News outlets across the country have latched on to a survey that suggests TEA party supporters tend to be resentful toward minorities. Newsweek published two different pieces on the same item, while a handful of newspapers also gleefully relayed the findings.

There are just a few problems. First, the survey was conducted by a University of Washington professor bent on proving racism exists against President Obama. Second, his entire sample of white TEA party supporters comprised exactly 117 people. Finally, many of the questions had nothing to do with racial resentment.

But we can’t have facts getting in the way of a media narrative.

As soon as the survey was released April 7, news outlets were all over it pushing the survey results as empirical evidence, and many not even pretending to sound neutral on the subject. The leader of the study, Political Science professor Christopher Parker, was not asked about his own political leanings or his apparent pre-occupation with finding racism afoot.

First up to bat was the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, whose blog writer Scott Sunde promoted the survey without question on April 8:

A University of Washington survey has found that Southerners and conservatives are more likely to support the Tea Party.

What’s more, the director of the survey says his data show that the Tea Party might also be about race. Those who think the government has done too much to help African Americans are 36 more likely to support the Tea Party.

"While it’s clear that the Tea Party in one sense about limited government, it’s also clear from the data that people who want limited government don’t want certain services for certain kinds of people. Those services include health care," said Christopher Parker, the assistant professor of political science at the UW who directed the survey.

See the sleight of hand there? If someone opposes government-funded "services" such as healthcare, it’s obviously because they don’t want "certain people" to receive those services.

Yet Sunde didn’t challenge that statement or bring up anyone on the right to contradict it. Even worse, Sunde didn’t link to the data for readers to see it for themselves. Parker’s conclusions were presented as fact with no effort to do vetting of any kind.

Perhaps if Sunde had done some investigating, he’d have noticed that Parker was involved in an almost identical study in 2008. Back then, Parker accused Republicans of "thinly veiled allusions to Obama’s race" and insisted that "race was a consistent narrative used by Obama’s opponents."

What did Parker and his colleagues cite as examples of this? Code words, of course:

We begin this article by proposing that although Obama ultimately won, we cannot reject that race-and in particular racism-played a significant role in the outcome. During the campaign, race was a consistent narrative used by Obama’s opponents. His primary opponents, particularly Hillary Clinton, and Republicans in the general election used racial references to attack the Illinois senator, citing him for his perceived inability to connect to "real working Americans" ~Bazinet and McAuliff, 2008; Canellos 2008; MacGillis 2008. A Republican in Georgia used the term uppity to describe Obama, a clear racial reference ~Los Angeles Times 2008. Even the infamous "Joe the Plumber" charged Obama with seeking to redistribute wealth, raising age-old stereotypes of African Americans as radical, welfare dependent, and not as hardworking as the White working class. In short, he accused Obama of seeking to take money from hardworking "real Americans" to give it to "those people" ~Rohter 2008.

So you see, calling someone uppity is a "clear" racial slur. Saying that someone doesn’t understand "real working Americans" is some kind of code for saying they don’t understand white people. Oh, and calling attention to President Obama’s own self-proclaimed plan of wealth distribution means you think black people are lazy.

With such a lax definition of racism, it’s no wonder Parker sees it everywhere.

A year later, Parker is back with a brand new study that relies on the same kind of fast-and-loose method to interpreting Obama’s critics.

The day after the Seattle PI piece ran, Newsweek’s Arian Campo-Flores picked up the meme for a post at The Gaggle blog. Much like Sunde, Campo-Flores accepted the results at face value and gave Parker a platform to spout more accusations:

So a new poll by researchers at the University of Washington caught my eye. The findings are sure to fan the flames further. "People who approve of the Tea Party, more than those who don’t approve, have more racist attitudes," says Christopher Parker, a University of Washington professor who directed the survey. "And not only that, but more homophobic and xenophobic attitudes." For instance,  respondents were asked whether they agreed with various characterizations of different racial groups. Only 35 percent of those who strongly approve of the tea party agreed that blacks are hardworking, compared with 55 percent of those who strongly disapprove of the tea party. On whether blacks were intelligent, 45 percent of the tea-party supporters agreed, compared with 59 percent of the tea-party opponents. And on the issue of whether blacks were trustworthy, 41 percent of the tea-party supporters agreed, compared with 57 percent of the tea-party opponents.

35% of the white TEA supporters surveyed? Since there were 117 of them asked, that was a grand total of 41 people. Not even kidding. And the 55% of white disapprovers? Since only 66 of them participated, that was 36 people.

Parker is attempting to prove that white TEA supporters are more prone to see blacks as lazy – based on the difference between 41 and 36.

That’s what Newsweek considered  empirical evidence.

This NBer was curious to see what else respondents were asked, and to Newsweek’s credit there were links this time. However, the survey results offered as proof revealed some interesting methods of questioning. Observe a few of the questions asked of TEA party supporters, taken directly from Newsweek’s links:

• Irish, Italians, Jewish, and many other minorities overcame prejudice and worked their way up. Blacks should do the same without special favors. (Agree)
• Generations of slavery and discrimination have created conditions that make it difficult for blacks to work their way out of the lower class. (Disagree)
• Over the past few years blacks have gotten less than they deserve. (Disagree)
• It’s really a matter of some people not trying hard enough; if blacks would only try harder they could be just as well off as whites. (Agree)

TEA party sympathizers think everyone should work hard and not expect special favors based on race! Scandalous!

But Campo-Flores was convinced. The piece ended with him quipping, "The University of Washington study, however, suggests that in terms of their views, the tea partiers aren’t quite so mainstream after all."

Apparently in the mind of a Newsweek writer, mainstream America wants "special favors" for certain races not afforded to others, and if you disagree you are obviously racist.

On April 21, Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts Jr. joined in the choir. Pitts penned an op-ed that accused conservatives of "yearning for an America that’s gone" – that is, the good old days when minorities were persecuted.

Pitts wasn’t interested in dissecting the scientific nature of the survey; indeed, he dismissed all possible skepticism by saying "some of us needed no polling data to know this." What followed was a screed against white conservatives who "discovered" an aversion to socialism only after an African-American got elected:

After all, if the tea partiers were truly only concerned about so-called “tyranny,” they’d have started howling when President Bush claimed he need not be bound by laws with which he disagreed.

If they were truly only worried about a “socialist” takeover of private industry, they’d have yelped when he took over troubled financial institutions.

If they were truly only anxious about the budget, they’ve have hollered when he spent a $128 billion surplus into a $407 billion deficit.

If they were truly outraged over their income taxes, they’d have screamed at Bush first, given that their taxes are the same as when he was in office.

Of course Pitts didn’t care that the legendary battle cry "kill the bill" was used under the Bush administration precisely when conservatives were busy yelping about the bailout.

No no, that simply cannot be, or it would contradict the narrative of racism.

Once again, Parker’s study was peddled as matter-of-fact scientific data that only served to prove what the media already knew.

But Newsweek wasn’t yet satisfied with the amount of coverage given to the study. On Monday, Campo-Flores returned to write a brand new piece about the same old survey, this time published directly on Newsweek’s front page as website exclusive:

Ever since the Tea Party phenomenon gathered steam last spring, it has been plagued by charges of racism. Placards at rallies have depicted President Barack Obama as a witch doctor, denounced his supposed plans for "white slavery," and likened Congress to a slave owner and the taxpayer to a "n—-r." Opponents have seized on these examples as proof that Tea Partiers are angry white folks who can’t abide having a black president. Supporters, on the other hand, claim that the hateful signs are the work of a small fringe and that they unfairly malign a movement that simply seeks to rein in big government. In the absence of empirical evidence to support either characterization, the debate has essentially deadlocked.

Until now, that is. A new survey by the University of Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race & Sexuality offers fresh insight into the racial attitudes of Tea Party sympathizers.

It is absolutely astounding that Campo-Flores called it a new survey. There was no mention of his own prior blog post, no admission the survey had been making rounds in the media for weeks. All of the information was presented as some fresh discovery – and this time Campo-Flores parroted the points made in the Miami Herald:

If Tea Party supporters are doing relatively fine, what are they so riled up about? These studies suggest that, at least in part, it’s race. The country that the Tea Partiers grew up in is irrevocably changing. Last month, new demographic data showed that minority births are on the verge of outpacing white births. By 2050, Hispanics are expected to account for more than a quarter of the American population. The Tea Partiers "feel a loss … like their status has been diminished," says David Bositis of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, which examines issues of race. "If you listen to [their] language, it’s always about ‘taking our country back.’ But it’s really not taking the country back as is. It’s taking the country back"-as in time.

Bositis finds the movement’s arguments about reckless federal spending unpersuasive. Why, he asks, weren’t they up in arms when President George W. Bush launched two costly wars and created a new unfunded mandate with his Medicare prescription-drug plan? Why didn’t they take to the streets when he converted a surplus into a massive deficit? "I don’t like to be in a position where I’m characterizing people as being racially biased," says Bositis. "But when the shoe fits, what do you do?" Given modern societal norms, "they know they can’t use any overtly racist language," he contends. "So they use coded language"-questioning the patriotism of the president or complaining about "socialist" schemes to redistribute wealth.

That sounds almost verbatim like the points Leonard Pitts Jr. forwarded on April 21. Strange how none of that came up in Campo-Flores’s first piece or in the Seattle PI just a few weeks before. As soon as Pitts found a way to advance the ball, that became the new angle for the survey.

Add it all up, and this is a classic example of how the media blatantly promote a story that fits their own agenda with little to no regard about the truth.

As Leonard Pitts Jr. succinctly admitted, when it comes to bashing TEA parties, no proof is really necessary anyway.

On Tuesday’s Larry King Live on CNN, after guest Michael Moore joked about there being possibly 100 million Sarah Palin fans in America who "want to, you know, shoot moose from a helicopter or whatever else that they think that’s cool that she does," King questioned whether there are really 100 million people who approve of moose hunting and then joked, "I think that there’s 100 million moose who’d like to shoot up to the helicopter."

Earlier in the same show, as the conversation focused on the new law cracking down on illegal immigration in Arizona, after making a Nazi reference by joking that the measures remind him of Hogan’s Heroes, he ended up charging that a "bunch of bigots in the Republican Party of Arizona" are to blame for the law. Moore: "I think it’s the result of a bunch of bigots in the Republican Party of Arizona. That’s, that’s what it’s the result of. And it’s sad that they’re behaving that way and it makes the rest of us look bad as Americans."

Below is a transcript of relevant portions of the Tuesday, April 27, Larry King Live on CNN, with critical portions in bold:

LARRY KING: The attorney general, Eric Holder, says the federal government may challenge Arizona’s immigration law. What do you make of this story?

MICHAEL MOORE: Good. I don’t understand Arizona. I mean, I didn’t think it would be possible for them to embarrass themselves more than they did 20 or so years ago when they were the only state that wouldn’t have Martin Luther King Day. This law of theirs, it’s, I don’t know what to say. It’s kind of like if, I don’t know if you’ve read the language. My position usually is, is any time something sounds like dialogue from Hogan’s Heroes, it shouldn’t become law. I mean this is really, they could just go up to anybody who looks Hispanic in a state that’s one-third Hispanic and demand papers from them, this is not the American way. And I can’t believe it will hold up constitutionally.

KING: Do you think they, do you agree that they have a problem? That they’re trying to deal with a problem? You don’t think they’re a fascist state, do you?

MOORE: I don’t, well, I don’t know. What is the problem, really? I mean, most of these immigrants who come here work very hard. They don’t-

KING: They should have come legally.

MOORE: And they, no, even the illegal immigrants, they work very hard. They do the jobs Americans don’t want to do. Frankly, I, I think, I mean, personally, that, if they, any illegal immigrant they catch in Arizona, they should let him keep doing his job because he’s adding to the economy. For every one they catch, they should one Goldman Sachs guy to Mexico. That’s, that’s how I would try restructuring the law.

KING: Will an economic boycott, and some people are trying it in San Francisco, trying to economically boycott Arizona, like telling people not to go there. Boycotts can be effective, but they can also hurt the people they’re trying to help.

MOORE: That’s true. But I think, I think there was a similar boycott on the Martin Luther King Day. And they eventually came to their senses. So, yes, those boycotts do work.

KING: Would you boycott Arizona?

MOORE: I have family in-

KING: Would you not stay in a hotel there?

MOORE: Yeah, probably, yeah, I mean I have family-

KING: If you had a scheduled vacation there next week?

MOORE: I wouldn’t vacation there. But I go to their film festivals. I have family there. My girlfriend from kindergarten lives there. Does that count? I don’t know. It’s a wonderful state. There’s great people there.

…

KING: Are you surprised at John McCain’s change? He was so in line with Bush’s kind of progressive immigration status.

MOORE: I think that there’s a general feeling of sadness about John McCain amongst all kinds of people. People used to think very highly of him, people who maybe disagreed with him, but respected him. And I, you know, you always hate to see somebody in the final stage of their career do crazy things. I mean that’s-

KING: This was Tweeted to "King’s Things."

MOORE: Yeah.

KING: We have people Tweet to us.

MOORE: Okay, yeah.

KING: Ask Michael if he thinks the new Arizona law is the result of the federal government failing to reform immigration policy.

MOORE: No, I think it’s the result of a bunch of bigots in the Republican Party of Arizona. That’s, that’s what it’s the result of. And it’s sad that they’re behaving that way and it makes the rest of us look bad as Americans. And they should start acting like Americans and not, not do that. I guess that’s the simple answer.

KING: Did you ever consider immigration as a documentary?

MOORE: You know, I’ve thought a lot about it, mainly because, Larry, we are all immigrants. We are all the children or grandchildren-

KING: Fellow immigrants, right.

MOORE: Unless you’re an African-American or a Native-American, everybody else came essentially by choice as an immigrant. And we are the beneficiaries of what our forefathers and mothers did.

KING: Correct.

MOORE: And we dishonor them, we dishonor them by treating the new immigrants so poorly. We’re a big country, Larry. There’s lots of room for people. If you don’t believe that, drive across Kansas some day.

KING: All right. You have often fought for protest as the American way — for standing up for what you feel. What do you think of the Tea Party?

MOORE: I think it’s been given a lot more attention than it deserves. It’s not really that big of a movement. It doesn’t have that much support.

KING: But they’re doing what Michael Moore would stand up for.

MOORE: Well, no, actually, they’re not. I mean the irony of their, you know, populist movement against, you know, the bailout and the banks and all that, here’s my question. And if you, anybody in the control room, if you have some tape, you can roll it. Show me one Tea Party demonstration that’s taken place on Wall Street or in front of a local bank or any financial institution. If they’re really so upset about that, why aren’t they demonstrating there? Instead, what they’re doing, they’re running around with placards of Obama with a Hitler mustache on him. It’s a, it’s a nutty, nutty movement. I, here’s what, here’s what I’d like to see. I’m going to check this out, too. On Thursday of this week, a bunch of unions across the country have called for a massive rally and march on Wall Street, on this Thursday afternoon. They’re going to meet at City Hall Park and then they’re going to march down to Wall Street. I’d like to see if that gets as much attention as the 600, 1,200 people Tea Party gatherings have received around the country.

KING: I didn’t know that. This is this Thursday?

MOORE: You see, you didn’t know that. It’s this Thursday. These are major U.S. unions that represent millions of American workers. They’re going to be marching on Wall Street.

KING: What are they calling it?

MOORE: They’re calling it Showdown on Wall Street.

KING: We’ll ask Michael about Sarah Palin next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: … Sarah Palin, why is she so polarizing?

MOORE: Well, first of all, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with her standing up for what she believes in. And a lot of people like what she believes in. And, fortunately, the majority of the country doesn’t like what she believes in.

KING: How do you explain the phenomenon?

MOORE: Because we’re a big country. If you got 309 million people, it’s very possible that there’s a good 100 million that are going to want to, you know, shoot moose from a helicopter or whatever else that they think that’s cool that she does.

KING: You think 100 million people want to shoot moose from a-?

MOORE: I think they find that pretty hot that she’s doing that.

KING: I think that there’s 100 million moose who’d like to shoot up to the helicopter.

MOORE: Well, no, see, but being from Michigan, I’ve always advocated that when deer season comes, it would be a much fairer fight if we armed the deer. And then let’s just see how many hunters want to-

KING: You want a fair fight?

MOORE: I want a fair fight between the hunters and the deer.

One laudable practice at National Public Radio is reading listener reactions on the air. On Monday night’s All Things Considered newscast, they noted several listeners objected to NPR media reporter David Folkenflik stating Fox offered "voracious conservatism" while MSNBC merely offered "leftward tilt." Anchor Michelle Norris relayed:

The Pew Research Center last year found that public trust in the media was at an historic low because of those perceived slants. Well, several listeners thought our story had a bit of a slant. Stan Henney of Longmont, Colorado, writes: The reporter described Fox News as voraciously conservative, and MSNBC as tilting to the left. Both are subjective, not objective descriptions. I personally think that while some Fox personalities can be aggressive, MSNBC does a lot more than just tilt.

He goes on to say: If you folks were truly objective, you might have simply said that Fox is conservative and MSNBC is liberal, a clear fact, and left it to your listeners to insert their own degree of embellishment.

Anchor Melissa Block offered another letter with that view, which suggests they received a significant amount of comment of this kind:

Allen Maranoff of Alexandria, Virginia, agrees. He writes: Stating that MSNBC has a tilt is absurd. The leftfield bombasts, including Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow and the ever-screaming Keith Olbermann, do not have a tilt. They are committed ideologues of the worst kind.

Folkenflik’s story, ironically, was discussing public distrust of the media, and how in Atlanta, they’re struggling to provide consumers with more balanced news. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has tried to tone down its editorials, and then there was CNN:

FOLKENFLIK: Over at CNN, executives are also trying to maintain a non-ideological course. In its case: Between FOX News’ voracious conservatism and MSNBC’s leftward tilt. Vice President Richard Griffiths is a senior editor at CNN’s Atlanta headquarters.

Mr. RICHARD GRIFFITHS (Vice President; Senior Editor, CNN Atlanta Headquarters): Trust is the number one thing we’re thinking about. Have we done right by the viewers to dig down and ask the right questions? Have we got the various different nuances to the story?

FOLKENFLIK: Such attention to nuance may not convince viewers. While officials say they have been able to maintain six straight years of robust profits, the cable network’s ratings are eroding. And considerably more Democrats than Republicans trust CNN. But Griffiths says honest reporting is more than a slogan at CNN.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: We’re not going to throw that away simply for higher ratings or more viewers on the Web.

The story itself offered conservative complaints about liberal bias, as well as a bow for the Atlanta Progressive News arguing there’s not enough liberal bias.

But Folkenflik does seem to have an urge to present Fox News in the negative. On Monday’s Morning Edition, he discussed how Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal offered "Fox News-like rancor" in its battle with the New York Times:

In the meantime, there’s been a lot of head games. Robert Thompson, the Journal’s editor, has accused the Times of being unprincipled. And even slapped a picture of Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger in a collage of faces to illustrate a story about men’s faces appealing to women because perhaps they were effeminate.

There’s a lot of politicking going on. There’s a lot of almost Fox News-like rancor there.

Folkenflik’s more colorful on his Twitter account:

NYT Prez Heekin-Canedy says WSJ mind games "just another flavor" of abuse from sister co Fox News, on NPR

Abuse? In a quote that made the Web summary of the story, but wasn’t on the radio, New York Times president Scott Heekin-Canedy complained:

"We’ve been vilified, unjustly so and often factually incorrectly, most often factually incorrectly, by Fox News," Heekin-Canedy told NPR. "This is just another flavor of that, I’d say."

Heekin-Canedy might also find it unfair to find himself described as a Naderite. But it fits.

Someone just let 12 million cats out of the bag . . .

A lefty pundit has admitted what the Obama admin likely thinks but dare not say: that he would like to grant citizenship to all 12 million illegal immigrants in the USA.

Chris Hayes of The Nation made his candid comment during an exchange with Pat Buchanan about the Arizona immigration law on today’s Morning Joe.

PAT BUCHANAN: Why would 70% of Arizonans–do you think they’re bad people?–why would 70% support this law?

CHRIS HAYES: No. Of course not. Look, I don’t think anything.

BUCHANAN: What’s your answer to solving it?

HAYES: My answer to solving it is comprehensive immigration reform.  There are three planks to it that everybody talks about –

BUCHANAN: Make ‘em all citizens?

HAYES: Yeah. Yes!

BUCHANAN: You’re going to get 20 million more.

HAYES: No. I actually think this is true: I think there is an equilibrium level of inflow to the country, and I think that has to do with our labor markets.

. . .

JOE SCARBOROUGH: I want to respond to a point that you made, that if we wave a wand and grant amnesty to 12 million illegal immigrants, that that’s going to create equilibrium.  That’s what Ronald Reagan thought in the mid-1980s and all it did after Reagan granted amnesty to, what?, five million –

BUCHANAN: Three million.

SCARBOROUGH: Three million illegal immigrants.  All it did was send a message to a lot of people in Mexico: come on up. There’s not going to be any problem with it.

So now we know what "comprehensive immigraton reform" is really about.  Will the MSM take notice of Hayes’ impolitic bout of candor?

Note: as Noel Sheppard noted, Scarborough yesterday called the Arizona law "un-American."  At the top of today’s show, a somewhat abashed Joe mentioned that he had received many emails telling him it was easy to take his position while sitting up in New York, far from the problems on the southern border.

On Tuesday’s NBC Nightly News, anchor Brian Williams characterized as "highly restrictive" two abortion related laws recently passed by the Oklahoma state legislature over the Democratic governor’s veto. Neither of the measures would apparently ban abortion at any stage of pregnancy, as one law requires that an ultrasound of the unborn baby be performed and shown to a pregnant woman before an abortion could take place. On the April 27 show, Williams related: 

In Oklahoma tonight, two highly restrictive abortion measures are now law. One requires women to undergo an ultrasound and listen to a detailed description of the fetus before getting an abortion. The second protects doctors from malpractice suits if they choose not to inform the parents of an unborn child that the fetus has birth defects. The governor had vetoed both measures last week, but today the legislature had enough votes to override those vetoes by the governor.

A new poll found almost three quarters of the nation disagreed with Comedy Central’s decision to censor last week’s two-part episode of the hit cartoon series "South Park."

As NewsBusters reported last Thursday, the network caved to pressure from a radical Muslim group to not make references to the prophet Muhammed. 

According to pollster John Zogby, a large bipartisan swath of Americans believe this was the wrong decision:

Interesting thing for Democrats and Republicans to agree on, dontcha think? 

Helen Thomas on Tuesday not only admitted that she was a liberal, but also claimed she’s as far left as you can go.

Chatting with some of the folks from the Fox Business Channel, the long-time member of the Washington Press Corps also said Barack Obama ISN’T a liberal: "Not in my book." 

Thomas also felt the President isn’t beating up enough on corporate America: "Poor American business, what the hell have they done to us now? The whole country’s in shambles." 

When asked about the current divisions in the nation, she blamed it all on Republicans (video follows with commentary):

You have to admire her honesty.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if ALL the liberals in the media would just admit it? Then Americans would know who they were getting their news from. 

Contrary to widespread belief among conservatives, Ed Schultz’s radio show is not an irredeemable waste of your time. 

Occasionally what Schultz says is actually funny. That Schultz remains oblivious to this only adds to the humor.

On April 20, for example, Schultz was talking about the new illegal immigration law in Arizona and claimed that after a similar measure was enacted several years ago in Prince William County in Virginia, "the angst of the community was not as friendly as it used to be." (click here for audio)

Yes, once a town loses its angst, it’s all downhill from there. Just ask any existentialist.

