So... Feherty's sorry he maligned U.S. troops by calling them homicidal maniacs who'd shoot the House and Senate leaders if they got into an elevator with them. This after his network, CBS, said this about his idiotic D Magazine column:
"We want to be clear that this column for a Dallas magazine is an unacceptable attempt at humor and is not in any way condoned, endorsed or approved by CBS Sports."
... and the PGA Tour said this:
"David Feherty is an insightful and sometimes humorous commentator for CBS Sports' golf coverage," the PGA Tour said in a statement. "However, his attempt at humor in this instance went over the line, and his comments were clearly inappropriate. We hope he will use better judgment in the future."
Sometimes humorous? Ooooh snap! To the apology! The now contriteself-reflective job jeopardized golf analysts said this yesterday:
"This passage was a metaphor meant to describe how American troops felt about our 43rd president," Feherty said in a statement. "In retrospect, it was inappropriate and unacceptable, and has clearly insulted Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid, and for that, I apologize. As for our troops, they know I will continue to do as much as I can for them both at home and abroad."
Ah. Well, that makes it all better... (eyes rolling) Apparently, Feherty, who hails from Northern Ireland, has spent the odd Thanksgiving in Iraq, and from that, gleaned that all 160,000 odd troops there both adore former President Bush, and harbor homicidal attitudes toward Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, which even out-weigh their dislike for Osama bin Laden. With that kind of insight, shouldn't he be president of CBS Sports by now? And since Al Franken has been to Iraq with the USO probably more than Feherty, can we glean that he has special insight into how many troops think Rush Limbaugh is a big, fat idiot?
To the firing, CBS, and quick! CBS Radio had no problem firing the "sometimes humorous" Don Imus for calling a group of lady basketball players Ho's, and CBS News jettisoned Dan Rather for getting hosed on some memos while reporting on the still not unproven tale of Dubya's sweet Texas Air National Guard deal. Given their track record on employee vocal discipline, I don't see how they get away with keeping Feherty on the payroll.
Meanwhile, in one of the saddest ironies possible, an actual soldier, suffering from the stresses of the actual war, opened fire yesterday and killed four of his fellow troops in Iraq. Our prayers are with all of the families of the dead, including the family of the shooter, who took his own life.
As Keith Olbermann pointed out last night, the guy who wrote this idiotic piece in D Magazine (a magazine which hosts a slathering, groupie-ish George W. Bush love letters page, works for CBS Sports, which is to say he works for CBS News. Per Politico's Glenn Thrush:
Even if this was off the cuff, it's not going to go over well with the sports bosses at CBS.
The network's golf analyst, David Feherty, writing a column in D Magazine about the George and Laura Bush moving to the Dallas area, says U.S. soldiers would shoot Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid:
"From my own experience visiting the troops in the Middle East, I can tell you this, though: despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Osama bin Laden, there’s a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death."
By the way, how can it be "off the cuff" when a guy took the time to write it, spell check it, presumably read it over, and send it to an editor, who presumably read it, approved it, and posted it on the magazine's website? Come on, Glenn... In any case, the unbelievable piece of right wing scholarship was caught by Media Matters, which is bad news since Media Matters rarely just reports and then leaves stuff alone. They follow up. Just ask Don Imus. In short, the commentary has very likely put Mr. Feherty's future at CBS in doubt.
Feherty is the same genius who last week thought it would be a hoot to ask Tiger Woods if he "felt like a loser." Not exactly the way to get ahead at CBS, I'm thinking. ABC, maybe...
A new CBS News/New York Times poll finds broad support for President Obama's mortgage rescue plan, though you wouldn't know it from CBS News' headline:
Poll: Public Wary Of More Bailouts
Really? Sounds grim (and this from the new home of an extremist like this.) But let's read on...
As President Obama pushes a $75 billion mortgage relief plan, sixty-one percent of those surveyed say the government should help homeowners, while just 20 percent oppose such help.
Hm... that doesn't match the headline...
But while 35 percent say Mr. Obama’s plan makes them feel relieved for people facing foreclosure, just as many are resent the beneficiaries of the program for needing to be rescued following what respondents see as irresponsible behavior.
Let's examine that, shall we? In the actual poll, rather than the story, 61 percent indeed say homeowners should be helped. But that includes 47 percent of Republicans (with just 31 percent opposed) and 59 percent of Independents, with just 24 percent opposed. Democrats approve of helping struggling homeowners by a wider 73-9 percent. As for resentment, the poll reads this way:
OBAMA’S PLAN TO AID HOMEOWNERS MAKES YOU FEEL… Relieved for people facing foreclosure 35% Resentful of irresponsible homeowners 35 Don’t know enough about plan yet 26
Not sure that means Americans are "increasingly resentful." It means that about one-third each feel relieved or resentful. Not exactly "public wary of more bailouts." What the poll does find is that a majority of Americans don't want to hand more money to banks: just 39 percent approve of that idea, versus 50 percent who disagree. The reason? 57 percent don't believe that giving money to the banks, who aren't lending the money (and who may actually be hiding it...) will help the economy.
On the other hand, a majority of Americans do oppose bailouts to corporate entities and banks, in other words, to the people they perceive as the villains in the economic collapse. Per CBS:
Fifty-nine percent say President Obama’s proposal to help banks would only help bankers, not all Americans.
There is widespread support for the president and Congress’ efforts to cap executive pay: Eighty-three percent say the government should limit executive salaries if companies get federal money. Just 11 percent say it should not.
Americans are even less supportive of a further bailout for the U.S. auto industry. (Automakers have already received loans from the government but say they may need more money to avoid bankruptcy.) Just 22 percent say the government should give more money to automakers, while 68 percent oppose any further aid.
But guess who isn't seen as the villain? That would be Barack Obama:
One month into his term, President Obama’s overall approval rating remains favorable, with 63 percent of Americans approving of the job he is doing as president. The figure is similar to the approval rating he received earlier this month.
Seventy-six percent of Americans are confident in Mr. Obama’s ability to make the right decisions about the economy, including nearly a third who are very confident.
More than half of Americans also approve of President Obama’s handling of foreign policy (57 percent) and Iraq (54 percent).
And 77 percent are optimistic about the next four years with Mr. Obama as president, including 57 percent of Republicans.
Meanwhile, the public appears to be tiring of the Republican political stunt-making when it comes to reviving the economy, and they are increasingly seen as partisan and obstructionist:
While the percentage of Americans who believe the president is trying for bipartisanship has slipped seven points from earlier this month, 74 percent still think he is trying to be bipartisan.
By contrast, just 45 percent say Congressional Democrats are trying to be bipartisan and 31 percent say Congressional Republicans are trying to do so.
Most of those surveyed say Republican opposition to the stimulus bill - it passed with the support of no House Republicans and just three Senate Democrats - results from politics.
Sixty-three percent say GOP opposition was for political reasons, while 29 percent say it was because the stimulus bill would be bad for the economy.
Americans say Mr. Obama should focus more on his positions than reaching across the aisle. Fifty-six percent say he should prioritize sticking to his policies, while just 39 percent say he should put bipartisanship first. Seventy-nine percent, however, say Congressional Republicans should prioritize bipartisanship.
In other words: throw the Republicans overboard. Back to the stimulus bill: the exact numbers are as follows:
IMPACT OF STIMULUS BILL ON ECONOMY (will make things) Better 53% Worse 13 No impact 24
And Americans have realistic expectations:
STIMULUS BILL’S EFFECT ON LENGTH OF RECESSION Will shorten significantly 19% Will shorten, not significantly 17 Will not shorten 50
Most of those surveyed assumed Obama's plans would improve the economy in 2 to 4 years.
BTW, the GOP has caught onto the public mood, and even Bobby Jindal was bending over backward to sound "bipartisan" during the governors' news conference today. Too late, my friend.
I have no doubt that CBS News' Dean Reynolds put down his very real feelings in this "reporter's notebook" posted on the broadcaster's website. But damn, does anybody except Dean Reynolds really give a crap about how the well-paid network reporters covering the presidential candidates are managed? Covering the presidential campaign is a plum assignment, especially this year, and you're beeyatching about Obama's plane not being Febreezed, or the events not being "choreographed" for the convenience of the media? Dude, are you serious?
I've covered some Obama events here in South Florida (for much smaller outlets than CBS), and yes, there's hellafide security and lots of ground rules, ridiculously early press call times and the occasional inconvenient positioning ... but guess what? Barack Obama is a black guy (and the first to lead a major ticket) who's being called a terrorist sympathizer by his opponent's campaign and threatened by angry wingers who want to "kill him" because they think he's a Muslim Manchurian Candidate so they can present the spoils to their Alaskan snow queen! Can you say, "Secret Service"??? Besides, you're complaining that you and other media types had to wait around in Miami, while people are freezing their asses off in cold parts of the country because they can't afford their heating bills. Hold a sec while I break out my violin.
Mr. Reynolds, you're being paid, I'm assuming, six figures to fly around the country for free, and be a witness to history. If it makes you happy that McCain's press team wipes your nose better and gives you the warm fuzzies, I suppose I'm happy for you. Other than that: Get a life. There's a recession going on and the rest of the ... well, world ... has a lot more important things going on.
Standing in the cheese aisle of an all-American supermarket, John McCain takes his surge mishap from the other day ... and makes it worse. This time, he's explaining that "the surge" -- that magical unicorn of Iraq fixology -- didn't begin in January 2007 when President Bush announced it, or in June 2007 when all of the additional troops were in country (mostly in Baghdad, by the way, not Anbar province, where the "Sunni awakening" took place in August 2006) but at, before, or sometime around the time of said awakening ... meaning ... it ... happened before even President Bush knew about it? Oh, just watch the "Countdown" clip:
The Carpetbagger Report has more on the McCain team's botched fix job.
Here’s the new McCain campaign rationale for his obvious screw-up: the surge, for all of you calendar-lovers, may technically have come after the launch of the Anbar Awakening, but it doesn’t matter because were it not for the surge, the Awakening would have failed miserably. The influx of U.S. troops may have come after the Awakening, but it made the success of the Awakening possible. That, in a nutshell, is the new argument.
As spin goes, that’s pretty creative. But that doesn’t make it right.
First, the McCain campaign is making a case that’s supported by practically nothing. The vast majority of the troops involved with the surge went to Baghdad, not Anbar, the latter of which saw one U.S. brigade. Did the presence of this brigade make the surge successful? It can’t be disproven, but it’s hardly the accepted consensus, either.
Second, and more importantly, the latest spin is disconnected to what McCain, you know, actually said. McCain insisted that the surge “began the Anbar awakening.” It didn’t. In fact, to hear McCain tell it, the only Awakening the surge happened — not succeeded, but happened — is the surge, which is clearly false. All the after-the-fact rationalizing won’t change this obvious mistake.
And by the way, the Colonel that McCain keeps referencing, Col. MacFarland, doesn't support his story, as even conservative media critic Howard Kurtz has figured out:
the official, Col. Sean MacFarland, has said that Sunni leaders began cooperating against al-Qaeda months before President Bush's surge began.
CBS News SVP Paul Friedman said in a statement: "The report was edited under extreme time constraints and one piece of tape was put in the wrong order. Fortunately, this did not in any way distort what Senator McCain was saying."
But did the "wrong order" mean a violation of their Standards? Crooks and Liars reports the CBS News Standards (sec. 111-5 Editing, to be exact) says, "If a question to an interview subject is used, the answer must be to that specific question."
As has been made clear over the last 24 hours, that did not happen.
It's not as if TV and cable news outlets haven't used editing to "shape" an interview to fit the prevailing narrative. Such editing hatchet jobs are actually pretty common, as General Wes Clark recently found out. But the CBS edit snaffu stands out because it isn't about omission, it's about a news organization actually rearranging a subject's answer in a way that, intentionally or not, shielded the subject from their own embarrassing words. It's no wonder that, despite the whining and carping from the McCain camp, most rational people believe that there is no political figure in America, with the possible exception of Collin Powell, who has enjoyed more loving treatment from the press than John McCain. To quote CNN's Jeffrey Toobin:
"...if there is one public figure in America who has gotten better press over the years than John McCain, I don't know who it is."
CBS helpfully edits McCain interview, ABC affiliate puts Dubya on the hot mic
Who says the mainstream media doesn't love John McCain? CBS has even pulled a Soviet-style edit to help him out of a major foreign policy gaffe, just the way the print press helpfully edits George W. Bush's syntax, as Countdown reported tonight and the Jed Report clarifies:
Meanwhile, the media isn't showing Dubya the love these days, with an ABC affiliate in his home state letting him all hang out at a Houston fundraiser after he asked for the cameras to be turned off ...
I'm a little biased. I onced worked for CBS, in the company's "Black Rock" building in New York City. When I could, I used to hustle over to the west side studio where Dan Rather produced and anchored the evening news. And I grew up in time to catch the tail end of the great Walter Cronkite, who anchored the news up until 1981, when I was in junior high school. So forgive me if I CURLED UP IN THE FETAL POSITION AND PUKED when CBS hired bubbly Katie ... (ahem) Katherine ... Couric as "the first woman news anchor" to helm a nightly broadcast. See, I also grew up watching "The Today Show," and remember when Bryant Gumbel's co-hosts began to shuffle, ultimately winding up with Couric. In short, she sucked. She is waaaaay too bubbly for my tastes, and she really made Gubel look like a jerk, because it was obvious that he wasn't exactly feeling her either (not because he doesn't like white women ... I mean he left his wife for one ... and then tried to hide his assets ... sorry ...getting off track.)
Anyhoo, word on the street is that Katie Couric will soon leave the "tiffany network" for greener pastures, not defiling the very concept of news with her presence. Did I mention that they cut our department at an NBC affiliate in South Florida right around the time they raised that heiffer's salary to $30 million ... and she split for CBS anyway???? Well, I would have too, for that kind of dough ($75 mil, by some accounts)
Americans to Congress: "we hate you" (and your little president, too...)
The Pope to Condi Rice: "I'll get back to you on that meeting..." not... sorry but I've got to give this bit to you:
Pope Benedict XVI refused to meet US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in August, saying he was on holiday, an Italian newspaper reported Wednesday. Rice "made it known to the Vatican that she absolutely had to meet the pope" to boost her diplomatic "credit" ahead of a trip to the Middle East, the Corriere della Sera daily reported without citing its sources.
She was hoping to meet the pontiff at his summer residence of Castel Gandolfo at the beginning of August, it said.
"'The pope is on holiday' was the official response," the paper said.
It said the reply "illustrated the divergence of view" between the Vatican and the White House about the "initiatives of the Bush administration in the Middle East."
Oh, Condi, you pathetic little dear ... at least you can pick up some fabulous shoes while in Italy...
They were essentially bludgeoned into firing Imus, now CBS may be looking to shed another albatross: Katie "No Ratings" Couric, whose hiring was such a clear travesty for the CBS Evening News...
Katie Couric gets tough! Channels El Rushbo in scorched earth interview with ... cancer ... victim...
So NOW Katie wants to be a tough minded journalist, asking the hard questions and holding the feet of the powerful to the fire. And the subject of her sharp journalistic lens? Cancer victim Elizabeth Edwards and her husband, former Senator John Edwards. And being the brilliant mind that she is, Katie even managed to include a littany of questions straight from Rush Limbaugh's radio show, without even calling the Fat Man by name! An astute IFilm poster has the medley of Katie-style grilling:
Wow, Katie. You're like ... Edward R. Murrow, only perkier! And don't let those critics get you down... they're just hating on you because you're in fourth place in the news race and they're not. Oh, sorry, is that third?
