Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

June 20, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

GIULIANI FOLLOWUP....Remember that Newsday story from yesterday about Rudy Giuliani getting kicked off the Iraq Study Group because he couldn't find the time in his busy schedule to attend their meetings? You could be excused if you don't, since apparently no one in our press corps considered either the news itself or Giuliani's laughable explanation for his absences to be worth commenting on.

A quick Nexis search shows that among the mainstream media, the New York Times wrote a short piece, and the Kansas City Star and Chicago Tribune carried brief blurbs. That's it. On TV, Olberman discussed it, but no one else.

I'm keenly aware that an awful lot of blog criticism of the mainstream media is basically just partisan sniping. But is this seriously not considered news? A guy who's running for president based on his reputation as a hero of 9/11 was given a seat on the highest profile group ever created to investigate a way forward in Iraq, but he decided it wasn't worth his time? He blew off James Baker and Lee Hamilton so that he could give speeches in South Korea and attend fundraisers for Ralph Reed in Atlanta? And the consensus reaction is a big yawn?

Yeesh. Somebody please tell me this is just a case of the Nexis record being incomplete. Please?

Kevin Drum 2:16 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (78)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Kevin Drum Discovers Media Harbors Naked Partisan Bias

"I'm shocked— shocked!— to discover that the press routinely buries news that would be embarrassing to conservative candidates for public office!"

Posted by: s9 on June 20, 2007 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK

Now, Kevin, you know they only print what's News.

News is when a Democrat can be called a hypocrite, even if that's not logical (e.g., paying a lot for a haircut isn't actually inconsistent with wanting better wages and medical care for working people).

But News is not when a Republican can be called a hypocrite, because, well, that's too common -- dog bites man, you know.

Posted by: David in NY on June 20, 2007 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINK

If only he had enough hair to get a fancy haircut--- we'd have him then! Or earth-tones! Or if he gained five pounds! Curses! Foiled again!

Posted by: norbizness on June 20, 2007 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin,

Jack Cafferty did one of his questions about this yesterday. So along with KO, that makes two programs that brought it up.

But while the silence from the rest of the media is dispriting, I expected them to ignore the story. After all, it would utterly destroy one of their most cherished narratives - Rudy as King Of 9/11.

Let's wait until the primaries begin in earnest. I'll bet his GOP opponents will use it in many an oppo ad. While the media may be loath to discredit 'America's Mayor,' his political opponents will have no such reservations.

Posted by: Stranger on June 20, 2007 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

The major news media outlets have been useless for years....most people now read the news on the internet. That said, also note that many major news outlets (not just Fox) are owned by Republicans. The quality of reporting from the Washington Post, for example, has decreased notably since Pamela Harriman died.

Posted by: mfw13 on June 20, 2007 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

What David Said.

Posted by: tomeck on June 20, 2007 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINK

s9, Kevin Drum would NEVER deny the existence of rightwing news bias, nor would he ever help propagate rightwing memes or framing.

And besides. . . Michael Moore is FAT!

Posted by: osama_been_forgotten on June 20, 2007 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINK

"I'm keenly aware that an awful lot of blog criticism of the mainstream media is basically just partisan sniping."

Err, no, Kevin, it isn't. Please put aside your (unique in the liberal blogosphere) high Broderism aside and wake up and smell the coffee. Just because Bob Somerby has (somewhat but not entirely unfairly) criticized you does not mean that he's not 99% right on the MSM. Maybe this unfortunately typical MSM reaction to news unfavorable to a Republican will serve as your wakeup call.

Posted by: Marlowe on June 20, 2007 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK

A Republican is going to get a free pass on an item that would land a Democrat in MSM and talk radio hell for a month? And you're surprised? Um, where have you been for the last, oh, twenty years?

Posted by: steve duncan on June 20, 2007 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK

Not even then, norbizness. It's never News when a Republican has funny teeth or hair (Giuliani) or has a funny religion (Romney) or pretends to be a pickup-truck driver even though he's a rich lobbyist (Thompson). It's only News when Democrats do such things. Republicans can be funny-looking, and believe funny things and be hyporcrites without making News because we all know these things about them already and don't have to have them repeated day and night on the TV.

Posted by: David in NY on June 20, 2007 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINK

Like the several comments above, I'm unsympathetic to Kevin's statement: "I'm keenly aware that an awful lot of blog criticism of the mainstream media is basically just partisan sniping."

I don't think there's any doubt that major media outlets offer more favorable coverage to conservative issues, figures, and agendas. All this "partisan sniping" Kevin speaks of - at least from the blogs I read, and I read quite a few - amount to a very legitimate liberal concern over the lack of substance in political reporting.

Liberal bloggers feel confident that their side and their issues are meritorious when covered fairly. Is it really partisan sniping to ask that news coverage be substantive? That policy be broken down to its affects on workers and consumers - ordinary people?

Posted by: A different Matt on June 20, 2007 at 2:38 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, think a minute. Why would Giuliani want to sit in a study group designed to create a plan to extricate the US from Iraq? He's totally pro-war. He, like most Republicans, supports Bush's Endless War.

Posted by: CT on June 20, 2007 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK

I'm no fan of the MSM, but realistically , it's up to the other candidates (of both parties) to hammer on this enough to make it a big story. The failure of any of them to do so is what really surprises me.
Maybe they're saving it up for ads later on?

Posted by: Steve LaBonne on June 20, 2007 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK

I'm keenly aware that an awful lot of blog criticism of the mainstream media is basically just partisan sniping.

What? Not on the progressive side it isn't. The plain, undisputable fact is that the mainstream media coverage of Democratic and/or progressive candidates and issues is simply awful. For Christ's sakes, Stop. Repeating. Republican. Spin. As. Fact.

Posted by: Stefan on June 20, 2007 at 2:42 PM | PERMALINK

"Iraq may get better; Iraq may get worse. We may be successful in Iraq; we may not be. I don’t know the answer to that. That’s in the hands of other people."

Shouldnt this quote be covered more? Giuliani had a chance to analyze Iraq and influence policy. Instead he chose to raise money. He is allowed his priorities. Funny the media was quick to highlight his 9/11 experience and not this.

Posted by: Catch22 on June 20, 2007 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK

I heard some author on NPR Saturday AM, Keenan(?), who wrote a book about the degrading cultural effects of the internet. His thesis was that the internet is run by amatuers and that other medias are meritocracies run by well educated and well meaning professionals. I do not think this author understood that the meritocracy he was so fond of has become wholly corrupted by capital and that those who have turned to the internet for news and analysis understand this.

Posted by: Brojo on June 20, 2007 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK

Can you imagine if a state head of Hillary's campaign was busted for dealing crack?

Posted by: Boronx on June 20, 2007 at 2:50 PM | PERMALINK

I'm from the South, so all I know is that Nexis my cousin's name, and I wouldn't be surprised if his records ain't complete.

P'too. Clang.

Posted by: Cletus on June 20, 2007 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

No BJs, no haircuts - it's not news!

Posted by: Mark-NC on June 20, 2007 at 2:55 PM | PERMALINK

I don't think there's any doubt that major media outlets offer more favorable coverage to conservative issues, figures, and agendas. . .
Posted by: A different Matt on June 20, 2007 at 2:38 PM | PERMALINK

I'll be a little more charitable, and say; yes there are pockets of media with strong liberal bias - and there does seem to be a tendency to go towards the fashionable trend, whatever is controversial, whatever makes them money, as producers of controversial content.

The "missing white woman" trend seems to be a little out of fashion, of late - and last week, the height of fashion was groaning about their own Paris Hilton focus.

Right now - the only reason they're reporting "bad news from iraq" - is because it makes them money, it's what their audience wants to see. They're not reporting it because they have a sense of social responsibility for the "common good" - if they did, they'd present the debate about what we should DO, honestly. Right now, they're perfectly happy to see the politics stalled out, and just show the war-porn.

Posted by: osama_been_forgotten on June 20, 2007 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, Kevin.

Just more partisan snipping on your part.

The fact of the matter is that Clinton has raked in millions doing these same speaking tours your are lambashing Giuliani for doing.

Get out of the echo chamber sometime and get some fresh air.

Posted by: egbert on June 20, 2007 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK

"Can you imagine if a state head of Hillary's campaign was busted for dealing crack?"

But that would be News.

Posted by: David in NY on June 20, 2007 at 3:06 PM | PERMALINK

The fact of the matter is that Clinton has raked in millions doing these same speaking tours your are lambashing [sic] Giuliani for doing.

Get out of the echo chamber sometime and get some fresh air.

You know, egbert, that's two days in a row for this idiotic remark from you. Come back when you've learned to read.

Posted by: David in NY on June 20, 2007 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINK

For Kevin Drum:
"keenly aware" means - "I really wish it were so, and I wish you'd all believe this too, so we wouldn't have to accept the awful truth."

Posted by: osama_been_forgotten on June 20, 2007 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK

I'm keenly aware that an awful lot of blog criticism of the mainstream media is basically right on the money!

At least this is how is should have been written.

Posted by: Henk on June 20, 2007 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK

The media is as interested in doing their jobs as Giuliani is interested in bringing freedom to Iraq.

Posted by: reino on June 20, 2007 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINK

After all, it would utterly destroy one of their most cherished narratives - Rudy as King Of 9/11.

I am wondering how criticizing Rudy for ducking the 9/11 Commission squares with the cherished narrative that 9/11 and Iraq are not related - if there was no good reason for him to be on the Commission, why fret if he leaves it?

And I don't have a big problem with his excuse, which was, he was the only Commission member with current political ambitions. If he had stayed with the Commission, he would be saddled with their views as his campaign went forward.

Or, a more honest answer - he saw pretty quickly that it was a BS exercise (as witness the impact of their report).

Posted by: Tom Maguire on June 20, 2007 at 3:25 PM | PERMALINK

I tend to agree with you, Kevin.

But really. Rudy was just following our fearless leader, Bush, who also blew off the ISG.

Or was Bush following Rudy?

Posted by: af on June 20, 2007 at 3:26 PM | PERMALINK

I live on Long Island, so I read Newsday when I am at home. In this paper, that story wasn't buried in the middle. Instead, it was on the front page. So yeah, the fact that none of the major papers, particularly The New York Times, which is usually in the same row as Newsday in many places that sell it, didn't pick it up is sort of shocking.

But hey, that's where we come in. By blogging about it and/or linking to other people who do it, you're putting it out there. If you're a member of a site like digg.com, making sure it goes to the front page can also help.

It sucks that it's not a bigger story now, but if there's an upside to this, it's that the press won't be burned out on it now. If Giuliani is the nominee, then when the Democrats make this a big issue, which they will if they are even trying to resemble serious opposition, it'll pack more oomph, or so I hope.

Posted by: Brian on June 20, 2007 at 3:27 PM | PERMALINK

Senior executives allocate their time attending to problems, not to what is running well. That's how they work. It would be counter-productive for Giuliani to second-guess the President who is successfully waging the battle for democracy in Iraq.

Similarly a responsible press doesn't report on a non-story - that Giuliani respects Bush as commander in chief.

Posted by: Al on June 20, 2007 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINK

Illiberal media bias for sure, but maybe Mr. Giuliani concluded that the Iraq Study Group may come out in favor of a phased withdrawal of US forces from Iraq and didn't want his name associated with the "cut and run" crowd in anticipation of the 08 GOP primary.

Posted by: Linus on June 20, 2007 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

Partisan sniping?
So then you agree that the Media is of the other party?

Posted by: pbg on June 20, 2007 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINK

Before actually burning Kevin in either effigy or person, let's remember that "mainstream media" as a term comes from the right wing noise machine. If you assume that 90% of the MSM bashing from the righty blogs is hackery, and 20% from the left, then that's the majority.

