<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Salon.com > Media Criticism</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.salon.com/topic/media_criticism/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.salon.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 02:24:51 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>How cash secretly rules surveillance policy</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/06/18/how_cash_secretly_rules_surveillance_policy/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/06/18/how_cash_secretly_rules_surveillance_policy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:40:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NSA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Edward Snowden]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. House of Representatives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Money]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Money in politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13329952</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Today's congressional hearing was a joke. The reason: Firms like Booz Allen bankroll and own Congress. Here's how]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Have you noticed anything missing in the political discourse about the National Security Administration's unprecedented mass surveillance? There's certainly been a robust -- and welcome -- discussion about the balance between security and liberty, and there's at least been some conversation about the intelligence community's potential <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/06/12/james_clapper_must_go/">criminality</a> and constitutional violations.</p><p>Thanks to what I've previously called the <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/08/30/worst_ryan_puffery_yet/">No Money Rule</a>, however, there have only been indirect references to how cash undoubtedly tilts the debate against those who challenge the national security state.</p><p>Those indirect references have come in the form of stories about the business model of Booz Allen Hamilton, the security contractor that employed Edward Snowden.</p><p>CNN/Money notes that <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/10/news/booz-allen-hamilton-leak/index.html">99 percent</a> of the firm's multibillion-dollar annual revenues now come from the federal government. Those revenues are part of a larger and growing economic sector within the military-industrial complex -- a sector that, according to author Tim Shorrock, is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/18/opinion/put-the-spies-back-under-one-roof.html">"a $56 billion-a-year industry."</a></p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/06/18/how_cash_secretly_rules_surveillance_policy/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/06/18/how_cash_secretly_rules_surveillance_policy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>19</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sunday shows solve Syria and government surveillance!</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/06/16/sunday_shows_solve_syria_and_government_surveillance/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/06/16/sunday_shows_solve_syria_and_government_surveillance/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 Jun 2013 18:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meet the press]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[face the nation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[This Week]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ABC news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NBC News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cbs news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pundits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George Stephanopoulos]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bob Schieffer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[david gregory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scandals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sunday morning shows]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sunday shows]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sunday morning show roundup]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13327174</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The punditry experts of "Meet the Press," "This Week" and "Face the Nation" unlock geopolitical puzzles in minutes]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Today on the Sunday Shows: War in Syria. The U.S. arming "the rebels." The Surveillance State. A world of terror, danger, chaos and impending doom. And so ABC's "This Week," NBC's "Meet the Press" and CBS' "Face the Nation" will seek to answer the metaquestion: Are you proud of us, Daddy?</p><p>First, and solely because it starts a half-hour earlier than the other shows, we'll check out "This Week," where Jonathan Karl is substituting for George Stephanopoulos. "Is the U.S. going to get involved in another war in the Middle East?" Always, Jonathan Karl, always. Let's see what Marco Rubio has to say.</p><p>Rubio, a war-friendly Republican, says that President Obama blew it by waiting so long to get <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/06/14/obama_bolsters_military_aid_to_syrian_rebels_ap/" target="_blank">involved in Syria.</a> (Assuming <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/06/14/what_you_need_to_know_about_the_developing_syria_situation/" target="_blank">this really is</a> the broad change in strategy it's been billed as.) <em>Now</em> who are we giving arms to? Al-Qaida "elements." What would President Rubio have done? Karl asks. Well, Rubio <em>never</em> would have allowed it to get to this point, of course. If Rubio were president, Syria would be a sunny democratic Utopia already, because he would have managed it so perfectly, you just have no idea how perfectly President Rubio would have done things.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/06/16/sunday_shows_solve_syria_and_government_surveillance/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/06/16/sunday_shows_solve_syria_and_government_surveillance/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>28</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>From Fox News to Rush: Secrets of the right&#8217;s lie machine</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/06/15/from_fox_news_to_rush_secrets_of_the_rights_lie_machine/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/06/15/from_fox_news_to_rush_secrets_of_the_rights_lie_machine/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Jun 2013 14:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Books]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fox News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rush Limbaugh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13324254</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Conservative media plays by its rules, and bends truth to back whatever argument they’ve decided to make that day]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One key factor that has altered campaign coverage comes from the corporate right in the form of “conservative” media. If there has been a vacuum created by the downsizing of newsrooms, conservative media have filled it with an insistent partisanship unseen in commercial news media for nearly a century. The conservative media program has been a cornerstone of the Dollarocracy's -- the big money and corporate media election complex -- political program since at least Lewis Powell’s 1971 memo. Initially, the work was largely about criticizing the news media for being unfair to conservative Republicans and having a liberal Democratic bias. Although the actual research to support these claims was, to be generous, thin—one major book edited by Brent Bozell actually claimed corporations such as General Electric were “liberal” companies with an interest in anti-business journalism because they had made small donations to groups like the NAACP and the Audubon Society—the point was not to win academic arguments. The point of bashing the “liberal media,” as Republican National Committee chairman Rich Bond conceded in 1992, was to “work the refs” like a basketball coach does so that “maybe the ref will cut you a little slack” on the next play.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/06/15/from_fox_news_to_rush_secrets_of_the_rights_lie_machine/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/06/15/from_fox_news_to_rush_secrets_of_the_rights_lie_machine/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>255</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Grow up, Libertarians!</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/06/13/grow_up_libertarians/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/06/13/grow_up_libertarians/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Jun 2013 15:06:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Libertarianism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[libertarians]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ron Paul]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Michael Lind]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Liberties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Economist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Franklin Roosevelt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Teddy Roosevelt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Free Market]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conservatives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Capitalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Welfare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Reserve]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[milton friedman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Apple]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13325234</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Your philosophy is superficial, juvenile nonsense. Here's what you should focus on instead]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Since I published my Salon essay, “The Question Libertarians Just Can’t Answer,” true believers in the libertarian cult have been struggling to answer the simple but devastating question I asked: If libertarianism is such a good idea, <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/06/04/the_question_libertarians_just_cant_answer/">why aren’t there any libertarian countries</a>?</p><p><a href="http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/07/michael-linds-obtuse-attack-on-liberty-a">Writing in Reason</a>, Ronald Bailey cites the spread of particular liberties since the eighteenth century as evidence that the entire world is becoming libertarian. But he ignores the fact that the welfare state and business regulation have grown up together with democracy and civil liberties. The citizens of democracies prefer to vote themselves generous social insurance benefits. They also insist on using government to police business firms while benefiting from a market economy.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/06/13/grow_up_libertarians/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/06/13/grow_up_libertarians/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>457</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>David Brooks: The last Stalinist</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/06/11/david_brooks_the_last_stalinist/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/06/11/david_brooks_the_last_stalinist/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Jun 2013 21:05:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Joseph Stalin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Edward Snowden]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NSA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Brooks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The New York Times]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Soviet Union]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13323111</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Edward Snowden offended the commentator by declining to honor his oaths. There's a history behind such bromides]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/opinion/brooks-the-solitary-leaker.html?hp&amp;_r=2&amp;">David Brooks disapproves</a> of NSA whistle-blower Edward Snowden.</p><p>Snowden’s actions, Brooks says, are a betrayal of virtually every commitment and connection Snowden has ever made: his oath to his country, his promise to his employer, his loyalty to his friends, and more.</p><p>But in one of those precious pirouettes of paradox that only he can perform, Brooks sees those betrayals as a symptom of a deeper pathology: Snowden’s inability to make commitments and connections.</p><blockquote><p>According to The Washington Post, he has not been a regular presence around his mother’s house for years. When a neighbor in Hawaii tried to introduce himself, Snowden cut him off and made it clear he wanted no neighborly relationships. He went to work for Booz Allen Hamilton and the C.I.A., but he has separated himself from them, too.</p> <p>Though thoughtful, morally engaged and deeply committed to his beliefs, he appears to be a product of one of the more unfortunate trends of the age: the atomization of society, the loosening of social bonds, the apparently growing share of young men in their 20s who are living technological existences in the fuzzy land between their childhood institutions and adult family commitments.</p> <p>If you live a life unshaped by the mediating institutions of civil society, perhaps it makes sense to see the world a certain way: Life is not embedded in a series of gently gradated authoritative structures: family, neighborhood, religious group, state, nation and world. Instead, it’s just the solitary naked individual and the gigantic and menacing state.</p> <p>This lens makes you more likely to share the distinct strands of libertarianism that are blossoming in this fragmenting age: the deep suspicion of authority, the strong belief that hierarchies and organizations are suspect, the fervent devotion to transparency, the assumption that individual preference should be supreme.</p></blockquote><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/06/11/david_brooks_the_last_stalinist/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/06/11/david_brooks_the_last_stalinist/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>78</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>If you know nothing about whistle-blowers, don&#8217;t cover them</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/06/11/if_you_know_nothing_about_whistleblowers_dont_cover_whistleblowers/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/06/11/if_you_know_nothing_about_whistleblowers_dont_cover_whistleblowers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Jun 2013 17:05:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CNN]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Megan McArdle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Daily Beast]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Time]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bradley Manning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Edward Snowden]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Whistleblowers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CIA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NSA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Glenn Greenwald]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fourth amendment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13322994</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Jeffrey Toobin, Megan McArdle and Joe Klein spew ignorance and contempt for a process they don't understand]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Pundits and those with ties to the power elite, whom media conglomerates allow to appear on television regularly, happen to have a profound appreciation for all apparatuses and mechanisms of the national security state. They all also hold the view that if Congress and federal judges have not opposed the expansion of massive and secret surveillance programs then it must all be legal and not in violation of the Fourth Amendment or any other laws.</p><p>From that view flows the reaction that anyone can see on television right now as the media discusses Edward Snowden, the National Security Agency whistle-blower whose disclosures on top-secret surveillance programs were published by the Guardian‘s Glenn Greenwald.</p><p>Jeffrey Toobin, a senior CNN legal analyst and contributor to the New Yorker, was leading the charge against Snowden in the media by characterizing him as a “grandiose narcissist who deserves to be in prison.” He appeared on Piers Morgan’s program later in the evening and said, “I think there are right ways to do it and there are wrong ways to do it, and by a 29-year-old kid, just throwing open the safe and giving away documents that people have devoted years of their lives to creating and protecting. That’s the wrong way to protest.”</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/06/11/if_you_know_nothing_about_whistleblowers_dont_cover_whistleblowers/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/06/11/if_you_know_nothing_about_whistleblowers_dont_cover_whistleblowers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>15</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is Edward Snowden a hero or a traitor? Who cares</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/06/11/is_edward_snowden_a_hero_or_a_traitor_who_cares/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/06/11/is_edward_snowden_a_hero_or_a_traitor_who_cares/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Jun 2013 13:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opening Shot]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intelligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NSA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Leaks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Edward Snowden]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13322745</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Casting judgment on the leaker is way easier than seriously dealing with the leak]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Following multiple stunning intelligence leaks revealing the scope and scale of our government's data-gathering and analyzing abilities, an important, long-overdue debate has raged in papers, on the Internet, and on TV: Is Edward Snowden a big jerk or the best dude ever?</p><p>There is the (interesting but only marginally consequential) media debate over the terminology to use when referring to Snowden: Leaker, whistle-blower, source? And then there is <a href="https://twitter.com/normative/status/344187168304005120">the much sillier public wrangling</a> over whether Snowden is a "hero" or a "traitor," as if those maddeningly reductive (and not exclusive) terms expressed anything other than the speakers' tribal allegiances and predispositions. He's a man who did a remarkable and newsworthy thing. The thing he did is what people should probably still be talking about.</p><p>The New Yorker on Sunday and Monday ran three different pieces, by three different authors, examining Snowden the man. The first, and best, was <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2013/06/edward-snowden-the-nsa-leaker-comes-forward.html">by Amy Davidson</a>, who sketched his biography and quoted his justifications, but largely held off on casting moral judgment in favor of raising useful questions: "How many people with a private contractors’ job and a password have the privilege of knowing the names of our spies?" And:</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/06/11/is_edward_snowden_a_hero_or_a_traitor_who_cares/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/06/11/is_edward_snowden_a_hero_or_a_traitor_who_cares/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>104</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sunday Shows meet Glenn Greenwald!</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/06/09/sunday_shows_meet_glenn_greenwald/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/06/09/sunday_shows_meet_glenn_greenwald/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 09 Jun 2013 18:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meet the press]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[This Week]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[face the nation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cbs news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ABC news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NBC News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pundits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George Stephanopoulos]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[david gregory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bob Schieffer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NSA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scandals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sunday morning shows]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sunday shows]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sunday morning show roundup]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Glenn Greenwald]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Espionage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13320420</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The punditry experts of "This Week" and "Face the Nation" try to process the Guardian writer's spying revelations]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Welcome to your recap of this week's "Sunday shows," where the hot topic is how <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/06/06/government_collects_millions_of_phone_records_daily/">the government has access</a> to everyone's phone and Facebook and video sex chats all the time, EVERYONE FREAK OUT, NOW. We'll be watching ABC's "This Week," NBC's "Meet the Press" and CBS' "Face the Nation," and yes, in that priority order.</p><p>"This Week" promises to be a grand old time, as some producer has let civil liberties reporter and commentator Glenn"zilla" Greenwald on national television again to scorch the earth. Greenwald, of course, has been the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/glenn-greenwald">lead reporter</a> behind a number of top-secret <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-records-verizon-court-order">leak</a> <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data">reports</a> <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/07/obama-china-targets-cyber-overseas">this week.</a></p><p>"You are really on a roll," George Stephanopoulos congratulates Greenwald, of "the Guardian newspaper." (Full disclosure: I am a contributor to the Guardian U.S.) What are the key findings of your stories this week? Greenwald, talking super-fast to get it all in, has two. From the transcript:</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/06/09/sunday_shows_meet_glenn_greenwald/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/06/09/sunday_shows_meet_glenn_greenwald/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>75</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why the right is confounded by military sexual assault</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/06/07/why_the_right_is_confounded_by_military_sexual_assault/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/06/07/why_the_right_is_confounded_by_military_sexual_assault/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Jun 2013 16:38:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rape]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sexual assault]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Military]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mike Huckabee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Saxby Chambliss]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Family research council]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Allen West]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13319742</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[They believe two contradictory myths: Rape is a logical result of hormones. And "All-American" boys don't commit it]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This week, some people took a look at the women on the Senate Armed Services Committee using their perch to shed a light on military sexual assault and felt inspired. Others -- notably conservatives, some of them still in Congress -- apparently saw a bunch of harpies trying to emasculate the military and deny the inborn nature of men.</p><p>Military sexual assault presents a terrible conundrum for an elected Republican. One has to agree that rape is bad, especially after what happened to Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock. One has to concede that we should work toward the safety of our service members. And mostly, Republicans in Congress managed this incredible feat, even while generally rejecting the remedy that advocates for service member survivors recommend, taking serious crimes out of the chain of command. But there were eruptions: Saxby Chambliss became instantly notorious (again) for blurting out, “Gee whiz, the hormone level created by nature sets in place the possibility for these types of things to occur.”</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/06/07/why_the_right_is_confounded_by_military_sexual_assault/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/06/07/why_the_right_is_confounded_by_military_sexual_assault/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>61</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fox News is spoon-fed a scandal &#8212; and blows it</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/06/06/fox_news_is_spoon_fed_a_scandal_and_blows_it/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/06/06/fox_news_is_spoon_fed_a_scandal_and_blows_it/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Jun 2013 17:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fox News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Benghazi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FISA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Scandal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NSA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[verizon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Glenn Greenwald]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republicans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lindsey Graham]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fox and friends]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13318857</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Fox is still too busy focusing on fake scandals to cover the real one]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just when scandal-mania seemed to be dying down comes troubling news, via former Salon writer Glenn Greenwald, that a secret FISA court made Verizon <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/06/06/the_nsa_has_all_your_info/">turn over records of every call</a> made on its service in the U.S. to the National Security Agency. This is a big deal, but as Alex Pareene noted, <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/06/06/the_nsa_has_all_your_info/">it will only become a real scandal if</a> Republicans make it so -- just as Democrats did when NSA abuses were uncovered under Bush.