Latest Tweet

178
pewinternet:

A new Pew Research Center analysis of media coverage of the event and subsequent protests finds that the story emerged on Twitter before cable, but the trajectory of attention quickly rose in tandem, peaking on both mediums the day after two journalists were arrested and protests turned more violent.
Also of note:
MSNBC devoted far more time to the story than its top competitors Fox News and CNN
The Twitter conversation about Ferguson popped much more quickly than the conversation about Trayvon Martin
Read more
pewinternet:

A new Pew Research Center analysis of media coverage of the event and subsequent protests finds that the story emerged on Twitter before cable, but the trajectory of attention quickly rose in tandem, peaking on both mediums the day after two journalists were arrested and protests turned more violent.
Also of note:
MSNBC devoted far more time to the story than its top competitors Fox News and CNN
The Twitter conversation about Ferguson popped much more quickly than the conversation about Trayvon Martin
Read more

pewinternet:

A new Pew Research Center analysis of media coverage of the event and subsequent protests finds that the story emerged on Twitter before cable, but the trajectory of attention quickly rose in tandem, peaking on both mediums the day after two journalists were arrested and protests turned more violent.

Also of note:

  • MSNBC devoted far more time to the story than its top competitors Fox News and CNN
  • The Twitter conversation about Ferguson popped much more quickly than the conversation about Trayvon Martin

Read more

239
The prospect of Rupert Murdoch buying Time Warner presented real harms to the U.S. and global media landscape. It would have given him control of 40% of the cable market and 30% of the movie market. No one should hold that much influence but Murdoch, in particular, has demonstrated that he is far too irresponsible for that amount of power. Today’s decision was a victory for the thousands of people who signed our petition urging shareholders to oppose the sale as well as media consumers across the country.
Angelo Carusone, Media Matters’ Executive Vice President, on Rupert Murdoch’s withdrawal of his bid for Time Warner. 
58
One of the main goals of competition in the media space is to preserve diversity of opinion … Diversity of ownership, diversity of opinion, is so vitally important to this democracy.

Pulitzer Prize-Winning columnist James Stewart scrutinizes Rupert Murdoch’s plan to take over Time Warner. 

"We’re getting to a pretty serious point of concentrated ownership in the media." 

(Source: mediamatters.org)

145
It’s no secret that Rupert uses his media outlets for political reasons. And he is not neutral. And he, you know, his news outlets do things that are unconscionable. And it just cannot happen that he becomes that much of a dominant force in American media.

Jane Fonda takes on the possibility of Rupert Murdoch taking over 40% of the cable market, as 21st Century Fox tries to buy out Time Warner.

Raise your voice: Tell shareholders not to sell Time Warner to Murdoch.

20
Will media outlets keep falling for Issa’s selectively-leaked emails? 
Flashback, June 2013:

Issa selectively leaked partial transcripts of interviews with IRS employees to insinuate that IRS officials in Washington, D.C. coordinated inappropriate targeting of conservative groups. The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal ran with Issa’s selective leak.

Flashback, November 2013:

Issa selectively leaked testimony he claimed showed that a project manager overseeing construction of the Obamacare exchange website was “kept in the dark” about security issues related to the site’s launch. Media outlets including CBS, Fox News, and The New York Times, ran with the story, only to get burned when it became clear that the security issue Issa was pointing to was unrelated to the site’s launch but instead connected to part of the site that wasn’t scheduled to be online for months

Flashback, March 2014:

Issa leaked evidence to Fox News, claiming it implicated the White House in the “political targeting” of nonprofit groups. A full reading of the email chain, which was obtained by Media Matters, actually showed that IRS officials specifically made clear that their intention was “not to look for political activity.”

Now fast-forward to this week, when Issa released alleged “hard evidence” that Lois Lerner is involved in a cover-up (see the above graphic):   

Within hours of House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) selectively leaking emails from one of his investigations, the right-wing media is dutifully claiming that he had offered evidence of a cover-up in the controversy over IRS scrutiny of nonprofit groups.

So here’s the question: Will legitimate media outlets once again get duped by Issa’s selective leaks? WSJ and Fox already did, but they don’t fall into the “legitimate” category, so that kind of gullibility (or deception) is only to be expected.  Will media outlets keep falling for Issa’s selectively-leaked emails? 
Flashback, June 2013:

Issa selectively leaked partial transcripts of interviews with IRS employees to insinuate that IRS officials in Washington, D.C. coordinated inappropriate targeting of conservative groups. The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal ran with Issa’s selective leak.

Flashback, November 2013:

Issa selectively leaked testimony he claimed showed that a project manager overseeing construction of the Obamacare exchange website was “kept in the dark” about security issues related to the site’s launch. Media outlets including CBS, Fox News, and The New York Times, ran with the story, only to get burned when it became clear that the security issue Issa was pointing to was unrelated to the site’s launch but instead connected to part of the site that wasn’t scheduled to be online for months

Flashback, March 2014:

Issa leaked evidence to Fox News, claiming it implicated the White House in the “political targeting” of nonprofit groups. A full reading of the email chain, which was obtained by Media Matters, actually showed that IRS officials specifically made clear that their intention was “not to look for political activity.”

Now fast-forward to this week, when Issa released alleged “hard evidence” that Lois Lerner is involved in a cover-up (see the above graphic):   

Within hours of House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) selectively leaking emails from one of his investigations, the right-wing media is dutifully claiming that he had offered evidence of a cover-up in the controversy over IRS scrutiny of nonprofit groups.

So here’s the question: Will legitimate media outlets once again get duped by Issa’s selective leaks? WSJ and Fox already did, but they don’t fall into the “legitimate” category, so that kind of gullibility (or deception) is only to be expected. 

Will media outlets keep falling for Issa’s selectively-leaked emails? 

Flashback, June 2013:

Issa selectively leaked partial transcripts of interviews with IRS employees to insinuate that IRS officials in Washington, D.C. coordinated inappropriate targeting of conservative groups. The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal ran with Issa’s selective leak.

Flashback, November 2013:

Issa selectively leaked testimony he claimed showed that a project manager overseeing construction of the Obamacare exchange website was “kept in the dark” about security issues related to the site’s launch. Media outlets including CBS, Fox News, and The New York Times, ran with the story, only to get burned when it became clear that the security issue Issa was pointing to was unrelated to the site’s launch but instead connected to part of the site that wasn’t scheduled to be online for months

Flashback, March 2014:

Issa leaked evidence to Fox News, claiming it implicated the White House in the “political targeting” of nonprofit groups. A full reading of the email chain, which was obtained by Media Matters, actually showed that IRS officials specifically made clear that their intention was “not to look for political activity.”

Now fast-forward to this week, when Issa released alleged “hard evidence” that Lois Lerner is involved in a cover-up (see the above graphic):   

Within hours of House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) selectively leaking emails from one of his investigations, the right-wing media is dutifully claiming that he had offered evidence of a cover-up in the controversy over IRS scrutiny of nonprofit groups.

So here’s the question: Will legitimate media outlets once again get duped by Issa’s selective leaks? WSJ and Fox already did, but they don’t fall into the “legitimate” category, so that kind of gullibility (or deception) is only to be expected. 

The CDC just endorsed this “miracle drug” that’s been decades in the making. So where’s the media on this? 
From Equality Matters: 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) ringing endorsement last week of Truvada, the “miracle drug” that blocks HIV infection, presents news outlets with a prime opportunity to cover an historic development in the three-decade struggle against HIV/AIDS. So far, however, media organizations have largely ignored the story.
Truvada is a 10-year-old pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) treatment combining two different antiviral drugs. Taken daily, it prevents infection of HIV. Even though the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the drug back in July 2012, it hasn’t exactly caught on; a September 2013 report by Gilead Sciences found that only 1,774 people had filled Truvada prescriptions from January 2011 through March 2013. Nearly half of users were women, even though gay men are the demographic group most at risk for HIV/AIDS.
Part of the reason Truvada has been slow to gain steam is, undoubtedly, the stigma attached to those who use it. Gay men who use the drug have been derided as “Truvada Whores,” a term many users have sought to reclaim. 

Only one major broadcast network (ABC) and two major newspapers (The New York Times and The Washington Post) have reported on the CDC’s endorsement of this groundbreaking medical development. 

The CDC just endorsed this “miracle drug” that’s been decades in the making. So where’s the media on this? 

From Equality Matters: 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) ringing endorsement last week of Truvada, the “miracle drug” that blocks HIV infection, presents news outlets with a prime opportunity to cover an historic development in the three-decade struggle against HIV/AIDS. So far, however, media organizations have largely ignored the story.

Truvada is a 10-year-old pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) treatment combining two different antiviral drugs. Taken daily, it prevents infection of HIV. Even though the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the drug back in July 2012, it hasn’t exactly caught on; a September 2013 report by Gilead Sciences found that only 1,774 people had filled Truvada prescriptions from January 2011 through March 2013. Nearly half of users were women, even though gay men are the demographic group most at risk for HIV/AIDS.

Part of the reason Truvada has been slow to gain steam is, undoubtedly, the stigma attached to those who use it. Gay men who use the drug have been derided as “Truvada Whores,” a term many users have sought to reclaim

Only one major broadcast network (ABC) and two major newspapers (The New York Times and The Washington Post) have reported on the CDC’s endorsement of this groundbreaking medical development. 

208
Today CBS commented on their 60 Minutes report on Benghazi. But instead of addressing the fact that their “witness” admitted to lying about where he was during the attack after the story aired, CBS said they were “confident” he gave an “accurate” account of that night.This is not acceptable. Journalists agree, CBS needs to correct their 60 Minutes story after their source was discredited. Take action by signing our letter to CBS executives here.

Today CBS commented on their 60 Minutes report on Benghazi. But instead of addressing the fact that their “witness” admitted to lying about where he was during the attack after the story aired, CBS said they were “confident” he gave an “accurate” account of that night.

This is not acceptable. Journalists agree, CBS needs to correct their 60 Minutes story after their source was discredited. Take action by signing our letter to CBS executives here.