Progressive Democrats Sonoma County

Press critics often use the term "false balance" to describe the practice of presenting a matter of clear-cut fact as the subject of dispute. Some media outlets have made progress on avoiding this problem in their reporting recently.

The Wall Street Journal, however, published an egregious example of false balance in its May 21 edition. In a news article about Arizona's secretary of state asking Hawaii to "verify it has" President Obama's birth certificate, here's how the Journal described the birther conspiracy theory (emphasis added):

A spokesman for [Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett] said Sunday that his request was "simply done at the request of thousands of voters in Arizona."

A spokesman for the Obama campaign in Arizona said the secretary of state's "flirtation with a conspiracy theory that has been debunked time and time again will have no bearing on the election."

The "birther" movement contends Mr. Obama wasn't born in the U.S. or at least hasn't shown beyond a doubt that he was born in Hawaii, as Mr. Obama and the state say. The U.S. Constitution requires that to be eligible for the presidency, a person needs to be a "natural born" U.S. citizen. Hawaii on its website links to a long-form copy of Mr. Obama's birth certificate that he posted last year.

That's a ridiculous way to present this subject. Obama's birth certificate was made public four years ago, and as FactCheck.org noted, it "meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship." The Honolulu Advertiser published a contemporaneous announcement of Obama's birth.

None of this is in dispute. Except, apparently, in the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

In a May 21 blog post, Politico's Dylan Byers noted the decline in Rush Limbaugh's ratings:

Rush Limbaugh took a significant ratings hit in some key radio markets last month in the wake of the Sandra Fluke controversy.

The conservative radio host's ratings fell 27 percent in the key 25-54 demo in New York City, 31 percent in Houston-Galveston, 40 percent in Seattle-Tacoma, and 35 percent in Jacksonville, according to a selection of the March 29-April 25 Arbitron ratings provided by an industry source.

Limbaugh's detractors attribute the losses to a rejection of the show following his controversial comments about the Georgetown law student.

"Clearly Sandra Fluke isn't the only one who didn't like Rush calling her a 'slut' given how many viewers that comment incinerated," one radio insider said.

But defenders say that what looks like a decline actually represents a leveling out following increased attention from the controversy. In late March, Limbaugh boasted that his ratings had increased by as much as 60 percent in the month since he had called Fluke a "slut" and a "prostitute" on air.

[...]

A spokesperson for Limbaugh declined to comment.

Limbaugh, without offering any substantiation, bragged about increased ratings as recently as last Friday's show.

Previously:

Limbaugh Affiliate Cumulus Media Reports Millions In Lost Revenue

The Limbaugh "Slut" Firestorm

Limbaugh Launched 46 Personal Attacks On Fluke; He Apologized For Two Words

"Slut" Firestorm Sends Limbaugh Into Crisis Management Mode

No matter how many times they say it, the facts still don't change: The Rev. Jeremiah Wright story was covered endlessly in 2008 by the press, including The New York Times.

But that doesn't stop people like Breitbart's Joel Pollak from pushing one of the right's most beloved, albeit comically inept, lies: The liberal media refused to address the Wright story.

Breitbart.com headline:  

NY Times Ignored Obama's Wright, Focuses on Romney's Mormon Faith

This stubborn untruth is crucial because the far-right's ongoing obsession with Obama's former pastor only makes sense if conservatives can argue it's a new story and that new information is coming out all the time. They need to whitewash the past  because Obama foes have to pretend voters were never informed about Obama's association with Wright and his incendiary rhetoric; that the press hid the truth about Obama.

In other words, there needs to be a conspiracy. Or, Obama was never vetted!

For the record, the Times "ignored" the Wright story so often in 2008 that it managed to publish just 200-plus articles and columns that mentioned both Obama and Rev. Wright, according to Nexis. The Times published more than 126 rticles and columns that mentioned Obama and Wright at least three times each, and 33 hefty pieces that mentioned both men at least eight times each.

As we've noted before, the avalanche of non-stop Wright coverage became so intense in 2008 that at one point the press was covering it more closely that Hillary Clinton's campaign, and she was running for president at the time. Also, just five percent of Americans thought the story received "too little" media attention, according to a CBS/New York Times poll in 2008. 

Maybe Breitbart editors just have a different definition of "ignored."

Activists, theorists, organizations and ordinary citizens are rebuilding the American political-economic system from the ground up.

Google appears to have morphed from a corporation that proclaims, “Don’t be evil†to one insisting that users “Join the Borg.â€

826 has blossomed from a noble experiment into one of the top innovators and influencers in the education field.

Midwestern rural communities are being devastated by energy companies searching for a form of sand to use in their destructive fracking operations elsewhere in rural America.

Not only is 'attachment parenting' bad for women; it's not necessarily good for children, either.

In Oregon, activists are rejuvenating a campaign to win a health care system that covers everyone—and pays for it by cutting out the insurance companies.

We have the ability – the freedom – to roam more now than ever before. And yet our upward mobility is standing still.

Not all politicians are created equal. And not all are treated equally. Therein lies an issue deserving a closer look: whether vulnerable Democrats are targeted for destruction.

Much like the NATO summit, the system is set up not to spread wealth but to preserve and protect it, not to relieve chaos but to contain and punish it.

Bill Moyers talks to Simon Johnson, once chief economist of the International Monetary Fund and now MIT professor, about the (possible) fall of Jamie Dimon and JPMorgan.

At L.A.'s hottest new party, singles hook up by sniffing slept-in T-shirts. Is it science or speed dating?

On ABC's This Week, George Will and Laura Ingraham engaged in a bit of revisionism to try to distance conservative billionaire Joe Ricketts from an incendiary plan to re-manufacture the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy, and in the process accused the New York Times of journalistic malpractice. Will claimed that Ricketts, who commissioned the plan, immediately repudiated the proposal, while Ingraham asserted that he "didn't even see" it. In fact, the proposal stated that Ricketts had given "preliminary approval" of the plan and commissioned it in part because he thought it was a mistake that John McCain's campaign refused to use Wright to attack Obama in 2008.

During a discussion of the plan, which was made public by the New York Times, Will claimed that Ricketts "repudiated [the proposal] the instant he saw it." Will went on to accuse the Times of fudging the facts of Ricketts' involvement because "it didn't fit their narrative: billionaire behaving responsibly."

Fellow panelist Ingraham added: "As far as I know, he didn't even see this proposal -- I believe, George -- and the idea that he was considering it was a total false narrative put forward by the New York Times to send a message to other people, don't you dare get involved in this election in any type of, quote, 'controversial,' way."

But their contentions aren't supported by the facts.

In her May 18 Washington Post column, Kathleen Parker disputed the notion that the Republicans behind the proposal that sought to make a campaign issue out of President Obama's association with Rev. Jeremiah Wright are "racist," by suggesting that Fred Davis, who oversaw the proposal for the ads, recognized the ads' "racial sensitivity" and planned to hire a conservative African-American as spokesman.

She wrote that although the proposed ads "were not a good idea" and that "to question Obama's character based on his association with Wright at this point seems too much too late,"  it is "unfair" to cast the Republicans who would do so as racist. She then suggested that the fact that the PAC would have enlisted "prominent African Americans" to "question Obama's character" would have somehow mitigated the racial aspect of the proposed ads:

Obama has a record as president and can be challenged on that record. Raising Wright now would have been a serious miscalculation and would have been interpreted as attempting to inspire racial animus. But it is unfair to smear [ad creator Fred] Davis as a racist, as some have suggested. He obviously created a proposal based on his sense that this would appeal to Ricketts, who said upon viewing the rejected ­McCain ad: "If the nation had seen that ad, they'd never have elected Barack Obama."

Davis, whose creativity is widely acknowledged, was obviously aware of the possible racial sensitivity, which is why he also hoped to include prominent African Americans, such as radio host Larry Elder, questioning Obama's character. Whites cannot do this without suffering the consequences now in play.

A dramatic and bitter labor conflict has played out in Muscatine, Iowa in recent years, though without the prominence or massive community support of a century ago.

The ability of NYSNA nurses to chart their own course, ensuring patient care and bedside nursing are priorities, is a reminder that unions can change based on member involvement.

Lawyers for three protesters arrested on terrorist-related charges ahead of the Nato summit accused police of entrapping them and encouraging an alleged bomb-making effort.

Early vibrators were hand-cranked, two-person jobs -- and prescribed by doctors. How far we've come since then.