It is one matter if a president stakes out a smart position within a heated political debate, but it is another matter when members of the press believe so and shower him with positive coverage. CNN's John King complimented President Obama on Thursday's Anderson Cooper 360 for having "positioned himself smartly here in the middle" on the debt ceiling debate.

King painted the president as a pragmatic moderate who has called on both sides to compromise, in a statement that could pass for White House talking points.

[Video below the break.]

"He [Obama] has been trying very carefully to portray the public image of the man in the middle, the grown-up who is willing to say hey, Democrats you're going to have to cut some Medicare, cut some Social Security. Hey, Republicans I want you to raise a little tax revenue," King remarked.

He made sure to add that Obama's strategy has been sound and supported by public opinion. King noted that "the President has positioned himself smartly here in the middle."

A transcript of the segment, which aired on July 28 at 11:08 p.m. EDT, is as follows:

ANDERSON COOPER: John how much about what – what's going on over the last – tonight and the last couple nights on Capitol Hill has been about wanting to kind of avoid getting the blame for, or getting the credit for some sort of a deal? I mean from the Republican perspective, from the Democratic perspective?

JOHN KING: Well, there's no question – well, you've seen the President giving speeches to the nation coming into the White House briefing room quite frequently in recent days, something he doesn't do all that often. He has been trying very carefully to portray the public image of the man in the middle, the grownup who is willing to say, hey, Democrats you're going to have to cut some Medicare, cut some Social Security. Hey, Republicans I want you to raise a little tax revenue.

He has done and most people give him credit, public opinion polling reflects, the President has positioned himself smartly here in the middle. But he needs a deal. He's a President who is going to be campaigning for re-election with unemployment somewhere in the ballpark of 9 percent. Any further jitters to the economy further undermine the President's re-election prospects.

In terms of the House and the Senate that's all we've had in recent days. The Republicans want to pass their plan in the House and say that Democrats won't do enough cutting, they won't do enough or they want to raise taxes. The Republicans want to say that John Boehner is hostage to the Tea Party. So what you have right now is finger-pointing and a clock ticking toward a deadline that is significant. How significant? God forbid we might have to find out.

Liberal New York Times columnist Paul Krugman on Friday denounced the "centrist cop-out" of balance. Krugman specifically singled out the Associated Press for not exclusively blaming the ongoing debt ceiling impasse on the Republican Party.

Complaining about too much fairness, the author derided his journalistic colleagues, "But making nebulous calls for centrism, like writing news reports that always place equal blame on both parties, is a big cop-out — a cop-out that only encourages more bad behavior. The problem with American politics right now is Republican extremism, and if you’re not willing to say that, you’re helping make that problem worse."         

In fact, as a July 26 Media Research Center report found, journalists have not made an effort to be "centrist." The MRC found that 66 percent of network stories mainly blamed the Republicans for the debt ceiling impasse. Only 20 percent found the Democrats at fault.

Krugman began by flatly denouncing the House GOP for having "taken America hostage, threatening to undermine the economy and disrupt the essential business of government unless they get policy concessions they would never have been able to enact through legislation."

In fact, Krugman even blamed his journalists and their "cult of balance" for bringing America to the "edge of disaster":

The cult of balance has played an important role in bringing us to the edge of disaster. For when reporting on political disputes always implies that both sides are to blame, there is no penalty for extremism. Voters won’t punish you for outrageous behavior if all they ever hear is that both sides are at fault.

Let me give you an example of what I’m talking about. As you may know, President Obama initially tried to strike a “Grand Bargain” with Republicans over taxes and spending. To do so, he not only chose not to make an issue of G.O.P. extortion, he offered extraordinary concessions on Democratic priorities: an increase in the age of Medicare eligibility, sharp spending cuts and only small revenue increases. As The Times’s Nate Silver pointed out, Mr. Obama effectively staked out a position that was not only far to the right of the average voter’s preferences, it was if anything a bit to the right of the average Republican voter’s preferences.

But Republicans rejected the deal. So what was the headline on an Associated Press analysis of that breakdown in negotiations? “Obama, Republicans Trapped by Inflexible Rhetoric.” A Democratic president who bends over backward to accommodate the other side — or, if you prefer, who leans so far to the right that he’s in danger of falling over — is treated as being just the same as his utterly intransigent opponents. Balance!

For more, see a previous NewsBusters post.

 In Wednesday’s New York Times article, "Where Politics Are Complex, Simple Joys at the Beach: Israelis and Palestinians Dare to Swim Together," reporter Ethan Bronner sympathetically devotes nearly all of the article to a group of left-wing Israeli women – called We Will Not Obey – who illegally smuggle Palestinian women through checkpoints from the West Bank into Israel so they can visit the beach.

The article includes a quote from one member of the group who ridiculously compares herself to being a German living in Nazi Germany during World War II, while a second activist invokes legendary civil rights activist Rosa Parks. Bronner is apparently so impressed with the quote about Rosa Parks that he uses larger text to alert readers to the reference near the end of the article.

And, according to the pro-Israel group CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle Eastern Reporting in America), the article incorrectly relays the claim that Israelis, unlike Palestinians, enjoy the privilege of unrestricted travel at all points between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, when in reality Israelis do face restrictions on travel into the West Bank.

Even the implied premise that West Bank residents lack their own swimming facilities ignores the existence of swimming pools in various Palestinian cities, as previously documented by CAMERA.

Near the beginning of the article, readers are told that participants in the activist group are protesting what they view as "unjust laws":

They risked criminal prosecution, along with the dozen Israeli women who took to the beach. And that, in fact, was part of the point: to protest what they and their hosts consider unjust laws.

Soon comes the quote that hints at a similarity between Israel and Nazi Germany:

"What we are doing here will not change the situation," said Hanna Rubinstein, who traveled to Tel Aviv from Haifa to take part. "But it is one more activity to oppose the occupation. One day in the future, people will ask, like they did of the Germans: ‘Did you know?' And I will be able to say, ‘I knew. And I acted.'"

And, even though he never labels the group We Will Not Obey as "left-wing," Bronner does label a conservative organization as "right-wing" when he notes that the two groups had been in conflict with one another:

"The resulting trip, described in an article she wrote for the weekend magazine of the newspaper Haaretz, prompted other Israeli women to invite her to speak, and led to the creation of a group they call We Will Not Obey. It also led a right-wing organization to report her to the police, who summoned her for questioning."

Bronner does not question the liberal group’s claims about the difference in travel restrictions on Israelis and Palestinians:

In a newspaper advertisement, the group of women declared: "We cannot assent to the legality of the Law of Entry into Israel, which allows every Israeli and every Jew to move freely in all regions between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River while depriving Palestinians of this same right."

But CAMERA’s article, "The New York Times’ Bronner Advocates for Fringe Group, Censors Mainstream Concerns," disputes this claim:

 In fact, the law says no such thing. Current restrictions on freedom of movement apply both to Palestinians and Israeli Jews and are a direct result of the security threat presented to Israel and Israeli citizens. Both Palestinians and Israelis had complete freedom of movement "between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River" until after the first intifada, when Palestinian violence against Israelis began to rise. Today, Israeli Jews are barred from entering Palestinian Authority-controlled areas of the West Bank, while Palestinians are issued permits to cross Israel’s pre-67 boundaries. So the advertisement is simply false.

The New York Times article then briefly gives background informing viewers that the travel restrictions were imposed in response to violence from Palestinians, but the complaint that not enough Palestinians are granted permits to come into Israel is still presented sympathetically, and one left-wing activist is quoted as calling Israeli authorities "colonialist bureaucrats":

About 60,000 (entry permits) will be issued this year, twice the number for 2010 but still a token amount for a population of 2.5 million. Ms. Hammerman views the permits as the paperwork of colonialist bureaucrats – to be resisted, not indulged.

Bronner’s next paragraph may inadvertently shed light on why some of the Palestinian women mentioned in the story have had difficulty getting permits, as some of them have a number of male relatives in prison. But, rather than exploring whether terrorist connections might play a role in the travel restrictions for these women, the New York Times reporter seems oblivious to the potential significance of the incarcerations:

The Palestinian visitors came with complicated histories. In most of their families, the men have been locked up at some point. For example, Manal, who had never been to the sea before, is 36, the mother of three and pregnant; five of her brothers are in Israeli prisons, and another was killed when he entered a settler religious academy armed with a knife.

A bit past this point, the article uses large letters to draw attention to the upcoming reference to Rosa Parks:

Pointing to Rosa Parks for having the courage to break an unjust law.

The article soon concludes with one Israeli activist complaining about being an "occupier," and bringing up the legendary civil rights activist:

Ms. Aharoni was asked her thoughts. She replied: "For 44 years, we have occupied another country. I am 53, which means most of my life I have been an occupier. I am engaged in an illegal act of disobedience. I am not Rosa Parks, but I admire her because she had the courage to break a law that was not right."

Below is a complete transcript of Ethan Bronner’s article from page A4 of the Wednesday, July 27, 2011, edition of the New York Times with critical portions in bold:

 Skittish at first, then wide-eyed with delight, the women and girls entered the sea, smiling, splashing and then joining hands, getting knocked over by the waves, throwing back their heads and ultimately laughing with joy.

Most had never seen the sea before.

The women were Palestinians from the southern part of the West Bank, which is landlocked, and Israel does not allow them in. They risked criminal prosecution, along with the dozen Israeli women who took to the beach. And that, in fact, was part of the point: to protest what they and their hosts consider unjust laws.

In the grinding rut of Israeli-Palestinian relations – no negotiations, mutual recriminations, growing distance and dehumanization- the illicit trip was a rare event that joined the simplest of pleasures with the most complex of politics. It showed why coexistance here is hard, but also why there are, on both sides, people who refuse to give up on it.

"What we are doing here will not change the situation," said Hanna Rubinstein, who traveled to Tel Aviv from Haifa to take part. "But it is one more activity to oppose the occupation. One day in the future, people will ask, like they did of the Germans: ‘Did you know?’ And I will be able to say, ‘I knew. And I acted.’"

Such visits began a year ago as the idea of one Israeli, and have blossomed into a small, determined movement of civil disobedience.

Ilana Hammerman, a writer, translator and editor, had been spending time in the West Bank learning Arabic when a girl there told her she was desperate to get out, even for a day. Ms. Hammerman, 66, a widow with a grown son, decided to smuggle her to the beach. The resulting trip, described in an article she wrote for the weekend magazine of the newspaper Haaretz, prompted other Israeli women to invite her to speak, and led to the creation of a group they call We Will Not Obey. It also led a right-wing organization to report her to the police, who summoned her for questioning.

In a newspaper advertisement, the group of women declared: "We cannot assent to the legality of the Law of Entry into Israel, which allows every Israeli and every Jew to move freely in all regions between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River while depriving Palestinians of this same right. They are not permitted free movement within the occupied territories nor are they allowed into the towns and cities across the green line, where their families, their nation, and their traditions are deeply rooted.

"They and we, all ordinary citizens, took this step with a clear and resolute mind. In this way, we were privileged to experience one of the most beautiful and exciting days of our lives, to meet and befriend our brave Palestinian neighbors, and together with them, to be free women, if only for one day."

The police have questioned 28 Israeli women; their cases are pending. So far, none of the Palestinian women or girls have been caught or questioned by the police.

The beach trip last week followed a pattern: the Palestinian women went in disguise, which meant removing clothes rather than covering up. They sat in the back seats of Israeli cars driven by middle-aged Jewish women and took off headscarves and long gowns. As the cars drove through an Israeli Army checkpoint, everyone just waved.

Earlier, the Israelis had dropped off toys and equipment at the home of one of the Palestinian women, who is setting up a kindergarten. The Israelis also help the Palestinian women with their medical and legal troubles.

Israel’s military, which began limiting Palestinian movement into Israel two decades ago to prevent terrorism at a time of violent uprisings, is in charge of issuing permits for Palestinian visits to Israel. About 60,000 will be issued this year, twice the number for 2010 but still a token amount for a population of 2.5 million. Ms. Hammerman views the permits as the paperwork of colonialist bureaucrats – to be resisted, not indulged. Others have attacked her for picking and choosing which laws she will and will not obey.

The Palestinian visitors came with complicated histories. In most of their families, the men have been locked up at some point. For example, Manal, who had never been to the sea before, is 36, the mother of three and pregnant; five of her brothers are in Israeli prisons, and another was killed when he entered a settler religious academy armed with a knife.

She brought with her an unsurprising stridency. "This is all ours," she said in Tel Aviv. She did not go home a Zionist, but in the course of the day her views seemed to grow more textured – or less certain – as she found comfort in the company of Israeli women who said that they, too, had a home on this land.

Another visitor lives in a refugee camp with her husband and children. Her husband’s family does not approve of her visits ("‘How can you be with the Jews?’ they ask me. ‘Are you a collaborator?’") but she did not hide the relief she felt at leaving her overcrowded camp for a day of friends and fun.

The beach trips – seven so far – have produced some tense moments. An effort to generate interest in a university library fell flat. An invitation to spend the night met with rejection from Palestinian husbands and fathers. Home-cooked Israeli food did not make a big impression. And at the predominantly Jewish beach, a policeman made everyone nervous.

So, on this latest visit, the selected beach was one in Jaffa that is frequented by Israeli Arabs.

[Pointing to Rosa Parks for having the courage to break an unjust law.]

Nobody noticed the visitors.

Dinner was a surprise. Hagit Aharoni, a psychotherapist and the wife of the celebrity chef Yisraeli Aharoni, is a member of the organizing group, so the beachgoers dined on the roof of the Aharonis’ home, five floors above stylish Rothschild Boulevard, where hundreds of tents are currently pitched by Israelis angry with the high cost of housing. The guests loved Mr. Aharoni’s cooking. They lighted cigarettes – something they cannot do in public at home – and put on joyous Palestinian music. As the pink sun set over the Mediterranean, they danced with their Israeli friends.

