CNN’s John King on Wednesday mocked Barack Obama for calling Fox News a "destructive" force in our society while at practically the same time a White House spokesman was saying MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow provide "an invaluable service" to the country.

As NewsBusters reported Tuesday, the President bashed FNC in a just-published interview with Rolling Stone magazine shortly before his Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton was praising MSNBC during a gaggle held on Air Force One.

With this in mind, on Wednesday’s "John King USA," the host surprisingly derided the White House’s inconsistency (video follows with partial transcript and commentary): 

JOHN KING, HOST: Sometimes you feel sad to be left out of a big debate. This is not one of those sometimes. In an interview with "Rolling Stone," President Obama voiced the opinion that Fox News is a "destructive" force in our society. On the other hand, the left hand in this case, Obama spokesman Bill Burton said the President believes MSNBC commentators Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow provide "an invaluable service" to that same society and democracy. So, according to the President this is "destructive."

King then played clips from "The Glenn Beck Show" and "Hannity." After they concluded, King said, "And, according to the White House, this is ‘an invaluable service.’" He then showed clips from "The Ed Show" and "Countdown."

After getting some opinions from his panel, he turned to CNN contributor Gloria Borger and asked, "What happened to this? This is the President of the United States, it’s May 1st, it’s the University of Michigan, he’s giving the commencement speech, and Professor Obama is trying to tell Americans of all political persuasions, ‘Listen to each other.’"

BARACK OBAMA: For if we choose only to expose ourselves to opinions and viewpoints that are in line with our own, studies suggest that we become more polarized, more set in our ways.

After the clip ended, King said to his guests, "I think he’s right. In that commencement speech, he’s right."

Indeed, but as NewsBusters reported at the time, Obama didn’t mean those words.

Quite the contrary, what has come out of this White House in the past week is exactly how he feels, and that commencement address in May was just another in a never ending litany of campaign speeches Americans should take with a grain of salt.

Somewhat surprisingly, King not only seems to be feeling that way, but he’s also willing to point out the hypocrisy on the air.

Bravo, John. Bravo.

This column has twice—here and here—taken the un-svelte Schultz to task for his hypocrisy in making repeated fat jokes at the expense of Chris Christie, culminating in calling the NJ guv a "fat slob."  Media Bistro has reported [h/t Clerical Gal] that MSNBC prez Phil Griffin reprimanded Schutltz for his crude comment.

Apparently by way of non-apology apology, on his MSNBC show this evening, Ed admitted that he too was fat and would understand if others also considered him a "fat slob." Media Bistro has reported

I began to suspect something was afoot early in the show. On the one hand, Schultz launched into yet another long diatribe against Christie.  After taking numerous solo shots at the NJ guv, Schultz brought in a NJ teacher of the year, who was happy to be described as "strongly against Gov. Christie." The pair proceeded to rake Christie over the coals, paying scant attention to the brutal budgetary problems facing the Garden State that have forced Christie to make reforms.

But—in stark contrast with previous shows—the fat jokes had demonstrably disappeared.  And sure enough, in the tease for a subsequent segment, Schultz said "I admit that I’m fat."  Then came this show-closer . .  .

ED SCHULTZ: Before I say "that’s the Ed Show, I’m Ed Schultz" I want to say this: there was a time in my life when I was 263 pounds but I’ve really worked at it and I’m down now to 247. But I want all of you to know that I’m not only fat, I have red hair. And growing up they really picked on red heads where I came from, and I’m not offended by any of you who think I’m a fat slob.

Chris Matthews began Wednesday’s Hardball in usual fashion attacking the Tea Party as the "Cro-Magnon political party," but he ended this evening’s show in an unexpected way as the MSNBCer advised that the more Obama "sells" his ideas to "the political middle the better his chances" and added "Those who argue otherwise don’t know this country, its history or its basically conservative gut."

Matthews began his "Let Me Finish" segment by suggesting the reason former President Bill Clinton currently has a high approval rating was because he’s "a reminder of a better economic time for an important other. But the real reason is that Bill Clinton…knew the key to political, as well as policy success, lies in keeping faith with the middle." [audio available here]

The following Matthews observations were aired on the September 29 edition of Hardball:

Question posed to former George W. Bush adviser Mark McKinnon after playing clips from Christine O’Donnell, Sharron Angle and Rand Paul:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: You know Mark McKinnon it sounds like we’re listening to the Cro-Magnon political party sometimes. They don’t believe in evolution, they believe guns should be used against congressman and congresswomen if you don’t like the way they voted and we should reconsider the best thing Congress has done in 100 years – civil rights. So what do you make of your political party and the candidates that the Tea Partiers have shoved forward?

…

MATTHEWS: Let me finish tonight with some numbers. Bill Clinton now has a 53 percent approval rating from political independents in the United States, a 16 percent disapproval, 16 percent disapproval from independents. This for a Democrat at a time the party is under hard assault. There are reasons for this. Clinton’s out of line of fire right now, that’s for one. He’s a reminder of a better economic time for an important other. But the real reason is that Bill Clinton, like Tony Blair in England, was a champion of what both called a third way. They were social democrats, who knew the key to political, as well as policy success, lies in keeping faith with the middle. Scare off the middle and you lose the country. You hold the middle by hugging to their main concerns. You focus on the economy, yes it’s the economy, stupid. You convince people that you want government involvement when and only when the private sector can’t act. You do it out of necessity, not out of desire. If you love big government, you will not succeed with the American middle. Barack Obama won because most believe that the Bush administration lead by ideologues had hijacked America to the course an ideological war. An ideological foreign policy. President Obama will face the same rejection by the same political middle if he’s seen in the hands of ideologues of the left. Big things still need to be done, especially in job creation, energy and immigration. The more he does them and sells them close to the political middle the better his chances. Those who argue otherwise don’t know this country, its history or its basically conservative gut. That’s Hardball for now. Thanks for being with us.

In the runup to Glenn Beck’s "Restoring Honor" rally on the National Mall last month, a number of prominent media ouetlets hyped accusations of racism targeting a small-time blogger who advised visitors to steer clear of some of the more dangerous neighborhoods in Washington.

Now it has come to light that a prominent NAACP employee, Curtis Gatewood, also a "field director" for the upcoming One Nation march – organized by the NAACP and various labor unions, including the AFL-CIO and the SEIU – has made numerous anti-American and anti-Semitic statements in the past.

Will the media call One Nation out for this one individual’s statements as they did the Restoring Honor rally? Will they paint this employee as representative of the rally’s attendants, also as they did with Beck’s event? Or will they ignore or downplay these statements, despite their dramatically more egregious nature?

David Stein, who blogs at Yes, But, However, compiled an exhaustive list of offensive and inflammatory statements made by Gatewood, who identifies himself on his Facebook page as the Second Vice President of the North Carolina NAACP State Conference.

Gatewood is also, according to this flyer, a North Carolina "field director" for the One Nation event.

Among Gatewood’s more offensive remarks was this one, from a July 4 post on his Facebook page:

"TO AMERICA – HAPPY 4TH OF YOU-LIE! ‘THE HOME OF THE BRAVE [or did you mean to say ...OF THE 'SLAVE?']‘; ‘THE LAND OF THE FREE [or did you mean to say .. OF THE 'TREE' where my ancestors were hung for recreation?]‘; ‘SWEET LAND OF LIBERY’ (sic) [or did you mean to say ‘CHEATED LAND FROM BIGOTRY’? THERE WILL BE NO ‘INDEPENPENCE (sic) DAY’ until the ‘TRUTH .. MAKE YOU FREE’! MEANWHILE HAPPY YOU-LIE."

Gatewood also made numerous offensive statements about black Republicans, including calling RNC Chairman Michael Steele "HNC – Head Negro in Chains." He also wrote the following in a letter to the editor of a local newspaper:

Negroes are being rented throughout our state and country. In my opinion, the best national example of a ‘rented Negro’ is former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell. This Negro was rented for the sole purpose of helping the incompetent and distrustful President Bush sell the world an illegal intent to violently remove Saddam Hussein from the office of Iraqi president and wrongfully invade/occupy Iraq. Now that the war is on and Colin Powell’s Negro-lease has been terminated, if Powell is seen near the White House he might be arrested. But even worst than ‘rented Negroes,’ are those Negroes such as U.S. Secretary of State Condi Rice, U.S. Supreme Court Judge Clarence (‘Uncle’) Thomas, and several thousands of other certain so-called ‘educated’ Negroes throughout the state and nation who have been bought and paid for! Even as the Supreme Court recently and rightfully ruled that the U.S. run concentration camps in Guantanamo Bay are illegal, Bush could count on his bought-and-paid-for Negroes to ‘stay the course.’

Gatewood also has a penchant for blaming catastrophic events on political decisions, policies, or individuals he does not agree with. He claimed that God "woke Americans up on 9/11" and claimed that Hurrican Katrina was "God’s scolding rebuke" for "radical Bush appointments and more disastrous/illegal policies."

Those sorts of comments usually garner heated criticism when uttered in conservative corners. Indeed, plenty of Gatewood’s comments appear to be highly offensive to left-wing sensibilities. For instance, Gatewood suggested on a North Carolina radio show that a "driving force" behind immigration to the Untied States is a desire to sell drugs to black people.

Gatewood claimed that "Jews" and the Fox News Channel are trying to get Obama killed. He also channeled more run-of-the-mill left wing criticism, claiming that the Tea Party movement is "driven by the same philosophy as the KKK – ignorance and racial hatred." At least Keith Olbermann agrees with him on that last one.

In sum, Gatewood has made some astoundingly ignorant and offensive claims. I emailed him asking for comment. He replied thusly:

Other than the good news of a train that is headed to Washington being driven by the engine of love, hope, equal opportunity, jobs, education and peace, I have no comment. This country no longer has the time for the divide and conquer strategies which are being desperately played by those who seek to stop the change Americans voted for. I am happily inspired by the spirit and vision of "One Nation"! Again I ask, any man, woman, or child, who seeks to "work together" in the pursuit of meaningful jobs, quality education for all children, afordable housing, love, peace, and justice for all, should seize this moment to join me and tens of thousands of others.

It is time for us to let our LOVE do the talking. Enough of the debates about who is or who is not a "racist". Let’s let our LOVE do the talking.

When I asked about the vast chasm between these comments and his numerous hateful, divisive, and offensive (and occasionally racist) statements as documented on YBH, he replied simply: "Have a nice day Mr. Markay. Good try. Thanks!"

Neither the NAACP nor One Nation returned requests for comment.

So will the media even mention these unbelievable statements from an official organizer of the One Nation event? Remember, many reporters seized on the seemingly innocuous advice of blogger Bruce Majors to steer clear of areas of Washington with, historically, higher crime rates.

"Racism accusations fly on eve of Glenn Beck rally" blared an Associated Press headline about the reaction to Majors’s blog post. "Tea Party Blogger Accused of Racism in Beck Post" read another AP headline.

Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow pushed the meme on their respective MSNBC shows. Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson said the post was intended to "scare white people." And of course, lefty blogs, including the Huffington Post, Think Progress, and Talking Points Memo, were quick to paint Majors as a racist, and as representative of the larger crowd of Beck fans attending the rally.

Of course we can argue all day about whether Majors’s map was rational or reasonable (I happen to live well within the area he advised visitors to steer clear of), but it should be perfectly clear that his post was comedy compared with the venomous statements made by Gatewood in recent years.

And while Majors had absolutely no affiliation with Beck or his event, Gatewood is a field director for One Nation, and the vice president of the NAACP’s North Carolina conference. In other words, his views have a far greater bearing on the One Nation event than Majors’s did on the Restoring Honor rally.

If One Nation comes and goes without any media chatter about Gatewood or his comments, it will demonstrate yet another double standard of which conservatives bear the brunt.

“For the fourth straight year, the majority of Americans say they have little or no trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly,” Gallup reported Wednesday in recounting the findings of its latest annual survey on views of the news media. Gallup’s post, “Distrust in U.S. Media Edges Up to Record High: Perceptions of liberal bias still far outnumber perceptions of conservative bias,” noted “the 57 percent who now say this is a record high by one percentage point,” while the 43 percent who “express a great deal or fair amount of trust ties the record low” – although within the four-point margin of error.

Gallup also again confirmed that three times as many recognize a liberal bias than perceive a conservative tilt:

Nearly half of Americans (48%) say the media are too liberal, tying the high end of the narrow 44 percent to 48 percent range recorded over the past decade. One-third say the media are just about right while 15 percent say they are too conservative.

Most telling: While Republicans have the least trust in the news media and are the most-likely too consider the media “too liberal,” independents are much closer to Republicans than Democrats: 61 percent of independents don’t trust the media and 45 percent call the media “too liberal” compared to just 15 percent who say the media are “too conservative.”

Even liberals can see the liberal tilt: Three times as many (33%) said the media are “too liberal” over “too conservative” (11%). Jpg of a table showing the rundown by party and ideology.

Summarizing Gallup’s findings on Special Report, FNC’s Bret Baier led the September 29 “Grapevine” segment:

If you have serious doubts about the news media, you have plenty of company. A new poll finds a record high level of distrust. Gallup says 57 percent of participants do not trust the media to accurately and fairly report the news. The percentage has been steadily climbing since the mid-1990s, when distrust hung at about 45 percent. 48 percent of those polled say the media slants “too liberal,” while only 15 percent find it “too conservative.” 33 percent believe it’s “just about right.”

Gallup’s survey arrived two weeks after the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press released a poll which determined: “No more than a third says they can believe all or most of the reporting by 14 major news organizations.” On bias, Pew learned:

About eight-in-ten Americans (82%) say they see at least some bias in news coverage – 52 percent say they see a lot and 30 percent say they see some. By a wide margin, those who see bias in news coverage say it is a liberal bias; 43 percent of the public says there is more of a liberal bias while just 23 percent see more of a conservative bias….

Independents largely mirror the public as a whole: 53 percent see a lot of bias and 30 percent see some. Fully 44 percent say that bias tilts liberal, while 21 percent say it tilts conservative.

For more on Pew’s exhaustive survey, see Noel Sheppard’s September 13 NewsBusters post: “Obama Gets Highest Ratings from Followers of Olbermann, Maddow and NYT.”

For much more on how the public assesses the media, check out the MRC’s “Media Bias 101: What Journalists Really Think — and What the Public Thinks About the Media.”

It features a rundown of “Gallup Polls on Media Bias” within the “How the Public Views the Media” section.

On Thursday, The Washington Post reported plans for the liberal One Nation rally, and even used a label in reporting "liberal groups" were organizing the event that "they expect to draw tens of thousands of people." Reporter Krissah Thompson quoted organizers of the event:

"We aren’t the alternative to the tea party; we are the antidote," said NAACP President Benjamin Jealous, who is also a lead organizer. The team that produces the NAACP’s annual Image Awards show are putting together the One Nation rally.

But Thompson somehow missed the hubbub over Mr. Jealous recently speaking in a black church about the rally, wildly comparing the "hatred" of Obama opponents to the "period before Kristallnacht," that is, the prelude to the Nazi slaughter of six million Jews:

With massive progress comes massive backlash. And one of the reasons why we haven’t stopped long enough to celebrate our victories is because of the hellfire we had to come through to get health care done. All the hatred on the radio, all the hatred on the TV. Our Jewish friends sitting around saying ‘This is too much like the period before Kristallnacht.’ And old black folks sitting around going ‘I don’t know if this is more like when my granddaddy told me about the end of Reconstruction of what I witnessed with the rise of the White Citizens Council.’

Jealous also yelled about how conservatives supposedly "hold the Koran hostage, call our president an African witch doctor? Shame on you! This is what One Nation is about…one nation, under God with liberty and justice for all!”

Thompson and other reporters should know that conservatives think you can’t beat your breast in joy about your successful lobbying for the imposition of a European-style socialist health care scheme and then exclaim your movement is advocating “liberty”….without a laugh track.

But shouldn’t reporters notice these remarks — from a protest leader, not an occasional straggler — with the ardor they found Obama-Nazi signs at Tea Party rallies (by Lyndon LaRouche superfans)? Shouldn’t networks (like ABC) who devoted stories to Jealous smearing the Tea Party as a gaggle of racists and a threat to human rights also report when Jealous starts suggesting there’s an American Tea Party Holocaust around the corner?

In New Mexico yesterday and probably in several other appearances, President Barack Obama criticized the House Republicans’ Pledge to America on several fronts. To me, only because I tend to look at the real numbers during most months, his most obviously off-base critique had to do with federal education spending (as carried at Jake Tapper’s Political Punch blog at ABC):

Obama said the Republicans would to cut education spending by 20 percent in order to pay for some of the tax breaks, a charge House Republicans say is inaccurate.

Tapper is one of the few establishment media reporters left who isn’t afraid to question liberal authority, but he missed a golden opportunity to dig into facts that might have left him wondering why the Republicans are being so timid.

According to the September 2009 Monthly Treasury Statement (go to Table 3 at the link), the Department of Eduction spent $53.4 billion during fiscal 2009. This year, projecting the August 2010 total of $81.6 billion for another month, it will probably come in at about $89 billion.

Does anyone have any idea what marvelous benefits have come about as a result of the current year’s 65% or more increase in spending? Neither do I.

Cutting this year’s spending by 20% next year would still leave the Department of Education spending about $70 billion per year — still over 30% above fiscal 2008. Again, for what tangible benefit?

Jake Tapper and others in the press could easily have and should definitely should have checked out the numbers yours truly did, and didn’t. C’mon, people. Stop taking transcription and do a little work, why don’t you?

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

Bill O’Reilly on Wednesday smacked down Bill Maher when the comedian blamed Barack Obama’s bad poll numbers on racism.

In the first part of his much-anticipated interview with the "Real Time" host, O’Reilly asked Maher’s opinion on why the public seems to have soured on the President. 

After blaming Obama’s woes on everyone but Obama himself, Maher said, "Of course a lot of it is racially…"

Maher didn’t get a chance to finish this pathetic thought for O’Reilly cut him off mid-sentence (video follows with transcript and commentary): 

BILL O’REILLY, HOST: But there’s something more in play here, I think, and I just wondered if you had noticed anything about the President’s presentation or the way he goes about his job that you might point to?

BILL MAHER: Well, obviously, people think he’s a little bloodless. I happen to like that in a president. I like a president that uses his brain and not his faith or his heart or his gut as the former president did. I kind of like that in our president. But, you know, again, they don’t brag about their accomplishments and when you downplay the economy, all of the dissatisfaction with him is about the economy. Of course a lot of it is racially —

O’REILLY: You think it’s racially?

MAHER: Almost all of it.

O’REILLY: You’re on that bandwagon of if you don’t like him, you’re a racist and you can’t be there. Maher, that’s not you. You can’t be there.

MAHER: Oh, so you don’t think it’s racially involved at all?

O’REILLY: Of course not. You know, he was elected by 53% of the public and when he took office, his approval was over 70. Come on. Come on!

Indeed. In fact, Obama’s favorability rating was closer to 80 shortly before he was inaugurated. Do folks like Maher think the nation suddenly turned more racist than it was in January 2009?

Regardless of the answer, Maher wasn’t done saying foolish things, and O’Reilly wasn’t done smacking him down: 

MAHER: But Bill, but Bill, just for example, I mean, the Teabaggers, they’re the ones that are so upset about the debt. Most of the debt came from Bush. That’s just a fact. And under Bush, Cheney said it, deficits don’t matter. Nobody was angry about the deficit when it was President Bush.

O’REILLY: Because they didn’t know about it. Look, President Obama has spent more money —

MAHER: They didn’t know about it?

O’REILLY: No. They didn’t. It wasn’t a big issue as it is now. He’s the biggest spending president in the history of the republic, Maher. You got to know that, man!

MAHER: Of course he, of, well, first of all, that’s not, that’s not a true statement. He’s not the biggest spender. Bush was the biggest spender.

O’REILLY: No, Obama is the biggest — his budget is bigger than Bush’s budget.

MAHER: Most — most of the money that has been sent has been trying to dig us out of the hole that Bush put us in.

O’REILLY: We’re running up trillion dollars of debt. We got ObamaCare that’s going to add more to that, and I’m not any better off, and the economy is not any better off. So it’s all a waste. He’s not doing it. That, and I’m not saying that’s the right point of view. I’m saying that’s what’s inside many Americans’ brains.

Indeed.

As for Bush being a bigger spender than Obama, Maher was once again proving how being a liberal in America today means having to ignore facts whenever they interfere with your agenda.

Bush’s final budget authorized $3.1 trillion in federal outlays. By contrast, Obama’s first official budget as President authorized $3.7 trillion in spending, a 19 percent increase. 

Of course, with the various bailouts that occurred in ‘08 and ‘09, the government spent far more than originally anticipated. But at $3.5 trillion, it was still less than what Obama will spend in FY ‘10.

Yet that’s only part of the story, for Obama not only had a hand in creating Bush’s last budget, he also was directly involved in all the additions to it.  

On March 14, 2008, then Sen. Obama voted in favor of the 2009 budget. The 51-44 vote that morning was strongly along party lines with only two Republicans saying "Yes." When the final conference report was presented to the House on June 5, not one Republican voted for it.

This means the 2009 budget was almost exclusively approved by Democrats, with "Yeas" coming from current President then Sen. Obama, his current Vice President then Sen. Joe Biden, his current Chief of Staff then Rep. Rahm Emanuel, and his current Secretary of State then Sen. Hillary Clinton.

But that’s just the beginning, for on October 1, 2008, Obama, Biden, and Clinton voted in favor of the $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program designed to prevent teetering financial institutions from completely destroying the economy. 

And what about the $787 billion stimulus bill that passed in February 2009 with just three Republican votes? Wouldn’t Obama only be blameless if he vetoed it and was later overridden?

Of course, he didn’t, and, instead signed it into law on February 17. Nor did he veto the $410 billion of additional spending Congress sent to his desk three weeks later.

Add it all up, and Obama approved every penny spent in fiscal 2009 either via his votes in the Senate or his signature as President. As such, Maher’s claim that Bush was a bigger spender than Obama is 100 percent false.

But that shouldn’t be too surprising to NewsBusters readers, as we have regularly pointed out when Maher plays fast and loose with the facts.

Recall that when he did this in front of George Will on ABC’s "This Week" in May, he ended up looking like quite the fool. PolitiFact even found what he said that Sunday false.

Maybe the PF folks will look into Wednesday’s misstatement as well.

Stay tuned.  

“If this book were a video game it would be rated ‘Mature’ for a sprinkling of explicit language and for deadly serious subject matter.” — statement kicking off the “Preface” of Wil Dubois’ latest book, Beyond Fingersticks Whoa. While I might have to disagree with Wil’s idea of “sprinkling” (I lost count of how many [...]

Whenever I learn something new (diabetes-related), I like to share it here. Because I figure if I hadn’t heard about it — as I’m sniffing the air for D-news over the years — then lots of other PWDs out there probably haven’t heard about it yet either. Today’s tidbit is about that famous diabetes activist [...]