</p><p>They already failed that test once when they put up little to no opposition to the reauthorization of the controversial FISA Amendment Act in December. And while Democrats wanted to attach to that bill some modest safeguards against government overreach, Senate Republicans <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121219/11424621442/senator-chambliss-says-theres-no-reason-to-debate-fisa-amendments-act-just-pass-it.shtml">pushed for</a> approving the bill with no debate and no changes.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/06/06/fox_news_is_spoon_fed_a_scandal_and_blows_it/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/06/06/fox_news_is_spoon_fed_a_scandal_and_blows_it/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>185</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Istanbul protest is &#8212; and is not &#8212; about the trees</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/06/05/no_this_is_not_just_an_environmental_protest/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/06/05/no_this_is_not_just_an_environmental_protest/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Jun 2013 17:11:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Turkey]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tayyip Erdogan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Protest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gezi Park]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[istanbul]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reuters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Photography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13317964</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How a Reuters photo caption managed to marginalize the Gezi Park protests, limit their impact and miss the point]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is a fight about trees – or so it seemed at the end of last week. The protests first came to the attention of the world through this image. Before journalists had cobbled together their copy, or before their editors had decided that events warranted any, Reuters photographer Osman Orsal’s photo of policemen firing pepper spray at close range in the face of a young girl acted as a widely shared placeholder for the torrent of analysis that was to follow.</p><p>I found the lady in the red dress a problematic icon for the unfolding events in Gezi Park. Not because she was doing anything wrong. Nor was the scene unrepresentative. With the benefit of hindsight her unresisting pose, arms by her side against an ostensibly unprovoked attack by a policeman seems perfectly to have foretold the waves of violence visited on unarmed protesters on the streets of Turkey’s cities in the days since. What troubled me was not the photograph itself but the caption beneath it, which would have its readers believe this was a fight all about trees. This compelling image seemed to be having much success in disseminating the tree narrative. By the 29th of May, the photo was everywhere. In the best tradition of Turkish churnalism, those few who reported the incident <a title="today's zaman red dress" href="http://www.todayszaman.com/news-316733-protestors-stand-guard-at-istanbuls-gezi-park-to-prevent-demolition.html%20??" target="_blank">reprinted Reuters’ incidental analysis wholesale</a>, even after the protests had plainly grown beyond the issue of the park’s redevelopment.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/06/05/no_this_is_not_just_an_environmental_protest/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/06/05/no_this_is_not_just_an_environmental_protest/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why is Bob Woodward pushing discredited IRS report on &#8220;O&#8217;Reilly Factor&#8221;?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/06/04/famed_and_confused_do_bob_woodward_and_bill_oreilly_have_google/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/06/04/famed_and_confused_do_bob_woodward_and_bill_oreilly_have_google/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Jun 2013 20:20:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bill O'Reilly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bob Woodward]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IRS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tea Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Scandal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fox News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Watergate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13317182</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Famed Watergate reporter spreads debunked, week-old Daily Caller story on Fox News]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On Fox News Monday night, famed Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward and host Bill O'Reilly zeroed in on the latest twist in Washington scandalmania -- why the White House is refusing to answer questions about the 157 times former IRS commission Doug Schulman allegedly visited the White House, a closeness that raises questions about presidential involvement in the agency's controversial targeting of Tea Party tax-exempt groups.</p><p>“This fiction that somehow [the IRS is] totally an independent agency is absurd,” Woodward, who broke the Watergate scandal, said. "You say they aren't answering this question about the 157 visits by the IRS commissioner. They should."</p><p>"President Obama could easily come out through his spokesperson and say this is where Mr. Schulman was. And here are the dates. Here is who he met with," O'Reilly said. "The fact that the President doesn't do it, should raise the curiosity of every reporter, Mr. Woodward, every reporter. Yet, as I said, the major network news on television ignored the story last week in its totality. It's amazing."