While the system will be tested nationally this weekend, it is also designed for state emergencies, according to the FCC, like AMBER alerts, but can also work in cases of national security emergencies. It has been designed as a joint venture by the FCC and FEMA. According to the FEMA website:

At the Federal Communications Commission’s June 9, 2011 Agenda meeting, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Chief Jamie Barnett, joined by representatives from FEMA and the National Weather Service, announced that the first nationwide test of the Emergency Alert System (EAS) would take place at 2:00 PM (Eastern Standard Time) on November 9, 2011. The purpose of the test is to assess the reliability and effectiveness of the EAS as a public alert mechanism. EAS Participants currently participate in state-level monthly tests and local-level weekly tests, but no top-down review of the entire system has ever been undertaken. The Commission, along with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, will use the results of this nationwide test to assess the reliability and effectiveness of the EAS as a public alert mechanism, and will work together with EAS stakeholders to make improvements to the system as appropriate.

Besides these announcements, the FCC has released a fairly spooky PSA featuring Chief of the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau of the FCC James Barnett, who reminds everyone to please not panic when they lose their television and radio for a few minutes on Wednesday. That ad, courtesy FCC, below:

Whoopi and her co-hosts seem to think that Warren went out of her way to attack Brown, who appeared nude in Cosmopolitan magazine while he was in college, when in reality, it was the debate moderator who brought up the nude photo shoot. Warren’s response, then, could easily be viewed as either a self-effacing response or a shot at Brown. If it was, indeed, a dig at Scott Brown, it was a relatively good-natured one.

Goldberg went on to explain to her co-hosts, “Now, on a radio show afterwards, Scott Brown was asked, what do you think of that? And he said, ‘Thank God.’”

Weirdly, the audience laughed approvingly at the remark, and the discussion took a similarly jarring turn into domestic violence. Co-host Sherri Shepherd said, “I think people keep thinking they can say something and there’s no ramification back. It’s just like when you hit a man, expect him to turn around and pop you, too.”

Things went from appalling to surreal, though, when Whoopi explained how she interpreted Brown’s response. “Scott Brown was saying, Thank God you didn’t have to do that like i did,” Goldberg said, adding, “When I heard it, I have to tell you the truth, I thought he was saying, Thank God I didn’t have to do that.”

Brown, for his part, offers little ambiguity as to his meaning. “I was responding to a wisecrack she made about a decision I made to help pay for school; it’s as simple as that.”

Maybe I don’t watch The View enough, but this seemed dumber than usual. Whether Warren was making a dig at Brown or not, the response was certainly not equal to the offense, as illustrated by Shepherd’s misguided analogy. At worst, Brown was needled, and responded with a Crocodile Dundee knife.

Scott Brown probably should apologize to Warren, even if he feels his sexist blow was warranted. He’s in a tight race with Warren for his senate seat, tighter than it probably should be for an incumbent, and against an opponent who just got in a few weeks ago. This is an incredibly bad visual for Brown. Does he really think he’s going to pick up votes in Massachusetts by being the jerky best friend from a John Hughes movie? Trust me, nobody likes that guy.

Here’s the clip, from The View:

First, some background: During the Massachusetts Senate debate earlier this week, the moderator referenced the fact that Republican Senator Scott Brown had posed nude in college in order to pay for his education. The debate participants were then asked they had done to help pay for their respective schools. Democratic candidate Elizabeth Warren reacted to the moderator’s comments by joking that “I kept my clothes on” while in college.

Brown was asked about Warren’s reaction today on a local Massachusetts radio show. The Washington Post offers the following transcript:

INTERVIEWER: Have you officially responded to Elizabeth Warren’s comment about how she didn’t take her clothes off?

SCOTT BROWN: [LAUGHTER] Thank God.

INTERVIEWER: [LAUGHTER] That’s what I said! I said, “Look, can you blame a good-looking guy for wanting to, you know…”

SCOTT BROWN: You know what, listen: Bottom line is, you know, I didn’t go to Harvard. You know, I went to the school of hard knocks. And I did whatever I had to do to pay for school. And for people who know me, and know what I’ve been through, mom and dad married and divorced four times each. You know, some real challenges growing up. You know, whatever. You know, let them throw stones. I did what I had to do. But not for having that opportunity, I never would have been able to pay for school, and never would have gone to school, and I wouldn’t probably be talking to you. So, whatever.

WaPo has also published a reaction from Massachusetts Democratic Party executive director Clare Kelly:

Sen. Brown’s comments are the kind of thing you would expect to hear in a frat house, not a race for U.S. Senate. We keep waiting for Scott Brown to take his campaign out of the gutter, but unfortunately it seems like the junior senator has determined that mudslinging and dirty tricks are the only way he can distract Massachusetts voters from his record of voting in lockstep with Tea Party Republicans. Scott Brown’s comments send a terrible message that even accomplished women who are held in the highest esteem can be laughingly dismissed based on their looks.

