The Post-Accountability News Outlet

by Simon Maloy

It was fascinating to watch NPR's reaction to the James O'Keefe videos. After the (deceptively edited) tapes were released, NPR rapidly and forcefully distanced itself from the two fundraising executives in question, placing them both on administrative leave. CEO Vivian Schiller was forced out, and all the while NPR media reporter David Folkenflik reported on the turmoil at his own company as if he were tapping on the glass of a fishbowl.

The two executives captured on the videos had no say over NPR's news product or editorial direction, and regardless of whether you agree with the actions NPR's senior management took, those corrective moves were clearly intended to demonstrate a culture of accountability and preserve their credibility as a news outlet. After all, that's what reputations and, ultimately, success in journalism are staked on... right?

Perhaps, for news outlets that hew to traditional modes of journalistic practice. Fox News, however, has proven to be largely disinterested in accountability, even in the face of numerous fiascoes that, had they occurred at other news outfits, would likely have sent heads rolling.

Let's break down Fox's reaction to their latest credibility-killing debacle. Last week, Media Mattersrevealed that Washington managing editor Bill Sammon admitted to pushing on-air the idea that Barack Obama advocated "socialism" despite "privately" thinking the idea was "rather far-fetched." Howard Kurtz of The Daily Beast spoke with Sammon, who said that his comments were "inartful," but by 2009 he was "astonished by how the needle had moved" -- a comment many interpreted as Sammon retroactively justifying a claim he believed to be false. He later spoke with NPR's Folkenflik and said he was simply characterizing conservative thought at the time: "I was, frankly, astonished that that was a serious topic of conversation in a presidential campaign."

That's pretty much been it. Perhaps more revealing are the steps not taken. Have any Fox News reporters commented or reported on the situation as Folkenflik did during NPR's troubles? Nope. Has Sammon faced any public consequences? No. Have there been any reports of private reprimands? Also no. Has there been any indication whatsoever that Fox News has shown any contrition for -- or even awareness of -- the gaping ethical breach that their Washington managing editor has torn open? Crickets all around.

Special dishonor goes to Fox News Watch, the Fox News weekend program specifically tasked with covering the media, which ignored the story entirely. Host Jon Scott even proclaimed at one point during the April 2 show that the mission of his program was to "cover the coverage and uncover media bias" -- right before launching into a mocking report on an over-the-top pro-Qaddafi Libyan news anchor.

The Sammon non-fallout is in keeping with past Fox News scandals, in which the unprofessional and offensive on-air comments of employees (up to and including jokes about the president's assassination) have been met with neglect from the network. After Glenn Beck called Obama a "racist" with a "deep-seated hatred for white people," NBC's First Read blog observed: "What's most amazing about this episode is that what Beck said isn't a fireable or even a SUSPENDABLE offense by his bosses. There was a time when outrageous rants like this would actually cost the ranters their jobs. But not anymore; if anything, it's now encouraged."

What Fox goes for instead is the appearance of accountability. Whenever one of these controversies pops up, the offender is typically on the "opinion" side of Fox News and the network's defenders are quick to claim that there exists a division at Fox News between "hard news" and "opinion." The network promotes this supposed division as well; when Special Report anchor Bret Baier appeared on The Daily Show two weeks ago, he said "we respect the viewers' ability to discern the difference between the two." The message is clear: Our news guys don't do, and wouldn't get away with, Glenn Beck-style hijinks.

However, the fact that a bona-fide ideologue like Sammon is a managing editor at Fox News suggests the exact opposite is true. And the fact that Sammon remains secure in his position suggests that the network executives want him to continue twisting the "hard news" coverage to echo the hard-line conservatism that saturates the "opinion" portion of Fox's programming.

It's not "news" in the traditional sense, and it's fundamentally dishonest. But Fox News' departure from traditional journalism necessitates a departure from established notions of accountability. After all, when you hire someone to be a liar, can you really fire him for doing his job?

Obama announces 2012 re-election bid

By Agence France-Presse

WASHINGTON (AFP) – President Barack Obama on Monday formally announced his 2012 re-election bid, saying the country needed "to protect the progress" it had made.

"Today, we are filing papers to launch our 2012 campaign," Obama said in a statement.

He explained that as his administration and supporters across the country "fight to protect the progress we've made -- and make more -- we also need to begin mobilizing for 2012, long before the time comes for me to begin campaigning in earnest."

Obama said that in coming days, his supporters will begin forging a new organization in cities and towns across the country.

"And I'll need you to help shape our plan as we create a campaign that's farther reaching, more focused, and more innovative than anything we've built before," he said.

The announcement was preceded by a video, which featured a group of presidential supporters talking about the importance of continuing the job the president started following his election in 2008.

"This will be my final campaign, at least as a candidate," Obama said in the statement.

But the cause of making a lasting difference for our families, our communities, and our country has never been about one person. And it will succeed only if we work together."

House Republicans propose deep cuts to Medicare

By Sahil Kapur

WASHINGTON – House Republicans will Tuesday unveil a long-term budget plan that essentially privatizes Medicare, a move that is sure to draw ire from progressives on Capitol Hill.

The proposal, authored by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI), aims to cut $4 trillion in federal spending over ten years, in part by ending Medicare as we know it for Americans who are currently under the age of 55.

Those nearing retirement within the next 10 years will be covered by single-payer program, which pays the medical expenses of seniors. The rest would have to choose from a series of private insurance plans to cover them when they turn 65, according to previews of the proposal. The federal government would pay roughly the first $15,000 in costs; after that, they're on their own.

"There is nobody saying that Medicare can stay in its current path," Ryan said on Fox News Sunday. "We should not be measuring ourselves against some mythical future of Medicare that isn't sustainable."

The proposal also cuts Medicaid, which helps pay health care expenses for low-income Americans. Currently a joint program run by the federal government and states, the Ryan plan would turn it into a series of block grants for states, considerably reducing benefits.

House progressives declined to comment on the plan as it had not been officially unveiled, but it's certain to bring about a rancorous debate over whether to balance the budget by cutting into the safety net. Though both parties agree that health care costs are a major driver of federal spending, liberals have argued that seniors and low-income people should not have to pick up the tab for a deficit caused largely by tax cuts, two unfunded wars and a recession.

A new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found Monday that 76 percent of Americans consider it unacceptable to cut Medicare, while 67 oppose cutting Medicaid, despite their deficit concerns.

2,000 Protesters March On Koch Industries’ D.C. Office

By Alex Seitz-Wald

Though they don’t want you to know about it, the billionaire Koch brothers are bankrolling a massive campaign to roll back progressive achievements, and today, labor, civil rights, and climate activists turned out at dozens of rallies across the country to demonstrate against the Koch’s secretive influence in American politics and to stand up for labor and civil rights.

In Washington, D.C. today an estimated 2,000 protesters marched on Koch Industries’ Washington D.C. offices and attempted to give Charles and David Koch an invitation to come out and speak with the protesters. Not surprisingly, the building’s doors were locked and no one was allowed inside. However, a representative from the real estate company which managed the building told an handful of organizers who attempted to deliver the invitation, “I’d be here with you guys if I wasn’t working right now.” Noting that he works for the building, not Koch, he said, “I don’t want to be here.”

The events were scheduled for today because it marks the 43rd anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in Memphis, TN. King traveled to Memphis tosupport a strike by the city’s sanitation workers, and was an ardent supporter of workers’ rights. Dr. Earl D. Trent Jr., the senior pastor at the Florida Avenue Baptist Church in Washington, told ThinkProgress that if King “were alive today, he would be right here at the forefront, no doubt.” “And that’s why we have to carry this out.”

