close
The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20120127013308/http://www.fair.org/index.php
Extra!
Current Cover

Journalism Under Arrest: Clamping down on reporters at Occupy crackdowns
By Jim Naureckas



BERJAYA

BERJAYA

FAIR Store
Communique
NYT Responds on Iran Alarmism: Public Editor: 'I think the readers are correct on this'
1/10/12

New York Times public editor Arthur Brisbane has responded to concerns raised in a FAIR action alert last week (1/6/12), agreeing that the paper wrongly suggested that the International Atomic Energy Agency has concluded that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon.



P.U.litzer Prizes 2011

Watch FAIR's panel on education 'reform'

Free CounterSpin Bumper Sticker
Click here to get your FREE sticker!

Blog Logo XML | Recent Posts:
  • Posted by Jim Naureckas on 01/26/12 at 12:02 pm
    There's a news article in the Washington Post today (1/26/12) that really captures that paper's view of the way the world works, and how it ought to work. Headlined "After Earthquake, Japan Can't Agree on the Future of Nuclear Power," Chico Harlan's piece begins:

    The hulking system that once guided Japan's pro-nuclear-power stance worked just fine when everybody moved in lockstep. But in the wake of a nuclear accident that changed the way this country thinks about energy, the system has proved ill-suited for resolving conflict. Its very size and complexity have become a problem.

    And what exactly is that problem?

    Nearly a year after the triple meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi facility, Japanese decision-makers cannot agree on how to safeguard their reactors against future disasters, or even whether to operate them at all.

    Some experts say this indecision reflects the Japanese tendency to search for, and sometimes depend on, consensus--even when none is likely to emerge. The nation?s system for nuclear decision-making requires the agreement of thousands of officials. Most bureaucrats and politicians in Tokyo want Japan to recommit to nuclear power, but they have been thwarted by a powerful minority--reformists and regional governors.

    [...] Read more»

  • Posted by Peter Hart on 01/25/12 at 3:28 pm
    You may have heard last week that right-wing media critics were howling about this:

    BERJAYA

    "Those liberals are calling us dumb!" seemed to be the feeling on the right--a strange reaction to a piece written by conservative Andrew Sullivan.

    Newsweek is back on the case this week: [...] Read more»

  • Posted by Peter Hart on 01/25/12 at 3:03 pm
    With New York Times public editor Arthur Brisbane continuing to puzzle over whether (or how) the Paper of Record should factcheck politicians, one might wonder whether other newspapers worry about the same thing.

    Take USA Today (please!). Yesterday the paper reported on the very contentious matter of the Keystone XL pipeline and jobs--a favorite issue for Republicans. The paper (1/24/12) told readers:

    Obama hasn't been willing to ignore politics, says Bruce Josten, an executive vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. He cites several instances--from the failure to reach a deficit-reduction deal with Republicans last year to the rejection Tuesday of a jobs-producing oil pipeline--as examples of Obama's refusal to compromise.

    Calling something "jobs-producing" suggests that this would be a major component of the policy in question.

    Today the paper gets a little more specific in its report (1/25/12) on the State of the Union response from Republican Indiana governor Mitch Daniels:

    He derided what he called "the extremism that stifles the development of homegrown energy, or cancels a perfectly safe pipeline that would employ tens of thousands."

    That was a reference to Obama's decision against allowing the Keystone XL oil pipeline to be built from Canada to the Gulf Coast.

    No, it's a reference to a myth Republicans and the oil industry are spreading about the jobs that would result from constructing the Keystone pipeline. [...] Read more»

  • Posted by Peter Hart on 01/24/12 at 2:06 pm
    Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen wrote a baffling column today (1/24/12) praising part of Newt Gingrich's political persona--not the bad stuff, but man�"of big ideas," as he put it (italics his). Cohen gives one example:

    Out of nowhere, he has exhumed Saul Alinsky, whose fame is limited to university sociology departments, and yet whose name is so perfectly evocative of old-style radicalism, vaguely European in sound, that it fits Gingrich?s recent formulation, "people who don?t like the classical America." Who dat, Newt?

    The reference, although a tad obscure, is nevertheless intriguing. It shows that Gingrich is familiar with the late father of community organizing who died in 1972, and who by occupation and residence (Chicago) is suggestive of Barack Obama. Alinsky was no communist but he was a radical, and to have his name mentioned by a presidential candidate is just plain thrilling--also chilling. This is the bright and the dark side of Gingrich. He knows his stuff and often can't stop from showing off.

    Out of nowhere? Using Alinsky to bash Obama has been a staple of right-wing media for at least the past�four years. Alinsky�was regularly included in�Glenn Beck's shrill conspiracy theories. Linking Obama to Alinsky doesn't prove Gingrich knows his stuff--it means he listens to a bit of radio, or perhaps watched some Fox News Channel over the past several years. [...] Read more»

XML | More Blog posts