Faux News joins Newt in making the case to destroy the first amendment

Here's a bit of a followup (sort of) to a story I mentioned in Tuesday night's (November 28) Daily RunDown, about Newt Gingrich's desire to burn the Constitution, saying that he thinks America needs to rethink free speech before we "lose a city" (won't the GOP ever grow tired of using scare tactics on American citizens dumb enough to believe them?).

Anyway, I found the video below via a News Hounds column revealing a stark contrast in the way the story was covered by both Faux News, and Countdown w/ Keith Olbermann. While Faux, as you may have guessed, used the afore mentioned scare tactics, Olbermann gave the ENTIRE STORY, and, unlike Faux, turned to someone who might actually KNOW SOMETHING on the subject.

For reaction, Olberrmann went to Jonathan Turley, an expert on constitutional law from George Washington University. Turley warned that Gingrich's appeal likely fall on receptive ears among some Americans because fear can be a powerful motivator. "People don't seem to appreciate that you really can't save a constitution by destroying it," he said.

MacCallum's piece, which ran on Wednesday (November 29, 2006) was markedly different. She framed the story with an unrelated event -- the guilty pleas of two Texas men to charges that they tried to join the Taliban by using their ATM cards to send money to a charity. Then she quoted only a brief segment of Gingrich's remarks, the scary part: "We need to get ahead of the curve before we actually lose a city ... which I believe could happen in the next decade."

For comment, MacCallum turned not to experts on the constitution, but to a former FBI official and a terrorism analyst. Their comments focused almost exclusively on the lack of funds for fighting terrorism and the problems raised for law enforcement by the constitution. MacCallum introduced one of them by asking, "Are we mired in our own muck in terms of our intelligence?"

"We need to get out of our own way. We are defining as civil liberties things that are basic to investigative law enforcement, protecting us against terrorism," said David Katz, a terrorism analyst.

MacCallum never questioned the Gingrich premise -- that law enforcement lacks the tools for fighting terrorism. She never expressed any doubts about the loss of free speech and how that would be administered. She never mentioned Gingrich's proposal that web sites that someone deems dangerous (like this one?) should be closed down.

And she totally missed the irony of Gingrich making his proposal at a First Amendment dinner. But then, that's no surprise.

No surprise indeed. Checkout the video for yourself: