Sunday, February 24, 2008

Media Matters Daily Summary 02-24-08

Wash. Post did not mention that McCain campaign's list of "[o]bjective observers" who criticized NY Times story included McCain's own attorney
In a February 23 article, The Washington Post quoted a fundraising letter from Sen. John McCain's campaign asserting that "[o]bjective observers are viewing" a February 21 New York Times article about McCain's relationship with a telecommunications lobbyist "as a sleazy smear attack from a liberal newspaper against the conservative Republican frontrunner." The Post did not note, however, that one of the "[o]bjective observers" quoted in the email was none other than Robert Bennett -- an attorney hired by McCain specifically to deal with issues related to the Times' reporting. Read More

McLaughlin echoes smear of Michelle Obama: "You don't think she's a black militant?"
On The McLaughlin Group, host John McLaughlin asked Clarence Page: "Do you think Michelle [Obama] -- do you think she leaves the impression -- not mine, but I've heard this -- that she has a chip on her shoulder?" McLaughlin later asked Page: "You don't think she's a black militant?" Several media figures have recently suggested that Obama has a "chip on her shoulder," including VDARE.com contributor Steve Sailer. Read More

On Meet the Press, Brooks suggested McCain "only wrote two letters" as Commerce chairman
On Meet the Press, discussing the New York Times article about Sen. John McCain's relationship with a lobbyist, David Brooks said he "do[esn't] really understand the case" involving McCain and the letters he wrote to the Federal Communications Commission about an issue involving Paxson Communications, then suggested that McCain "only wrote two letters" as chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee. But the Times reported that McCain sent a series of letters to the FCC in a separate case, including "an unusually blunt letter to the head of the Federal Communications Commission, warning that he would try to overhaul the agency if it closed a broadcast ownership loophole." Read More

No comments: