Are you fresh out of college and unable to find a job? Then you’re probably not Gus Wenner, a 22-year-old recent graduate who was just named the editor at RollingStone.com.

Coincidentally, Gus is the son of Jann Wenner, the owner of Rolling Stone‘s publisher Wenner Media.

An email sent out to Rolling Stone staffers and picked up by Gawker reads:

Dear all:

David Kang and I are very pleased —and I am very proud —to announce that Gus Wenner, after leading the re-launch re-design effort for our website, will now continue by heading up the overall operations of RollingStone.com.

Jann

Jann also confirmed with Gawker that the email and Gus’ appointment are the real deal.

Strangely, the announcement has been coupled with a lot of passive-aggressive criticism among various publications. FishbowlNY deadpans that the staff at RollingStone.com are probably “excited as well.”

Gawker didn’t pull any punches, either. They mock Gus’ accomplishments thus far:

“Gus Wenner, 22, is an amazing media success story. Just a few years ago, he was a Brown University student playing in a band with fellow celebukid Brown student Scout Willis. Today, he’s still playing in a band with Scout Willis— and also running the website of a major national magazine!”

And then cheekily invite Rolling Stone staff members to respond:

“RollingStone.com staffers should feel free to leave their thoughts on this development in the discussion section below.”

We don’t know if any did.

What do you think of Gus Wenner’s controversial appointment as editor at RollingStone.com?

[Image via: Facebook]

‘Rolling Stone’ Owner Puts Son, 22, In Charge Of RollingStone.com is a post from: The Inquisitr

James Rosen, a Fox reporter, has been named a co-conspirator in a Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation into the 2009 illegal leaks of classified information regarding North Korea. Although the investigation took place in 2010, an indepth report yesterday from The Washington Post — complete with a copy of the search warrant — has shed new light into the probe into the journalist’s life.

The short version is that State Department security adviser Stephen Jin-Woo Kim was thought to be passing the classified material to Fox News through Rosen. The WaPo said that court documents don’t name James Rosen, but that his identity was confirmed to them by several officials as being the Fox reporter who accepted the classified information.

Kim himself is currently facing federal charges for the 2009 leaks.

Since DOJ believed that Rosen is almost certainly the Fox reporter who received the leaked documents, FBI agent Reginald Reyes filed an affidavit with a federal judge stating that there was probable cause to believe that James Rosen was a co-conspirator in the crime. A reporter’s privilege doesn’t hold in cases where he knowingly broke the law.

Therefore, a federal judge signed the search warrant, which allowed DOJ investigators to obtain James Rosen’s emails. They were also able to track security badge records to show when he visited State Department offices.

Fox News executive vice president Michael Clemente issued this statement:

“We are outraged to learn today that James Rosen was named a criminal co-conspirator for simply doing his job as a reporter. In fact, it is downright chilling. We will unequivocally defend his right to operate as a member of what up until now has always been a free press.”

The DOJ fired back with their own statement that leaking classified information can represent “serious risk of harm to our national security and it is important that we pursue these matters using appropriate law enforcement tools.”

James Rosen hasn’t been indicted, and Attorney General Eric Holder hinted that he wouldn’t be.

That didn’t stop some folks from expressing outrage.

Accusing James Rosen of committing crimes – for basic reporting – may be the most dangerous thing the Obama DOJ has done yet

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) May 20, 2013

#fact DOJ had more surveillance of @jamesrosenfnc than Tsarnaev brothers.

— Greg Pollowitz (@GPollowitz) May 20, 2013

Brit Hume: ‘Chilling’ Search Of Fox Reporter Shows DOJ Treats ‘Ordinary News Gathering As Crime’ mediaite.com/tv/brit-hume-c… via @mediaite

— james queen (@LibertySurfer) May 20, 2013

Well, maybe. I’m not real clear how exactly the man has been chilled by having some emails read or his security badges tracked. What’s your opinion of the James Rosen, Fox reporter, “co-conspirator” brouhaha?

[James Rosen interviewing John Kerry photo by the US State Department via Wikimedia Commons]

James Rosen, Fox News Reporter, Named Co-Conspirator By DOJ is a post from: The Inquisitr

Conspiracy theorist and radio host Alex Jones seems to be calling on the true believers overthrow the system with the most powerful weapon we have at our disposal: Facebook.

While we’re not entirely sure what Jones was trying to say on his May 7 show, we can attest that he opens his mouth and sounds do indeed come out (there’s video below to prove it).

But whatever you think of Alex Jones, be he an uncompromising truth machine or an out-and-out wing-nut, you have to admit, his comments about Facebook, YouTube, and the like were difficult to parse.

MofoPolitics posted video of Jones in the midst of a melodramatic rant about Google, Facebook, and YouTube, alleging that they’re basically “front operations” for the Central Intelligence Agency.

While discussing yelling about social media in general, Jones dropped this little marble that was picked up by Mediaite:

“Use it like a toilet! Use Facebook to jack their system! And jack ‘em hard! But hate ‘em, and spit on ‘em while you do it. Same thing with YouTube. And all of it. Jack the enemy conduits. Jack it hard and hate ‘em! And spit on ‘em while you do it.”

Then Jones slipped into some more familiar territory:

“This is a war! They’re killing kids everywhere with GMO and vaccines knowingly. This morning they had jets out spraying chemtrails everywhere. It’s a public G.O. engineering program — partially declassified and the public doesn’t even know about it! You think you’re in Kansas? You’re not in Kansas anymore!”

Jones also accused Google of blocking traffic to his website (InfoWars) as well as to the Drudge Report. It’s not really a secret that Google is headed up by some pretty liberal folks, so, naturally, they’re going to use their power to make sure that no one can reach sites containing content they personally disagree with.

“Google is the one jacking and breaking through your pass codes. And spying. And [Google CEO Eric] Schmidt says, ‘You shouldn’t visit anything you don’t want me to see.’ On a power trip. What a joke! By the way he only sold 10,000 of his book. What a joke you are, scumbag. Just because you can run a CIA criminal front, doesn’t mean you actually ever did anything, little man! Hope you’re cozy under the black wings of the New World Order!”

For journalistic purposes, I just attempted to access InfoWars and Drudge and can report no problems on my end.

Check out the video below, and let us know what you think of Alex Jones. Oh, and if you watch the video, here’s the Mark Zuckerberg article he shows at the end. Make sure to read the last paragraph.

Alex Jones Wants Us To Use Social Media To Overthrow … Something [Video] is a post from: The Inquisitr

Top ABC News editor Don Ennis has come out as a transgender woman.

The New York Post reports that Ennis debuted her new persona on Friday, wearing a “little black dress,” a brunette wig, and asking colleagues to call her “Dawn” from now on.

On his Facebook page, the 49-year-old father of three explained his decision to come out as transgender, which she said she has struggled with quietly for seven years.

“Please understand: This is not a game of dress-up, or make-believe. It is my affirmation of who I now am and what I must do to be happy, in response to a soul-crushing secret that my wife and I have been dealing with for more than seven years, mostly in secret.”

She says that she suffers from an “unusual hormonal imbalance” and has been undergoing hormone-replacement therapy to maintain “mysteriously a more female than male body.”

Ennis and her wife, Wendy, have chosen to end their 17-year marriage as well.

“Despite the heartbreak, [Wendy] has encouraged me to start this new life that we both believe better fits who I now am,” Ennis wrote. “Trust me, this is NOT the midlife crisis I was counting on — I’d much prefer to have bought a sports car.”

So far, her co-workers have supported her coming out. Some left flowers on her desk while ABC News President Ben Sherwood wrote her a supportive note, reports NY Mag.

“I’m overwhelmed by the strong support I’ve received from my coworkers, and I’m looking forward to telling my story when I’m ready,” Ennis wrote.

Rumor has it, telling that story will involve a book deal.

What do you think of Don Ennis/Dawn Ennis’ announcement? Leave us your thoughts below.

ABC News Editor Don ‘Dawn’ Ennis Comes Out As Transgender is a post from: The Inquisitr

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie will be taking on a new job soon: Morning show host.

The popular pol will co-host the second hour (that the 8am slot, mind you) of TODAY on May 24 when the struggling morning show comes to his home state. NBC said in a statement that the TODAY show is going on the road for its “Great American Adventure” tour during sweeps season.

The cast and crew of the program will go coast to coast and everywhere in between, hitting five major U.S. destinations in one week. They’ll start in Hawaii and end up in the Jersey Shore, still recovering from Hurricane Sandy.

Christie’s gig on the TODAY show isn’t the first time that NBC has solicited the help of a political figure for hosting. Republican Sarah Palin hosted the program back in April of 2012.

Though this is a fun piece of news for the New Jersey governor, he’s actually in headlines this week for a completely different reason. The New York Post revealed that Christie underwent an outpatient lap-band procedure in February, which is meant to help the 50-year-old lose weight.

Though Christie stresses that he made the choice to undergo surgery for his family and for his health, many political analysts also take it as evidence that he is indeed planning a presidential run in 2016, part of which would involve changing his image.

“I’ve struggled with this issue for 20 years,” he said. “For me, this is about turning 50 and looking at my children and wanting to be there for them.”

Are you a fan of Chris Christie?

[Image via: L.E.MORMILE, Shutterstock]

Chris Christie To Guest Host On ‘Today’ is a post from: The Inquisitr

File this in your undoubtedly thick “What the hell are you doing, CNN?” file. This morning, the struggling cable news giant aired a strange split-screen interview between two anchors standing in the same parking lot. Seriously, the same vehicles go by in the background and everything.

The Atlantic Wire (and others) noticed the odd report hours ago, between Ashleigh Banfield of CNN and Nancy Grace of Headline News. They were both giving updates on the ongoing Cleveland kidnapping story (Amanda Berry, catch up here), and the graphics below each said that they were currently in Phoenix.

Once that tips you off, you’ll probably notice that they’re both standing in front of the same building.

If you watch closely, paying special heed to the vehicles passing behind each reporter, you’ll notice that not only are they in the exact same parking lot, they’re facing the same direction. Dashiell Bennett and Philip Bump hypothesize in their article that Banfield and Grace are probably only standing about 30 feet apart.

Which begs the question: Are they aware of each other’s presence and just going with it, or are they truly oblivious to each other? They have to at least be overhearing each other’s voices in their respective periphery, right?

Now, both anchors are indeed reporting for separate networks (owned by the same parent company, but whatever). Additionally, split-screen reporting, even from the same general location, does happen. But you’d think given their obvious proximity to each other, one of them would have at least awkwardly acknowledged the other in a cute “off the cuff” moment instead of waiting for the Internet to do it for them.

Alas, that was not the scene in Phoenix today.

I only wish there was video of this report so that we could confirm what we all fear about this story, but regrettably, a ten-minute search of Google did not avail it to me. It really looks from the GIFs (one is posted below, you can see the rest here) that Grace might actually be blue-screened into the report, because the lighting on her and on Banfield is not the same.

Which is actually even worse, because it means some idiot from Headline News was standing next to a CNN cameraman pointing his camera at nothing.

[Top image via: CNN, Atlantic Wire]

CNN Airs Split-Screen Interview Between Two Anchors In The Same Parking Lot is a post from: The Inquisitr

So did Geraldo have his mic cut?

The rumor goes that Fox News CEO Roger Ailes was fed up with the television host defending the Obama administration in the days before the 2012 election that he ordered Geraldo’s microphone to be shut off.

A new book claims there is truth to the rumor, though that is contradicted by reports from Fox News executives.

The book, The Center Holds: Obama and His Enemies, is written by Jonathan Alter, a columnist for Bloomberg View and a contributor to Fox News competitor MSNBC. In it there are accounts of the inner workings of Fox News and their opposition to Obama’s policies.

In the book, Alter discusses a November 2, 2012, segment on Fox and Friends in which Geraldo Rivera battled with colleague Eric Bolling, who had accused the Obama administration of lying about the attack. Alter claims that it was too much for Fox News boss Roger Ailes, who came down to the control room and ordered that Geraldo have his mic cut.

Mediaite contradicts that report, saying that Ailes never ordered Geraldo silenced. The report even points to a video of the segment in question, showing that while there is a dip in Rivera’s microphone, at no point is he inaudible. So it is possible he never had his mic cut at all.

As reports swirled early this week, Rivera himself even stepped in to clear up the debate.

Contrary to published accounts no one at Fox News ever either cut my mic or told me what to say But I do advocate cutting Eric Bolling’s mic

— Geraldo Rivera (@GeraldoRivera) May 6, 2013

So what happened, if Geraldo didn’t have his mic cut? Fox News executive vice president of programming, Bill Shine, said he called down to the set of Fox and Friends morning show because Geraldo Rivera and the hosts were getting into too heated of a debate over the Benghazi terror attack and the segment had run its course.

Geraldo Mic Cut? Report Says No One Censored Fox Host For Defending Obama is a post from: The Inquisitr

Rush Limbaugh says blame for ad revenue singing at his flagship WABC radio station doesn’t lie with him.

The conservative radio host has heaped bad press on WABC in the past year, including remarks in February 2012 when he called college student Sandra Fluke a “slut” after she testified before Congress in favor of a mandate to cover birth control under health insurance. The flap led WABC CEO Lew Dickey to blame Rush Limbaugh when the station’s ad revenue declined.

There would seem to be some truth to Dickey’s belief that Rush Limbaugh is to blame. After the remarks about Fluke, activists organized a boycott campaign of Limbaugh’s show. The actions led several hundred advertisers, including Sears, Geico, John Deere, Netflix, Capitol One, and the New York Lottery, to leave the show, though many returned quietly in the time since then.

Lew Dickey said the slump Limbaugh caused has created a “residual hangover” for WABC, costing millions of dollars in the past few quarters.

The disagreement went public this week, with Limbaugh shooting back at Dickey’s comments.

“Lew needs someone to blame, (so) he’s pointing fingers instead of fixing his own sales problem,” Limbaugh said.

Some analysts think Dickey is using Limbaugh as a scapegoat for the station’s poor performance in the last year.

“It’s a very serious discussion, because Dickey keeps blaming Rush for his own revenue problems,” the source told Politico. “Trying to blame Rush for [revenues loss] is not much of a business partnership.”

If Rush Limbaugh continues to take the blame, the radio host could jump to WOR after his WABC contract expires at the end of the year. It would be seen as quite a shakeup, as WOR has only about half the audience of WABC, and Limbaugh could shift those numbers significantly.

Rush Limbaugh: Don’t Blame Me For Low Ad Revenue At Flagship Station is a post from: The Inquisitr

MSNBC’s habit of selectively editing video clips has gotten them into trouble yet again, forcing the network to apologize to its viewers for taking quotes from Vice President Joe Biden out of context.

Biden was giving a speech dedicated to the Americans who died in the Benghazi consulate attack last year, but the network used a clip of the speech to frame a discussion about gun control in the United States.

“No child should predecease their parents and no one should have to suffer the loss of their spouse, it’s not easy,” Biden said in the edited clip.

During his speech at the State Department, Biden actually said this: “No child should predecease their parents. I wish I could tell you we aren’t going to add any more names with this wall. I wish I could say that with certainty, but the truth of the matter is, there will be more. There will be more.”

After the edited clip played, MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts said that Biden was referring to “children as the victims of gun violence” in the speech.

National Review, a conservative publication, pointed out that the clip was edited to give an ambiguous impression of Biden’s speech, and that the gun control discussion that followed was misleading to viewers.

Later on Friday, Touré got stuck with the apology during The Cycle.

“Quick note, earlier today on MSNBC, we played a soundbite from the Vice President in which we stated he was speaking about gun control. The Vice President was actually speaking about Benghazi. It was a producer error. MSNBC regrets the error,” he said.

This isn’t the first time MSNBC has selectively edited footage. In fact, the Biden speech error is at least the third time the network has been called out for selective editing just this year, and always on the issue of gun control.

Earlier this year, a video clip of Neil Heslin, the father of Sandy Hook shooting victim Jesse Lewis, was edited and aired on Martin Bashir’s program to make it appear as though he was being heckled by pro-gun activists listening to his testimony. In the unedited clip, Heslin had courted the room for a response, paused, and then several activists spoke out.

In February, Rachel Maddow played a clip of Arizona Senator John McCain speaking about gun control at a town hall meeting, in which he coldly dismisses a mother of an Aurora theater shooting victim with “straight talk,” saying that an assault weapons ban will never pass in Congress.

In the actual clip, McCain offered a much more measured response. After the edited clip was played, Maddow even admitted that the clip was selectively edited. “So maybe that edit was cut in a way that’s not fair to John McCain,” Several publications called her out for her flippant attitude over the manipulative report.

You can check out the video MSNBC’s Biden edit here:

[Image via: Jason and Bonnie Grower]

MSNBC ‘Forced’ To Apologize Over Selectively Editing Joe Biden Speech [Video] is a post from: The Inquisitr

Just one day after President Obama said he was comfortable with the FDA’s decision to lower the age limit on Plan B, Fox News host Andrea Tantaros questioned how the change would apply to his 14-year-old daughter, Malia.

“So I’m just wondering, at 15 years old, is the Obama daughter, Malia, going to go on birth control? Are they gonna put her on birth control,” Tantaros asked on the May 3 edition of her Talk Radio Network show. “Because he’s very concerned with contraceptives and pharmaceuticals that are going in the mouths of everybody else’s 15-year-old daughter.”

Tantaros added, “President Obama is now the parent-in-chief. Kathleen Sebelius [Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services] is raising your kids. Joe Biden is raising your kids. Oh, not even, it doesn’t stop there. It’s not kids. They consider 15-year olds to be women.”

This is not the first time conservatives have targeted Malia Obama. In the first year of Obama’s presidency, commenters on Free Republic called the then-11-year-old a “typical street whore,” among other racial epithets, when she wore a t-shirt with a peace sign on it during a trip to Europe.

During the BP oil crisis in 2010, Glenn Beck joked that Malia probably asked her father “why he hates black people.” He also speculated on how she asked him about the spill: “Daddy, did you plug the hole yet?” The attack on the president’s adolescent daughter came just days after Beck insisted that the children of political figures should be left out of debates.

“Leave my family, leave people’s families alone…When it was Bill Clinton, you don’t go after Chelsea Clinton. You don’t talk about the Bush kids,” Beck said while interviewing Sarah Palin. “Now, the minute they get into politics, that’s a different story. You leave the families alone.”

Beck later issued a statement about the comment.

“In discussing how President Obama uses children to shield himself from criticism, I broke my own rule about leaving kids out of political debates,” he said. “The children of public figures should be left on the sidelines. It was a stupid mistake and I apologize–and as a dad I should have known better.”

You can listen to Andrea Tantaros’ comments about Malia Obama below.

Do you think Andrea Tantaros went too far questioning whether President Obama would put Malia on birth control?

Fox News’ Andrea Tantaros Asks If Malia Obama Will Take Birth Control [Audio] is a post from: The Inquisitr

Was Howard Kurtz fired because of one unreliable report too many? Executive editor Tina Brown tweeted a message yesterday that Kurtz has left his job as The Daily Beast and Newsweek Washington Bureau Chief. The terse notice came the same day that The Daily Beast had to retract a nasty Howard Kurtz piece on Jason Collins.

In the sloppily written piece called “Jason Collins’ Other Secret,” Howard Kurtz claimed that Jason Collins had concealed an eight-years long involvement with a woman. Collins recently made NBA history by coming out as a gay athlete.

However, Collins  made no secret of the fact that he’d been engaged to a woman. There’s little point, after all, in having a beard that nobody knows about.

And  anyone can read Jason Collins‘ coming out story in Sports Illustrated, since they placed the historic essay online:

“I didn’t set out to be the first openly gay athlete playing in a major American team sport…When I was younger I dated women. I even got engaged. I thought I had to live a certain way…”

So Howard Kurtz taking fire against Collins’ honesty wasn’t just odd. It was factually wrong.

And that was apparently the last straw for The Daily Beast. Ironically, Howard Kurtz is also a host for CNN’s Reliable Sources, although one might reasonably question just how reliable Kurtz himself might be.

In 2011, he was caught fabricating an entire interview with Congressman Darrell Issa. Kurtz said it was a phone interview and that he didn’t know that he was really talking to the Congressman’s spokesman. Oops.

One rumor that’s making the rounds is that Kurtz has been spending way too much time on a new startup, The Daily Download, preventing him from keeping his mind on his real job. Hey. There are only so many hours in the day, right?

Here’s Tina Brown’s unemotional tweet on the split with Howard Kurtz:

.@thedailybeast & @howardkurtz have parted company…we wish him well

— Tina Brown (@TheTinaBeast) May 2, 2013

No one has openly admitted that Kurtz was officially canned, just that he’s history. In theory, it’s possible that he decided to voluntarily leave The Daily Beast rather than embarrass himself with any more blunders. But I admit it. I think Howard Kurtz was fired.

[Howard Kurtz photo by David Shankbone via Wikipedia Commons]

Howard Kurtz Fired After Unreliable Report On Jason Collins is a post from: The Inquisitr

Bill O’Reilly says Fox News is the only media outlet willing to question President Obama.

Speaking about his trip to the White House Correspondents’ Dinner this weekend, O’Reilly lamented the fact that other outlets have given up critically looking at Obama’s policies.

He started the conversation by noticing that the White House paid more attention to Fox at the annual dinner, which typically includes humor as the president pokes fun at the media.

At this year’s dinner, Obama lambasted a number of targets, including NBC and Rush Limbaugh. He also touched on the controversy that arose when the History Channel miniseries The Bible had an actor who looked remarkably like Obama play Satan.

Obama speculated that the History Channel didn’t show up to the dinner because they were “embarrassed” for the portrayal.

“Of course, that never kept Fox News from showing up,” Obama joked.

For Bill O’Reilly, the increased attention on Fox News from the president comes because the network is the only one looking closely at his positions.

“The reason that’s happening,” O’Reilly explained, “is that we stand alone here in FNC in our bringing skepticism to the president. We tell the folks when he does something right — I do at least — and then when he does something wrong, we say that.”

O’Reilly added, “But you’re not gonna get that on the other networks. There’s gotta be critical mass. It’s gotta be all over the place for those people to weigh in and you know what I’m talking about.”

Bill O’Reilly’s position may not resonate well with a large subset of news consumers. In a survey released in February, Fox News was shown to be the most polarizing of all networks. Fox scored highest as both the network people “trust the least” and “trust the most,” suggesting little room in the middle for moderate positions on the network.

Bill O’Reilly: Fox News The Only Outlet Questioning Obama is a post from: The Inquisitr

During a recent appearance at New York University’s Stern School of Business, controversial pundit Glenn Beck finally revealed why he left Fox News: He did it to save his soul. Trouble for Beck is, that’s not exactly true, according to his former employer.

In a Forbes profile of the pundit and his insanely successful The Blaze media network, Jeff Bercovici quotes Beck as saying “I remember feeling, ‘If you do not leave now, you won’t leave with your soul intact,’” of his decision to leave Fox News.

Beck also recounted a conversation he’d had with Fox News chairman Roger Ailes. Though conventional wisdom has long suggested that Beck was being pushed out, he revealed that Ailes actually asked him to stay. Per Forbes:

“At the end, when we were leaving, it was a long process,” he said. “Roger said to me, ‘You’re not going to leave.’ And I said, ‘I am.’ And he said, ‘Nobody does,’ meaning leave television….And I said, ‘I’m fortunate because I haven’t been in it that long.’ I knew what this big, huge Fox empire brought to the table, and I had to leave before I became too enamored of that.”

But a Fox News spokesperson quickly rebutted Beck’s version of the story in an email with Politico‘s Mike Allen.

“Glenn Beck wasn’t trying to save his soul, he was trying to save his ass. Advertisers fled his show and even Glenn knows what that means in our industry. Yet, we still tried to give him a soft landing. Guess no good deed goes unpunished.”

On Friday, Glenn Beck received a Disruptive Innovation Award from the Tribeca Film Festival for his Blaze media network.

What do you think of Glenn Beck? Do you buy his side of the story, or that of Fox News?

[Image via: Gage Skidmore, Wikimedia Commons]

Fox News Says Glenn Beck Left To Save His Ass, Not His Soul is a post from: The Inquisitr

Bill O’Reilly, the host of the high-rated The O’Reilly Factor on the Fox News Channel, is going on a rhetorical “jihad” against those media pundits who in his opinion say “incredibly dumb stuff” about terrorism.

He’s particularly ticked at MSNBC host Alex Wagner, who claimed O’Reilly’s criticism of President Obama’s response to the Boston Marathon bombings contained a subtext suggesting the president is a “secret Muslim.”

In his “Talking Points” memo, Bill O’Reilly reacted to Wagner’s contention as follows:

“Hard to believe that person is given a national platform by NBC News — almost impossible to believe. I mean, what is Comcast thinking? The Factor’s second rerun 4:00 in the morning now beats MSNBC’s 8 p.m. primetime broadcast — at least it did yesterday. For the record, Charles Krauthammer and I did not say that President Obama is not, quote, ‘tough enough on Muslims.’ We specifically analyze why the president will not use the words ‘Muslim jihad’ in describing the motive of the terror attack.”

Although he makes his living in the marketplace of ideas, O’Reilly tends to bristle when he is assailed by ideological opponents or even those generally on his side of the fence like Laura Ingraham. Since O’Reilly in particular (and Fox News generally) crushes the cable news competition in the ratings, the question arises as to why he would even care what is spouted on another network, however.

O’Reilly further announced that he is going to call out those who “deny reality” about acts of terror: “So ‘Talking Points’ is going on a jihad of another stripe. Every time — every time — a high profile person starts to spout gibberish about deadly terrorism I will embarrass that person on this broadcast. Public opinion is the only way to stop this madness.”

The FNC host does have a point about some of the ideologically driven media coverage, the same kind of thing that Bill Maher classified as “liberal bullsh*t.” For example, in the early hours of the Boston Marathon bombings, there were any number of pundits on MSNBC and CNN breathlessly suggesting that the perpetrators were “right wing extremists” who were protesting Tax Day, April 15. Separately, you might recall that Brian Ross of ABC News falsely claimed that Aurora shooter James Holmes was a Tea Party member.

In the time period from April 15 to April 21, during its wall-to-wall coverage of the Boston Marathon bombings and the subsequent police manhunt, Fox News was the highest rated cable channel in America for the first time in about 10 years.

Watch O’Reilly’s “Talking Points Memo” and decide for yourself if his approach to what he considers media misinformation or disinformation is reasonable:

Bill O’Reilly Announces ‘Jihad’ Against MSNBC And Other Foes [Video] is a post from: The Inquisitr

Fired anchor A.J. Clemente became a small datapoint in viral vid history this week when he opened a new gig with two memorable words: “f***ing s**t.”

The internet buzzed immediately, and, if you didn’t know the name A.J. Clemente before his unfortunate slip of the tongue, you probably do at least in passing now.

As we learned later, Clemente was almost immediately axed for his mistake.

And while the sucky circumstance was probably unavoidable, it’s still hard not to totally identify with cracking under the pressure of a new job and messing up — and for most of us, our newbie mistakes are not instantly uploaded to YouTube to provide schadenfreude-based enjoyment for years to come.

After the whole thing blew over a bit, the fired anchor appeared on Today to discuss the ordeal with Matt Lauer and Savannah Guthrie, saying he didn’t hold the decision against the network higher ups:

“I fully expected that they would fire me … I even called my news director after and apologized again. No animosity at all.”

Class act, dude. Clemente also appeared on Late Night With David Letterman and said that he had indeed been bummed at first:

“I went home, crawled in bed and called my parents. But the next day, you gotta pick yourself up, you gotta laugh at yourself and keep going.”

A.J. Clemente’s mea culpa tour also landed him on Kelly Ripa’s show — and the morning show diva was sympathetic to the fired anchor, saying:

“A.J., you know, I’ve got to tell you, that this clip of you has captivated all of us … It’s taken us on a wild ride. What exactly was going on in your head when that happened? Were you aware that you were on the air?”

Clemente joked back: ”Wait. Are we live?”

Michael Strahan told the young broadcaster:

“One thing about New Yorkers, we believe in giving second chances, man. Yesterday, we called for you. You came here today. So, we have a challenge for you if you’re willing to accept it.”

He continued: ”We’re going to send you to cover the star-studded red-carpet premiere of Pierce Brosnan’s new movie, Love Is All You Need.”

Ripa added: ”Now, should you choose to accept this mission, your job is to interview all the celebrities that you can and bring the tape back to us here tomorrow. Are you up for it? What do you think?”

Clemente accepted the one-night gig.

Fired Anchor A.J. Clemente Gets A New Job, For A Night is a post from: The Inquisitr

As part of the Glenn Beck conspiracy, some people are claiming Abdul Rahman Ali AlHarbi is Osama bin Laden’s son Hamza bin Laden.

As previously reported by The Inquisitr, the Glenn Beck conspiracy claims Alharbi was supposedly in violation of section 212 3B of the Immigration and Nationality Act, citing “security and related grounds” and “terrorist activities.” Alharbi was tackled while fleeing the Boston Marathon bombing and then hospitalized for hand burns and shrapnel in the leg.

The Glenn Beck conspiracy is being denied by Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, who says Alharbi was only temporarily put on a terror watch list by mistake. Glenn Beck claims this amounts to perjury and has released documents that purport to show Alharbi was essentially treated like a Saudi foreign diplomat even though he was originally indicated as being “armed and dangerous.” Alharbi’s student visa reportedly will not expire until 2016 although that is the official reason for Alharbi’s pending deportation to Saudia Arabia.

Followers of the Glenn Beck conspiracy are claiming that Abdul Rahman Ali AlHarbi is Osama bin Laden’s son Hamza bin Laden. As far as this writer can confirm, Glenn Beck has never made this allegation although Glenn Beck fans are speculating he is waiting until later in the week to drop this bombshell. One site explains what we know about Hamza bin Laden:

“Hamza is the son of Khairiah Sabar of Saudi Arabia, one of Bin Laden’s three wives who were living in the Abbottabad compound. Interrogation of the surviving wives of Osama Bin Laden by Pakistani intelligence after the raid on the Abbottabad revealed Hamza was the only person missing. He was not among those killed or injured. The raid conducted by the SEAL team was thorough: infrared technology, as well as ground troops, remained confident nobody inside the compound had escaped. There were no hidden exit tunnels from the compound. … Letters from the compound also confirmed that Osama was grooming Hamza to be his heir apparent following the death of Hamza’s older brother Saad in a 2009 US drone strike.”

Alex Jones of InfoWars has already added to the Glenn Beck conspiracy theory by alleging that “Abdul Rahman Ali Al-Harbi is [claimed to be] free and clear of terrorist ties, when in fact over 10 names from his clan are already linked to Al-Qaeda.” They printed out a list of Al-Harbi clan members who are known to be active fighters in al Qaeda, although potentially distant family ties do not constitute proof of terrorism.

Separate from the Glenn Beck conspiracy theory, what do you think about the idea that  Abdul Rahman Ali AlHarbi is Osama bin Laden’s son Hamza bin Laden?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDvHeAYjkOE

Glenn Beck Conspiracy: Abdul Rahman Ali AlHarbi Is Osama Bin Laden’s Son Hamza? is a post from: The Inquisitr

The Glenn Beck conspiracy theory about the Boston bombing is claiming Saudi national Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi was treated like a foreign diplomat.

As previously reported by The Inquisitr, the Glenn Beck conspiracy claims Alharbi was supposedly in violation of section 212 3B of the Immigration and Nationality Act, citing “security and related grounds” and “terrorist activities.”

Glenn Beck claims Secretary of State John Kerry reportedly met with the Saudi Arabian ambassador behind closed doors and arranged for Alharbi to be released. The Glenn Beck conspiracy is being endorsed by New Hampshire lawmaker Stella Tremblay, who says, “There’s just too many things going on that, to me, doesn’t make any sense. … Are you that blind that you’re not willing to ask questions of your government?”

In regards to the Glenn Beck conspiracy, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano said on Tuesday that “authorities questioned a Saudi student who reportedly was on a terror watchlist,” but then backtracked, saying Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi was only put on a terror watchlist while being interviewed by the FBI.

Napolitano denies the Glenn Beck conspiracy has any truth to it and in response Glenn Beck says she could serve “jail time for perjury”:

“It is so rare that somebody’s name is taken off [the terror watchlist] outside of death, that none of ours sources can tell us that it’s ever happened.  It is laughable what Janet Napolitano said yesterday.”

Previously, Glenn Beck promised he would release more information over the week. This morning Glenn Beck released a photo of the cover letter of the terror watchlist event file, details about the file’s creation, and attempts to delete all versions of the file.

The documents in support of the Glenn Beck conspiracy claim Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi was originally indicated as being “armed and dangerous.”​ Alharbi was reportedly given a student visa along with a “special advisory option,” which is claimed to be reserved for visiting foreign politicians, VIPs, or journalists. This writer could not determine whether this supposedly special designation would give diplomatic immunity to Alharbi in the event of a crime.

The Glenn Beck conspiracy also alleges ICE is lying about Alharbi’s pending deportation being due to an expired visa. Alharbi’s visa is reportedly good until November 11, 2016. The system for these event files supposedly keeps track of any changes, and Glenn Beck claims ”someone later went in and tried to destroy both the original event file and an amended versions” but not before ”copies had already been made.”

Glenn Beck has also released a full text copy and photo of Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi’s even file:

Subject,

ALHARBI, ABDULRAHMAN ALI E

DOB 03/12/1993

COC SAUDI ARABIA

Subject is an exact match to NO FLY TPN# 1037506192. Derogatory information reviewed by W/C Mayfield and CW/C Maimbourg was found to be sufficient to request Visa revocation. NTC-P is requesting revocation of Foil# e3139541. Subject is inadmissible to the U.S. under INA 212(a)(3)(B)(i)(II). SAO was not completed prior to Visa issuance. Subject is currently in the United States, admitted F1 student, at Boston POE on 08/28/2012. Subject is a student at THE UNIVERSITY OF FINDLAY, 1000 NORTH MAIN STREET FINDLAY, OHIO 45840-3695. Subject has One (1) prior event #1648067, Fins promoted, NT record in place, No scheduled found at this time.

What do you think about the Glenn Beck conspiracy now that he’s released these documents?

Glenn Beck Conspiracy Claims Alharbi Treated Like Foreign Diplomat is a post from: The Inquisitr

The Glenn Beck conspiracy bent on the Boston Marathon bombing involving a Saudi national believed to be a victim of the attack continues, with the veteran conspiracymonger suggesting more reveals are to come this morning on what he suggests is a wide-scale governmental coverup.

Glenn Beck’s new conspiracy thrust comes after some uncharacteristic calm and reason following similar allegations from competitors in the wake of the Newtown tragedy.

At the time, many joked that a stopped clock is right twice a day as Beck shot down Newtown conspiracy theories piece by piece on his show.

But it looks like Glenn is back to his old tricks, and Beck’s newest conspiracy theory centers around the man wrongly pegged by the New York Post as a “suspect” who was allegedly “under heavy guard” in the hospital following Monday’s attack.

Reports indicate that the Saudi student was apprehended by a nearby, fellow Marathon attendee after the blast because he “looked suspicious” and was running away from the blast — as all humans with a desire to survive might.

Glenn Beck’s conspiracy suggests that, while the Saudi student was rapidly cleared in the media (and later reported to be under investigation for overstaying a student visa), his ties to “terror groups” have been hushed up by The Powers That Be.

As we all know now, suspected bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev died Thursday night, and his younger brother, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is in custody at a Boston Hospital. It’s unclear whether Glenn Beck’s conspiracy theory accounts for the arrests of the Tsarnaevs, but, on Twitter this morning, Beck teased:

At 10:06am ET, the hammer drops. NO THEORIES. WE READ THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE glennbeck.com/content/radio/ WG

— Glenn Beck (@glennbeck) April 24, 2013

Earlier, Beck had tweeted:

We’re talking about Janet Napolitano’s admissions on radio now. TRUTH glennbeck.com/content/radio/ WG

— Glenn Beck (@glennbeck) April 24, 2013

You can hear Glenn Beck’s conspiracy reveal this morning, live on the web, via his site.

Glenn Beck Conspiracy On Boston, Radio Host Teases More Reveals is a post from: The Inquisitr

Glenn Beck says the Boston bombing investigation is a coverup conspiracy and yesterday he revealed the facts that supposedly support his case.

As previously reported by The Inquisitr, Glenn Beck is alleging a coverup and conspiracy in the Boston bombing investigation in the case of the Saudi national named Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi. Alharbi was supposedly in violation of section 212 3B of the Immigration and Nationality Act, citing “security and related grounds” and “terrorist activities.” The Saudi national was was cleared of involvement in the bombings, but it was also discovered that his visa to stay in the US had expired, and ICE may be readying to deport him on those grounds.

Glenn Beck isn’t the only one watching this part of the Boston bombing investigation closely. Congressman Jeff Duncan (R-SC) expressed concerns that the Saudi national was being deported “due to national security concerns.” Duncan says, “I’m not saying it’s related to Boston, but he is being deported.”

In response, Janet Napolitano only said, “Like I said, again, I don’t even think he was technically a person of interest or a suspect – that was a wash. And I am unaware of any proceeding there. I will clarify that for you, but I think this is an example of why it is so important to let law enforcement do its job.”

Glenn Beck claims his Boston bombing investigation conspiracy will cause some of his sources to be under threat of 20-year prison terms. Glenn Beck claims, ”We don’t know at this point how [the Saudi national Abdul Rohman Ali Alharbi] was involved … but I do know he was involved [in the Boston bombing.]” Glenn Beck says the Saudi national was once flagged on a terror watch list but was granted a US student visa anyway.

Glenn Beck claims the Saudi national’s deportation under section 212, 3B indicates “proven terrorist activity” and says “it is very difficult to charge someone with this — it has to be almost certain.” Glenn Beck claims that after Secretary of State John Kerry met with Saudi Foreign Minister Saud the FBI began “backtracking on the Saudi national from suspect, to person of interest, to witness, to victim, to nobody.”

Glenn Beck claims that President Barack Obama reportedly had a meeting with Saudi Foreign Minister Saud and Saudi Ambassador Adel al-Jubeir which led to the Saudi national’s fate being changed:

“Wednesday at 5:35 p.m. the file is altered. This is unheard of, this is impossible in the timeline due to the severity of the charge …. You don’t one day put a 212 3B charge against somebody with deportation, and then the next day take it off. It would require too much to do it.”

Steven Miller, a research associate with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, claims the Saudi national was only asked what he saw during the bombings, the FBI apologized, and then promised him special health care:

“He clarified that security officials asked him to focus on what he saw before the bombings, and on the nature of the event [to see] if he remembers what happened around him … he thanked American authorities who refuted media allegations about his status as a suspect …,”

Glenn Beck is promising more information about the alleged Boston bombing investigation conspiracy as the week goes on.

What do you think about Glenn Beck’s alleged Boston bombing investigation conspiracy?

Glenn Beck Boston Bombing Investigation Conspiracy Intel Revealed is a post from: The Inquisitr

Glenn Beck is back, and angry, and he says that if the government doesn’t come clean about the Boston bombers today (after a heavily laden with innuendo bit Friday), he’s ready to expose some high-level federal intrigue and suppression of information.

As is usually the case with Glenn Beck, who has not (to our knowledge) ever turned out to be correct in his doom and gloom predictions, it isn’t precisely clear what he’s alleging occurred. It seems Beck believes or purports to believe that the situation on Friday in Boston with Tamerlan Tsarnaev and his surviving brother Dzhokhar was a distraction from the actual issue at play in the attacks on the Marathon.

Beck appears to have taken an interest in the Saudi national seized on scene — later revealed to be a victim of the attack rather than a perpetrator. Overhyped media reports in the tense days following the bombing suggested, wrongly we now know, that the Saudi student was being eyed as a suspect.

Almost immediately, the young man was cleared of involvement in the bombings, but it was also discovered that his visa to stay in the US had expired, and ICE may be readying to deport him on those grounds.

Last week, Beck started in on a conspiracy arc, alleging after reports emerged that the Saudi national had been cleared:

“We at the Blaze know that this Saudi national is a bad, bad, bad man … This administration is playing an extraordinarily dangerous game. They have very little regard for what it takes to be a citizen.”

Glenn continued:

“Before the sequester cuts happened, they opened the prison and let illegals out. Who does that? Remember also, the Saudi national that was — is about to get on a plane — involved in blowing the legs off of American citizens, being held in protective custody or being protected, at least, by our administration.”

He speculated: ”He will be put in protective custody and the plans are to deport him.”

Media Matters, a progressive media watchdog, spoke to a Department of Homeland Security over Glenn Beck’s allegations, and said: ”The rumor is one hundred percent false … One hundred percent false.”

But Beck has stated:

“I don’t bluff … I make promises. The truth matters. I’ve had enough of what you’ve done to our country. I thought I had heard and seen it all. I thought I didn’t trust my government. Oh no, no, no. There is no depth that these people will not stoop to. They have until Monday and then The Blaze will expose it.”

It is worth noting that Glenn Beck did take a less conspiratorial stance after the Newtown tragedy, blasting those who alleged a government coverup after the incident.

Beck’s ultimatum expires today, but he has not yet addressed his Boston bomber claims.

Glenn Beck Alleges Coverup, Conspiracy In Boston Bomber Case is a post from: The Inquisitr

Media bosses are defending themselves over erroneous, potentially life-ruining reporting during Boston Marathon bombing coverage this week. The biggest culprits are News Corp. boss Rupert Murdoch and CNN’s Jeff Zucker, with both sticking up for themselves over a couple of pretty glaring flaps.

CNN is still trying to find itself since Zucker took the reins, and a part of that process apparently involves painful media mishaps that were once again the subject of scrutiny during the developing Boston Marathon bombing. CNN had reported that an arrest was made in the early days of the story, even though no moves were made on the bombing suspects until late Thursday/early Friday.

“When we made a mistake, we moved quickly to acknowledge it and correct it,” Zucker said in a statement.

“As events unfolded in Boston, and then in Texas, and as they continue to unfold at this very moment in both places, CNN has been there for our audience in every possible way – on television, online and on our mobile platforms,” he said.

Zucker concluded by lauding CNN’s staff for their tireless reporting efforts.

“I wanted to express my deep gratitude and admiration. You have worked tirelessly, around the clock, to share these stories. And our audiences have responded, making it clear that they rely on us in ever increasing ways. In front of the cameras and behind the scenes, you have shown the world what makes us CNN. With my thanks and appreciation.”

But the bigger media mishap in Boston bombing reports belongs to The New York Post, a News Corp. publication owned by Rupert Murdoch. Their story showed a photo of two innocent men, implying that they were the prime suspects in the bombing.

The controversial move was universally condemned, with even The Inquisitr running a damage-control story to exonerate the men pictured.

Murdoch defended the Post on Twitter, shifting blame to the FBI:

All NYPost pics were those distributed by FBI.And instantly withdrawn when FBI changed directions.

— Rupert Murdoch(@rupertmurdoch) April 20, 2013

Even President Obama criticized erroneous reporting Friday, arguing that it can jeopardize public safety.

“In this age of instant reporting and tweets and blogs, there’s a temptation to latch on to any bit of information, sometimes to jump to conclusions. But when a tragedy like this happens, with public safety at risk and the stakes so high, it’s important that we do this right,” he said.

What do you think? Should media outlets be more careful with unconfirmed reports, or do the demands of a 24/7 news cycle leave some room for error?

[Images via: David Shankbone, Wikimedia Commons]

Rupert Murdoch, Jeff Zucker Defend Themselves Over Boston Bombing Flaps is a post from: The Inquisitr

A fake New York Post apology was inserted into newspapers as criticism of the paper’s erroneous coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing builds.

The fake apology was created by the website Animal New York, which decided to issue a mea cupla on behalf of the New York Post and editor Col Allan, who has stood by the paper’s coverage. The Post was one of the leading outlets in putting out unverified and flatly false information, including that 12 people were killed in Monday’s blast and that authorities quickly took a 20-year-old Saudi Arabian national as a suspect. Both were untrue.

Despite mounting criticism, Allan seemed to defend the paper for its Boston bombing coverage, especially a cover that featured two “suspects” who turned out to have nothing to do with the bombing.

“We stand by our story,” Allan said in a statement to The Huffington Post. “The image was emailed to law enforcement agencies yesterday afternoon seeking information about these men, as our story reported. We did not identify them as suspects.”

Because Allan refused to apologize, Animal New York decided to do it for him. The website crafted the apology it believed Allan should have written.

“It is with great regret that I reflect upon the nature of the New York Post‘s reporting and editorial decisions in the days following the Boston Marathon bombing,” the letter read. “For the past four days, the New York Post has consistently published accounts of the tragic incident and subsequent investigation that were at best ill-informed and speculative, and at worst intentionally misleading and harmful to the lives of those involved.”

It added, “This week, the New York Post has acted recklessly and with flagrant disregard for the principles of good journalism.”

The fake New York Post apology was slipped into copies of Friday’s paper and handed out to people on the street.

Fake New York Post Apology Inserted Into Newspapers is a post from: The Inquisitr

Boston radio stations are planning to share a moment of silence Monday to honor the victims of the Boston Marathon explosions and the heroes that responded to the crisis.

The Associated Press reports that stations owned CBS Radio, Clear Channel Media and Entertainment, Entercom and Greater Media will participate in the tribute.

Gordon Smith, president of the National Association of Broadcasters, said the radio stations served as first informers after the blast and want to salute the first responders and others who helped during the crisis.

“Our thoughts and prayers go out to those who were impacted by the horrific act that took place in Boston,” Smith said. “This moment of silence will serve as a time of reflection, honoring those lost and injured in this tragic event, and recognizing the countless acts of heroism and kindness that we saw on Monday and which continue today. As first informers in times of crisis, broadcasters want to take this opportunity to salute the first responders and the many unsung heroes who do so much during emergency situations.”

Today President Barack Obama visited Boston for the first time since the bombing. Three people died in the attack. Over 170 others were injured.

“For millions of us, what happened in Boston Monday is personal,” President Barack Obama said at an interfaith service held at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross in Boston. The service was dedicated to the victims of the Boston Marathon bombing.

The president offered condolences and prayers as he met with survivors, victims’ families, and first responders. First lady Michelle Obama was also present at what has become too familiar of an event for the president.

President Obama had to make similar trips to Newtown, Connecticut; Aurora, Colorado; and Tucson, Arizona following the mass shootings in those cities. A shooting in Fort Hood, Texas left 13 servicemembers dead barely a year after Obama was elected president, the worst shooting to ever take place on a military base.

The Boston radio moment of silence is planned for 2:50 pm, exactly one week from when the two bombs exploded near the Boston Marathon finish line.

Boston Radio Moment Of Silence Planned For Monday is a post from: The Inquisitr

A doctored photo from the Boston Marathon bombing has created a debate about the media’s responsibility to the truth vs. the public’s tolerance for gore.

The photo, which was published by the New York Daily News, shows the aftermath of the bombing. A woman can be seen laying on the ground next to a lone sneaker and a pile of blood. In the doctored photo, the woman does not have a wound on her leg.

The photo was taken by the Boston Globe‘s John Tlumacki and has appeared in several online and print publications. In the original photo, there is a gruesome wound on the woman’s leg.

What do you think of the doctored Boston photo? Did the New York Daily News did the right thing by removing some of the gore from the photo? Does doctoring the photo trivialize the horrific events in Boston yesterday?

Yahoo News points to the ethic code for the National Press Photographers Association which states: “Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images’ content and context. Do not manipulate images … in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects.”

The doctored photo still shows blood on the street, but it does erase one of the more powerful details of the photo.

Charles Apple, the author of the blog post and an editor at the Orange County Register, criticized the Daily News for sanitizing the photo.

Apple wrote: “If you can’t stomach the gore, don’t run the photo. Period.”

The NY Daily News released a statement today saying that they doctored the photo out of sensitivity to the victims.

The paper said in a statement: “The Daily News edited that photo out of sensitivity to the victims, the families and the survivors. There were far more gory photos that the paper chose not to run, and frankly I think the rest of the media should have been as sensitive as the Daily News.”

Here’s a look at the photo. The manipulated part of the photo is near the person in the red jacket’s shoe. You can see a closeup of the photo manipulation here.

What do you think of the doctored Boston photo? Did the NY Daily News do the right thing by altering the photo? Or does the manipulation cheapen the tragic events following yesterday’s marathon?

Doctored Boston Photo Creates Debate Over Gore, Truth In The Media is a post from: The Inquisitr

CNN is in the midst of a much-needed makeover, and as the network makes attempts toward reforming its image and improving ratings, there are bound to be a few flops. But new president Jeff Zucker is taking recent criticism in stride, playfully suggesting that anyone ragging on CNN is just jealous.

Most recently, CNN took a gamble by hitting the Carnival Cruise story hard, and from every conceivable angle. They were universally criticized by others in the media industry for their relentless coverage of the story, primarily over the idea that the Carnival story wasn’t “hard news” and that there were other stories the network could have gone all-in on.

At a lunch/presser at the Atlanta Press Club, Zucker addressed CNN‘s latest critics from MSNBC to Jon Stewart.

He said that the Carnival Cruise story was important for its elements of human drama, and reasoned that negative reception of the network’s coverage was only coming from jealous competitors.

Via PBS MediaShift:

“Just because Jon Stewart makes fun of it doesn’t mean he’s right,” he said. And yes, he added, he considers “The Daily Show” a competitor.

Zucker then compared CNN to “that spare tire in the trunk” because people remember it when they need it. Zucker also touched on social media, calling Twitter his “frenemy,” and digital advertising. The talk mostly focused on CNN‘s future, which has been a topic of much speculation over the past several months, if not the entirety of last year.

On CNN‘s place in the media:

“Just because you’re in the middle, does not give you the right to be boring,” he said. “Too often, we haven’t been vibrant enough.” He said to expect a new morning show, more documentaries, less prime-time celebrity news, and a broader selection of non-fiction programming to compete with Discovery, A&E, History, Food Network and other channels.

You can read the full report here.

Do you watch CNN? What do you think the network should focus on? What kinds of changes should they make?

[Image via: Robert Scoble, Wikimedia Commons]

Jeff Zucker Says CNN’s Critics Are Just Jealous Of Their Awesome Coverage is a post from: The Inquisitr

The NY Times has won four Pulitzer Prizes for journalism.

The New York-based newspaper won awards for its reports on corruption in the Chinese government, the business practices of Apple and Wal-Mart, and an avalanche in Washington state.

The NY Times was the big winner at the 2013 Pulitzers, which saw awards dished out in 14 journalism categories and seven arts categories.

Another notable Pulitzer Prize-winning publication was The Denver Post, which won the breaking news category for its coverage of the mass shooting in a movie theater last year in Aurora, Colorado.

The Associated Press – itself a winner of the breaking news photography category – reports that the Denver Post newsroom “erupted in cheers” when the newspaper’s win was announced, with many staff tearing up and sharing hugs. Kevin Dale, the Post‘s news director, said:

“We are part of this community. The tragedy touches us, but we have a job to do. It’s great to win the prize, but we’d rather win for a different story.”

The Star-Tribune of Minneapolis clinched two awards, for local reporting and editorial cartooning, while other winners included the Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post.

However, it is the NY Times that will be celebrating loudest tonight.

The Pulitzers, journalism’s greatest honor, are handed out annually by Columbia University on the recommendation of a board of journalists and others. Every award has a $10,000 prize except for the public service award, which comes with a gold medal.

[Image via Shutterstock]

NY Times Wins Four Pulitzers is a post from: The Inquisitr

A crusading blogger who regularly reports on rampant corruption in the Union County, New Jersey, government does not have to give up her sources to a local prosecutor, a judge has ruled.

Tina Renna qualifies for the same protections as so-called professional journalists under the state’s “shield law” (section 2A:84A-21 of the New Jersey statutes — anachronistically called the “newspaperman’s privilege”), the judge determined. Under that statute, any person legitimately engaged in news gathering has what the law calls a privilege not to disclose or divulge to government any sensitive information  involved in a story.

Renna, who considers herself a citizen watchdog, has been publishing The County Watchdog blog since 2005. The case that get her into this particular legal mess involved county employees allegedly using county-owned generators for personal use after Hurricane Sandy. The prosecutor served a grand jury subpoena on Renna for her source(s) for the “GeneratorGate” story. Renna refused to comply, prompting a hearing in New Jersey Superior Court before Judge Karen Cassidy.

Judge Cassidy ruled that the subpoena should be quashed (i.e., canceled) because Renna engages in original news reporting just like the traditional news media and therefore qualifies for the shield law’s protection privileges.

Citing a state supreme court case, the judge noted that the privilege applies on a case-by-case basis to “non-traditional electronic forms of communication” as well as traditional media outlets and that “digital news outlets, particularly blogs, are increasingly present and vital to the delivery of news to the public in our modern age.” In this particular instance, the court explained that “In reviewing Ms. Renna’s website, blog, and her numerous blog posts, it is clear that Ms. Renna and her two or three other bloggers do  in fact author posts about alleged occurrence sand issues relating to Union County governance and politics not covered by other media sources.”

Renna said she was pleased with the judge’s analysis: “I’m happy for me and the others who stand up to the machine — the prosecutor’s office and Democratic Party.”

After the release of Judge Cassidy’s ruling, Renna wrote on her blog that “I am the first blogger in New Jersey history to be deemed protected by the New Jersey Newspersons Shield Law and an important precedent has been set which may protect and inspire other citizen journalists to watchdog their government in place of traditional journalism…”

If this decision holds up subject to a possible appeal, it could set a freedom-of-speech precedent to enable other muckraking bloggers and citizen journalists to engage in investigative journalism, the kind of reporting that has been often abandoned by local television and newspapers.

Blogger Protected By Professional Journalist Shield Law, Court Rules is a post from: The Inquisitr

Kermit Gosnell stands accused of running an abortion operation in Philadelphia in which he delivered healthy, nearly full-term babies and severed their spinal cords with scissors.

But though his trial is going on now in Pennsylvania, the Gosnell case has garnered little if any attention from the mainstream media. Conor Fridersdorf, a writer for The Atlantic, admitted that he hadn’t even heard about the case until last week, but once he read the details he was shocked that it wasn’t national news.

In a lengthy article he wrote about the Kermit Gosnell case, Friedersdorf refers to the grand jury report against the 72-year-old Gosnell.

The document read:

“This case is about a doctor who killed babies and endangered women. What we mean is that he regularly and illegally delivered live, viable babies in the third trimester of pregnancy – and then murdered these newborns by severing their spinal cords with scissors. The medical practice by which he carried out this business was a filthy fraud in which he overdosed his patients with dangerous drugs, spread venereal disease among them with infected instruments, perforated their wombs and bowels — and, on at least two occasions, caused their deaths.”

Given those horrific details, Friedersdorf wondered how the case could fail to generate any attention from major media outlets outside of Philadelphia.

“Why isn’t it being covered more?” he wrote. “I’ve got my theories. But rather than offer them at the end of an already lengthy item, I’d like to survey some of the editors and writers making coverage decisions.”

One of the few members of the national media to cover the Kermit Gosnell case is Kirsten Power, who USA Today column about the trial.

“Haven’t heard about these sickening accusations?” she wrote.

“It’s not your fault. Since the murder trial of Pennsylvania abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell began March 18, there has been precious little coverage of the case that should be on every news show and front page. The revolting revelations of Gosnell’s former staff, who have been testifying to what they witnessed and did during late-term abortions, should shock anyone with a heart.”

Power noted that Lexis-Nexis search turned it nothing from major television news outlets about the Kermit Gosnell case, and only a small blurb hidden deep within the New York Times.

She added that the Kermit Gosnell case doesn’t fall within the normal “pro life vs. pro choice” arguments. She writes, “It’s about basic human rights.”

Kermit Gosnell Trial: Case Of Doctor Accused Of Murdering Babies Flies Under Media Radar is a post from: The Inquisitr

Adam Carolla thinks you are insane if you dispute the existence of media bias. Dr. Drew seems to agree.

In this context, Carolla and Dr. Drew Pinsky have expressed strong opinions on how the mainstream media plays favorites in their view.

Carolla and Pinsky were long-term colleagues on Loveline and have now reunited on a podcast called The Adam and Dr. Drew Show where they recently discussed among other things presidential golf outings and presidential partying with celebrities during a time of national fiscal austerity.

Expanding his entertainment portfolio, Carolla is making the transition to sometimes controversial political opinonmaking, but Dr. Drew to this point has focused on primarily on medical and mental health issues.  Carolla’s view expressed in the podcast is that President Obama should be more low-profile and private with how and with whom he spends his downtime, while Pinsky seems to believes that the media is giving the president a free ride about his lavish lifestyle.

Carolla initially said that he doesn’t understand how President Obama has time for 130 rounds of golf. Dr. Drew, who is not known for political commentary, then asked his partner “Do you think if it was George Bush doing that, we’d hear about it every day?”

The comedian insisted, however, that in his opinion all presidents take too much vacation time, and that each and every president should be giving his undivided attention to the job for the entire four-year term — in the same way soldiers do during their hitch in the military –and should be fully engaged in the job of commander-in chief.

Adam Carolla’s primary focus seemed to be how all this looks to the public: “I don’t understand it from a PR standpoint, meaning when you’re telling everyone to tighten their belts … pitch in … and pay your fair share,” when the president is playing so much golf.

He continued on this theme: “I’m not f***ing Rush Limbaugh here, I’ve always been this way in terms of what message are you sending, and what are you asking? You’re saying sequestration, White House tours closed — sorry kids, go home — but then you’re throwing parties with Beyonce the following weekend at the White House.” Carolla called this approach “dumfounding” and “brazen.”

Dr. Drew, in turn, “drew” a parallel with his claim that journalists have published misleading or distorted information about him, and that “some people just get a full pass,” while the media demonizes others. “I just don’t get it,” he admitted.

In response, Carolla had this to say about how the media approaches certain stories:  “Well, there’s obviously a media bias. They will pick and choose who gets a pass and who doesn’t get a pass … it obviously leans towards the left quiet heavily,” Carolla said. “People who disagree with that are insane.”

He then described a typical interaction with a reporter: “I know it very well, because it’s happened many times, where people have said to me doing an interview, ‘they go, what about your association with Bill O’Reilly … Glenn Beck called you a  hero … what’s that like … how are you coping?’ …  ‘I said, ‘Alec Baldwin is a friend of mine, how come no one wants to know how I’m dealing with that?’ ”

Carolla, whose political leanings would likely fall into the populist category, noted that Baldwin also says a lot of controversial things and gets into a lot of trouble, but he is a well-known political liberal like most of the journalists. “I’m not left or right, but the point is [the reporter] is telling me what [his] bias is by asking me that question,” Carolla declared.

Do you agree or disagree with Carolla and Dr. Drew about liberal media bias and how it manifests itself in coverage of various public figures?

[Image credit: s_bukley / Shutterstock.com]

Adam Carolla, Dr. Drew Weigh In On Media Bias is a post from: The Inquisitr

Flipboard launched the ability to create personalized magazines just two weeks ago, and now the company has announced three million new users. Flipboard now serves more than 53 million users.

Flipboard revamped its network in late March, making it easier to create magazines, share stories with social networks, and discover content.

Every story on Flipboard now includes a “flip it” option, which allows Flipboard users to publish discovered stories to their personalized, topical magazines. Users can subscribe to magazines they like via their iOS and Android devices.

In numbers released by Flipboard, the company says more than 50 percent of all users now read personalized ‘zines on a daily basis. Some ‘zines have been created directly by publishers. For example, Rolling Stone and National Geographic operate some very popular publications.

Some of the most popular magazines come to us from industry leaders who publish their own reading lists for Flipboard users to enjoy.

The most flipped article on Flipboard? The team at BuzzFeed with its article 28 Incredibly Beautiful Places You Won’t Believe Actually Exist.

The service sees a majority of its users at approximately 9:00 am daily with breaks taken for more reading at 1:00 pm and 7:00 pm.

As more users take to Flipboard, the importance of the platform shouldn’t be understated. With its beautifully designed interface and ease of use, more publishers are likely to create new ‘zines at breakneck speeds.

In the meantime, we will wait patiently for the “Flip it” button to show up and to start dominating the button share sector.

From niche readerships to mainstream publications, the Flipboard redesign has been a big success that doesn’t show any signs of slowing.

Have you started creating your very own personalized Flipboard ‘zines or following other personalized publications?

Flipboard Hits Homerun With Personalized Magazines, Adds 3 Million New Users is a post from: The Inquisitr

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced it is considering arguments for dropping current television broadcast decency standards that ban explicit profanity and “non-sexual” nudity.

As previously reported by The Inquisitr, the FCC profanity policy was considered by the Supreme Court. The two incidences were Nicole Ritchie cursing during the Billboard Awards on Fox and a scene with nudity, showing a child and a woman’s buttocks, on ABC’s NYPD Blue. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled against the FCC for fining the television networks.

The Supreme Court also reviewed the Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction, where CBS was fined $550,000, but the Supreme Court has been reluctant to challenge the FCC decency laws in general. The Supreme Court eventually threw out the FCC fine in late June of 2012.

Currently, the FCC is permitted to fine broadcasters up to $325,000 per incident for airing indecent material like nudity or profanity between 6 AM and 10 PM. The FCC was suffering from a backlog of obscenity reports. In response, more than one million reports of obscenity have been ignored by the FCC under looser guidelines which focus on “egregious cases,” causing the FCC’s case load to plummet by 70 percent.

The FCC is seeking public comments on their idea to change FCC policy on nudity and profanity:

“We now seek comment on whether the full Commission should make changes to its current (egregious cases) broadcast indecency policies or maintain them as they are.”

The FCC also asks, “Should the Commission treat isolated (non-sexual) nudity the same as or differently than isolated expletives?” The television industry has argued that FCC policies have been inconsistent over the years, allowing the television broadcast of movie Schindler’s List that includes nudity. Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association, hopes the FCC nudity, profanity standards do not loosen any further, saying, “We’re urging the FCC to uphold high decency standards in entertainment in order to protect America’s children and families.”

Do you think the FCC television profanity and nudity ban should be changed?

FCC Television Profanity, Nudity Ban Might Be Dropped is a post from: The Inquisitr

News Corp threatened to make Fox a cable-only channel if web startup Aereo Inc wins the battle. If the company follows through with its threat, Fox would no longer be free.

The comments were made by News Corp CEO Chase Carey in the company’s battle against Aereo, an online TV service.

It isn’t the first time the network industry has shown opposition to the internet startup, but it is certainly the strongest threat showing the industry doesn’t approve of the new company.

Aereo offers a cut-rate TV subscription online by capturing broadcast signals over thousands of antennas at one time.

Carey’s threats regarding Fox cane at an industry trade show just one week after a US appeals court rejected a petition by broadcasters to stop the service — for now, at least. The News Corp CEO spoke at the National Association of Broadcasters show in Las Vegas, saying:

“If we can’t have our rights properly protected through those legal and political avenues, we will pursue business solutions. One such business solution would be to take the network and turn it into a subscription service.”

If the company follows through, it would be the most drastic action taken against companies who don’t conform to the traditional TV model.

The battle between News Corp and Aereo is being watched by the entire industry. The internet startup and similar companies are seen as a threat to the industry’s ability to control subscription fees and generate income from advertising.

Aereo is backed by IAC, which is chaired by media heavyweight Barry Diller. Diller helped launch the Fox Network in 1986. Virginia Lam, a spokeswoman for Aereo, stated after New Corp’s announcement:

“It’s disappointing to hear that Fox believes that consumers should not be permitted to use an antenna to access free-to-air broadcast television.”

Should Fox become a subscription service, Carey stated that the network would be in partnership with its current partners and affiliates. He added that the company would pursue all legal avenues against Aereo before making the decision to move Fox to cable.

[Image via alexpro9500 / Shutterstock.com]

News Corp Threatens To Make Fox Cable Only is a post from: The Inquisitr

Though most of the controversial Margaret Thatcher’s strongest critics have opted for respect in light of news of her death, MSNBC’s Martin Bashir has doubled down on his criticism of the polarizing British politician.

Thatcher was one of those folks people either loved hated. Reception of her political career was pretty firmly drawn along party lines, but most left-leaning publications and commentators have respectfully focused on her accomplishments, only noting that she was often a divisive figure for integrity’s sake.

MSNBC’s Chuck Todd spoke glowingly of Thatcher during a Monday morning discussion about her death while sitting with British Martin Bashir and the BBC’s Katty Kay.

“It was Thatcher’s tough, uncompromising style that endeared the British public to her, even years after she’d left office,” Todd said. But Bashir wasn’t having it.

Though Bashir admitted that Thatcher was successful internationally, he called her “incredibly divisive” domestically, and said that she had caused ”incredibly violent domestic strife and protest” with her anti-union policies. Her economic policies, meanwhile, inspired a ”flagrant, excessive and ostentatious pursuit of cash.”

“She unleashed some of the worst race riots because of the excessively over-heavy policing that she encouraged in urban communities, one of which I grew up in,” he said.

During a separate report with MSNBC anchor Tamron Hall, Bashir continued his critique.

“She regarded Nelson Mandela as a terrorist,” Bashir said. “She was at ease with the notion of apartheid, which — many of us growing up in England as students during her period as prime minister — we were campaigning for the release of Mandela.”

He also continued his racial critique of Thatcher:

“In terms of policing,” he argued, “if you were a non-white member of the minority, you felt the aggressive hand of the police – led by Margaret Thatcher – which resulted in some of the worst race riots that the country had ever seen in the 1980s.”

Perhaps expecting further criticism, Bashir noted that Thatcher’s passing is indeed sad. “It is an immensely sad day,” he added. “We obviously don’t want to speak ill of the recently deceased.”

However:

“But the facts of the historical record do need to be placed center stage,” Bashir said. “She was a divisive figure. There’s no doubt about it.”

What do you think? Should pundits like Martin Bashir be focusing on the controversial aspects of Thatcher’s political career the day of her death? Sound off below the videos:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

[Image via: David Fowler / Shutterstock.com]

Margaret Thatcher’s Biggest Posthumous Critic: MSNBC’s Martin Bashir [Videos] is a post from: The Inquisitr

The “illegal immigrant” Associated Press stylebook change is being called politically correct. Twitter users are deriding the AP decision to discourage the usage of the term.

As previously reported by The Inquisitr, AP SVP and Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll decreed that the “Stylebook no longer sanctions the term ‘illegal immigrant’ or the use of ‘illegal’ to describe a person.” Even the usage of the phrased “undocumented immigrant” is discouraged because it’s not very accurate.

In response, ALIPAC announced it would be changing its own style in all future articles to “illegal invaders.” Jay Leno mocked the AP stylebook change on illegal immigrants, declaring instead the new politically correct term will be undocumented Democrats. Jay Leno is referring to the idea that Democrats are supporting complete amnesty as a means to garner new voters on their behalf. In fact, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, a group of 27 House Democrats, applauded the AP illegal immigrant decision, calling it “a great step forward.”

Politicians have been stumbling over themselves lately trying to figure out how to refer to illegal immigrants, or people who are in the country without a visa, or whatever we’re supposed to be calling them now. A North Caroline plan to put pink stripes on a license for illegal immigrants was scrapped. The Don Young “wetback” controversy pulled condemnation from practically every corner.

Some in the media are applauding the new change to speech in the media. For example, the Applied Research Center (ARC) led the “Drop the I-Word” campaign that seeks to “dehumanize” language such as the term “illegal immigrant”.

The conservative Media Research Center described the AP illegal immigrant Stylebook change as a “politically-correct mumble.” Such organizations are accusing the Associated Press of trying to influence the immigration debate through politically correct speech. The AP Stylebook changes for “illegal immigrant” came despite the fact the terminology is still actively being used by U.S. government officials, including Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

Conservative writer Jonah Goldberg deride the political correctness of the illegal immigrant controversy, saying at one point that “Orwell weeps” because of the politically correct speech:

New AP style book ban on “illegal immigrant” probably couldn’t be announced yesterday on account of April Fool’s.

— Jonah Goldberg (@JonahNRO) April 2, 2013

Do you agree with the Associated Press illegal immigrant Stylebook change?

AP bans “illegal immigrant.” POTUS orders new election commish. bit.ly/14zAPIn Better learn what tyranny means be4 libs redefine it

— Allen West (@AllenWest) April 3, 2013

Associated Press bans ‘illegal immigrant’. Yes, let’s call them what they really are – Criminal Invaders. #tcot

— Martha (@marthad1) April 3, 2013

AP drops term ‘illegal immigrant’: Adventures in doublespeak. dlvr.it/39n437b

— American Thinker (@amthinker) April 3, 2013

AP won’t accept ‘illegal immigrant’ to describe a person; Will it stop accepting ‘fetus’? bit.ly/YZNeyD

— TwitchyTeam (@TwitchyTeam) April 2, 2013

Illegal Immigrant Associated Press Stylebook Change Called Politically Correct, Mocked On Twitter is a post from: The Inquisitr

The controversial term “illegal immigrant” will no longer be used in Associated Press material, and the widely-used reference manual known as the AP Stylebook is being updated to reflect change.

The Associated Press announced the decision today in a blog post, detailing why the term “illegal immigrant” was being stricken from the AP’s lexicon. AP SVP and Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll explains the decision in the post, decreeing that the ”Stylebook no longer sanctions the term ‘illegal immigrant’ or the use of ‘illegal’ to describe a person.”

Carroll adds that “ ‘illegal’ should describe only an action, such as living in or immigrating to a country illegally.” As to why the AP decided to officially update its terminology on immigrants and their legal status, Carroll adds:

“The discussions on this topic have been wide-ranging and include many people from many walks of life. (Earlier, they led us to reject descriptions such as ‘undocumented,’ despite ardent support from some quarters, because it is not precise. A person may have plenty of documents, just not the ones required for legal residence.)”

The AP’s blog post also points to similar updates of previously accepted labels of the same ilk as “illegal immigrant,” noting that the newswire is in the process of “ridding the Stylebook of labels.”

The post describes analogous changes to mental health language used in news reporting:

“The new section on mental health issues argues for using credibly sourced diagnoses instead of labels. Saying someone was ‘diagnosed with schizophrenia’” instead of schizophrenic, for example.”

Carroll says that in order “to be consistent, [the AP] needed to change [its] guidance.”

The post also implores writers who feel other “labels” exist to write to stylebook@ap.org to add to the discussion of updating terms such as “illegal immigrant” in news writing.

Examples and guidelines include:

“Except in direct quotations, do not use the terms illegal alien, an illegal, illegals or undocumented.

“Do not describe people as violating immigration laws without attribution.

“Specify wherever possible how someone entered the country illegally and from where. Crossed the border? Overstayed a visa? What nationality?

“People who were brought into the country as children should not be described as having immigrated illegally. For people granted a temporary right to remain in the U.S. under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, use temporary resident status, with details on the program lower in the story.”

In response to the AP’s decision to drop the term “illegal immigrant,” The New York Times indicated that it is also considering updating guidelines to discourage use of the controversial wording.

‘Illegal Immigrant’ Officially Stricken From AP Stylebook is a post from: The Inquisitr

Google April Fool’s jokes upped the ante for 2013, featuring full-on ad campaigns and videos promoting this year’s brand of tech craziness.

One of the big April Fool’s jokes that fooled many was the idea that Peter Dinkledge was quitting Game of Thrones and being replaced with Warwick Davis. As previously reported by The Inquisitr, Google April Fool’s jokes were even more popular.

The Google Nose April Fool’s joke claimed that Google “leverages new and existing technologies to offer the sharpest olfactory experience available.” Scratch and sniff books were said to be one way to use Google Nose along with a self-driving new car smell. Funnily enough, this year’s Game Developers Conference (GDC) actually featured a device called the Game Skunk that would allow you to smell your video games. No joke.

The Google April Fool’s jokes continued with the YouTube shutdown, with a YouTube video hosted by various stars explaining YouTube is shutting down for 10 years in order to select a winner for a contest. People left comments indicating they were worried about the jobs being lost at YouTube.

The least funny of the Google April Fool’s jokes includes Gmail Blue. The idea was for Gmail to be completely colored blue, which is probably making fun of either Windows Blue, which is a real product, or the color choices of Facebook. The search giant also announced Google Treasure Maps for Google Maps users.

One recent even was not a Google April Fool’s joke, but it sure felt like it to some people. Google ignored Easter for the 13th year in a row and instead celebrated Cesar Chavez day. The  Google Doodle for Easter 2013 featured not  Jesus Christ, or even the Easter Bunny, but Big Labor icon Cesar Chavez. Some people think it’s not just simply a matter of Google promoting historical literacy of lesser known events and people because Google apparently has not missed other national holidays like the “day of the dead” for many years.

What was your favorite of the Google April Fool’s Jokes?

Google April Fool’s Jokes 2013 Include Google Nose, YouTube Shutdown, Gmail Blue is a post from: The Inquisitr

Did media mogul Arianna Huffington “trash” a fancy loft in New York City’s Chelsea neighborhood? A new lawsuit alleges the Huffington Post founder did just that, and the owner alleges that six figures in damages resulted.

The loft allegedly trashed by Huffington in a series of banned parties and events is located at 227 W. 17th Street in Manhattan, and Huffington rented the space for a varying amount in the range of $30,000 each month.

Owner Eric Steel claims that, when Arianna vacated the seven-floor spread in January, the damage to the fully furnished premises was extensive. The New York Post details the complaint in which Steel alleges Huffington’s tenancy trashed the swanky loft, and he further alleges that the terms of the rental specifically prohibited any functions be held in the space:

“Huffington was using the apartment for large parties and business functions in breach of the sublease and Huffington’s promises … Dishwasher racks, stove knobs and a refrigerator drawer were broken and had to be replaced.”

In addition to his allegations that Huffington trashed the loft, Steel says that one piece of irreplaceable furniture was badly damaged when the media guru rented the property, and court papers read:

“The Gwathmey designed, custom made dining room table was damaged and scratched and the finish compromised … It had to be crated, hoisted out of the apartment and repaired by the original manufacturer.”

Arianna Huffington denies trashing the loft and says that Steel’s claims are by and large untrue. She said in a statement:

“Every single claim in this suit is false except the square footage and the address … Eric Steel, who happily renewed the lease twice and visited the apartment multiple times, is holding onto $93,000 dollars in deposits, which he has refused to return.”

Steel alleges Huffington caused $275,000 in damage to the loft in her two years there.

Arianna Huffington Trashes Loft In Chelsea, Lawsuit Claims is a post from: The Inquisitr

UK newspapers The Telegraph and The Sun have announced plans to push their content behind a paywall. The news organizations had previously rolled out a paywall for international customers and on Thursday announced plans for a UK paywall rollout.

News International says The Sun paywall will go into affect later this year. The agency has not provided an exact date for its paywall roll out at this time.

Under The Telegraph’s paywall, customers will be able to read 20 articles per month at no charge. After 20 articles have been viewed, customers will be required to sign up for additional access. The company plans to offers several packages for subscription purposes. The smaller package will cost £2 ($3) and offer unlimited website and smartphone apps access. The Full Digital Pack for £10 ($15) per month will add access to The Telegraph’s tablet versions.

News Corp in the meantime will roll out a different plan for The Sun. The company’s Digital Pack offers smartphone and tablet apps access for £4 ($6) per week. Customers can also purchase smartphone and web access alongside physical newspaper delivery for £8 ($12) per month. The Sun’s biggest fans can also pay for the Ultimate Pack for £8 ($12) which adds tablet access to the classic pack.

The Sun is still honoring its original offer which provides a Google Nexus 7 alongside an 18-month subscription service.

Paywalls have arrived with mix reactions from readers. On the one hand, loyal customers are likely to sign up for access to paywalls. On the other hand, many publications have failed to generate the required revenue to keep paywalls in place. Newspapers have also been met with heavy competition from new media publications that push out stories from behind those paywalls.

Do you think The Sun and The Telegraph can successfully attract enough readers to their new paywall setups?

[Image via ShutterStock]

UK Newspapers ‘The Telegraph’ And ‘The Sun’ Are Going Behind Paywalls is a post from: The Inquisitr

Fox News pundit Bill O’Reilly seemingly made an about-face on the issue of marriage equality recently, conceding that pro-gray marriage advocates have the more persuasive argument, and that their opponents only “thump the Bible” in response. Since his comments, he has received extraordinary backlash from Conservative pundits and radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin.

On a recent episode of The O’Reilly Factor, host Bill O’Reilly sat down with Megyn Kelly to discuss the issue of gay marriage and the Supreme Court’s consideration of Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act. O’Reilly said:

“The compelling argument is on the side of homosexuals. That’s where the compelling argument is: ‘We are Americans. We just want to be treated like everybody else.’ That’s a compelling argument. And to deny that you’ve got to have a very strong argument on the other side. And the other side hasn’t been able to anything but thump the Bible.”

Limbaugh criticized O’Reilly for the remarks, arguing that he had marginalized many of the network’s viewers and supporters of so-called “traditional marriage.”

“How many of you who watch Fox are ‘Bible thumpers’? Do you think there are any Bible thumpers, quote-unquote, that watch Fox? Because last night you were sort of marginalized on The Factor as not having a compelling argument and just being a bunch of Bible-thumpers.”

Taking it one step further, Conservative radio host Mark Levin said that O’Reilly had “misled” his audience.

“Have I thumped the bible once? Have I thumped the bible once in one-and-a-half hours?” Levin asked rhetorically.

“You’re a practicing Catholic, have you heard what your priests have to say, all the way up to the Pope?” he continued. “Why are you putting down your audience? I thought you stood for the ‘folks’. You sound like Obama with your ‘Clinging to your guns and Bible’ line.”

He concluded by criticizing O’Reilly of “mischaracterizing and degrading” opponents of gay marriage, saying:

“Those people in your audience who you put down as ‘Bible thumpers,’ I bet they feel misled by you and your books and your monologues.”

Listen to audio of both Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin criticizing Bill O’Reilly’s gay marriage comments below:

Bill O’Reilly Slammed By Conservative Pundits For Gay Marriage Shift [Audio] is a post from: The Inquisitr

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow is incredibly popular, even with some of the folks at rival network Fox News. Anchor Shep Smith said in a recent interview that he’s a fan, and that he even admires and respects the prime time pundit.

In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, Smith (who suffers no small fanbase himself) said that he’s a fan of Rachel Maddow when asked if he was surprised that the MSNBC host gave him props during her recent Reddit “AMA.” Smith returned the compliment, and then some.

“I know Rachel. I’m a fan of Rachel’s. But what she said very generously is I do regular guy and voice of God at the same time. By voice of God, she means you can be a news anchor and be taken seriously and then when it’s fun, you can have a little fun. We all know each other in this business. It’s a very small community, and we all pretty much like each other,” he said.

“And I admire and respect Rachel,” Smith continued. “Everything in this thing we do to me is Ole Miss and LSU. I love Ole Miss; I hate LSU. And that’s how MSNBC and Fox News viewers are, and I understand it and I respect it because I hate LSU.”

During her “AMA,” Maddow was asked who her favorite anchor from a competing channel is. She picked Shep.

“I really like the way Shep Smith (at Fox News Channel) balances anchorman gravitas… with a willingness to put the artifice aside and acknowledge what it really going on,” Maddow said. “Some of us can pull off seeming like human beings on TV, some of us can pull off V.O.G. authority, but Shep is really very good at both. Better than anyone else, I think. Also, I’ve met him and he’s a nice person!”

Another surprising Fox News fan of Maddow’s is chief Roger Ailes, who detailed his friendship with her in a new biography. In Off Camera, Zev Chafets says that the two became friends in 2006 when he complimented her at a White House Christmas party.

Are you surprised that Shep Smith and Rachel Maddow are pals?

Rachel Maddow’s Friends At Fox News: Shep Smith ‘Admires’ Her is a post from: The Inquisitr

Ari Emanuel was apparently so unhappy with an interview with Brian Williams that he sent NBC a “fiery legal letter,” in which he wrote “This was not what we agreed to.”

The Emanuel brothers sat down with Williams on “Rock Center with Brian Williams” to talk about bioethicist Ezekiel’s new book, Brothers Emanuel: A Memoir of an American Family. Williams adopted a far more serious interview tone than the Emanuels were expecting, with the discussions becoming so heated that Ari wrote a letter to NBC and submitted a complaint in person to NBC Universal chief Steve Burke.

The Huffington Post reported that the claim that Ari personally confronted Burke was “completely inaccurate,” but the letter is allegedly the real deal. In it, Ari is said to have written: ‘This was not what we agreed to. He felt like he did the interview in good faith and he was irritated.”

The Emanuels were reportedly prepped for a lighthearted chat, bu instead Williams asked the brothers “about their connection to Israel and Ari’s reputation as an ultra-aggressive Hollywood agent, among other things.”

The Hollywood Reporter also noted that Williams didn’t pull punches during the interview’s narration, in which he said:

“The Emanuel brothers do not suffer from self-doubt, at least not outwardly, they do not suffer fools gladly and, as we learned, they don’t love being challenged or prodded. Ari’s facial expressions speak volumes when the conversation turned to his scorched earth reputation in Hollywood…”

Other than that, the clip doesn’t seem to be anything that anyone would get into a twist over. NBC offered a statement on the interview, saying: “We hope viewers saw the interview as a lively conversation with three famously colorful brothers who embody a great American story of success.”

You can check out a clip of Brian Williams’ interview with the Emanuel brothers below:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Ari Emanuel Writes ‘Fiery Legal Letter’ To NBC Over Brian Williams Interview [Video] is a post from: The Inquisitr

Two-time Pulitzer Prize winner Anthony Lewis has died. Lewis, who passed at 85, was best known for his New York Times column, which championed liberal causes for more than 30 years.

Lewis worked for the Times as a columnist for 32 years. His topics often included constitutional law, human rights, and free speech. He won Pulitzers during his years as a reporter, first in 1955 and again in 1963.

The winning topics were a defense of a Navy civilian falsely accused of sympathizing with communists (1955) and then for reporting on the Supreme Court (1963).

The reporter described himself as a defender of decency who had a respect for law and reason, fighting against a tide of religious fundamentalism and extreme nationalism.

Included in Anthony Lewis’s column topics were the Vietnam War, Watergate, apartheid in South Africa, and Israeli settlements in Gaza and the West Bank. He strongly opposed all of these.

Lewis also wrote an acclaimed book in 1964. The book, Gideon’s Trumpet, told the story of a petty thief who fought for legal representation. The battle lead to a landmark Supreme Court decision.

The thief was Clarence Earl Gideon. In Gideon V. Wainwright, the Supreme Court ruled that criminal defendants are entitled to a lawyer — even if they cannot afford one. The decision led to the creation of the public defender system.

His final column was written for the Times on December 15, 2011. It warned the nation against surrendering civil liberties because of fear in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He wrote:

“The hard question is whether our commitment to law will survive the new sense of vulnerability that is with us all after Sept. 11. It is easy to tolerate dissent when we feel safe.”

Anthony Lewis, an advocate for free speech, titled his 2008 book Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment. The book spoke about laws, like the 1798 Sedition Act, that abridge freedom of expression. The Sedition Act made it a crime to criticize government officials.

Lewis explained, “We need to celebrate and understand our unique freedom, and it is unique in this country this freedom of speech and press. And I don’t actually think we understand it well.”

Along with his work for The New York Times, Lewis also worked for the Washington Daily News between 1952 and 1955. When he retired from the Times, he explained the his career as a columnist led him to two conclusions. Lewis explained:

“One is that certainty is the enemy of decency and humanity in people who are sure they are right, like Osama bin Laden and (then-Attorney General) John Ashcroft. And secondly that for this country at least, given the kind of obstreperous, populous, diverse country we are, law is the absolute essential. And when governments short-cut the law, it’s extremely dangerous.”

There was no word on Anthony Lewis’ surviving family members or funeral arrangements.

Anthony Lewis Dies: Pulitzer Prize Winner Passes At 85 is a post from: The Inquisitr

Here’s a twist that will bring liberals and conservatives together into a collective head-scratching marathon. A bunch of Tea Party activists organized a huge boycott of Fox News because the network is way “too liberal” for their tastes.

According to The Daily Beast, the Tea Party ordered their second boycott of the right-leaning cable network to protest its coverage. Particularly, they argue that Fox has been mostly silent over the Benghazi consulate attack, which is kind of a strange accusation since opponents of the network have often criticized them for talking about Benghazi way too much.

“Particularly after the election, Fox keeps turning to the left,” said boycott participant Stan Hjerlied. He pointed to a post-election interview with Fox CEO Roger Ailes who said that the Republican Party needs to modernize, especially over immigration. “So we are really losing our only conservative network,” bemoaned Hjerlied.

The three-day boycott of Fox lasted from Thursday morning through Sunday morning. Tea Party members said that their previous, two-day boycott knocked 20 percent off of the network’s regular viewership. Actual analysis of the boycott showed that it didn’t really have much of an effect at all.

Strangely, instead of giving an interview, Kathy Amidon (who lead the boycott) directed The Daily Beast to this website. It’s a huge and confusing Benghazi-truther hub, which alleges, among other things, that Fox is complicit in a massive coverup. It also argues that the Tea Party targets Fox because the network needs the Tea Party.

“People ask why not all mainstream media? Why just Boycott FOX? The answer, again, is that FOX needs the Tea Party/conservatives more than the conservatives need FOX after FOX turned left, basically selling out the people who made FOX successful in an attempt to earn an extra buck. FOX is extremely vulnerable to these boycotts while the rest of the MSM doesn’t need us at all, to speak of.”

“We need Fox to turn right,” said Hjerlied. “We think this is a coverup and Fox is aiding and abetting it. This is the way Hitler started taking over Germany, by managing and manipulating the news media.”

Viewers dying for a Fox-fix are encouraged on the site to wait for One America, a network set to debut this summer that sounds like a conservative version of CurrentTV.

Tea Party Boycotts Fox News Because It’s ‘Too Liberal’ is a post from: The Inquisitr

TODAY announced Friday that former TRL host Carson Daly will be joining the 9am hour of the struggling NBC morning show as a guest host this coming week.

Don Nash, TODAY‘s executive producer tweeted the coming week’s lineup on Friday. The third hour will be occupied by Willie Geist and Al Roker, while Carson Daly will sub for Natalie Morales.

Daly’s spot marks a departure from the normal way of choosing substitute co-hosts from NBC News. Lester Holt and Erica Hill, “Weekend Today” co-hosts, sat in for the third hour on Friday, for example. MSNBC anchor Tamron Hall also substitutes on TODAY, and Willie Geist did the same before being promoted to the third hour full time in November.

Daly currently hosts NBC‘s “The Voice.”

Other TODAY rumors suggest that the show is considering adding another person to the lineup due to Matt Lauer’s poor public image. Daly might be “auditioning” for a more permanent role on the morning show.

“Even if the person appeared only on the 9am hour, which Mr. Lauer is not a part of, such an addition would make TODAY more of an ensemble show, seemingly less dependent on his star power,” wrote Brian Stelter of the NY Times.

TODAY still hasn’t recovered from the negative publicity surrounding Ann Curry’s departure last June. NBC Universal News Group has been changing things up non-stop in an effort to improve the show’s ratings, and recent remarks from chairman Patricia Fili-Krushel seem to indicate that they’re still working things out.

“When you are No. 1, it’s easy to stop taking chances,” she said earlier this month, criticizing TODAY‘s apparent aversion to risk-taking. “I think we just stopped innovating.”

Do you think that Carson Daly could be moving toward a permanent position at TODAY?

Carson Daly Joins ‘Today’ As Guest Host is a post from: The Inquisitr

CNN‘s network makeover is off to a shaky start.

Jake Tapper, nicknamed “the face of the new CNN,” debuted his show “The Lead” Monday, earning fairly poor ratings throughout its first week on the air. “The Lead” was saddled with huge expectations prior to its Monday debut, with new CNN boss Jeff Zucker pinning much of the network’s host on its new anchor.

“This is the start of an incredible new era,” Zucker said of Tapper, whom he considers key to his reinvention of CNN.

But in the show’s first four days, Tapper struggled to maintain the audience and ratings of his timeslot’s predecessor, “The Situation Room.” Tapper was third from Monday through Thursday with his first show bringing in 400,000 viewers.

According to The Hollywood Reporter, that’s a 50 percent drop from “The Situation Room” among the crucial 25-54 demographic, as well as an overall 42 percent drop in viewership.

But don’t pull the curtain on Tapper’s program just yet. It’s obvious that both Zucker and Tapper are committed to a new vision for the network (they’ve both said as much in previous interviews), and such an ambitious makeover is going to take some time to gather an audience.

One thing on Tapper’s side is the critics. His show debuted to strong, positive critical reaction all week. And most new shows fight an uphill battle in ratings their first year.

Thursday was a better day for Fox News and MSNBC, with Neil Cavuto’s “Your World” raking in 1.07 million viewers and Martin Bashir earning 450,000 viewers. Both Fox and MSNBC were closer in key demo viewers (174,000 to 101,000 respectively), but both still lead CNN.

“The Lead” is the first show launch for the re-imagined CNN since Zucker took over this year. Did you watch Jake Tapper’s “The Lead?” What did you think?

Jake Tapper’s ‘The Lead’ Earns New Lows For CNN is a post from: The Inquisitr

Roland Martin, CNN analyst and media personality, is out at the network — confirmed by Martin himself on Twitter yesterday.

Roland Martin is CNN’s latest contributor or analyst to exit the network after Jeff Zucker was brought in last year to turn around the network’s flagging fortunes. In addition to Martin, James Carville, Mary Matalin and Bill Bennett have also been excised from CNN’s rotation.

Martin’s tenure at CNN has not been without controversy, and he was subject to a one-month suspension after last year’s Super Bowl.

During his commentary as the event was underway, the CNN analyst sent a tweet many found offensive and possibly homophobic, invoking ire from gay rights groups like GLAAD. He said:

“If a dude at your Super Bowl party is hyped about David Beckham’s H&M underwear ad smack the ish out of him!”

Martin has been open about his CNN departure on Twitter, where he has engaged with fans and followers about the reasons behind his split from the network.

It’s not entirely clear what prompted the initial tweet sent by Roland Martin to what appears to be a random follower about leaving CNN, but yesterday morning, Martin sent the following tweet saying:

.@emarceg yes, last day at @cnn is April 6.

— rolandsmartin (@rolandsmartin) March 19, 2013

He later followed up:

I’m getting a kick out of folks who think I’m retreating to a monastery when my @cnn deal expires April 6.y voice won’t be silenced, folks.

— rolandsmartin (@rolandsmartin) March 19, 2013

When asked about his CNN departure, Roland Martin replied:

@celebritykarlos new boss wants his own peeps

— rolandsmartin (@rolandsmartin) March 19, 2013

Martin will continue in his other ventures after he leaves CNN next month.

Roland Martin, CNN Contributor, Tweets He’s Out At Network is a post from: The Inquisitr

Accusations of left-leaning bias for cable news giant MSNBC abound, and, while a recent media study doesn’t exactly address that issue directly, it did find the channel to be the most “opinionated” of the three biggies (with Fox, CNN).

Pew’s State of the News Media 2013 report is a very interesting read for media watchdogs, and, in it, the topic of hard news reporting versus opinion programming came up. TV Newser reports that opinion broadcasting has increased dramatically since 2007, with hard news falling by the wayside, but it’s worth looking at how much that is happening and which networks are the biggest offenders.

According to the Pew analysis, MSNBS by far had the most opinion programming with 85 percent of segments opinion versus 15 percent reporting. By way of comparison, Fox News had 55 percent of their broadcasting based on opinion with 45 percent hard news reporting. CNN had 54 percent reporting and 46 percent opinion.

Special note: Opinion isn’t just pundit programs like The O’Reilly Factor or The Rachel Maddow Show but every time they bring on “analysts” to talk about a story in the news cycle as well.

Overall, 63 percent of segments on cable news networks feature opinion, compared to 37 percent for reporting.

Obviously, primetime veered heavily into opinion across the board, with morning programming following slightly. Daytime programming was more diverse.

The Pew study also seemingly supports Jake Tapper’s controversial choice to jump to CNN, which was compared to “the Titanic” by an interviewer.

“CNN is a vital place,” Tapper said of his move. “More people watched the election results on CNN than any other channel. More people watched the inauguration on CNN than any other channel. … MSNBC and Fox News are great at what they do, but that’s very different from what we do. So I just reject your characterization.”

The study, as we noted above, found that CNN is the only cable news channel airing more hard news reporting that opinion. That could all change under Jeff Zucker, but as of now, CNN is your source for unbiased reporting.

Which cable news giant do you watch? MSNBC, CNN, Fox News, a couple of them, or all of them?

MSNBC Most ‘Opinionated’ Cable News Channel [Pew] is a post from: The Inquisitr

“Gosh, it really sucks that those two Steubenville, Ohio teen rapists were found guilty,” said no one ever except for CNN reporters Candy Crowley and Poppy Harlow.

A CNN segment regarding the Steubenville rape trial verdict sparked massive controversy online Sunday including a handful of accusations that the reporters were kind-of, sort-of defending accused rapists Trent Mays and Ma’Lik Richmond.

On CNN’s State of the Union, Crowley and Harlow talked about the guilty verdict of Mays and Richmond, two members of Steubenville High’s football team, who were found guilty of raping a 16-year-old girl. “I cannot imagine having just watched this on the feed coming in. How emotional that must have been sitting in the courtroom,” said Crowley.

Harlow, reporting from Stuebenville, responded:

“I’ve never experienced anything like it, Candy. It was incredibly emotional — incredibly difficult even for an outsider like me to watch what happened as these two young men that had such promising futures, star football players, very good students, literally watched as they believe their life fell apart.”

As if that weren’t enough, Crowley later passed the buck to frequent CNN legal hound Paul Callahan, focusing the discussion on how the guilty verdict would affect the two boys’ futures. Callahan responded that the verdict would have “a lasting impact” beyond the pair’s one-year in prison.

For the tone of the panel discussion, some online commentators have labelled Harlow a “rape apologist” or accused CNN of “sympathizing with rapists.”

@poppyharlowcnn especially as a woman, you should be ashamed of how far you’re setting feminism back #RapeApologist

— Kathryn Moncada (@kathrynmoncada) March 18, 2013

@poppyharlowcnn You should be ASHAMED for siding with CONVICTED rapists instead of the REAL victim. The only alleged thing is your humanity.

— Wish in One Hand (@wishinonehand) March 18, 2013

Not one word about the victim .@cnn @poppyharlowcnn @crowleycnn#Steubenville#RapeIsRapetwitter.com/Tornemand/stat…

— UniteWomen.org (@UniteWomenOrg) March 18, 2013

What do you think? Do CNN’s Candy Crowley and Poppy Harlow appear to sympathize with the rapists in the Steubenville case? You can watch the video and decide for yourself below:

CNN Reporters Sympathize With Steubenville Rapists [Video] is a post from: The Inquisitr

Here’s a weird one for you: A reporter for Sky News was in the midst of a live report from Tiananmen Square when he was abruptly arrested by Chinese police.

Sky News correspondent Mark Stone was speaking to viewers live from China when he was arrested by police, and brought to a room with his cameraman for questioning. Stone was apparently able to continue his live broadcast from a police van, and then from the room where he was being held.

Stone speculated that he was arrested because police thought he was filming something to be broadcasted later, instead of the live report he was in the midst of.

The footage was posted to YouTube via user Alexander Wickham, and has broken 100,000 views. It shows Stone being brought into the van and being filmed by an officer.

“I should make the point that throughout this, the police have been entirely civil with us, but nonetheless, they are detaining us,” Stone remarked before speaking to a police officer. “This is a classic example of the way things seem to work sometimes in China.”

Stone also mentioned that he may have been detained because he mentioned the 1989 protests at Tiananmen Square.

Most who watched the video found it remarkable that the arresting officers were very polite to Stone during and after the arrest.

“That police officer was extremely nice to him even when he was filming and he even talked to him and explained why he was in trouble. Never laid a hand on him was completely polite,” said user DaftSneak.

According to a report on the Sky News website, Stone and his crew had permission to film in the square, and were reporting on China’s leadership transition. Police said that Stone was detained because his press credentials were not properly displayed during filming.

Check out the video of Sky News’ Mark Stone being arrested during a live broadcast in China:

Sky News Reporter Arrested Live On Air In China [Video] is a post from: The Inquisitr

Fox 61 Connecticut celebrated Women’s Day this year by discussing public policy, celebrating the 40th anniversary of the Permanent Commission on the Status of Women, and broadcasting some cleavage.

Yep, as Fox anchor Erica Arias talked about the contributions that women have made to the country and the struggles they will face in the future, the station aired footage of women walking down the street with the camera zoomed in on their breasts.

Jacqueline Kozin, co-president of the Connecticut National Organization of Women, told CT News Junkie: “The airing of the footage is repugnant and is not of the level of a credible news organization … Fox CT News, whether they intended to or not, has just inserted their organization into a culture war and sent the message that women should not be taken seriously. It is an insult to the female employees at Fox and to women throughout Connecticut.”

Teresa Younger, executive director of the Permanent Commission on the Status of Women, added: “I’m pissed .. I’m appalled. We invite the executives at Fox to ask about our Sexual Harassment Awareness and Prevention trainings, which would help them and their staff learn a little more about what goes on above a woman’s shoulders.”

According to the Huffington Post, the mistake wasn’t caught the first time around. When the station ran a shorter version of the segment later in the hour they showed the same inappropriate footage.

Here’s the video of Fox CT’s Women’s Day coverage.

The station posted a statement on its Facebook page saying that the cleavage footage was mistakenly broadcast.

The station wrote: “FOX CT apologizes for mistakenly airing inappropriate file footage in conjunction with this morning’s report on Women’s Day at the Connecticut State Capitol. The video should never have aired. FOX CT will publicly apologize on today’s newscasts, as well as through our social media platforms. We are also implementing procedures to keep this from happening in the future. FOX CT is committed to recognizing and applauding the significant contributions of women, both in Connecticut and throughout the country.”

FOX CT apologizes for today’s file footage error. We will continue to recognize great contributions of women in CT and around the world

— FoxCT News (@FoxCT) March 13, 2013

What do you think of Fox CT’s coverage?

Fox CT Celebrates Women’s Day With Cleavage Shots [Video] is a post from: The Inquisitr