Newsbusters.org

Kudos to CNN "State of the Union" host Candy Crowley for bringing up on Sunday the undercovered story of the recent Obamacare-related decision to force Catholic employers to insure sterilizations, abortifacients, and contraceptives. When she mentioned "real outrage within the Catholic community" -- and bishops' letters opposed Obama were again read in parishes across America -- liberal Gov. Martin O'Malley blew off the bishops: "most of those in the hierarchy are also Republicans." Is that why Obama's violating their religious freedom?

O'Malley also claimed that this is not a big deal because "these same rules apply in countries like Italy which have overwhelming numbers of Catholics, and yet we did not see the reaction in those countries to these sorts of things." This might be because while 97 percent of Italians think of themselves as Catholic, church attendance is very low (from 15 to 30 percent). They go to church on an Obama schedule. (Fore!)

Or course, alleged Catholic O'Malley is presently putting all of his prestige behind legalizing "gay marriage" in Maryland,  so he's not exactly on a church wavelength. Here's how the exchange unfolded:

CANDY CROWLEY: And this week what we've seen is some real outrage within the Catholic community about the president's decision to require Catholic entities, charities, churches and schools to provide contraception and other things within their health insurance plans.

E.J. Dionne, who is no raving Republican here, had this to say in his column, "it is so remarkable that Obama utterly botched the admittedly difficult question of how contraceptive services should be treated under the new health care law. His administration mishandled this decision not once but twice. In the process, Obama threw his progressive Catholic allies under the bus and strengthened the hand of those inside the church who had originally sought to derail the health care law." And I want to quickly play for you something that Newt Gingrich said last night about this same issue.

NEWT GINGRICH [clip]: The Obama administration has declared war on religious freedom in this country and people need to understand that. This is a decision so totally outrageous, and the illustration of such radical secular ideology that I believe the entire hierarchy will oppose it every inch of the way.

CROWLEY: So, my question to you in the final 90 seconds we have, has President Obama damaged the Catholic vote as far as Democrats are concerned? And you, as I understand it, are Catholic.

O'MALLEY: I am Catholic. And I think, Candy, there has been a little bit too much hyperventilating over this issue. It's one of those issues that they want to use...

CROWLEY: Well, it came from Catholics themselves in the hierarchy.

O'MALLEY: Well, some, and most of those members of that hierarchy are also Republicans. And if you look at 28 states, Candy, this is not about abortion, it's about covering contraception as part of the health care coverage, mandatory basic coverage. Twenty-eight states already require this, and in Europe countries that are...

CROWLEY: But you're not thinking about the state, the federal government, telling a religion what it must cover in a health care policy.

O'MALLEY: Well, there is an exemption for churches themselves. The exemption does not necessarily extend to institutions like hospitals or universities that employ people of all faiths. But these same rules apply in countries like Italy which have overwhelming numbers of Catholics, and yet we did not see the reaction in those countries to these sorts of things.

Virginia Gov. Robert McDonnell, also a Catholic, predicted this would make Catholic voters look more favorably at Romney:

CROWLEY: Well, and I'm going to give the last word to you, Governor McDonnell. Is there an opening for Republicans to seize in the Catholic vote sector, which is very large as you know, in some very important states, Ohio, Pennsylvania, et cetera?

MCDONNELL: Absolutely. As a pro-life Catholic, I think the answer is yes. Besides the health care bill being unconstitutional and a great expansion of federal government, I think if it does not respect people's individual religious views and makes groups or individuals do things that are contrary to their deeply held beliefs, there is going to be a visceral negative reaction. And I think the Catholic voters will look very favorably upon Mitt Romney this year.

As NewsBusters reported Tuesday, Politico's Jonathan Martin, while chatting with MSNBC's Chuck Todd, referred to some of Florida as "cracker counties."

Despite the firestorm this created, Howard Kurtz on CNN's Reliable Sources spent seventeen minutes Sunday - almost half of the show when commercials are taken out - with Martin as one of his guests and never said a word about this controversy.

Kurtz, Martin et al discussed how the media handled Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's infamous comment about the "very poor," how the press so badly predicted Donald Trump would endorse Newt Gingrich, Romney's dealings with the New York Times, and President Obama doing a question and answer session with folks via Google Plus.

Yet Kurtz, a media analyst, chose not to address Martin's own racially-charged commotion despite it garnering the attention of the highly-influential TV Newser which asked Wednesday, "Is it Okay to use the Term ‘Cracker’ when describing Florida voters?"

We at NewsBusters asked Martin that very same question Friday.

I guess we and TV Newser are far more curious about this issue than Kurtz.

Did I mention he was a media analyst?

Associate Editor’s note: As you are likely aware, since the financial collapse of 2008, charities and non-profit organizations have seen a sharp reduction in donations. Although the environment has improved, contributions are still nowhere near where they were prior to the recession. Unfortunately, the Media Research Center has not been immune. With this in mind, your support has become more important than ever. With a critical election approaching, the liberal media needs to be monitored 24/7. As we have been predicting for months, the press are willing to do anything to get their beloved politicians elected and/or reelected. As such, we need your help to fight this fight. Any contribution, even $10, is greatly appreciated. Please consider a tax-deductible gift to the Media Research Center to help us battle the liberal media. Thank you.

When I saw CNN's Candy Crowley on Sunday tease an upcoming State of the Union segment saying she'd be discussing Friday's unemployment report after a commercial break, I was hoping to see a complete analysis of the data provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Much to my shock and dismay, although she and her guests discussed the economy and the jobs market for eight minutes over two segments, there was not one single word said about the declining participation rate or the record 1.2 million one month increase in the number of people not in the labor force (video follows with transcript and commentary):

CANDY CROWLEY, HOST: Here to make sense of some big economic figures: Alice Rivlin, who served as director of the Office of Management and Budget in the Clinton administration; Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who was chief economist for President George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers; and our Ron Brownstein, a senior political analyst with us here at CNN.

I'm completely confused by this week, because Friday it's like the best unemployment figures we've seen in three years, and the Dow Industrials go crazy, and the CBO earlier in the week said, you know, the debt outlook is horrible, the deficit is horrible, and by the way unemployment is going back up.

So are we happy or are we worried?

ALICE RIVLIN, FORMER OMB DIRECTOR UNDER BILL CLINTON: I think it was basically a good news week. The unemployment figures and the new jobs in the Friday report were good news. They aren't definitive. That was one month, but it was a good, strong month, an indication that the economy is taking hold.

If it lasts, we'll have the best thing that anybody is able to predict is a good, slow recovery with gradual reduction in the unemployment rate from what is admittedly a very high level.

CROWLEY: But the CBO said 9.3 or something next year, which is craziness.

DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN, FORMER CHIEF ECONOMIST, GEORGE W. BUSH COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS: Right. Remember, the CBO is -- its job is to find the dark cloud for every silver lining, and so it did that. But the reason it did that, all kidding aside, is that the CBO has to assume that the Bush tax cuts sunset.

That means it has to assume an enormous tax increase next year, and that means it has to assume that we have bad economic growth. And that gets you high unemployment.

So strip that out, I think we got one month's good news in the labor market, that's great, but the truth is the debt is bad and the recovery is not very strong, and we have a long way to go.

CROWLEY: And I was just going to say, I suspect politically the reason we heard the president go, well, these numbers are going to go up and these numbers are going to go down, is kind of to inoculate himself from next month or the month after.

RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Right. Because there has been more than one good month. I mean, there has been several months of good unemployment news and overall job growth, private sector job growth in 2011 was 2.1 million, which was the best since I think '05.

So there's a general trajectory that is more positive. But trajectory is the key, I think, politically. You know, and I think almost all political strategists agree that kind of direction matters more than level. If it continues to improve, that's obviously good news for the president.

If the CBO is right and we see a turnaround toward the end of the year, with it going back up, that would be more problematic. Although I would point out that most political scientists believe we are in the key period now that the second quarter of the election year is when voters really take that snapshot and it is positive for the president that he is seeing improvement at this moment.

HOLTZ-EAKIN: I would never disagree with a political expert. But a couple of things, unemployment will go up before it comes down in a permanent way. There are a lot of discouraged workers out there, 3 million, 4 million...

CROWLEY: They will come back in.

HOLTZ-EAKIN: ... when they come back, it will go up...

CROWLEY: .. and they will drive up the unemployment numbers.

HOLTZ-EAKIN: ... and that will be confusing to people. Good news will be bad news. And on the ground it's not going to feel that great. Right now the numbers look better, that's fine, but until we see steady job growth that's even this rapid or more, and employment increases that are matched by wage increases, you're not going to see the incomes for people to feel good.

So if we start -- if there is happy talk in Washington when it's not that great on the ground, that's a bad story.

CROWLEY: Well, you know, there's a huge disconnect then.

RIVLIN: Nobody is doing happy talk, not even the president. But we have to ...

CROWLEY: Said the economy was stronger.

RIVLIN: We have to recognize that the economy is stronger, that's what he said, and it has shown that it's stronger for the last several months. And the CBO was actually not making a new forecast. It was telling us what we already know.

If you raise taxes drastically at the end of the year, letting the Bush tax cuts all expire, and if you cut spending drastically next year with the sequester, then it's not good news for the economy. But nobody wants that to happen.

HOLTZ-EAKIN: Right, that's the...

(CROSSTALK)

BROWNSTEIN: Well, that is not really on the table. The debate will be about at the end of the year whether to extend the Bush tax cuts for the top 2 percent. They have to assume that they sunset for the entire population, which really neither side is talking about, is a very unlikely outcome, although conceivable in stalemate. CROWLEY: Well, in fact, the CBO said, listen, it will reduce economic stability and it will increase unemployment if you let those tax cuts expire.

HOLTZ-EAKIN: It's an extraordinarily bad idea. And there's -- the thinking...

(CROSSTALK)

HOLTZ-EAKIN: But it's across the board, for rich -- it's supposed to be the biggest political risk we face, which is post- election, regardless of who wins, we have a lame duck, they're never very organized, they look like a rugby scrum at best, suddenly we've got the sequester and the Bush tax cuts on the table, that's a big risky moment for the economy.

CROWLEY: Let me ask you all to hold fire, because we're going to come back. But up next, more with our economic roundtable

After a commercial break, the four continued to discuss the economy as well as the unemployment numbers without mentioning the dismal participation rate or the record 1.2 million one month increase in the number of people not in the labor force.

Frankly, this was almost unconscionable. Yes, the headline figures - meaning the unemployment rate and the non-farm payroll data - were very strong.

However, our friends at Zero Hedge did some fine reporting on Friday's report digging up the inconvenient truths that most media outlets and CNN in this instance chose to ignore.

For instance:

1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force in one month! So as the labor force increased from 153.9 million to 154.4 million, the non institutional population increased by 242.3 million meaning, those not in the labor force surged from 86.7 million to 87.9 million. 

As ZH noted, this caused the labor force participation rate to plummet to 63.7 percent, a 30 year low:

Through eight minutes Sunday, there was not one word about either of these key employment statistics.

Something else Crowley and her guests ignored was the quality of the jobs created in January. As ZH observed:

In January, the number of Part Time workers rose by 699K, the most ever, from 27,040K to 27,739K, the third highest number in the history of this series. How about Full time jobs? They went from 113,765 to 113,845. An 80K increase. So the epic January number of 141.6 million employed, which rose by 847K at the headline level: only about 10 % of that was full time jobs

So the Household survey, which is the one that is used to determine the unemployment rate, found that 90 percent of January's increase in workers were part-time jobs.

You think the media would have pointed out any of these immutable facts if Barack Obama were a Republican seeking reelection?

Yes, that's a rhetorical question.

As a sidebar, if you're not following Zero Hedge for economic and financial data as well as commentary this election season, you likely don't know the whole truth.

Associate Editor’s note: As you are likely aware, since the financial collapse of 2008, charities and non-profit organizations have seen a sharp reduction in donations. Although the environment has improved, contributions are still nowhere near where they were prior to the recession. Unfortunately, the Media Research Center has not been immune. With this in mind, your support has become more important than ever. With a critical election approaching, the liberal media needs to be monitored 24/7. As we have been predicting for months, the press are willing to do anything to get their beloved politicians elected and/or reelected. As such, we need your help to fight this fight. Any contribution, even $10, is greatly appreciated. Please consider a tax-deductible gift to the Media Research Center to help us battle the liberal media. Thank you.

To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, there she goes again.

On Sunday's Meet the Press, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow falsely claimed, "Rick Santorum says that he would like states to be able to make contraception illegal' (video follows with transcript and commentary):

RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC: The, the, the idea that, that, that the Catholic Church is being forced to do something that as a church it does not want to do is a misnomer. The initial exception in here is that the Catholic Church that--somebody that is providing the service of being a church, that's operating from the church, they're already exempt from this. The question is, as the congressman says, when you want to become a health insurance provider you must follow the rules of providing health insurance. And in this country, that means that you have to cover contraception, and 80 percent of Americans agree with that.

ALEX CASTELLANOS, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: This is--this...

MADDOW: This fits into--you guys want to make this only about religion, but listen, Mitt Romney is campaigning...

CASTELLANOS: No, it is--no, the administration made this only about religion.

MADDOW: ...Mitt Romney is campaigning saying that he would like to end--he...

CASTELLANOS: Ask the bishops.

MADDOW: ...he would like to end all family planning support at the federal level. He would like to eliminate federal--Title 10. Rick Santorum says that he would like states to be able to make contraception illegal. You can try to make this an issue of, oh, Democrats hate religion, but the fact is churches were exempt from this from the beginning, this is about providing health insurance. And the Republican Party is...

DAVID GREGORY, HOST: Let me...

MADDOW: ...waging war on contraception at this point in a way that the--where the--and that's where the discussion is going.

Is this even close to true? Not according to the Washington Post's Melinda Henneberger who interviewed Santorum on January 6 about this very subject:

“I was asked if I believed in it, and I said, ‘No, I’m a Catholic, and I don’t.’ I don’t want the government to fund it through Planned Parenthood, but that’s different than wanting to ban it; the idea I’m coming after your birth control is absurd. I was making a statement about my moral beliefs, but I won’t impose them on anyone else in this case. I don’t think the government should be involved in that. People are free to make their own decisions.’’

The former Pennsylvania senator recently told ABC’s Jake Tapper that, yes, he disagrees with Griswold v. Connecticut, the 1965 Supreme Court decision that struck down a ban on contraception.

He said Friday evening that it’s the idea that states don’t have a right to pass such a law that he opposes, because he does not see the right to privacy as a constitutional right envisioned by its signers. This is hardly a new argument.

“It could have been a law against buying shoestrings; that it was contraception has nothing to do with it. States have the right to pass even dumb laws.”

To be clear, he does think that laws banning birth control would be dumb “for a number of reasons. Birth control should be legal in the United States. The states should not ban it, and I would oppose any effort to ban it.’’

That bears repeating: "Birth control should be legal in the United States. The states should not ban it, and I would oppose any effort to ban it."

Seem pretty clear to you? Wouldn't it be nice if people like Maddow would tell the truth when they're on national television, or is that asking too much?

(H/T NB reader zenman1661)

Associate Editor’s note: As you are likely aware, since the financial collapse of 2008, charities and non-profit organizations have seen a sharp reduction in donations. Although the environment has improved, contributions are still nowhere near where they were prior to the recession. Unfortunately, the Media Research Center has not been immune. With this in mind, your support has become more important than ever. With a critical election approaching, the liberal media needs to be monitored 24/7. As we have been predicting for months, the press are willing to do anything to get their beloved politicians elected and/or reelected. As such, we need your help to fight this fight. Any contribution, even $10, is greatly appreciated. Please consider a tax-deductible gift to the Media Research Center to help us battle the liberal media. Thank you.

On Thursday night’s All Things Considered, NPR publicized radical-left vegan activists putting up mocking images of fat people to scare people away from that menace known as cheese.

Reporter Allison Aubrey relayed “One billboard in Albany, New York features a huge photo of an overweight woman. She's squeezing the fattest part of her thighs with a message: ‘Your Thighs On Cheese,’ emblazoned across the side.” NPR publicized the group calling itself the “Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine,” despite it being mostly a group of non-physician activists.

This looks like an ongoing campaign.

-- On January 14, NPR blogger Barbara King promoted a PCRM video opposing the use of chimps in medical research (starring Kevin Nealon and James Franco):  "This video, sponsored by the Physicians' Committee for Responsible Medicine, makes a visually convincing case in 2.5 minutes for why these smart and sentient chimpanzees need our help, and what each of us can do. I hope it goes viral."

-- On January 23, NPR blogger Eliza Barclay promoted PCRM opposing fast-food joints getting a foothold in medical facilities.

And now, their anti-cheese billboards are a national story. Here's how Aubrey promoted the PCRM viewpoint, even as she admitted their anti-dairy, anti-meat advice is not "mainstream" nutrition advice:

AUBREY: So, why the scary close-ups of pouchy stomachs and doughy thighs? Well, the billboards were hung by a group called Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. It's led by Neal Barnard.

NEAL BARNARD: If you look at the chemical makeup of what's in cheese, it's mostly saturated fats - the kind that's linked to heart disease. It's very high in cholesterol. Ounce per ounce about the same as any steak you can find, and surprisingly high in sodium. So, how often do you want to eat such an unhealthy food? I would argue never.

AUBREY: Never eat cheese? Barnard, who's a physician by training, has long advocated his personal belief that a Vegan diet is the healthiest way to eat. No dairy, no meat, no animal products at all. Now, this is a long way from mainstream nutrition advice. And federal guidelines say it's OK to get small amounts, up to 10 percent of your calories, from saturated fat, including cheese which does contain two things our bodies need - calcium and protein. But Barnard says his billboards are meant to wake people up.

BARNARD: Cheese is the number one source, cheese and other dairy products, are the leading source of the saturated fats that our kids are swallowing. And I think most Americans are totally oblivious to it.

AUBREY: Barnard argues that we deceive ourselves into thinking that we're eating cheese in moderation when we're not. We sprinkle it on salads, slap it in our sandwiches, layer it in our burritos and slather it on our pizza. In fact, since 1970, our per person consumption has almost tripled. That's a lot of cheese.

Aubrey “balanced” the story in a stereotypically liberal way: she congratulated the French for eating it in moderation. There was a small nod to critics of the obnoxious vegans: "When I called a few people in Albany who had driven by the billboards, they said they found them obnoxious. And, in Wisconsin, when Barnard's group designed a billboard portraying the Grim Reaper wearing a cheesehead hat, there was outrage. One farmer even said, what's the problem? Look at the French."

So she did, and her second source was cultural attache Antonin Baudry, who explained the French believe in cheese “like a religion.”

BAUDRY: A very common expression in French is fromage ou dessert. Means cheese or dessert. Means you cannot have both in your life. You have to choose.

AUBREY: So it's back to the idea of moderation, but doesn't it sound so much more palatable in French?

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, appearing on NBC's Meet the Press Sunday, told host David Gregory, "You just managed to precisely repeat the Obama administration's line."

The subject being discussed was the new edict from the Department of Health and Human Services requiring religious organizations to provide contraception to their employees (video follows with transcript and absolutely no need for additional commentary):

NEWT GINGRICH: Furthermore, you know, he's--he has declared what--it's not just an economic election, you know, he's basically declared war on the Catholic Church, and that's the language of Archbishop Dolan of New York. And I think you're going to see a very severe reaction to the idea of a radical Obama administration...

DAVID GREGORY, HOST: Well, let's--explain what you're talking about.

GINGRICH: ...imposing secular rules on religion.

GREGORY: This is for insurance to be provided, including contraception, for employees around the country.

GINGRICH: Right.

GREGORY: And--but religious institutions would be exempted. How is this a war against religion...

GINGRICH: No.

GREGORY: Well, religious institutions, churches and the like, would be exempted, and there are states that have very similar rules to ensure the health and safety of, of women that they get covered in their workplace, whether it be a Catholic hospital or other kind of institution.

GINGRICH: Well, I mean, you, you just managed to precisely repeat the Obama administration's line, which is also the American Civil Liberties Union line. The fact is what you're saying is there cannot be a genuinely Catholic university, there cannot be a genuinely Catholic hospital, that in fact it will have to be subordinated to the rules of a secular government. I mean, I happen to oppose rules that, that have, for example, forced Catholic Adoption Services to be closed because they're only willing to have adoptions for marriages between a man and a woman. There are states that now close that. I think that is a tremendous infringement of religious liberty. And I think you're saying the same thing. You're saying basically, "Oh, you can have the name on it, but you can't actually be a Catholic institution. You can't actually be an evangelical Christian institution. You can't actually be an orthodox Jewish institution because we the secular government are going to impose on you." I think that's--I think this is a very profound moment for Americans to decide...

GREGORY: And you predict a political cost for the president.

GINGRICH: ...do you really want to have a government impose on them?

GREGORY: Do you predict a political cost for the president because of this?

GINGRICH: What? Very substantial, yes. Because, because every American who cares about religious liberty, and I've been talking, for example, with evangelicals here in Nevada, every American who cares about religious liberty recognizes that from, from, from judges who say you, you can't say a prayer in high school, you can't--the New York City decision recently--you, you can't rent an empty school building on Sunday morning--every time you turn around, secular government is closing in on and shrinking the right of religious liberty in America, and I think there are millions of people who are very disturbed by it.

Associate Editor’s note: As you are likely aware, since the financial collapse of 2008, charities and non-profit organizations have seen a sharp reduction in donations. Although the environment has improved, contributions are still nowhere near where they were prior to the recession. Unfortunately, the Media Research Center has not been immune. With this in mind, your support has become more important than ever. With a critical election approaching, the liberal media needs to be monitored 24/7. As we have been predicting for months, the press are willing to do anything to get their beloved politicians elected and/or reelected. As such, we need your help to fight this fight. Any contribution, even $10, is greatly appreciated. Please consider a tax-deductible gift to the Media Research Center to help us battle the liberal media. Thank you.

It's astonishing that someone whose profession is to talk politics still has not heard that the alleged gaffe of President George H.W. Bush being unaware of the existence of checkout scanners as he visited a grocery store during the 1988 campaign has been disputed, as the veteran MSNBC host repeated the alleged Bush gaffe while opening his syndicated Chris Matthews Show which aired on Sunday.

After guest Andrea Mitchell of NBC tried to correct him, he was still unconvinced and declared, "I'm still not letting him off on that."

As Mitchell was finishing her first turn to speak near the beginning of the show, she tried to correct Matthews. Mitchell: "A quick word about the supermarket scanner. That was an inaccurate pool report which followed him everywhere. I think even worse was, 'I'll have a splash of coffee.'"

Matthews replied: "Okay, why was it an inaccurate pool report?"

She explained: "Because he was actually asking how this particular scanner worked. He wasn't really asking-"

Unconvinced, Matthews injected: "Well, I'm looking at the picture there. It looks like he hadn't seen one of those before."

After fellow guest Richard Stengel of Time magazine and Mitchell noted that Bush "didn't know the price of a loaf of bread," Matthews concluded: "Okay, I'm not letting him off on that."

Below are both video and a transcript of the relevant portion of the Sunday, February 5, syndicated Chris Matthews Show:

ANDREA MITCHELL: A quick word about the supermarket scanner. That was an inaccurate pool report which followed him everywhere. I think even worse was, "I'll have a splash of coffee."

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Okay, why was it an inaccurate pool report?

MITCHELL: Because he was actually asking how this particular scanner worked. He wasn't really asking-

MATTHEWS: Well, I'm looking at the picture there. It looks like he hadn't seen one of those before.

RICHARD STENGEL, TIME MAGAZINE: And he didn't know the price of a loaf of bread.

MITCHELL: He didn't know the price of a loaf of bread.

MATTHEWS: Okay, I'm not letting him off on that.

A rather extraordinary thing happened on CNN's Fareed Zakaria GPS Sunday.

The host actually defended Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney from the media's proclivity to take his statements "entirely out of context" (video follows with transcript and commentary):

FAREED ZAKARIA: What I noticed though, we talk about the gaffes in the debates and the campaign. The one gaffe, Romney has this new gaffe of, you know, the comment about the poor. I feel as though in some ways the guy can’t get a break because if you look at the previous gaffe where he talked about “I like to fire people,” he wasn’t talking about firing people. He was talking about firing insurance companies, and that’s absolutely clear.

And here he says, “I’m not so concerned about the poor, they have a safety net, if it has holes I’ll repair it.” I feel as though the media here have sort of said, “Yes, yes, but if we take this entirely out of context, it really sounds like he’s being very mean to the poor.” It just feels like, “Yeah, but you just took it entirely out of context.”

Interesting observation considering the anchor in the middle of this firestorm, CNN's Soledad O'Brien, received congratulations for her interview from two different CNN contributors on the air with one actually giving her a high five.

While Zakaria was pointing out the hypocrisy here, he might have scolded folks on his own network for their part in not only taking Romney "entirely out of context," but also spreading the misinformation as far as they possibly could.

Associate Editor’s note: As you are likely aware, since the financial collapse of 2008, charities and non-profit organizations have seen a sharp reduction in donations. Although the environment has improved, contributions are still nowhere near where they were prior to the recession. Unfortunately, the Media Research Center has not been immune. With this in mind, your support has become more important than ever. With a critical election approaching, the liberal media needs to be monitored 24/7. As we have been predicting for months, the press are willing to do anything to get their beloved politicians elected and/or reelected. As such, we need your help to fight this fight. Any contribution, even $10, is greatly appreciated. Please consider a tax-deductible gift to the Media Research Center to help us battle the liberal media. Thank you.

John King had an unfortunate slip of the tongue during CNN's coverage of the Nevada caucuses Saturday.

While discussing how the various religious groups voted for the different Republican presidential candidates, King called Mitt Romney "Governor Mormon" (video follows with transcript and commentary):

JOHN KING: Now, two states in a row have said Governor Romney and here in Nevada tonight, by a huge margin.

Let's just look at one more as we come down the line here. If you look here among faith, obviously Governor Mormon is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. He's a Mormon, and he won big among Mormons. He won 9 out of every 10 votes among Mormons. Congressman Paul coming in second place. But he also won those who say they have no religion, voted for Congressman Paul.

But others Christians, Mormons, Catholics, Mainline Protestants, all going for Governor Romney. This is a sweep across the electorate tonight. Some would say, well, it was a state he won in 2008, so what, who cares?

But the point, beginning February with a win and a big win, starts the process in which team Romney thinks they could run the entire month, perhaps losing in Maine to Ron Paul. The psychology is going to kick in at some point.

As the folks at Mediaite observed, oops!

Associate Editor’s note: As you are likely aware, since the financial collapse of 2008, charities and non-profit organizations have seen a sharp reduction in donations. Although the environment has improved, contributions are still nowhere near where they were prior to the recession. Unfortunately, the Media Research Center has not been immune. With this in mind, your support has become more important than ever. With a critical election approaching, the liberal media needs to be monitored 24/7. As we have been predicting for months, the press are willing to do anything to get their beloved politicians elected and/or reelected. As such, we need your help to fight this fight. Any contribution, even $10, is greatly appreciated. Please consider a tax-deductible gift to the Media Research Center to help us battle the liberal media. Thank you.

Sunday’s Travel section in The Washington Post carries the big headline “Meet Me In Havana,” or online, it’s “So nice to meet you, Havana.” Inside the headline was “In Cuba, finding vivid color and colorful people.” Team Obama has made it possible to go on “people-to-people” trips to Cuba.

This kind of detail was in small print in the “Travel Tips”: “Bring extra toilet paper or tissues. Public bathrooms often have no stash.” Post writer Andrea Sachs also paid tribute to the “reassuring fist pump” in the omnipresent image of communist thug Che Guevara:

The country’s hip-swinging music and lip-smacking cuisine have traversed the 90 miles to U.S. shores, defying an embargo that bans rum and cigars but can’t restrain the more abstract keepsake of culture.

Much as I tried to purge any preconceived notions, I arrived with stereotypes dancing in my head. And in many regards, they were confirmed. At the airport, classic American cars from the Eisenhower era idled curbside, awaiting passengers. En route to Havana, billboards splashed propagandist slogans, some pro-revolution and others anti-us (a.k.a. U.S.). (The half-century-old “blockade” is an incendiary topic. One sign stated that more than 70 percent of the population was born under the embargo.) Che Guevara’s face was as ubiquitous as McDonald’s golden arches are here. His mustachioed mien and disheveled locks appeared on roadside signs and posters, a reassuring fist pump of perseverance.

Guevara’s image of “perseverance” only appeals to communists who hate the United States, and perhaps Cubans who’ve never learned what a savage killer he was. Sachs occasionally related the realities on the ground, albeit with the usual nods to “free” goods like health care:

The city stayed mute on the subject of homelessness, so Isabel Leon Candelario, of the Historian’s Office of the City of Havana, answered for it. “Mainly, they don’t want to work,” she said. “There is plenty of work to be done, construction and agriculture. It is hard to find homeless. Maybe one or two people in the evenings, a drunk person.”

The government — socialist in its politics, communist in its ideals — guarantees housing and jobs, plus provides free health care and education. Despite ration cards, the Cubans’ biggest expenditure is food. Yet according to Ludwig’s footnote on the topic, most people can’t support themselves on federal wages and must work a second job to acquire hard currency. He, for example, receives extra funds through gratuities. Other secondary sources include tutoring, translating or performing in the streets with a pair of costumed dachshunds. Whatever it takes.

But the WashPost writer was not exactly one of those rebellious reporters seeking to make trouble for the Castro regime.  She has signed up for a "highlights of the revolution" tour, and she can't gin up the courage to walk away from the pack. She just admits it in the newspaper:

The Friendly Planet itinerary, packed with homegrown and institutionalized goodies, kept us busy from breakfast till dinner. The company never issued a statement requiring our participation, yet I sensed a tacit obligation to board the bus every day.

To clear up any ambiguities, I asked Ruby Goldman, the American representative of Friendly Planet, whether I could duck out to the beach. I had a plan in mind, involving a $3 public bus ride that left from Parque Centrale. I just awaited permission.

“You can do anything you want,” she said inside the Havana Club’s rum museum, “as long as you do the people-to-people. I’m not the police.”

Despite her consent, I felt like a truant for skipping out on the planned activities. Guilt squelched my independent streak. Resolved to behave, I pulled out the day’s events and started underlining.

Off to the "Museum of the Revolution" she went...

Not everybody appreciates live local TV reporting. When an unusual snowstorm hit Seattle a few weeks ago, the local NBC affiliate sent a reporter to cover people sledding on city streets. And, as caught by ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel Live, some hilarity ensued in the reaction of one displeased woman holding an inner tube.

“Sometimes when covering the dangers of sledding and cars on slick roads,” FNC’s Bret Baier explained in setting up the clip on the January 20 Special Report, “it’s not just the cars that are the danger.”

Last week:

Saturday Night Funny Video: Silent Film ‘The Artist’ Treatment of a Republican Debate

NPR's Tell Me More host Michel Martin has a "Wisdom Watch" segment, and on Thursday it featured the "legendary entertainer" RuPaul -- cable television's most famous drag queen. (He has a show on Viacom's LGBT channel Logo.) The interview lasted 12 and a half minutes.

Martin asked if the future would be brighter: "Do you envision a time if you and I were to get together – however long, five years from now, 10 years from now, 20 - when a little boy who wanted to wear a dress to school could do it and it wouldn't be big -- wouldn't be huge?"

RuPaul replied: "I think there will be a time when that's possible. But I can't believe in my lifetime how we've regressed in certain areas of our consciousness. So I think there will be a time - probably soon. But I think that those, like I said, those windows close very quickly."

Earlier, the windows analogy came when the Bush administration seemed hostile to "outside the box" thinkers:

MARTIN: Curious, though, about "RuPaul's Drag Race," because you were quoted a couple of years ago saying you did not want to do a reality show because you thought they would be demeaning and it would - demeaning was the word? Did I have the word right?

RUPAUL: Well, no, no. During the Bush administration, there was a hostility toward anyone who was thought outside the box. So there was a certain hostility, and I didn't want to do it if it was going to be mean-spirited or if it was want to be, you know, sort of talked down. But times changed and the window of opportunity opened, and that's when we're able to do this TV show. In fact, when I first hit in '92, '93, you know, Clinton was - got into office, and there was a window of openness, and what's strange about that is how quickly these windows close.

Martin concluded by oozing the praise:

MARTIN: Well, we, as we said, it's really been a pleasure speaking with you and I appreciate it. And we call this segment the Wisdom Watch, where we do ask, do you have some wisdom? And you can direct that to whomever you wish. I mean it could be a young you. It could be a young person listening to our conversation who maybe isn't sure where he or she fits in, or just somebody who's got the creative flair.

RUPAUL: Absolutely. And I, this is something - this is my daily mantra - sometimes minute by minute mantra, which is love yourself. Learn to love yourself. And stay in this moment. This moment right here is where your power is. If you drift into the past or into the future, you lose your power and your ability to love yourself. So this moment right now, be kind and love yourself.

MARTIN: RuPaul is a legendary entertainer. His program "RuPaul's Drag Race" is in its fourth season on the Logo Channel, and he was kind enough to join us from NPR New York. Thank you so much for joining us.

On Wednesday, Kyle Drennen at NewsBusters noted how NBC news anchor Brian Williams, chief environmental correspondent Anne Thompson, and old reliable global warming proponent Dr. Gerald Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research took advantage of this year's mild winter in the lower 48 U.S. states as an excuse to argue that "our warming world is shifting the odds against a traditional winter, winters as we have known them."

Well folks, winterize this report about Eastern Europe's deadly serious cold spell carried at a German web site (HT Expatica; bolds are mine):

Eastern Europe's weeklong cold spell continued on Friday with at least 164 people reported to have fallen victim to freezing weather conditions.

Temperatures plunged to minus 35 degrees Celsius (minus 31 degrees Fahrenheit) in some regions, prompting power outages, traffic chaos and the widespread closure of schools, nurseries and airports.

Worst hit was Ukraine which recorded an additional 38 deaths on Friday, bringing the total number of weather-related fatalities in the country to 101. Thousands of people sought shelter in government centers and more than 1,200 were hospitalized as temperatures plunged to around minus 32 degrees Celsius.

There were eight newly reported cold-related deaths in Poland, bringing the overall death toll to 37. In Romania, there have been 22 deaths. Serbia has also reported causalities while at least 11,000 villagers remained trapped by heavy show in the country's remote mountain villages.

... In Bulgaria, 16 towns recorded their lowest temperatures since records began. Deaths have been reported there as well as in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia and Lithuania, where a homeless man was found in the ruins of an abandoned house.

Europe's homeless population has been worst hit by what experts say is Europe's harshest winter in decades.

... European weather forecasters have warned the severe cold is likely to persist in many parts of continental Europe into next week.

Despite the high death toll, Eastern Europe's awful cold spell hasn't made the news in the U.S. Hmmm.

Unlike the shameless opportunists at NBC, I'm not going to use the above to argue that the world is cooling. I will say that in any given year, it's not that unusual for certain parts of the world to be having remarkably mild winters while others experience record or near-record lows. Neither are in and of themselves relevant to whether or not global temperatures are in some kind of permanent upward or downward movement.

Someone needs to tell Brian Williams, everyone at NBC, and Dr. Meehl that there has been no global warming since 1997.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

On Saturday's Fox News Watch, regular panel member Jim Pinkerton of The American Conservative magazine cited an article by MRC analyst and NewsBuster Matthew Balan, who recounted the media obsession with the Komen foundation's decision to eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood, while the same media have completely ignored the brewing conflict between President Obama and the Catholic Church as the Obama administration tries to force Catholic employers to go against their religious beliefs and provide coverage for contraception in its health insurance plans. Pinkerton:

JIM PINKERTON: But Matthew Balan of the Media Research Center made the great point, look, while the media were stone silent on this issue - the mainstream media, that is - they were all over the Susan Komen/Planned Parenthood story, the sort of similar news holes in terms of, you know, sexual religious issues, and yet the media completely pummeled the Komen foundation - front page story, front lead of everything - and  they ignored this.

Kind of interesting why, because, on the one hand, they were rooting for Planned Parenthood, and, on the other hand, they were rooting against the Catholic Church. Nothing new there, but quite stark in its contrast.

In a movie opening next week, left-wing activist Woody Harrelson (IMDb page) plays a dirty cop in 1999 Los Angeles whose character impugns the Founding Fathers as “all slave-holders” and warns that if he is fired “I’ll have my own show on Fox News inside one week.”

“I am not a racist,” he declares in a clip from Rampart played on Thursday’s Late Show, arguing: “Now, you want to be mad at someone, try J. Edgar Hoover. He was a racist. Or the Founding Fathers, all slave-owners.” Some Founding Fathers owned slaves, but far short of “all.”

In a scene in the promotional trailer featured on Millennium Entertainment’s site for the film, Harrelson’s dirty police officer character threatens: “If you force me to retire, I’ll have my own show on Fox News inside one week. You’ll be my first guest.” (Video of both scenes below)

That’s likely a take-off on Mark Furman, who appeared as a guest on FNC, but never had his own show.

Audio: MP3 clip

(Harrelson plays McCain campaign manager Steve Schmidt in HBO’s upcoming Game Change movie about the 2008 campaign.)

The plot summary for Rampart as listed on the movie’s official site:

Officer Dave Brown (Harrelson) is a Vietnam vet and a Rampart Precinct cop, dedicated to doing “the people’s dirty work” and asserting his own code of justice, often blurring the lines between right and wrong to maintain his action-hero state of mind.  When he gets caught on tape beating a suspect, he finds himself in a personal and emotional downward spiral as the consequences of his past sins and his refusal to change his ways in light of a department-wide corruption scandal seal his fate.

In a movie opening next week, left-wing activist Woody Harrelson (IMDb page) plays a dirty cop in 1999 Los Angeles whose character impugns the Founding Fathers as “all slave-holders” and warns that if he is fired “I’ll have my own show on Fox News inside one week.”

“I am not a racist,” he declares in a clip from Rampart played on Thursday’s Late Show, arguing: “Now, you want to be mad at someone, try J. Edgar Hoover. He was a racist. Or the Founding Fathers, all slave-owners.” Some Founding Fathers owned slaves, but far short of “all.”

In a scene in the promotional trailer featured on Millennium Entertainment’s site for the film, Harrelson’s dirty police officer character threatens: “If you force me to retire, I’ll have my own show on Fox News inside one week. You’ll be my first guest.” (Video of both scenes below)

That’s likely a take-off on Mark Furman, who appeared as a guest on FNC, but never had his own show.

Audio: MP3 clip

(Harrelson plays McCain campaign manager Steve Schmidt in HBO’s upcoming Game Change movie about the 2008 campaign.)

The plot summary for Rampart as listed on the movie’s official site:

Officer Dave Brown (Harrelson) is a Vietnam vet and a Rampart Precinct cop, dedicated to doing “the people’s dirty work” and asserting his own code of justice, often blurring the lines between right and wrong to maintain his action-hero state of mind.  When he gets caught on tape beating a suspect, he finds himself in a personal and emotional downward spiral as the consequences of his past sins and his refusal to change his ways in light of a department-wide corruption scandal seal his fate.

The victory lap for Soledad O'Brien's interview with Mitt Romney wherein the Republican presidential candidate uttered the now infamous words "I'm not concerned about the very poor" continued on CNN Saturday.

On the network's coverage of the Nevada caucuses, contributor David Gergen practically blushed when seeing O'Brien - "Love having you on the set here tonight" - as he told her, "You’ve been really much in the news. You’ve been sort of driving the conversation" (video follows with transcript and commentary):

DAVID GERGEN: Soledad, it’s good to see you. Love having you on the set here tonight.

SOLEDAD O’BRIEN: Thank you. My pleasure.

GERGEN: And you’ve been really much in the news. You’ve been sort of driving the conversation.

O’BRIEN: Not me, sir, just my interviews.

GERGEN: I understand, I understand. Ha, ha.

This followed O'Brien accepting a high five from CNN contributor Roland Martin Thursday.

Is this the way the supposedly "most trusted name in news" should behave?

Associate Editor’s note: As you are likely aware, since the financial collapse of 2008, charities and non-profit organizations have seen a sharp reduction in donations. Although the environment has improved, contributions are still nowhere near where they were prior to the recession. Unfortunately, the Media Research Center has not been immune. With this in mind, your support has become more important than ever. With a critical election approaching, the liberal media needs to be monitored 24/7. As we have been predicting for months, the press are willing to do anything to get their beloved politicians elected and/or reelected. As such, we need your help to fight this fight. Any contribution, even $10, is greatly appreciated. Please consider a tax-deductible gift to the Media Research Center to help us battle the liberal media. Thank you.

"Barack Obama has not put anyone on food stamps."

So hysterically wrote Barbra Streisand at the Huffington Post Friday evening:

[R]ecently in a debate moderated by Fox News analyst, Juan Williams, Gingrich was questioned about controversial remarks he had made about poverty and African Americans. Gingrich had previously said black Americans should demand jobs, not food stamps. Juan Williams attempted to coax Gingrich into acknowledging that he was playing racial politics. To which Gingrich responded untruthfully that, "more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history." And there ended that portion of the debate with Gingrich receiving deafening applause from the audience, looking strong and principled. What Juan Williams failed to point out in that moment is that Barack Obama has not put anyone on food stamps. The grossly irresponsible and greedy practices of those on Wall Street, which led to the subsequent crash of the housing market, created the most severe recession our country has experienced since the Great Depression (which Obama inherited from George W. Bush when he entered office). These events, along with the continuous deregulation of our financial sector, conspired to make a record number of people eligible for government food assistance. Juan Williams completely missed this important opportunity to reveal the real truth behind Gingrich's racist assertions.

In Streisand's warped view, the unprecedented rise in food stamp recipients the past three years is all Bush's fault.

Yet, job gains the past 23 months are because of Obama's policies:

The truth is, President Obama's leadership on the stimulus, bringing the auto industry back from the brink of collapse, adding nearly 3.7 million private sector jobs in 23 consecutive months of job growth proves that our country is moving in the right direction. Because of the President's policies, our economy is on the road to recovery and it's time we start celebrating the truth.

So let's assume it took thirteen months for Obama's policies to take hold, and that he should only be judged on what's happened since the job market bottomed. Shouldn't that apply to people on food stamps as well?

As the United States Department of Agriculture reports, there were 39.6 million people on food stamps in February 2010. As of November 2011, there were 46.1 million, an increase of 6.5 million.

Are these Bush's fault too? If Obama gets credit for the rise in private sector jobs in the past 23 months, shouldn't he be blamed for the increase in food stamps recipients during the same period?

I doubt such logic would meet with Streisand's acceptance.

On a related noted, the actress that played Funny Girl showed that she still has a sense of humor writing, "Journalists need to stand strong and do their job, which is to challenge candidates immediately when they are purposefully misleading the public."

I guess she doesn't realize that if journalists did this, a Democrat would never be elected to public office anywhere in the country.

That goes doubly for her loves Bill Clinton and Barack Obama who would never have gotten near the White House except as part of a guided tour if America's press did their job.

But thanks for the laugh, Fanny.

Associate Editor’s note: As you are likely aware, since the financial collapse of 2008, charities and non-profit organizations have seen a sharp reduction in donations. Although the environment has improved, contributions are still nowhere near where they were prior to the recession. Unfortunately, the Media Research Center has not been immune. With this in mind, your support has become more important than ever. With a critical election approaching, the liberal media needs to be monitored 24/7. As we have been predicting for months, the press are willing to do anything to get their beloved politicians elected and/or reelected. As such, we need your help to fight this fight. Any contribution, even $10, is greatly appreciated. Please consider a tax-deductible gift to the Media Research Center to help us battle the liberal media. Thank you.

"Barack Obama has not put anyone on food stamps."

So hysterically wrote Barbra Streisand at the Huffington Post Friday evening:

[R]ecently in a debate moderated by Fox News analyst, Juan Williams, Gingrich was questioned about controversial remarks he had made about poverty and African Americans. Gingrich had previously said black Americans should demand jobs, not food stamps. Juan Williams attempted to coax Gingrich into acknowledging that he was playing racial politics. To which Gingrich responded untruthfully that, "more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history." And there ended that portion of the debate with Gingrich receiving deafening applause from the audience, looking strong and principled. What Juan Williams failed to point out in that moment is that Barack Obama has not put anyone on food stamps. The grossly irresponsible and greedy practices of those on Wall Street, which led to the subsequent crash of the housing market, created the most severe recession our country has experienced since the Great Depression (which Obama inherited from George W. Bush when he entered office). These events, along with the continuous deregulation of our financial sector, conspired to make a record number of people eligible for government food assistance. Juan Williams completely missed this important opportunity to reveal the real truth behind Gingrich's racist assertions.

In Streisand's warped view, the unprecedented rise in food stamp recipients the past three years is all Bush's fault.

Yet, job gains the past 23 months are because of Obama's policies:

The truth is, President Obama's leadership on the stimulus, bringing the auto industry back from the brink of collapse, adding nearly 3.7 million private sector jobs in 23 consecutive months of job growth proves that our country is moving in the right direction. Because of the President's policies, our economy is on the road to recovery and it's time we start celebrating the truth.

So let's assume it took thirteen months for Obama's policies to take hold, and that he should only be judged on what's happened since the job market bottomed. Shouldn't that apply to people on food stamps as well?

As the United States Department of Agriculture reports, there were 39.6 million people on food stamps in February 2010. As of November 2011, there were 46.1 million, an increase of 6.5 million.

Are these Bush's fault too? If Obama gets credit for the rise in private sector jobs in the past 23 months, shouldn't he be blamed for the increase in food stamps recipients during the same period?

I doubt such logic would meet with Streisand's acceptance.

On a related noted, the actress that played Funny Girl showed that she still has a sense of humor writing, "Journalists need to stand strong and do their job, which is to challenge candidates immediately when they are purposefully misleading the public."

I guess she doesn't realize that if journalists did this, a Democrat would never be elected to public office anywhere in the country.

That goes doubly for her loves Bill Clinton and Barack Obama who would never have gotten near the White House except as part of a guided tour if America's press did their job.

But thanks for the laugh, Fanny.

Associate Editor’s note: As you are likely aware, since the financial collapse of 2008, charities and non-profit organizations have seen a sharp reduction in donations. Although the environment has improved, contributions are still nowhere near where they were prior to the recession. Unfortunately, the Media Research Center has not been immune. With this in mind, your support has become more important than ever. With a critical election approaching, the liberal media needs to be monitored 24/7. As we have been predicting for months, the press are willing to do anything to get their beloved politicians elected and/or reelected. As such, we need your help to fight this fight. Any contribution, even $10, is greatly appreciated. Please consider a tax-deductible gift to the Media Research Center to help us battle the liberal media. Thank you.

CNBC's Suze Orman bills herself as an "internationally acclaimed personal financial expert."

This "financial expert," appearing on HBO's Real Time Friday, said that in 2012, "We are average [sic] 200,000 jobs a month that are being created...[Obama's] done so much in the past four years I can’t even tell you" (video follows with transcript and commentary):

SUZE ORMAN: I think he not only should run on his record, so he can run on his record, but let’s take a look at this. We have jobs. You can’t do anything without a job. In 2010, we averaged about a million jobs. Okay?

BILL MAHER, HOST: A million jobs?

ORMAN: A million jobs that were created. In 2011, it was 1.8 million jobs. Now, in 2012, we are average 200,000 jobs a month that are being created. So he can run on his record. The jobs are coming up. And he’s done so much in the past four years I can’t even tell you.

Did I mention this came from a self-described "internationally acclaimed personal financial expert?"

I guess this "internationally acclaimed personal financial expert" doesn't know that as we only have one month of data, there is no average yet. You do need at least two pieces of data to have an average.

Also eluding this "internationally acclaimed personal financial expert" is that Obama's only been in office for three years - or does his campaign year count towards him doing "so much?"

With math skills such as these, how'd you like Orman managing your personal finances?

Associate Editor’s note: As you are likely aware, since the financial collapse of 2008, charities and non-profit organizations have seen a sharp reduction in donations. Although the environment has improved, contributions are still nowhere near where they were prior to the recession. Unfortunately, the Media Research Center has not been immune. With this in mind, your support has become more important than ever. With a critical election approaching, the liberal media needs to be monitored 24/7. As we have been predicting for months, the press are willing to do anything to get their beloved politicians elected and/or reelected. As such, we need your help to fight this fight. Any contribution, even $10, is greatly appreciated. Please consider a tax-deductible gift to the Media Research Center to help us battle the liberal media. Thank you.