Watch ThinkProgress’ video report:

Last Thursday, tea party activists rallied on Capitol Hill to pressure Republican lawmakers to cut government spending. Crowd estimates ranged from “dozens” to “fewer than 200,” yet the event attracted dozens of reporters and significant media interest, producing hundreds of stories in local and national press. At today’s rally, which was ten times bigger than the tea party one, ThinkProgress spotted three reporters — none from mainstream publications.

Scott Walker Gives $81,500 Government Job To Top Donor’s 26-Year-Old College Dropout Son

Kevin Donohoe

Since taking office in January, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) has stripped public workers of their collective bargaining rights, proposed wage cutsto local government employees, and insisted that his “state is broke” and that its public workers areoverpaid. But Walker applies a different standard to himself.

Today, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reveals that Walker is using state funds to pay more than$81,500 a year to the 26-year-old son of a major campaign donor with no college degree and two drunken-driving convictions.

Despite having almost no management experience, UW Madison college dropout Brian Deschane now oversees state environmental and regulatory issues and manages dozens of Commerce Department employees. After only two months on the job, Deschane has already received a 26 percent pay raise and a promotion.

Deschane’s father, Jerry Deschane was a major financial backer of the Governor’s campaign:

Jerry Deschane, executive vice president and longtime lobbyist for the Madison-based Wisconsin Builders Association…bet big on Walker during last year’s governor’s race.

The group’s political action committee gave $29,000 to Walker and his running mate, Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch, last year, making it one of the top five PAC donors to the governor’s successful campaign. Even more impressive, members of the trade group funneled more than $92,000 through its conduit to Walker’s campaign over the past two years.

Total donations: $121,652.

Deschanes’ father admitted that during the gubenatorial campaign he may have put in “good words” for his son with Walker campaign manager (and current chief of staff) Keith Gilkes. A state official has confirmed that Gilkes “recommended Deschane for an interview at the agency.” Michael McCabe, the executive director of the Wisconsin democracy Campaign, said the appointment had “all the markings of political patronage.”

In the coming months, we may be seeing more cases of Brian Deschanes. The anti-union law Walker signed last month also included provisions that would convert more than thirty-seven civil service positions into political appointees chosen by the Governor.

Random Friday: Spongebob/AC/DC smashup

MCL video Comment: the tea party

The tea party by Johnny C Like it? Create your own at GoAnimate.com. It's free and fun!

Miller Votes Against Collective Bargaining Rights

by John Tramontana

Joining her Republican colleagues in Michigan and across the country in their attack on collective bargaining, Michigan Congresswoman Candice Miller voted to strip away collective bargaining rights. Miller voted against an amendment which would have protected collective bargaining rights at airline and railway companies (HR 658, Roll Call 217, 4/1/11). “Her vote is very anti-worker and takes away the right of collective bargaining,” Michigan Democratic Party Chair Mark Brewer said. “Congresswoman Miller should be ashamed of her decision to take away the rights of workers – especially in a struggling economy.” “We need to be protecting workers and making sure they have the ability to pay their mortgages and feed their families,” continued Brewer. “Unfortunately, both Michigan and national Republicans like Rick Snyder and Candice Miller are instead denying the right to collectively bargain.”

Poll: Americans favor unions over GOP governors in labor disputes

By David Edwards

More Americans back unions over governors who are trying to curb collective bargaining rights, according to a recent poll.

The polling organization Gallup found that 48 percent, or nearly half of Americans agree more with state employee labor unions. Only 39 percent favored governors in those states.

An additional 13 percent agreed with neither or had no opinion.

The results were split along party lines. In all, 65 percent of Republicans supported governors, while 70 percent of Democrats chose unions.

Republican governors in Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, Maine and several other states have all proposed stripping union rights.

Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) signed into law Thursday a bill that bans strikes and curbs collective bargaining rights.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) signed a similar bill into law last month, after weeks of protests by public workers.

The Wisconsin governor agreed Thursday to honor a judge's order to temporarily halt implementation of the law.

The Gallup survey of 1,027 adults was conducted March 25-27.

Arianna: The Huffington Post is not a ‘lefty’ publication anymore

By Stephen C. Webster

In a recent interview with The New York Times, Arianna Huffington revealed a bit of news that's not likely to show up on The Huffington Post's front page any time soon: the site is no longer "lefty" in its political bent.

That will likely come as a surprise to the massive audience of Democrats and liberals The Huffington Post has attracted over the years, who've turned the site into a powerful voice for progressive values and one of the largest online publications going.

Speaking to New York Times reporter Andrew Goldman, Huffington said that for the last three years she has been walking the post-partisan talk.

"The tag line that we’ve used a lot is 'Beyond left and right,'" she reportedly said.

The Times' writer fired back, suggesting that she was "trying to tell me that Smurfs aren’t blue" by claiming that The Huffington Post was not founded as a "lefty" publication.

"I’m just telling you that it is very clear that we have progressive views, but to call everything we’re doing lefty — it misses the whole point that American policy needs to be redefined beyond left and right," she reportedly said. "It’s a completely obsolete view of politics."

"Still, I’m amazed you’re trying to tell me that The Huffington Post wasn’t started as a lefty blog?" Goldman asked.

"I’m not trying to tell you anything," she reportedly replied. "I’m telling you things. I’m not trying, O.K.?"

The interviewer also claimed that "salacious," "boob-related" posts on Huffington's front page tend to get his clicks more than their original reporting -- a point Arianna said was "really a shame."

The published text of Huffington's interview was "condensed and edited," according to a tag below the piece.

Huffington has of late been feuding with Bill Keller, the Times' executive editor, who recently compared her business practices to "Somali piracy."

The Huffington Post has significantly more readers than The New York Times.

But in recent months Huffington has been under fire from liberals and progressives, namely due to AOL's announcement that it was purchasing the site and making Arianna the editor-in-chief of its new Huffington Post Media Group, under which all their editorial content now falls.

Some 900 of AOL's global employees were let go after the Huffington Post purchase, representing about 20 percent of its workforce. The majority were in back-office operations in India.

AOL reportedly paid $315 million for the site, sparking an outcry from a group of unpaid Huffington Post contributors who demanded to share in the proceeds.

That was a sore spot for many writers, who've targeted Huffington's business model of not paying most contributors as a factor leading to the decline of journalism. Numerous writers and a swath of readers evenopenly quit the site in protest, insisting that the failure to pay most contributors was a factor leading to the decline of journalism.

Challenged on this point by the Times, Huffington pushed back, saying there's no evidence to support claims that the site has negatively affected journalism.

Even after all that, Huffington came under heavy criticism yet again recently when a post by controversial right-wing blogger Andrew Breitbart landed on their front page.

They defended the move, noting that it attracted an enormous number of page views, but later announced that Breitbart's posts wouldn't appear on the front page again after he made negative comments about former Obama appointee Van Jones to a different outlet.

Anti-EPA House Votes To Let Agribusiness Dump Pesticides In Our Water

By Brad Johnson

The Tea Party Congress doesn’t just hate EPA rules that protect against industry destroying our country with greenhouse pollution, mercury, coal ash, and mountaintop removal. By a veto-proof margin, the U.S. House of Representatives voted yesterday to prohibit Clean Water Act limits on pesticide pollution of lakes, streams, and rivers.

Lobbyists for industrial agriculture polluters cheered the 292-130 vote for H.R. 872, which “will amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Clean Water Act to clarify Congressional intent and eliminate the requirementfor National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits for applications of pesticides approved for use under FIFRA.” The California agribusiness lobby Western Farmers Association praised the “practical, bipartisan example of eliminating government regulations thatneedlessly increase farm business costs“:

The measure would bar the Environmental Protection Agency from requiring farmers or companies to comply with the Clean Water Act when using pesticides on or near water sources. The bill’s supporters said pesticides are adequately regulated by other laws. The bill passed 292 to 130 on Thursday. The 130 negative votes came from Democrats. Fifty-seven Democrats joined 235 Republicans in supporting the bill, which has yet to see Senate action.

Clean Water rules against pesticide pollution are hardly “needless.” The waters that are home to fish and that feed our drinking water supply are being poisoned. Agribusiness uses hundreds of millions of pounds of FIFRA-approved pesticides like atrazine, metolachlor, cyanazine, alachlor, acetochlor, metribuzin, bentazon, and trifluralin a year. These pesticides, linked to cancer, birth defects and neurological disorders, are found in nearly every single stream in the United States.

Following a 2006 USGS report on the nearly ubiquitous pesticide contamination of our streams, rivers, and the fish that live in them, the EPA under Bush tried to establish aloophole-ridden rule that was thrown out by the courts. The EPA was given until April 9, 2011 to establish new rules, but was granted a delay until October 31 on Tuesday

GOP Guts Regulation Requiring Adequate Rest For Pilots

By George Zornick

In February 2009, Continental flight 3407, operated by Colgan Air, plunged into a suburb of Buffalo, NY, killing all 49 people on board and one person on the ground. Pilot error was named as the chief cause of the crash, and investigators focused on pilot fatigue as one of the primary problems. The co-pilot had taken a cross-country, overnight flight the day before the crash, and only slept briefly in an airline lounge before she was required to pilot the flight.

When the plane encountered an ice storm as it attempted to land in Buffalo, the pilots struggled to respond appropriately, and The National Transportation Safety Boardfound that their “performance was likely impaired because of fatigue.” Both pilots wereheard yawning on the cockpit voice recorder.

Families of the victims channeled their grief into action in the following months, launching a 15-month campaign to convince Congress to enact a variety of pilot performance safeguards. The bill passed last summer and, among other things, required the FAA to create tougher rules aimed at controlling pilot fatigue.

But today, the Republican House of Representatives passed an amendment sponsored by Rep. Bill Shuster (R-PA) to a Republican-drafted aviation bill that would essentially gut the planned pilot fatigue rules by requiring extensive tailoring to many different segments of the aviation industry, and exempting several others.

Hero pilot Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger blasted the amendment yesterday before it passed, saying “it creates a huge obstacle to new regulations,” and that, “at some point in the future, we don’t know when, it’s likely people will die unnecessarily.” Last night on the Ed Show, Sullenberger said the bill is a “slap in the face” to the Flight 3407 families. He also decried “special interests only interested in the bottom line.”

Watch it:

Family members of those killed on Flight 3407 are already speaking out against the Republican vote. “You can try to dress this up however you like, but we all know which special interests that [the amendment] is attempting to help and what it’s attempting to do for them, which is make it more difficult for the FAA to do its job and regulate them,” said Susan Bourque, who’s sister, Beverly Eckert, was killed in the crash.

Eckert’s husband, Sean Rooney, was killed in the Sept. 11 terror attacks, and in the years following his death, Eckert became a leading 9/11 activist and helped lead the push for the 9/11 Commission. She was flying to Buffalo that evening to attend the unveiling of a scholarship in her late husband’s name.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) has vowed to prevent the Shuster Amendment from becoming a part of the final aviation bill, after the House and Senate versions are reconciled.

In 2010, CEO Pay Went Up 27% While Worker Pay Went Up 2%

By Pat Garofalo

Households across the country are still feeling the effects of the Great Recession, with unemploymentfalling very slowly, while foreclosures are still increasing, along with poverty rates and oil prices. However, one group of Americans is doing very well — corporate CEOs, whose pay is returning to pre-recession levels:

At a time most employees can barely remember their last substantial raise, median CEO pay jumped 27% in 2010 as the executives’ compensation started working its way back to prerecession levels, a USA TODAY analysis of data from GovernanceMetrics International found.Workers in private industry, meanwhile, saw their compensation grow just 2.1% in the 12 months ended December 2010, says the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Median CEO pay last year was $9 million, the highest since 2007. The median CEO bonus was $2.2 million. Family wealth, meanwhile, is currently down $12.8 trillion from its 2007 peak.