</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/06/04/famed_and_confused_do_bob_woodward_and_bill_oreilly_have_google/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/06/04/famed_and_confused_do_bob_woodward_and_bill_oreilly_have_google/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>18</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>I was a liberal mole at Fox News: From Bill O&#8217;Reilly to Roger Ailes, here&#8217;s all the inside dope</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/29/i_was_a_liberal_mole_at_fox_news_from_bill_oreilly_to_roger_ailes_heres_all_the_inside_dope/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/29/i_was_a_liberal_mole_at_fox_news_from_bill_oreilly_to_roger_ailes_heres_all_the_inside_dope/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 May 2013 11:25:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Books]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fox News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Roger Ailes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bill O'Reilly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sean Hannity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bill Maher]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sarah Palin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The O'Reilly Factor]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13311257</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Inside the beast: O'Reilly hates Hannity. Producers know what's acceptable. Everyone fears a call from Roger Ailes]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>People would often ask me about how Fox pushes a message.</p><p>And I would always tell them the message isn’t so much pushed as it is <em>pulled</em>, gravitationally, with Roger Ailes as the sun at the center of the solar system; his vice presidents were the forces of gravity that kept the planet-size anchors and executive producers in a tight orbit; then all the lesser producers and PAs were moons and satellites and debris of varying sizes.</p><p>An organizational flow chart at Fox would be tough to draw up, as title alone was not the ultimate signifier of status. Sometimes the anchors outranked their executive producers, as was the case with "The O’Reilly Factor." (In fact, Bill had procured an EP title for himself, but he outranked the two other EPs on the show, both Stan, who oversaw TV, radio, and the website, and Gayle, who focused on television and also served as a fact-checker.) Sometimes the anchors were relatively weak — as was the case with a lot of weekend shows, and maybe some of the newswheel hours — and a strong senior producer or producer outranked, or at least pretended to outrank, the host. (For example, Lizzie from "The Lineup," who was only a producer but was tough enough that she probably could have bossed around Ailes himself had she been left alone in a room with him for more than five minutes.)</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/05/29/i_was_a_liberal_mole_at_fox_news_from_bill_oreilly_to_roger_ailes_heres_all_the_inside_dope/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/29/i_was_a_liberal_mole_at_fox_news_from_bill_oreilly_to_roger_ailes_heres_all_the_inside_dope/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>233</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What the IRS did right</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/28/what_the_irs_did_right/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/28/what_the_irs_did_right/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 May 2013 15:28:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IRS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tea Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Emerge America]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Scandal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republicans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conservatives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13310773</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Turns out some of the conservative groups it scrutinized were actively and wrongly involved in partisan politics]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Outrage first, facts later. That’s often the way American political “scandals” unfold, and it seems to be the case with the news that the IRS targeted conservative political groups for extra scrutiny before granting them tax-exempt status as social-welfare organizations.</p><p>We knew from the beginning of the IRS mess that the only group actually denied tax-exempt status was the Maine chapter of a Democratic women’s group, <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/05/15/meet_the_group_the_irs_actually_revoked_democrats/">Emerge America</a>. Now we’re learning about some of the right-wing organizations that came in for extra scrutiny, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/us/politics/nonprofit-applicants-chafing-at-irs-tested-political-limits.html?pagewanted=all">as reported by the New York Times Monday</a>: a conservative veterans’ group that only backed one candidate, a Republican, for Congress; an Alabama Tea Party group that took part in a “defeat Barack Obama” voter-turnout drive, and the “Ohio Liberty Coalition” led by a Republican activist who sent his members information on Mitt Romney campaign events and recruited them to volunteer for the GOP nominee.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/05/28/what_the_irs_did_right/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/28/what_the_irs_did_right/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>69</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What&#8217;s wrong with MSNBC?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/27/whats_wrong_with_msnbc/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/27/whats_wrong_with_msnbc/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 May 2013 12:54:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opening Shot]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MSNBC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cable News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Morning Joe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Joe Scarborough]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mark Halperin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rachel Maddow]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chris Hayes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ed Schultz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fox News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CNN]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jodi Arias]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hln]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13308706</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I'm not harping on "Morning Joe" because it defines everything wrong with contemporary politics, though it does...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>MSNBC is having ratings troubles. <a href="http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/april-2013-ratings-msnbc-doesnt-see-boston-ratings-bump_b177502">It came in fourth</a> in April, after Fox, CNN, and HLN. Things have not improved in May. May 13-17 was MSNBC's <a href="http://www.deadline.com/2013/05/obama-msnbc-fox-news-scandals/">lowest-rated week since summer of 2006.</a> So what's wrong?</p><p>We should maybe state at the outset the "fourth place" thing isn't quite as bad as it sounds, <a href="http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/hln-tops-combined-average-of-fnc-msnbc-during-jodi-arias-plea_b180678">because HLN has been doing <em>insane</em> ratings lately</a> thanks mostly to Jodi Arias (and the channel's stunning shamelessness in general). HLN is regularly kicking CNN's ass, too. But it is still pretty bad, considering that last year MSNBC was challenging Fox for ratings dominance some nights. Now, it's once again far behind the conservative cable news leader. And worse, CNN has finally, apparently, caught up.</p><p>One theory, <a href="http://www.deadline.com/2013/05/obama-msnbc-fox-news-scandals/">from Deadline Hollywood</a>, is that MSNBC is suffering because Obama is suffering. The crazy scandals we all love hearing about so much are making liberals too dispirited and depressed to tune into their favorite liberal shows, I guess.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/05/27/whats_wrong_with_msnbc/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/27/whats_wrong_with_msnbc/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>487</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Nobody &#8220;needs&#8221; to rape</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/24/the_ugly_narrative_of_the_jose_canseco_rape_accusation/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/24/the_ugly_narrative_of_the_jose_canseco_rape_accusation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 18:58:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jose Canseco]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rape]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13308174</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Jose Canseco joins the long list of men who resort to the idiotic defense that they can "get" women without force]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This isn't about whether or not Jose Canseco is guilty of the rape that he was accused of earlier this week, an incident that is currently being investigated and for which he has not been charged. This is, instead, about something else. It's about the narrative that unfolds in the wake of an accusations of sexual abuse – and how ridiculously screwed up that tale too often is.</p><p>The controversial former baseball all-star set the tone with a bizarre series of tweets in which he announced the charge, named his accuser and said the woman "told the police that I druged her and then raped her.hmmmmm.lets find out what really happened." [sic] He subsequently deleted the tweets, but he did leave up the cryptic message, <a href="https://twitter.com/JoseCanseco/status/336867938789359617">"Sometimes your mind says yes and your body doesn't. Hate that." </a></p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/05/24/the_ugly_narrative_of_the_jose_canseco_rape_accusation/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/24/the_ugly_narrative_of_the_jose_canseco_rape_accusation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>102</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A brief history of Jennifer Weiner&#8217;s literary fights</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/24/a_brief_history_of_jennifer_weiners_literary_fights/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/24/a_brief_history_of_jennifer_weiners_literary_fights/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 18:31:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Books]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Claire Messud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jennifer Weiner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jonathan Franzen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jennifer Egan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13307053</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Claire Messud joins the many buzzy figures -- Jonathan Franzen, Lena Dunham, Jennifer Egan -- to earn Weiner's ire]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jennifer Weiner, the best-selling author, wrote <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2013/05/likable_and_unlikable_characters_in_fiction_claire_messud_and_meg_wolitzer.html">an essay for Slate</a> this week raking Claire Messud over the coals for recent statements Messud made in <a href="http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/authors/interviews/article/56848-an-unseemly-emotion-pw-talks-with-claire-messud.html">an interview with Publishers Weekly</a>, pegged to her new book "The Woman Upstairs." Messud had spoken out forcefully in defense of unlikable characters after her interviewer told her that "I wouldn't want to be friends with Nora," the novel's protagonist:</p><blockquote><p>For heaven’s sake, what kind of question is that? Would you want to be friends with Humbert Humbert? Would you want to be friends with Mickey Sabbath? Saleem Sinai? Hamlet? Krapp? Oedipus? Oscar Wao? Antigone? Raskolnikov? Any of the characters in <em>The Corrections</em>? Any of the characters in <em>Infinite Jest</em>? Any of the characters in anything Pynchon has ever written? Or Martin Amis? Or Orhan Pamuk? Or Alice Munro, for that matter? If you’re reading to find friends, you’re in deep trouble. We read to find life, in all its possibilities.</p></blockquote><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/05/24/a_brief_history_of_jennifer_weiners_literary_fights/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/24/a_brief_history_of_jennifer_weiners_literary_fights/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>29</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>If Alex Pareene were a cable news executive&#8230;</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/22/if_alex_pareene_was_a_cable_news_executive/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/22/if_alex_pareene_was_a_cable_news_executive/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 22:13:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alex Pareene]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[92y]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[92nd Street Y]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cable News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[war on whistleblowers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13306409</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Our favorite media critic tells 92Y which scandals his hypothetical news network would cover]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Alex Pareene is known for being <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/11/29/cnn_hires_failed_gimmick_king_jeff_zucker/">harshly critical</a> of sloppy, sensational cable news networks -- but could he do any better?</p><p>As part of <a href="http://92yamericanconversation.org/">92Y’s</a> partnership with Salon, Pareene discussed which stories are the real scandals he would have his hypothetical news station cover.</p><p>Pareene’s first scandal is the Obama administration's “war on leaks and whistleblowers,” which he sees as an unprecedented example of targeting by a presidential administration toward journalists. To see four other scandals that PNN (Pareene News Network, of course!) would focus on, watch this clip below:</p><p><script height="360px" width="640px" src="http://player.ooyala.com/iframe.js#pbid=1a5c833e9d124ebfab445ab7d010bc74&ec=ZveW5zYjo4s4Dtf7mEcoEdTcFmv3hKQ_"></script></p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/05/22/if_alex_pareene_was_a_cable_news_executive/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/22/if_alex_pareene_was_a_cable_news_executive/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Tornado survivor to Wolf Blitzer: Sorry, I&#8217;m an atheist. I don&#8217;t have to thank the Lord</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/22/tornado_survivor_to_wolf_blitzer_sorry_im_an_atheist_i_dont_have_to_thank_the_lord/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/22/tornado_survivor_to_wolf_blitzer_sorry_im_an_atheist_i_dont_have_to_thank_the_lord/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 17:06:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Video]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Atheism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Oklahoma]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Oklahoma tornado]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CNN]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wolf Blitzer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Juan Mendez]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13305505</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Wolf Blitzer pushes a tornado survivor to praise the Lord. She tells him she's an atheist, with dignity and respect]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You'd think by now CNN would have learned to <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/04/17/cnns_boston_embarrassment_how_a_scoop_turns_sour/">stop treating its assumptions as truths</a>. But when Wolf Blitzer made a casual comment Tuesday, it turned out to be a teachable moment both for the newsman and television viewers.</p><p>Speaking live to a survivor of the deadly tornado in Moore, Okla., Blitzer declared the woman "blessed," her husband "blessed," and her son "blessed." He then asked, "You've gotta thank the Lord, right? Do you thank the Lord for that split-second decision?"</p><p>But as she held her 18-month-old son, Rebecca Vitsmun politely replied, <a href="http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/21/cnns-wolf-blitzer-tells-atheist-tornado-survivor-you-gotta-thank-the-lord/">"I'm actually an atheist."</a> A flummoxed Blitzer quickly lobbed back, "You are. All right. But you made the right call," and Vitsmun graciously offered him a lifeline. "We are here," she said, "and I don't blame anyone for thanking the Lord." Nicely done, Rebecca Vitsmun.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/05/22/tornado_survivor_to_wolf_blitzer_sorry_im_an_atheist_i_dont_have_to_thank_the_lord/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/22/tornado_survivor_to_wolf_blitzer_sorry_im_an_atheist_i_dont_have_to_thank_the_lord/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>521</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>It&#8217;s Whitewater all over again</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/21/recent_scandals_are_whitewater_redux_not_watergate/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/21/recent_scandals_are_whitewater_redux_not_watergate/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 15:37:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Watergate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Scandal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Whitewater]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bill Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IRS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Scandalgate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Benghazi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bob Woodward]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Morning Joe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MSNBC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13304532</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Obama's "scandals" are not like Nixon's. They're a fishing expedition to stop his agenda and find something bigger]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is always disheartening when Bob Woodward shows up on our televisions. As a dashing young investigative reporter at the Washington Post, Woodward was part of an intrepid team whose reporting revealed that President Richard Nixon had personally directed a cover-up of crimes that were paid for by his reelection committee and executed against his political enemies.</p><p>Watching the Woodward of today pimp his personal brand on cable TV — call it <em>innuendo with gravitas </em>— is something like seeing a former Hall of Famer dispense motivational tips at a business seminar in Topeka.</p><p>And yet no event is more emblematic of our historical moment than Woodward’s appearance last week on Morning Joe, an MSNBC program devoted to the promotion of overpriced coffee, with a side dish of political hype.</p><p>Asked about the various “scandals” confronting the Obama administration, Woodward dutifully hit his mark. “I know there have been these comparisons to Watergate,” he told host Joe Scarborough. “I would say not yet, Joe … You’ve got to investigate all of these things.”</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/05/21/recent_scandals_are_whitewater_redux_not_watergate/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/21/recent_scandals_are_whitewater_redux_not_watergate/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>68</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
