Uh, is this intended to help or hurt?

Liberal radio talker and MSNBC rodeo clown Ed Schultz, ever prepared to join a left-wing lollapalooza regardless of merit, is promising he'll provide plenty of unpaid ads for Occupy Wall Street. (audio clips after page break)

Here's Schultz vowing to do this on his radio show Friday –

And I got news for you — these folks, they ain't going away. They are not going away. 'Cause this is what the working folks are talking about. This is what the cabbies in New York are talking about, this is what the cabbies in Washington are talking about, this is what the truck drivers are listening to, you know, this is what the construction workers are doing over a lunch break.

They're hearing this stuff and they're seeing it on TV. And I'm going to put it on TV every night. I'm going to put it on TV every night until the last protester goes home and, you know what, this is going to be a story until the next election. And these folks are not going to disengage. They will be there.

How curious indeed that for all his bloviating about Occupy Wall Street, Schultz has broadcast "The Ed Show" from Zuccotti Park in lower Manhattan only once since the protest began a month ago, and his radio show not at all.

Perhaps significantly, "The Ed Show" that aired from Occupy Wall Street on Oct. 5 did not go well at all, with Schultz being jeered as a "corporatist" for much of the hour by protesters behind him.

The hostility toward Schultz that night was so nasty that James Holm, a producer on Schultz's radio show, lashed out at the protesters the following day on the radio show (audio) –

These people were attacking Ed Schultz for being a corporatist. Give me a freakin' break! This is the only show that talks about union issues every single day. This is the show that spent a year and a half fighting for health care in this country. This is the show that talks about school teachers and firefighters and policemen. And these punks — and I'm going to use that word again — they're punks, have the audacity to sit there and call us corporate media, you can go straight to hell! And if I, if you happen to have seen me on TV last night, we were in, on the verge of a riot. And I wasn't mad because they're attacking Ed. What I'm mad about is they're hurting their own movement.

Ah, when lefties disagree. Not a pretty sight.

Nice to see that Schultz plans to be with the Wall Street protesters in spirit, seeing how it didn't go so well when he joined them in person.

Clearly it hasn't occurred to Holm that Schultz might well have been jeered as a corporatist because he works for MSNBC, whose parent company, NBC Universal, is nearly half-owned by GE — which paid no federal income taxes last year. Here's how this was reported by the New York Times on March 24 –

General Electric, the nation's largest corporation, had a very good year in 2010.

The company reported worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, and said $5.1 billion of the total came from its operations in the United States.

Its American tax bill? None. In fact, G.E. claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.

In other words, GE falls squarely within that wealthiest one percent that the so-called 99 percent find so repugnant.

The flea party squatters in Occupy Wall Street are proving helpful for Schultz and other MSNBC hosts in distracting attention from GE's tax dodge, Obama's failed presidency and genuine news such as the Solyndra debacle, in favor of a made-for-media, flash-in-the-pan distraction.

(h/t, Brian Maloney at The Radio Equalizer)

Martin Bashir devoted his October 17 "Clear the Air" segment to defending MSNBC contributor Goldie Taylor from criticism from NewsBusters and The Blaze that she attacked GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain for being in her view ashamed of being black.

Taylor insisted on Friday that Cain would "shed his ethnicity" that "if he could become what I would call the color of water, he would do it" for political advantage.

Bashir failed to find any fault with the "insightful" Goldie Taylor's attack and even doubled down on it with a puerile smear of Cain as being a "post-stupid" candidate, whatever that's supposed to mean [MP3 audio available here; video embedded below page break]:

The point is this: Herman Cain is the one who's been attempting to play down his racial background. He's the one who keeps saying that America is now colorblind.

But everyone knows that Herman Cain is badly wrong.

Look at the statistics for black unemployment. Look at the black prison population, look at poverty.

And all of it tells us that race absolutely does matter in this country, and that's why Herman Cain's ludicrous attempt at comedy –  where he equates his complexion with a brand of ice cream — is not post-racial, it's post-stupid.

What's ludicrous is MSNBC's obsession with Herman Cain's race. That's hardly the way to lean forward into a post-racial future.

On Monday's Early Show, CBS took advantage of Americans' love of coffee to hype climate change, bizarrely claiming that "your morning cup might be heading toward extinction." Contributor Taryn Winter Brill turned to a left-leaning organization to reinforce the claim that climate change "could have a devastating effect on future coffee production."

Fill-in anchor Jeff Glor teased Winter Brill's report by stating that "the top scientist at Starbucks says climate change threatens to severely limit coffee production around the world for decades." As he introduced the segment, he went even further by using the "extinction" line. The contributor explained that it was actually "the director of sustainability for Starbucks [who] said that climate change is threatening the world's coffee supply" [video clips from the segment available below the jump; audio available here.]

The Starbucks executive in question is Jim Hanna, who according to an online bio, "joined Starbucks Coffee Company in November 2005, leading the company’s initiatives to minimize its environmental footprint…Prior to Starbucks, he served as Director of Environmental Affairs for Xanterra Parks & Resorts at Yellowstone National Park. In the position, Jim oversaw Xanterra’s many progressive environmental initiatives…Jim earned a BS in Environmental Sciences from Washington State University."

Winter Brill then played two sound bites from Todd Sanford, who was identified on-screen as being a climate scientist for the Union of Concerned Scientists. The contributor never mentioned the left-of-center ideology of the organization. Sanford claimed that "climate change…could have a devastating effect on future coffee production." The CBS personality added that "increased carbon emissions have been linked to global climate change. So for coffee lovers, the idea of waking up without their morning brew could be a wake-up call to lead a more eco-friendly life."

Near the end of the segment, Winter Brill upped the ante by zeroing-in on another popular consumer item supposedly at threat- chocolate: "I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but chocolate production is also being affected…..they say by the year 2050, certain areas around the globe will not be able to sustain growing cocoa because of climate change."

Earlier in 2011, the CBS contributor served another left-leaning cause by hyping the "caloric catastrophe" of movie theater popcorn.

The full transcript of Taryn Winter Brill's report from Monday's Early Show, which aired 44 minutes into the 8 am Eastern hour:

JEFF GLOR: Coffee lovers, get ready for a jolt. A group of scientists believes your morning cup might be heading toward extinction.

ERICA HILL: Boy, that's good news on a Monday morning. (laughs) There is some good news here.

'Early Show' contributor Taryn Winter Brill tells us that news isn't exactly being welcomed by millions of bleary-eyed folks who depend on that cup of joe every day.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE ANNOUNCER (voice-over, from TV commercial): There is no other coffee like the 100% Colombian.

TARYN WINTER BRILL (voice-over): Try and imagine a world without coffee. For millions of early risers, that morning cup of joe is part of a daily ritual.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN 1: I need caffeine in the morning.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN 2: Without my morning cup of coffee, I'd probably be cranky.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN 1: I love my coffee in the morning. It makes me a happier person during the day.

WINTER BRILL: But for scientists, the reality is no laughing matter. On Friday, the director of sustainability for Starbucks said that climate change is threatening the world's coffee supply, telling The Guardian newspaper, 'What we are seeing as a company as we look 10, 20, 30 years down the road- if conditions continue as they are- is a potentially significant risk to our supply chain, which is the Arabica coffee bean.'

TODD SANFORD, CLIMATE SCIENTIST, UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS: Coffee likes a pretty narrow range of temperature, and one of the hallmarks, really, of climate change will be increased extremes in temperatures.

WINTER BRILL: Scientists say climate change will cause heavier rains, longer periods of drought, and higher rates of insect infestation in the tropical areas where coffee is grown- factors that could have a devastating effect on future coffee production.

SANFORD: Those of us who enjoy our morning cup of coffee- we may not always realize the future climate- due to increased temperatures, extreme precipitation- really could, in some ways, put that at risk.

WINTER BRILL: Increased carbon emissions have been linked to global climate change. So for coffee lovers, the idea of waking up without their morning brew could be a wake-up call to lead a more eco-friendly life.

[CBS News Graphic: "Trouble Brewing: Scientists: World Coffee Supply Dwindling"]

HILL (on-camera): Tara Winter Brill is with us this morning. (Winter Brill laughs) Wow, sort of sobering-

WINTER BRILL: That four cups of coffee, by the way- (laughs)

GLOR: Oh, you're charged up then?

WINTER BRILL: A little bit-

HILL: So you're using up the whole coffee supply? Thanks a lot.

WINTER BRILL: Guilty as charged. But, I mean, the thought of it- being around people who haven't had their morning fix. Can you imagine? Are you both coffee drinkers?

HILL: We do both drink coffee, but I limit myself to a couple a day. But, you know, maybe in some ways, this could be good for us- sort of wean us off our addictions to the coffee a little bit-

WINTER BRILL: Okay-

GLOR: Yeah. Well, maybe not- (Winter Brill and Hill laugh) I'm not sure I could do that. (Glor laughs) I do find it amusing that you're doing it with a straw.

WINTER BRILL: Right. This is actually water. I cut myself off-

HILL: You don't want to stain your teeth, though-

WINTER BRILL: No-

GLOR: Do you- you don't do the straw with coffee, do you?

WINTER BRILL: I do- don't tell anybody.

GLOR: Oh, really? With hot coffee- really?

WINTER BRILL: I do, and proud of it-

HILL: A lot of people do!

WINTER BRILL: Yes, yes- exactly.

GLOR: Oh, how about that!

HILL:  It's all about the tea. Now, wait, so you were telling us in the break it's not just coffee, though, that may be affected?

WINTER BRILL: Yes. I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but chocolate production is also being affected.

HILL:  If you it tell me is there a problem with red wine, you are out of here! (Glor laughs)

WINTER BRILL: (laughs) Not yet, not yet, but they say by the year 2050, certain areas around the globe will not be able to sustain growing cocoa because of climate change.

HILL: Which is- I mean, it's all actually very serious stuff-

WINTER BRILL: It is-

HILL: So it makes you rethink a few things.

Martin Bashir's campaign to prove Herman Cain really isn't a black man continued Monday when he accused the Republican presidential candidate of skipping the dedication of the Martin Luther King Jr. Monument in Washington, D.C., Saturday because he "really doesn't want to be overtly associated with African-Americans" (video follows with transcript and commentary):

MARTIN BASHIR, HOST: Mr. Cain was supposed to attend the dedication of the Martin Luther King Memorial on Sunday. I like many people watched it, was moved by it, but he failed to attend. Now there’s been some surprise at his absence. But being honest, isn’t this consistent for a man who really doesn't want to be overtly associated with African-Americans…

MICHAEL STEELE: Oh no, that’s…

BASHIR: and certainly not a man as dangerous as the greatest civil rights leader in the history of the country? He doesn't want to be associated with those…

MICHAEL STEELE: No, come on, no, I reject that and on his behalf resent that.

BASHIR: You do?

STEELE: Yeah, because I know first off, you know…

BASHIR: But this is a man, Michael, who says racism virtually doesn’t exist.

For the record, here are some of Bashir's recent comments concerning Cain:

• MSNBC's Bashir Again Gives Platform to Columnist Slamming Herman Cain As Self-hating Black Man
• Martin Bashir Attacks Herman Cain During Eulogy For Civil Rights Leader Fred Shuttlesworth
• Bashir on Cain's Calm Style: Republicans 'Do Not Want to Hear From a Black Man Who’s Aggressive, Assertive, Angry'

That makes at least four racially-charged attacks by Bashir on Cain in the past seven shows. Is this really the kind of commentary the folks at MSNBC want from their evening anchors?

Apparently so.

In an interview light on substance and heavy on praise with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton aired on Monday's NBC Today, correspondent Savannah Guthrie fawned: "Hillary Clinton of course is known for keeping a tireless pace….[her] approach is a combination of blunt talk, personal charm and above all, frequent-flyer diplomacy."

Later, Guthrie sympathetically informed viewers: "She has flown more than 600,000 miles on this government plane, a flying satellite office where she can reach world leaders at a moment's notice or hone her most necessary diplomatic skill, the ability to nap on command….I saw your cabin. For those who think this may be glamorous work, it's a pull-out couch….And there's not a hair and makeup team waiting on board."

Guthrie lobbed one softball after another, beginning with: "What's the one thing you want to be able to point to and have people be able to say, 'Hillary Clinton left it better than she found it'?" To which Clinton replied: "That despite very difficult circumstances when President Obama and I started our jobs, we have reasserted American leadership."

Noting Clinton's history as a divisive political figure, Guthrie cheered: "What's surprising is how the woman who was once so polarizing…is now so popular, Gallup's most admired woman in America nine years running." Guthrie wondered: "What do think people know about you now that they didn't know then?" Clinton argued: "I think because I've been on the public consciousness for so long and on the television screens in people's homes, I think there's a comfort."

Turning to Clinton's political future, Guthrie asked: "Will you run for president in 2016?" After Clinton rejected the idea, Guthrie pleaded: "But Secretary Clinton, politics is in your blood. People will not believe that you are closing the door and locking it on running for office ever again."

Just prior to that discussion, Guthrie suggested a new generation of Clinton political involvement: "One title I know you seek to have one of these days is grandmother….But I noticed Chelsea has been doing more events. We saw her a couple weeks ago doing an event with you. Do you think she has the Clinton bug for politics?"

Following the taped interview, Guthrie remarked to co-host Ann Curry: "And the sense among insiders is that Clinton really means it. She's done with public office. But they also believe that if the party came calling in 2016 it may be very difficult for her to say no."

Guthrie did ask Clinton if becoming a member of the Obama administration after the contentious 2008 Democratic primary was "awkward." Clinton declared: "…of course, because we had had a hard-fought election….But he asked me to serve our country and him in his administration. Why? Because we both love our country. So I said yes. Because at the end of the day, we have to be bigger than politics."

Later, Curry picked up on that sentiment and announced: "…whatever your politics, I think a lot of Americans would embrace the idea of being bigger than politics. And I think certainly in the times that we're in now, we wish that everyone would sort of embrace that idea."

In response, Guthrie revealed another comment from Clinton: "She says the fact that President Obama picked her to serve in his cabinet in that key position has such an impact around the world. People just can't believe that two arch political rivals then ultimately became allies. She says it shows the best of America."

Here is a full transcript of the interview aired on the October 17:

7:39AM ET SEGMENT:

ANN CURRY: Back now at 7:39 with an exclusive behind-the-scenes look at the life and hectic schedule of the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Savannah Guthrie recently caught up with her. Hey, Savannah, good morning.

SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: Good morning to you, Ann. And Hillary Clinton of course is known for keeping a tireless pace. She's on track already to be the most traveled secretary of state ever. But at age 63 she's getting ready to make a change, making it clear she will leave this position at the end of the President's first term.

HILLARY CLINTON: Good morning.

GUTHRIE: From the moment she walks into the State Department headquarters, Hillary Clinton is perpetually in motion. A frenzy of photo-ops, phone calls, staff meetings, speeches, and the obligations of office.

CLINTON: And for that, I thank you.

GUTHRIE: All before lunch.

CLINTON: You have the best clothes.

GUTHRIE: But after nearly three years, Hillary Clinton can see the horizon. What's the one thing you want to be able to point to and have people be able to say, "Hillary Clinton left it better than she found it"?

CLINTON: That despite very difficult circumstances when President Obama and I started our jobs, we have reasserted American leadership. We are going to lead despite other countries coming to the forefront. We are going to lead because America is destined to lead.

GUTHRIE: Her tenure has seen a dramatic reordering of world power. And hanging over it all, a global economic crisis. Do world leaders see an America that's in decline?

CLINTON: Well, if they do, they're badly mistaken. We do have to get our own house in order – our economic house, our political house – but at the same time, we cannot abdicate leadership around the world because when we do it does come back to bite us.

GUTHRIE: Around the world, Clinton's approach is a combination of blunt talk…

CLINTON: Those nations are standing on the wrong side of history.

GUTHRIE: …personal charm…

CLINTON: I hope we get one good picture out of this.

GUTHRIE: …and above all, frequent-flyer diplomacy. Another day at the office, huh?

CLINTON: So to speak.
                                            
GUTHRIE: She has flown more than 600,000 miles on this government plane, a flying satellite office where she can reach world leaders at a moment's notice or hone her most necessary diplomatic skill, the ability to nap on command.

CLINTON: A lot of people can't, but I can pass out nearly anywhere.

GUTHRIE: Let's get practical a second here. I mean, I saw your cabin. For those who think this may be glamorous work, it's a pull-out couch.

CLINTON: Right, right.

GUTHRIE: And there's not a hair and makeup team waiting on board.

CLINTON: Oh, no. No – well, that should be obvious when I get off the plane in the middle of the night. You know, I'm always worried I'll scare the children.

GUTHRIE: In Washington, she has become a force in her own right. At the White House several times a week, it's easy to forget how bitter and hard fought the 2008 campaign was.

CLINTON: Shame on you, Barack Obama.

GUTHRIE: You have to be honest, though. There – it was certainly awkward at first, wasn't it?

CLINTON: Well, Savannah, of course, because we had had a hard-fought election and I wanted to beat him and he ended up beating me. But he asked me to serve our country and him in his administration. Why? Because we both love our country. So I said yes. Because at the end of the day, we have to be bigger than politics.

GUTHRIE: Do you think you are in the inner circle?

CLINTON: I think on the issues that I work on, in the national security arena, absolutely.

GUTHRIE: Does he ever ask you for political advice?

CLINTON: Oh, every so often, but I keep that to myself.

GUTHRIE: But as the President's political troubles have mounted, some Democrats have wondered out loud if it should have been Hillary after all. That's got to feel good. It can't feel bad?

CLINTON: You know what? It feels irrelevant to me. Because a decision was made. I think the President has done an excellent job under the most difficult circumstances.

GUTHRIE: Well, Dick Cheney thought you would do a good job. Do you feel vindicated?

CLINTON: No. Look, I feel – maybe because I have been at this and do have 20 years of work behind me – I feel like this is all predictable. That we're living in times that are hard to navigate. We need leadership that's willing to make hard decisions and I think the President has done that.

GUTHRIE: What's surprising is how the woman who was once so polarizing…

CLINTON: I'm not sitting here as some little woman standing by my man like Tammy Wynette….I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas….This vast right-wing conspiracy.

GUTHRIE: …is now so popular, Gallup's most admired woman in America nine years running. A change in public fortune that's not lost on her. What do think people know about you now that they didn't know then?

CLINTON: I think because I've been on the public consciousness for so long and on the television screens in people's homes, I think there's a comfort.

GUTHRIE: They got used to you?

CLINTON: Yeah, kind of, you know, 'Oh, it's her again.'

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: The next President of the United States, Bill Clinton!

GUTHRIE: It was 20 years ago this month her husband announced his presidential candidacy in Little Rock, two decades of a life lived in public. Her ups, her downs and, yes, her doos. Now Clinton seems ready to step out of the spotlight. What do you think life will be like when, after 20 years in politics, it'll be you and the former president at home, sitting around?

CLINTON: I can't wait. I can't wait. I mean, obviously we're going to be very active. But it is something that I'm really looking forward to enjoying. When I get to go home on the weekends, which is not often enough, it's just great to be doing as little as possible. And I think, you know, after this 20 years, that'll be very welcome.

GUTHRIE: One title I know you seek to have one of these days is grandmother.

CLINTON: Yes. You figured that out.

GUTHRIE: But I noticed Chelsea has been doing more events. We saw her a couple weeks ago doing an event with you. Do you think she has the Clinton bug for politics?

CLINTON: I don't know. I don't have any reason to believe that. I think she does have the public service bug. That seems to be in our DNA.

GUTHRIE: Will you run for president in 2016?

CLINTON: No, no. You know, Savannah, I'm very privileged to have had the opportunities to serve my country. And I'm really old-fashioned. I feel I've made my contribution. I've done the best I can. But now, you know, I want to try some other things. I want to get back to writing and maybe some teaching, working on women and girls around the world.

GUTHRIE: But Secretary Clinton, politics is in your blood. People will not believe that you are closing the door and locking it on running for office ever again.

CLINTON: Well, you know, they'll have to just watch and wait. I have made my contribution. I'm very grateful I've had a chance to serve. But I think it's time, you know, for others to step up.

GUTHRIE: And the sense among insiders is that Clinton really means it. She's done with public office. But they also believe that if the party came calling in 2016 it may be very difficult for her to say no. And Ann, talk about a day in the life of Hillary Clinton. Did you see this video over the weekend?

CURRY: Yes, I did. Unbelievable.

GUTHRIE: This was a tribute event for Bill Clinton's birthday. And there's Lady Gaga singing a version of "Bad Romance," which she called "Bill Romance." And it looks like the former First Lady and President laughed at this spectacle, shall we say?

CURRY: Yes, definitely a spectacle in many regards there. But you know, in – but her comment, whatever your politics, I think a lot of Americans would embrace the idea of being bigger than politics. And I think certainly in the times that we're in now, we wish that everyone would sort of embrace that idea.

GUTHRIE: Yeah, and she says the fact that President Obama picked her to serve in his cabinet in that key position has such an impact around the world. People just can't believe that two arch political rivals then ultimately became allies. She says it shows the best of America.

CURRY: Alright. Savannah Guthrie, thank you so much for your report.

Who needs hard-hitting reporting on sanitation or nuisance issues related to Occupy D.C. when you can write up a puffy Style section front-pager on the protest music inspired by the leftist squatters?

On  the one-month anniversary of the initial Occupy Wall Street protest in Manhattan, Washington Post staff writer David Montgomery devoted a 1,092-word October 17 Style feature to examining how protest music is helping identify "deeper streams that seem to link disparate cultures of rebellion in the United States and other parts of the world."

Oddly enough, much of the article seems to be free press for independent singer-songwriters like Emma's Revolution and David Rovics who "secretly [hope] to compose an anthem worthy of Dylan" and, I suppose, make a buck while doing so:

The Arab Spring; the pro-union demonstrations this year in Madison, Wis.; the plight of illegal immigrants; the execution of Troy Davis, and disenchantment with President Obama are among the themes that have inspired multiple songs by various artists in recent months.

“The Arab Spring really accelerated everything,” Sandy O says. “I think the Arab Spring is why Madison happened the way it did and why the occupations are happening the way they’re happening.”

Mount Rainier-based Emma’s Revolution saluted the Arab Spring in a new song called “Rise” and addressed Madison in “Stand Together.”

The duo wrote “Occupy the U.S.A.” as “a rally song to reflect back to the people that we as activist musicians are with them,” Sandy O says. “It’s really about them, it’s for them, and it’s something we want them to use.”

David Rovics had a different purpose in mind with his fresh tune “Occupy Wall Street.”

Rovics, based in Portland, Ore., also performed on Freedom Plaza, but there he presented his Arab Spring song (“Tunisia 2011”) and his anti-Obama song (“Four More Years”) because his Wall Street jeremiad wasn’t ready yet.

He finished it last week, and that night in a hotel room in Orlando, he sang it into the video camera of his iPhone, then uploaded it to YouTube. Now he’s on tour, playing it at every occupation he can get to.

He framed the lyrics as an answer to puzzled critics who keep asking, “Why occupy Wall Street?”

An effort by pro-life activists to require women seeking abortions to first listen to their unborn baby's heartbeat is a "brazen campaign" by "anti-abortion" groups according to Time magazine.

In an October 17 article at the magazine's website, Adam Cohen described the "heartbeat bills" as pro-life groups' new "weapon of choice," a "frontal assault" on Roe v. Wade.

Throughout his story, the Yale Law School lecturer used loaded, combative language to describe the tactics of  "anti-abortion" groups and "abortion opponents." By contrast, pro-choicers are not "abortion advocates" but "abortion rights advocates" (emphasis mine):

Abortion opponents have a new weapon of choice: the “heartbeat bill.” A coalition of anti-abortion groups told the Associated Press last week last week that it was pushing to enact laws in all 50 states that would make women listen to a fetus’s heart beat before they could abort. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) has introduced a similar federal bill, The Heartbeat Informed Consent Act, in Congress.

When the Supreme Court decided Roe, critics of abortion vowed to get it overturned. They have not succeeded in that. But they have managed to pass a wide array of laws — some upheld by the courts, others struck down — making access to abortion more difficult. The Supreme Court has ruled that states can impose some restrictions, such as 24-hour waiting periods and parental consent requirements, but has struck down others, such as laws forcing women to notify their spouses. The heartbeat laws are the latest effort in a decades-long campaign that — as conservatives gain strength at the state level—appears to be gaining ground.

Recently, abortion opponents have been pushing some tough new restrictions — and prompting lawsuits over whether they go too far. Five states — Indiana, Kansas, Alabama, Idaho, and Oklahoma — have adopted laws that ban almost all abortions after the five-month mark. Meanwhile, Ohio is considering enacting the most extreme anti-abortion law in the nation. Its House of Representatives has voted for a bill that would ban all abortions once a heartbeat can be detected, which can occur as early as six weeks. That is a frontal assault on Roe, which recognized a right to abortion until “viability,” the point — around the 22^nd week — when a fetus can survive outside the womb.

The new heartbeat bills don’t go quite as far — they would simply require abortion providers to make the fetus’s heartbeat audible to a woman seeking an abortion. Supporters argue that making the woman listen to the heartbeat — or look at an ultrasound image of the fetus, as Bachmann’s bill also requires — is important for true “informed consent.” They also believe that women who are provided with this kind of information are less likely to end their pregnancies. According to Bachmann, a poll by Focus on the Family, a group opposed to abortion, found that when women who were undecided about whether to end a pregnancy were shown an ultrasound of the fetus, 78% did not have the abortion.

Abortion rights advocates, however, insist that the heartbeat bills are an attempt to interfere with women’s right to make private medical decisions. They argue that the state has no business trying to lobby patients about medical procedures, or to turn doctors into government mouthpieces.

How does requiring a patient to listen to a heartbeat making a doctor become a "government mouthpiece" and what's with the scare quotes around "viability"?

But wait, there's more, as Cohen described as "radical" moves to legally protect unborn children as persons under the law:

While challenges to heartbeat laws make their way through the courts, anti-abortion forces are working on new — and in some cases more radical — measures. Next month, Mississippi will vote on whether to add a “personhood amendment” to its state constitution that would declare that personhood begins at conception. If it passes — and a court does not block it — the amendment could ban all abortions in the state…

Maybe if Cohen recognized that pro-life activists are "unborn-child rights advocates," it wouldn't seem that extreme to him.

<<Like this post? Help us take on media bias by donating to NewsBusters (there's also a PayPal option on that page). Without the support of our readers, NewsBusters would not be possible.>>

The national media have certainly NOT been giving Barack Obama a rougher ride than the GOP candidates, but a new study by the Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism is fueling the myth that, as Politico’s Keach Hagey put it this morning, “Obama has received the most unremittingly negative press of any of the presidential candidates.”

To be sure, Hagey is repeating exactly what Pew is claiming, but there are at least three major problems with using their study to conclude that the media have an anti-Obama bias. First, they didn’t study what most people would consider “the media.” Second, their definition of “positive” and “negative” press doesn’t match what media experts consider “favorable” or “unfavorable” coverage. (More after the jump)

And, third, the researchers didn’t really even look at the stories — they let a computer (using an algorithm dubbed “Crimson Hexagon”) churn through the words and determine whether an assertion was pro- or anti-Obama (or Perry, or Romney, etc.).

Despite these important caveats, media writers are already using Pew’s research to claim the media have an anti-Obama bias. “President Obama has received more negative press coverage in recent months than any of his prospective GOP challengers,” wrote the Boston Globe’s Donovan Slack.

CBSNews.com’s Brian Montopoli parroted: “President Obama ‘has suffered the most unrelentingly negative treatment’ of all presidential candidates over the past five months.” And Politico’s Hagey: “Obama has received the most unremittingly negative press of any of the presidential candidates by a wide margin, with negative assessments outweighing positive ones by four to one.”

Let’s take the issues one at a time:

■ Way Too Much Media: In what appears to be an effort to be comprehensive, the Pew researchers stretched the concept of “media” so wide, that it’s really a study of nearly everything on the Internet. Influential and top-rated media outlets (like ABC, CBS and the New York Times) are buried in a sea of “coverage and commentary on more than 11,500 news outlets, based on their RSS feeds” and analyzed by a computer software program.

Think about it: There are three national broadcast networks that offer news coverage (four if you count PBS), plus another half-dozen cable networks that frequently discuss politics (including the business channels). The Audit Bureau of Circulation tracks the circulation of just 635 daily newspapers, plus another 553 Sunday-only newspapers. The number of news magazine’s tracked by Pew’s own annual State of the Media is six. Add in Google, Yahoo, AOL News, the Huffington Post and other online-only news outlets, and you still only have a couple of thousand news sources. The number of truly important news sources is probably only in the dozens.

So for a study to include 11,500 news outlets (English-language only, the report says), the researchers have cast their net so widely that their study necessarily includes a huge number of insignificant or derivative news outlets — hundreds of iterations of the same AP story on the Web sites of local TV stations, for example. Such a study design makes it impossible to discover how the candidates were covered by the relatively small number of news media outlets that reach hundreds of thousands or millions of people each day.

[Pew also separately looked at “hundreds of thousands” of blogs, which again means that the few dozen top-ranked influential blogs are buried in a mass of data that includes vast numbers of low-trafficked and irrelevant sites.]

To study the news media’s effect on the campaign, researchers need to isolate the news media sources that are having the most profound effect — either at reaching the most viewers (like the big networks) or most influential at establishing a national narrative (like the New York Times or Politico). Throwing thousands of sources into one big pot — some with audiences in the millions, others reaching only a few hundred a day — just confuses the role that journalists actually have in setting the agenda and crafting a candidate’s image.

■ Positive and Negative Assessments. The debate over whether the media play favorites in campaigns is not new. The Pew Research Center for The People & The Press found in October 2008 that “by a margin of 70% – 9%, Americans say most journalists want to see Obama, not John McCain, win on Nov. 4.” In election after election, Pew has found large majorities of Americans believing that the media are favoring whomever the Democrats have nominated.”

But journalists — at least those supposedly in the straight news business — rarely aid their favored candidates through outright editorializing. Instead, they exert influence over the news agenda (what stories to cover, what stories to ignore); source selection (which experts are asked to provide a soundbite on the evening news, and which ones are never called); and framing (i.e., a teacher’s union complains about cutbacks — is that a story about the damage budget cuts could do to the poor, or is it about the power of special interests to block needed spending reductions?).

Of course, if a reporter does make an overt editorial judgment in the guise of a news report, that’s obviously a good example of pro- or anti- bias.

The Pew study was designed to review “assertions” within news coverage, and then tag it as “positive,” “negative,” or “neutral” (or “irrelevant” if the assertion was off-topic). The key to understanding Pew’s numbers is that they incorporated “horse race” assessments into their measure of good and bad press. As their methodological explanation confirmed: “A story that is entirely about a poll showing Mitt Romney ahead of the Republican field — and that his lead is growing, would be a good example to put in the ‘positive’ category.”

Careful researchers would avoid blurring such “horse race” statements into an overall measure of good press/bad press. Back in August, both Rick Perry’s strongest supporters and his staunchest foes would agree that he was on top of the GOP preference polls — it’s not “the media” pushing a biased editorial line to say so. Standard measures of “good” and “bad” press include: assessments of a candidate’s personal integrity, ethics and job competence; evaluations of their policy proposals; and their capabilities as a candidate — in other words, those attributes that can make someone more or less likely to support their candidacy.

Including “horse race” assessments undoubtedly skewed the numbers in favor of Perry (who led most surveys until late September) and hurt President Obama, whose job approval ratings were on the decline. Plus, tallying overt “assertions” would also minimize the effect of daily news coverage (where the bias is usually more subtle), while boosting the effect of editorials and commentary with obvious opinions.

Our own work this campaign season shows that the national media consistently framed the debt story in a way that played to Obama’s agenda, and hit Republican candidates with mainly hostile questions premised on liberal policy assumptions. In an election context, those are big favors to the Democrats that cannot be tallied on a simple “positive” or “negative” scorecard.
 

■ Letting the Computer Do Most of the Work: Determining the tone of news coverage is based on a technique called “content analysis,” where researchers develop categories and rules to measure the content of news stories. A particular content analysis scheme is deemed “reliable,” i.e., valid, if other researchers can take the same set of rules and get similar results.

In theory, this would seem ideal work for a computer, which has no political prejudices and cannot be numbed by going over countless stories on the same topic, day after day. But in practice, I have discovered, the key is to have analysts who understand the context of the stories they are reading or watching. Campaign news changes from day to day, new issues arise, and new buzzwords can become a kind of journalists’ shorthand, referring to some episode or incident that has a shared definition among political insiders.

Pew reports that their human researchers worked up models for the computer algorithm, feeding it examples of “positive” and “negative” stories until the computer matched the human researchers “in 97% of the cases analyzed.” But with such a vast number of stories, it’s impossible that human researchers could cross-check even a tiny fraction of the coverage. Nearly all of the “anti-Obama” or “pro-Perry” stories were never reviewed by an actual researcher to check the context and meaning of the keywords the computer was trained to spot.

The use of computer technology did seem to preclude the examination of video, in favor of stories printed on the Web sites of television and radio outlets. Again, according to the methodological explanation: “Even though the television programs from Fox News are not in the sample directly, content from Fox News is present through the stories published on FoxNews.com.”

Such a choice eliminates the news as seen by the largest audiences, in favor of online stories that were read by far few people. While it’s true that most, if not all, of the stories that make it onto a network’s airwaves are available in some form on their Web sites, what’s lost is the editorial selection made by the on-air producers. ABCNews.com has included several items on the Obama administration’s “Fast and Furious” scandal, for example, but none have recently made it onto ABC’s airwaves.

The point of studying the media for potential bias is to make sure that journalists are not skewing the news before it reaches voters, so that the real decisions are in the hands of the people, not the media elites. For liberal journalists to hear that their profession is somehow skewed against President Obama can only encourage them to attempt to tilt the scales in the other direction. That’s a step away from the fair and balanced journalism that we need.
 

By criticizing the leftist Wall Street sit-in, bankers risk showing they don’t “get it,” New York Times reporters Nelson Schwartz and Eric Dash condescendingly suggested in a story at the top of the front page of Saturday’s Business Day, “In Private, Wall St. Bankers Dismiss Protesters as Unsophisticated.”

Publicly, bankers say they understand the anger at Wall Street — but believe they are misunderstood by the protesters camped on their doorstep.

“Anybody who dismisses them publicly is putting a bull's-eye on their back,” said one hedge fund manager of the protesters.

But when they speak privately, it is often a different story.

“Most people view it as a ragtag group looking for sex, drugs and rock ’n’ roll,” said one top hedge fund manager.

“It’s not a middle-class uprising,” adds another veteran bank executive. “It’s fringe groups. It’s people who have the time to do this.”

As the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations have grown and spread to other cities, an open question is: Do the bankers get it? Their different worldview speaks volumes about the wide chasms that have opened over who is to blame for the continuing economic malaise and what is best for the country.

Some on Wall Street viewed the protesters with disdain, and a degree of caution, as hundreds marched through the financial district on Friday. Others say they feel their pain, but are befuddled about what they are supposed to do to ease it. A few even feel personally attacked, and say the Occupy Wall Street protesters who have been in Zuccotti Park for weeks are just bitter about their own economic fate and looking for an easy target. If anything, they say, people should show some gratitude.

The Times found some open-minded bankers as well who patted themselves on the back in print for their understanding of the protesters' concerns. And just who are these “some” who truly believe these protesters will be marching on banks for years?

A smaller group of bank executives are taking the protests more seriously. They see them as a sign of the growing economic divide in this country — and are even monitoring the latest developments on Twitter. While peaceful so far, the demonstrations at Bank of America, Chase and Wells Fargo branches from San Francisco to Peoria are eerily similar to those routinely seen at Citibank outposts in Athens, Hong Kong, and in other overseas markets. Some believe it could be years before the swarms of protesters end their marches on bank branches.

A few outspoken members of the financial industry have broken ranks with their more skeptical brethren to say they understand a bit of the outrage of the Occupy Wall Street crowd.

The front page of The Washington Post carried a story Tuesday on black liberals demanding all blacks stand with President Obama — just because he's black. Krissah Thompson's story carried some noteworthy "get in line" quotes from the forget-the-black-unemployment-numbers crowd, but the closest thing to a moderate or conservative in the article is a man suggesting Obama is not God. Mostly, we read things like this:

“Let’s not even deal with the facts right now. Let’s deal with just our blackness and pride — and loyalty,” [radio host Tom] Joyner wrote on his BlackAmericaWeb.com blog. “We have the chance to re-elect the first African-American president, and that’s what we ought to be doing. And I’m not afraid or ashamed to say that as black people, we should do it because he’s a black man.” 

Can anyone imagine a white radio host saying "Let's not even deal with the facts. We should vote for the white guy, because he's white?" How would The Washington Post not see that as racist? Thompson noted that recent polls suggest Obama's "strongly support" numbers are falling. Al Sharpton also insisted blacks get in line:

The Rev. Al Sharpton, an ally of President Obama who has a daily radio show and hosts a nightly cable television program, recently told the president’s black critics, “I’m not telling you to shut up. I’m telling you: Don’t make some of us have to speak up.” 

What's the difference? Near the article's end, Thompson added:

Sharpton said he learned an important lesson about supporting black politicians in the early 1990s, when David Dinkins, who was New York’s first black mayor, was running for reelection. Sharpton criticized Dinkins’s “deliberative” style and thought his policies were not progressive enough. Dinkins was hurt by the diminished enthusiasm and turnout among black voters.

“We beat up on him. He went down and we ended up with eight years of Rudy Giuliani,” said Sharpton, who has been among Obama’s most aggressive supporters. “I said I’ll never make that mistake again.” 

Sharpton is described as one of "Obama's most aggressive supporters." That's probably what qualified him most to be a nightly MSNBC host.

Thompson's article also included this Obama quote about faith, quite a shock from the Sundays-on-the-golf-course president:

The White House has turned to black radio often in recent weeks, building on the relationships Obama established during his 2008 primary campaign. In a video greeting to thousands at an Atlanta event this month sponsored by a gospel radio host, the president spoke about blacks supporting one another. 

“It is in times like these that we need our faith more than ever,” Obama said. “Because we’ve been through hard times before. . . . We have moved forward one step at a time with the knowledge that I am my brother’s keeper. I am my sister’s keeper.” 

Professor Eddie Glaude resented the Joyners of the world trying to curtail the "vibrant" discussion of Obama's record, but most of the voices in the story were pro-Obama. Here's the exception, and then the norm followed:

Jack Jackson, who works for the city’s water treatment plant, said he is tired of the appeals to black identity politics.

“Leave the race game alone,” said Jackson, 53, who said he supports Obama. “Let’s not keep holding on to that. It’s been done. . . . We should put our faith in God, not Obama.”

But Corry McGriff, 42, said the call to stick together resonates with him, and McGriff has begun telling his friends that they have a responsibility to support the president, too. “We need to keep him in there. By him becoming president, he is showing African Americans that it can be done,” said McGriff, who works for a federal defense contractor. “He helped the race. ”

Kychelle Green, 18, a nursing student at Norfolk State University, agreed. “You know it’s not really his fault that things aren’t changing,” she said. “He’s really trying but he can’t change every rule on his own. Now people are trying to criticize him because he is African American.”

Green said she listens every morning to Steve Harvey, who is among the radio hosts who are promoting the message that Obama deserves support.

Warren Ballentine, a black talk radio host based in North Carolina who has interviewed Obama about a dozen times, speaks about the president’s accessibility. “It’s not like he is not hearing black America,” he said.

Ballentine specifically reminds his listeners of the racial undertones he saw in the 2008 campaign. “It’s almost like we’ve forgotten what this man had to go through to get into the office. We need to remember the hatred and vitriol that came out.” 

Thompson found the White House didn't want to suggest they were pushing the get-in-line crowd:

The calls for racial solidarity have not come from the White House, and Obama has been careful to speak in broad terms, even when talking about how his policies have helped African Americans. At the same time, his campaign has welcomed the support of black media figures. Those “validators” make clear that they back the president’s policies, and a White House aide noted that their support is deeper than the color of Obama’s skin. “You don’t see them supporting Herman Cain or Alan Keyes,” the aide said. 

That's what Sharpton's show could be called. "The Obama Validators."