On April 16, Schultz appeared unclear on the meaning of "Pandora’s box" as he talked about radio stations possibly being required to pay royalties to singers. "So, this means that to the listener," Schultz said, "there’s going to be more, possibly more talk radio out there on the landscape, on the radio dial because people aren’t going to be able to afford to play the music, so this might open up a whole new Pandora’s box when it comes to opportunity in talk radio."

You know, one of those good pandora’s boxes, unlike every other one created.  

On April 6, Schultz stumbled in recounting RedState blogger/CNN contributor Erick Erickson’s defense of his comment about warding off census takers with a shotgun. According to Schultz, Erickson complained that liberals were "misconstruting" his remark. 

Here’s Schultz on March 26 describing Glenn Beck’s criticism of Obama signing the health bill into law — "He compared that to Pearl Harbor. He compared that to Hitler and Chamberlain. He compared that to the St. Valentine’s Day massacre ..", which as Schultz reminded his equally well-informed listeners, involved "a shooting where there was a death."

Alas for those in working proximity to Schultz, his skewed way of looking at the world appears contagious, as shown on March 25 when James Holm, his radio show producer, confused "condones" with "condemns" in describing Congressman Eric Cantor, uh, condemning threats of violence toward members of Congress. 

On March 24, Schultz was thrown for a loop distinguishing between "spate" and "spat". All because of that pesky letter e …

Here’s Schultz two days earlier describing President Obama having possibly "underminded" Attorney General Eric Holder’s initial decision to hold trials for al Qaeda terrorists in New York City.

Imagine how much Holder wanted to give Obama a piece of his minded in response.

Schultz ran into similar difficulties March 3 attempting to scale "mired" as he talked about New York Governor David Paterson.

These aren’t the only words Schultz might consider pronouncing correctly before uttering them on the airwaves. "Excerpt" is another, as shown by Schultz on Jan. 12 and again Feb. 19. I haven’t heard him try it since, leading me to conclude Schultz has abandoned the attempt. 

"Subsidiary" also proved insurmountable, on Feb. 18 and Feb. 24 and has seldom been heard since.

In response to a caller’s criticism on March 1 about Schultz saying he would have voted "10 times" in the Jan. 19 special election in Massachusetts if given the chance, Schultz claimed he made the remark "in gist".

By the way, you know what annoys Schultz about Sarah Palin? — "I think she’s stupid!"

For the second consecutive weeknight, the CBS Evening News on Monday framed Arizona’s new anti-illegal immigrant bill around the fears and charges of its supposed victims. With “ANGER & ANXIETY” on screen below video of signs hostile to the new law (“LAND OF THE FREE! REALLY?” and a Swastika sign with “Achtung! Papers Please”), Katie Couric teased: “Anger in Arizona against a new law allowing police to make you prove you’re in the country legally” – followed by a man who impugned supporters: “They’re just focusing on us because we’re brown.”

Couric soon set up CBS’s story by relaying how “opponents say it will lead to racial profiling” as she didn’t pass judgment on their vandalism when she reported “some of those opponents vandalized the state capitol building, smearing refried beans in the shape of swastikas on the windows.” (Talk about fulfilling a stereotype)

John Blackstone presented arguments in favor of the law, but delivered his story through the eyes of sympathetic, if misinformed, people who see themselves as victims. “Kym Rivera brought her children to a demonstration today against Arizona’s new immigration law. Her husband, born in El Salvador was sworn in as a citizen last October,” but “she fears he’ll become a suspect when police are searching for illegal immigrants under the new law.” She baselessly asserted: “He worries he’ll be asked to leave this country because he was not born here. That he’ll be separated from his children, from his wife of 15 years.”

Blackstoned moved on to “19-year-old Junior Perez,” the same guy in the opening tease, who “has heard the assurances that the law is aimed only at illegal immigrants. He’s not convinced,” and, corroborating his fear, Blackstone insisted that “in a state where more than 30 percent of the population is Hispanic, many feel the sting of racism in the new law.” Perez charged: “They’re just focusing on us because we’re brown. So, it’s just devastating.”

My NB item on Friday’s CBS newscast, “CBS Frames Arizona’s Anti-Illegal Alien Law Through Eyes of Opponents: ‘Veto Racism,’” recounted:

Arizona’s new law hardly earned a friendly reception Friday night from any of the network newscasts, but CBS went the furthest in presenting it from the perspective of its “victims” as anchor Katie Couric, over video of “Veto Racism” and “Stop the Hate” signs, teased: “Tonight, Arizona’s controversial new immigration law. Police will now be able to make anyone they choose prove they’re here illegally. It triggers demonstrations by both sides and a warning from President Obama.” (Presumably, she meant “prove they’re here legally.”)

Reporter Bill Whitaker suddenly found wisdom in the Catholic Church, plastering “mean-spirited” on screen: “In Los Angeles, Cardinal Roger Mahony, head of the country’s largest Catholic archdiocese, called the law ‘mean-spirited’ and compared it to Nazi repression. Today at a ceremony for new citizens, President Obama criticized Arizona’s actions.”

From the Monday, April 26 CBS Evening News:

KATIE COURIC: Turning now to Arizona’s controversial new immigration law which empowers the police to stop and ask anyone for documents to prove they’re in the country legally. Opponents say it will lead to racial profiling. Today, some of those opponents vandalized the state capitol building, smearing refried beans in the shape of swastikas on the windows. From Phoenix, here’s John Blackstone.

JOHN BLACKSTONE: Kym Rivera brought her children to a demonstration today against Arizona’s new immigration law. Her husband, born in El Salvador was sworn in as a citizen last October.

RIVERA: He became a citizen of the United States. That’s their dream.

BLACKSTONE: But she fears he’ll become a suspect when police are searching for illegal immigrants under the new law.

RIVERA: He worries he’ll be asked to leave this country because he was not born here. That he’ll be separated from his children, from his wife of 15 years. Why should my husband worry?

BLACKSTONE: He shouldn’t worry, says Steve Montenegro, himself an immigrant from El Salvador and now a member of the state legislature. Montenegro voted for the controversial immigration law which he says opponents are distorting.

STATE REP STEVE MONTENEGRO: That it that it is a race issue, an anti-Hispanic and anti-immigrant bill and that couldn’t be farther from the truth.

BLACKSTONE: What the bill does, he says, is give police another tool to fight crime that comes with the flood across the border.

MONTENEGRO: It’s going crazy here and the federal government has time and again failed tremendously to protect itself citizens and secure the border.

BLACKSTONE: Arizona Senator John McCain echoed that when he responded to criticism of the state law in Washington.

SENATOR JOHN McCAIN ON SENATE FLOOR: If you don’t like the bill, the legislation that the legislature passed and the governor signed in Arizona, then carry out the federal responsibilities which are to secure the border.

BLACKSTONE: 19-year-old Junior Perez has heard the assurances that the law is aimed only at illegal immigrants. He’s not convinced.

JUNIOR PEREZ: If I’m a citizen or not, I’m always going to be Mexican.

BLACKSTONE: He is a citizen, born in Arizona. His parents legal immigrants from Mexico. In a state where more than 30 percent of the population is Hispanic, many feel the sting of racism in the new law.

PEREZ: They’re just focusing on us because we’re brown. So, it’s just devastating.

BLACKSTONE: While opponents of the law promise to continue demonstrating, the battle moves into the court. Legal challenges will be based under the argument that under the Constitution only the federal government has the right to control immigration. John Blackstone, CBS News, Phoenix.

CBSNews.com online version of this story.

On April 15, CNN anchor Rick Sanchez, the network’s Mr. Wizard, suggested Iceland shouldn’t have a volcano: "You think it’s too cold to have a volcano there." On Friday, Sanchez followed up with this:

Tonight we’re going to focus on the environmental movement and their discussion about the chemicals and chemical smell in mothballs. All I can say is – the smell of mothballs? I mean, I don’t even know of a way to spread their little legs, much less that they even had balls in the first place! Wow!