I won’t lie, though. I completely agree with what DeGeneres said when she told Couric in a recent CBS web-only interview:

“It’s a double standard” when it comes to women and body image.

“There are men with really beautiful women that don’t have great bodies,” she said. “Yet nobody is saying anything about that.” [Ed: Except Pasta.]

“It’s not fair,” Ellen added. “The way that magazines airbrush everything, women are looking at bodies like that going, ‘my stomach doesn’t look like that. I’m supposed to look like that?’ So they starve themselves and they work out like crazy . . . We put the wrong emphasis on what beauty is, and what health is.”

True. Buuuuut …

In their own small ways, couldn’t both DeGeneres and Couric be seen as just a teensy bit complicit in perpetuating women’s unhealthy obsession with body image? Perhaps, as NewsBusters’ Candance Moore notes:

. . . the reason for [women's obsession with body image] is not because of domineering men. Maybe girls feel pressure to look better because their Idols like Ellen DeGeneres tell them to.

Hmmm. Let’s see if Ellen can explain to her fans how her decision to become a CoverGirl spokeswoman (complete with airbrushed photos) fits in with that whole healthy body image thing. Isn’t trying to make a 52-year-old look like a 22-year-old kinda the same as airbrushing a little cellulite off a celeb’s thighs?

Or perhaps she would care to comment on what exactly it was that she found so attractive about the tall, leggy, and formerly anorexic Portia de Rossi? I’m sure it was her taste in books. Or movies. I mean, is it just me, or doesn’t the Better Off Ted blonde bombshell sort of epitomize our sexist society’s female ideal?

Oh, it’s just me? Oh, okay.

And, yes, I realize this ad is tongue-in-cheek, but I also know there are plenty of young women out there who idolize Ellen. (Don’t ask me why.) They might not completely get the joke. And, well, judging from other CoverGirl ads I’ve seen — she’s not really too far off-base with that first line anyway.

And Couric? Didn’t Her Perkiness take Ellen to task for this blatant double-talk? Peel her like “a raw carrot,” as Phoebe Eaton of Harper’s Bazaar said she did in her interview with Sarah Palin? Not so much.

Sadly, as NewsBusters explains:

. . . the hard-hitting news anchor Katie Couric went right along with [Ellen's] rant, even piping in herself to bemoan the unhealthy lengths some women go to.

Meanwhile . . . Couric is currently featured in Harper’s Bazaar bragging about her shapely legs that helped her succeed in broadcasting. No word on whether a fat girl might starve herself to have legs like Katie Couric.

Like Katie Couric? Eh.

Like Portia de Rossi? Now we’re talkin’.

What’s surprising is when they smoke too much pot and get confused about the boundaries of their hypocrisy. That, of course, is when they become Deceiver-worthy.

Politico reports that Mara Liasson, top political correspondent for NPR and frequent Fox News Channel contributor, was asked by NPR to reconsider her appearances on Fox News.

In other words, stop appearing on Fox News, Mara, or we’ll take back your tote bag.

Liasson has been on Fox News since 1997. So it’s pretty ridiculous for NPR to worry about its image being tarnished by one of their own showing up on a channel that isn’t all Obama-rific.

Here’s the fallout, courtesy of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:

The request apparently came shortly after the Obama administration launched claims in September that Fox was an arm of the Republican Party. It also seemed to coincide with an October piece in Newsweek by Jacob Weisberg, the editor of the liberal Web site Slate, castigating reporters from other networks who guest on Fox.

“Respectable journalists — I’m talking to you, Mara Liasson — should stop appearing on its programs,” he wrote. Liasson declined comment, but Politico reports that she intends to continue her Fox work. A Fox spokesperson had this to say about NPR’s internal flap: “With the ratings we have, NPR should be paying us to even be mentioned on our air.”

Even Joe Scarborough tried, and I mean tried, to talk about the incident. While he says he thinks NPR was out of line, what comes through is his heroic ode to NPR.  You can almost hear him lighting a doobie while he yammers on:

“Well I just want to say, I love NPR and I listen to NPR, but I’ve been listening to reformed, pot-smoking hippies for the past thirty years on NPR with a very substantial left-wing bias – and I don’t care that they eat tree bark like Euell Gibbons, and I don’t care if they are still smoking pot in their sixties. They put on great radio.”

Not really. That’s why we don’t listen to it unless we’re trying to take a nap. As blogger Mike Sargent put it, NPR is “the radio form of Ambien.” (I’m leaving Prairie Home Companion out of this because Garrison Keillor has different overlords. Besides, I love ketchup and I’d like to try Powdermilk Biscuits someday.)

At least one person inside ABC acknowledges the problem in this scenario:

Brown will do a taped tell-all with Robin Roberts, followed by a performance of songs from his new album. But TV insiders say the appearance, slated to air the week after next, has outraged feminists and gay activists who wonder why a convicted girlfriend abuser is more palatable to the network than an openly gay man who broke no laws with his raunchy performance on the “American Music Awards.”

An ABC source said, “The network is giving a mixed message — that it doesn’t trust someone who shocked with an unpredictable show and a gay kiss, but then it is happy to go ahead with Chris Brown, who was convicted of felony assault.”

ABC News has insisted that Lambert’s sexual orientation did not play a role in its decision to pull the plug on his “GMA” appearance this week.

ABC insiders said they ruled the “American Idol” star’s sexed-up shenanigans on Sunday’s awards show — which included him groping a female dancer, kissing a male musician and shoving a male dancer’s face into his crotch — were inappropriate for morning TV. One said, “He was not canceled over a gay kiss. He showed himself to be unpredictable on live TV.”

As opposed to Chris Brown, who has only showed himself to be unpredictable in the front seat of a rental Lamborghini. And in most of his inappropriate defenses of his behavior since he pleaded guilty. But at least he didn’t kiss a boy!

(Hat tip to Jos at Feministing for her finely tuned bullcrap meter.)

In the most recent Clipse video called “Popular Demand,” viewers may be confused by what appears to be performers rapping in front of a blank restaurant marquee. What’s with the flat yellow paint, you ask? Deceiver delivers!

The Brokelyn blog first reported last week that MTV censored the name of the Brooklyn fast food joint in the video — the often vilified “Obama Fried Chicken.” When asked, MTV used the “someone else asked us to censor it, but we don’t remember who” excuse. (Really. They really used that excuse.)

Here are the censored and uncensored version of the video. Below are some screen shots so you don’t suffer (like I did) watching the actual videos.

Feeling uncomfortable yet? MTV is known for censorship of various sorts. (Plenty of things are glazed over, and some randomly strong statements or images go untouched by the PTB’s.) Cable TV channels can’t protect us from stupid people any more than they can protect us from bad music, but MTV seems unable even to protect itself from its own double-standard.

Back in August 2007, MTV lashed out at AT&T for apparently editing out some mildly disparaging comments about then-President Bush:

Before a crowd that stretched as far as the eye could see, Pearl Jam closed out Lollapalooza on Sunday night with … lyrics from Pink Floyd’s “Another Brick in the Wall, Pt. 2″ slipped into “Daughter,” during which singer Eddie Vedder altered the lyrics to, “George Bush: Leave this world alone!” …

Oh, wait, you didn’t hear that part?

Maybe you were watching the live “Blue Room” webcast of Lollapalooza beamed out by main Lollapalooza sponsor AT&T. According to the band and a number of its fans, PJ were informed after the show that some segments of their performance were missing from the AT&T broadcast — namely the anti-Bush statements, which led them to suspect that the broadcast may have been censored by AT&T.

MTV’s coverage continues:

“We aren’t talking about them editing ‘f—’ out,” [Pearl Jam spokesperson Nicole] Vandenberg continued, after acknowledging that mistakes often happen during such high-pressure, live events. “We’re talking about them editing out content in a song that referenced the president. I’m curious as to why this content monitor thought that might concern them? I’m interested in knowing whether AT&T thinks this is the only ‘content monitor’ who will ever make a mistake of this nature?”

The other line cut from the webcast was, “George Bush: Find yourself another home.”

Steve Schwadron, a spokesperson for AT&T, told MTV News on Thursday that the editing of the performance was not intentional and was “a mistake by one of our webcast vendors.” Adam Smith — executive vice president of the vendor, music-consulting firm Davey Brown Entertainment, which produced the webcast for AT&T — also said the edit was an unintended error. “It was a mistake,” Smith said. “Our policy is not to edit any performance at all — never, ever. We take responsibility for the mistake.”

Much of MTV’s reporting could be re-mashed into a manifesto titled “For the Sacred Rights of All Men to Hear Disparaging Comments About Anyone, Including Presidents.”

My, what a difference two years makes.

Hey MTV, if you’re going to censor all “extremes of the political spectrum” style, maybe you should have a plan. I’m sure Stalin did.

Ah … good times.

But you don’t come here for family moments that you’ll cherish for a lifetime. So here’s a Thanksgiving serving of Deceiver casserole for you Americans. Just so you’ll have something to talk about tomorrow besides Aunt Rachel’s botox.

You non-Americans, just play along like usual, ok?

1. U.S. politician (and former Muppet model) Bob Barr is complaining about PETA. Seems they’ve got their own VISA affinity card. VISA sponsors the Kentucky Derby.
2. MSNBC droid™ Chris Matthews suggested that a Sarah Palin book-signing was a racist event because of all the white faces in the crowd. And then Michelle Malkin was all–You’re so white, Mr whitey-honky-cracker network. You betcha.
3. Miley Cyrus told a radio interviewer this week that the whole Twilight movie phenomenon is “a cult. I think it’s bad.” How exactly is this different from all the screaming brats who obsessed over her “Hannah Montana” movie and all its retarded mentally challenged merchandising? Sorry, Miley. No vampire. Not yours.
4. Rebecca Gayheart is pregnant, you guys! And she’s totally healthy, telling the press that she’s “doing yoga, and I’m walking on the beach every day with my dogs for about an hour. I drink lots of water and eat a lot of vegetables and protein. And I chain smoke unfiltered Pall Malls.”  Okay, I added that last part. (Who is Rebecca Gayheart, again? Oh yeah.)
5. The newspaper headline of the month comes from a story about Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, in Toronto’s Globe and Mail: “Harper lauds press freedom in speech, doesn’t take questions from reporters.”
6. A group of pissed-off Catholics in Washington, DC is asking the faithful to help them gather “reports on every gay priest in the Archdiocese,” figuring that they’re hypocrites if they don’t complain about the church’s position on gay marriage. Snaps for the website name. Clever.
7. The New York Times blog says it won’t reprint any of the now-famous “ClimateGate” hacked e-mails for its readers, because, you know, private letters are nobody’s beeswax. Mighty principled of them, dontcha think? … What’s that about the Pentagon Papers? And the Times blog linked to Sarah Palin’s hacked e-mails last year? Oh. Never mind.

Discuss. And quit hogging the pumpkin pie. Some of us down here haven’t had any.

(Hat tip: Original photoshop hatchet-job above suggested by the hilarious tweeter @BarackBorat)

“Honestly, because I have expressed my wrongs and there is nothing that could come out that’s like, ‘OK, this is something totally different than what we know,’ ” he told MTV News when asked. “I basically expressed how I feel, basically said what I’m wrong for.”

But apparently he didn’t realize that her graphic retelling of how he held her in a headlock and punched and bit her repeatedly would make him look bad. Because now that the interview has aired, it’s a different tune altogether:

“While I respect Rihanna’s right to discuss the specific events of February 8,” Brown says in a statement to MTV News, “I maintain my position that all of the details should remain a private matter between us.”

In other words: “Bitch, shut up and stop ruining my career.” I seriously can’t believe he’s trying to put her in her place here. But the real hypocrisy is how he was all too willing to share the details of what it was like when he was the victim of abuse at the hands of his mom’s boyfriend as a kid.

You have to wonder how his year of court-mandated domestic violence counseling is going if this is how he shows respect.

I’m sad to report today a death of a good friend to all of us…..Journalism, the once esteemed 4th estate of our nation and the protector of our freedoms and a watchdog of our rights has passed away after a long struggle with a crippling and debilitating disease of acute dishonesty aggravated by advanced laziness and the loss of brain function.

His pronouncement would carry a lot more weight were he not actively contributing to media distortion and a tenuous relationship with the truth himself.

Such as the time he said the founding fathers always intended for the Constitution to be revised, except if so doing allowed gays to marry. Or when he said the United States needs to be a more Christian nation, until that sentiment became politically unpopular in his bid for the presidency.

Or hell, when he called in a favor with the Arkansas state police so his son wouldn’t be prosecuted for torturing a stray dog.

So I suppose what I’m asking is, Is Fox News magically exempt from this criticism of media honesty? Or isn’t he, in his spiffy new partisan commentator gig, just contributing to the problem?

Hat tip: Las Vegas Review Journal’s The Water Cooler

Click here to view the embedded video.

Remember in June when ABC ran that awesome (read: extremely boring) health care special while being hosted by the Obama White House?  Well now ABC news has said they will not run the ad that pokes holes in Obamacare because it is “partisan.”  ABC spokeswoman Susan Sewell said in her written statement,

The ABC Television Network has a long-standing policy that we do not sell time for advertising that presents a partisan position on a controversial public issue.   Just to be clear, this is a policy for the entire network, not just ABC News.

I love when our lovely unbiased news networks refuse to run paid advertisements like this one from the League of American Voters (a non-profit group that advocates individual liberty and government accountability).  CBS has approved the ad for national distribution while NBC is still considering the ad pending a few revisions.  Just ABC won’t sell time for partisan positions on controversial public issues, but they’re happy to include them in regularly scheduled news programming.

ABC in all their “non-partisan” glory deserves to be questioned for selling out to Obama’s healthcare propaganda while refusing to run an ad that presents the other side.

Ingrid Newkirk sat down with Montel Williams yesterday

Montel tried to get Newkirk to admit that she was trying to get a reaction with this stupid message, but again, no dice:

MW: Ingrid, you have admit, come on, I’ve got it, you were controversial, you hit your home run, it went out of the park, I’m talking about it for three days. And the rest of America is going to keep talking about it. But the truth is, I think Joseph is right. Any child who would use that as a reason, or anybody who now says ‘those fat people are people who pick on animals,’ come on, we’ve got to slow down a little bit.

IN: I wish more than anything you can ever imagine that we could not be controversial, and we could not be provocative. I really do.

Really. Uh huh. Come on. Whatever, Ingrid. All PETA knows is the lowest common denominator, and here the freaking founder is saying she wishes they would tone it down. It’s not like she’s in charge or anything. But unfortunately, Newkirk’s selective memory appears to mean we can look forward to salacious stunts and naked celebrities for decades to come.

(Have to thank Jezebel for transcribing the interview, ’cause there’s no way my ears could take listening to those four minutes over and over.)

Hoo boy. Bill O’Reilly really got into it with a Columbia professor for criticizing Michael Jackson on the day of his memorial service.

First, O’Reilly blasted the media for holding up MJ as a black icon:

And why are Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton making this a racial deal? Jackson bleached his own skin and then chose white men to provide existence for his in vitro children. I mean, give me a break with all this. To hear Sharpton speak today, you’d think Mr. Jackson was Martin Luther King Jr.

O’Reilly went on to speculate about the pedophilia accusations and tabloid-style antics. Then he had race-relations expert Marc Lamont Hill on the program to provide the counterbalance. And well, he did:

Hill: No one is saying that the media should not have drawn attention to Michael Jackson for those behaviors. The component is now he has passed away. About a year or two ago when Jerry Falwell died, you and I debated this very point. You said, “Give the man three days to a week and let the people mourn him before you start talking about his racist politics.” You said that yourself. So why are we giving Jerry Falwell something that we won’t even give Michael Jackson? … You critiqued me for calling him a racist after his funeral. You said that’s inappropriate behavior, that it’s insensitive and that it’s disrespectful to his legacy to do so. Not because you didn’t agree with me, but because you said, “That’s not what you do to a celebrity after they die.”

O’Reilly: It’s apples and oranges. Look look look. It is.

The Falwell interaction in question can be viewed here:

Hill: Many people are really celebrating the death of his movement and celebrating the death of his ideologies which had a vicious effect on people in America. Not so much him the father or him the husband. That’s a very different thing. But I think at some point it does come over the line.

O’Reilly: Well I mean, you can celebrate whatever you want to celebrate two weeks from now. But there is decency, doctor. And decency was crossed over the line by all of those newspapers.

So speaking ill of the dead on the day of their funeral is in bad taste only when O’Reilly doesn’t have a problem with the guy. This seems like pretty clear cut apples and apples to me.