In what was described as the most important moment of his life, Barack Obama officially accepted the Democratic Party's presidential nomination last night.
While some people were seeking one of Obama's soaring, rhetoric-filled speeches, last night's showing spelled out his presidential plans as he told the roaring crowd he would "restore America's promise." And, yes, it was inspiring.
There are live on-air gaffes that news anchors wish they could erase, like the common Obama/Osama mix-up.
But when Jesse Jackson whispered that he wanted to "cut [Obama's] nuts off" before a Fox & Friends interview on Sunday was set to begin, it was a reminder that public figures often have a hard time keeping their private conversations to themselves when they've got a hot mic pack clipped to their hip.
It should be a simple life lesson: When you have a media outlet's microphone attached to you , by default you should expect other people are listening to your conversation, and very likely recording it. Herewith, some famous examples of people who should know better, but obviously didn't. CONTINUED »
You might think cable news networks, morning gab shows, and Comedy Central's unique offering of satire soapboxes might be interested in the new book from Vincent Bugliosi, the Los Angeles county prosecutor who put Charles Manson behind bars, who's now promoting The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, which has sold a quite remarkable 130,000 copies.
You would be wrong.
Bugliosi and his publicity team can't get him booked on Today or Good Morning America, let alone Countdown or The Colbert Report. Book review publications, so far including the New York Times (it's "under consideration"), won't write up his manuscript. Don Imus won't even accept his advertising. Don Imus! (Bugliosi has, however, conducted some 100 radio interviews.)
Perhaps it has to do with the book's central premise: That President Bush could, and should, be held criminally accountable for the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq. And while Newsweek editor Jon Meacham says "Bush bashing fatigue" may be to blame, there are a few other plausible scenarios. CONTINUED »
Glenn Greenwald, the Salon columnist, is usually scribbling down attacks on the GOP. But not always. Greenwald, who often gets trashed talked in pundit circles and at media parties, has a history of taking a break from Bush mudslinging to go on a tear against one media outlet or another.
Last year he did it to Time columnist Joe Klein ("For the sake of its own credibility, Time Magazine needs immediately to prohibit Joe Klein from uttering another word about the eavesdropping and FISA controversy."). He's also spit blood with Politico, criticizing its overly cozy relationship with the Drudge Report (perhaps because he covets it?) and effectively labeled it a "gossip rag masquerading as news organization." (Us too!)
To be sure, Greenwald's media crits are often based on his original premise: Playing nice with the right-wing makes you the devil. So anytime a media outlet violates this treatise, they're fair targets.
And so too, then, is Greenwald's latest victim: Keith Olbermann. The MSNBC host who was once a liberal hero is now — to Greenwald at least, though also to many others we've spoke with inside the industry — a double-talking liar. Worse: a centrist! And Greenwald has some pretty damning evidence. CONTINUED »
The American press corps isn't the only group anxious to see President Bush leave office in January — the Brits are twiddling their thumbs just as much. The Guardian's Bill Blanko, who refers to said American press corps as a "bunch of toadies," lays into the current leader of the free world, and his list of complaints is lengthy. Among them: "His sneering performance this week at his press conference with Gordon Brown in the Locarno Room (which lobby correspondents much prefer visiting for Foreign Office drinks parties) confirmed that he obviously loathes us. And after his surly verbal swipes at journalists, in between such horrendous Bushisms as "white-guy Methodists" (imagine the row if a British politician used a phrase like that), the feeling was mutual."
But most of all, what really bags Blanko is a little thing called alcohol — and the fact that the president doesn't drink any. And that the D.C. media doesn't drink enough. CONTINUED »
This handy "Bush Apostate Matrix," which track's the president's turncoats, has the unintended consequence of reminding readers that John Dilulio also wrote a book. [TNR]
With an October release date, Oliver Stone's W has already become a liberal media favorite talking point. And now, the rest of America may join the discussion: Lionsgate is unleashing its ad blitz. This spot is a bit of a riff on your "Webster's Dictionary defines this word as …" canned phrase, but when you name your movie with a single letter, it's either that or "W is for …"
Update: Turns out, the poster is a fake. CONTINUED »
Like Ronald Reagan, George Bush has an unusual relationship with Hollywood. Namely, the industry loves to turn the president's blunders into film and television projects. (So what if nobody watched Recount?) The latest turn: Scott McClellan's book, What Happened, is getting shopped around Tinseltown for a possible moving picture adaptation. "We’ve been talking to TV people, and interest is starting to come, but it’s too early to say anything,” says McClellan’s literary agent, Craig Wiley. The likelihood of a project could hinge on the success of Oliver Stone's W, which will gauge America's openness to paying to watch the president fall all over himself, when it's readily available on cable news already.
Uh, yes. And anyone who works in television news already knew this. So far, there are on-the-record guilty pleas from top people who were, at the time, working at NBC (Katie Couric) and MSNBC (Jessica Yellin, though she sort of backtracked). [NYT] Who's next? And don't look so shocked when they come forward.
Scott McClellan's book hits next week, but it's already getting a huge PR push this week, thanks to its early circulation among media types. Oh, and the fact that he pulls a 180 and slams the Bush administration! (Except for that little, touching part where he says George Bush started crying when he fired him).
Naturally, everyone is looking to book McClellan. He's this week's big get! On the list of interview hopefuls? The big bad man, Bill O'Reilly, who was yammering on on his radio show about how Scott turned down his request to come on the show. Imagine! CONTINUED »
If nobody will put Baby in a corner, then Scott McClellan, who spent 2003-06 lying to the press for President Bush, certainly won't be seated there.
The man who watched his hairline gradually recede on live television is back from the shadows with a new book, What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception, where he spells out how the Bush administration has screwed up everything it could get its hands on. Which is everything.
Handy bullet points from Politico, which eschewed the publisher's press embargo and bought its copy from a store, include:
• McClellan charges that Bush relied on “propaganda” to sell the war.
• He says the White House press corps was too easy on the administration during the run-up to the war.
• He admits that some of his own assertions from the briefing room podium turned out to be “badly misguided.”
• The longtime Bush loyalist also suggests that two top aides held a secret West Wing meeting to get their story straight about the CIA leak case at a time when federal prosecutors were after them — and McClellan was continuing to defend them despite mounting evidence they had not given him all the facts.
• McClellan asserts that the aides — Karl Rove, the president’s senior adviser, and I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the vice president’s chief of staff — “had at best misled” him about their role in the disclosure of former CIA operative Valerie Plame’s identity.
All of which leaves us with just one question: He's charging only $27.95 for this masterpiece? We would not see Sex and the City three times for just one crack at this doozy.
A White House statement about the New York Times' editorial slamming President Bush for not supporting the G.I. Bill: "Once again, the New York Times Editorial Board doesn't let the facts get in the way of expressing its vitriolic opinions - no matter how misleading they may be."
Responds editorial page editor Andy Rosenthal: "We said Bush opposes the Webb bill. He opposes the Webb bill. I don't understand what's misleading about it."
Because the non-scandal surrounding Richard Engel's George Bush interview for NBC News doesn't seem to be quieting down anytime soon, let's re-examine the argument that White House counsel Ed Gillespie is making — that NBC edited the interview to push its lefty politics or something.
Notes WaPo's Dan Froomkin: "If Bush had actually explained what he thought Engel got wrong, then the editing might have come in for legitimate criticism. But all Bush did was vaguely and confusingly suggest that what he was calling appeasement was not taking the words [of enemies like Iran -- or Hitler --] seriously.' By no accepted definition does that amount to appeasement. But regardless, Bush's point was dutifully noted in what NBC aired."
So then what the hell was Gillespie complaining about? CONTINUED »
[Update: NBC responds. Below.]
Did NBC News "deceptively" edit an interview with President Bush to make it sound like the commander in chief was fingering Barack Obama when he was talking about negotiating peace with Iran (and how doing so amounted to "appeasement")?
That's what White House counsel Ed Gillespie is alleging in a scathing letter sent to NBC News' Steve Capus, demanding the network air the president's "actual answer" to the question. [The Hill]
"NBC's selective editing of the President's response is clearly intended to give viewers the impression that he agreed with Engel's characterization of his remarks when he explicitly challenged it," reads the letter. "Furthermore, it omitted the references to al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas and ignored the clarifying point in the President's follow-up response that U.S. policy is to require Iran to suspend its nuclear enrichment program before coming to the table, not that "negotiating with Iran is pointless" and amounts to 'appeasement.' This deceitful editing to further a media-manufactured storyline is utterly misleading and irresponsible and I hereby request in the interest of fairness and accuracy that the network air the President's responses to both initial questions in full on the two programs that used the excerpts."
So what type of editing did NBC, allegedly, perform? CONTINUED »
Last night, Keith Olbermann devoted a full twelve minutes to attacking President Bush over his decision … to give up golf. [HP]
Editorial Director