Ms. Aharoni was asked her thoughts. She replied: "For 44 years, we have occupied another country. I am 53, which means most of my life I have been an occupier. I am engaged in an illegal act of disobedience. I am not Rosa Parks, but I admire her because she had the courage to break a law that was not right." 

Running a brief excerpt from his Sunday night Dateline special, “Taking the Hill: Inside Congress,” Brian Williams on Thursday evening showcased one and only one question he posed to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. He demanded: “Why shouldn't rich folks pay more?”

Williams insisted on NBC Nightly News that’s “a hot topic, no tax increase in any of these plans being discussed” in “what has become a big charge from the left that in any of these debt ceiling deals the poor are likely to get hit while the rich are likely to get a pass.”

McConnell countered, in the interview conducted on Wednesday, with the fact the wealthy “do” indeed already pay more, explaining: “They pay an extraordinary amount more, and in fact about half of Americans don't pay any income taxes at all.”

Let’s see if Friday’s NBC Nightly News, or in the Dateline itself, Williams challenges any Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill with a conservative point/argument. He didn’t in the excerpts aired Wednesday and Thursday night.

Meanwhile, fill-in CBS Evening News anchor Bob Schieffer decided to bring aboard Senator John McCain one day after McCain had insulted Tea Party Congressmen for “foolish” and “bizarro” demands:

We’re joined now live by Republican Senator John McCain who was so frustrated by all of this yesterday he called the situation “bizarro.” Senator, have you seen anything today to cause you to step back from that description? [McCain: “Not really...”]

From the Thursday, July 28 NBC Nightly News:

BRIAN WILLIAMS: We are just back from Washington where we spent yesterday on Capitol Hill, all over Capitol Hill in fact. NBC News cameras were given special access for a special broadcast this Sunday night. We talked to nearly every member of the leadership, including the GOP leader in the Senate, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. And I asked him about a hot topic, no tax increase in any of these plans being discussed.

WILLIAMS TO McCONNELL: Why shouldn't rich folks pay more?

SENATE MINORITY LEADER MITCH McCONNELL: They do. They pay an extraordinary amount more, and in fact about half of Americans don't pay any income taxes at all. That isn't a sticking point. The President in signing a continuation of the current tax rates back in December made the argument that Republicans had made, which is that raising taxes in the middle of a recession is not a good idea. I don't know that anybody thinks the economy's in better shape now than it was six months ago. But all of those issues are being discussed in conjunction with how we put together a package here that will actually begin to get us to head in a different direction.

WILLIAMS: Mitch McConnell on what has become a big charge from the left that in any of these debt ceiling deals the poor are likely to get hit while the rich are likely to get a pass. We will have more from him, from all the players in this, in our prime time special, "Taking the Hill: Inside Congress." That's Sunday night, 7 o’clock, 6 central.

On three occasions between July 22 and July 26, 2011, CBS's Bob Schieffer carried water for President Obama when he echoed the Democrat's inaccurate claim about Social Security: "Millions of Americans…may not get their next [Social Security] check if the debt ceiling crisis is not resolved." In reality, there is enough federal revenues and authorized expenditures to pay for the program [audio clips available here].

Schieffer gave a preview of the CBS Evening News nine minutes into the 8 am Eastern hour of the July 22, 2011 Early Show with his dire warning about Social Security:

SCHIEFFER: Every month, millions of Americans depend on Social Security to support their families and make ends meet. But now, they may not get their next check, if the debt ceiling crisis is not resolved.

[Video clips below the jump]

More than ten hours later, the CBS News anchor repeated his hype about the federal program as he introduced correspondent Michelle Miller's story, which was filled to the brim with potential sob stories if the false prediction came to be. Miller included a clip of the President's own:

SCHIEFFER: The late developments in Washington mean that a deal between Congress and the White House is now very much in doubt on the debt limit, and if the government does default, the people who rely on Social Security may end up being the first to get hurt. Here's Michelle Miller.

MILLER (voice-over): …For 26 years, Mattie Jones worked as a nurse's assistance in south Florida….Now 69, Jones completely depends on her monthly Social Security check.

JONES: $955.

MILLER (off-camera): Every month?

JONES: Every month.

MILLER: And you live entirely off of that?

JONES: Yes.

MILLER (voice-over): Jones's next check and rent bill are both due August 3, the same day a debt ceiling deadlock could stop the Treasury from seconding out checks.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3 if we haven't resolved this issue.

JONES: It's scary, you know? Because you don't know what's going to happen.

MILLER: Nearly 55 million people received Social Security benefits in June. That monthly check was the primary source of income for almost nine million recipients ages 65 and older. Many, like Mattie, also depend on government-funded services, like this meal plan at her local senior center. Now, her most important daily meal could be on the chopping block.

But seniors aren't the only ones at risk. More than four million beneficiaries are children like ten-year-old Anthony Hines….Anthony has autism. His mother, Claudia Pachon, is a single parent. She had to quit her full-time bank job and take part-time work, without benefits, to find time to care for her son….She gets $400 a month from Social Security to help make up the difference.

PACHON: For me, losing this $400 a month is a lot. I mean, I can't- it's not an option for me.

MILLER: Government money also covers the cost of Anthony's special needs school.

PACHON: Everyday, you got to struggle, and I just pray that everything is going to get better, not worse.

MILLER: On August 3, Pachon, Jones, and 27 million other Americans could find the system they paid into does not have the money to pay them back.

Fear mongering notwithstanding, there is actually enough money to pay the checks to those who depend on Social Security. On July 8, The Weekly Standard cited a study from the Bipartisan Study Center which "projects there will be $172 billion in federal revenues in August and $307 billion in authorized expenditures. That means there's enough money to pay for, say, interest on the debt ($29 billion), Social Security ($49.2 billion), Medicare and Medicaid ($50 billion), active duty troop pay ($2.9 billion), veterans affairs programs ($2.9 billion)."

As NewsBusters's Noel Sheppard noted, even left-wing hero Senator Bernie Sanders acknowledged on Ed Schultz's MSNBC show on July 13 that "you can figure out a way…[to] make sure that seniors and disabled vets get their checks….[W]e can pay Social Security."

Despite this, Schieffer took to the airwaves one more time at the beginning of the July 26 edition of CBS Evening News to trumpet that it was "one week and counting to August 2, the day the President says the government will run out of money and, among other things, will have to stop sending out Social Security checks."

Even Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) believes the government can still pay out social security checks if the debt ceiling is not raised, but CNN highlighted disgruntled seniors Thursday who fear the opposite. CNN correspondent Sandra Endo reported live from a senior center and emphasized that the citizens were "scared," "worried," and "angry" about possibly not receiving their Social Security and Medicare payments.

"A lot of opinions, strong emotions, coming out of the seniors we've spoken to," Endo said. "There's certainly a buzz here at this senior center, and a lot of people are just frightened because they rely on their Social Security and also Medicare and Medicaid, of course, for their livelihood."

[Video below the break.]

However, as the Weekly Standard reported recently, the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) believes that if the debt ceiling is not raised on time, U.S. has enough revenue in August to pay off entitlement obligations as well as interest on the debt, among other things. Even Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders told MSNBC's Ed Schultz July 13, "I think, in fact, we can pay Social Security."

A BPC study projected that, although failing to raise the debt ceiling "would mean deep and immediate cuts" in spending, enough revenue would exist to pay certain obligations. The government would have to prioritize which payments to meet.

The study estimated that U.S. will have $172 billion in revenue in August, with $307 billion in obligations. However, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid total about $100 billion in all, and interest on the debt $29 billion. Thus, according to the BPC, the U.S. could meet those obligations and still have room to pay for other important obligations, like paying soldiers on active duty.

However, CNN hyped the fears of the seniors and even quoted President Obama's controversial statement that Social Security payments could be in limbo if the debt ceiling is not raised.

"So certainly they are watching, they're waiting, all the seniors here. It's abuzz here at this center," Endo concluded. "People grabbing me, wanting to say what they think about what's going on in Washington because they are angry. They feel like they are the ones being held hostage by all these political games."

A transcript of the segment, which aired on July 28 at 2:04 p.m. EDT, is as follows:

RANDI KAYE: Let me bring in Sandra Endo now. She is in Pasadena, California, at a senior center where a whole lot of folks have a whole lot at stake. And they're all watching what's going on in Washington. Sandra, the seniors that you've met, are they alarmed so far by what they've seen happening or really not happening in Washington?

SANDRA ENDO, correspondent: Oh, absolutely, Randi. A lot of opinions, strong emotions, coming out of the seniors we've spoken to. A lot of people are scared, they're worried, they're angry about what's going on in Washington. There's certainly a buzz here at this senior center, and a lot of people are just frightened because they rely on their Social Security and also Medicare and Medicaid, of course, for their livelihood. And let's talk to Bobby right now. You were talking to me earlier, saying what's going on in Washington is ridiculous. How angry are you?

BOBBIE BROOKS, concerned about cuts to entitlements: Very, very angry. It's because I would not be able to live the lifestyle I live if I did not have my Social Security, even though I work part-time, 36 hours a week. But I can't live on either one of them.

ENDO: So you would be out on the street?

BROOKS: Probably worse than that, because I don't think – the way I see some people on the street, I don't think I could live that kind of life, you know? Because I would just – I wouldn't be able to function. So I hate that that day is staring us in the face.

ENDO: A big concern here. Anastasia, also, you've been watching this political fight play out in Washington. What do you think of all the back-and-forth bickering?

ANASTASIA STEWART, concerned about cuts to entitlements: I think I would like to see all of them have to trade places with us, and let them try and live on what we don't have and what they're trying to even cut more of. Social Security has not even contributed to the deficit, and yet they are more than happy to take it and use it wherever they like.

ENDO: And all the back-and-forth, the fighting?

STEWART: The political games that they play. (Laughs) It's a bad role model for our kids, I must say. Truth has become obsolete, and that's very sad. And yet we claim to be a country that tells the truth and that's democratic, and yet we're not doing a real good job of that ourselves.

ENDO: All right. Thank you so much for sharing your opinions. Obviously, a very tough emotional time for seniors as they wait, as the whole country waits, Randi, really, for some kind of deal, some kind of compromise, something, answers, to come out of Washington. Randi?

KAYE: So it sounds like folks there are certainly worried about the long term and any changes that might happen for entitlements – Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.

ENDO: Oh, absolutely. They are relying on these checks to come. And even President Obama, when he spoke, he was saying that these Social Security checks are in limbo. If the country is broke, they won't have enough money to send out these checks. So certainly they are watching, they're waiting, all the seniors here. It's abuzz here at this center. People grabbing me, wanting to say what they think about what's going on in Washington because they are angry. They feel like they are the ones being held hostage by all these political games.

KAYE: Sandra Endo at the senior center there in Pasadena. Interesting to hear some fresh voices there, folks who really have a fight under way here.

During the current debt ceiling debate, have the media told you what your personal share of the national debt would be after the ceiling is hiked?

Yeah. I didn't think so.

But when it was a midterm election year in which Democrats thrashed President George W. Bush and the GOP on overspending, it was a different story.

On March 16, 2006, Barack Obama was in his second year as a freshman senator and denounced the Bush administration's request for a debt ceiling increase. The debt ceiling increase passed the Senate on a 52-48 vote.

Later that night, according to the Nexis database,  NBC's Brian Williams and CBS's Russ Mitchell briefly mentioned the vote on  "Nightly News" and "Evening News," respectively.

Both anchors emphasized the $30,000 per capita cost of the national debt under the new limit:

BRIAN WILLIAMS: And one more note on all this from Capitol Hill in Washington tonight where the Senate agreed to let the federal government borrow another $781 billion, and the House then promptly passed $91 billion in new spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and for hurricane relief. The 52-to-48 vote in the Senate on that debt was along party lines, with three Republicans joining all the Democrats in opposing the bill that raised the ceiling on our national debt to nearly $9 trillion. That level, by the way, that level of debt, represents $30,000 for every man, woman and child in the United States.

[...]

RUSS MITCHELL, anchor: Here's something to think about, Congress today raised the borrowing limit on the government's well-worn credit card to get this $9 trillion. Paying off that amount of debt would take $30,000 from every man, woman and child in America, in case you were wondering you can make that check payable to the United States Treasury.

For the record, Senate Democrats and President Obama are hoping to raise the debt ceiling to about $16.7 trillion. The 2010 Census counted 308,745,538 Americans, so that comes out to approximately $54,100 in debt for every man, woman, and child in America.

Chris Matthews' infatuation with John McCain has returned. The day after the Republican senator bashed his own party, knocking "Hobbit" Tea Partiers, the Hardball anchor on Thursday lauded him as "great" and even suggested McCain as a MSNBC guest host: "…He can substitute for me some night with that kind of talk!"

The former GOP presidential nominee criticized 2010 Senate candidates Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle. Quoting from a Wall Street Journal editorial, McCain recited possible debt ceiling scenarios: "Then Democrats would have no choice but to pass a balanced budget amendment and reform entitlements and the Tea Party Hobbits could return to Middle Earth having defeated Mordor."

[See video below. MP3 audio here.]

In a tease for the segment, Matthews couldn't contain his rekindled excitement for the politician, hyping, "John McCain goes maverick on the Tea Party…The old John McCain is back and that tiff is next in the Sideshow. He's the straight talking express again."

Of course, McCain and Matthews took a break in 2008 when the Senator ran for President against Barack Obama, a MSNBC favorite. On September 27 of that year, Matthews slammed the Republican's "contempt" for Obama.

Playing psychologist, Matthews speculated of McCain: "He never looked at his opponent. What is that about? Is that an inferiority complex? Is that embarrassment? Is that guilt? Or is it contempt?"

A transcript of the July 28 segment, which aired at 5:30pm EDT, follows:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Up next, John McCain goes maverick on the Tea Party. He called them hobbits. I don't think he meant it nicely. He lambasted Tea Party Senate candidates who lost, Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell. The old John McCain is back and that tiff is next in the Sideshow. He's the straight talking express again.

5:30

MATTHEWS: First up, when was the last time you heard from failed Tea Party candidate Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell? Well, it happened yesterday, all thanks to comments made by the great John McCain on the U.S. Senate floor as he read a piece from the Wall Street Journal. Let's listen to the Senator.

JOHN MCCAIN: The idea seems to be that if the House GOP refuses to raise the debt ceiling, a default crisis or gradual government shutdown will ensue and the public will turn in masse against Barack Obama. Then Democrats would have no choice but to pass a balanced budget amendment and reform entitlements and the Tea Party Hobbits could return to Middle Earth having defeated Mordor This is the kind of cracked political thinking that turned Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell into GOP senate nominees.

MATTHEWS: Well, actually, he can substitute for me some night with that kind of talk. Anyway, both men were ticked off, both women ticked off at the reference that came back to McCain with interestingly crafted statements. Angle attacked McCain's Lord of the Rings reference saying, "As in the fable, it is the Hobbits who are the heroes and save the land. This Lord of the Tarp," that's McCain, "actually ought to read to the end of the story and join forces with the Tea Party, not criticize it." Wow. What world do they live in? And Christine O'Donnell, you know, she's not a witch, responded by saying, "It doesn't help me to attack to those conservative whose graciously gave him another chance to keep his Senate seat." Well, I remember history a little differently out in Arizona Last year. Really, I think what happened was, they had their own candidates out there and the candidate's name was J.D. Hayworth and McCain beat the Tea Party candidate.

This past month, Philadelphia magazine published what can only described as a vulgar, unfair, and reckless piece of yellow journalism designed to shock readers and lambaste the Catholic Church. Utilizing anonymous and discredited sources, writer Robert Huber authored a lengthy article seeking to portray the Church as a callous cabal that is oblivious to the pain of child sex abuse.

Enter Donna Farrell, Director of the Office of Communications of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.

Following the publication of the article, Ms. Farrell issued the following statement:

Unfortunately for Philadelphia magazine readers looking for honest, in-depth reporting, this piece is an agenda-driven travesty of salacious innuendo masquerading as journalism. It is built almost entirely on unsubstantiated comments recklessly offered by unattributed sources that Mr. Huber is all-too-ready to accept as fact.

In reality, "facts" are hard to come by in this article. Mr. Huber fails to accurately represent everything from the simplest of factual details to more intricate truths.

Regrettably, this 7,630-word piece, which is entirely one-sided, does not address the full story. It ignores fundamental and far-reaching changes Archdiocesan leaders have implemented and continue to implement in light of the 2005 and 2011 grand jury reports.

This inaccuracy is especially galling because the Archdiocese arranged meetings between Mr. Huber and Mary Achilles, the Archdiocesan victim services consultant, and Gina Maisto Smith, the veteran child abuse prosecutor hired by Cardinal Rigali. Despite these and other conversations about the significant steps taken by the Archdiocese to protect children, prevent child abuse, and assist victims, Mr. Huber chose to omit these perspectives from his piece — which left it sensational, wildly unfair, and incomplete.

Kudos to Ms. Farrell. While the archdiocese reached out to Mr. Huber to assist him with his article, the writer blatantly rebuked an opportunity for fairness.

In addition to quoting unnamed and uncorroborated sources, Mr. Huber also uncritically cited the fickle Fr. Thomas Doyle, whose relationship with the truth has long been troublesome (1, 2). He also cited the dishonest and discredited advocacy group SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests). These sources should be red flags to any alert reader.

Indeed, the reporting of the clergy abuse narrative in Philadelphia has been flimsy, to say the least. While the storyline from the media is that the archdiocese let molesters "run wild" in its care, the truth is that the Church in Philadelphia has worked very aggressively for the last several years to forcefully remove many priests whom it considered to be guilty of abuse. In other words, the media has portrayed the opposite of reality. (You can see this for yourself at the archdiocese's own web site. See also the links below.)

In addition, as a high-profile criminal trial against Catholic clergy approaches in Philadelphia, the media has taken almost no interest in scrutinizing the actual claims against the Church. The media has wholeheartedly accepted the wild findings of a sensationalistic and dubious grand jury report from earlier this year. (See more links below.)

Where is the fairness? Do the names McMartin and Amirault ring any bells to those in the media?

Much has been written about the Catholic Church abuse narrative in the last two decades. Much of what has been written has been all too disgusting and real. All people of good will must demand justice and compassion for victims of clergy abuse.

However, it seems that far too many in the media are all-too-willing to abandon honesty and decency in an effort to unfairly revile the Catholic Church.

And that is not right.

[Further reading: The Cases in Philadelphia:
"Unfair in Philadelphia? A Closer Look at the Grand Jury Report" (March 2011)
"Is the Fix In Against the Church in Philadelphia?" (March 2011)
"Philly Abuse Panel Chair: Media Has Misrepresented My Article" (May 2011)
"Philadelphia Catholic Clergy Abuse Trial Update" (June 2011)
"Who is the Accuser of Fr. James Brennan?" (July 2011)]

– Dave Pierre is the author of the book, Double Standard: Abuse Scandals and the Attack on the Catholic Church. Dave is also the creator of TheMediaReport.com and is a contributing writer to NewsBusters.

The latest polls show the people are not happy with President Obama's handling of budget matters, but Republicans look even worse. And yet, while the GOP delivers one idea after another, Obama has offered nothing, instead just attacking, attacking, attacking, blaming everyone but himself in utter denial of the reality that no man on the face of this Earth is more responsible for our debt catastrophe than he.

Why then is the public blaming Republicans more? It is because of the ceaseless, shameless and oftentimes utterly dishonest attacks on them coming from Obama's media hit men. A day doesn't go by without a leftist "news" media outrage. They come in all shapes, too.

First, there is the asinine. Think MSNBC anchor Mika Brzezinski. There she was broadsiding the Republicans for having refused Obama's proposal. "I think the Republicans look stupid and mean," she declared. "This is stupid. This is a no-brainer in terms of a deal. This is a no-brainer, and they look mean, and they look difficult, and they're going to lose this." But what is "this"? What was Obama's proposal? There was none, just nebulous language about the "wealthy" needing to pay their "fair share," of "revenue," which in the English language means a massive tax hike, which the GOP, correctly, rejects.

There is the inaccurate. MSNBC daytime anchor Thomas Roberts loudly complains that the party of the "super-rich" is to blame. "We haven't had tax increases over the last 10 years. We've had a recession; we've had two wars to fight. Why do you think the top 2 percent of America has a chokehold on the other 98 percent?"

That's almost exactly upside down. The Tax Foundation has estimated that the top 1 percent pays 38 percent of the entire income-tax burden, and the top 5 percent pays 58 percent. The bottom 50 percent pays nothing in federal tax. With these numbers, it could be argued that the bottom 50 percent has a chokehold on the top 5 percent.

There is the "I've lost all sense of sanity and class" crowd, and yes, we're talking Chris Matthews here. On "Hardball," Joan Walsh of Salon.com said the Republican resistance to new taxes is "deadly and it's wrong and it's hostage-taking, and you shouldn't negotiate with hostage-takers." Matthews had a chance to step in with a gentle, "Whoa, cowgirl." Instead it just carried him away, and he could only add: "I agree.

It's terrorism!" A pundit who looks at the debt talks and sees deadly terrorism doesn't need a math class. He needs psychological help.

There is the obsequious. Obama is painted as the perfectly reasonable negotiator who has bent over backward. NBC's Matt Lauer wants to know, "Where is the shared sacrifice going to come from on the Republican side?" CBS's Bob Schieffer insists Obama talks compromise, but "I don't hear any concessions from people on the other side. They just say no taxes, and that's their negotiating posture."

No one, but no one in the media (outside of Fox News, of course) is calling this double-talking president of ours on the carpet. This president who now tells us we must raise taxes to save the Republic is the same president who just seven months ago was telling us that everyone agrees the worst thing one could do during a crisis is raise taxes. Republicans agreed then and hold to that position now. That makes them unreasonable, unbalanced.

And where did this sudden spurt of media fiscal discipline come from, anyway? Where were they when America needed someone to ask Obama, Pelosi and Reid how they were going to pay for TARP? Where were the media demanding to know where the trillion bucks for the anti-stimulus program was coming from? How about the trillion for Obamacare?

They went along for the ride on all these budget-busting disasters. And now they have the temerity to lecture us on fiscal discipline?

There is the oblivious. Some journalists refuse to acknowledge that spending has soared under Obama. When Grover Norquist factually noted Obama's binge, CNN anchor Ali Velshi erupted in protest. "Wait a minute! 'He created with his spending'? You didn't just suggest that our budget problem is because of President Obama, did you, Grover?" Norquist said yes, he wasn't kidding. Velshi dismissed this concept as unreasonable: "OK, we're going to pass by that question because that's an unreasonable position."

In round numbers: In fewer than four years, Obama has increased the debt by $4 trillion. He proposes we raise it another $2.3 trillion. This makes Obama responsible for almost half the debt of the United States. But it is "unreasonable" to say so.

The leftist news media aren't coming to this debate to be an honest broker. They're just trying to break one side apart, and never mind that it's their vision that is driving us right over a cliff.