134 posts tagged media
134 posts tagged media
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?
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.
In the world of our nation’s top newspapers, female editors are sparse.
Bill Clinton takes on the media.
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.
It’s much easier to get away with being completely and utterly unreasonable when the media won’t call you out on it.
The Koch brothers want to make your newspaper their megaphone.
"Why did a Philadelphia trial that conservatives now insist deserves ongoing, front-page national press coverage manage to interest so few right-leaning journalists for so long? Why did the conservative press get caught in the embarrassing position where members complained about a Gosnell "media blackout" when conservative outlets had apparently participated in the blackout? (Note that as of today, Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post and still have not covered the trial as a news story and Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal has published just a single report.)
I think the simple answer is that the Gosnell story did not involve President Obama, therefore it didn’t sustain the attention of the far-right press, which seems fully committed to producing content that only revolves around attacking the president or ginning up phony outrage about his every action.”
Who’s to blame for public ignorance on the shrinking federal deficit? We’ve got an idea.
Who’s talking about the sequester in media? Everyone except actual economists.