Posted by: Imaginary on June 20, 2007 at 3:33 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin proves he has not accepted the present reality re media, and bias sprung from ownership.

Then he avoids discussing important events and policies because they are too uncomfortable for him.

Failing on both sides.

Posted by: notthere on June 20, 2007 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK

"The fact of the matter is that Clinton has raked in millions doing these same speaking tours your are lambashing Giuliani for doing."

He's been raking in millions as an alleged expert on 9/11, terrorism, and national security, or he's making a lot because he had a successful presidency and is generally liked besides those outside the far right? And was he offered a spot on the board of the Iraq Study Group only to turn it down to do other things?

Posted by: Brian on June 20, 2007 at 3:36 PM | PERMALINK

Where are the media on this? Hell, where are the Democrats on this?

Posted by: CJColucci on June 20, 2007 at 3:36 PM | PERMALINK

"I am wondering how criticizing Rudy for ducking the 9/11 Commission squares with the cherished narrative that 9/11 and Iraq are not related - if there was no good reason for him to be on the Commission, why fret if he leaves it?"

The two don't contradict one another at all. Whether or not you believe that Iraq is a central part of a national security strategy against terrorism, we're in Iraq and things aren't going well. Thus, the chance to gain some sort of insight into what's going on there is good for anybody in a position of influence, particularly someone who's going to try to lead the country. For him to blow it off shows where his priorities are. There's no getting around that, so stop trying.

"And I don't have a big problem with his excuse, which was, he was the only Commission member with current political ambitions. If he had stayed with the Commission, he would be saddled with their views as his campaign went forward."

Oh, please. That's like saying he shouldn't talk with conservative activists who are against abortion because he might be thrown in with people who believe in certain social policies.

"Or, a more honest answer - he saw pretty quickly that it was a BS exercise (as witness the impact of their report)."

Then why hasn't he said that? If this answer is so valid, why doesn't he just state this plainly and move on?

Posted by: Brian on June 20, 2007 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINK

When is someone going to post about the communication center in the WTC and the fire radios? My how quickly this story supplanted the original go to anti-Rudy moonie blogger story! LMAO

Posted by: BlaBlaBla on June 20, 2007 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINK

Shhhh!

WGAF!
(Who Gives A Fuck!)

Give Ghouliani a free media pass.
Please.

Then...

After this cross-dressing cadaver gets the party's nomination [insert Bronx cheers here] nail the motherfucker for his behavior.

Got that?

Nail the motherfucker AFTER he is named Captain of the Repugs. Not a moment before.

Got that?

Pretty simple. Pretty fun too....

Posted by: ROTFLMLiberalAO on June 20, 2007 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINK

I would suggest that what is missing is a dialog about this. You (that is we) seem to expect newspapers to run with this, but there isn't much of a story beyond the basic facts so far.

Let me ask you: did the DNC send faxes to every news organization saying Rudy is not serious about national defense? Has every major and minor democratic politician called a reporter and said the same thing (the important ones in a serious, regretful tone, and the less important ones in a mocking tone)? Then there would be a story because there would be lots of quotes, and reaction quotes (or Mr. G's staff had to comment to Sen. Reid calling him wholly unserious in a serious time...)

But the fact alone does not make a stroy.

Posted by: David Margolies on June 20, 2007 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe this unfortunately typical MSM reaction to news unfavorable to a Republican will serve as your wakeup call.
Posted by: Marlowe on June 20, 2007 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry, Marlowe, moderates never really wake up. If their pulse goes above 60 or they start to perspire, they run, metaphorically speaking(they wouldn't actually run), to the doctor.

Posted by: Michael7843853 G-O in 08! on June 20, 2007 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINK

Al: "Similarly a responsible press doesn't report on a non-story - that Giuliani respects Bush as commander in chief."

Yes, Al. That is very important that he does that. Big men should always respect bigger men. That is what democracy is all about! You can have your cookie now... if the next biggest man is done with it.

Posted by: Kenji on June 20, 2007 at 4:05 PM | PERMALINK

Michael784: Sorry, Marlowe, moderates never really wake up. If their pulse goes above 60 or they start to perspire, they run, metaphorically speaking(they wouldn't actually run), to the doctor.

"Honey, wake up! You're shaking and screaming!"

"Oh, my god, Marian. I had the worst dream ever! Thank god it's not real!"

"What, honey? Tell me. I'm here. Were monsters chasing you? Were you trying to run and your feet were stuck in molasses? Did you suddenly realize you were pantsless at the grocery store?"

"No, much worse. It was horrible. I...I..."

"You what, baby?"

"I took a stand. I wrote a straight-up post without forced 'balance.' And someone said...someone on the right said I was shrill!"

Posted by: shortstop on June 20, 2007 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINK

Well, at least Giuliani didn't say he needed to spend more time with family.


ROTFLMLiberalAO, your post of 3:57 was such fun. I am going back to savor it again in all its mental technicolor imagery.

Posted by: Zit on June 20, 2007 at 4:33 PM | PERMALINK

[Apologies to the regulars - while cleaning up unpublished link spam, a couple of comments disappeared.]

Posted by: . on June 20, 2007 at 4:33 PM | PERMALINK

Look at the "improvement" over GWB: W is stupid and "informed" about what he chooses to listen to, Giuliani is simply uninformed.

Posted by: Ray Waldren on June 20, 2007 at 4:35 PM | PERMALINK

"I am wondering how criticizing Rudy for ducking the 9/11 Commission squares with the cherished narrative that 9/11 and Iraq are not related - if there was no good reason for him to be on the Commission, why fret if he leaves it?"

See, there are these concepts called time and causality. 9/11 and Iraq were not related in the past -- that is, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 at the time the attack took place. However, by invading Iraq we've allowed some of the groups involved in 9/11 to gain a foothold in Iraq that they did not previously have, so that years later they are inter-related in the sense that they both involve issues of terrorism.

I realize the concept of how time works may be a bit abstract and hard to grasp for you, but if you think about it a bit it may become clearer.

Posted by: Stefan on June 20, 2007 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK

Well, at least Giuliani didn't say he needed to spend more time with family.

In Giuliani's case the more accurate excuse would be that he needed to spend more time with his mistress.

Posted by: Stefan on June 20, 2007 at 4:41 PM | PERMALINK

CNN just had a short piece on this, with Jon King and Wolf Blitzer. It's been piggy-backing on the story about his South Carolina chairman being a crack dealer, which seems to be giving the story legs.

Posted by: Otto Man on June 20, 2007 at 4:42 PM | PERMALINK

What is the deal with this crack dealer chair? The guy is the state treasurer (and a Club for Growth member, for cryin' out loud).

Am I naive, or does it seem bizarre that the state treasurer of South Carolina is an alleged drug dealer, when there are so many more respectable opportunities for graft and theft within his party? (And, to tie it to another thread, does this monster also have a Confederate flag on his BMW?!)

Posted by: shortstop on June 20, 2007 at 4:50 PM | PERMALINK

Why was a whackjob like Giuliani on the ISG in the first place? His Solomonesque statement on Iraq:
“Iraq may get better; Iraq may get worse. We may be successful in iraq; we may not be. I don't know the answer to that. That's in the hands of other people. But what we do know for sure is that the terrorists are going to be at war with us a year, year and a half from now.” So Iraq – hard to say, we may win, we may lose, I cant tell you."
OK, I'm glad he cleared that up.

Posted by: Mike on June 20, 2007 at 4:52 PM | PERMALINK

"I am wondering how criticizing Rudy for ducking the 9/11 Commission squares with the cherished narrative that 9/11 and Iraq are not related"

Sigh.... Tom, do try to keep up. Rudy didn't duck the 9/11 Commission; he ducked the Iraq Study Group. Hence, your main point is null and void.

"And I don't have a big problem with his excuse, which was, he was the only Commission member with current political ambitions.."

There's only one problem with that excuse, Tom; it's bullshit. At the time he accepted the invitation to join the group, he had already announced that he was considering a run for the presidency. If this truly was his excuse, he could have, and should have, turned down the invitation to join the group.

"Or, a more honest answer - he saw pretty quickly that it was a BS exercise (as witness the impact of their report)."

Also bullshit, since he never attended a meeting and, thus, had no way of knowing whether or not it was a BS exercise.

Nice try, Tom, but you're 0 for 3.

Posted by: PaulB on June 20, 2007 at 5:06 PM | PERMALINK

Even the heads of moderate liberal bloggers are exploding now that it's clear the the current crop of Democratic party candidates is a study in mediocrity, timidity, and cowardice, and contains, to a person, a bunch of intellectual midgets who are singularly unqualified to replace the current occupant of the White House.

Posted by: gregor on June 20, 2007 at 5:10 PM | PERMALINK

New media priorities:
Dems with substance are treated as shallow.
Republicans with no experience or dubious ethics are treated as substantial and responsible.
Sexual pecadilloes and blond girls in distress rank higher than national security or the rule of law.

So what else is new?

Posted by: DNS on June 20, 2007 at 5:11 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, and for the record, The Seattle Times had a paragraph on this in today's paper, I believe, but it was very easy to miss and I don't think it's in their web edition.

A Google News search is showing a few other organizations are covering it, although what they appear to be covering is not the original story, but Giuliani's response, "Joining the ISG was a mistake." It looks as though some reporters are asking questions and Rudy is having to cover his ass, so this may well be spreading.

It will be interesting to see whether they buy this obvious bullshit excuse or whether they continue to press him.

Posted by: PaulB on June 20, 2007 at 5:20 PM | PERMALINK

And, of course, contradicting Rudy's current lame excuse is that his former excuse was pretty much what you would expect: he had "other commitments," those commitments being the speeches that were making him millions.

Interesting that Tom didn't see fit to mention that in his rather lame response above.

Posted by: PaulB on June 20, 2007 at 5:30 PM | PERMALINK

I hate to undermine the prevailing view here, but this story was mentioned several times on MSNBC last night and has been mentioned again a number of times today--as has the story re his South Carolina campaign chairman. Granted, it doesn't have the viewership of the major networks and the intensity of the coverage doesn't match that given to Paris Hilton, but it does mean that the story hasn't been ignored.

Also, the Washington Post has stories on both today. The story re the ISG was an AP story, so it was likely picked up elsewhere as well.

Posted by: THS on June 20, 2007 at 5:33 PM | PERMALINK

Rudy G. is a media darling. The media created his post 9/11 personna, naming him "America's Mayor."

The media then are reluctant to pull down the heroic statues they themselves erect, complete with exciting graphics. It happened, too, with John McCain and a good many others. The media enjoys creating heroes; it really hates to disclose their feet of clay. Perhaps in disclosing the feet of clay of their heroes the media run the risk of calling attention to their own.

That plus sheer incompetence.

Posted by: mediadarling on June 20, 2007 at 5:34 PM | PERMALINK

attend fundraisers for Ralph Reed in Atlanta

Nevermind the ISG, this should disqualify Giuliani right away.

Posted by: ckelly on June 20, 2007 at 5:36 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin haven't you noticed. We have comedians covering real news and journalists covering fake news. The entire news business is just on big infomercial for republican talking points.

As of now the internet is the only real source of news. Even here you have to be willing to wade thru mounds of drivel.

Posted by: Ron Byers on June 20, 2007 at 5:44 PM | PERMALINK

The quality of reporting from the Washington Post, for example, has decreased notably since Pamela Harriman died.

True, but a non sequitur.

Were you thinking maybe of Katherine Graham?

