Kevin Koster commented on Media Critic David Zurawik Slams Glenn Beck's 'Apology'
2014-01-27 17:22:26 -0500
· Flag
I agree with Zurawik on one count – Glenn Beck does not get a pass on his hateful behavior and statements just because he’s trying to make more money for himself from a cable sale. (And we should remember Beck made the point at the time he was booted out of Fox News that he didn’t need any of the traditional cable or satellite support for his shows since he would create his own media…)
I disagree with Zurawik on another count: Fox News is not now, and never has been, a mainstream news outlet. It is a partisan promotional vehicle, specifically intended to promote the hard right values of Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch. What made Beck’s situation with Fox News so interesting is that he went so far off the charts that even Fox News couldn’t stay with him. That’s a heck of an achievement – and the existence of this segment shows that neither Ailes nor Murdoch have forgotten or forgiven Beck by any means.
I’ll add that it’s rather depressing to see otherwise intelligent critics like Howard Kurtz doing programs on Fox News. Given that Kurtz knows what the operation is about, this will be an unfortunate way to end what had been a decent career in his work.
I disagree with Zurawik on another count: Fox News is not now, and never has been, a mainstream news outlet. It is a partisan promotional vehicle, specifically intended to promote the hard right values of Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch. What made Beck’s situation with Fox News so interesting is that he went so far off the charts that even Fox News couldn’t stay with him. That’s a heck of an achievement – and the existence of this segment shows that neither Ailes nor Murdoch have forgotten or forgiven Beck by any means.
I’ll add that it’s rather depressing to see otherwise intelligent critics like Howard Kurtz doing programs on Fox News. Given that Kurtz knows what the operation is about, this will be an unfortunate way to end what had been a decent career in his work.
Kevin Koster commented on Fox News Hypocrisy: Dana Perino Vs Gov. Andrew Cuomo
2014-01-26 14:09:12 -0500
· Flag
How about the Five regularly issuing repellent attacks on any liberal commenter they can, while ignoring the behavior of right wingers? Why is it alright for Andrea Tantaros to accuse the left of hate-mongering when she’s the one who told people last year to punch supporters of President Obama in the face? And that’s only one of dozens of documented examples of double standards we could bring up.
Kevin Koster commented on Mike Huckabee Insists His ‘Uncle Sugar’ And Libido Comments Showed His Respect And Admiration For Women
2014-01-26 14:03:12 -0500
· Flag
I didn’t detect extra inflection on any of the three conditions Kelly listed, although she did trip over the pronunciation of endometriosis, which can be a very serious condition.
It’s sad to note that Kelly is the only one on Fox News to bring up the fact that these medical conditions exist. Everyone else piled on the double down parade with Huckabee to essentially attack women as just wanting free contraceptives for their personal enjoyment. They have also, particularly O’Reilly, continued the attack Rush Limbaugh started on Sandra Fluke two years ago. And Fluke’s comments were actually about the medical conditions that contraceptives address – something that neither Huckabee nor Limbaugh understand. (In Limbaugh and Hannity’s cases, this is what happens when someone with no real education spends many hours each week opining on subjects they know nothing about. In O’Reilly’s case, theoretically he should know better, but he prides himself on staying ignorant. And in Kelly’s case, she clearly does know better, but chooses to say the things that will work for the network that is making her wealthy.)
It’s sad to note that Kelly is the only one on Fox News to bring up the fact that these medical conditions exist. Everyone else piled on the double down parade with Huckabee to essentially attack women as just wanting free contraceptives for their personal enjoyment. They have also, particularly O’Reilly, continued the attack Rush Limbaugh started on Sandra Fluke two years ago. And Fluke’s comments were actually about the medical conditions that contraceptives address – something that neither Huckabee nor Limbaugh understand. (In Limbaugh and Hannity’s cases, this is what happens when someone with no real education spends many hours each week opining on subjects they know nothing about. In O’Reilly’s case, theoretically he should know better, but he prides himself on staying ignorant. And in Kelly’s case, she clearly does know better, but chooses to say the things that will work for the network that is making her wealthy.)
Kevin Koster commented on O’Reilly Makes Mike Huckabee ‘Uncle Sugar’ Contraception Controversy About Sandra Fluke
2014-01-27 21:59:11 -0500
· Flag
Gina, I agree with you that name-calling is inappropriate. Which is why I don’t engage in it. But I have listened to the comments made by Huckabee, particularly seeing how he excerpted those comments on his own program. I listened carefully to Huckabee’s explanation of his comments.
And neither his defensive justification nor your assumption that his comments aren’t offensive can change the stubborn facts here. If he wanted to just say that he feels that the Democrats are wrong in their approach to this issue, he could do so without using language that people find to be thoroughly demeaning. He doesn’t get to use the language and then hide behind an excuse of “well, that’s what I was saying the Dems were doing!” He didn’t need to use that language. Personally, I think he’s just trying to get attention.
And neither his defensive justification nor your assumption that his comments aren’t offensive can change the stubborn facts here. If he wanted to just say that he feels that the Democrats are wrong in their approach to this issue, he could do so without using language that people find to be thoroughly demeaning. He doesn’t get to use the language and then hide behind an excuse of “well, that’s what I was saying the Dems were doing!” He didn’t need to use that language. Personally, I think he’s just trying to get attention.
Kevin Koster commented on Megyn Kelly For The Defense Of Chris Christie!
2014-01-21 13:43:12 -0500
· Flag
It’s pretty funny to watch the Fox News gang desperately trying to deal with the Christie implosion. They’ve tried pretty much everything to make this thing go away and none of their tactics have worked.
They’ve tried ignoring the story completely. Didn’t work because more revelations keep emerging.
They’ve tried amping up their Benghazi reruns. Didn’t work because there hasn’t been any real news in that story since fall 2012, and since the only breakthrough we’ve had recently was the New York Times expose that punctured their narrative. And because the Benghazi consulate wasn’t attacked by Hillary Clinton and President Obama. The Christie scandal has to do with actions taken directly by his staff on his behalf.
Now they’re trying to attack the accusers. So the Hoboken mayor, who was clearly intimidated by Christie’s machine, now feels like she can come forward and say what’s been on her mind privately. What does Fox News do? Immediately, viciously attack her. All they have in response is a Christie staff member denying the charge, and their only argument is to say that the Christie person must be telling the truth and that the Hoboken mayor is lying. Which ignores the more likely scenario – that the Hoboken mayor is telling the truth, as shown in her own contemporaneous journal entries, and that the Christie staffer is practically daring the mayor to prove her case.
The problem Christie is facing now is pretty severe. He has enemies on both sides of the aisle, and they’re all enjoying watching the carnage. Even more damaging is that this scandal was self-inflicted. Nobody forced the Christie people to play these games, and nobody forced them to memorialize them in gloating emails. So now the story is out and the Christie people are scrambling to play defense – particularly to see if there’s any way to salvage his credibility before 2016. (Which is still possible – Richard Nixon pulled this trick off multiple times in his career) But Christie must now face a raft of Democrats who resent the bullying he has inflicted on them over the past several years. And he must face a raft of hard right wing pols and pundits who resent his “bear hug” with President Obama during Sandy. (Rush Limbaugh showed obvious glee when this scandal broke, particularly after he had castigated Christie for even allowing President Obama to come to New Jersey over Sandy. Limbaugh presented an alternative universe picture where all the other GOP pols shunned the President and either refused aid or demanded that they get the aid without a Presidential visit. So Limbaugh is probably getting more enjoyment than from watching Christie squirm than anyone else.)
They’ve tried ignoring the story completely. Didn’t work because more revelations keep emerging.
They’ve tried amping up their Benghazi reruns. Didn’t work because there hasn’t been any real news in that story since fall 2012, and since the only breakthrough we’ve had recently was the New York Times expose that punctured their narrative. And because the Benghazi consulate wasn’t attacked by Hillary Clinton and President Obama. The Christie scandal has to do with actions taken directly by his staff on his behalf.
Now they’re trying to attack the accusers. So the Hoboken mayor, who was clearly intimidated by Christie’s machine, now feels like she can come forward and say what’s been on her mind privately. What does Fox News do? Immediately, viciously attack her. All they have in response is a Christie staff member denying the charge, and their only argument is to say that the Christie person must be telling the truth and that the Hoboken mayor is lying. Which ignores the more likely scenario – that the Hoboken mayor is telling the truth, as shown in her own contemporaneous journal entries, and that the Christie staffer is practically daring the mayor to prove her case.
The problem Christie is facing now is pretty severe. He has enemies on both sides of the aisle, and they’re all enjoying watching the carnage. Even more damaging is that this scandal was self-inflicted. Nobody forced the Christie people to play these games, and nobody forced them to memorialize them in gloating emails. So now the story is out and the Christie people are scrambling to play defense – particularly to see if there’s any way to salvage his credibility before 2016. (Which is still possible – Richard Nixon pulled this trick off multiple times in his career) But Christie must now face a raft of Democrats who resent the bullying he has inflicted on them over the past several years. And he must face a raft of hard right wing pols and pundits who resent his “bear hug” with President Obama during Sandy. (Rush Limbaugh showed obvious glee when this scandal broke, particularly after he had castigated Christie for even allowing President Obama to come to New Jersey over Sandy. Limbaugh presented an alternative universe picture where all the other GOP pols shunned the President and either refused aid or demanded that they get the aid without a Presidential visit. So Limbaugh is probably getting more enjoyment than from watching Christie squirm than anyone else.)
Kevin Koster commented on Could Fox’s ‘Objective News’ Host Bill Hemmer Be Any More Biased?
2014-01-21 13:28:05 -0500
· Flag
To be fair, both guests were going on a bit, and I did hear one anchor timidly trying to break in to Larson’s second rant. But there’s no doubt that the deck was wildly stacked against the liberal commentator. The obvious point of the segment was to tell the narrative Roger Ailes wants to hear – that Democrats are in deep trouble this year and that the GOP is poised for a massive midterm win. Which is essentially just GOP cheerleading masquerading as a “news segment”. Hemmer clearly understands what Ailes wants to see here, and he’s providing it.
I wouldn’t call it “fair and balanced”, but I would say that he’s preaching to the choir of Fox News viewers who already think this. Which is of course the point of Fox News in general.
I wouldn’t call it “fair and balanced”, but I would say that he’s preaching to the choir of Fox News viewers who already think this. Which is of course the point of Fox News in general.
Kevin Koster commented on Fox News' Allen West Calls Obama And Holder 'Vile And Disgusting Racists'
2014-01-16 21:35:40 -0500
· Flag
I find it interesting that Fox News has actually gone out of its way to defend Alan West for his objectionable comments when they have happened in the past. In the same way that Andrea Tantaros can comment that people should punch Obama supporters in the face, or that Monica Crowley can say nasty things about Sandra Fluke’s engagement, both without correction, Alan West is permitted to commit hatespeech with impunity at Fox.
I actually agree that Martin Bashir’s comments were horrible, and that Melissa Harris-Perry’s comments were equally bad. But that doesn’t change the fact that Fox News has allowed multiple statements that were equally bad, if not worse. The difference is that MSNBC disciplined and/or terminated the hosts in question. Probably similar to the Rush Limbaugh sign about sexual harassment not only being tolerated but being graded.
I actually agree that Martin Bashir’s comments were horrible, and that Melissa Harris-Perry’s comments were equally bad. But that doesn’t change the fact that Fox News has allowed multiple statements that were equally bad, if not worse. The difference is that MSNBC disciplined and/or terminated the hosts in question. Probably similar to the Rush Limbaugh sign about sexual harassment not only being tolerated but being graded.
Kevin Koster commented on Gabriel Sherman: Roger Ailes Took It Upon Himself To Run Mitt Romney’s Media Strategy
2014-01-14 16:43:40 -0500
· Flag
I now have the Kindle edition of the book. It’s a fun read. And it’s quite devastating.
The notion of Ailes trying to run the Romney campaign messaging shouldn’t be any surprise. News Hounds pegged that from Day One. The nice part about the archives here is that Ellen has preserved all this. If Ailes wishes to deny the reality and the facts, I wish him luck in that endeavor. Facts, as Ailes preferred President Reagan once said, are stubborn things.
The notion of Ailes trying to run the Romney campaign messaging shouldn’t be any surprise. News Hounds pegged that from Day One. The nice part about the archives here is that Ellen has preserved all this. If Ailes wishes to deny the reality and the facts, I wish him luck in that endeavor. Facts, as Ailes preferred President Reagan once said, are stubborn things.
Kevin Koster commented on Dick Morris Returns To Fox News – To Help Make Christie Scandal About Hillary Clinton
2014-01-14 16:40:18 -0500
· Flag
This has been standard Fox News baiting over the past week. They’re clearly upset that Christie is getting all this bad press, and they’re panicking that they may have lost their 2016 frontrunner. (Let’s not even get into the fact that Romney’s people dismissed any thought of him in 2012 after looking at his record…)
So now they try to play each bit of the Christie story as somehow being an opening to attack President Obama or the Clintons. Christie makes a public statement about firing people and being embarrassed and sorry over what happened? Somehow this is a sign of integrity and virtue. Don’t pay attention to the fact that Christie’s operation was shutting down a public highway to execute political payback. Don’t pay attention to the fact that Christie is now using ignorance as an excuse to get himself around the more serious issues that could arise if it’s shown that he in fact did know about what his people were doing.
Then we get to this bit of political inside baseball about the Hillary Clinton campaign’s spreadsheet of who had backed them and who hadn’t – particularly in terms of who had promised support and reneged and who they had supported but who had then turned on them. Is that an “enemies list”? Or is that just typical politics – a list of who you think you can count on, and who has demonstrated themselves to be unreliable. It’s not a bad idea to keep in mind someone who you stumped for that suddenly backed the other horse. If that guy calls you for support again, you can reference that he wasn’t there for you. This is all a normal part of politics, frankly, and all candidates do it.
And I don’t recall hearing that the Clintons tried to shut down a highway because someone had backed President Obama in the primaries. I don’t recall the Clintons endangering citizens to act out a partisan or intraparty fight. That’s a pretty crucial difference.
An even sillier moment happened on Megyn Kelly’s show when she had her regular Obama attacker Mark Thiessen discuss this situation by flat out lying on the air. Thiessen actually stated that the George W. Bush administration had no list like this, and that they didn’t keep track of people who opposed them. That’s a pretty brazen rewriting of history, considering the entire Valerie Plame matter, and the firing of the attorneys by Gonzalez, just to name two of the more egregious instances. That Thiessen can say this on the air and not be challenged is just another example of how little balance there really is on Fox News.
So now they try to play each bit of the Christie story as somehow being an opening to attack President Obama or the Clintons. Christie makes a public statement about firing people and being embarrassed and sorry over what happened? Somehow this is a sign of integrity and virtue. Don’t pay attention to the fact that Christie’s operation was shutting down a public highway to execute political payback. Don’t pay attention to the fact that Christie is now using ignorance as an excuse to get himself around the more serious issues that could arise if it’s shown that he in fact did know about what his people were doing.
Then we get to this bit of political inside baseball about the Hillary Clinton campaign’s spreadsheet of who had backed them and who hadn’t – particularly in terms of who had promised support and reneged and who they had supported but who had then turned on them. Is that an “enemies list”? Or is that just typical politics – a list of who you think you can count on, and who has demonstrated themselves to be unreliable. It’s not a bad idea to keep in mind someone who you stumped for that suddenly backed the other horse. If that guy calls you for support again, you can reference that he wasn’t there for you. This is all a normal part of politics, frankly, and all candidates do it.
And I don’t recall hearing that the Clintons tried to shut down a highway because someone had backed President Obama in the primaries. I don’t recall the Clintons endangering citizens to act out a partisan or intraparty fight. That’s a pretty crucial difference.
An even sillier moment happened on Megyn Kelly’s show when she had her regular Obama attacker Mark Thiessen discuss this situation by flat out lying on the air. Thiessen actually stated that the George W. Bush administration had no list like this, and that they didn’t keep track of people who opposed them. That’s a pretty brazen rewriting of history, considering the entire Valerie Plame matter, and the firing of the attorneys by Gonzalez, just to name two of the more egregious instances. That Thiessen can say this on the air and not be challenged is just another example of how little balance there really is on Fox News.
Kevin Koster commented on Pavlich Smears Civil Rights Nominee As Obama’s ‘Racial Pipe Dream’ For Having Represented Mumia Abu-Jamal
2014-01-09 15:12:45 -0500
· Flag
I’ll probably differ with other people’s opinions here, but this one is a bit complicated to parse through. I’ve studied the case and trial of Wesley Cook (aka Mumia) over the past 20 years, ever since I first heard about it in the early 90s.
I would agree that the segment was despicable, just in terms of the smugness being presented by Pavlich and the nastiness being thrown around by Hannity. Sadly, Fernandez was not prepared to concisely rebut what Pavlich was really up to, and kept getting lost in the brambles of the Wesley Cook trial.
We should first keep in mind that Katie Pavlich has been down this road before in her quest to promote herself and get airtime or more from Fox News. Her crusade on the Fast & Furious situation was particularly embarrassing for her – she wrote a book that simply assumed the worst about an ATF situation she neither understood or had researched very carefully. And in 2012, Kathryn Eban at Fortune completely debunked Pavlich’s entire argument with a devastatingly detailed article that showed the internal politics that really drove the whole Fast & Furious “scandal”. Pavlich responded to this humiliation by trying to ignore that it had ever happened. Which essentially ended her credibility.
Pavlich’s current crusade is actually just piggybacking on the smears being thrown around by Christian Adams in this matter. (Adams was smearing Adegbile last November, and I bet Hannity gets him on as soon as he can to continue the fun.) But Pavlich, typically, takes the attacks to a whole new level.
Debo Adegbile was not a personal defender of Wesley Cook, nor did he argue that Wesley Cook should be set free. He did not argue anything regarding Cook’s innocence or guilt. His work involving the Cook appeals was part of what happened when the NAACP LDF got involved only 7 years ago – in 2007. Keep in mind that the LDF has regularly involved itself in Death Penalty cases throughout its history. They’ve made clear that they oppose the Death Penalty on principle, and that their research shows that the Death Penalty is applied in a racist manner – so their stand in this case is consistent with their practices. Their goal here was to make sure that Wesley Cook’s death sentence, which had been set aside in 2001, would not be reinstated in the midst of all the legal wrangling that went on up to 2013. They initially filed a “friend of the court” brief on his behalf, and then they represented Cook after he fired his latest set of attorneys. (Cook was represented by a whole parade of attorneys over the course of his appeals, starting in the early 1980s – The LDF were actually more than 25 years late to this particular party.) But their purpose wasn’t to free him or to declare him innocent – they just wanted to keep the prosecutors from reinstating the death sentence. Their approach here was to discuss the improprieties in the jury instructions in 1981. I won’t go farther into the details than that – but the short version is that the prosecutors finally stopped pressing the issue in the last couple of years, and have accepted that Wesley Cook will not be executed but instead spend the rest of his life in prison without parole.
The facts of the case are clear, even for people on the left. Cook was convicted of the murder of police officer Daniel Faulkner on fairly solid evidence. Cook’s supporters have repeatedly thrown a lot of possible doubts about the case over the years, but none have been able to overcome the simple facts of the matter, which are available publicly – including the full transcript of Cook’s trial. (I’d agree that the trial was a ridiculous affair – but mostly due to Cook’s own conduct, where he attempted to represent himself and challenge the authority of the court to try him – which was a strategy that he had learned from MOVE, and which he had hoped would result in a mistrial for his case.) It was frankly disheartening to hear Fernandez going back to talking points about what Cook said in the hospital hallway – particularly after that entire line of questioning was demolished by Gary Bell when he schooled Amy Goodman on this issue back in 1999. I also note that Pavlich’s piggyback column includes a bit of a falsehood about Cook’s brother William, which carries over from Maureen Faulkner’s book. Up to 2001, William Cook refused to testify at all in the matter other than to say at the scene he “had nothing to do with this.” But in May 2001, William Cook signed an affidavit insisting that Wesley had not killed Faulkner. I wouldn’t put a lot of stock in that affidavit, as it’s full of some pretty bizarre conspiracy theory material, and it was clearly just the latest feint in Cook’s appeal strategy – but the fact is that William Cook did sign it, and that the death penalty was set aside later that year. This does not make him innocent – it just means that the appeals eventually were able to get him off of death row.
The issue at hand for the LDF wasn’t and isn’t whether people on death row are innocent. The issue to them is that they oppose the entire concept, particularly where they’ve shown that its application tends to have racist overtones. And this is what Debo Adegbile was arguing with the LDF when they agreed to deal with the Wesley Cook appeal.
Admittedly, this is a more complex line of reasoning than Sean Hannity or Katie Pavlich is able to perceive. Which is why Pavlich was happy to just sit back and make smug pronouncements about both Wesley Cook and Debo Adegbile.
Fernandez’s approach seemed to be to try to parse through individual details of the Cook trial, or to bring up other supporters of his. But that just allowed Hannity to shout that she was bringing up irrelevant material and cut her off. The correct approach would have been to note that Pavlich was wrong right off the bat in her statements: Adegbile didn’t “volunteer” to represent Cook, and he wasn’t trying to “get rid of the death sentence”. The LDF submitted briefs and represented Cook in terms of the improprieties in the jury instructions, and by the time they did so, the death penalty had been set aside some 6 years earlier. And it’s nice that Pavlich is aware that Cook was convicted of murder, but that really isn’t what this appeal was about. Fernandez could have then immediately gone on to point out that the LDF is known for death penalty defenses on principle, and to make the note that she did about Thurgood Marshall – thus putting the conversation on the footing it needed – to be about a civil rights attorney being appointed to a civil rights legal post. Fernandez could have noted Adegbile’s work in dealing with the Voting Rights Act last year, which was significant and of at least equal significance to his work with death row inmates. This would have put Pavlich on the defensive immediately, but if she’d countered with more about Wesley Cook and said the lines about how Cook never said he didn’t do it, Fernandez could have said that in 2001, Cook actually DID say that he did not kill Faulkner. She could then have challenged Pavlich on the fact that Pavlich hasn’t actually researched this case. Frankly, the best way to have handled this would be to bring printouts of the affidavits (which are available at the website for Daniel Faulkner) and present them to Hannity on the air, thus showing that Pavlich’s statements were false, and when Hannity asked “Where’d you get this?”, to answer “from Maureen Faulkner”, and then to ask Pavlich why she didn’t know about a key part of the case if she was that well versed in it. Most likely Hannity would have been forced to end the segment, but it would have been a much more effective way to handle Pavlich’s smugness and Hannity’s moral outrage.
I would agree that the segment was despicable, just in terms of the smugness being presented by Pavlich and the nastiness being thrown around by Hannity. Sadly, Fernandez was not prepared to concisely rebut what Pavlich was really up to, and kept getting lost in the brambles of the Wesley Cook trial.
We should first keep in mind that Katie Pavlich has been down this road before in her quest to promote herself and get airtime or more from Fox News. Her crusade on the Fast & Furious situation was particularly embarrassing for her – she wrote a book that simply assumed the worst about an ATF situation she neither understood or had researched very carefully. And in 2012, Kathryn Eban at Fortune completely debunked Pavlich’s entire argument with a devastatingly detailed article that showed the internal politics that really drove the whole Fast & Furious “scandal”. Pavlich responded to this humiliation by trying to ignore that it had ever happened. Which essentially ended her credibility.
Pavlich’s current crusade is actually just piggybacking on the smears being thrown around by Christian Adams in this matter. (Adams was smearing Adegbile last November, and I bet Hannity gets him on as soon as he can to continue the fun.) But Pavlich, typically, takes the attacks to a whole new level.
Debo Adegbile was not a personal defender of Wesley Cook, nor did he argue that Wesley Cook should be set free. He did not argue anything regarding Cook’s innocence or guilt. His work involving the Cook appeals was part of what happened when the NAACP LDF got involved only 7 years ago – in 2007. Keep in mind that the LDF has regularly involved itself in Death Penalty cases throughout its history. They’ve made clear that they oppose the Death Penalty on principle, and that their research shows that the Death Penalty is applied in a racist manner – so their stand in this case is consistent with their practices. Their goal here was to make sure that Wesley Cook’s death sentence, which had been set aside in 2001, would not be reinstated in the midst of all the legal wrangling that went on up to 2013. They initially filed a “friend of the court” brief on his behalf, and then they represented Cook after he fired his latest set of attorneys. (Cook was represented by a whole parade of attorneys over the course of his appeals, starting in the early 1980s – The LDF were actually more than 25 years late to this particular party.) But their purpose wasn’t to free him or to declare him innocent – they just wanted to keep the prosecutors from reinstating the death sentence. Their approach here was to discuss the improprieties in the jury instructions in 1981. I won’t go farther into the details than that – but the short version is that the prosecutors finally stopped pressing the issue in the last couple of years, and have accepted that Wesley Cook will not be executed but instead spend the rest of his life in prison without parole.
The facts of the case are clear, even for people on the left. Cook was convicted of the murder of police officer Daniel Faulkner on fairly solid evidence. Cook’s supporters have repeatedly thrown a lot of possible doubts about the case over the years, but none have been able to overcome the simple facts of the matter, which are available publicly – including the full transcript of Cook’s trial. (I’d agree that the trial was a ridiculous affair – but mostly due to Cook’s own conduct, where he attempted to represent himself and challenge the authority of the court to try him – which was a strategy that he had learned from MOVE, and which he had hoped would result in a mistrial for his case.) It was frankly disheartening to hear Fernandez going back to talking points about what Cook said in the hospital hallway – particularly after that entire line of questioning was demolished by Gary Bell when he schooled Amy Goodman on this issue back in 1999. I also note that Pavlich’s piggyback column includes a bit of a falsehood about Cook’s brother William, which carries over from Maureen Faulkner’s book. Up to 2001, William Cook refused to testify at all in the matter other than to say at the scene he “had nothing to do with this.” But in May 2001, William Cook signed an affidavit insisting that Wesley had not killed Faulkner. I wouldn’t put a lot of stock in that affidavit, as it’s full of some pretty bizarre conspiracy theory material, and it was clearly just the latest feint in Cook’s appeal strategy – but the fact is that William Cook did sign it, and that the death penalty was set aside later that year. This does not make him innocent – it just means that the appeals eventually were able to get him off of death row.
The issue at hand for the LDF wasn’t and isn’t whether people on death row are innocent. The issue to them is that they oppose the entire concept, particularly where they’ve shown that its application tends to have racist overtones. And this is what Debo Adegbile was arguing with the LDF when they agreed to deal with the Wesley Cook appeal.
Admittedly, this is a more complex line of reasoning than Sean Hannity or Katie Pavlich is able to perceive. Which is why Pavlich was happy to just sit back and make smug pronouncements about both Wesley Cook and Debo Adegbile.
Fernandez’s approach seemed to be to try to parse through individual details of the Cook trial, or to bring up other supporters of his. But that just allowed Hannity to shout that she was bringing up irrelevant material and cut her off. The correct approach would have been to note that Pavlich was wrong right off the bat in her statements: Adegbile didn’t “volunteer” to represent Cook, and he wasn’t trying to “get rid of the death sentence”. The LDF submitted briefs and represented Cook in terms of the improprieties in the jury instructions, and by the time they did so, the death penalty had been set aside some 6 years earlier. And it’s nice that Pavlich is aware that Cook was convicted of murder, but that really isn’t what this appeal was about. Fernandez could have then immediately gone on to point out that the LDF is known for death penalty defenses on principle, and to make the note that she did about Thurgood Marshall – thus putting the conversation on the footing it needed – to be about a civil rights attorney being appointed to a civil rights legal post. Fernandez could have noted Adegbile’s work in dealing with the Voting Rights Act last year, which was significant and of at least equal significance to his work with death row inmates. This would have put Pavlich on the defensive immediately, but if she’d countered with more about Wesley Cook and said the lines about how Cook never said he didn’t do it, Fernandez could have said that in 2001, Cook actually DID say that he did not kill Faulkner. She could then have challenged Pavlich on the fact that Pavlich hasn’t actually researched this case. Frankly, the best way to have handled this would be to bring printouts of the affidavits (which are available at the website for Daniel Faulkner) and present them to Hannity on the air, thus showing that Pavlich’s statements were false, and when Hannity asked “Where’d you get this?”, to answer “from Maureen Faulkner”, and then to ask Pavlich why she didn’t know about a key part of the case if she was that well versed in it. Most likely Hannity would have been forced to end the segment, but it would have been a much more effective way to handle Pavlich’s smugness and Hannity’s moral outrage.
Kevin Koster commented on Bill O’Reilly’s Blasts The NY Times Benghazi Report With Sleight-Of-Hand Bull****
2014-01-04 00:10:24 -0500
· Flag
It was inevitable that Bill O’Reilly would attack the NY Times piece. There’s no way he could stand having one of his favorite talking points completely refuted.
I particularly enjoyed the bits where he tried to play it as though Kirkpatrick is somehow afraid of him. Right. O’Reilly has never been able to distinguish between someone having no use for him, and someone suddenly being terrified of him.
I particularly enjoyed the bits where he tried to play it as though Kirkpatrick is somehow afraid of him. Right. O’Reilly has never been able to distinguish between someone having no use for him, and someone suddenly being terrified of him.
Kevin Koster commented on The Republican/Fox News Benghazi Conspiracy Destroyed By New York Times Bombshell Report
2013-12-28 21:21:46 -0500
· Flag
Fox News has already attacked this piece. The Saturday afternoon anchor was quick to have on a GOP Congressman who described the NY Times article as “misleading”. This Congressman then reverted to the standard Fox talking points that the annex wasn’t provided with proper security, that the attack was carefully planned by al Qaeda, and that the GOP House is continuing to amass more and more evidence about this. Except that he forgot to note that every one of their hearings has been promoted by Fox News as “the big bombshell”, and every time it’s wound up being either a bureaucrat’s sour grapes, or it’s been someone Sunday Morning Quarterbacking about how the situation could have been handled better.
Kevin Koster commented on Juan Williams Helps Fox Racially Smear Jesse Jackson Over Duck Dynasty
2013-12-27 22:22:53 -0500
· Flag
It’s interesting that these guys attack Jackson but ignore the sinister racism directly available in Phil Robertson’s comments. And it’s more than a little sad.
Kevin Koster commented on Fox News Cheers On Armed Neighborhood Vigilantes In Oregon
2013-12-28 16:10:59 -0500
· Flag
Naomi, I agree with you that Fox News definitely serves to promulgate GOP propaganda. And I agree that you should take everyone’s reporting with some skepticism. But you’re reaching a bit when you try to label “most, if not all” other outlets as propaganda machines.
I have given you specific examples where Fox News has demonstrated its bias and its intentions. Please provide examples of where CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and local news stations functioned specifically and deliberately as propaganda machines.
I’ll even give you one – in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, the New York Times ran coverage by Judith Miller that promoted US intervention. This coverage has since been completely debunked, but it definitely served to enhance George W. Bush’s fraudulent case for war against Iraq. I’m not sure that this is the propaganda you’re thinking of, but it certainly had a disastrous effect. I have a feeling you’re thinking that the media propagandizes in the other direction, and the history simply doesn’t bear out that idea. There are plenty of right wing pundits who would like to convince people of this, but their opinion simply isn’t buttressed by reality.
I have given you specific examples where Fox News has demonstrated its bias and its intentions. Please provide examples of where CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and local news stations functioned specifically and deliberately as propaganda machines.
I’ll even give you one – in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, the New York Times ran coverage by Judith Miller that promoted US intervention. This coverage has since been completely debunked, but it definitely served to enhance George W. Bush’s fraudulent case for war against Iraq. I’m not sure that this is the propaganda you’re thinking of, but it certainly had a disastrous effect. I have a feeling you’re thinking that the media propagandizes in the other direction, and the history simply doesn’t bear out that idea. There are plenty of right wing pundits who would like to convince people of this, but their opinion simply isn’t buttressed by reality.
Kevin Koster commented on Did Fox's Ed Henry Try A 'Merry Christmas' Gotcha On President Obama?
2013-12-20 19:06:55 -0500
· Flag
It was obviously a gotcha, and President Obama wasn’t about to play that game. Unless there are clips of all the reporters slipping a “Merry Christmas” into their questions, and I strongly doubt that there are.
Henry’s trick is usually to try to get Jay Carney to play on Fox News’ turf by phrasing his questions in a manner that presupposes Fox News’ assumptions. Or he just gets confrontational to get that bit of footage on the prime time pundit shows.
There’s a reason that most Fox News contributors don’t work elsewhere afterward. Actual journalism professionals don’t look kindly on this kind of behavior.
Henry’s trick is usually to try to get Jay Carney to play on Fox News’ turf by phrasing his questions in a manner that presupposes Fox News’ assumptions. Or he just gets confrontational to get that bit of footage on the prime time pundit shows.
There’s a reason that most Fox News contributors don’t work elsewhere afterward. Actual journalism professionals don’t look kindly on this kind of behavior.
Kevin Koster commented on Sarah Palin: Free Speech For Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson! For Martin Bashir? Not So Much
2013-12-20 19:00:48 -0500
· Flag
Frankly, what Robertson said was a form of hate speech. He doesn’t get to just say things like that and then try to hide behind his bible. He said something that was deeply offensive to a large number of people, whether or not Fox News wishes to acknowledge it.
This isn’t a matter of his 1st Amendment rights. Nor was it when any other television or radio personality has been similarly suspended.
It’s simply that Fox News is trying to thread a very fine needle here. They’re trying to get away with supporting some obviously offensive comments by hiding behind the Constitution. It’s not because they support his right to speech – it’s because they support what he said. They’re clearly hoping viewers won’t be able to tell the difference.
This isn’t a matter of his 1st Amendment rights. Nor was it when any other television or radio personality has been similarly suspended.
It’s simply that Fox News is trying to thread a very fine needle here. They’re trying to get away with supporting some obviously offensive comments by hiding behind the Constitution. It’s not because they support his right to speech – it’s because they support what he said. They’re clearly hoping viewers won’t be able to tell the difference.
Kevin Koster commented on O’Reilly Becomes Unhinged Debating Mikey Weinstein In The War On Christmas: “I Covered Four Wars With A Pen!”
2013-12-20 04:39:42 -0500
· Flag
O’Reilly realized he was in serious trouble fairly quickly here. He also hadn’t vetted his source to know what he was dealing with. Mikey Weinstein has spent nearly a decade battling Evangelicals in the military who try to lord it over everyone else, including people of multiple other denominations. Weinstein and his sons are Jewish, and they certainly had an issue with Evangelical military people telling them they wouldn’t be saved if they didn’t accept the Evangelical version of faith. To O’Reilly, this is an anathema. Which is frankly quite silly. Weinstein presented his opposition to O’Reilly’s overheated rhetoric right away by saying that the MRFF doesn’t have stormtroopers to enforce their beliefs. That’s a specific image for Weinstein, for obvious reasons, and it was a direct counter to O’Reilly’s ridiculous assertion that Weinstein himself was behind the entire action, rather than the advocate for the servicemen and women who asked him to get behind them. O’Reilly’s response was to be extremely nasty and condescending.
O’Reilly then asked a series of loaded questions, to which Weinstein redirected the discussion to what was at issue. In this case, O’Reilly was actually behaving more like Laura Ingraham, in that he was trying to set up a discussion to go in a specific direction. O’Reilly already knew his conclusion – that Weinstein was inflaming a minor discussion in order to get in the way of oppressed Christian servicemen who just wanted a nice Christmas display. But that’s not what happened, and O’Reilly’s lack of research notwithstanding, the situation was a lot more complicated. Frankly, if O’Reilly had spent less time bloviating himself and more time listening (and not cutting his guest’s microphone), he might have learned something – about tolerance and respect, two ideas one would think his devout faith should have taught him long ago.
O’Reilly then asked a series of loaded questions, to which Weinstein redirected the discussion to what was at issue. In this case, O’Reilly was actually behaving more like Laura Ingraham, in that he was trying to set up a discussion to go in a specific direction. O’Reilly already knew his conclusion – that Weinstein was inflaming a minor discussion in order to get in the way of oppressed Christian servicemen who just wanted a nice Christmas display. But that’s not what happened, and O’Reilly’s lack of research notwithstanding, the situation was a lot more complicated. Frankly, if O’Reilly had spent less time bloviating himself and more time listening (and not cutting his guest’s microphone), he might have learned something – about tolerance and respect, two ideas one would think his devout faith should have taught him long ago.