Media Archive

Media

You Might Have Trouble Reading This

Have trouble focusing? Can't seem to get through a book any more? This might explain why.

"Dave, stop. Stop, will you? Stop, Dave. Will you stop, Dave?" So the supercomputer HAL pleads with the implacable astronaut Dave Bowman in a famous and weirdly poignant scene toward the end of Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. Bowman, having nearly been sent to a deep-space death by the malfunctioning machine, is calmly, coldly disconnecting the memory circuits that control its artificial " brain. "Dave, my mind is going," HAL says, forlornly. "I can feel it. I can feel it."

I can feel it, too. Over the past few years I've had an uncomfortable sense that someone, or something, has been tinkering with my brain, remapping the neural circuitry, reprogramming the memory. My mind isn't going--so far as I can tell--but it's changing. I'm not thinking the way I used to think. I can feel it most strongly when I'm reading. Immersing myself in a book or a lengthy article used to be easy. My mind would get caught up in the narrative or the turns of the argument, and I'd spend hours strolling through long stretches of prose. That's rarely the case anymore. Now my concentration often starts to drift after two or three pages. I get fidgety, lose the thread, begin looking for something else to do. I feel as if I'm always dragging my wayward brain back to the text. The deep reading that used to come naturally has become a struggle.

I think I know what's going on. For more than a decade now, I've been spending a lot of time online, searching and surfing and sometimes adding to the great databases of the Internet. The Web has been a godsend to me as a writer. Research that once required days in the stacks or periodical rooms of libraries can now be done in minutes. A few Google searches, some quick clicks on hyperlinks, and I've got the telltale fact or pithy quote I was after. Even when I'm not working, I'm as likely as not to be foraging in the Web's info-thickets'reading and writing e-mails, scanning headlines and blog posts, watching videos and listening to podcasts, or just tripping from link to link to link. (Unlike footnotes, to which they're sometimes likened, hyperlinks don't merely point to related works; they propel you toward them.)

For me, as for others, the Net is becoming a universal medium, the conduit for most of the information that flows through my eyes and ears and into my mind. The advantages of having immediate access to such an incredibly rich store of information are many, and they've been widely described and duly applauded. "The perfect recall of silicon memory," Wired's Clive Thompson has written, "can be an enormous boon to thinking." But that boon comes at a price. As the media theorist Marshall McLuhan pointed out in the 1960s, media are not just passive channels of information. They supply the stuff of thought, but they also shape the process of thought. And what the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation. My mind now expects to take in information the way the Net distributes it: in a swiftly moving stream of particles. Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski.

I can still get through books and am always reading something, but more then ever, I find myself switching between books, giving up after a few pages. My memory is shot and I can't spell anymore either. Why do I need those things when I have Google? It's a little scary. I wonder how this is going to affect the generations growing up without knowing a world without the Internet. If it's this bad for us, how will they be able to read anything longer than a few pages or paragraphs?

Media

News Critique

It really is that stupid:

(added 10MAR2010) and then there's this:

Cinema

Essential Ebert

Roger Ebert

There's a really interesting profile of Roger Ebert in Esquire.

It has been nearly four years since Roger Ebert lost his lower jaw and his ability to speak. Now television's most famous movie critic is rarely seen and never heard, but his words have never stopped.

* * *

Roger Ebert can't remember the last thing he ate. He can't remember the last thing he drank, either, or the last thing he said. Of course, those things existed; those lasts happened. They just didn't happen with enough warning for him to have bothered committing them to memory -- it wasn't as though he sat down, knowingly, to his last supper or last cup of coffee or to whisper a last word into Chaz's ear. The doctors told him they were going to give him back his ability to eat, drink, and talk. But the doctors were wrong, weren't they? On some morning or afternoon or evening, sometime in 2006, Ebert took his last bite and sip, and he spoke his last word.

Ebert's lasts almost certainly took place in a hospital. That much he can guess. His last food was probably nothing special, except that it was: hot soup in a brown plastic bowl; maybe some oatmeal; perhaps a saltine or some canned peaches. His last drink? Water, most likely, but maybe juice, again slurped out of plastic with the tinfoil lid peeled back. The last thing he said? Ebert thinks about it for a few moments, and then his eyes go wide behind his glasses, and he looks out into space in case the answer is floating in the air somewhere. It isn't. He looks surprised that he can't remember. He knows the last words Studs Terkel's wife, Ida, muttered when she was wheeled into the operating room ("Louis, what have you gotten me into now?"), but Ebert doesn't know what his own last words were. He thinks he probably said goodbye to Chaz before one of his own trips into the operating room, perhaps when he had parts of his salivary glands taken out -- but that can't be right. He was back on TV after that operation. Whenever it was, the moment wasn't cinematic. His last words weren't recorded. There was just his voice, and then there wasn't.

Like many of my generation, I grew up watching Ebert argue with Gene Siskel over whether a movie deserved a thumbs up or down on At the Movies. After Siskel passed away, I didn't watch the show much anymore. I wasn't a huge fan of his replacement.

I would hear about Ebert here and there, but it wasn't until I heard a story on All Things Considered about this company from Scotland that was reproducing his voice from old recordings so he could speak that I heard anything about his health issues.

I find what has happened to him both sad and uplifting. I wish him all the best. Clearly he's getting along just fine despite what must be an almost intolerable situation. It's certainly nightmarish to contemplate it happening.

More info:

  • rogerebert.com
  • Wikipedia: Roger Ebert
  • Tech Stuff

    PS3 Problems

    I finally broke down and bought a PS3, only a few years after it came to market. Such an early adopter am I. I don't have any games. I don't even know if I'll buy any. I bought it for the Blu-Ray, as a media server (it has a 120GB hard drive) and to stream Netflix movies on my TV which is pretty cool.

    However, I can't get the system to work. My TV won't recognize the console through the AV cables that come with the box. I searched the interwebs for a solution, but couldn't find any that worked, so I ordered an HDMI cable on eBay and I've got a call into Sony customer support, but it's really frustrating that it just isn't working. One of those two things better work.

    Cycling

    Steve Schlanger & Todd Gogulski...

    ...are really boring. Can't believe I have to listen to these jokers for the entire Giro. Where are Phil. Paul and Bob when you need them? Give me Al Trautwig. Give me Al Michaels. Give me anybody but these guys. I'd even take Craig Hummer.

    Don't get me wrong. I'm happy to have the Giro on US television, but we've got to be able to do better than Schlanger and Gogulski.

    Cycling

    Viva Le Giro

    girbecco.jpgHold your hats, but the Giro D'Italia is coming to American TVs for first time in it's 100 years. It's going to be on Universal Sports.