(And if we were still wondering about the identity of a certain lefty blogger, I'd point out that Pamela Harriman's maiden name was . . . Digby.)

Posted by: rea on June 20, 2007 at 5:49 PM | PERMALINK

Another story the media -- and some folks on this blog -- are reluctant to challenge is the one circulated by President Bush and many others that illegal immigrants take only the jobs American workers do not want.

Nonsense.

Here's a story on today's raid by Immigration and Customs Enforcement:

EAST STROUDSBURG (AP) -- Federal immigration authorities arrested 81 illegal immigrants at a tube manufacturing plant in the Poconos.

All 81 workers arrested in the raid Tuesday at Iridium Industries Inc.'s Artube division have been placed in removal proceedings for eventual deportation, said Ernestine Fobbs, a spokeswoman with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The immigrants, who are from Mexico, Indonesia, Malaysia and Ecuador, were taken to ICE detention centers for processing, she said.

Ms. Fobbs declined to say what led ICE agents to raid the plant.

The company makes plastic squeeze tubes for lotions and other consumer products, according to its Web site. ###

You folks telling me that American workers are turning their backs on good jobs like these?

(Or is it the truth instead that shady manufacturers are turning their backs on American workers?)


Posted by: truthhurts on June 20, 2007 at 5:50 PM | PERMALINK

excuse was pretty much what you would expect: he had "other commitments,"

Sounds like Cheney's military non-service

Posted by: ckelly on June 20, 2007 at 5:52 PM | PERMALINK

"You folks telling me that American workers are turning their backs on good jobs like these?"


Well, maybe. What are the wages? Benefits? -- including health, vacation, sick leave, etc. etc. What's your theory, truthhurts, for why so many undocumented workers were there? Why does the employer hire so many if citizens are clamoring for the jobs? Why is that?

Why does a "shady manufacturer" hire the undocumented? Because they'll work for really low wages and keep their mouths shut about it maybe? Maybe wages that citizens won't go for? Just maybe?

And if not that -- then Why?????

Posted by: David in NY on June 20, 2007 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINK

off topic, China is now the leading producer of CO2.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/story/0,,2106999,00.html

American emissions declined 1.4% from 2005 to 2006, even as GDP in general and manufacturing in particular expanded.

I note also that the article says that China plans to cover 20% of its land in trees. That will be something if they can do it.

Posted by: MatthewRmarler on June 20, 2007 at 6:18 PM | PERMALINK

Fine; save this topic for the televised debates and let him answer then.

Posted by: Rula Lenska on June 20, 2007 at 6:27 PM | PERMALINK

And after all that noise about Rudy, your candidate is STILL going to be Hillary Clinton. See the problem?

Ralph in 2008!

Posted by: rnc on June 20, 2007 at 6:34 PM | PERMALINK

Hmm. I wonder if someone on Giuliani's staff really supports Bloomberg?

Rudy is having a terrible, horrible, bad, not very good week - and it's only Wednesday.

Posted by: Joshua Norton on June 20, 2007 at 6:41 PM | PERMALINK

off topic, China is now the leading producer of CO2.

Yeah, but it's probably only about 80% CO2. The rest is mystery gas.

Posted by: skiffles the former cat on June 20, 2007 at 7:02 PM | PERMALINK

"And after all that noise about Rudy, your candidate is STILL going to be Hillary Clinton. See the problem?"

Not really, since the latest Gallup poll has her beating all of the major Republican contenders.

Posted by: PaulB on June 20, 2007 at 8:12 PM | PERMALINK

"We have comedians covering real news and journalists covering fake news."

That's not always bad. Bill Maher isn't perfect by any means, but he's far more insightful, intelligent, and informed than Sean Hannity could ever hope to be (not that this is too high a hill to climb, mind you), and he's still a comedian half the time.

The problem is that it's easier to feel as if you're informed rather than actually being informed. We all fall for this trap, but as far as it relates to cable news, it means that it's much easier to sell a talking head or two rather than substantive reporting. It means less respect, but more money, usually. That's why it's such a shame CNN is getting rid of Paula Zahn and bringing Campbell Brown aboard to try the same thing over again. If they had just asked these ladies and some other people to produce a "60 Minutes" style program each night, they'd have respect and eventually get the ratings, too.

Posted by: Brian on June 20, 2007 at 9:33 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, Brian, I like Bill Maher, too.

I particularly enjoyed his final show of this season when he had Ron Paul on and after a big, lip-smacking buildup nearly fell backwardss out of his chair when Paul said he opposed Medicare.

Posted by: bigfan on June 21, 2007 at 1:35 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin, ...I did my bit.
I explained to my octagenarian Mom, also hard of hearing, what Rudi had done.
She remembered him dressed up dancing with the Rockettes.
She opined that Rudi appears to like the stage, the limelight more than the day to day work stuff.

Posted by: Craig Johnson on June 21, 2007 at 10:43 AM | PERMALINK

...."I'm keenly aware that an awful lot of blog criticism of the mainstream media is basically just partisan sniping".....


Dude.....I just dont even know what to say to that...lordie...except thank ye Gods for the Howler...

Posted by: dem dem on June 21, 2007 at 12:04 PM | PERMALINK

The "missing white woman" trend seems to be a little out of fashion, of late - and last week, the height of fashion was groaning about their own Paris Hilton focus.

Well, don't give them too much credit for this. Around some similar scandal a couple years ago (Michael Jackson dangling his baby over the balcony, maybe?), John Stewart did a segment on a dozen different media reports all complaining about the media coverage. Presumably, they were the ones later on the scene. They couldn't get their cameras close enough to whatever the action was, so the anchor and cameraman just set up and used the asses of their more punctual competitors as backdrops. Same basic idea with Paris Hilton.

Posted by: Cyrus on June 21, 2007 at 12:05 PM | PERMALINK

>>> "I'm keenly aware that an awful lot of blog criticism of the mainstream media is basically just partisan sniping."

Err, no, Kevin, it isn't. Please put aside your (unique in the liberal blogosphere) high Broderism aside and wake up and smell the coffee.
>>>>

Hear hear. I enjoy Kevin's political commentary, but his self-congratulation is getting old. It was bad enough when he limited himself to "oh I'm so out of the pop cultural mainstream (go, me)" self-backpatting -- now he's out of the blogging mainstream too?

Please. Get over yourself, Kevin, and just say what you have to say! Stop grooming yourself in public!

Posted by: Lindy on June 21, 2007 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK

"I particularly enjoyed his final show of this season when he had Ron Paul on and after a big, lip-smacking buildup nearly fell backwardss out of his chair when Paul said he opposed Medicare."

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7068391163487553240&q=%22real+time+with+bill+maher%22+giuliani&total=9&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=8

That clip more accurately summarizes the Giuliani campaign than anything I've seen, and in under a minute!

Posted by: Brian on June 21, 2007 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINK

I heard some author on NPR Saturday AM, Keenan(?)

Andrew Keene. His book is entitled The Cult of the Amateur: How Today's Internet Is Killing Our Culture.

And in internet timeliness, Wired provides an article today about it, although it may not be what web enthusiasts want to read. Tony Long does not understand his profession never was proficient at informing the people and watchdogging the government. That was a myth created by journalists to propagandize their importance.

My local newspaper, the monopoly opinion maker for my state, now allows some comments for its articles. There was an article about a local blog that specializes in the housing bubble recently. The reporter countered what the blog writers were saying by going to a local real estate 'expert,' who gives the corporate line about the market will not be down long. The commenters to the article pointed out the journalist always only uses that one source for his real estate articles, lambasting him for his laziness and/or establishment cover ups. I agree with the commenters. This journalist and his newspaper are not working to inform the public, but working to fool the public for the benefit of the developers who dominate much of my locality's economy and politics and who probably spend a lot of money on advertising with that newspaper.

Posted by: Brojo on June 21, 2007 at 6:41 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly