Compliments sometimes come from strange places, but you'll take them where you can get them, no?

It seems that Fox News' March 10 "Glenn Beck" program, in which host Glenn Beck interviewed former Rep. Eric Massa, D-N.Y., captured the attention of both the left and the right. And it may have even put to rest some of the misconceptions about Beck, which are mostly generated by outfits that operate with just out-of-context sound bites.

"Let me tell you something," "Morning Joe" co-host Joe Scarborough said on his March 11 program. "[Beck] was not on his heels. He just - he played straight-man and Donny Deutsch, he was - he did it very, very well.

And surprisingly, MSNBC regular Donny Deutsch, who rarely has good things to say about conservatives, agreed.
"Beck actually helped his brand a lot because he went from the crazy idiot to kind of a good interviewer, you know what I mean," Deutsch said. "And you know - you couldn't help but not enjoy Glenn Beck yesterday - speaking from the extreme left."

Beck had won both conservatives and liberals over when at the end of his Massa interview he said he apologized for having "wasted an hour of your time" on his March 9 program.

Deutsch isn't known for having much compassion for conservatives. He recently referred to Florida U.S. Senate candidate Marco Rubio with a racially charged description, a "coconut." And he had a very harsh critique of former Heisman Trophy-winning quarterback Tim Tebow's pro-life ad, comparing it to a gay-dating spot.

CNN's Jim Acosta omitted the left-wing affiliation of pro-ObamaCare protesters during a report on Wednesday's American Morning, referring to them as only "health care advocates and labor groups." Acosta, like his colleague Nancy Cordes at CBS, also highlighted child protester Marcelas Owens, and labeled him a "brave young man."

Kiran Chetry and John Roberts introduced Acosta's report, and the anchors also failed to mention the political bent of the protest, which was organized by the Health Care for America Now coalition (HCAN's members include the AFL-CIO, NAACP, and Planned Parenthood). Chetry remarked that "thousands though rallied in Washington against what they call 'insurance industry bullying.'" Roberts stated that the demonstration was "one for the books."

The correspondent continued the generic language, using his "health care advocates and labor groups" label at the beginning of the report. He twice noted how the target of the protesters, health insurance executives, were meeting in a high-end hotel: "They [the protesters] wanted the health insurance industry to learn one thing at their conference this week- renting out space inside a big luxury hotel doesn't mean you can keep the reform debate from getting really loud....the protesters tried to push and shove their way inside this ritzy hotel- that's where the industry was holding its annual policy conference."

Near the end of the report, Acosta played a clip of his interview of Owens, whom he questioned as the fifth-grader was demonstrating outside the hotel:

ACOSTA (voice-over): Among the demonstrators, 10-year-old Marcelas Owens was protesting for his mother who he says lost a battle with a lung condition that got worse right after she lost her job and her health insurance.

ACOSTA (on-camera): Does any of it make any sense to you?

MARCELAS OWENS, HEALTH CARE REFORM ACTIVIST: Not really, because my mother, she was sick, and she was sick to the point that she should have gotten the medical attention, even if she didn't have health care or not.

ACOSTA (live): Brave young man there

The network has a track record of slanting towards pro-ObamaCare protesters. Back in August 2009, CNN ran a glowing documentary-style segment on another pro-ObamaCare rally organized by the HCAN coalition.

The full transcript of Jim Acosta's report, which aired 41 minutes into the 6 am Eastern hour of Wednesday's American Morning:

CHETRY: President Obama, as we know, is rolling up his sleeves, hitting the streets, talking up his final push for health care reform. Meantime, thousands though rallied in Washington against what they call 'insurance industry bullying.'

ROBERTS: They were there to make a mass citizens' arrest.

Our Jim Acosta is live in Washington for us this morning. Jim, you're awfully familiar with the health care debate. You've done a lot of coverage.

ACOSTA: Yeah.

ROBERTS: This was one for the books, wasn't it?

ACOSTA: It got a little wild out there, John and Kiran, and the health care advocates and labor groups who staged this rally, they wanted the health insurance industry to learn one thing at their conference this week- renting out space inside a big luxury hotel doesn't mean you can keep the reform debate from getting really loud.

ACOSTA (voice-over): (protesters chanting) The swarms of protesters marching through the streets of Washington in favor of health care reform wanted to do more than just make some noise.

RICHARD KIRSCH, HEALTH CARE FOR AMERICA NOW: Are we going to arrest these corporate criminals?

CROWD: Yes!

KIRSCH: Are we going to send them packing?

CROWD: Yes!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now, raise your right hand, and repeat after me-

ACOSTA: The organizers of the rally informally deputized the crowd to make a citizens' arrest of the executives of several major health insurance companies. Then, carrying wild West-style 'wanted' posters, showing the faces of insurance companies' CEOs, the protesters tried to push and shove their way inside this ritzy hotel- that's where the industry was holding its annual policy conference.

ACOSTA (on-camera): Where we're standing right now is where the protesters are actually trying to enter the conference that the insurance industry is holding right here in Washington. Police are standing in the way trying to hold back what is a massive crowd.

ACOSTA (voice-over): Police did grab a few protesters but released them minutes later. The insurance industry spokesman said he's seen these tactics before.

ACOSTA (on-camera): Do you think this is getting out of control when you see 'wanted' posters for insurance companies' CEOs? Isn't that getting out of control?

ROBERT ZIRCHELBACH, SPOKESMAN, AMERICA'S HEALTH INSURANCE PLANS: You know, we don't pay a lot of attention to all the different things that people are posting on websites and on the blogs, and the different attention. You know, we're focused on what we can do as an industry to make the health care system work better.

ACOSTA (voice-over): Not everybody at the conference was from the industry. Health care expert Mark Pauly said the current reform bill before Congress would actually be better than nothing.

MARK PAULY, WHARTON SCHOOL OF BUSINESS, UNIV. OF PENNSYLVANIA: A better attitude is probably to pass something and fix it up later. Although-

ACOSTA (on-camera): It's not the perspective of the folks who are running this conference.

PAULY: I guess not. I mean, it's gotten to the point where it's a dear thing, I think, whether it be better to scrap it and start over. But I'd be willing to work with anything.

ACOSTA (voice-over): Among the demonstrators, 10-year-old Marcelas Owens was protesting for his mother who he says lost a battle with a lung condition that got worse right after she lost her job and her health insurance.

ACOSTA (on-camera): Does any of it make any sense to you?

MARCELAS OWENS, HEALTH CARE REFORM ACTIVIST: Not really, because my mother, she was sick, and she was sick to the point that she should have gotten the medical attention, even if she didn't have health care or not.

ACOSTA (live): Brave young man there, and the insurance industry is well aware that Congress is closing in on a vote on health care. The closing session at the industry's conference this week is on public opinion on reform. John and Kiran, they are well aware that the Congress is closing in on what is a very crucial vote.

CHETRY: All right. Maybe we'll see more protests like that one.

ACOSTA: And we will later today. We're expecting a week of this stuff here in Washington. So, fasten your seat belts.

ROBERTS: All right. Jim, thanks so much for that.

Leading off his "Political Sideshow" segment halfway through the March 10 "Hardball," MSNBC's Chris Matthews mocked freshman Sen. Scott Brown (D-Mass.) for his reported book deal [audio available here]:

We learned today that Massachusetts senator Scott Brown, who's been a senator for just 35 days, has a book deal! According to the Wall Street Journal, Brown's expected to write about his upbringing, his early career, and how he beat Martha Coakley to win his Senate seat.

Maybe he could call it, "It's Not About the Truck."  Just a thought, but, didn't people used to write their memoirs after their careers? This guy's been in office, what, a month?

Of course, this comes almost two years to the day after Matthews effusively praised Barack Obama's memoir, "Dreams From My Father" -- originally published in 1995 when Obama was gearing up to run for the Illinois State Senate -- on the March 13, 2008 "Hardball":

CHRIS MATTHEWS: It's unique because he's a politician and not since U.S. Grant has a politician written his own book.

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, radio talk show host: Exactly.

MATTHEWS: And that is refreshing.

SMERCONISH: Yes.

MATTHEWS: And you're thoughts here? Did you read the book? Once you read it you have a different take. It's almost like Mark Twain. It's so American, it's so textured. It's so, almost sounding like great fiction because it reads like us. It's picturesque. Is that the right word? Picturesque? I think it's got that quality.

 

Matthews's hypocrisy continued in a subtler form with his comments in the next item in the "Sideshow." The MSNBC host blasted Sen. John McCain's Republican Senate primary challenger J.D. Hayworth for a radio ad touting Hayworth's Christian faith and how it has informed his socially conservative stances on abortion and same-sex marriage.

"Don't we have a constitutional ban against setting religious tests for public office? I've never heard somebody scoff [sic] up votes by saying he's better at his religion than the other guy," Matthews huffed.

But in 1980, when Chris Matthews was working for then-President Jimmy Carter, the Democratic incumbent ran a TV ad in which he touted his religious faith:

Museum of the Moving Image
The Living Room Candidate
"Bible," Carter, 1980

MALE NARRATOR: Though he carefully observes our historic separation of church and state, Jimmy Carter is a deeply and clearly religious man. He takes the time to pray privately and with Rosalynn each day. Under the endless pressure of the Presidency, where decisions change and directions change, and even the facts change, this man knows that one thing remains constant: his faith. [with TEXT] President Carter.

In his "Notebook" segment at the end of the 3PM ET hour on MSNBC Wednesday, anchor David Shuster took a moment to commemorate the passing of a "hero" of his, well-known liberal advocate Doris 'Granny D' Haddock, a staunch supporter of campaign finance reform.

Shuster celebrated how she "at the age of 89...decided to walk across the nation....All in all, 3,200 miles to underscore her message that we need to change our current campaign donation system and have publicly financed elections instead." He proclaimed that Haddock "was committed to fair and open democracy" and declared her to be "an American treasure" for her activism.

Granny D was certainly a media hero back in March of 2000, when she completed her cross-country walk for campaign finance reform in Washington D.C.. On the March 1 broadcast of NBC's Today, co-host Matt Lauer excitedly announced: "I love Granny D!" Then co-host, now CBS Evening News anchor, Katie Couric, followed Lauer's exuberance, calling her an "amazing role model" and adding: "She's great!"

In a speech on September 22, 2001, Granny D launched into a bizarre rant against the Bush administration and its response to the September 11th attacks:

This is not a time for all good Americans to forget their political differences and rally behind the man in the White House. The man in the White House should apologize for the most serious breach of internal security in the nation's history, not disguise his failure in calls for war. Can he hope that the fiery explosions in New York and Washington and Pennsylvania will be more acceptable to us if they are placed in a larger context of explosions of our own making? I do not rally around that idea. It is "wag the dog" taken to an extreme level, for he is not covering up his failure with a fake war, but with a real one. 

The sour economy has forced many Americans to tighten belts, and everyday Americans expect the same from their government. But that's practically unconscionable to the Washington Post as witnessed by its March 10 article, "Va.budget plan would shrink general spending to 2006 levels."*

Here's how Post staffers Rosalind Helderman and Fredrick Kunkle launched into their lament of the pending budget cutbacks:

RICHMOND -- Virginia will do less for its residents, and expect local governments and private charities to do more, under a new state budget likely to have an impact for years to come. 

With Virginia facing what lawmakers say is the grimmest financial picture in memory, the House of Delegates and Senate adopted budgets last week that would shrink general spending to about $15 billion, or no more than was spent four years ago. In other words, Virginia would spend about the same amount on services as it did when there were 100,000 fewer residents and many fewer were in economic distress. 

What followed was a typical laundry list of scenarios the writers insisted "could" happen, including "[c]riminal defendants who cannot afford an attorney appear[ing] in court without one." Of course, seeing as the Constitution requires that indigent defendants be provided a public defender, it's quite odd for the Post to conclude any judge "could" let a trial proceed with a defendant unrepresented for lack of counsel. At any rate, National Review's Kevin Williamson has an excellent takedown of the article and its numerous liberal assumptions, which I've excerpted below (emphases mine):

"A new state budget likely to have an impact for years to come"? What could those words possibly hope to indicate? Does not every state budget have an impact for years to come? How does one spend $15 billion and not have an impact for years to come? Meaningless verbiage is one reason why people don't read old-fashioned newspapers.

But never mind the banal journalese; check out the question-begging: "Virginia will do less for its residents ...." Really? Is it impossible to spend more intelligently? Was the Virginia state budget such an unassailable masterpiece that a cut of $1 translates into an exactly representative amount of service forgone? What about $10? What about $1,000? Is there no room at all for economizing in Virginia?

And what about the other side of the spending/revenue question? If Virginia spends more, it has to tax more. Tax whom? Tax Virginians, that's whom. It's perfectly reasonable to have a debate about balancing the "do less" with the "take less," but the reporters and editors of the Washington Post do not even recognize that such a question exists. It's as though revenue comes into commonwealth coffers ex nihilo.

You can predict what comes next: The reporters call every interest group dependent upon state handouts — oh, the poor arts administrators! the agony of the MFAs! — and give them a forum to whinge about how horrible it will be to have spending reduced all the way down to 2006 levels. Does anybody in the world, anybody in Virginia, think a little fiscal restraint is in order? Down in the seventeenth (!) paragraph — which is to say, down in the part of the story that's only going to be read by these reporters' mothers, the people quoted in the story, and me — yes, we learn that "conservatives applaud attempts to hold the line on state spending on health care," and get a quote from Americans for Prosperity. But those parasites on the public purse protesting the proposed cuts — how many are identified as liberal groups? Zero, though organizations such as the Legal Aid Justice Center obviously merit such a description.

For the full critique by Williamson, click here.

*That was the online headline. The Metro section print edition headline reads "Va. lawmakers plan to do less with less."

In an event most likely coordinated with help from the White House, more than 1,000 protesters supporting Obama's radical health care agenda demonstrated in D.C. on March 9, going so far as to attempt a citizen-arrests of health insurance executives holding a conference at a hotel in Dupont Circle.

Covering the story on "Rick's List," CNN's Rick "Down the Middle" Sanchez assured viewers he would "continue to follow this ... and in many ways treat this the same way we treated some of the tea party manifestations. Folks get together, we want to let you know who they are, what their cause is, and who's behind it all."

Well, if so, Sanchez had a lot to live up - or down - to. In covering the tea parties, he has: strongly hinted that Texas Governor Rick Perry could be painted as racist for using "states' rights" language in a tea party address in April '09; concluded there was a "disconcerting" infiltration of militia groups into tea party and town hall protests; allowed Fred Kaplan of Slate to downplay Tea Party events by grossly understating their numbers; accused Sarah Palin of forwarding "anti-intellectualism" at the Tea Party Convention; compared "American nativist" Tom Tancredo to a member of an infamous anti-immigrant New York City street thug; and labeled anti-Obamacare protests a "celebration of ignorance and misinformation"

Beyond the accusations of racism, Sanchez and his network network literally glorified leftist protests and did its best to omit radical rhetoric from the left but found anti-Obama signs appalling characterized tea parties as unruly mobs or "a party for Obama bashers."

"You remember the tea-parties right?" Sanchez led off the story. "I mean that was essentially a protest that in many ways was against health care reform and in many ways was from the right. And suddenly, out of nowhere we get this scene outside the Ritz Carlton Hotel at Dupont Circle. Here are protests from HCAN. They're from the left - for the most part - and, you know what, I did a little digging."

And by "digging" Sanchez meant going to the websites of SEIU and HCAN for his information, sending a reporter on the scene who referred to the annual conference of health insurance executives as "the belly of the beast" and the "lion's den" (the same reporter who once referred to tea-partiers as "recession-raging conservatives"). He also interviewed the president of Health Care for America Now (HCAN), who predictably vilified the health insurance industry, saying "they make profits by hurting people."

Sanchez said that he "drilled down on the organizers of the protest," and named the major groups and individuals that involved - groups like the SEIU (an organization that specializes in beating up protestors), the secret-ballot killing AFL-CIO, Progress Now, and educational disaster-inducing teachers unions - as "organizations that are mostly to the left." As for Moveon.org, an organization known to produce negative ads like co-mingled images of George W. Bush and Adolf Hitler, Sanchez called them "progressive, if not left-leaning."

 In regards to tactics used by the protestors such as entrance-blocking and an attempted citizens-arrest, Sanchez had this to say: "You can't fault them for that - that's what protests are all about."

 

"You know, do I hope that those people die screaming of rectal cancer? Yeah, you know, but I’m not going to spend a lot of energy on it." – Sean Penn (when addressing his detractors)

No, I’m not making it up, you can even view the video here. O’Reilly, feel free to examine his body language, though to be fair, there isn’t much of a body to work with. For those too lazy to watch the video, let me recap it for you: **Spoiler alert!** Sean Penn has decided to take the life-plunge and go full-retard. Honestly, I don’t even know what to say anymore. Clearly, his statement was made in the poorest taste possible. Even more appalling however, is that the media doesn’t seem upset about these remarks in the slightest.

Is it just me, or do the “outrageous” quotes from Limbaugh, Coulter, and Beck that send the mainstream-media into a tizzy pale in comparison to the vitriolic hatred of Penn?

If Sean Penn were to tell his detractors to take a hike, that would be fine. If he suggested that they jump off a bridge, I’d be cool with that. But to describe in vivid detail, a torturous, agonizing death (one from which many cancer-sufferers were likely suffering while watching the interview from their hospital beds) in which his detractors should perish, is evil, pure and simple. The worst part about it is that we all know Sean Penn isn’t quick enough to think on his feet, which leaves no doubt that the man had spent “a lot of energy on it” in order to craft the graphic mental imagery beforehand. What a sick, twisted, vulgar, knee-high little minikin.

Listen Sean, I don’t like you. Really, I don’t. Yet you’ve never heard me wish upon you the most agonizing of cervical cancers.

Would I love to pummel you? If I could cut five or six weight classes, yes of course I would. Better yet, I’d rather just let any of the photographers or women you’ve assaulted in years past line up to womp you one by one, a la “Airplane.”

Would I like to see you shunned from your Hollywood brethren for hate speech? Sure, why not? He who lives by the politically correct sword deserves to die by it.

I don’t, however, want to see you die a horrible, excruciating death. Not only because you’re undoubtedly going to hell, but because it’s just not my style to wish that on anybody, nor is it for most conservatives. We tend to be decent people. See, we call you and your ilk elitists, you call us scrotum-suckers (i.e. teabaggers). We point out your misguided ideals, you call us racists. We make fun of your cable networks pathetic ratings, you call us propagandists. Is anyone else noticing the pattern here?

This isn’t just about Jeff Spicoli. Sean Penn’s recent comment is the epitome of all that is wrong with Tinseltown. They can hurl the most vile, angry, hateful insults at middle-Americans because they know that the press will cover for them. On the flip-side, conservatives constantly have to play defense because they know that any marginally offensive comment they make will be blown-up into hate speech of epic proportions and played on a never-ending repeat circuit in the mainstream media. Who else is sick of it? In the spirit of honesty, I ask you conservatives, what would you say if someone like Rush Limbaugh wished all of his detractors “died screaming of rectal cancer”?

As for Sean, you disgust me. Yet, I would never hope to see you die an agonizing death, screaming from uterine cancer. See how that works?

Originally published at Big Hollywood on March 9. For the NewsBusters archive of Sean Penn-related stories, click here.

On Tuesday's edition of MSNBC News Live, host David Shuster tossed softballs to an 11-year-old supporter of Obamacare. However, back in 2009, reporter Norah O'Donnell grilled a conservative teen and fan of Sarah Palin.

Shuster interviewed young Marcelas Owens, who lost his mother from pulmonary hypertension and is now lobbying for government-run health care. The anchor gently asked the child of his reception in Congress, "Are they at least pleased to meet you?" Shuster failed to mention that Owens' entire family have been members of the liberal Washington Community Action Network.

In contrast, on November 19, 2009, O'Donnell interrogated Jackie Seal, a conservative, Michigan teen who was waiting in line to see Sarah Palin at a book signing. The MSNBC host challenged this particular young person on her political beliefs: "Did you know that Sarah Palin supported the bailout?" O'Donnell berated, "Does that change your view?"

Now, certainly, Owens has lost his mother and no one would grill an 11-year-old who suffered such a tragedy. But, the network's reporters clearly have different standards for different young people.

CBS also touted Owens on Tuesday's Evening News.

On Tuesday's Newsroom, CNN's Tony Harris applied liberal thinking on race to the unemployment rate, speculating if the debate over jobs would change if whites were out of work like minorities were: "I wonder what the discussion about jobs in this country would be like if the rate of white unemployment in this country was, say 15, 16 percent, as it is for African-Americans."

Harris brought up the race issue during a segment with Don Peck of The Atlantic 42 minutes into the 11 am Eastern hour. Peck recently wrote an article for the publication on "how a new jobless era will transform America." Besides bringing up the unemployment rate of blacks, the CNN anchor also cited the 12-13 percent unemployment rate of Hispanics, and then quoted from Peck's article: "Make the point here- expand on the comment, 'It will leave an indelible comment on many blue-collar white men and on white culture.' What do you mean by that?"

The deputy managing editor for The Atlantic first expressed his agreement with Harris: "Well, first of all, I think you're right to say if the unemployment rate were higher for all white people, I think the conversation would be different, and that’s what’s so important to recognize." He continued by highlighting the impact of unemployment on marriage and family life.

PECK: There are certain groups within the U.S. that have really dramatically-elevated unemployment rates- young people, minorities, and, as you mentioned, blue-collar white men as well. You know, this has been called the 'man-cession,' and that's accurate. Three-quarters of all job losses have been to men, in part, because construction, finance, and manufacturing have all really imploded, and- you know, when men are out of work for a long time, they are particularly badly affected, and that affects many things beyond them personally. Marriages tend to sour when men are unemployed for long periods of time. Men often don't pick up their share of the housework on average when they lose their jobs, and- you know, the happiness of husbands and wives are closely related, so the misery spreads throughout the home.

Two-thirds of all divorces are legally initiated by women, so I talked to a lot of family experts who really believe that there are likely to be a wave of divorces in the coming years, especially if this period of blue-collar male unemployment persists.

[H/t: MRC Intern Alex Fitzsimmons]

Greg Gutfeld and the "Red Eye" gang Tuesday tore apart Bill Maher for wishing that Glenn Beck had been killed during last week's Pentagon shootings.

As NewsBusters previously reported, the so-called comedian during last Friday's "Real Time" said of the tragedy during his opening monologue, "When we see crazy, senseless deaths like this, we can only ask why, why, why couldn't it have been Glenn Beck?"

This led Gutfeld, along with his guests that included Ann Coulter and S.E. Cupp, to lay into Maher for his absurdity while also skewering actor Sean Penn for recently wishing his critics would "die screaming of rectal colon cancer."

For the entertainment pleasure of his audience, Gutfeld enlisted the help of his famous Red Eye Robots to offer Maher some new material utilizing "Glenn Beck died" punch lines (video embedded below the fold, h/t Story Balloon):

Watch the latest news video at <a href="http://video.foxnews.com/">video.foxnews.com</a>

Now THAT'S entertainment.