    So what's the occasion? One word: Lance. Lance Armstrong is back and riding the Giro for the first time. Can he win? I wouldn't put it past him. He has an iron will and you have to know that his training has been insanely intense. However, he's coming off a broken collarbone, he hasn't raced a grand tour in a couple of years and doesn't have that many race miles under his belt. More likely, he'll be helping his teammate Levi Leipheimer win the race. Only one American, Andy Hampsten in 1988, has won the Giro, so it'll be good to get another yank in the winners circle.The competition is going to be fierce. This is the 100th version of the race, so the Italians will be extra-motivated to keep the title at home. Should be an incredibly exciting race. Defending champ Alberto Contador, Armstrong's teammate on Team Astana, will not be riding. Instead his preparing for his return to the Tour de France in July.

    The Universal Sports announcers are rather dull. I'll take Phil, Paul or Bob any day, but it will be a pleasant change to have commentary in English. Last year, in order to watch the event live, I signed up for the Italian Sports Channel RAI. For three weeks I watched the cyclists suffer through the Italian peninsula while commentators babeled in Italian I couldn't understand. I was happy to watch it, and the animation of the Italian announcers was impressive. It would have been nice to understand what they were saying.

    The three week Giro kicks off with a team time trial on Saturday on Lido di Venezia. Coverage starts at 5:30am PST, so set your DVRs.

    If you don't have a TV (or don't have cable) or just want to follow the event online, the best place to track news of the Giro, as always, is Steephilll.tv

    Media

    Taibi Rips Friedman a New One


    I love Matt Taibi. Anyone who can chart the dimensions of Valerie Bertinelli's ass versus happiness is a hero in my book. But that aside, there's no question in my mind he's the most talented writer in America today. He's also a brilliant wit and wordsmith and when he focuses his pen on someone, he doesn't miss.

    Latest victim: Thomas Friedman.

    Remember Friedman's take on Bush's Iraq policy? "It's OK to throw out your steering wheel," he wrote, "as long as you remember you're driving without one." Picture that for a minute. Or how about Friedman's analysis of America's foreign policy outlook last May: The first rule of holes is when you're in one, stop digging.When you're in three, bring a lot of shovels."

    First of all, how can any single person be in three holes at once? Secondly, what the fuck is he talking about? If you're supposed to stop digging when you're in one hole, why should you dig more in three? How does that even begin to make sense? It's stuff like this that makes me wonder if the editors over at the New York Times editorial page spend their afternoons dropping acid or drinking rubbing alcohol. Sending a line like that into print is the journalism equivalent of a security guard at a nuke plant waving a pair of mullahs in explosive vests through the front gate. It should never, ever happen.

    You have to read the whole thing.

    News

    Greenwald on the Media

    Greenwald on the Media
    For a Democracy to be healthy, there needs to be a thriving, strong, and adversarial media that forces truth out from the dark corners of the government and keeps the people informed so they are capable of making educated decisions about who should be running the country (and, notably, who shouldn't). Our current media establishment has failed in this regard. You want proof? Go no further than that many people in this country still think Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. If the media was doing it's job, any myths which the government tries to peddle would be scoffed at and debunked immediately. Instead they fester like open sores on the body politic and are perpetuated by a broken, corrupt system that instead of questioning the powerful, allows itself to be coddled by it.

    If you want to keep up with latest stories of our corrupt media, the best place is Glenn Greenwald's Unclaimed Territory on Salon.com. Greenwald, a former constitutional law and civil rights lawyer, writes with rapier like precision about the failings of our media, the corruption and lawlessness of our government and the hypocrisy of our leaders. Most of the stories he covers are completely ignored by the mainstream media, so if you want to stay informed about these topics which the media talking heads want to ignore or wish away, Greenwald is the best place to start. I've linked to some of the more recent media critiques below the fold.

    Television

    What's Andrew Watching or This Changes Everything

    What's the best thing about my DVR, you ask? Well, I can now watch PTI when I come home. I don't know why ESPN only broadcasts the show in the middle of the day on the Left Coast, but it doesn't matter anymore. They can show the program in the middle of the fucking night for all I care, because I just record it and watch it when I get home (zipping through all the commercials, of course). Kornheiser and Wilbon yuck it up and keep me up to date on the sports world at the same time. Perfect.

    What else do I have on my DVR, you ask? Besides the random movie here and there, here's what I got:

    Music

    Digital Mixed Tape

    I can't remember the last time I made a mixed tape. For that matter, I can't remember the last time I owned a cassette player that could record. Must have been in high school and I need some serious hypnotherapy to remember most of what went on there.



    But no matter. Don't need any of that analag shit to make a mixed tape these days. Just need Muxtape. It's as simple as you can imagine. Open an account. Upload MP3's. Share. When I get home tonight, I'll set one up and share it will ya'll. In the mean time, check out the Resurrection of Cool on Pandora if you want to hear some cool jazz.

    Politics

    Special Comment

    Why does it seem strange to me that seemingly the only member of the national media who is willing to take the Bush administration to task day in and day out is Keith Olbermann? Maybe it's because he used to be the local sports guy on Channel 5 in LA when I was in high school, but, fuck, at least someone is doing it. His show-ending commentaries are about the only "must see TV" on the air. His comments tonight about Gerorge Bush's mendacity over the last few days are particularly noteworthy. Here's Olbermann:

    The president of the United States - unbowed, undeterred and unconnected to reality - has continued his extraordinary trek through our country rooting out the enemies of freedom: the Democrats.

    Yesterday at a fundraiser for an Arizona congressman, Mr. Bush claimed, quote, "177 of the opposition party said, 'You know, we don't think we ought to be listening to the conversations of terrorists.'"

    The hell they did.

    One hundred seventy-seven Democrats opposed the president's seizure of another part of the Constitution.

    Not even the White House press office could actually name a single Democrat who had ever said the government shouldn't be listening to the conversations of terrorists.

    President Bush hears what he wants.

    Tuesday, at another fundraiser in California, he had said, "Democrats take a law enforcement approach to terrorism. That means America will wait until we're attacked again before we respond."

    Mr. Bush fabricated that, too.

    And evidently he has begun to fancy himself as a mind reader.

    "If you listen closely to some of the leaders of the Democratic Party," the president said at another fundraiser Monday in Nevada, "it sounds like they think the best way to protect the American people is - wait until we're attacked again."

    The president doesn't just hear what he wants.

    He hears things that only he can hear.

    It defies belief that this president and his administration could continue to find new unexplored political gutters into which they could wallow.

    Yet they do.

    It is startling enough that such things could be said out loud by any president of this nation.

    Rhetorically, it is about an inch short of Mr. Bush accusing Democratic leaders, Democrats, the majority of Americans who disagree with his policies of treason.

    But it is the context that truly makes the head spin.

    Just 25 days ago, on the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, this same man spoke to this nation and insisted, "We must put aside our differences and work together to meet the test that history has given us."

    Mr. Bush, this is a test you have already failed.

    If your commitment to "put aside differences and work together" is replaced in the span of just three weeks by claiming your political opponents prefer to wait to see this country attacked again, and by spewing fabrications about what they've said, then the questions your critics need to be asking are no longer about your policies.

    They are, instead, solemn and even terrible questions, about your fitness to fulfill the responsibilities of your office.

    That's the crux of it, but it's worth reading the whole thing.

    Media

    I Hate NBC

    The Olympics comes around every 4 years. If you're a sports fan, it's something to look forward to, something to be cherished. It's the one opporunity for most of us in this international sports deprived country to get a look at bobsled, speed skating, luge, ski jumping, cross country, biathlon. All these incredible sports that essentially do not exist for Americans outside of the Winter Olympics. These events need to be covered and covered well. They need to be live. LIVE LIVE LIVE. I know it sounds insane, but I want to have to wake up at 2am to watch fucking curling live. I want to wake up at 3am to take in the Nordic Combined.

    If it's not live there is no drama. Simple as that. It's too easy to find out the results. I hear it on the the NewsHour. I see them on the ESPN scroll. I even see them on NBC's damn website. NBC has covered a few events live, notably hockey, which has been excellent, but not nearly enough.

    The games should not be in the hands of NBC. They are just such a goddam joke as as sports network. The Olympics should always and ever more be covered in the US by ABC. And the day that ABC recovers the games, will be happy day in my life.

    Let me give you an example of how fucked up NBC is. Last weekend NBC was pumping the 4x10KM cross country. It's a huge event in Europe, and for a good reason. There's a massive rivalry between that has developed between Italy and Norway since 1992 when Italy, a huge underdog, eeked out a victory over the powerhouse Norwegians in Lillehammer. Norway returned the favor and won the subsequent 2 events in Nagano and Salt Lake City but only by the tiniest of margins. NBC played a a great retrospective of the 92 race narrated by Sam Waterston. I was pumped to watch the race. This is cross country and I'm so stoked to see this event.

    What does NBC do? First mistake - they don't show the race live. Second mistake - they don't even show the race tape delayed in it's entirety. What do they do? They break up the legs of the relay with Ice Dancing performances. Ice Dancing. ICE DANCING,for god's sake!?!$#% I mean, shit, how the fuck do they come up with this? Do the programming execs sit in a room and try to see how they can piss off as many of their viewers as possible? I'm sure the people (I mean women) who tuned in to watch the Ice Dancing weren't all that thrilled to see their event broken up with Cross Country.

    Do you think ABC would pull that shit? I think not.

    Sports

    Super Bowl Steeler Sunday

    Super Bowl is here again. I'm going to Brennan's in Berkeley to watch the game which I expect to be great -storied franchise against first time upstart. Not that my predictions are worth shit, but I think it's going to be a close game, not high scoring, not low scoring, something like 24-21 and the Steelers will take it. Honestly, I don't care (other than the fact that for some inexplicable reason, my brother who has never lived in Pittsburgh or Pennsylvania, is a dyed in the wool terrible towel spinner) and I just want a great game.

    Media

    I Can't Watch CNN

    What has happened to CNN? The Most Trusted Name In News. You Can Depend on CNN. A News Channel for America. I don't think so. Whatever has happened, I can no longer watch it.

    CNN has shed all it's credibility in a headlong rush to be more Fox-like than Fox. Gone is the in depth reporting. Gone are the serious newscasts. Gone are the international stories. What's left is Anderson Cooper, a chariacature of a news anchor, that zombie Larry King, endless stories of the tabloid news piece of the day, trapped minors, missing white girls, honeymoon sabotage, what have you. I can't fucking stand it. Even Headline News, which used to be a reliable place to catch up on the day's event, seems to be 24 hour wall to wall Nancy Grace all the time. (what the fuck is up with that?)

    Other than C-span, there's nowhere on the cable dial to turn to for news. I still get the bulk of my news from PBS and NPR, Google News and blogs here and there. MSNBC? Forget it. Fox? You've got be kidding. Ocassionally BBC. Surely the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times.

    It seems to me that there's a place in the cable universe for a network that actually reports the news. Wouldn't that be a beautiful thing? CNN does have an entity that fits this bill (or used to). It's called CNN International. Sadly, you can't get it here and possibly (it's been a long time since I've seen it) it's just as corrupted as its domestic counterpart.

    Media

    Wired Again

    I finally caved in and had Comcast come in and install cable and high speed internet at my new place. I've been feeling cut off from the world not watching Jon Stewart and few other things. And I had been using my landlord's wireless internet signal, with her permission, but the connection was weak, it would go down all the time and it was starting to drive me insane.

    So when I got a flier from Comcast with a deal for 85 bucks that included HBO and a DVR, I called to get it. They surprised me by not only giving me an appointment the next day, but also giving me a 2 hour time period instead of their normal half day. The guy came (he actually arrived early when I was in the shower) but wouldn't install the cable jack because I didn't have written permission from my landlord, who conveniently was in Phoenix. I called her and rescheduled the appointment for Monday.

    We had talked about it before and she had given me permission to have the jack installed, but I didn't realize that I needed a written notice. I thought she could fax something to me, but wasn't in a place with a fax machine until Monday. On Monday morning, I got a call from the technician saying he was in the area and could come right now instead of the 4-6pm appointment time. I thought about it for a second, and said ok, but give me 15 minutes.

    I threw on some clothes, went into my office (I don't have a printer at home) and typed a permission letter from my landlord, printed it out and returned home. Illegal, maybe. Expedient, definitely.

    Ironically, the technician, not the same guy who came to my house last Friday, never even asked about it. He just went about his business, drilled a hole from the garage into my living room, hooked up the cable from the pole to the house and brought the box into my place to install it.

    Here's where the problem started. The first problem is that I have an old TV. It's a 27" RCA that I bought in, I think, 1998, right before I moved back from Los Angeles to the Bay Area. It's a great TV. It's worked well all these years, but it doesn't have video input jacks, just a cable jack. So I have to use an RF modulator just to get my DVD player to work and it will not work with the digital DVR box which I paid for. Fuck. So the decision now is whether to get a new TV, if so which one to get and where to get it.

    The second problem, and the real problem, is that the box that the DVR came in, which the tech put on the floor in front of the TV, had these enormous staples in it which nicely gouged up my hardwood floor. When I saw it, I put a call into Comcast immediately. They said that someone from customer service would call me back within 24 hours. I just got off the phone with them, slightly more than 24 hours after I registered my complaint, but not by much. The woman wanted to confirm what happened and said someone would call me with 3 business days to resolve the issue which probably involves a claims adjuster from their insurance company. Oh, what fun.

    Meantime, I hooked into the digital world again. I have HBO so I can now watch Rome, amongst other things. Probably going to be a huge time suck. I'm going to have to fight it.

    Media

    The Ropes Are Plenty Strong...

    I moved to my new place about 2 weeks and I have almost everything set up, unpacked and in the right place. All except cable and Internet service. I can't decide what to do. Honesty I think I can live without TV. I've been doing it for 2 weeks now. I have done it for much longer in the past. Always when I didn't have a TV to distract me I have been more productive. Sure I'll miss a few things like sports and The Daily Show and the Food Network, PBS and the news. But do I really need this stuff? Not really. I still have my TV in my living room--couldn't live without movies, could I? And I can always pick up an antenna if I'm desparate for football. Then again I could always just get cable and be done it with it. It certainly would help with the whole Internet question. I don't have a phone line, just use my cell, which makes DSL out of the question. The only other options are cable and satelite. I haven't even gone so far to research whether I can get cable from the usual providers (Comcast or DirectTV in my case) without also getting TV service. I probably can, but I'm not certain. I think I'm going to go another week and see how I feel. In the meantime, if you've noticed that there are no posts at night, know you know why.

    Media

    Decline of the Media

    When I read things like this , it makes me a) realize that that 2000 election will go down as one of the greatest tragedies in American history and b) wonder with great curiosity what W would be doing with his life if he wasn't installed in the White House by Supreme Court fiat.

    Media

    Do We Still Need PBS?

    PBS President took on this very question in her speech defending the role of PBS at National Press Club last week. It was broadcast on C-Span over the weekend. This is here answer:

    "Do we still need PBS in a media landscape of hundreds of choices" and "is PBS still an independent media service, free from the influence of funders or politics?"

    The answers are "Yes" and "Yes". More than ever.

    In a media environment where everyone seems to be selling something and everything is for sale, our non commercial model is more important than ever

    In a time where ownership of media consolidating into bigger businesses with fewer owners, our national/local model with autonomous, community based media institutions more important than ever.

    And in a time when media seems increasingly partisan and the public's trust of it lower, our independence and diversity of perspectives is more needed than ever.

    Media

    The Future of Journalism

    John Nichols over at The Nation has a great post about a battle that is brewing over the role of journalism with the future of the country hanging in the balance. He frames the debate as a fight between the Bill Moyers and Rush Limbaugh schools of journalistic thought.

    The former White House aide [Moyers], newspaper publisher, author and documentary filmmaker committed the cardinal sin of the contemporary moment: he practiced the craft of journalism as the authors of the "freedom of the press" protection in the Bill of Rights intended -- without fear or favor, unbought and unbossed, and in the service of the public interest rather than the private demands of the economically and politically powerful. Such trangressions are punished as severely in George W. Bush's America as they were in the America that was ruled by another, equally regal George 230 years ago. And just as King George III had henchmen who attacked the rebels against his rule, so the contemporary King George has his Tories. Chief among them is Limbaugh, the bombastic radio personality whose microphone is always at the ready for a denunciation of those who dare suggest that the emperor has no clothes.

    No one polices the discourse more aggressively than Limbaugh.

    So when word got out that Moyers was telling the American people that they should expect more from their media than a slurry of celebrity gossip and propaganda, there was hell to pay.

    Typically, Limbaugh did not attack the substance of Moyers's remarks. Rather, the viscount of viciousness devoted a substantial portion of his nationally-syndicated radio program Thursday to claiming that Moyers had come "unhinged" and that, "The things coming out of his mouth today are literally insane." The most self-absorbed personality in America media -- who regularly declares that he's got "talent on loan from God" and says, "I'm doing what I was born to do. That's host. You're doing what you were born to do. That's listen." -- even went so far as to suggest that Moyers had a messiah complex.

    So agitated was Limbaugh that he attacked another speaker at the media-reform conference, Newspaper Guild President Linda Foley -- in Limbaugh parlance, "this Linda Foley babe" -- for expressing concern about the killing of journalists in Iraq. And, for good measure, he closed off his rant by claiming that the millions of Americans who are demanding a more civic and democratic media are "off their rockers" and dismissing the notion of reforming the media as "an oxymoron.

    The whole post is worth your time. Here's the final tidbit, in case you're not inclined to click through:

    The difference between Limbaugh and Moyers is as profound as the difference between FOX and PBS. One man plays by the "rules of the game," the other sticks to principle. One man defends a corrupt status quo, the other seeks to expose it. One is a master propagandist, the other wants to break the stranglehold of "The Big Lie." One fears the damage done by the practice of journalism, the other knows that great journalism is the essential element in the making of great nations. One is a Tory who serves his King George, the other is a rebel against the throne.

    It is not a fair fight. On one side are Limbaugh and his Tories, with all of their economic and political might. On the other are Moyers and his media reformers, with only the truth -- and the echo of Tom Paine crying across the centuries: "O Ye that love mankind! Ye that dares oppose not only the tyranny but the tyrant, stand forth!"

    Media

    Bill Maher: Traitor

    Real Time with Bill Maher

    Bill Maher is a traitor. That is if you take anything Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AK) says seriously. Bachus is up in arms over a Maher sketch on his HBO show Real Time in which Maher points out the Army missed its recruiting goal by 42 percent in April.

    "More people joined the Michael Jackson fan club," Maher said. "We've done picked all the low-lying Lynndie England fruit, and now we need warm bodies." See, Senator Bachus, that's something called "comedy."

    Bachus clearly doesn't see the humor:


    "To characterize the men and women currently serving and risking their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq as low lying fruit is reprehensible," said Congressman Bachus (conveniently forgetting that Maher was a) a comedian and b) the army has been using unethical practices to recruit ineligible Americans into the service because the all-volunteer is splitting the seems because of Iraq.

    The Congressman continues:

    "I think it borders on treason. In treason, one definition is to undermine the effort or national security of our country. I don't want (Maher) prosecuted. I want him off the air."

    Did Maher undermine the "effort or national security of our country? I don't recall Bill Maher taking the country to war on false pretenses. Maybe Rep. Bachus needs to focus some of obviously pent up anger in the direction of the White House. Whatever you think of that, clearly Maher has not heeded the call of the administration for citizens to censor what they say and do.

    Maher responds on Ariana Huffington's "The Blog" in typical scathing fashion:

    First, I had never heard of Congressman Bachus before this. Now lots of people have heard of him. You're welcome, Congressman, glad I could help get your Q rating up.

    By the way, are we sure he's really a Congressman? Maybe he's just a guy with a fax machine. You know how fact checking goes these days.

    I could go on and on, but this is too ridiculous, so I'll just say this: I'm not a congressman, I'm a comedian. There's nothing I can really do to help or hurt our troops (although anyone who's watched my shows or read my books in the last twelve years knows I'm a pretty ardent supporter of the military).

    But a congressman, there's someone who can actually DO SOMETHING to help our troops. In fact, a case could be made that it's a lot more treasonous for someone in his position to be wasting his time yelling at a comedian. Shouldn't he be training his outrage at such problems as troops not having enough armor? Wouldn't that ACTUALLY support our troops more? And citizens of this country who claim to support our troops should write this man and tell him GET BACK TO WORK! DO SOMETHING THAT ACTUALLY COULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE TO SOLDIERS IN IRAQ!

    And by the way, these "comments" were part of a longer, scripted comedy piece in the modest proposal tradition. I can see why administration supporters would want to deflect attention away from the gist of the piece, which was this: now that we can't meet our recruiting goals, maybe it's the people who were so gung ho for this war to begin with who should step up and go fight it. But of course it's always easier to distract people.

    Finally, I would direct the Congressman to chapter 3 of my book "When You Ride Alone, You Ride with bin Laden." The accompanying poster shows a soldier, a cop, a fireman, and a teacher, and says, "We Say They're Our Heroes...But We Pay Them Like Chumps."

    Maybe that's something else he could look into when he gets done with me.

    Media

    PBS Under Attack

    I am huge consumer of PBS. I'm a member of the local PBS station in the Bay Area KQED. I listen to NPR like a fiend. I get most of my TV news from Jim Lehrer. I feel that it's a great service to America, especially now at time when media polarization is such a problem and become so extreme.

    However there is a move that's been in the works for a few years by the Bush administration to covertly turn PBS television into another spoke on the wheel of the Republican Noise Machine. Ken Auletta has written a New Yorker expose called Big Bird Flies Right about how conservatives, who once tried to crush the Corporation for Public Broadcasting under the Nixon and Reagan administrations and through the Gingrich "Contract on America", have now embraced PBS as yet another conduit for their message.

    Conservatives have long pounded their phony "liberal bias" hammer on the PBS door. Basically they found out that Americans actually love PBS and according to a Corporation for Public Broadcasting survey, "the majority of the U.S. adult population does not believe that the news and information programming on public broadcasting is biased." So when politicians seriously threaten public funding of the CPB, they are often tossed out of office. But conservatives wanted to control the public airwaves so they have changed their tactics from siege from without to an insurgency from within.

    Bill Moyers, who helped craft the Public Broadcasting Act in 1967 when he was an advisor to the Johnson administration, and has long been part of the PBS programming is gone, replaced by the conservative voice of CNN's Crossfire talking head Tucker Carlson and Wall Street Journal editorial-page editor Paul Gigot. Both of these pundits have loud megaphones in their regular jobs, reaching a far greater audience then they ever will through PBS. This flies in the face of the PBS mission to serve the underserved. That aside, PBS has no counterparts for these two shows on the progressive side of the political spectrum. Nothing.

    These changes have come under the auspices of CPB chairman Kenneth Tomlinson. Now Tomlinson was appointed to the job by Clinton and did a very fine job of maintaining PBS's balance with objectivity as you might expect from someone with his journalism background. That is until Bush came along. Tomlinson just happens to be really good friends with Karl Rove, and Karl is not going to let something like the public trust get in the way of wallpapering the media landscape with the conservative agenda.

    Tomlinson has appointed two "ombudsmen" to oversee programming at PBS. Why there needs to be two is a matter of debate, but it clearly undermines the tradition of a single impartial observer that most ombudsmen represent. But the two appointees, Ken Bode and William Schulz, are hardly impartial. Bode, a former NBC and CNN reporter, most recently worked as a columnist for the Indianapolis Star, where readers often wrote angry letters deriding him as a liberal, though he endorsed a Republican last year for governor of Indiana. While Bode alone would make a decent ombudsman, alongside Schulz, an avowed conservative and former editor at Reader's Digest, they represent a tag team joke whose mission can only be to ensure that PBS toes a right wing line.

    This is hardly Tomlinson's most egregious indiscretion. Recently Reps. David Obey (D-WI), and John Dingel (D-MI), asked the CPB's inspector general to investigate whether Tomlinson overstepped the law by secretly hiring a consultant, at a cost of $10,000, to monitor the weekly PBS news program "Now With Bill Moyers" for liberal bias. The Democrats want a determination of whether Tomlinson violated the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, which "prohibits interference by Federal officials over the content and distribution of public programming" and the application of political litmus tests in hiring decisions. Interestingly, Tomlison has refused to reveal the results of his secret investigation, which I suspect, don't support his case that NOW was in fact biased one way or the other.

    For his part, Moyers, who retired from NOW after staying on to cover post 9/11 issues, has blasted Tomlinson, accusing him of trying to silence journalists who ask tough questions, saying, "That's because the one thing they loathe more than liberals is the truth. And the quickest way to be damned by them as liberal is to tell the truth."

    In the midst of these battles, Media Matters founder David Brock, right wing journalistic hitman turned progressive media watchdog, has launched a campaign for conservatives to keep their mitts off PBS. It's amazing to me that the same guy that unleashed the faux "Troopegate" story that directly to the Special Investigor and to the impeachment of Bill Clinton is now a crusader on the left for accuracy in media, but there it is. You can read all about his conversion from the dark side in Blinded by the Right.

    So if you care at all about PBS, NPR or public broadcasting in general, you take action, call you station and write your congress people.

    Media

    Please, Sir, May I Have Some More Gruel?

    Pulizter Prize winning journalist Sydney Schanberg of Killing Fields fame sounds off on the sorry state of the modern American Fourth Estate. Here's the meat of his point:

    Almost without noticing, the press began losing its memory about its crucial adversary role. At America's beginning, the founding fathers, in establishing the fundamentals of this democracy, said a free press was necessary as one of the country's checks and balances. That explains John Peter Zenger and Thomas Paine and the First Amendment.

    As amnesia about our history spread, the major news companies began making deals with the government. In 1991, you may recall, they agreed to accept the Pentagon's ground rules for covering the first Gulf war. The rules decreed that reporters had to be accompanied at all times by military babysitters who would not only select the story sites but pre-interview soldiers at those sites to avoid any lapses into truth telling. And that was how America, on television and in print, was handed its first major sanitized war. Another landmark. (The father of the current president was in the Oval Office then. Dick Cheney was the Pentagon chief.)

    Journalists used to come largely from the "outsider" precincts of our culture. They were children of immigrants and working people, raised simply, not prone to cozying up to power or accommodating power. That's because the press was supposed to be a watchdog on power on behalf of the public. That has changed-not completely, but it has changed. At times now, too many reporters seem to be channeling Dickens's Oliver Twist, with their bowls outstretched toward their government minders, asking: "Please, sir, may I have some more gruel?"

    Media

    Media Polarization and You

    Media watching is a frightening hobby these days. You can listen to NPR, read the New York Times, US World Report or any of the other media outlets that place value on objectivity (although this is becoming less and less frequent) and listen to AM talk radio, watch FOX News and read the Weekly Standard which ignore objectivity in favor of a hat tip to something called "balance" (well not in the case of the rabid foaming mouths on the AM dial or the Weekly Standard, really) and come away thinking these people are not living in the same the world let alone the same country.

    The right has been beating the media over the head with charges of "Liberal Bias" since the early 1970s. In order to counter these claims major media outlets like the New York Times have, in order to provide "balance", offered places on their editorial pages to prominent conservatives like William Safire and David Brooks. The conservative media has not responded in kind. In the meantime the right wing, financed with the deep pockets of ideologues like Richard Mellon Scaife and batshit nutjobs like the Reverend Sun Yung Moon have build a network of thinktanks (think Heritage Foundation) and ultraconservative media outlets like the The Washington Times which constantly pump conservative messages and spin. There are media outlets and progressive thinktanks on the left, but nothing even close to their counterparts on the other side of the political spectrum.

    This wouldn't necessarily be a problem except for the fact that is has become far easier people on both sides to tune in to media outlets that constantly reinforce their political viewpoint. There is no longer a common understanding of events that we had back when objectivity was the law of journalism and media was much more limited. These days people can, and do, get their news solely from Rush Limbaugh or even John Stewart. They can surf blogs all day that act as an echo chamber for opinions that may or may not be based in fact but that constantly reassure them that their ideas are correct while demonizing anyone who thinks differently.

    And it's only going to get worse because of this increasing polarization of the media combined with the persistent attack on the main stream media that the right has been engaged in since the Nixon administration and is now being carried on quite visibly by the current administration with their attack on Newsweek. The result of all this is that a certain segment of the population will only believe news from Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity et al and will discount anything that the MSM reports, if they even hear it all. It's very scary. I don't see it reversing, but getting much, much worse. As long small percentage of ideologues in this country have enough money to support right wing mouthpieces indefinitely and as long as they spew their misinformation to a population of overzealous undereducated Americans, the situation will not only persist, but spiral out of control.

    Media

    Pot to Kettle: "You're Black" Part II

    I was flipping around the AM dial this morning and I came across Rush Limbaugh spewing his typical venom to his woefully ill-informed, disillusioned audience. He was pontificating about the Newsweek story and his take boiled down to this:

    1) Newsweek hates America and published this despite knowing that it was untrue because they hate America.

    2) That this "scandal" was worse than Abu Ghraib.

    3) "Let's not forget the Clintons" - That the anonymous source that provided the background on the story is probably some Clinton appointee in the State Department or the Pentagon. (They just can't leave this alone, can they?).

    So let's review. Newsweek out to get America. Riots in Afghanistan worse than atrocities at Abu Ghraib. Clinton is responsible. Simply amazing.

    The dittoheads and other undiscerning right wing nut jobs lap this stuff up. There are going to accept everything Rush says completely at face value, regardless of the absence of facts, and the right is going to advance the goal to undermine the role of the 4th Estate as a check on absolute political power, something we are witnessing in our time in an alarmingly rapid fashion.

    Never mind that a) the story is probably true and similar stories of desecration of the Koran have been out there for over a year or b) the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff had published a report which concluded that "indicated that the political violence was not, in fact, connected to the magazine report" or c) that Newsweek, far from publishing this story on in a vacuum, vetted it prior to going to print with the same Pentagon that is now decrying the story as bogus.

    So many Americans want to stick their heads in the sand and pretend that what is happening in the world is not happening. They want to believe that the intentions of America are always good and therefore are actions are always good. They want to believe that the atrocities at Abu Ghraib were undertaken by a few bad apples instead of a pattern systematic abuse inherent in the system. They want to believe that we went to Iraq to liberate people. They want to believe that oil resources in Iraq would pay for the cost of the war. They want to believe that Islamic extremists hate us for our freedoms and not because of our actions. They want to believe a whole host of very dangerous fanciful things that make the world more dangerous for their lack of understanding but allows them to sleep soundly at night.

    All of this is going to home to roost some day, and we are going to have pay a price. One can only hope that the price is not too high or horrible to imagine.

    All I want is for America to the best America we can be. I want a America that is respected in the world. I want an America that lives up to the ideals that we so forthrightly espouse. I want an America that leads the world in environmental protection, in human rights, in transparent democractic institutions. I don't want an America that manufactures intelligence to drum up support for war. I don't want an America that eschews international obligations and treaties. I don't want an America that is unnaccountable and above the law. I don't want an America where the media cannot be trusted. I don't want an America that is the worst it can be. America should be the best global citizen, not a global bully. It should be providing a positive example for other countries to emulate, not a negative one that cause people to question us, or even worse, fear us.

    Okay, We Give Up

    There's no easy way to admit this. For years, helpful letter writers told us to stick to science. They pointed out that science and politics don't mix. They said we should be more balanced in our presentation of such issues as creationism, missile defense, and global warming. We resisted their advice and pretended not to be stung by the accusations that the magazine should be renamed Unscientific American, or Scientific Unamerican, or even Unscientific Unamerican. But spring is in the air, and all of nature is turning over a new leaf, so there's no better time to say: you were right, and we were wrong.

    In retrospect, this magazine's coverage of so-called evolution has been hideously one-sided. For decades, we published articles in every issue that endorsed the ideas of Charles Darwin and his cronies. True, the theory of common descent through natural selection has been called the unifying concept for all of biology and one of the greatest scientific ideas of all time, but that was no excuse to be fanatics about it. Where were the answering articles presenting the powerful case for scientific creationism? Why were we so unwilling to suggest that dinosaurs lived 6,000 years ago or that a cataclysmic flood carved the Grand Canyon? Blame the scientists. They dazzled us with their fancy fossils, their radiocarbon dating and their tens of thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles. As editors, we had no business being persuaded by mountains of evidence.

    Moreover, we shamefully mistreated the Intelligent Design (ID) theorists by lumping them in with creationists. Creationists believe that God designed all life, and that's a somewhat religious idea. But ID theorists think that at unspecified times some unnamed superpowerful entity designed life, or maybe just some species, or maybe just some of the stuff in cells. That's what makes ID a superior scientific theory: it doesn't get bogged down in details.

    Good journalism values balance above all else. We owe it to our readers to present everybody's ideas equally and not to ignore or discredit theories simply because they lack scienfically credible arguments or facts. Nor should we succumb to the easy mistake of thinking that scientists understand their fields better than, say, U.S. senators or best-selling novelists do. Indeed, if politicians or special-interest groups say things that seem untrue or misleading, our duty as journalists is to quote them without comment or contradiction. To do otherwise would be elitist and therefore wrong. In that spirit, we will end the practice of expressing our own views in this space: an editorial page is no place for opinions.

    Get ready for a new Scientific American. No more discussions of how science should inform policy. If the government commits blindly to building an anti-ICBM defense system that can't work as promised, that will waste tens of billions of taxpayers' dollars and imperil national security, you won't hear about it from us. If studies suggest that the administration's antipollution measures would actually increase the dangerous particulates that people breathe during the next two decades, that's not our concern. No more discussions of how policies affect science either - so what if the budget for the National Science Foundation is slashed? This magazine will be dedicated purely to science, fair and balanced science, and not just the science that scientists say is science. And it will start on April Fools' Day.

    - THE EDITIORS editors@sciam.com

    Ouch. While you're absorbing that beat down of the irrational right, have a look a Krugman's article on why there are so few consevatives in academia.

    Media

    On the Papal Death Watch

    I hope I'm not the only one who finds the 24 hour news media's uberobsession with the slow death march of his Excellency morbid. Do we really need papal kidney failure updates on the hour? His passing will hopefully put an end to death week here in America. I hope the pope passes soon and that his suffering is minimized.

    I do feel for this pope and his many followers around the world. I might be anti-religionist and an atheist, but that doesn't mean I don't respect this man. Quite the contrary. Pope John Paul II was a man of great charisma and while I don't agree with many his decisions, most notably his hard line on birth control which is especially disturbing considering so many of his constituents live in over populated AIDS ravaged countries, I respect him as person who brought great solace to many people in this world. He's also been an incredible traveler and his facility with languages is simply remarkable.

    Like many people of my generation, he's the only pope we've ever really known. The images I have of him in my mind most center around him traveling around the US in the pope-mobile or being "reported" on by Father Guido Sarducci. I also remember his visit to Yad Vashem in Israel and his apology, albeit tepid, for the holocaust.

    Most of what I know about the selection of a new pope comes from Dan Brown's Angels & Demons. I'm going to be following the succession closely because I can't help but be fascinated by these machinations of the church. What happens after the pope passes away is that all the eligible cardinals and there are close to 200 of them, lock themselves in the Vatican in a Conclave, basically inside the Sistine Chapel. The cardinals stay in there until they elect a pope.

    I don't know how many of you have been inside the Sistine Chapel. It's small. I'd love to be a fly on the wall following the intrigue and diplomacy as upwards of 200 old men maneuver to enthrone a new pope. It's one of those things that most of the people in the world will never be privy to, which makes it all the most fascinating.

    Personally, not that I have any real interest here, but I would love to see a pope from Africa, South America or the Philippines where the great majority of Catholics live. However, I suspect that the new pope will be from Italy or another Western European country and probably be equally or more conservative than his predecessor.

    But that's all besides the point. To all my Catholic friends and any Catholic readers who happen by this post, I extend my greatest condolences in this moment of loss and I hope for future of a peace and prosperity.

    Media

    The Christian News Network

    Yesterday I watching CNN for about an hour from 8am to 9am absorbing the coverage of the Schaivo business. The coverage was the typical, blanket ghoulish video that CNN has perfected with helicopters following the white van that carried Schiavo's body to the ME's office. That I have come to expect.

    What I didn't expect was how skewed the language and the guests were in favor of the "Culture of Life" crowd. For one thing, they continually refer to the wishes of the family, as in the judge's decision went against the wishes of the family. Family has become such a loaded word in this country that it's inexcusable for CNN or anyone to editorialize that one group, the parents, represent the "family" while the other, Michael Schiavo, does not, especially since legally the opposite is true.

    Then there are the guests. At one point Darren Kagan was talking to Jesse Jackson, phony publicity seeking Christian hypocrite and Tim LaHaye, author of the Christian Revelation wet dream books, Left Behind. Maybe the people at CNN thought that since Jesse is a Democrat and LaHaye is clearly a Republican, that they had some editorial balance. The problem is that both of these folks support the "family", as in Terri Schiavo's parents.

    This is bad enough but when Kagan asked what lessons can be learned from this situation and Tim LaHaye responded about how the major lesson learned here is that people (all people) need to make peace with Jesus Christ before the end of their lives, she didn't say anything. I mean nothing. No response whatsoever. At very least she had the obligation to point out that not all viewers believe that.

    Media

    Guilty Pleasures: Dooce.com

    For a long time now, one of my guilty pleasures has been a daily reading of Heather Armstrong's Dooce.com. Dooce is a blog that details the life of a lapsed Mormon who returned to Utah after being fired from her job in Los Angeles for her website.

    Heather's site is very popular, for a good reason (great writing and brilliant photography) and lately she's been the subject of interviews and stories on ABC and AP amongst others. Every time she's featured in the mass media she becomes the target of what she calls Drive By Zealots.

    Basically people come by her site and flame for all sort of reasons, as she says, "from people who hate Mormons, from people who hate me for ever being a Mormon, people who hate me because I'm not Mormon anymore, people who think I need to accept Christ into my heart so that I can live eternally in His Open Arms, people who CANNOT BELIEVE that it is legal for someone like me to have a personal website especially since my potty mouth is so full of potty, and people who have died, come back from the dead, and are delivering a special message to me from God that he is angry with me."

    Today she has a post about one of more egregious emails she received. She enlists a team of friends to write responses. It's really quite funny.

    Media

    If You Can't Trust Journalists, Who Can You Trust?

    Am I just totally blind or have we reached new heights of propagandism in this country? I'm so outraged over the Armstrong Williams fiasco, the latest in administration attempts to control the news with either complete bought and paid for partisan hackery or fake produced administration news stories presented as reality. It's one thing for some blowhard pundit to be doing this on his own, it's entirely different when it's the administration using taxpayer dollars. They are using our fucking money to promote programs that are complete and total crap. It's not just about No Child Left Behind that Williams was paid to schill. You can bet the administration has others on the payroll hocking garbage about everything from Democracy in Iraq to the Social Secutiry crisis that Bush is working so hard to invent. Do you think there's a snowball's chance in hell that any congressional hearings will be held to get to the bottom of this business?

    Frank Rich sums it up nicely over at the NYT. Margaret Carlson has a pretty good take on accountability in government here.

    Religion

    God and the Tsunami

    Every once in while (more often these day's of Christian governance) you see something that makes you wonder how it's possible to have been born and live in the same country with some of my fellow Americans.

    I was surfing the web this afternoon and I came across a post discussing a Scarborough Country show from last week on god and the Asian Tsunami (is there a connection? how can this possibly be a serious topic for a political show?). The gist of the segment was how could a merciful god allow such death and destruction.

    First up, Anne Graham Lotz, daughter of Billy Graham, went on and about Jesus dying for our sins before saying that the victims of the tsunami were going to die anyway, eventually, so it wasn't a big deal. The important thing, to Anne, was "where are we going to spend eternity?" She concludes with "so, this is a tragedy and it's a disaster, but it's not a reflection on the fact that God doesn't love us, because God loves us and the proof of that is the cross." Yes, the cross. I see.

    Next up was Jennifer Giroux, soccer mom (of 9) and web publisher of Women Influencing the Nation or WIN, a website subtitled (you can't make this shit up) "The Greatest Gift You Can Give Your Child Is Another Sibling." Gasp. Well now, Jennifer starts off by saying, "Well, you know, throughout history and reported early in the Bible, God has always used plagues, floods and natural disasters as a source of punishment" and launches into an anti-abortion tirade about the "lost generation of 40 million aborted babies". Supposedly there's some sort of connection. In Jennifer's mind, god is punishing sinners (aka abortionists) in America by killing 150,000 South Asians. Makes perfect sense to me. Of course, Jennifer can't stand up to the grilling from host Joe Scarborough who simply asks, "So, are you saying, Jennifer, that God may be killing people in Asia because of the sins that Americans are committing here?", a more than fair assessment of her point (see above). She just replies lamely, "no, I'm not saying that at all, Joe." Right. If you're going to believe these things, and she clearly does, why not have the cojones to stand up for beliefs?

    What follows must have made for some really absurd television. Rabbi Shmuley Boteach accuses Jennifer of blasphemy and they start arguing and accusing and arguing and such with Jennifer saying "Rabbi, you have a selective memory of the Bible" and the Rabbi responding, "God is not a terrorist".

    What's the point of all this? The point is that people can discuss this all they want, it's not going to change the fact that god had nothing to do with the earthquake in Sumatra or the subsequent tsunami, nor did god have anything to do with killer mudslides in Southern California, nor did was he responsible for your toilet backing this morning. Even if god did, there's no way to prove it, so it's pointless and tireless to sanctimoniously argue that he did. End of story.

    I'm glad I didn't see the show live. I probably would have thrown a brick through my TV.

    Media

    Finally, A Democrat With a Backbone

    Lawrence O'Donnell, the moderate Democratic commentator, was on Scarborough Country with Swift Boat front man and long time Kerry adversary John O'Neill and just comlpetely slammed him.

    You can see the video on the Daily Recycler, but what's more interesting is to read through the 200+ comments from the readers, most of whom are conservative. There's some quality stuff in there. The vitriol is heavy on both sides.

    It doesn't matter what the story is or what the facts are, partisans on either side are quick to back whatever version of whatever story is being pumped that day that supports their view. I'm definitely guilty of this myself sometimes, but at least I make an effort to absorb as much media from all sides as possible in order to make an informed decision.

    Media

    Sweet Jesus I Hate Bill O'Reilly

    Well, I don't hate Bill, I just dislike him immensely, but this guy does:

    Sweet Jesus, I hate Bill O'Reilly, International is an organization
    dedicated to the dissemination of information that exposes
    Bill O'Reilly for what he is: an ego-driven, biased individual who
    spreads fear, hate and misunderstanding. His views are firmly
    anchored to the political right. He works tirelessly to enrage
    Americans and pit them against anything he considers "liberal"
    or, worse yet, "secular". Mr. O'Reilly uses highly manipulative
    forms of presentation, phrasing and, yes, "spin".

    --Sweet Jesus, I Hate Bill O'Reilly
    an organization of hope

    Then again, maybe I do hate him. (if you are one of the thousands of people who haven't heard of Bill O'Reilly you can find out all about him in the Rolling Stone expose)

    Like freedom to Afghanistan, the sexual harrasment story is a gift from the Almighty to the publisher of Sweet Jesus I Hate Bill O'Reilly.

    For the man on the street take on Bill O'Reilly, check this out.

    Politics

    Rock The Vote, The RNC & The Draft

    Take a look at this. It's a cease and desist letter to Rock the Vote from RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie trying to get them to stop discussing the possibility of draft with a threat to remove their status as a non-profit (as if he has the power to do that).

    To defend his point, Gillespie qoutes members of the adminstration like, well, the president:

    ""We don't need the draft. Look, the all-volunteer force is working..."

    What the hell else is he going to say? Gillespie goes on to write that claims that the draft could be instituted is tantamount to "malicious intent and a reckless disregard for the truth." I suppose that's one way to squelch healthy debate in America.

    The oddest thing is that at the end of the letter Gillespie tries to make nice by saying that "the Republican National Committe shares the goal of your organization to encourage voter registration and "empower yonug people to change the world." I think what he meant to say was the RNC values younger voters so long as they take their political ques from Brittany Spears.

    Media

    Jon Stewart to Tucker Carlson: "You're a Dick"

    Jon Stewart is my hero.

    He went on Crossfire today and instead of joking around as the clueless hosts obviously expected him to, he took them task for shirking their responsibility as journalists. Then he actially called Carlson a "dick", something most Americans would probabaly have loved to have said to the "journalist".

    CARLSON: I do think you're more fun on your show. Just my opinion.

    (CROSSTALK)

    CARLSON: OK, up next, Jon Stewart goes one on one with his fans...

    (CROSSTALK)

    STEWART: You know what's interesting, though? You're as big a dick on your show as you are on any show.

    Amazing. My hero. You can read the whole transcript of the show on the Crossfire website.

    Media

    The Trouble With Sinclair

    If you're at all bothered by the impact of media conglomeration in this country and want to see an example of how it is being abused in the 2004 campaign, then the story brewing about the Sinclair Broadcast Group and their plans to run an anti-Kerry documentary has got your blood boiling.

    So much has been written about this already that I'm just going to point you to a very well written piece by Jay Rosen that covers the spectrum of the SBG issue:

    Like Agnew with TV Stations: Sinclair Broadcast Group Takes On Kerry and The Liberal Media

    Media

    The Choice 2004

    Did anyone out there see the Frontline documentary, The Choice 2004, last night? The movie rather brilliantly, I think, juxtaposed the history of the two candidates starting from their days at Yale up to the race for the presidency. It was a startling contrast between the two candidates in so many substantive ways. If you missed the 2-hour long program, it should be on again on a PBS station near year or you can watch it online. It's well worth the 2 hour investment just to become a more informed citizen.

    For me, the most interesting aspect of the film was when they showed a tiny part of Kerry's speech on the floor on the Senate during the debate on going to war in Iraq.

    Media

    Oh, The Irony!

    It just gets worse and worse for CBS, 60 Minutes and Dan Rather. It's hard to believe this but it seems that CBS bumped a well-reported story on forged documents regarding the uranium from Niger that helped lead the US to war to Iraq in favor of the rehashed story about Bush's National Guard service, a story that, get this, relied on forged documents. [SIGH]

    Read the whole report here:

    The Story That Didn’t Run

    CBS's rush to report its apparently felonious story has not only undermined the network's credibility, and made questionable any attack on Bush or his administration, but has cost the American people the possibility of hearing information about how we were led into war. How many stories now are going to be shelved because of the journalistic quicksand that CBS fell into?

    Media

    If There is a Hell...

    ...I imagine it's a lot like an NPR pledge break that never ends. KQED, the Bay Area affiliate, is finally ending its fall pledge fortnight (seems like an eternity) today and not a moment too soon. I'm a member and all, but I really can't stand these monotoned doo-gooders prattle on and on about utter nonsense while I'm missing All Things Considered. There's got to be a better way to do this. I'm losing my fucking mind.

    The Vitals

    About

    This is the blog of Andrew Hecht, web designer, photographer, traveler and cyclist.

    Archives

    Blog Status

    Powered by Movable Type 4.2