Report: NYT Iraq War Timeline Whitewashes History (Part I: Hans Blix Security Council Presentation)

To mark the fifth anniversary of the Iraq War yesterday, The New York Times published an interactive timeline. Yet even after the paper's mea culpa about its deficient reporting leading up to the invasion, The Times repeats similar journalistic malpractice in this stroll down memory lane.

This is the first in a series of posts exploring the most misleading statements and glaring omissions from its Iraq War history:

Timeline Entry: Hans Blix's Report to Security Council

This entry reads in full: "Jan. 27, 2003, Weapons Inspector Reports: Hans Blix, a chief U.N. weapons inspector, reports that Iraq has not cooperated during two months of inspections."

The corresponding Times report filed back in 2003 (to which there's a link beneath the timeline) is titled "Inspector Says Iraq Falls Short," with the lede, "Hans Blix, one of the chief United Nations weapons inspectors, gave a broadly negative report today on Iraq's cooperation with two months of inspections, providing support to the Bush administration's campaign to disarm Iraq by force if necessary."

FACT: First, the statement in the timeline that Blix "reports that Iraq has not cooperated during two months of inspections" fails miserably to encompass not only the complexity of what Blix related to the Security Council but the intended purpose of his report.

Hans Blix saw his presentation before the Security Council as a report card with which to force Iraq's hand to be more forthcoming with his team of weapons inspectors. In the end, his dedication to the facts, of painting an exhaustive view of Iraq's cooperation up to that point, over a mere two-month period, left his findings vulnerable to cherry-picking by those, in the Bush administration and the media, who were beating the war drums. Blix related that Iraq had, as of Jan. 27, 2003, not cooperated as fully as he would have liked, but not that it had refused to cooperate altogether, as the timeline deceptively implies.

In fact, this timeline entry is even more misleading than that Times report filed on Blix's presentation. That report's framing certainly bolstered the Bush administration's argument for invasion, claiming, foremost, that Blix's findings "support the Bush administration's campaign to disarm Iraq by force if necessary" while wholly omitting Blix's points that progress had been made and his weapons inspectors needed more time to do their jobs. As opposed to this timeline entry, however, even the report refrained from implying Iraq had totally failed to cooperate. (Yet the article does give the false impression that Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, the chief inspector for atomic weapons, held an extremely divergent view from Blix: "[ElBaradei] was less critical of Iraq today, reporting that his team had found no evidence so far that Iraq had tried to revive its nuclear arms program and appealing to the Security Council for a 'few months' more to complete his work." ElBaradei - who the Bush administration fought to remove from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), going so far as to tap his phone, and who, along with the IAEA, was later awarded the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize - would soon be roundly criticized by Vice President Dick Cheney, US United Nations ambassador John Bolton and other administration surrogates.)

Contrary to the 2003 administration narrative that is repeated in this 2008 timeline, years after it was first echoed by The Times and the mainstream media at large, Blix also told the Security Council that day:

HANS BLIX: While the inspection is not built on the premise of confidence, but may lead to confidence if it is successful, there must nevertheless be a measure of mutual confidence from the very beginning in running the operation of inspection. Iraq has, on the whole, cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC [U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission] in this field.

The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect. And with one exception, it has been [without] problems.

What's more, in closing his presentation, Blix painstakingly detailed how the weapons inspectors' capacity to perform their jobs was growing more effective by the day, progress had been made and much work remained:

HANS BLIX: Mr. President, I must not conclude this update without some notes on the growing capability of UNMOVIC. In the past two months, UNMOVIC has built up its capabilities in Iraq from nothing to 260 staff members from 60 countries. This includes approximately 100 UNMOVIC inspectors, 60 air operations staff, as well as security personnel, communication, translation and interpretation staff, medical support and other services at our Baghdad office and also Mosul field office.

All serve the United Nations and report to no one else.

Furthermore, our roster of inspectors will continue to grow as our training program continues. Even at this moment, we have a training course in session in Vienna. At the end of that course, we should have a roster of about 350 qualified experts from which to draw inspectors.

