Is Mark Halperin Really The Best "Public Face" for Time Magazine?

Carnival barker at the Vermont State Fair - 1941

On May 20, Time magazine's Swampland ran a piece about Nancy Pelosi called Pelosi Probably Right. In that piece the reporter, Jay Newton-Small, put to shame the establishment media's more "experienced" reporters by actually reading the statements of Porter Goss, Richard Shelby, Nancy Pelosi, Leon Panetta and Bob Graham and comparing them. You know, something anyone who knows anything about reporting would do before jumping to conclusions in order to create a narrative that agreed with their own political bias.

When Ms. Newton-Small read those statements she reported that even Porter Goss was parsing his language in his op-ed piece and was not directly contradicting Pelosi. Her conclusion after reading all of the statements was that Pelosi was probably telling the truth. Now for those of us who no longer trust our establishment media, the story in Swampland was nothing new to us. We've known about how carefully Goss chose his words in his Washington Post op-ed and we've known about how all of the statements and other evidence did not support the establishment media's narrative that assumed that  Pelosi was not telling the truth. We knew it because of the wonderful reporting done by Marcy Wheeler and others that have focused on reporting facts.

What's also notable about this piece in Swampland is that Time's Mark Halperin evidently didn't bother to read the Pelosi, Graham, Goss or Shelby statements like Ms. Newton-Small did because he's been reporting this story incorrectly since it started. He also evidently doesn't read his own magazine because he appeared on the Morning Joe show the day after the piece in Swampland was reported yet he never bothered to set the record straight during the two segments on Morning Joe where Pelosi was trashed. He never mentioned the Newton-Small story that Time includes in the MUST READS section on the front page of it's website. 

The day after Pelosi's initial press conference, Halperin wrote this piece in Time. Two of his three things "to watch for" were about Pelosi:

Mark Halperin's three things to watch for in politics for Friday, May 15.

1. Watch to see how House Speaker Nancy Pelosi handles herself today. The press conference she had yesterday on what she knew about the government's enhanced interrogation techniques got her into more trouble, so watch to see if she's willing to answer more questions today to clear up some of the contradictions and allegations swirling around her.  

2. Watch to see how people around Pelosi treat her. See what liberal bloggers, her constituents, the White House, Republicans and Democrats say about her today and whether there seems to be a strong sense that she's really in trouble. In particular, watch to see whether any prominent Democrats raise questions about her credibility on the briefings and in general. (Halperin reported on plenty of Republican comments, a few comments by a select group of Democrats, the WH, no liberal bloggers, no constituents).

Mr. Halperin never revised his "things to watch for" on Pelosi (like whether maybe Pelosi was truthful) and he obviously never reported what liberal bloggers were saying or he would have reported what Newton-Small reported even earlier than she did.  Halperin started out with the premise that Nancy Pelosi was in trouble on this issue because he assumed she did not tell the truth and that's how he's covered it, both on Morning Joe and at Time. It's clear from his "reporting" that he never changed his initial narrative and when facts were reported that supported Pelosi's comments he just didn't report them because they didn't fit his narrative. He was evidently more concerned with selling entertainment and a political view than he was in reporting all the facts so that readers and viewers could make an informed decision about the story. Here are the pieces he did for Time since he laid out his narrative, beginning with the most recent one that he reported on today that shows that even two days after the Newton-Small piece in Time he's still ignoring the facts she laid out and is still working off his "narrative."

Stonewall

House Dems Shut Calls for Pelosi Probe

Potus Praises Pelosi

Speakers Brawl

Penn to Pelosi: "Close the Door" on CIA Controversy

Boehner: Pelosi Needs to Come Clean

Pelosi Wants to Move Forward

Panetta: CIA Didn't Lie

Pelosi Newted

What Now?

Pelosi on Waterboarding: CIA Misled Me

Thank goodness Ms. Newton-Small doesn't use the Mark Halperin method of reporting. Rather than creating a narrative about Pelosi and then reporting on what fits the narrative, she reported on the facts in her story (substance)  even if they led in a direction that contradicted the widely used faux narrative of people like Halperin. 

Maybe Time magazine needs to question the wisdom of lending Mr. Halperin to Morning Joe in light of the fact that he's not a very good emissary for the magazine. His bias and sloppy work is being noticed by average Americans and that certainly won't help Time's image.  Maybe Time needs to place Mr. Halperin on a shorter leash so that instead of making TV appearances where he can yuck it up with his buddies he can have more time to sharpen his basic reporting skills. Maybe they can have him sit with his colleague, Jay Newton-Small, and let her educate him about basic reporting that he's either evidently forgotten or never learned in the first place. Or better yet, why don't they hire Marcy Wheeler to replace Mark Halperin. She's obviously a much better reporter on her worst day than Halperin is on his best. 

Here are two videos from Thursday's Morning Joe show where Nancy Pelosi was repeatedly trashed yet Halperin never mentioned the facts laid out in the Newton-Small piece. 

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

I'll continue to watch for Halperin's appearances on Morning Joe to see if he ever sets the record straight on the Pelosi story or if he sticks to his "narrative," come hell or high water.

Cutting Through the Media Distortions on the Torture Issue

Photo: Performing Monkey, 1900 - George Eastman House Collection

Buhdydharma did a great job posting a diary on Daily Kos that gives us the results  from the newly released Gallup poll that I mentioned in an earlier post. Please visit his diary to get his analysis of this poll. He's more optimistic than I am and hopefully he's right and I'm wrong.

According to Gallup 51% of the American people want to see an investigation into the use of "harsh" interrogation techniques and 42% do not (as Buhdydharma notes they do not use the word "torture" in their survey).  On the surface this appears to be good news because there are more Americans in favor of investigations than those who are against. But the poll also tells us that the more the American people follow this story in the "media" the more inclined they are to not favor an investigation  - 40% favor and 58% oppose.  This is dire news for anyone who wants our country to follow the rule of law and hold accountable those who are responsible for these crimes. 

This poll also troubles me because in their last poll Gallup's results showed that 62% of Americans wanted investigations with 39% of those 62% wanting criminal investigations and 24% wanting an independent panel. So the number of Americans wanting investigations has actually decreased according to Gallup, going from 62% to only 51% in only 2 months time.

The graphic below about another question in the poll also illustrates the troubling reality of having a media that refuses to truthfully cover this story (here, here, here here, & here and countless other examples)

Like many others on the web I've published numerous blog posts where I document how our establishment media is not telling the truth on this issue and are in fact, deliberately distorting the information that the public receives about this issue. Unfortunately my readership and the combined readership of other bloggers does not come close to the readership/viewership that our establishment media has at their disposal. As a consequence, we are losing the argument on this issue through trickery.

I think the only way for us to get out the truth on this issue is to either have someone in the Obama administration lead the charge for investigations (Obama or Eric Holder) or we must find another way to force the media to cover the truth on this issue. 

I don't think there is anyone in the Obama administration that will get out in front on this issue so I think we need to develop a new strategy.  I think part of that strategy requires finding a group of well known public figures ,who represent all views on the political spectrum, who would be willing to lead the charge on this issue. We need these people to start writing op-ed pieces and to start appearing as guests on cable TV so that the people don't get such a one sided view. In addition, I think we need to get out in our own neighborhoods and creatively get a non-partisan message out to our fellow citizens so that we can cut through the media filter.

We know from past experience that it's very rare for our government to do the right thing unless they are forced to do so by the people. With our chattering class running a propaganda campaign to change perceptions about this issue, in order to do the bidding of their masters, we are losing the ability to force action on this issue. We must, therefore, in my opinion brainstorm to come up with ideas like I stated above to fight the establishment campaign that seeks to get rid of this issue. If we don't, the next time Gallup does their poll the numbers will be even worse. And once those polls show that the majority of Americans do not want investigations our establishment media will broadcast that information day and night and our politicians will no longer feel any need to address this issue.

I know that soon we will have more information released that may make it impossible for the media to control this issue but I don't think we should count on that happening. I think we must begin putting together a strategy on this asap.

Why is the Washington Post Pushing One Point of View on Torture?

Photo description: Helene Sardeau often conveyed contemplation, serenity and humanism in her work. Her first major commission, Slave (1933) was executed for a sculpture garden in Fairmount Park, Philadelphia. She sculpted under the pseudonym "Sardeau" even after she married fellow painter George Biddle. Creator/Photographer: Peter A. Juley & Son

Tonight I sent the email below to the Washington Post's Ombudsman, Andy Alexander. Mr. Alexander has done some really good things since he's been at the Post so I thought if anyone would try to do something about the slanted opinion page at the Post it would be Mr. Alexander. 

While I have no illusions that Mr. Alexander will be able to change the high number of one-sided opinions published by the Post I was so frustrated tonight that I thought I'd at least try to do something to make them see that they are losing their readers. I think all of us want to see a variety of opinions from a variety of perspectives but what we don't want to see is one view to be pushed down our throats which is what the Post has been doing on the torture issue.

Dear Andy,  

Today the Post reported on the results from it's most recent Washington Post/ABC poll. In that poll 51% of respondents supported investigations for torture, 47% did not and 2% had no opinion. When you looked at the internals of the poll it showed that 23% of the respondents self identified as liberal, 39% as moderate and 35% as conservative. In other words, even if every liberal polled said that they wanted investigations (23%) that meant there were still 26% of the respondents who wanted investigations who were not liberal. In fact there were more non-liberals who wanted investigations than there were liberals who wanted investigations yet the Post consistently frames this issue as a left vs. right issue. 

Tonight I logged onto the Post's site and saw this on the home page: 

OPINIONS

The Torture Debate

Scheuer:    The Bin Laden Scenario 

Danner:     Who's to Blame? 

Gerson:     Memos Understandable 

Broder:      No to Prosecutions 

Of the four opinion pieces listed only 1 of them advocates for accountability. This is why the Post is losing it's readers. We see a newspaper determined to push one point of view and to marginalize all others. 

I've seen all kinds of pieces written on line by rank and file conservatives against torture where they even call the Republicans who support torture, "Rubber hose Republicans". This is not just a left vs. right issue but if you read only the Post you would never know that. 

This truly is a right vs. wrong issue and unfortunately the Post has chosen to push the view that there should be no accountability for torture over and over and over. I keep trying to defend the Post but even I find that harder and harder to do these days. I keep finding myself having to write pieces on my blog where I'm critical of what is in the Post. Have they lost their minds? Do they not want readers? 

I don't expect a response from you but I felt I needed to alert you to this information and hopefully you can pass it along to someone at the Post who might still care about the readers and this newspaper.

Chris Matthews: Turley and Krugman's Opinions Are Suspect Because They Have a "POV"

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

I found this segment on Chris Matthew's Hardball program tonight to be absolutely Outrageous. 

Mr. Matthews repeatedly interrupted his guest, Johnathan Turley, to the point that viewers could barely hear Turley's arguments.  In addition, Matthews used the words - "Point of View" as a pejorative to in effect label Mr. Turley as someone whose opinion was somehow suspect or not serious because he had a POV. This term was not used by Matthews when he talked with his other guest, Pat Buchanan, about Buchanan's point of view, nor was it used when Matthews introduced a video clip of John McCain where McCain made a statement about his own point of view with regard to torture prosecutions. 

Mr. Matthews did, however, use the term again when he read a snippet from a recent piece written by Paul Krugman, who also happens to share Mr. Turley's view. So for Matthews, anyone who disagrees with those who don't want to have prosecutions (Matthews himself) is automatically suspect or should not be taken seriously because they have a "Point of View".  

This disgusting episode was just another version of the media's characterization that only those on the "left" want prosecutions and therefore their opinion is suspect because they have a POV that differs from our establishment media personalities. 

I guess Mr. Matthews just conveniently forgot that Johnathan Turley also argued for impeachment during President Clinton's impeachment. I guess he also conveniently forgot that Bruce Fein, a former Reagan official and no "lefty,"  who also argued for Clinton's impeachment, supports Mr. Turley's POV and did so while Bush was still president.  

No, you can bet that Matthews didn't forget any of this information. What Matthews was doing was to  deliberately create the impression in the viewer's mind that Mr. Turley's views on this subject can be dismissed out of hand because he's a member of the "left" who has a POV that the serious people in the media don't take very seriously. 

If you find what Matthews did tonight absolutely outrageous behavior, like I did, I hope that you will contact both Matthews and MSNBC  and let them know that we won't stand for this kind of blatant manipulation.

Update: Jason Linkins at Huffington Post wrote a piece commenting on what Buchanan says in this same Hardball  segment.

Update 2: I'm sure this won't happen but I sent an email to Keith Olbermann to nominate Chris Matthews for today's worst person in the world.

More Attempts by Our Media To Politicize Torture

During yet another discussion on Morning Joe we saw yet again our media personalities trying to politicize the issue of torture  by trying to paint this as a left vs. right issue.

But when Rep. Peter Hoekstra said on the show that there are documents that show what occurred in the Congressional meetings about torture and that these documents should be released,  I agree. I agree, because contrary to our establishment media personalities, most of us who are advocating for investigation and prosecution for these war crimes are not "liberal score-settlers" as they want everyone to believe. We want all of the evidence on the table and if that evidence shows that Democrats were complicit in this torture program then they too should be held accountable.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Hiding the Truth From the Public

Photo: The super massive black hole at the center of our Galaxy

Glenn Greenwald wrote an excellent blog post yesterday about how the views about torture of a large portion of Americans are not represented in the establishment media.  Glenn sites various recent polls that show large numbers of Americans favor investigations into the Bush torture program even though our beltway establishment does not. He then uses an example of what is typically shown on TV whenever the issue is discussed. 

The example Greenwald used was the panel discussion on this past Sunday's Meet the Press that supposedly "debated' the torture memos. As Glenn rightfully points out it really wasn't a debate because all of the people on the panel held the same "beltway insiders" view that there should be no investigation or prosecution for torture even though that view is completely at odds with the views of a majority of Americans.

Consider yesterday's Meet the Press panel discussion of this issue involving David Gregory and five exceedingly typical Beltway insiders -- The Washington Post's Steven Pearlstein, Fortune's Nina Easton, Time's Rick Stengel, former GOP House Majority Leader Dick Armey, and former "moderate" Democratic Rep. Harold Ford Jr.  That's three ostensibly non-partisan journalists, a right-wing fanatic, and a New Republic/DLC Democrat from Tennessee whose career was built on proving how much he embraces GOP policies -- that's called "diversity of views" in Establishment Media World.  

Exactly as one would expect, they were all in full and complete agreement that there must be no investigations or prosecutions.  There was not a syllable uttered that political officials should be treated the same as ordinary Americans when they got caught breaking the law.  As always, only the suffocatingly narrow Beltway consensus is heard in our political debates, even when huge percentages of Americans reject it

In addition to the media panels, where everyone agrees that there should be no investigation or prosecution, that Glenn correctly documented yesterday, there is also a second type of establishment media discussion about this issue, that while appearing to give voice to alternative views on this issue, actually promotes the same inside-the-beltway conclusion that there should be no accountability for torture.

This alternative, media approved discussion about torture uses a "crossfire" type setting. The typical "discussion"  always has a "conservative" pitted against a "liberal." The conservative always argues for using torture and the liberal always argues against it. Usually there will be either a third person added to this mix or the "moderator" will themselves act as the third person that supposedly represents the "centrist" viewpoint, when in reality they represent the "inside-the-beltway" viewpoint.  The "centrist" is always portrayed as the "reasonable" member of the trio. They usually argue against using torture (not always) and they always argue that there should be no legal accountability for torture.

In these discussions the use of factual information is not only not required but the more extreme and factually ignorant your rhetoric the better our media seems to like it. In fact, having a guest with an extreme view on torture, like CNN did recently when they used convicted felon, G. Gordon Liddy, they guarantee that the rhetoric will be so extreme and factually false that the guest on the left (in the CNN example Joan Walsh from Salon.com) will usually end up having to abandon their own argument in order to take time out to counter the crazy off-the-wall comments coming from the radical torture apologist guest on the right.  

By having both the guests going at it tooth and nail arguing over red herrings the viewer frequently loses sight of the real argument (this CNN example is actually quite mild compared to what we normally see). This, of course,  is what the media wants to achieve all along because then their "centrist" can look oh, so reasonable compared to the squabbling guests.  So what does the establishment media hope to achieve by setting up these crossfire type exchanges?

They want the viewers to believe: 

1. All conservatives favor using torture and are not for politically "vindictive"  prosecutions  

2. All liberals are against using torture but they are for politically "vindictive" prosecutions

3. Centrists are against using torture but are also against politically "vindictive" prosecutions

4. All conservatives are crazy torturers

5. All liberals are petty, unreasonable, smug and "vindictive" scolds

6. Centrists are rational adults who are reasonable and not "vindictive"

These shows aren't real debates about the issues any more than the panel discussions, where everyone agrees with each other are real discussions. These are nothing more than a cynical marketing ploy used by our media in an effort to protect the status quo by selling the American people on the idea that while torture may be bad we shouldn't hold any officials legally accountable for it because that's nothing but political payback - "liberal score-settling" or as President Obama and his people claim - Retribution. 

All of this brings me to what I'd originally planned on writing this blog post about. I've noticed for a long time that our establishment media has tried to sell the public on the false idea that the torture issue is all about liberals vs. conservatives, left vs. right  or Republicans vs. Democrats. They are doing this so that citizens of all political persuasions, who are horrified about what our government has done in our names, will not band together to force our government to hold these war criminals accountable.  Our media and political elite want us to continue squabbling with each other, just like the guests do on the "crossfire" type shows, in order to divide us so that our power to demand accountability will be diluted. That's why they don't want us to know that there are conservatives who favor accountability (more on that in my next post) or liberals who don't advocate  prosecutions of Bush administration officials just because they hate Republicans. That's also why they don't want us to know that there are more people who favor accountability for torture than those who don't. 

Our establishment media and political elites know that if we know the truth about all of these things that there will be no way for them to stop us from forcing our government to hold our leaders accountable. They also know that once we stop viewing each other as the "enemy" that we will all discover who our "real" enemies have been all of these years. And once that happens then the chummy club of insiders, who have had a stranglehold on our country for decades, will no longer be running the show and calling the shots. And the thought of having a true democracy positively scares them to death.