From Manohla Dargis' review of The Dark Knight: Apparently, truth, justice and the American way don't cut it anymore. That may not fully explain why the last Superman took a nose dive (Superman Returns, if not for long), but I think it helps get at why, like other recent ambiguous American heroes, both supermen and super-spies, the new Batman soared.

• Domestic gross for Batman Begins, the "new Batman" to which she's referring: $205 million ($371 million worldwide)
• Domestic gross for Superman Returns: $200 million ($391 million worldwide)

It's true that Batman Begins was a much bigger financial success than Superman Returns, because the Batman movie cost $150 million to make and the Superman one cost a whopping $270 million. That gives you some insight into why there's a new Batman out and not a new Superman, but not much into the national mood.

In a piece very reminiscent of 2006 Iraq coverage corporate media seem to know exactly when to start banging the drum against U.S. troop withdrawal. Tavernise and Oppel open by quoting an Iraqi general who likes Obama, but sure doesn't like the idea of U.S. troops leaving the country: "Thus in a few brisk sentences, the general summed up the conflicting emotions about Mr. Obama in Iraq." But how conflicted could Iraq really be? Most Iraqis want the U.S. out, and they've wanted that for years. The Times doesn't rely on that sort of polling, though—they find "a deep internal quandary in Iraq," where, we're told, "for many middle-class Iraqis, affection for Mr. Obama is tempered by worry that his proposal could lead to chaos in a nation already devastated by war." And how did the Times get to this conclusion? They admit that "street interviews remain risky in Iraq. For this article, 18 people were interviewed about their opinions." This is as close as the paper really gets to capturing actual Iraqi opinion:Mr. Obama has advocated a withdrawal that would remove most combat troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office. Despite some fears about such a departure, that stance is not unpopular here. Many Iraqis hate American forces because soldiers have killed their relatives and friends, and they say they want the troops out.

Got that? Support for withdrawal from Iraq "is not unpopular here." That's the clearest way to put it, isn't it?

See the FAIR magazine Extra!: No Way Out: Withdrawing from Withdrawal from Iraq (11–12/07) by Peter Hart

Correspondent Tumulty uses Time's Swampland blog to quote the newsmagazine's poll reporter Jackson Dykman criticizing what he calls the "utter nonsense" of a New York Times piece headlined "Poll Finds Obama Isn't Closing Divide on Race": "I've rarely seen a story so wildly off from the actual data on which it is based." Dykman continues:Are we really supposed to think that because a black man has become the Democratic nominee in recent weeks that he somehow should have cured (or markedly improved) race relations in this country?... Racial divisions in the U.S. have a wee bit of a 400-year head start on him.... Ninety percent of black voters think Obama would treat whites and blacks the same, but only 50 percent of black voters think McCain would treat both races the same. Yet Obama is the one who's failing to close "the country's divisions on race"?

Finally... why on earth would the story say "there's even racial dissension over Mr. Obama's wife, Michelle: She was viewed favorably by 58 percent of black voters, compared with 24 percent of white voters." The numbers for Cindy McCain: 20 percent favorable among white voters, 9 percent favorable among black voters (!!!)... Someone needs to tell me why the racial dissension is "over Michelle Obama."

Cable news contributor Martin sounds quite authoritative when announcing thatpart of the reason why vouchers have been denounced and dismissed is because Democrats have been far too obstinate on the issue, and have not listened to their constituents, especially African-Americans, who overwhelmingly support vouchers. There is no doubt that on this issue, McCain has it right and Obama has it wrong.

Really? A 2001 poll by the National School Boards Association/Zogby International, found that likely voters oppose vouchers 49 percent to 47 percent. And African-Americans oppose vouchers 57 percent to 41 percent....

Read FAIR's magazine Extra!: Test-Score 'Facts' Need Media Scrutiny: In Voucher Study, an Average Is Not Just an Average (3–4/01) by Phyllis Vine

Among other recent changes at the Associated Press, Swanson addresses fears of their new Washington bureau chief Ron Fournier-led approach that he dubs a "trend toward personalized journalism":This is the problem of pretended "objectivity." What stories are covered, how they are covered, what counts as a fact, who counts as qualified to comment, which comments are included, how everything is presented: These are all matters of individual taste and judgment, of bias, of "opinion," even in the most straightforward just-the-facts report. There is no such thing as "objectivity." But there is a widespread belief in it among readers and among reporters themselves, and the result is usually widespread public acceptance of certain opinions and points of view as unquestionable, god-given, and beyond dissent. When totalitarian state media outlets make this sort of claim, people tend not to fall for it. But when capitalist media outlets themselves fall for it, their readers do as well.

PR flack detective Javers notices something fishy on CNBC coverage "the day after dramatic news that the federal government was stepping in to support the mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae":Anchor Carl Quintanilla introduced a guest on his Squawk Box program. "Howard Glaser was a counselor to [the Department of Housing and Urban Development] during the Clinton administration. He's now a mortgage consultant. He joins us from San Diego," Quintanilla said. Joining the program during the crucial pre-trading hours as the market digested the news from Washington, Glaser offered what appeared to be independent analysis. He said the government’s action was a "message of confidence," and it was a "good move." What he did not say is that Glaser is a paid consultant to both Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

CNBC's not exactly confidence-inspiring defense: Javers says there own flack told him "the network didn't know that Glaser worked for the mortgage companies." Other corporate outlets don't appear to be much more knowledgeable—or perhaps they just don't care—judging by the results of a quick Nexis search in which "Howard Glaser" turns up 72 newspaper hits and 11 TV and radio transcripts.

In yet another winner from the current issue of Newsweek, Hirsh cites the following sources' take on the role of U.S. counterinsurgency training in the Colombian military's recent hostage rescue op: John Arquilla of the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School, Colombian Vice Defense Minister Juan Carlos Pinzón and Michael Vickers, the Pentagon's assistant secretary of defense for special operations. For even more "balance," Hirsh notes thatanother unheralded U.S. player in Colombia has been John Rendon, who became notorious a few years ago for the role that his consulting company, the Rendon Group, played in selling the war against Iraq.

While writing of how Rendon has been involved in psy ops encouraging factionalism amongst the ranks of the Colombian rebel group FARC, Hirsh doesn't mention whether part of what Rendon is being paid to do is sell U.S. military support in Colombia to the U.S. public—as was the case with the Iraq War. But with counterinsurgency-cheerleading "journalism" like this, who needs pro-military PR companies anyway?

Listen to FAIR's radio show CounterSpin: James Bamford on Rendon Group (12/9/05)

In their second-to-last graph, Balz and Cohen address John McCain's problems with those insidiously deemed "regular" voters by so many in corporate media:Among white voters, McCain has an advantage of 50 percent to 42 percent, while 94 percent of African Americans support Obama. The candidates are tied among whites who earn less than $50,000 a year, while McCain leads by 10 percentage points among those earning more than that.

What a strange political conversation we could be having—McCain doesn't do that well with working- and middle-class whites, but does very well with those earning more. But wait, isn't Obama supposed to be the elitist?

See also Matthew Yglesias: Obama's Elitism Problem, Continued (7/15/08)

Just days after what host Woodruff acknowledges was "one of the largest bank failures in U.S. history," the PBS show presents a diverse panel on the state of the U.S. banking industry—featuring two guests who happen to both be long-time banking industry insiders. A regular agreement-fest ensues, with guest William Isaac saying he "would agree with President Bush's sentiments, that it's time for us to take a deep breath." He goes on to rosily predict that "we'll get through this just fine" before fellow guest Bert Ely amiably agrees with his agreement: "I would agree with Bill Isaac that there is excessive anxiety. The banking industry overall is in very good shape." If you can stomach all this pablum, read further into the transcript—where you will learn from these hearty skeptics that the state of the economy isn't so bad, and of the subprime mortgage problems: "I think we're mostly through those."

The resurfacing of a 1986 article in the Tucson Citizen is making the Internet rounds, highlighting John McCain's comment at a D.C. conference:Did you hear the one about the woman who is attacked on the street by a gorilla, beaten senseless, raped repeatedly and left to die? When she finally regains consciousness and tries to speak, her doctor leans over to hear her sigh contently and to feebly ask, "Where is that marvelous ape?"

Unlike his other past misogynist comments, McCain denies remembering the joke, but it is instructional to compare the mainstream media fervor over arguably less offensive statements by former Barack Obama pastor Jeremiah Wright with the meager media pick-up of this item—Google News, searching for the terms "McCain" and "ape," turns up not a single U.S. newspaper that has mentioned McCain's "joke."

Asked for comment on the most recent push for offshore oil drilling, Shock Doctrine author Naomi Klein saysit's really important for people to understand that we are being subjected to an incredibly aggressive media campaign sponsored by the oil and gas industry. And, you know, it's to the point where it really is impossible to tell the difference between the paid advertisements, which we’re being bombarded with on cable news from the oil and gas industry, talking about how they can solve the problem of high prices with more drilling, and all of these commentators, from Larry Kudlow to Sean Hannity, repeating these talking points, and not to mention Dick Cheney, who just propagated a complete lie, saying that China was drilling off the coast of Cuba, and the vice president's office actually had to retract that. It turns out his source was George Will, who also had to issue a correction.

Listen also to the FAIR radio show CounterSpin: Tyson Slocum on Offshore Drilling (6/20/08)

Detailing how "for the past few years, Lou Dobbs has led anti-immigrant forces against amnesty, against illegal Mexicans, against Mexico, against his own government and against the truth," activist and columnist Miranda notes the latest direction of the CNN star's xenophobia:His rants have been less than truthful; once almost causing a panic in the United States when he brought forth on his show the issue of illegal Mexicans coming over the border infected with leprosy.... Lou Dobbs lied to stir the American people to rise up against the Mexican people, and he is doing it once again with the tomato issue. The salmonella outbreak that has sickened more than 200 people recently is being centered on Florida or Mexico as the likely sources of the contaminated vegetable. But if left up to Lou Dobbs to decide where those tainted tomatoes came from, the Crusader appears to be comfortable with blaming Mexico.

See the FAIR Action Alert: Dobbs' Dubious Disease Numbers: CNN Host Stands by Faulty Leprosy Statistics (5/11/07)

A lot about the current state of Newsweek reportage can be gleaned from this glimpse into managing editor Klaidman's views on their investigation of a needless Brooklyn hospital death caught on tape:What we found is a callous system of psychiatric care and emergency rooms that has become a vortex of many of our social ills, including poverty, immigration and a national health-insurance crisis.

You read that right: immigration is a "social ill."

Here's a question: Should the offshore oil drilling debate mostly focus on the rhetoric of politicians, or should media put more emphasis on whether the claims made by politicians are scientifically or economically valid? The Times evidently believes it's the former; Myers' and Hulse's story quotes six politicians, with perhaps a slight tilt towards Democrats. That slight tilt is more or less negated by the only two non-political experts who are quoted: someone from the Chamber of Commerce and another source from the climate change-denying, anti-energy industry regulations Institute for Energy Research.

Listen to FAIR's radio show CounterSpin: Tyson Slocum on Offshore Drilling (6/20/08)

The new congressional report on "Misleading Information from the Battlefield: The Tillman and Lynch Episodes" yields disturbing evidence of just how far corporate journalists are from their supposed role as defenders of public interest against government deception. Page 21 finds longtime big-media reporter/Republican flack Peggy Noonan pitching propaganda tactics to the White House in email suggesting they "find out what faith Tillman practiced and have the president go by that church and light a candle or say a prayer." (According to his brother, Tillman "wasn't religious.") A TPM reader also noticed the same passage's account of howKarl Rove exchanged e-mails about Pat Tillman with Associated Press reporter Ron Fournier, under the subject line "H-E-R-O." In response to Mr. Fournier's e-mail, Mr. Rove asked, "How does our country continue to produce men and women like this," to which Mr. Fournier replied, "The Lord creates men and women like this all over the world. But only the great and free countries allow them to flourish. Keep up the fight."

Fournier, who is now AP's Washington bureau chief, later said he was just "interacting with a source," but expressed regret for his "breezy" tone.

Echoing Matt Miller at the Wall Street Journal, Alter calls for Barack Obama to move to the right: All the criticism of Obama's moving to the center is misguided. General elections are won among moderate swing voters, many of whom would respond well to a Democratic candidate willing to show he can slip the ideological stranglehold of a retrograde liberal interest group.

Somehow Republican candidates have managed to win elections without showing that they can slip the ideological strangleholds of retrograde conservative interest groups--but apparently this option is not available to Democratic candidates. Alter specifies that Obama should specifically push to the right on education policy by taking on the "paleolithic" teachers' unions: "He should tell the unions they must change their focus from job security and the protection of ineffective teachers to higher pay and true accountability for performance—or face extinction." It's not clear what would lie behind this threat to exterminate teachers' unions, but it is clear that making such a threat would alienate one of the main fonts of grassroots energy in the Democratic coalition--akin to a Republican candidate turning on the NRA or evangelical churches. Why do so many pundits offer Obama advice that would seem likely to torpedo his campaign? It's like Harold Ford (also in Newsweek saying that Obama should have gone bowling again and again to show he wasn't a quitter. Or Juan Williams' Wall Street Journal advice (6/6/08) that "admit to sins of using race for political expediency--by knowingly buying into divisive, mean messages being delivered from the pulpit." Now there's a winning slogan.

Even when criticizing John McCain's characterization of Social Security as a "disgrace," reporter Wallsten gives a misleading explanation of the financial reality:A government report in March painted a gloomy picture of the program's future, estimating that its costs will surpass payroll tax revenue in 2017—forcing the system to rely on a trust fund that, the report said, will go broke in 2041. After that, workers' payroll taxes would cover only a fraction of the benefits promised to retirees. Most experts agree that fixing the system will require benefit reductions, tax increases, a rise in the retirement age, or some combination of the three.

This is unnecessarily alarmist—as Dean Baker and others have been saying for years, the system needs only slight adjustments well into the future in order to remain fully solvent. The Times is even misleading readers about what the government thinks—note the ominous language that in 2041 payroll taxes will cover "only a fraction of the benefits promised to retirees." As the Center on Budget & Policy Priorities explained when the report was released in March, that fraction is 78 percent—and could be handled with a rather small adjustment:The trustees report reaffirms that Social Security is in excellent financial shape over the near term. The program will be able to pay 100 percent of promised benefits for more than three decades—until 2041. At that point, income will be sufficient to pay only 78 percent of benefits. Measured over the next 75 years, the amount by which income will fall short of what is needed to pay benefits amounts to 0.6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). Many combinations of modest revenue increases and benefit reductions would remedy the projected shortfall for 75 years and beyond. Social Security is structurally sound and does not require drastic changes.

A big Sunday L.A. Times piece titled "Obama, McCain Agree on Many Once-Divisive Issues" moves law professor Zasloff to declare that "never—and this is high bar—have I seen a more misleading and shallow piece of so-called journalism." Just looking at the sub-headline, "Their Similar Stances on Immigration, Nuclear Weapons, Global Warming and Stem-Cell Research Are Evidence of a Centrist Shift in the Political Landscape," Zasloff wonders, "where to start?":Well, here's an easy one: "Both McCain and Obama favor combating global warming with a 'cap and trade' system. Under this plan, the government would set limits on emissions. Companies and others who emit gases below those limits would be able to sell credits to those unable to meet the targets." Except that, you know, McCain doesn't think there should actually be a cap, and has opposed the already extremely weak Warner-Lieberman bill. He thinks global warming is a problem; he just doesn't want to do anything about it.

Listen to FAIR's radio show CounterSpin: Kate Sheppard on McCain & Environment (5/9/08)

Perhaps "Obama Made Right Decision on Public Financing" should have been the headline of this piece that briefly describes John McCain campaign manager Rich Davis claiming that his candidate, once you factor in all of the party money and what-not, will have the same amount to spend as Barack Obama. Of course, corporate media can't make too much of this--otherwise all their moral outrage over Obama's decision to opt-out of public financing would seem rather odd. Unless they were suggesting that Obama should have accepted public financing in order to put himself at a tremendous disadvantage in the election?

The double-dealing McCain is pulling is the stuff the agreement Obama wanted to sign would have prevented him from doing—in other words, a real, detailed agreement would have been necessary to ensure a level playing field with public financing. And the reason the playing field would not have been level is worth spelling out: Republican candidates have more backers willing to write five-figure checks.

See the FAIR Media Advisory: Two Standards on Public Financing (7/3/08)