Showing posts with label Rachel Maddow. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rachel Maddow. Show all posts

Saturday, September 1, 2012

Congress Investigates WH Taxpayer-Funded Payoffs to MSNBC’s Olbermann, Maddow

Stimulus funds allegedly directed at Obama’s worthless “green job” ads created zero jobs

InfoWars
Melissa Melton

Still unsure where all of the president’s $831 billion dollars in stimulus went?
So are a lot of Americans, including a House committee currently demanding records on half a million dollars in phony MSNBC ad buys the White House procured to promote job opportunities that did not exist.

The House Committee on Education and the Workforce wants to know what, if anything, came of the over 100 “green jobs” initiative commercials purchased through the 2009 contract that ran exclusively on Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann’s MSNBC programs. According to the Washington Times:
“Spending reports showed that no jobs were created through the contract. The Washington Times first reported on the contract earlier this month, quoting one taxpayer watchdog who questioned not only the lack of jobs but why the commercials aired only on MSNBC, considered the most liberal of the major cable news outlets.”
If the assertions of this inquiry prove correct, it is, like the Solyndra scandal and others, further evidence that stimulus money was used not to stimulate the economy as promised, but to sell the public on the perception that the President has been effective in tackling the financial quagmire that continues to unravel society and destroy jobs — all while subsidizing his allies with lucrative deals, or in this case, ad revenue.

MSNBC’s leftist agenda is no secret; it’s “Lean Forward” branding, which launched circa 2010, mimics the president’s “Forward” campaign slogan, and the channel has been caught in the past demonizing anyone who would dare criticize Obama. As political talk show hosts, neither Maddow nor Olbermann have ever really challenged the Obama Administration’s agenda, leading to the obvious conclusion this contract was little more than a presidential media payoff for public influence.

This tired White House tactic of using the mainstream media to promote hollow promises to the people is sadly nothing new. Infowars has previously reported on a 2005 Government Accountability Office investigation which concluded the Bush Administration’s influential journalist payoffs and fake news planting were an illegal “covert propaganda” push. In the case of Armstrong Williams, it was revealed that the Bush Administration had funneled more than $240,000 to the commentator in return for glowing reports on No Child Left Behind. Obama took a lesson from Bush in his attempt to gain favorability through fooling the public into thinking there were actual employment opportunities in place of meaningless propaganda.

As the bought-and-paid-for dinosaur mainstream media continues to die a slow and agonizing death, its ability to influence anyone is quickly slipping away. Market viewership for the “big 3″ networks continues to decline, and CNN recently felt the sting of the worst ratings the channel had received in over two decades.

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

Labor Department spends stimulus funds for ads during Olbermann, Maddow shows

Washington Times
Jim McElhatton

Contract shows no new jobs were created

The Labor Department paid out hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal stimulus funds to a public relations firm to run more than 100 commercials touting the Obama administration’s “green training” job efforts on two MSNBC cable shows, records show.

The commercials ran on MSNBC on shows hosted by Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann in 2009, but the contract didn’t report any jobs created, according to records reviewed recently by The Washington Times.

Spending reports under the federal Recovery Act show $495,000 paid to McNeely Pigott & Fox Public Relations LLC, which the Labor Department hired to raise awareness “among employers and influencers about the [Job Corps] program’s existing and new training initiatives in high growth and environmentally friendly career areas” as well as spreading the word to prospective Job Corps enrollees.

The firm ultimately negotiated ad buys for “two approved spots” airing 14 times per week for two months on “Countdown With Keith Olbermann” and “The Rachel Maddow Show,” according to a project report, which listed the number zero under a section of the report asking how many jobs had been created through the stimulus contract.

David Williams, president of the nonprofit watchdog Taxpayers Protection Alliance, called the contract “questionable” because it created no jobs and because of the placement of the ads on shows viewed as friendly to the administration’s policies.

“Hiring a PR firm does not create jobs, and this was obviously meant for selling a particular political agenda,” Mr. Williams said. “The placement really reeks of a political ad rather than a job ad, and taxpayers see through this.

“Taxpayers would be a lot happier at the end of the day to see a completed road rather than a bunch of ads on cable television,” he said.

The public relations firm did not respond to inquiries from The Times about who directed the ads to appear on MSNBC, but Labor Department officials defended the expenditures, saying the decision to place the ads on the network — now NBC News — had nothing to do with politics.

In a joint email statement to The Times from two Labor Department spokesmen, David Roberts and Michael Volpe, officials said the money was used for outreach efforts to raise awareness among potential employers about the Job Corps’ green training in career areas, including automotive, advanced manufacturing and solar-panel installation.

Mr. Roberts and Mr. Volpe also said Labor Department research showed that advertisements would reach the target demographic of business owners and managers interested in hiring “green-trained” employees through a programming list that initially also included shows hosted by CNN’s Larry King and public television’s Jim Lehrer as well as the two MSNBC programs where the ads eventually appeared.

Public television was eliminated because advertising rates were too high, Labor officials said, and Larry King was dropped because MSNBC held the potential to reach more viewers, officials said. Officials gave no indication whether their research indicated if Fox News, ESPN or other cable outlets were considered for the Job Corps ads.

The Labor Department said that as measured in “gross impressions per spot,” the two MSNBC shows — Mr. Olbermann is no longer with the network — were twice as effective compared with running ads on Mr. King’s show, which also is no longer on the air.

Mr. Obama signed the $829 billion stimulus into law in February 2009 with the promise it would sustain 3.5 million jobs. But at its peak it likely was responsible for far fewer, according to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office.

The president has since said the economy was in a deeper slump than he had predicted coming into office, and the White House says the stimulus’s combination of spending and tax cuts helped bolster state and local governments and keep the downturn from becoming a depression.

Republicans, though, argue that the price tag was too large and say much of the spending went to fund Mr. Obama’s political agenda, such as green energy programs, rather than to shovel-ready roads, bridges and other infrastructure projects.


Tuesday, January 3, 2012

Maddow Picks Up on The BRAD BLOG's Story on the Iowa GOP's Photo ID Hypocrisy

BradBlog
Brad Friedman

Last week, the Rachel Maddow Show picked up on a story we'd first reported here, concerning the hypocrisy of Newt Gingrich's massive "voter fraud" in the state of Virginia, as compared to what the GOP and Fox "News" and even Gingrich himself had been decrying as massive "voter fraud" when it was carried out by ACORN. When Gingrich did the same thing --- but far worse --- he called it "just a mistake".

Last night, as her top story, Maddow picked up on our coverage of the indescribable hypocrisy of the Iowa GOP, which sets it's very own rules for the Iowa Caucuses tonight and, in doing so, chose to not require Photo ID restrictions on voters for either voting or registering to vote at the caucus on the same night.

As we originally noted last week, while the GOP has long claimed disenfranchising polling place Photo ID restrictions are necessary to stop rampant "voter fraud" during elections in which Democrats will be participating, apparently they have no such concerns about their own elections. Even when they are allowed to set all of the rules for them. Or, more accurately, they don't wish to disenfranchise their very own voters, while they do hope to disenfranchise Democratic-leaning voters in normal elections. It's also worth highlighting that they have fought against allowing same day registration and voting in regular elections as well, while having no problem with it here in the Iowa GOP caucuses.

Maddow was as amused by it all as we were. Here's her coverage from last night. Also, read on for details on one point of information that her guest, Doug Heye, former RNC Communications Director and current Sr. Advisor to the Iowa GOP, seems to have gotten blatantly wrong during his interview with Maddow...at least according to our confirmed reporting...



Heye claims in the video above that while no Photo ID is required for voting at the IA caucuses, it will be required for folks who wish to first register and then vote at the caucus sites tonight. His assertions is in direct contradiction with both information posted by the Iowa GOP itself on its own caucus website, as well as info on the website of Iowa's Republican Sec. of State Matt Schultz. Moreover, it also contradicts with the information that his office confirmed to me when I called them last week before reporting my original story...

As we originally reported when we broke this story at The BRAD BLOG on 12/28/11, the Iowa GOP's own "Bullet-Point Guide to the 2012 Republican Party of Iowa Caucuses" states:

You do have the opportunity to register as a Republican at the caucus, provided that you have a valid photo ID with your current address on it (such as your Iowa driver's license) or a photo ID and a document that proves your residence (such as a utility bill). For more information, visit: http://sos.iowa.gov/elec...oterinformation/edr.html.

Friday, December 2, 2011

The Media's Blackout Of The National Defense Authorization Act Is Shameful

Business Insider
David Seaman

The broadcast media's ignorance and unwillingness to cover the National Defense Authorization Act, a radical piece of legislation which outrageously redefines the US homeland as a "battlefield" and makes US citizens subject to military apprehension and detainment for life without access to a trial or attorney, is unacceptable.

Guys, this is far more important than Penn State's Disgusting Creep of the Decade, or even Conrad Murray's sentencing.

Call it what you will: a military junta, a secret invalidation of Americans' civil rights, a Congress gone mad. Whatever it is, it needs to be covered by the press, and quickly.

Anderson Cooper, Brian Williams, Rachel Maddow, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Neil Cavuto and the other handful of household names that mainstream America relies on for news should be talking about this non-stop.

I emailed producers and on-air talent at the three major cable news networks yesterday: not one of them was willing to step up to the plate and report on this appalling legislation, which would give Americans roughly the same protections as citizens in China or Saudi Arabia.
Bloggers and the ACLU's analysis have already made the work easy for you guys. Even an ADD segment producer can do the math:
  • Pay special attention to Section 1031 of the bill.

  • This bill violates the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. § 1385), as it will allow federal military personnel to engage in domestic law enforcement. This is profoundly unconstitutional and scary.

  • Also read Sen. Lindsey Graham's chilling defense of the offending provision in this bill, calling to make the homeland a "battlefield." Has anyone told these guys that Osama bin Laden and his deputies are dead? Those still alive are running from drone strikes on a daily basis. So who exactly are we fighting against? Are you protecting us from a handful of (almost entirely peaceful) college kids at the Occupy protests? If so, martial law and throwing out 200+ years of basic civil rights seems rather excessive.

  • Finally, as the ACLU points out, you won't have any trouble booking an expert talking head who will tell you how dangerous and counterproductive the National Defense Authorization Act is: "The Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the FBI and the head of the Justice Department’s National Security Division have all said that the indefinite detention provisions in the NDAA are harmful and counterproductive." Book one of them on your program, and do it quickly. The Senate has already rejected an amendment which would have banned the indefinite detention provisions from the bill.
Please, do your jobs. This is the kind of story that wins journalism awards and makes careers. It's the kind of story that makes viewers trust you.

UPDATE: To the mainstream media's credit, Keith Olbermann of Current TV has now mentioned the NDAA's harmful provision, and I've been told that Dylan Ratigan of MSNBC is drawing attention to it as well. A good start, but not nearly enough.

I don't write articles every day, but when I do, they are on subjects you should know about. You can follow me on Google+ to see my newest posts and keep in touch.

Video from the author summarizing why the National Defense Authorization Act (FY 2012) in its current form is so harmful, and must be stopped: