Media

I haven’t posted yet on the decision by ABC News to use Andrew Breitbart as some sort of analysis for their election night coverage. I didn’t think I really need to say how bad of a decision I thought this was, but now it’s getting beyond what I thought it would.

When ABC decided to clarify that Breitbart would only appear on their webcasts that was expected to temper down the backlash somewhat. Well it didn’t work and now the new firestorm ABC is facing comes from none other than Breitbart himself. From Greg Sargent:

You have to wonder if ABC News is regretting its decision to get within a thousand miles of Andrew Breitbart. The guy is now accusing the network of lying about whether they had tapped him to do on-air election night analysis.

ABC News, in a statement sent my way, adamantly denied Breitbart's latest attack. But it appears he will still have some kind of role with ABC's coverage.

This is worth noting, because it shows how insane it is for any serious news organization to play footsie with this guy. He's a relentless self-promoter who's clearly seizing on this standoff to turn himself into some kind of First Amendment martyr, even if it means dumping all over the organization that originally extended him the invite to participate.

Consider this an open thread. For extra fun, how many hundreds will Fox predict the crowd to be at?

But don’t worry. I’m sure Fox will gladly give him more time on the air:

Veteran journalist Juan Williams was fired from his job as senior news analyst for National Public Radio late Wednesday because of comments he made about Muslims and terrorism on "The O'Reilly Factor" on Fox News Channel.

NPR said in a statement that Williams's remarks--including that he gets "worried" and "nervous" when he sees people dressed in Muslim-style clothing on airplanes--"were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR."

Williams, 56, made the remarks after the show's host, Bill O'Reilly, asked him whether he thought the United States was facing a "Muslim dilemma." "The cold truth is that in the world today jihad, aided and abetted by some Muslim nations, is the biggest threat on the planet," O'Reilly said.

Here’s the video of Williams making his comments on O’Reilly:

A story appearing in the Murdoch owned Wall Street Journal today saying that fast food giant McDonalds is planning on dropping it’s health care coverage for employees because of requirements tied to the new health care bill:

While many restaurants don't offer health coverage, McDonald's provides mini-med plans for workers at 10,500 U.S. locations, most of them franchised. A single worker can pay $14 a week for a plan that caps annual benefits at $2,000, or about $32 a week to get coverage up to $10,000 a year.

Last week, a senior McDonald's official informed the Department of Health and Human Services that the restaurant chain's insurer won't meet a 2011 requirement to spend at least 80% to 85% of its premium revenue on medical care.

But now McDonalds is denying this report:

McDonald's denies reports it's considering dropping health care coverage for some employees in response to a provision of the health care overhaul.

The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday, citing a memo from McDonald's to federal officials, that McDonald's has warned regulators it could drop its plan for some 30,000 workers unless the government waives a new requirement in the health care overhaul.

The company says in a statement Thursday it has been speaking with federal agencies to understand the law.

Just got this in an AP breaking news alert:

SAN DIEGO (AP) Ousted USDA employee Shirley Sherrod says she will sue blogger Andrew Breitbart.

It’s amazing. The big media types all jumped on that ACORN video earlier this year, despite it being edited to be taken totally out of context. Now we this story of Shirley Sherrod, someone who has lost their job due to the journalistic malpractice of one Andrew Breitbart.

Over at the San Francisco Chronicle, a strong case is made to bring Breitbart to justice over this:

While he says he intended to harm the NAACP, he picked Shirley Sherrod to do it. She did not ask for this. Breitbart altered a video to twist her words.

Andrew Breitbart may be a target for the U.S. Department of Justice' Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section ("CCIPS") which is in the Criminal Division. The website, which was forwarded to this blogger by the DOJ on another issue, covers various types of crimes that involve a computer.

If Breitbart altered the video of Shirley Sherrod to make it look like she was making a statement he then called racist, he's certainly guilty of defamation of character against Shirley Sherrod.

Breitbart may also be guilty of Internet harassment. He certainly should be made a high-profile example to discourage others from these uses of the computer and The Internet to harass a person. Enough is enough.

There have been cases against internet commenters, let alone the publisher of an internet “news” site.

If in the “new media” age we want to be treated the same as traditional media, then all bloggers should get behind any legal action against Andrew Breitbart. He hurts the blogosphere as a whole by his intentional lies and smears published on his sites. Sure the left and right blogosphere disagree and they must to thrive, but to resort to such lying in order to advance an agenda and your own site; well that is unacceptable no matter if you are the most liberal or conservative of blogger.

I meant to hit this story yesterday. It also exemplifies the problems I’ve posted about in the past when it comes to MSNBC.

Markos and Joe Scarborough got into a little Twitter back and forth a couple of months ago:

JoeNBC: The Sestak story is as unbelievable a cover story as Nixon throwing little Checkers under the bus. A farce on it's face. Luckily for the White House, the media has been negligent on this story since Day 1. The press will let this laughable story slide.

markos: Like story of a certain dead intern. RT @JoeNBC: Luckily for the White House, the media has been negligent on this story since Day 1.

Markos: But if you want to talk about bullshit "scandals", @JoeNBC, there's this one about Joe Sestak and the White House you might've heard of.

JoeNBC: @markos Unbelievable. You have a long history of spreading lies suggesting I am a murderer. This is the 3rd or 4th time by my count.

Markos: @JoeNBC, I've never suggested you're a murderer. I've noted media hypocrisy in going after Gary Condit. But he was Dem. You aren't.

JoeNBC: Anyone in media who interviews @markos, know that you're extending your credibility to someone who regularly suggests that I'm a murderer.

Markos: A bit touchy, @JoeNBC? Links for where I accuse you of being a murderer please.

Joe Scarborough, a person of such thin skin that he will block anyone that disagrees with him on Twitter, didn’t like that. Like a child being picked on in school, Joe ran and told the teacher principal, or in this case, the president of MSNBC. That resulted in this email being sent to Markos:

Markos,

Well this should be an interesting combination:

Former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer and 2010 Pulitzer Prize winning columnist Kathleen Parker will co-host a new hour long CNN primetime news program starting in the fall as the nation prepares for the 2010 midterm election, the network announced Wednesday morning.

The yet-to-be-named “roundtable discussion” program will air at 8 p.m. ET replacing Campbell Brown.

CNN isn't hiding their intentions either:

“Other cable news channels force-feed viewers one narrow, predictable point of view; in contrast, CNN will be offering a lively roundup of all the best ideas – presented by two of the most intelligent and outspoken figures in the country,” Jon Klein, president of CNN/U.S., said in a statement released by the network. “Eliot and Kathleen are beholden to no vested interest – in fact, quite the opposite: they are renowned for taking on the most powerful targets and most important causes.”

Color me crazy, but this could just work out. People have been force to one side or the other at the 8pm hour. I'm one of those people who love hearing both sides, and this show should give us a chance at that.

I know I'll give it a chance.

There is one big question that remains. Now that MSNBC will have a new show on at the 10pm hour, hosted by Lawrence O'Donnell, will this new CNN show end up hurting Olbermann? As it is now people could watch the CNN show then catch Olbermann at 10. Once O'Donnell's show starts, then people would have to wait until 11pm to catch the Olbermann rerun, and that is local news time for a lot of people.