Since the budget battle began in Wisconsin, so-called journalists have attacked Governor Scott Walker as a union-busting shill representing big corporate donors such as the Koch brothers.

The much bigger story media have ignored – that the 14 Democrat senators who fled the state all have serious financial connections to public employees and unions – was revealed Monday by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

In fact, one out of every five dollars raised by those Democratic senators in the past two election cycles came from public employees, such as teachers and firefighters, and their unions, a Journal Sentinel analysis of campaign records shows. [....]

According to records compiled by the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, the 14 Senate Democrats have raised a total of $1.9 million in campaign dollars since the start of 2007. Out of that sum, public employee unions and individual government workers contributed at least $344,000.

In truth, the figure may be even higher, but candidates don't have to identify the occupations of those giving $100 or less.

As you can see from the chart above, the biggest offender received almost two-thirds of his money from unions and public employees:

Of the 14 missing lawmakers, none has received a greater share of his campaign donations from public unions and employees than Spencer Coggs of Milwaukee.

Since January 2007, about two-thirds of his campaign donations came from those in the public sector. In addition to winning an easy re-election bid, he was defeated in the September Democratic primary for lieutenant governor.

You would think that one of these senators receiving almost two-thirds of his campaign cash the past four years from unions and public employees would be big news, right?

Think again, for according to LexisNexis, the only report on this is the one above.

Contrast that to Walker whose connection to the Koch brothers has garnered almost 500 reports in the past two weeks including 20 by MSNBC, fifteen by CNN, three by NPR, two by NBC, and one by CBS.

This despite the Governor having received only $43,000 from the Kochs – less than half what Coggs got from unions and public employees! – which represented a mere one half of one percent of the over $9 million Walker raised.

Yep – a one half of one percent contribution from a couple of billionaires garnered almost 500 media reports, but Coggs getting two-thirds of his money from public employees and unions mattered not to America's media.

And these people believe they're impartial purveyors of information.

Makes you sick, doesn't it?

(H/T Weasel Zippers)

Providing Washington Post Metro section readers a review of the just-closed legislative session of the Virginia General Assembly, staff writers Rosalind Helderman and Fredrick Kunkle today deployed some colorfully loaded language that portrayed conservative Republicans in an unfavorable light.

For example [emphasis mine], the "divided legislature reached a compromise on budget amendments that mollified Republicans bent on paring government to its core services and Democrats eager to restore spending on schools, health care and other priorities as the economy improves."

But what really struck me was the part a few paragraphs later where Helderman and Kunkle described the successful effort Republicans waged to pass a bill opposed by pro-choice activists and politicians [emphasis mine]:

[T]he session ended with a dramatic fight over the emotional issue of abortion rights, as Republicans maneuvered the Senate into an unwanted late vote on a bill that requires abortion clinics to be regulated as hospitals.

Unwanted by whom? The vote on passage in the upper chamber was 20-20, with all 18 Republicans and two Democrats voting for the bill. Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling (R), who presides over the state senate, broke the tie in favor of passage.

The vote was certainly unwanted by the 20 Democrats who voted "no," including Majority Leader Richard Saslaw (D), whom some liberal bloggers are excoriating for being out-manuevered by conservative Republicans on parliamentary procedure.

The campaign by pro-union demonstrators in Madison, Wisconsin to silence Fox News and prevent it from reporting continued over the weekend. Protesters did their best to prevent FNC's Mike Tobin from reporting on the protests, all the while shouting – apparently oblivious to the irony – "Fox News lies!"

A few protesters even struck Tobin, though he later downplayed the assault, and said he had declined to press charges. Another protester threatened to break Tobin's neck, he said during one report.

"I find the whole thing a terrific distraction, and terribly frustrating, because I want to cover the story," Tobin told Fox News Radio host Scott Allen Miller on Monday. Tobin brushed off the physical abuse he says he has endured from a few protesters, and insisted that the real frustration was being "harassed with every live shot" (video below the break via J$P).

While reporting from Madison over the weekend, Tobin told Geraldo Rivera Gregg Jarrett that someone had "just hit me!" (Video of that segment below.) Tobin also tweeted on Sunday: "Demonstrator just hit me twice."

During the Monday interview with Miller, Tobin seemed to refer to his being struck twice by one of the protesters, saying "it amounted to a charlie horse." He stressed that his inability to effectively report from Madison troubled him more than the physical harassment from protesters there.

The perception that Fox is institutionally opposed to union demonstrators is the source of the harassment, Tobin explained. "The whole organization lies" is the sentiment Tobin says he heard from demonstrators – "if you can get that much of a coherent sentence," he added.

Tobin noted that he has seen a number of protesters with professionally-printed anti-Fox slogans on them, but that demonstrators' hatred of the channel seemed to be more of a "collective mentality."

I elaborated on that mentality last week in the context of other efforts to shut down Fox's reporting. Miller expressed a similar sentiment in his interview with Tobin. Protesters, he said, are "not trying to shut down your quote-unquote message, they're trying to stop you from reporting period. They don't care what you're saying."

That fact is made plain by the complete lack of interest in what Tobin was actually saying during the segments protesters attempted to shut down. Indeed, as he noted in his Miller interview, none of the protesters shouting Tobin down even knew who he was, let alone anything about his political leanings.

Baltimore Sun media critic David Zurawik has been one of the few non-Fox media personalities who has unequivocally condemned efforts by pro-union demonstrators to shut down Fox's field reporting operation. He called the efforts "ugly, bully-boy, thug tactics," and said that the anti-Fox demonstrators "should be ashamed."

But Zurawik's comments notwithstanding, the media has been, on the whole, deafeningly silent on these efforts to stifle reporting from Madison.

Exit question: what would the media reaction be if a protester struck, say, an MSNBC reporter at a Tea Party rally?

On Monday's Newsroom, CNN's Don Lemon helped film director Qasim Basir promote his new film "Mooz-lum," which he hopes will "clear up some of this ignorance" about Muslims and their religion. Basir, whose last project "aimed at supporting presidential candidate Barack Obama," claimed that "in an average person's mind, who does not know anybody that's Muslim, it's like you see Muslim, you think terrorist."

Anchor Suzanne Malveaux introduced Lemon's segment, which ran 39 minutes into the 12 pm Eastern hour, as part of her network's "What Matters" series, which is a partnership with Essence magazine. Malveaux played up the film's "strong African-American cast and director," and stated that her colleague "sat down with the director Qasim Basir to talk about the movie, and the state of Muslims in America." An on-screen graphic signaled the primary focus of Lemon's interview: "Religion + Intolerance: Don Lemon, Qasim Bair discuss 'Mooz-lum.'"

Basir's "average person" claim led the segment and he continued with how he hoped to combat this supposed viewpoint:

BASIR: In an average person's mind, who does not know anybody that's Muslim, it's like you see Muslim, you think terrorist. You hear terrorist, you think Muslim, and what we're trying to do with this film is separate the two, and get people to realize there are Muslims and there are terrorists. There are extremists. There are people that do horrible things, and then there are Muslims.

Instead of asking why many people might think that way, or citing examples of Islamist terrorism, the CNN correspondent followed up by asking, "Why should I see this movie?" The director answered by making his first claim about "ignorance" about Islam and Muslims:

BASIR: Because, most likely, it is a view that you have not seen before of Muslims in America, and given what we're facing today, the amount of ignorance surrounding Muslims and Islam, I feel it's necessary for people to see this, and for people to say, like, you know, I've never looked at it that way before.

After playing a brief clip from the movie, where two veiled Muslim women are cornered by a mob armed with hockey sticks (part of the same scene is shown 22 seconds into the teaser trailer for the film), Basir continued that "this ignorance is what creates fear, and fear, there's so much more that happens when that is in the picture. So, we're just trying to erase, clear up some of this ignorance."

Lemon threw a softball at a director in his final question: "So Tariq is a character. Is he kind of like you? Is it semi-autobiographical? Did you experience some of the things that he does?" After he gave his answer, Malveaux came back and complimented the movie: "Looks like a great film."

Basir's own personal website notes his strong support of Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign and the amount of effort he took to get him elected:

Next Qasim went on to create a short film series aimed at supporting Presidential candidate Barack Obama. The series, The Inspiration of Barack: "Yes We Can" Film Series, is a compilation of seven short films all dealing with different people who become inspired by Obama to take essential steps forward in their lives…he took the series to theaters around the country, urging attendees to get involved with the Obama campaign. "My whole purpose is to help change the world. Obama getting in office will be a huge step in that direction."

Besides this film series, the director voiced his support for Obama on Huffington Post. In a November 3, 2008 post, Basir went so far to claim that the Democrat needed to be elected because Republican candidate John McCain would become a second Ronald Reagan:

All you have to do is look back forty years ago….There were movements ranging from anti-war, black power, women's rights, sexual revolution, etc. It was a time when the American people realized that it was not only OK to question government, but it was our right. Those who lived it can speak on it much better. But for those of us who didn't, all we have to compare it to is the movement of now….The protests, marches, sit in's, etc. got us very far in terms of this countries progress, but they scared the right & center so much that they also got us Reagan. We won't let this happen again. This time we are not scared, more people than ever understand exactly what has to happen. That we cannot afford to let the progression of this movement end with another Reagan, or in this case, McCain.

As you might expect, CNN didn't mention any of this about Basir during the segment, and the director helped them revisit their months-old charge that Islamophobia is now "mainstream" in America.

— Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center. You can follow him on Twitter here.

MSNBC's Richard Lui questioned and generally disagreed with a St. Augustine High School alum who supported the school's 60 year tradition of corporal punishment – paddling – in a story MSNBC apparently thinks merits national attention.

Before the most recent school year, St. Augustine's, a Catholic high school in New Orleans, did away with corporal punishment after the Archbishop of New Orleans Gregory Aymond quietly voiced concerns about it with school officials. The archdiocese had actually forbade Catholic schools from using corporal punishment for years, but St. Augustine's kept with its paddling tradition.

The controversy is not over, as the majority of participants in a recent townhall discussion – alumni, teachers, parents, and students – actually supported corporal punishment as a means of character formation. Administration of paddling as punishment is featured in the guidebook given to parents before each school year, and they reportedly consent to it. Alumni have voiced their support of it in the past and even now. Yet MSNBC's Lui thought himself educated enough on the matter to comment on it.

Lui began by asking innocuous questions, although he was clearly concerned about the form of  punishment. When Reese clarified that the paddles were the size a fraternity might have used in the past for hazing, Lui responded that "that does not bring up good connotations when you bring up that example."

"Now a New Orleans Archbishop said here Judge, that there's some research out there that shows violence basically fosters violence. It's probably the last thing you want," Lui provocatively told Reese. When Reese concluded that the discipline was "successful" in forming good young men, Lui added that the punishment was "very debatable, as well."  

On his first day at MSNBC, new host Martin Bashir immediately adopted the network's liberal line, attacking a conservative Congressman for advocating severe spending cuts, deriding it as "the most disingenuous play on the American people."

Previewing the interview with Representative Joe Walsh of Illinois, Bashir noted that he has refused congressional health care. The anchor solemnly wondered, "Is that his idea of health care for every American?"

Bashir, who previously co-anchored ABC's Nightline, offered this loaded question to the Republican: "You're a freshman in this Congress. Are you satisfied that your first significant act in Washington will help bring the government to a standstill?"

The cable host closed out this interview and then snidely segueing to his next guest: "And for more on the political ramifications of this budget battle, including, hopefully, a little truth serum, let's bring in NBC news analyst and senior political editor at the Huffington Post, Howard Fineman."

A transcript of the segment, which aired at 3:10pm EST, follows:

MARTIN BASHIR: And when we come back, a congressman who refuses health care, even with a wife who has a preexisting condition. Is that his idea of health care for every American?

3:13

BASHIR: Now to the possible government shutdown looming at end of the week. Both parties say they're considering a Republican plan to keep things up and running, but the clock is ticking. Speaker of the House John Boehner says continuing to do the people's work, well, it's a moral issue.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE JOHN BOEHNER: We have a moral responsibility to address the problems that we face and that means working together to cut spending and to rein in government, not shutting it down.

BASHIR: Congressman Joe Walsh is a Republican from Illinois and he joins me live from the capitol. Mr. Walsh, good afternoon.

REP. JOE WALSH: Good afternoon, Martin. Congrats on the show.

BASHIR: Thank you very much. You're a freshman in this Congress. Are you satisfied that your first significant act in Washington will help bring the government to a standstill?

WALSH: You know, absolutely. Republicans have been clear that we don't want a shut down government. And I think it's very impressive that we sent a two-week- a two-week budget over to the Democrats in the Senate to try to keep the dialogue going so that we can avoid shutting down government. But, Martin, make no mistake, they sent us here to cut spending, and that's what's in this two-week CR.

BASHIR: Let's just sit for a moment on the cutting and spending. Isn't this the most disingenuous play on the American people? Because from Planned Parenthood to collective bargaining in Wisconsin, spending cuts is the excuse. But the real target, well, that's your political opponents.

WALSH: No. You know what? Martin, spending cuts are the real truth. That's why 87 Republican freshmen were sent to Washington. The Speaker alluded to it as a moral issue. It is a moral issue. Our country's broke and that's because we're spending too much. We're on a path right now that's going to bankrupt our kids and grand kids and that's morally irresponsible. That's almost criminal to do to future generations. The Republicans are keeping their word, and we're systemically going to go at the spending problem.

BASHIR: You've said President Obama ought to be ashamed of himself for not dealing with- for not dealing with entitlements in his budget. You say it's time to raise the retirement age and means test Social Security. But, do you have support from Speaker John Boehner?

WALSH: Absolutely. Look at Paul Ryan. Look at Paul Ryan to the north of me in Wisconsin. He has been a leader on this. He stuck his neck out last year and proposed reforms of Medicare and Social Security. Martin, I stand by those words. The President put out a budget and he should be ashamed of himself because he punted on entitlement reform. And everybody in this town knows that you've got to have a serious dialogue about Social Security and Medicare because that's where the bulk of the spending is. The Republicans are not going to be afraid to take the lead on this. And I think the American people are ready for that discussion.

BASHIR: Is it true that your own wife has decided to reject any health care insurance at this time?

WALSH: I pledged a year ago that, if I were elected, I'd turn down all congressional health care and retirement benefits. I just don't believe, as a member of Congress, you should take those. I don't want to increase the federal footprint, no matter how much it costs. It means a lot to me. And my wife was with me every step of the way. She had a procedure last week, Martin. She did have a preexisting condition and like a lot of Americans  we have to pay that out of our own pock.

BASHIR: And how did the procedure go, by the way?

WALSH: Thank you. It well and she's recouping. Thank you.

BASHIR: And how much did it cost you?

WALSH: Uh, you know, I don't want to get into that, but it's something I'm going to feel. It's going to take me a while to pay off.

BASHIR: Okay, Congressman Joe Walsh of Illinois. Thank you.

WALSH: Martin, thank you.

BASHIR: And for more on the political ramifications of this budget battle, including, hopefully, a little truth serum, let's bring in NBC news analyst and senior political editor at the Huffington Post, Howard Fineman.

— Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.

A group of hackers attacked the website of conservative activist group Americans for Prosperity on Monday. The attack used a simple but effective method known as a distributed denial of service attack.

The group, which calls itself "Anonymous", has attacked a number of websites in recent months that it perceives as political enemies. Those have included the websites of MasterCard and Amazon, apparently targeted for their opposition to the online whistleblower organization WikiLeaks.

Anonymous posted an over-the-top, conspiratorial press release on its website, addressed to the "Citizens of the United States of America". The release stated, in part (no links for cyber-criminals – Google it to find the full statement, if you wish):

It has come to our attention that the brothers, David and Charles Koch–the billionaire owners of Koch Industries–have long attempted to usurp American Democracy. Their actions to undermine the legitimate political process in Wisconsin are the final straw. Starting today we fight back.

Left unstated was why the fourteen Wisconsin legislators who have fled the state to literally stop the democratic process – with the stated intention of doing so – were not targets for their roles in usurping democracy.

AFP fired back with a release of its own, calling on political organizations of all stripes to condemn the illegal attack. Tim Phillips, AFP's president, insisted that the organization "will not be intimidated."

Americans for Prosperity has established itself as a leading voice in one of the great political debates underway in this country over government spending and how best to restore the fiscal solvency of governments at both the state and federal level. Yesterday, a group claimed credit for an attempt to silence our voice and to stifle that debate through an illegal attack on our website. While the political debate over government spending can be heated, we hope that even our opponents will join us in condemning this illegal attack on our free speech rights as unacceptable and irredeemable. Our country cannot meet the great challenges before us if we cannot have a free and open discussion about the threats that we face.

Americans for Prosperity will not be intimidated and will not be deterred from our effort to support responsible economic policies, including the efforts of Governor Walker and other democratically elected leaders in that state to balance the budget through common-sense reforms.

The attempt to take down AFP's website may actually help the group's image, some analysts have predicted. Politico's Ben Smith predicted that the attack "will likely also help establish AfP among conservatives as the key group at Governor Scott Walker's side."

The attack is the latest instance in a troubling trend among those opposed to Walker's efforts to reform the state government's relationship with public employee unions. Many liberal groups and individuals have sought, of late, to silence voices they perceive as politically opposed to their own.

Ironically, Anonymous, which has no official political platform or affiliation, prides itself in the fact that in its online forums, "No censorship takes place!" That is a courtesy it apparently will not extend to groups with which Anonymous members do not agree.

Note: as of this posting, AFP's website is fully functional.

Imagine that Pat Robertson or Dr. James Dobson took out a full-page ad in a mainstream media publication hinting that Jesus himself is squarely behind the Republicans' efforts to curb spending and curtail the size and scope of the federal government.

The media would certainly cover the interesting theological and political claims at hand but they'd also be certain to cite apolitical and/or liberal Christian thinkers who would decry the crass and cynical exploitation of Christ for political matters upon which Scripture is silent, such as the U.S. federal budget.

Yet when it came to the liberal group Sojourners asking "What Would Jesus Cut" in an ad in today's Politico, CNN's Belief Blog failed to report the objections of concerns that conservative Christians and apolitical Christian theologians would raise

From Dan Gilgoff's Feb. 28 CNN.com Belief Blog post (emphasis mine):

A coalition of progressive Christian leaders has taken out a full-page ad that asks “What would Jesus cut?” in Monday’s edition of Politico, the opening salvo in what the leaders say will be a broader campaign to prevent cuts for the poor and international aid programs amid the budget battle raging in Washington.

 

“They’re talking about cutting bed nets for malaria and leaving every piece of military spending untouched,” said the Rev. Jim Wallis, who leads the Christian group Sojourners, referring to Republican spending proposals for the rest of this year.

 

“Are we saying that every piece of military equipment is more important than bed nets, children’s health and nutrition for low-income families?” said Wallis, whose group paid for Monday’s ad. “If so they should be ashamed of themselves.”

 

The ad and the broader campaign are aimed mostly at a spending measure passed by the Republican-led House of Representatives that cuts $61 billion from current spending levels, including cuts to Head Start, the Women Infants and Children (WIC) program and international aid programs.

 

[...]

 

“The most corrupt government spending is military spending,” Wallis said. “Its cost overruns, outdated weapons systems, welfare checks to military contractors.”

 

“This is a biblical choice of swords into plowshares directly and the House Republicans want to beat our ploughshares into more swords," he said. "These priorities that they’re offering are not just wrong or unfair, they’re unbiblical.”

The only opposing point of view CNN.com's Dan Gilgoff quoted was that of Speaker John Boehner, and that briefly at the end of his Feb. 28 post:

On Sunday, Boenher gave a speech that framed the government’s mounting debt as a moral issue.

 

"We have a moral responsibility to address the problems we face. That means working together to cut spending and rein in government – not shutting it down," Boehner said. "This is very simple: Americans want the government to stay open, and they want it to spend less money. We don't need to shut down the government to accomplish that."

 

Boehner's remarks were included in a speech he delivered to the National Religious Broadcasters annual convention in Nashville.

A Wisconsin Democrat Assemblyman turned to a Republican Assemblywoman in the middle of a legislative session Friday and said, "You are f–king dead."

Despite the following report from the Northwestern at 12:53 PM Monday, no major media outlet other than Fox News has covered this disgusting story:

Rep. Gordon Hintz, D-Oshkosh, called Rep. Michelle Litjens, R-Winneconne, Monday morning to apologize for his comments that Litjens described as containing an obscenity and the words “you’re dead.” Last week, he accepted responsibility for being issued an ordinance violation for visiting a massage parlor in Appleton that was the subject of a prostitution sting.

The Daily Caller's Jeff Poor on Monday linked to the website of Wisconsin's Newsradio 620 WTMJ which judging by the first comment reported as early as 10:43 AM:

Last Friday…. after the Assembly voted to engross the Budget Repair Bill, Hintz turned to a female colleague, Rep. Michelle Litjens and said: "You are F***king dead!"

In this post-Gabrielle Giffords world, with calls for a new civility, a man that was just busted in the middle of a prostitution sting says "You are f–king dead" to a woman on the floor of the Wisconsin assembly, and America's media couldn't care less.

Despite this being reported no later than 10:43 AM, a Google news search identified that apart from Wisconsin outlets, only Fox and conservative websites thought this was at all newsworthy.

As of 12:30 AM Tuesday, according to LexisNexis, no major news outlets reported this event. Closed-caption records for ABC's "World News," CBS's "Evening News," and NBC's "Night News" also found no coverage of this issue.

Imagine for a moment Hintz was a Republican and Litjens a Democrat.

This likely would have been the lead story for all three broadcast evening news programs as well as the focus of every hour of reporting on CNN and MSNBC with calls for Hintz's resignation.

But much like what happened at ABC's town hall meeting when a survivor of the Giffords shootings said "You are dead" to a Tea Party leader in the audience, our media clearly don't care when liberals publicly threaten conservatives.

Now this standard extends to a male Democrat elected official vulgarly assaulting a female Republican on an Assembly floor.

Makes one think it's journalism that's bleeping dead!

(H/T Weasel Zippers)

It is said that if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

Maybe this is Rachel Maddow's intention behind continually saying the following on the MSNBC show bearing her name (video follows with transcript and commentary):

RACHEL MADDOW: The longer it goes on, the clearer it becomes that this whole fight is not about what they say it is about. This whole fight is not about the budget. This fight is about destroying the unions. It is about corporate titans who give lots of money to Republicans and who can get them on the phone for 20 minutes in the middle of a crisis, guys like David Koch wanting to bust the unions, and it is about dismantling a key part of the Democratic base in terms of fund raising. You want to see those numbers from the 2010 elections again? Right. Okay, unions are the only significant outside spending group that Democrats have to compete with the conservatives. Union members also tend to support Democratic causes and they provide a good chunk of the get out the vote infrastructure that Democrats rely on to win elections. The Republican Party more than almost anything else represents corporate interest. The Democratic Party more than anything else represents people who work for corporate interests or people who represent something other than corporations.

As she was saying this, the following graphic was on the screen clearly reading "Outside Groups":

As NewsBusters first reported last Wednesday, Maddow made virtually the same statement on her February 18 program:

MADDOW: Of the top ten outside spending groups in last year's elections, seven of them were right wing groups, groups like the Chamber of Commerce, and Karl Rove`s organizations, which are mostly funded by billionaires. Conservative groups like the American Future Fund.

The only non-conservative groups that cracked the top ten in the last election were the Public Employees Union and the SEIU, and the teachers union, that's it. In terms of large scale money spent in elections, unions are the only competition that Republicans have.

The following Monday she said:

MADDOW: Here again are the top ten big money contributors in last year's elections, seven of the top ten are right wing. The only three that are not are — ding, ding, ding — unions.

The following day she said this to Jay Leno on NBC's "Tonight Show":

MADDOW: But, if you look at like the last election cycle, of the top ten people donating money in that election, seven of them were giving to Republicans. It was all corporate interests and right-wing PACs and stuff. Seven of the ten were all right-wing. And the only three that weren't were unions.

Since February 18, she has uttered this falsehood at least four times on four programs airing four different days.

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

Once again, here are the facts.

Maddow is actually referring to "outside non-party committees" wherein seven of the top ten contributors in 2010 were indeed conservative, with the only three liberal contributors being unions. These are groups that contribute money for political causes but not specific candidates. That's why they're deemed "non-party."

If you look at all "outside spending groups" for 2010 – which by Maddow's wording consistently has been the implication – you'll find that four of the top ten contributors were liberal with only two of them being unions.

This completely destroys her point that "unions are the only significant outside spending group that Democrats have to compete with the conservatives" thereby invalidating her assertion that this is the reason Gov. Walker is trying to blame the “supposed” deficits on public sector unions in his state.

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

What makes this even more absurd is the commercial airing on MSNBC to promote Maddow's program:

MADDOW: News is about stories. It’s about finding all the disparate facts and then finding their coherence. Doing this right takes rigor and a devotion to facts that borders on obsessive. At the end of the day, though, this is about what’s true in the world.

In the promo for the defacto new face of MSNBC, Maddow claims, "It’s about finding all the disparate facts and then finding their coherence. Doing this right takes rigor and a devotion to facts that borders on obsessive. At the end of the day, though, this is about what’s true in the world."

Yet at least four times in the last seven business days, Maddow has completely misrepresented the very same thing about 2010 campaign contributions.

Over and over.

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

The folks at MSNBC and Comcast should be ashamed of themselves for allowing this to happen.

Is there any integrity at this network, or did they learn from Keith Olbermann that such a virtue is unimportant when advancing a cause?