That sound? That’s the clanking and groaning of a serious political discussion being completely derailed, first by a silly and distracting reference made during a debate. and then by a thoughtless reaction to that initial silliness.

You can listen to the audio of the interview below, via WBZ Boston:

h/t Washington Post

No matter what, you can bet Twitter will be involved. According to the Miami Herald, ex-CNN anchor Rick Sanchez will be back this fall–on the radio in South Florida–calling football games for the FIU Golden Panthers. “Huge name move for FIU,” write David Neal and Justin Azpiazu, wondering if the at times well over the top style of Sanchez might “inject…games with the almost campily dramatic seriousness he did to shoot ‘em up Miami of the late 1980s-early 1990s” when Sanchez was an anchor at Miami’s WSVN.

Sanchez says he’s taking the gig to “give something back” to a school he’s close to:

I’m extremely excited to be volunteering my time to Florida International. I’m not getting paid to do this—I just wanted to give something back to the school because FIU has a very special place in my heart: two of my sons now attend FIU and I believe in FIU football.

When Pete Garcia, FIU’s athletic director, asked me if I’d consider calling the games, I immediately said yes. I already attend most of the games, and so it was an easy decision.

I think this will be a lot of fun, and it will give me a chance to visit my sons and my parents more often.

Go FIU!

Sanchez, who’s recently written for Mediaite, has spent his time since leaving CNN working tirelessly to clear his name, left tarnished by the comments he made last fall–calling Jon Stewart a bigot, among other things–that forced him from his high-profile network anchor gig.

FIU’s no stranger to Sanchez. In 2009, the anchor hosted his afternoon show live from FIU as part of CNN’s Latino in America project. And back in June, Sanchez served as master of ceremonies for the FIU Athletics Golf Tournament held at the Doral Golf Resort.

Inskeep’s article comes at the tail end of a veritable whirlwind surrounding an undercover video by conservative filmmaker and activist James O’Keefe. The footage, later revealed to be edited, showed former NPR executive Ron Schiller making disparaging remarks about Tea Party members and other conservatives, as well as touting liberals as being “more educated” than their right-leaning peers.

Inskeep, who calls Schiller’s comments “boneheaded” even in light of O’Keefe’s selective editing, tackles the notion that NPR’s listeners overwhelmingly identity as liberal by citing surveys addressing the issue:

The facts show that NPR attracts a politically diverse audience of 33.7 million weekly listeners to its member stations on-air. In surveys by GfK MRI, most listeners consistently identify themselves as “middle of the road” or “conservative.” Millions of conservatives choose NPR, even with powerful conservative alternatives on the radio.

Inskeep notes the NPR has listeners within the military as well and also counts various Republican lawmakers among its fans. He also boasts that while “not much of the media” pays particular attention to the middle of the U.S., NPR and its various local stations do.

As for the criticism NPR receives from conservative listeners, well. It works to counteract the feedback Inskeep himself receives from liberals informing him that he is conservative, he says.

Finally, Inskeep notes that the coverage NPR is able to provide on breaking and building stories from around the world has no political slant – it only seeks to provide facts and details as they unfold:

NPR’s audience keeps expanding because Americans want more than toxic political attacks. They want news. Think again of my colleagues in Libya, going forward to bear witness amid exploding shells. Is that liberal or conservative? Maybe it’s neither. It’s an honest and honorable effort to keep Americans informed.

Then again, if NPR is indeed a media network with a political bias, despite its diverse listener and readership, what would an alternative, conservative network (rather than individual programming) with a presence on the web and radio be?

h/t Poynter / Romenesko

Ingraham and Litjens continued the conversation, and were amazed by the disrespectful behavior of some protesters. Litjens then even took the opportunity to scold all of her Democratic colleagues:

“The Democrats are screaming that we need to be civil towards each other, yet the Democrats, at least in our chamber, haven’t shown that example at all. They’ve been throwing fits on a regular basis looking like a group of toddlers throwing a temper tantrum.”

Furthermore, in response to President Obama’s plea that public employees not be vilified, Litjens claims Obama “has no idea what is going on in our state right now.” With emotions running high on all sides of the issue and with threats and insults being hurled in every direction, it’s unclear who or what will be able to respectful tone to Wisconsin legislative proceedings.

Listen to the clip below from The Laura Ingraham Show:

Following up on yesterday’s exciting tirade defending himself against a caller’s allegation that he is racist, today Rush unleashed on another caller:

“I oppose liberalism wherever it is. I oppose liberalism because liberalism is what has destroyed prosperity in this country. The rise of liberalism, the rise of public school education or indoctrination taught by liberal, marxist teachers as responsible for your precious lack of morality – plummeting morality, plummeting education scores, plummeting knowledge – your precious liberalism is responsible for it. And wherever it is, I want it defeated.”

The caller claimed to have attended Tea Party rallies and was curious why if the Tea Party was fighting to take back our country, then why shouldn’t they also be in favor of restoring unions to a position of greater power and influence like they had in the past? Rush clarified for the caller that what the Tea Party actually is fighting for is a country with a reduced size and scope of government, lower taxes, less regulation and to “get the government to stop being an obstacle to freedom and prosperity and success.” Regardless if you agree with Rush, it is enlightening to hear some of his listeners actively disagree with him and even attempt to challenge him.

Listen to the clip from The Rush Limbaugh Show:

At one point the caller complains that Rush never makes fun of Republicans and that Rush is not fair, to which Rush humorously responds, “I’ve never said I’m fair and balanced.” When Rush demanded specific examples of racism, the caller offered up Rush’s spoof commercials with an Obama voice using a “negro dialect” and claimed Rush always ignores any crazy comments made by Republicans like Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann. Unsatisfied with the caller providing any further specifics Rush yelled “I have given you so much opportunity to be specific about your complaint and you can’t do it.”

And then Rush got really angry, scolding the caller:

“You are partly responsible for the problem this country is in, because you are willingly ignorant. You willingly keep yourself stupid and ignorant and uninformed and you run around and live in your political cliched world.”

Rush concluded by suggesting he has forcefully challenged liberals throughout the years, regardless of their race, and that the racism charge is ludicrous. The back and forth Rush allowed at the beginning with the caller who clearly didn’t like him (yet strangely seemed like a devoted listener) was actually enlightening, and with Rush yelling by the end providing the entertainment, it seems like this clip has a little bit of everything.

Listen to the clip below from The Rush Limbaugh Show:

Stern encouraged Piers to stop thinking they were actually feuding when Piers’ ratings are currently not great, but Piers insisted his show airs in 220 countries and to 350 million people, and that he is a worldwide star unlike Stern. Stern joked that CNN might reach that many people, but tells Piers “you’re reaching three people” and wasn’t concerned if Piers was more famous than him in the Congo.

With the “feud” humorously brushed aside, Piers was able to provide some interesting perspective on CNN and the cable news landscape:

“CNN’s a weird business, because everybody talks about it as if it’s some kind of failure because there’s such a tension on the primetime ratings in America, but that’s only about 10% of their business. CNN International ratings are phenomenal . . . and their profits last week were huge.”

From there Piers revealed that before he was hired by CNN he told them they were getting their asses kicked by Fox and MSNBC and said “I don’t mind having Fox do it, but Rachel Maddow . . . seriously? Are you going to let them just beat you to death like this?”

Interestingly, Piers had some other unpredictable things to say including offering praise to a cable competitor, “I think Bill O’Reilly is brilliant,” suggesting that “the whole ‘war on terror’ title was such a fatuous load of nonsense,” and declaring General Petraeus a “military genius.” After Stern admitted finding his opinions very interesting, he wondered why Piers doesn’t offer opinions on his show rather than waste a whole hour talking to the Kardashians, and asked if it was because CNN did not allow opinions? Piers responded, “that’s wrong, what [CNN doesn't] want is me screaming from the right or left – kind of hysterical, partisan, Glenn Beck-style stuff or even Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow.”

With some unique opinions, it seems like Piers might have an ace up his sleeve in case his show continues to tinker with the format in the future. And although Piers thought it unthinkable that Maddow could beat CNN before he arrived at the network, the fact that Maddow sometimes beats Piers now — he finished third last Friday night — might be enough incentive for Piers to want to change his format soon.

Listen to the clip below from The Howard Stern Show:

(h/t SternGeek)

Stern revealed, through his humorous Piers impression, that he thought the British host comes across somewhat pompous, but since Stern likes Piers, he promised to straighten him out on Monday with some of the following advice:

“First of all, stop tweeting so much. . . . [Your tweets are] interesting. Say it on your TV show. . . . The reason the show is going down is because nobody knows who Piers is. Is he a Republican, is he a Democrat? Is he for Obama, is he against Obama? . . . Anyone who is successful on cable news channels, you know exactly where they stand, and they have opinions up the ass.”

Stern’s sidekick, Robin Quivers, politely informed Stern that CNN’s motto is to stay in the middle of the road, to which Stern matter-of-factly stated, well then they’re not going to get ratings. From there, Stern was reading some of Piers’ tweets where he challenged Stern to determine who is the real “King of All Media.” Although Stern tried urging Piers that he should be more worried about competing against Larry King‘s old ratings than anyone else. Stern continued, “I’m going to clue you in. You’re not close to being king of all media. . . . It’s me, then 5 billion other people and then you. . . . Piers isn’t even king of CNN.”

Concluding, Stern gave Piers one final bit of advice: “a whole hour talk to Condoleezza Rice? Here’s a clue, no one in America gives a sh*t about Condoleezza Rice.” Given that on many days followers of Piers Morgan on Twitter are likely to find more enjoyment and surprise from his Tweets than from that night’s CNN show, might media critic Howard Stern be on to something?

Listen to the clip below from The Howard Stern Show:

(h/t SternGeek)

Stern and Morgan bumped into each other last week at a basketball game, and Stern was annoyed that Piers was “walking around like he’s king of late night cable.” Stern’s co-host Robin Quivers agreed, “he’s really good, because he already thinks he’s already arrived, and maybe he’ll carry everyone along with him, in this understanding he has.” Stern and Quivers went on to make fun of Morgan’s low ratings with his Kardashians episode and how he was beat by a cable cooking show and even by Larry King‘s old numbers. Stern then shared some advice he previously told Piers “stop going around bragging that you’re gonna be the next Barbara Walters,” and concluded Piers in is in “full-blown denial” if he thinks his tired interview format could compete with Sean Hannity and Rachel Maddow, people who actually give viewers something to talk about.

Stern however was most angered by Piers suggesting that Stern should appear on his CNN show monthly. Stern’s passionate response:

“I was baffled by this conversation . . . like he’s doing me a favor because of my miserable career. I have more listeners on satellite than his 416,000 on CNN! . . . Piers no, no, no, no, no you’re the one who needs the help not me. He made it that I need help, what the f*ck help do I need, my career’s on fire!”

In addition to hearing Stern do a funny impression of Piers, listen to the clip to also learn how Bill O’Reilly once offered Stern a position on his show similar to current weekly contributor Dennis Miller. Overall, this seems to suggest Morgan’s highest rated guest will not be making a return visit anytime soon.

*Update: Piers Morgan responds to this story through Twitter (copied below) and proves he is not scared of the “hairy beast” Howard Stern. Now we definitely need to see a repeat encounter between these two tough-talking hosts!

Check out the clip below from The Howard Stern Show:

(h/t Radar)

Beck suggested journalists today just engage in groupthink, don’t independently investigate facts or think about the stories they are covering and that “most journalists just punch the clock at this point.” Such a passionless existence is Beck’s rationale as to why no journalist is investigating how dangerous the Muslim Brotherhood is, and just accepting the words of Egyptian Opposition Leader ElBaradei that they will not be a danger in a post-Mubarak Egypt.

Beck also was concerned with Obama’s description of a dictator without recognizing that, in Beck’s opinion, some of Obama’s behavior is similar:

“[The President says] a sign of a dictator is someone who shuts down radio and television and the Internet – tries to control it. At the same time in Congress, they are going for a kill-switch for the President on the Internet – that he has five of his White House advisors trying to shut me down.”

Apparently Beck is frustrated that he has to make all these “connections,” but if everyone else was making them, then what would there be left for him to do?

Listen to the clip below from The Glenn Beck Program:

(h/t)

First though his radio crew sarcastically joked that Beck only ever highlights Jewish people and purposely spells people’s names wrong to make them more Jewish, which is just some of the criticism Beck has received. Beck laughed at how ridiculous these conspiracy theories are and encouraged his critics to start wearing tin foil hats. Instead he urged listeners to see a new documentary his media company produced called Rumors of War, a piece of journalism he compared as being on par with Frontline.

After seeing the documentary, Beck sidekick Stu Burguiere concluded about Beck, “for an anti-semite, you are really pro-Jew.” And Beck thought the timing of the claim by rabbis against him was ironic and thought it “amazing how anti-semitic I am on the day that we release Rumors of War.” Hmm . . . amazing or maybe just maybe, this is part of some type of grand conspiracy, one where the rabbis are helping to generate publicity for Beck’s new project? Highly unlikely, but hatching conspiracy theories does seem fun.

Update: Fox News has responded to the initial critique from the Rabbi coalition in a statement:

The letter, addressed to News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch (see image here), requests that host Glenn Beck “be sanctioned by Fox News for his completely unacceptable attacks on a survivor of the Holocaust” — philanthropist and financier George Soros — and that Fox News chief executive “Roger Ailes apologize for his dismissive remarks about rabbis’ sensitivity to how the Holocaust is used on the air.” (News Corp. owns both Fox News and the Journal.)

In a statement provided to The Cutline, Joel Cheatwood, senior vice president of development for Fox News, said: “We haven’t seen the ad, but this group is a George Soros backed left-wing political organization that has been trying to engage Glenn Beck primarily for publicity purposes.”

The rabbi coalition’s letter refers in part to Beck’s Nov. 10, 2010 broadcast, part of a three-day series about the liberal billionaire. In that broadcast, Beck said that Soros, who lived apart from his parents in his early teens to avoid being apprehended by the Nazis, “used to go around with this anti-Semite and deliver papers to the Jews and confiscate their property and then ship them off. … It was frightening. Here’s a Jewish boy helping send the Jews to the death camps.” Soros, a Hungarian Jew, has spoken publicly about escaping the death camps by posing as a member of a Christian family. His protector’s job was to confiscate property from Jews in Nazi-occupied Hungary.

The letter also states that Beck has made “literally hundreds of on-air references to the Holocaust and Nazis when characterizing people with whom [Beck] disagree[s],” and that he “routinely compares American leaders to Nazis.”

Listen to the clip from The Glenn Beck Program below:

Check out the trailer for Beck’s Iran Documentary Rumors of War below:

(h/t)

And Levin is putting his money where his mouth is by threatening to take MSNBC hosts and contributors like Chris Matthews, Ed Shultz, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Joe Scarborough and David Frumm (“you little weasel”) to federal court for accusations tying Levin to Loughner’s rampage.

“I don’t care if they’re bloggers,” Levin announced. “I don’t care if they’re television hosts, I don’t care if they’re radio hosts. I’m going to drag your ass into federal court. Oh, you’ll have due process. It’ll all be nice and legal.”

“Anyone,” Levin continued, “who accuses me of inciting mass murder in Tucson, Arizona is going to be sued. Period.”

h/t Breitbart.tv

Scarborough claimed that Beck is on television every day saying President Obama is a racist and a Marxist. Beck corrected that record by saying he actually only called the President racist once, and it was two years ago, and he apologized for it. Regarding the Marxist tag, Beck argued that it’s not a slam, it’s simply him identifying the President’s ideology. Furthermore, Beck wondered why Scarborough isn’t as concerned that every day on his MSNBC show there are baseless claims that the Tea Party is violent.

The funniest moment though comes near the end when Gray goes wild on Scarborough’s admission that he actually doesn’t watch Beck, but has “friends” who tell him everything. Gray screams, “how do you know what Glenn Beck says and does. You moron. Joe, there’s a reason that everyone you know listens to and watches Glenn’s show, including your mom, and not yours – you suck!” Beck though, eager to avoid any incorrect implications, corrects Gray and says he’s sure Scarborough’s mother probably makes some time to watch her son’s show too.

Check out the audio from the Glenn Beck Program below:

(h/t The Right Scoop)

WGN-TV then had its own fun with the startling audio clip when they replayed it for the sake of their viewers, while also noting that there’s a chance Rahm Emmanuel‘s mayoral opponent wasn’t the flusher (though that might prompt even more questions). This, of course, didn’t deter them from poking a little fun at Rep. Davis. “You gotta be able to multitask” to be a good mayor, joked one of the journalists, while another sagaciously mused, “Better out than in.”

When you’re done shuddering, you can watch the WGN clip below to hear the alleged Danny Davis flush for yourself.

[Via Real Clear Politics]

MSNBC‘s tough-talking Ed Schultz discussed on his radio show this past week why his television show never features any Republican guests. Yet whether it’s because Schultz is sick of them, or they were never fond of him to begin with is unclear, since Schultz offers up both possibilities as explanations for his show being dominated by only liberal guests.

Schultz claimed:

You do not see Republican senators on The Ed Show on MSNBC. I don’t want ‘em! I don’t want ‘em and I’m getting sick of righties on my show anyway. I’m getting sick, I mean, we might have 2011, there might not be any freakin’ righties. I’m sick of ‘em!

Later in the audio clip you can also here an additional explanation:

Of course, I don’t put right-wing people on that are of any significance . . . ’cause they won’t come on the program. And I don’t want to talk to ‘em anyway.

Although maybe there is a way for both of these statements to be entirely consistent with one another. Maybe Schultz is sick of the “freakin’ righties” precisely because they won’t come on his show. And given how Schultz refers to some conservatives with schoolyard taunts (like cold-hearted fat slob or psycho-talkers), it’s a wonder why conservatives would not want to be a guest in Schultz’s house after demonstrations of such hospitality?

Listen to the clip below from Schultz’s radio show:

(h/t) NewBusters

It would be hard to find a media personality who is more experienced than Rush Limbaugh at carefully constructing a convincing argument, before quickly shattering any of its impact with over-the-top hyperbole. Case in point: today Rush was justifiably angry with the determination of elected officials to fulfill a non-existent mandate to pass as much legislation as possible before the end of the year. This, according to Rush, is the equivalent of Congress sexually violating every American and is also where many listeners might focus on the rape and forget what issue it was that originally upset Rush.

First Rush ran through the litany of huge pieces of legislation that this Congress is trying to pass in the next two weeks, including the tax compromise that contains additional government spending, new food regulations to govern school lunches and even bake sales, repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell allowing gays to serve openly in the military, the START Treaty controlling worldwide nuclear arms, and the massive omnibus spending bills to fund government programs and over 6,000 earmarks. This attempt by Democrats to strategically wait until now, after the election, to pass many potentially unpopular bills had Rush fuming:

Damage being done to this country by this Congress, including a number of Republicans, is disastrous. It is a finger in the eye of the public. . . . The election results were clear. If we were a woman, and the Congress were a man, we’re in the middle of being raped. . . . We said ‘no’ in November, i.e., the election. We have said no at every opportunity, and yet they continue.

Although oftentimes the only way to cut through the chatter is to make headline-grabbing statements like this, it is also unnecessarily over-the-top, because legitimate allegations of rape should always be taken seriously.

A few moments later, Rush returned to his normal Democrats are evil rhetoric, saying the Democrats don’t care about America. Also that this legislative push is a “last gasp opportunity they have to infect and poison this country with their ideology and their ideas [and that] they are destroying and hijacking this country right in front of our eyes.” See, doesn’t leaving rape out of it make Rush’s statements more impactful and entertaining?

Listen to the audio clip from The Rush Limbaugh Show below:

On the day when Wikileaks founder Julian Assange was granted bail and liberal documentary filmmaker Michael Moore proudly declared his intention to contribute money to Assange’s release so that Wikileaks can be kept “alive and thriving,” it should come as no surprise Rush Limbaugh would be apopletic. Limbaugh’s headline-seeking shot at liberals was to say “of course they would help a thousand rapists if it would mean that one America-hater might go free.”

With President Obama calling the Wikileaks document dump “deplorable” and many other Democrats both within the Obama administration and outside of it acknowledging Assange’s tactics make him an enemy of America, Rush’s hyperbole aimed towards “liberals” is of course overblown here. However, Moore’s eagerness to jump to Assange’s defense should not be above criticism, especially not until the rape charges against Assange are cleared.

Limbaugh did however go on to analyze the absurdity of granting Assange bail with a slightly less controversial and easier to agree with statement, sarcastically wondering “how can [Assange] be a flight risk, I mean he’s only got a bunch of fake identities and passports, what’s the concern here – it’s amazing what hating America will get you in court.” Whether hating America played a role in the bail decision is questionable, but one thing is for sure, America-hating always makes for a great sound bite.

The Tea Party Nation is one of the most prominent organizations in the Tea Party movement, having sponsored the National Tea Party Convention last February that was criticized for its $550 attendance fee and where Sarah Palin was paid $100,000 to speak.  Thus the influence Phillips has is legitimate, yet like other prominent Tea Party members before him who ended up in hot water for indefensible statements, Phillips offensively opines on an issue with which no rational person is concerned.

For the most part, Americans who sympathize with the Tea Party do so because they want government spending and deficits to be reduced, and want elected officials to be more responsive to individual citizens than to large banks and interest groups.  These Americans are not actively debating the constitutionality of whether property ownership should be a prerequisite for voting and are certainly not labeling renters as second-class citizens who don’t care about the community.

Especially since those Americans hardest hit in this economy may not own property themselves and given that their economic dissatisfaction should make them prime targets for Tea Party recruitment, it would “make a lot of sense” for Phillips to keep his extraneous thoughts within the confines of his own property.

For the full quote from Phillips or to listen to the audio clip from the Tea Party Nation’s radio program, or read the transcript that follows below:

The Founding Fathers originally said, they put certain restrictions on who got the right to vote. It wasn’t you were just a citizen and you automatically got to vote. Some of their restrictions, you know, you obviously would not think about today. But one of them was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if you’re a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community. And if you’re not a property owner, you know, I’m sorry but they, property owners have a little bit more of a vested stake in the community than non-property owners do.

(h/t) Think Progress

The station is a CBS affiliate, and Philadelphia is the fourth largest radio market.

Beck currently is the host from 9am-12pmET and Hannity from 3-6pmET. According to Radio-info.com:

Taking Beck’s 9am-noon slot is the local Dom Giordano, currently 6-10pm. Then comes Rush Limbaugh, noon-3pm, and Smerconish – who replaces Sean Hannity.

Rachel Nelson, spokesperson for Premiere Radio Networks, tells Mediaite: “While it’s our policy not to comment on the business of our affiliates, we’ve appreciated our partnership with WPHT and look forward to sharing exciting news about The Sean Hannity Show and The Glenn Beck Program in the future.”

We’ll have more as we get it…

—–
» Follow Steve Krakauer on Twitter

Spears responds that the President made the comment himself in a Today show interview. Here’s Helen’s gut-wrenching reaction:

Apparently, Helen was heretofore only aware of comments by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on the day of Helen’s retirement, which is where she gets the “reprehensible” reference from. Learning of the rebuke from the President himself obviously affected her deeply.

Here’s the President’s quote from that Today Show interview:

Today, though, Thomas told her side of the story in a 35-minute radio interview with Ohio station WMRN-AM. The interview was taped last week, and aired this morning. As the AP reports, she responded in one word when asked whether she’s anti-Semitic: “Baloney!” Though really, how else would she react? “Yes, I’m against Israel and the Jewish people?”

In any case, Thomas certainly doesn’t regret what she said in June; she told interviewer Scott Spears that her remarks represented “exactly what I thought,” and that she retired because she knew after making them her career would be over: “I hit the third rail. You cannot criticize Israel in this country and survive.”

Thomas got in another dig at the Jewish State later in the interview, when she said that she apologized for her remarks because she thought they had hurt people. But, as she went on, “At the same time, I had the same feelings about Israel’s aggression and brutality.”

The interview also covered other topics, such as Thomas’s thoughts on Christine O’Donnell (“Frightening”) and Sarah Palin (whose hypothetical presidency would be “a tragedy, a national tragedy”).

Though Thomas wants to be remembered for “my integrity and my honesty and my belief in good journalism,” chances are her reputation will always be tarnished—especially since she doesn’t appear very remorseful. In some ways, this is certainly a shame; a trailblazer like Thomas deserves to be celebrated. On the other hand, what the reporter said in June undeniably crossed the line. She shouldn’t be given a free pass just because she helped break through a glass ceiling.

Here’s the full 35-minute interview:

And here’s video of the remarks that prompted Thomas to retire:

While live on air, the journalist claimed that her demanding producers were disabling her from being able to “eat properly” and “breathe.” The allegedly breathless reporter then announced that she was “quitting and walking away” from her 18-month-old job, for which she covered Oslo and the Ahershus region.

In some corners, Pederson is being perceived to be the journalistic equivalent to aviation’s Steven Slater, with her actions representing the frustrations that many reporters confront on slow news days.

When reached for comment, NKR spokesperson Oyevind Werner Oefsti said that the Norwegian public broadcasting organization was surprised by Pederson’s live, two-minute-long resignation.

The Daily Beast

“Journalist” is quite a tricky word in the post-objectivity media world, especially when trying to rank journalists by their political inclinations. The list only has two main rules on who is excluded: media moguls like Rupert Murdoch and recent converts to punditry like Sarah Palin. This means that any public personality right-of-center who appears in some form of news media counts as a journalist, whether or not they engage in journalistic investigation and exposure of stories or merely comment on other people’s journalistic work. The result is a more complete picture of the right-wing media scene, but it does lead to some apples-and-oranges comparisons that rank people who actually break stories (like Drudge Andrew Breitbart, ranked #10 and #11, respectively) lower than commentators who depend on the Drudges and Breitbarts of the world for their material (like Rush Limbaugh, ranked #3).

Whether the list is accurate in its depiction of journalist thus depends more on the reader’s personal definition of the word than anything inherent in the list’s structure. As for accuracy in terms of influence within the right wing, here’s how the top five rank in comparison to their place on Mediaite’s Power Grid:

Bill O’Reilly clocks in at #5 for being “reliably—and relentlessly—omniscient” (which O’Reilly will likely be happy to hear). While this keeps him in the same position as he in among TV hosts in the Power Grid, it puts him behind two people he is well ahead of there crossing categories. The two exceptions are the radio hosts– Beck and Limbaugh. Peggy Noonan takes the #4 ranking on the Daily Beast list, while her top ranking on the Power Grid is #26 (in the columnists category). Beck and Limbaugh, numbers 2 and 3 respectively, are regularly swapping the #1 position among radio hosts in the Power Grid, while the surprising top right-wing journalist in the Daily Beast list, Paul Gigot of The Wall Street Journal, ranks at #30 as an online editor. Gigot takes the prize for his column being “the only editorial column that actually sells newspapers.” It seems counterintuitive compared to ubiquitous characters like O’Reilly, Beck, Limbaugh, and to some extent Noonan, but being the most prone to finding and airing new stories instead of simply his take on what is already out there, Gigot deserves the prize by definition only. What’s more, while the others may be more universally and publicly influential, Gigot goes about his work more privately, and by focusing on his newspaper has a wider influence among right-wingers than some of the more multimedia types on the list. This would explain his higher ranking among conservatives than using the universal metric of the Power Grid.

The list is a good effort, although in attempting to be as inclusive as possible it ends up a little scatter-brained. It will be interesting to see how the list evolves if the Beast chooses to reevaluate it in a year, after the midterm elections.

David Folkenflik

1. How do you get your first news of the day?

I listen to NPR’s Morning Edition and sometimes WNYC’s The Takeaway; glance over my hard copy of the New York Times, then I go to the following web sites: Poynter’s Romenesko; the LA Times sports web site for news of the Angels and the Lakers; the Washington Post; Politico; Slate; Gawker; Drudge; Wonkette; National Review Online; CJRDaily,org; and various other news and media blogs and websites (and yes, I’m now checking in periodically with Mediaite). My morning review of my Twitter feed is increasingly vital, because many of the people I follow are doing their own curation on media issues. And then I go back and give the Times an actual read; on my subway ride to work I’ll listen to podcasts of NPR’s Planet Money, Slate’s various Gabfests, or Ira Glass’s This American Life, and pick up the Journal at the office. It doesn’t really take as long as that sounds. Some sites I stay on for awhile; others I’ll click through in a minute or two, depending on what they have.

2. Either, Or (you gotta pick one!): As a guy with a fun-sounding name yourself, I’ve gotta know: Froomkin or Mnookin?

Though I refuse to diss a fellow DF, Mnookin is more euphonious.

3. What’s the biggest story the media has missed this year? (Or last week):
Missed is a hard word … I’d say there’s strong case to be made that Afghanistan is the consistently underplayed story — despite some good coverage I don’t think most citizens have a strong sense of what’s going on there.

4. Obligatory Twitter Question: Describe yourself in 140 characters or less (hash tag optional!).
Beach bum turned meta media dude…. follow on twitter @davidfolkenflik.

5. Are you nervous or excited about the future of Journalism? Why?

Both. I’m nervous, even heartbroken, because of the toll that the dissolution of the old business models for the news business is taking both on dedicated practitioners of the trade and on trade itself. Despite the snark and dismissiveness of some of my online peers, some tremendous reporting occurred in the old models that are now cracking apart, and that reporting was read and seen by mass audiences. Yet I’m also very intrigued because of the ways advances in technology have reduced the barriers to entry into the field — every person can be his or her own network — and are altering the way people help shape the news they consume. It’s early days — some of the new examples are fascinating and heartening. Anybody who tells you they know what’s going to happen next is lying. Nothing is foreordained. And that understandably should make people who care about journalism nervous or excited — or, in my case, both.

Check out David Folkenflik’s current standing on the Mediaite Power Grid

Now Inside Radio is speculating she may be testing the talk radio waters.

While not exactly shopping the GOP’s 2008 vice presidential candidate, sources say Palin representatives have been quietly testing the waters to see how much interest radio syndicators have for her. Sources say Palin hasn’t committed to radio either, but rather it could be a possible next step for her.

It’s certainly an option — talk radio is the stronghold of the right and would provide her with a built-in audience not to mention an easy platform with which to develop a 2012 campaign. But her best option? Palin may be famous for her way with words — some have even called it poetry! — but her, er, personal charisma has always been her strongest attribute. Something she clearly wouldn’t be able to put to use on the radio. That said, it could offer her a way to keep in the national conversation and still, mostly, fly under the constant scrutiny of the cablers. Plus, one imagines, just based on her Twitters, she could shortly take the entire medium to a whole new level bordering on performance art.

I stopped buying the paper a while ago (notwithstanding the Sunday Times), and those of you who listened to the podcast run by myself and Steve Krakauer while we were still at mediabistro.com will already know that I am not a consumer of cable TV. So that lands me firmly in the NPR category. I am not alone. NPR has a LOT of listeners. Something to the tune of 30 million per week. Weekend Edition Saturday alone has 4.2 million listeners – which gives it, on average, 400,000 more people than Meet the Press, and 1 million more than This Week.

Those sorts of numbers would also explain why Weekend Edition host Scott Simon has 661,000 Twitter followers. Today. That’s 10,000 more than it was yesterday, so it’s anyone’s guess where he’ll be by week’s end!

Mediaite ran into Scott Simon at last week’s Personal Democracy Forum and he was kind enough to chat with us. (Actually we didn’t so much run into him as recognize his voice across a room during a panel and follow him out the door. Some people get excited over Anderson Cooper, some people get excited over NPR hosts!) In this segment of the video, he talks about the influence Twitter has had on his journalism, among other things.

Twitter as a research tool:

The challenges facing radio:

The changing mainstream (plus, red socks):

(Note: Apologies for the sound; it was the best we could manage under circumstances. Cinematography and occasional off-camera commentary by Rachel Sklar. Further editing done by Zeke Turner).