Friday Links and Open Thread

  • Wemple: CNN exec sticks up for their in-house Trump apologist.
  • Keith Olbermann says he’s coming out of retirement.  
  • Somerby: Possible reasons why Maddow’s show is such a disgrace.
  • Zaltzman: Fox News many soon have its own Israeli news channel.
  • Ainsley Earhardt: How I got a promotion while on maternity leave.
  • Friday: War Stories special examines how to win the war against ISIS.
  • Alisyn Camerota reporting in Brussels: I’ll never forget this experience.
  • Factor video: looks at media coverage of Obama in Cuba.

47 thoughts on “Friday Links and Open Thread”

  1. The big sport today (and yesterday) on twitter appears to be lying about Greta. Fox haters left and right yesterday spread the lie that she blamed Cruz for an ad,when in fact had never even mentioned the ad, on air on on twitter. Yesterday when the topic did come up on air she clearly stated the ad was from a SuperPAC with no connection to Cruz. Yet this morning people are still tweeting that she lied and conveniently omitting what she actually said yesterday (which you can see here).

    • My take is the criticism of Greta was based on this tweet.

      Greta Van Susteren
      Candidates love their supporting SuperPacs but then when SuperPacs go off rails, say “I didn’t do it”
      8:38 AM – 24 Mar 2016

      Not sure if valid inferences were made by Greta’s critics — or if between the time she tweeted and the airing of her show she corrected herself.

      I’ll leave that for others to decide.

      • If I say I hate it when singers screech, and somebody else concludes that I’m attacking Lady Gaga, my response would be: if I wanted to attack Lady Gaga, I’d say Lady Gaga.

        I’m sure you’re correct that this tweet kicked things off, but it makes no mention whatsoever of Cruz or his SuperPac. Greta tweets something that is IMHO deliberately general so as not to accuse any particular person of anything (probably because she heard about the controversy but hadn’t pinned down yet who was at fault) but expresses her opinion about politicians react, and the partisans immediately rewrite it to say she’s lying about Ted Cruz! When she actually does address Ted Cruz and the Melania ad, she gives a 100% accurate statement of what happened.

        This morning, a “media reporter” from a right-wing site DC Examiner again says Greta blamed Cruz for the Melania ad, which of course she hadn’t, and conveniently skips over her actual segment that aired yesterday. That sort of slippery, selective ‘reporting’ is not accidental. But it is dishonest.

        • What Greta said expresses a well known irony of political life that is germane in these situations regardless of the intention of the candidate.

          It’s worth noting that candidates do enjoy the support of pacs and that makes it difficult to extricate themselves when these entities get caught acting in ways that hurt the candidate they are trying to help.

          Greta is making a salient point (if not a profound one) in saying to politicians– good luck with getting into bed with someone and then trying to distance yourself from them the next day.

          That’s appropo regardless of the specifics.

      • So Johnny and I have had a feud about this Greta Twitter situation. The reason I believe that you can believe Greta was talking about the ad put out by a Anti-Trump PAC even though she does not explicitly say which Super PAC she is talking about is that yesterday that was the ONLY Super PAC ad that was being talked about anywhere.

        IMO she was clearly talking about the naked Melania ad.

        She also had another tweet that said “note to candidates:if u are going to take the benefits of what your supporting SuperPac does,u should take responsibility for what it does”.

        Why would she tweet twice about the same subject if she was not referencing the Melania ad? Was there another PAC ad that was all over the news yesterday? Please direct me to that ad if there was another one out there that was getting all the media attention.

        Johnny pointed out to me that Greta had then made mention on her show that the ad was not put out by a Cruz supporting PAC. My beef with that to him was that her TV show and her Twitter timeline are two very different mediums that reach different audiences. I never watch her TV show but do follow her on Twitter. If you say something on Twitter that needs clarifying I believe you should clarify it on Twitter. If you report something on your TV show that needs clarifying you should do it on your show.

        • Homemaker, Greta is telling candidates that they are going to be linked to the date that brung ’em to the dance despite their efforts to distance themselves when that date embarrasses them.

          That’s a truism we all must live with.

          • Except these folks, Liz Mair and Rick Wilson are really not Cruz supporters. So they did not “bring him to the dance” as you say. Liz actually worked for Scott Walker but got canned because she didn’t support ethanol mandates and Scott Walker, being a neighbor to Iowa couldn’t’t have someone on his team stating that opinion. So out she got thrown. Rick Wilson was a Rubio supporter. But together they really hate Trump. Have not really seen if they have come out in favor of Cruz or not.

          • It’s still a statement on pacs in general. Pols like pacs until pacs embarrass them, or go after them. Then it’s a different story.

            Then there’s not a pol within 1000 miles who claims any relationship with them.

          • Okay, but Trump is disavowing that he’s behind the stuff being put out about Cruz’s wife via the pic comparing a less than flattering shot of Mrs. Cruz with Mrs. Trump, and blog link ads about Mrs.Cruz having been a call girl.

            Cruz is disavowing the ad showing cheesecake pics of Mrs. Trump.

            Pacs are doing this stuff and I think Greta is making a broader statement about the coziness of pols and pacs than what you’re suggesting.

          • Then it behooves Greta and others to be clearer and unequivocal in their intended meaning if they don’t want to be misunderstood. Otherwise there will be inferences- correct or not.

          • That’s how I looked at it. Greta’s making a larger point that if you have a PAC that is supporting your campaign, you (as a politician) have a responsibility to reign in that PAC if they run off the rails.

          • Trump has not and cannot disavow ” the pic comparing a less than flattering shot of Mrs. Cruz with Mrs. Trump,” since it was his RT of the pic that gave it life. The pic even quoted Trump’s “spill the beans.”

    • Having no conscience or basic sense of decency means that there is no limit to the anti-Fox crowd’s imagination.

      • This tweet is clearly incorrect, there’s a legit complaint there. I don’t think Cruz said anything at all about Mrs Trump, tho his surrogates have in the past. The complaints I saw Friday were about other, basically innocuous greta tweets, trying to read something into them that isn’t there. That’s what I was talking about.

        • I understand what you were talking about. I disagree that Greta wasn’t referring to the anti-Trump Melania FB ad in those tweets. I also disagree with the characterization of folks who believe Greta was linking the PAC to Cruz as “Fox haters.”
          I haven’t been able to locate the full OTR video going into the break prior to Greta’s clarification (my word) of the anti-Trump PAC.
          Greta’s tweets followed shortly after Trump blamed Cruz for the Melania ad and threatened Cruz’s wife.

          • As I said elsewhere I think the news about the ads is what triggered Greta’s response, but suspect because she hadn’t investigated fully or wasn’t satisfied that she knew all the facts, tweeted out a general comment about SuperPacs that wouldn’t be wrong about any specifics because it didn’t have any specifics. She would’ve been better doing that with the tweet you quoted. Unfortunately, people seem to ignore that tweet to complain about the ones where she didn’t even mention Cruz.

            I didn’t intend to say all the people who criticized those tweets were Fox haters. You certainly aren’t! Some of them, however, clearly are, write propaganda for anti-Fox sites, and are intentionally roiling the waters. Some regularly feed material to FNC competitors. That last is particularly telling.

          • Let’s see here. Which candidate has pro Super PACs? Trump? No. Cruz? Yes.
            Specifically, which “SuperPac (went) off rails,” and which candidate said “I didn’t do it?”
            Clearly, the anti-Trump PAC went off the rails with the Melania photo FB ad. Cleary, Ted Cruz said neither he nor his campaign had nothing to do with the Melania ad.
            You’re right, Greta didn’t mention Cruz by name. She didn’t have to. Ray Charles could have seen which ad and which candidate she was tweeting about.

  2. Some are asking on Breitbart News and Twitter why the MSM + Drudge are silent about the National.Enquirer piece on Ted Cruz.

    A commenter said, “National Enquirer was running John Edwards stories months before the msm decided to report on it.”

    Anyone know if this is accurate? I think it might be. Hard to remember back to late 2007.

  3. Re: “Keith Olbermann says he’s coming out of retirement”: I strongly hope that his new gig won’t be on TV. His attacks on Republicans, conservatives, News Corp., 21st Century Fox, FNC, FBN, and those two channels’ personalities–especially our humble correspondent–won’t sting as much if he’s in the wilderness.

  4. Who’s putting out the story about Cruz having once gotten it on with Trump spox Katrina Pierson?

    That’s the funniest bit in a while.

  5. Today’s most popular links:
    5 sticks up for
    4 Possible reasons
    3 Keith Olbermann says
    2 on maternity leave
    And the most popular link in today’s links…
    1 Fox News may soon have its own Israeli news channel.

Comments are closed.