The team supplied by the Swiss government is refurbishing our office in Baghdad which had been empty for four years. The government in New Zealand has contributed both a medical team and a communications team. The German government will contribute unmanned aerial vehicles for surveillance and a group of specialists to operate them for us within Iraq. And the government of Cyprus has kindly allowed us to set up a field office in Larnaca.

All of these contributions have an assistance in quickly starting up our inspections and enhancing our capabilities, so has help from the U.N. in New York and from sister organizations in Baghdad.

In the past two months, during which we have built up our presence in Iraq, we have conducted about 300 inspections to more than 230 different sites. Of these, more than 20 were sites that had not been inspected before.

By the end of December, UNMOVIC began using helicopters, both for the transport of inspectors and for actual inspection work. We now have eight helicopters. They have already proved invaluable in helping to freeze large sites by observing the movement of traffic in and around the area.

Setting up the field office in Mosul has facilitated rapid inspections of sites in northern Iraq. We plan to establish soon a second field office in the Basra area where we have already inspected a number of sites.

Mr. President, we now have an inspection apparatus that permits us to send multiple inspections teams every day all over Iraq by road or by air. Let me end by simply noting that that capability, which has been built up in a short time and which is now operating, is at the disposal of the Security Council.

Following Blix's Jan. 27 presentation before the Security Council, Iraq became more compliant to inspections while, simultaneously, the inspectors were expanding the coverage and effectiveness of their searches. But it didn't matter. The Bush administration had already made up its mind and began an effort to discredit Blix.

Blix revealed in an April 2003 interview: "When on January 27, I denounced Iraq in the Security Council of the UN for not cooperating in an immediate, complete and unconditional way to fulfill the terms of resolution 1441, the American Government, including the hawks, applauded me. However, it was a great paradox, because from then on, the Government of Iraq began to cooperate actively. And then the Americans began to criticize me." He also disclosed, "There is evidence that this war was planned well in advance. Sometimes this raises doubts about their attitude to the (weapons) inspections," adding, "I now believe that finding weapons of mass destruction has been relegated, I would say, to fourth place, which is why the United States and Britain are now waging war on Iraq."

And just today in The Guardian, Blix writes:

The elimination of weapons of mass destruction was the declared main aim of the war. It is improbable that the governments of the alliance could have sold the war to their parliaments on any other grounds. That they believed in the weapons' existence in the autumn of 2002 is understandable. Why had the Iraqis stopped UN inspectors during the 90s if they had nothing to hide? Responsibility for the war must rest, though, on what those launching it knew by March 2003.

By then, Unmovic inspectors had carried out some 700 inspections at 500 sites without finding prohibited weapons. The contract that George Bush held up before Congress to show that Iraq was purchasing uranium oxide was proved to be a forgery. The allied powers were on thin ice, but they preferred to replace question marks with exclamation marks.

They could not succeed in eliminating WMDs because they did not exist.

This timeline entry on Blix's Jan. 27 presentation to the Security Council is a sharp reminder of how the media, led by our paper of record, helped to sell the war in Iraq by almost invariably shaping information to fit the Bush administration's narrative. 

Op-Ed Column: The Facts, Keith Olbermann and Rabid Hillary Shills

Leading into the Texas and Ohio primaries, The New York Times reported that "the campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton is unleashing what one Clinton aide called a 'kitchen sink' fusillade against Obama." Meanwhile, the Clinton camp was busy working the refs: leveraging a Saturday Night Live sketch that ridiculed the media for alleged favoritism of Sen. Obama, Hillary Clinton cried foul as she and her campaign were simultaneously in the process of heaving said sink.

Clinton and her inner circle fueled the worst kind of xenophobia: "No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know," Clinton told 60 Minute's Steve Kroft, when asked if she thought Obama was a Muslim. And while the source of The Drudge Report's well-timed photo of Obama in traditional Somali garb (flaming those Muslim rumors) officially remains unconfirmed, the Clinton camp's history of leaking information to Drudge has been documented. To this day, the campaign has never issued a flat, unequivocal denial that the photo was sent by one of its members. (Mission accomplished: a December 2007 Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll showed that 8% of Americans thought Obama was a Muslim; a new WSJ/NBC poll reveals that the number of Americans who believe this falsehood has risen to 13%.) Concurrently, as the media failed to effectively challenge Clinton on her refusal to release her tax forms, it featured story after story on Clinton's unrelated and obfuscating counter-punch to any inquire into her tax records: Obama's connection to indicted businessman Antoin Rezko, about which after extensive digging by every major media outlet, not one has confirmed any legal wrongdoing on the part of Sen. Obama. (Welcome to Obama's Whitewater.)

The strategy worked like a charm. The Clinton camp is nothing if not schooled in such politics. With a cowed media focusing lopsided scrutiny on Obama days before the March 4 primary, Clinton's camp landed one shot below the belt after another. Effective and politically shrewd? Sure. Cheap, cynical and sleazy? You bet.

Since the March 4 primaries alone, Clinton press secretary Howard Wolfson has absurdly compared Obama to Ken Starr; Sen. Clinton has done Sen. McCain's bidding, breaking an unofficial rule among same-party candidates by asserting she and Sen. McCain have crossed the "commander-in-chief threshold" while Obama has not; and, of course, this past week one of Clinton's chief fundraisers, Geraldine Ferraro, said, "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," then claimed reverse racism when people objected to her racist or, at bare minimum, intentionally racially divisive and factually ignorant comments. And if anyone thinks Ferraro's statements weren't tactical salvos - part of Hillary's "Archie Bunker strategy for PA," to quote my consistently straight-shooting friend, Will Bunch - then they're not paying attention or are willfully ignorant of her campaign's modus operandi.

The worst you can say for the Obama camp during the same period is that then foreign policy advisor, Samantha Power, jet-lagged and upset right after the results in Ohio and having witnessed firsthand how Clinton won the state, called her a "monster" during an interview, screwing up by then attempting to keep the comment off the record without having stated that request beforehand. She resigned immediately, publicly and profusely apologizing to Sen. Clinton. Moreover, the media failed to address what drove Power's comment: Clinton's self-evident willingness to do anything to win in Ohio, but also, taking into account Power's expertise on foreign policy and human rights, quite likely her knowledge of Clinton's egregious record on war and innocent civilian lives as well.

Meanwhile, Sen. Clinton initially offered only a tepid and - make no mistake about it - calculated response, saying she "did not agree" with Ferraro's comment and found it "regrettable." Clinton later finally denounced Ferraro's statements in clearer terms: "I rejected what she said and I certainly do repudiate it." But where did she happen to utter this delayed reaction? Before a gathering of black newspaper publishers at the National Newspapers Association meeting. Just another example of Clinton's track record of the most cynical political expediency. Moreover, when Ferraro's comments first made news, Clinton campaign manager Maggie Williams had the Orwellian chutzpah to insinuate that it was somehow Obama who was playing the race card in this instance. But this tactic shouldn't have surprised anyone because it's exactly what Williams had done during the Drudge/Obama-in-African-garb photo flap.

Op-Ed Column: NYT Dangerously Downplays Bush's Anti-Torture Veto

When historians look back and try to understand how the George W. Bush administration managed to trample the Constitution and transgress the Geneva Conventions with near impunity, our mainstream media will stand out as one of the primary culprits.

Case in point: Sunday's New York Times report on President Bush's veto of a bill that sought to prohibit the CIA from using torture techniques such as waterboarding. Here's the lede:

President Bush on Saturday further cemented his legacy of fighting for strong executive powers, using his veto to shut down a Congressional effort to limit the Central Intelligence Agency's latitude to subject terrorism suspects to harsh interrogation techniques.

There you have it. According to The Times, Bush's legacy of gutting and subverting our Constitution in a patently authoritarian, fascistic manner is defined as merely "fighting for strong executive powers." Such reporting is as absurd as summing up a man's inclination to beat his wife as an act that depicts a strong male role in marriage. During the Bush years, this kind of intellectually dishonest, apologetic journalism has done grave damage to our country and the rest of the world. The smattering of begrudging mea culpas aside, such reportorial distillations in our mainstream media, in which reality is jettisoned for unmitigated transcription of White House talking points, has not, as conventional wisdom keeps telling us, subsided much, if at all, since the earliest drumbeats to invade Iraq. (Ask yourself as well, for example, how a study released nearly six months ago that an estimated 1 million Iraqis have died as a result of the US invasion of Iraq received virtually no coverage; the Los Angeles Times was the only major US newspaper to report on it; US network news completely ignored the study.)

This particular Times article (which only gets worse) underscores the disingenuous depths to which our paper of record is willing to sink. President Bush vetoes a bill intended to stop the CIA from using torture techniques, including waterboarding - which dates back to the Spanish Inquisition, was a favorite practice of the Gestapo, and for which the US tried and hanged Japanese soldiers after WWII - and The Times boils down the entire veto to politics and a factually inaccurate, Bush-approved narrative of his legacy.

This is a disgraceful piece of reporting, as damaging, or more damaging because of The Times' stature and influence on the rest of the media, than any yellow journalism disseminated by Fox News and its minions. If The Times is portraying Bush's despotic desire to continue torturing as nothing more than an effort to retain "strong executive powers," then it sets the bar lower for not only the rest of the media but especially those outlets, like a Fox News, that portray the Bush administration and its actions in a positive light no matter what the situation.

The Times article, written by Steven Lee Myers, continues with a veritable lexicon of Bush-era, media-transcribed talking points, disingenuous frames and deficient-by-omission details:

Mr. Bush vetoed a bill that would have explicitly prohibited the agency from using interrogation methods like waterboarding, a technique in which restrained prisoners are threatened with drowning and that has been the subject of intense criticism at home and abroad. Many such techniques are prohibited by the military and law enforcement agencies.

First, waterboarding is not an interrogation technique but an historically known torture technique. Second, as Malcolm Nance, a former master instructor and chief of training at the U.S. Navy Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School (SERE) who applied waterboarding to US soldiers to prepare them in the case of capture, has attested to time and again, an individual administered waterboarding is in the process of drowning. It is not "simulated drowning" as it has so often been described in the media. Nor are they being "threatened with drowning," as The Times misleadingly states here. To paraphrase Nance, one is either drowning or has drowned; there is no in between. During waterboarding, water fills your lungs and you can't breathe. You're drowning. Nothing is being simulated.

Moreover, techniques like waterboarding are not only prohibited by the military and law enforcement agencies but also by international law, as stated in the Geneva Conventions. Additionally, a US president's executive decision to carry out torture is also a breach of our Constitution, on which President Bush swore to uphold upon taking office. So how does The Times justify omitting that Bush's past torture, his veto to continue torturing and any future torture directed by him are all explicit acts in direct violation of these two guiding statutes of US domestic and international law? This isn't a question of point of view; it is a question of reporting the facts or omitting them, of giving the public sufficient substantive details to assess what's actually at issue or obfuscating them.

The veto deepens his battle with increasingly assertive Democrats in Congress over issues at the heart of his legacy. As his presidency winds down, he has made it clear he does not intend to bend in this or other confrontations on issues from the war in Iraq to contempt charges against his chief of staff, Joshua B. Bolten, and former counsel, Harriet E. Miers.

Mr. Bush announced the veto in the usual format of his weekly radio address, which is distributed to stations across the country each Saturday. He unflinchingly defended an interrogation program that has prompted critics to accuse him not only of authorizing torture previously but also of refusing to ban it in the future. "Because the danger remains, we need to ensure our intelligence officials have all the tools they need to stop the terrorists," he said.

Editor's Note: A Lengthier Than Expected Absence

Though I don't write here daily, I didn't intend to be awa