Red Channels

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Channels

The "blacklisting" of American entertainers began shortly after World War II, when suspected Communists in Hollywood were called to testify before the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). Some who refused to answer questions or implicate others went to jail. Others lost their careers, several fled the country. In 1950 "Red Channels" was published by Counterattack: The Newsletter of Facts To Combat Communism. It contained a list of entertainers and the organizations they were or had once been affiliated with that were now considered subversive. This, in essence, is the blacklist. Below are links to images of the introduction, and to the pages of some of the more famous entertainers on the list.

Leonard Bernstein

Aaron Copland

Howard DaSilva

Will Geer

Ruth Gordon

Dashiell Hammett

Lena Horne

Langston Hughes

Burl Ives

Gypsy Rose Lee

Burgess Meredith

Arthur Miller

Dorothy Parker

Edward G. Robinson

Pete Seeger

Irwin Shaw

Orson Welles

http://www.authentichistory.com/1950s/redchannels/redchannels.html

considering CNNs ratings you probably have more people reading your column of "Biased drivel" then King has watching his court jester show.

I find myself constantly thinking of the movie broadcast news where the William Hurt character has to play an informed person. That movie really turned out to be prophetic and King is a perfect example of the Tom Grunick paradigm. Typos and all.

Actually, that parenthetical is one of the most interesting aspects of King's email. Not only is he referring to himself in the third person, but by doing so he assumes the reader's (ie Glenn's) voice.

Which implies he thinks he knows how Glenn will react to reading his email. The amount of shear arrogance that requires is dumbfounding. not only does King know he's right, he knows his email will make it perfectly clear to Glenn that he's right, and that Glenn will be left with nothing to do but feel sorry for himself and sigh things like "there he goes with that word again", shamed in defeat.

its one thing to refer to yourself in the third person. its something else entirely to be so full yourself as to assume you know what other people are thinking. maybe thats why you have issues with it, i know thats why i do.

I worked for CNN for years and I can tell you, unequivocally, that the bias and sloppy reporting you called them out on is very real. To John King's credit, he's not the only one responsible. CNN is part of a media conglomerate whose interest lies more in placation (read = ad dollars) than in truth-seeking. Don't waste your time expecting anything more.

John King: Hello Mr. Hitler. May I call you Adolph?

Adolph Hitler: Yes, sure.

JK: Thanks, Adolph. Tell me about your childhood. What was on your bed, as a child?

AH: A headless teddy bear named 'Teddy' and a few toy guns and lots of rope.

JK: So you had stuffed animals as a child? What were your experiences in your formative years in school.

AH: I terrorized the stupid kids and beat up on the Jewish kids in the class.

JK: So you were an active young lad. What was your favorite food growing up?

AH: Anything char broiled.

JK: So you would feel at home in Texas. We call the state of Texas the home of the bar-b-que. I think that you'd like it there, like to visit there.

Well, I understand that you are busy at the moment with that scuffle in Europe and all. Thanks for your time.

That was an interview with the man that may well control the whole of Europe. It has been a thrill to be in Germany. The people have been so wonderful. Back to the studio...

Reporters argue that they have no choice. They’ll say they can’t protest or boycott the staged format, because they risk being stripped of their seat in the press pool.

(From sysprog's Matt Taibbi article)

That really is the heart of the matter.

Hard questions = No access

So on with the fluff parade!

Crooks and Liars has a post up about it:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/01/15/dodd-facing-fight-within-his-caucus-on-fisa/

I've e-mailed Dodd a letter of support and signed a petition re FISA from the ACLU. Please send an e-mail to Dodd to give him some help on this.

Glenn, don't know if you and FDL are planning anything on this. Just a shout out.

Kudos to GG for taking King to task, and publishing, verbatim, King's response to GG, complete with mistakes, etc. How dare King decide that GG is 'drivel.' Actually, I think that King is "projecting" his heart of heart realization that what the MSM is doing is drivel....

I couldn't figure out what the right wing equivalent to Media Matters might even be. But after going to their site and then going to Media Matters' site, it's like night and day (or like fluff and fact).

Top "story" on Media Research Center:

Repubs Anti-McCain Because He Challenges Authority

Asked by Katie Couric Tuesday night why having Republicans dominate the Michigan GOP primary is bad for John McCain, CBS's Bob Schieffer didn't cite McCain's liberal views on immigration or tax cuts. Instead, Schieffer contended Republicans just don't like him because he's "willing to challenge authority."

Top story on Media Matters:

Upcoming debate moderator Russert added to his record of distortions

On the January 13 edition of Meet the Press, host Tim Russert -- who, with NBC's Brian Williams, will moderate the Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas on January 15 -- once again cited the "[2002] National Intelligence Estimate, which had a lot of caveats" about Iraq's weapons programs to challenge a Democrat about his or her Iraq war vote, something he did not do in two previous interviews with Sen. John McCain.

Read More Russert Coverage

After clicking on the Media Research link, I expected to see something about how the polling data actually showed that Republicans disagreed with McCain on the issues. But nope. It really just cited Schieffer's comments. I guess we should be glad that it did at least that.

After clicking on the Media Matters link, there was a compare and contrast between Russert's different interviews with different guests within the parameters Media Matters clearly defines. We can speculate on the level of importance of these differences, but at least, there is some fact-based argument presented rather than simple fact-free innuendo.

We see the crux of the difference between "balance" and "truth" in this very example. Kind of sad and scary when we think about it.