
|  |  | 
And because CJR Daily is on a roll...
6/30/05 20:18:27
|
...I present you with their flabbergasted analysis of Bill O’Reilly’s treatment of an Aruban official (upshot: O’Reilly is a loudmouthed, bullying ass). It’s just fantastic.
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (8)
|
Alarmist reporting
6/30/05 20:06:20
|
This piece about medical reporting in the Columbia Journalism Review caught my eye:
Puppets are journalists who write health stories after talking to only one source, or who write directly from news releases, or who accept video news releases without telling viewers the source of the video, or who fail to see or report on conflicts of interest in the dissemination of health news and information. Puppets will report on unproven new ideas without reporting on evidence, costs and quality concerns. They are being manipulated and are allowing their audience to be manipulated as well. Many of them may have been thrown into health news coverage without any special training, knowledge or interest. And they may be dealing with producers or news directors who push them to echo the same hype that is seen on all the competing stations or networks.
Six years after my JAMA article, Timothy Johnson, M.D., M.P.H. medical editor for ABC News, picked up on the same idea in the New England Journal of Medicine. Johnson wrote: "I will confess to you that when I first became involved in medical journalism in the 1970s, I quickly realized that my training as a physician was not enough, which is why I went to the Harvard School of Public Health to get a basic grounding in biostatistics and epidemiology. I am not saying that all medical journalists must take such a formal approach to their training. But I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the fraternity of medical journalists should develop some kind of system to ensure that those who wish to become medical journalists have a basic knowledge of the subject and some way of certifying them that would be recognized by employers and the reading and viewing and listening public. Before howls of protest arise from many of my journalism colleagues, I would point out that there is certainly a precedent for such credentialing in the media in the use of meteorologists to report the weather. ... And I do not believe that our weather reporters are more important than our medical reporters in terms of what they convey to the public."
Johnson addressed journalists in any medium; I focused only on television reporters who cover health and medicine. Now 13 years after I first raised the idea, I’m raising it again. In many television markets across the country, the quality of health news and information has plummeted to a level that makes watching many TV health stories an unhealthy activity. In my own research, I have described ten troublesome trends in television health news. They are: brevity (average story length of 45 seconds); absence of reporter specialization; sensational claims not supported by data; hyperbole; commercialism; disregard for the uncertainty of clinical trials; baseless basic science predictions; single-source stories; a paucity of coverage of health policy; and little, if any, enterprise journalism.
What a great topic.
There’s much to be written about the unhealthy tendency among the press corp to sensationalize certain types of stories while booking guests to breathlessly predict apocalyptic, scary outcomes or overly sunny projections based on the flimsiest of evidence and understanding of subject matter. Medical reporting has suffered from this tendency for years, but a recent example of this rush to sensationalism combined with total ignorance of process is not confined to medical reporting.
The last time I saw a dramatic example of this deadly combination in play was during the D.C. sniper scare in 2002. Since all of the cable nets were bringing on a slew of FBI profilers to come on the air and theorize about who the perpetrator could be, my editors demanded that I get a profiler of our very own to oraculate at our place. I fought this directive tooth and nail, trying to explain that profiling is a science BASED ON REVIEW OF AN EVIDENCE FILE, and that to my knowledge none of the profilers seen wall-to-wall on CNNFOXMSNBC knew any more about the case than a random person on the street. I also made the case that putting a former profiler on to guess about the race, identity or any other important characteristic of the perp(s) could prove to be lethal, since an "expert’s" advice that people look in the wrong direction could possibly instill a false sense of security in readers, which could lead to unfortunate outcomes. I lost that fight, and ended up booking a highly reluctant former profiler to discuss the case in such general terms (he was too ethical to go on a limb and make wild guesses about the killer’s identity) that the interview was pretty useless. But my editors were happy. We got our own profiler, just like the big boyz!
This is what happens when people who are supposed to be news professionals allow sensationalism to take over their news judgment. Profilers are highly trained; their guesses are educated. They don’t rely on ESP or tarot cards or mindreading or other otherworldly means to figure out whodunnit. To put a media whore profiler on and allow him to go off half-cocked could people’s lives at risk, particularly when the citizenry is as terrified as residents inside the snipers’ (hey, who knew there were TWO of them??) circle were at the time. Likewise, medical reporters owe it to their readers and viewers to present sober, well-researched pieces and stop committing the errors outlined above.
Great work, CJR Daily - as usual.
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (0)
|
You know son, there’s something about you that I just don’t like
6/30/05 19:14:13
|
I don’t know what it is about this smug little chickenhawk, Sean Hannity’s Mini-Me, that pisses me off more than any of the others. Maybe you can help me figure it out. In the meantime, let’s send him our comments. Please note the totally unironic references to draft dodgers:
Leftist hippies are the real threat to America - these "domestic terrorists" wish to destroy our country. They hope to remove everything we stand for. They strive the adoption of French as our national language and the forced conversion of the country to Islam.
These internet terrorists want the people who hate our country to win. And these vermin (as stated at the top of this post) want to do this at the expense of our lives and particularly the military - those who are putting their lives on the line every single day to defend America. These people are the same useless vermin that drive their hippy cars with bumper stickers saying "Support our Troops - Bring Them Home". But these actions of the left undermine our soldier’s abilities to preserve our way of life - and aren’t at all helping to protect us from the next terrorist attack.
Obviously these hippies would rather support a draft dodger (both Bill Clinton and Howard Dean) than members of the current Bush administration who have extensive military careers.
They are calling us "hypocrites" for the supposed support of a war...but refusing to join the military. Does this even make sense? Since when do I have to support my political stances with physical action. I believe in tougher testing standards for children in schools, but you don’t seem me going to become a test writer for the Education Testing Service. Following this round of logic....if these people thing abortion is so great, how come they don’t all sign up to be abortion doctors? Because it doesn’t make sense!
Hagglund said it best, "What, do we have to conscript every single damn war supporter into the military, regardless of the necessity of such numbers of troops, just so these ass rammers can see us as being consistent? Supporting a position and taking practical action to implement it have always been two different things. Just because I support the death penalty doesn’t mean I should crash an airliner into the death row section of a prison, or even that I have to be the one pulling the switch. Similarly, what if all these PETA fucks started housing all these poor animals themselves to save them from being killed by those evil hunters?"
I do support the troops and I support their efforts to defend America. I support military action wherever it takes us when the cause is good and just. I am a proud American. If I was asked by my country to join the military in order to preserve these great traditions we share, I would do so in a heartbeat. I salute those men and women who do make the choice to serve in the armed forces and will always continue to be a strong supporter of their efforts.
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (17)
|
Out of touch
6/30/05 07:36:32
|
Let me preface this post by saying that I love, admire and respect Oprah Winfrey. Love her show, love her. I’ve been a fan for years, and have stood by her even when her show, uh, blew. Remember the 1998 - 1999 season devoted to self-improvement, when she dragged John Gray on every week to make fat women cry? Bleh. Double bleh.
But the thing that’s always been amazing about Oprah is that despite her riches, she always managed to give the impression on the air that she was your best friend, she’s just folks, she’s just like you. That the money, success and weight loss hasn’t changed her a bit. That is, until something like this happens (from NEWSWEEK):
Being featured in Forbes magazine ain’t what it used to be. Days after the magazine pegged her as the most powerful celebrity in the world, Oprah Winfrey was denied entry to a Paris Hermes boutique when she tried to go in just after closing to buy a present for Tina Turner. The explanation for the snub varies. The New York Post said store officials claimed to be "having a problem with North Africans." Hermes’s line is that the store was prepping for a private event and offered Winfrey a return visit. Winfrey said she’d address the situation on her show when it returns this fall, but for now she has called Hermes’s CEO and told him she is no longer shopping at the stores. How long before Winfrey’s personal collection of Birkin bags turns up on eBay?
Now, I have a question for Oprah. You’re doing a show about this? A show about what, exactly? The hurt and rage caused when a boutique refuses to stay open past its hours to accomodate the needs of a celebrity? The refusal of the servant class to accomodate its betters? Why would anyone care to learn more about that particular indignity, one reserved for the stratospherically rich? Re-think this one, Oprah.
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (28)
|
Waiting to vom
6/30/05 07:13:21
|
You know, it would be a good idea if people learned lessons for once.
Consider the case of Kathi Lee Gifford: Weren’t we all just a wee bit
satisfied when it was revealed that her "perfect" marriage to her football hero
husband wasn’t all it was cracked up to be? (Watching your hub try to convince
some slatternly stewardess to have anal sex with him on a tabloid surveillance
video must do wonders for a "Christ-based" marriage). So if you’re a
celebrity, it’s probably best to keep you ebullient news about your wonderful
marriage and over-the-top sex life to yourself; after all, who knows what fresh
humiliations the future will bring?
I guess Terry McMillan didn’t get the memo, since she did a nice job of
enriching herself on the book and movie about how she "got her groove back" with
a 20-year old Jamaican guy, whom she met while on vacation. Now that it
turns out the guy is gay, well, the divorce is getting ugly. And I was
feeling pretty sorry for her - it can’t be easy to have the relationship you
rubbed in people’s faces come back to explode in yours - until
I read this:
There are restraining orders on both sides.
McMillan obtained one to keep Plummer from her house, according to documents,
and claims she discovered he had embezzled at least $200,000 from her bank
accounts. Plummer got his after he alleged she had harassed him for coming out
of the closet, and had come to his dog-grooming business and thrown things. In a
Jan. 14 letter filed with the court, McMillan wrote to Plummer, "The reason you’re going to make a great fag is that most of you
guys are just like dogs anyway. . . . You do whatever with whomever pleases you
and don’t seem to care about the consequences."
Ouch.
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (5)
|
Neil "T&A" Cavuto just can’t help himself
6/29/05 07:42:13
|
Newshound Melanie has posted an analysis of Neil Cavuto’s show which makes for titillating reading. Who knew that business news could be "muy sexxxy"?
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (7)
|
Chickenhawks redux
6/29/05 06:33:11
|
Seriously, these young Republicans are utterly without scruples, completely
hypocritical, and have no sense of shame. After
reading the following quotes, I’m sure they have a bright future ahead of
them in the party:
I chatted for a while with Collin Kelley, a senior at Washington
State with a vague resemblance to the studly actor Orlando Bloom. Kelley told me
he’s "sick and tired of people saying our troops are dying in vain" and added,
"This isn’t an invasion of Iraq, it’s a liberation--as David Horowitz said."
When I asked him why he was staying on campus rather than
fighting the good fight, he rubbed his shoulder and described a nagging football
injury from high school. Plus, his parents didn’t want him to go. "They’re old
hippies," Kelley said.
Munching on a chicken quesadilla at a table nearby was Edward Hauser,
a senior at St. Edwards University in Austin, Texas--a liberal school in a
liberal town in the ultimate red state of Texas. "Austin is ninety square miles
insulated from reality," Hauser said. When I broached the issue of Iraq, he
replied, "I support our country. I support our troops." So why isn’t he
there?
"I know that I’m going to be better staying here
and working to convince people why we’re there [in Iraq]," Hauser explained,
pausing in thought. "I’m a fighter, but with words."
At a table by the buffet was Justin Palmer, vice chairman of the
Georgia Association of College Republicans, America’s largest chapter of College
Republicans. In 1984 the group gained prominence in conservative circles when
its chairman, Ralph Reed, formed a political action committee credited with
helping to re-elect Senator Jesse Helms. Palmer’s future as a right-wing
operative looked bright; he batted away my question about his decision to avoid
fighting the war he supported with the closest thing I heard to a talking point
all afternoon. "The country is like a body," Palmer
explained, "and each part of the body has a different function. Certain people
do certain things better than others." He said his "function" was planning a
"Support Our Troops" day on campus this year in which students honored military
recruiters from all four branches of the service.
Standing by Palmer’s side and sipping a glass of rose wine,
University of Georgia Republican member Kiera Ranke said she
played her part as well. She and her sorority sisters sent care packages to
troops in Iraq along with letters and pictures of themselves. "They wrote back
and told us we boosted their morale," she said.
By the time I encountered Cory Bray, a towering senior from the
University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business, the beer was flowing
freely. "The people opposed to the war aren’t putting their asses on the line,"
Bray boomed from beside the bar. Then why isn’t he putting his ass on the line?
"I’m not putting my ass on the line because I had the
opportunity to go to the number-one business school in the country," he
declared, his voice rising in defensive anger, "and I wasn’t going to pass that
up."
And besides, being a College Republican is so much more fun than
counterinsurgency warfare. Bray recounted the pride he and
his buddies had felt walking through the center of campus last fall waving a
giant American flag, wearing cowboy boots and hats with the letters B-U-S-H
painted on their bare chests. "We’re the big guys," he said. "We’re the ones who
stand up for what we believe in. The College Democrats just sit around
talking about how much they hate Bush. We actually do shit."
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (27)
|
Lifting the Nazi moratorium
6/26/05 22:27:44
|
I know we’re not supposed to talk about or refer to Nazis, Nazism, or other unpleasantness, since the Third Reich analogy has been horribly overused and abused...but I can’t resist. Check it out.
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (17)
|
But what about The Children?
6/26/05 19:29:35
|
Ah yes, The Children. You can drag them out at any moment, using them as nice little surfaces on which to project your issues and fears about your own inadequacies. Remember impeachment? Remember the weeping and gnashing of teeth over how the whereabouts of Clinton’s wanger would determine whether our Children would remain innocent, idealistic angels, or devolve into depraved, cynical urchins? Never mind that the people who were howling the loudest from the conservative Republican ranks (see Hyde, Henry; Gingrich, Newt; Livingston, Bob; Hutchinson, Sen. Tim; et.al.) weren’t exactly role models themselves, wanger-whereabouts-wise. Neither was Clinton critic Gary Condit, whose unfortunate remarks about Clinton came back to bite him in a tender body part after Chandra Levy went missing. Some of his famous quotes about Clinton’s troubles include: "Only when we strip away the cloak of secrecy and lay the facts on the table can we begin to resolve this matter"; Congress should release the Starr report because "the American people ought to be able to see the information so they can make a decision" ; and, of course, who can forget how he said that Clinton should have come clean to stop the scandal’s "drip-drip-drip. … You can’t close this issue without getting all the information out there. ... The information is going to get out eventually anyway." Ah, good times.
But now we’re seeing a concrete example of how politicians’ and other influential figures’ actions actually DO influence The Children. I’m talking, of course, about military service, which the College Republicans are all in favor of - as long as it’s some other poor shmuck doing the fighting. And it’s there where it seems they’re most proud to emulate their beloved elders.
Thanks to some truly naughty mischiefmakers, we now know a lot more than we did before about the mindset of these young chickenhawks (or should the term be chickenchicks?). So what do these young Iraq war enthusiasts say when asked when they’re joining up? You’re going to love this:
NEW YORK - Young Republicans gathered for their party’s national convention... were asked: "Would you be willing to put on the uniform and go to fight in Iraq?"
In more than a dozen interviews, Republicans in their teens and 20s said, some have friends in the military in Iraq and are considering enlisting; others said they can better support the war by working politically in the United States; and still others said they think the military doesn’t need them because the U.S. presence in Iraq is sufficient.
"Frankly, I want to be a politician. I’d like to survive to see that," said Vivian Lee, 17, a war supporter visiting the convention from Los Angeles.
Lee said she supports the war but would volunteer only if the United States faced a dire troop shortage or "if there’s another Sept. 11."
"As long as there’s a steady stream of volunteers, I don’t see why I necessarily should volunteer," said Lee, who said she has a cousin deployed in the Middle East.
"If there was a need presented, I would go," said Chris Cusmano, a 21-year-old member of the College Republicans organization from Rocky Point, N.Y. But he said he hasn’t really considered volunteering.
"It’s always in the back of my mind - to enlist," Chase Carpenter, 16, a self-described moderate Republican visiting Manhattan this week from Santa Monica, Calif. He said he’s torn over whether he’d join the military if he were 18.
Others said they could contribute on the home front.
"I physically probably couldn’t do a whole lot" in Iraq, said Tiffanee Hokel, 18, of Webster City, Iowa, who called the war a moral imperative. She knows people posted in Iraq, but she didn’t flinch when asked why she wouldn’t go.
"I think I could do more here," Hokel said, adding that she’s focusing on political action that supports the war and the troops.
"We don’t have to be there physically to fight it," she said.
Similarly, 20-year-old Jeff Shafer, a University of Pennsylvania student, said vital work needs to be done in the United States. There are Republican policies to maintain and protect and an economy to sustain, Shafer said.
Now, what would have given these young folks the notion that it’s ok to talk tough but run like a bitch when it’s time to put up or shut up? For the answer, let’s check on the military service records of some of the conservative movement’s biggest stars and why they didn’t serve:
- George Bush: He "served" in the National Guard, except for that period when he disappeared to work on a campaign...didn’t see an action. At least not in Vietnam.
- Dick Cheney: Had "other priorities"
- Newt Gingrich: Now says he supports what we did in Vietnam, but never wore a uniform
- Rush Limbaugh: anal cyst
- Ken Starr: psoriasis
- Jack Kemp: "bad knee" (it didn’t keep him from playing pro ball, did it now?)
- Gary Bauer: had a “vague physical problem” that got him a 1-Y draft classification
- Saxby Chambliss: "bad knees"
- Pat Buchanan: "bad knees"
- Tom DeLay: said he wanted to serve in Vietnam, but was unable to since all the positions had been taken by Blacks and Hispanics.
- Denny Hastert: Again with the "bad knees", but he managed to make the wrestling team in college.
- Trent Lott: was needed stateside to fulfill vital cheerleading duties
- Ted Nugent: He claims that 30 days before his draft board physical, he stopped all forms of personal hygiene. The last 10 days, he ingested nothing but Vienna sausages and Pepsi; and a week before his physical, he stopped using bathrooms altogether, virtually living inside pants caked with his own excrement, stained by his urine. That spectacle won Nugent a deferment, he says. "... but if I would have gone over there, I’d have been killed, or I’d have killed, or I’d killed all the hippies in the foxholes...I would have killed everybody." (Detroit Free Press Magazine, July 15 1990)
I could go on, but I think you get the point (but please feel free to post your favorite anecdotes about conservative hypocrisy in the comments section). It would be nice if these giants of conservative thought would understand that their actions have consequences. You know, for The Children.
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (20)
|
More from Tom Cruise 2.0
6/25/05 23:24:41
|
Tom:
Please understand that I say this from love. I truly think you’re a hot little minkey (don’t tell DCMediaboy). I loved you when you shook your firm, tighty-whitey clad buttocks in RISKY BUSINESS. I cried with you in BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY. You look great in uniform (TAPS, A FEW GOOD MEN). You made a great sleazebag-with-a-heart-of-gold in JERRY MAGUIRE, and a fab sleazebag-with-a-wounded-heart-but-still-a-sleazebag in MAGNOLIA. But this whole new you, this "I wanna be me" empowerment, while a refreshing change from the RoboTom of old, is making you look...unhinged. Look, I’m all for religious freedom, but Jesus Christ Tom, can’t you give it a rest with Brooke Shields already? I’m sure you paid a lot of money to become "clear" (and it was worth every penny - you, the Presley women, John Travolta and Kirstie Alley have achieved a kind of spiritual serentity through Scientology that the rest of us can only hope to achieve..but probably can’t afford). But you really need to get your shit in check.
Dude, aren’t you supposed to be promoting a movie? Didn’t some entity sink a whole stack of benjamins into this WAR OF THE WORLDS thing? So why aren’t you talking about aliens (nanoo nanoo!) and how cute Dakota Fanning is and what a great director Steven Spielberg is instead of running your mouth on the TODAY SHOW about Ritalin and psychiatry and God-knows-what-else that I really don’t want to hear you talking about? Please get back on track. If I want to hear crackpot medical theories, I’ll turn on C-SPAN and watch Bill Frist or Tom Coburn. But I don’t want to do that, Tom. I want...the toothy, lighthearted Tom back. Not the dull cipher, but not this demented, steely-eyed fanatic either.
That is all. For now.
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (17)
|
Message to Karl Rove
6/23/05 23:03:39
|
I’m not going to get on my high horse and scold Rove for his disgusting, inappropriate, offensive, divisive statements about liberals and 9/11. Others are already on the case.
No, I think I’ll take another approach. I’d like to remind Rove of how his buddy in bastardy, dirty politics and general scumbaggery Lee Atwater ended his days. It might be food for thought:
Atwater’s "deathbed confession" remains controversial to this day. Many interpreted it as a renunciation of the political decade he had helped make possible. "Long before I was struck with cancer, I felt something stirring in American society," he said. "It was a sense among the people of the country -- Republicans and Democrats alike -- that something was missing from their lives, something crucial. I was trying to position the Republican Party to take advantage of it. But I wasn’t exactly sure what ’it’ was. My illness helped me to see that what was missing in society is what was missing in me: a little heart, a lot of brotherhood."
For many readers, there was a credibility problem. He’s been a bastard all his professional life, said his critics, and now we’re supposed to believe him when he says he really loves us?
Make no mistake: Lee still believed in the power of negative campaigning. "I prefer to call [it] comparative campaigning," he said. "Negative makes it sound as if you’re beating up on the guy for no reason, which is different from choosing symbolic platforms, like the Pledge of Allegiance or the furlough program in Massachusetts, upon which to make compelling comparisons between candidates." No, Lee wasn’t apologizing for that. "In 1988, fighting Dukakis, I said that I ’would strip the bark off the little bastard’ and ’make Willie Horton his running mate.’ I am sorry for both statements: the first for its naked cruelty, the second because it makes me sound racist, which I am not. Mostly I am sorry for the way I thought of other people. Like a good general, I had treated everyone who wasn’t with me as against me."
It all catches up with you in the end, scumbag. But when you see hell looming before you at the end, don’t expect me to forgive you. I think I’ll be fresh out.
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (38)
|
It wouldn’t be a Hillary-heavy news week...
6/23/05 19:59:43
|
...without Peggy Noonan chiming in, now would it? And surprisingly, she sounds incredibly....sane...in her assessment of Ed Kleins new biography:
And the charges seem so at odds--so utterly at odds--with the nice, smiling woman who calls abortion a tragedy and enjoys speaking of how much she prays. This is the problem all Hillary biographers have: It’s too grim to believe. To believe that her story as presented by the books so far is true is to believe that she has clung to a premeditated plan for 40 years, that she is ruthless in the pursuit both of her own ambitions and of a deep and intractable leftist political agenda. And that she found her equal in a partner sufficiently hardhearted to stick with the plan, and the secrecy, and the weirdness. It’s too over the top. It seems hard to believe, not because it isn’t true but because it isn’t likely, usual, expected. It isn’t the kind of biography we are used to in our leaders. That is her great advantage.
What is needed is a big and serious book by respected reporters who can dig, think and type, and whose sourcing standards are high and unimpeachable. Will that happen? It would be big if it did. This book is not that book.
But whoops! Although she does mention early in the column that she, Peggy, also added to the mighty Hillary canon, what she DIDN’T mention about the critical response to her book, THE CASE AGAINST HILLARY CLINTON (a fair and balanced title if ever I heard one), is that many reviewers outed her as a fabricator and fantasist. Yes, I know, hard to believe that the woman who wrote about magical dolphins would be capable of such a thing, but nevertheless, here’s what the reviewers had to say.
From Amazon.com:
A speechwriter for Ronald Reagan who chronicled her own White House experiences in the book What I Saw at the Revolution, Noonan exercises plenty of creative license in these pages, mostly effectively by inventing dialogue, events, and inner thoughts that serve to illustrate Mrs. Clinton’s motives and character as Noonan sees them.
From PUBLISHER’S WEEKLY:
Seasoned conservative political commentator Noonan (What I Saw at the Revolution, etc.) joins the anti-Hillary literary feeding frenzy with this scathing biographical essay. Addressing herself to the voting population of New York State, Noonan rails against "Clintonism"--which she defines as the using of any tactic to achieve a political goal, including "misleading constituents on serious and crucial issues," "evading responsibility for governmental mistakes," "smearing opponents and critics" and "lying"--as she begs New Yorkers not to elect the First Lady as their senator. But the book’s unusually urgent purpose isn’t the only thing that makes Noonan’s text irregular: mirroring, in some ways, the controversial methods Edmund Morris employed in Dutch (his recent biography of Reagan, Noonan’s former boss), Noonan mixes her thoroughly researched, nonfictive prose with confusingly presented fictional passages: invented internal monologues, "transcriptions" of speeches Hillary never made and the like.
From LIBRARY JOURNAL:
Noonan, a former speechwriter for President Reagan, argues that Clinton’s Senate campaign is simply the beginning of a long-term try for even more power, which must be stopped. To do that, Noonan sets out the problems she sees in Hillary’s character, including a duplicitous nature, insincerity, and dishonesty. However, the author concentrates more on her own impressions and feelings than the facts leading to those conclusions (she even acknowledges, after rehashing the "Filegate" and "Travelgate" matters, that "nothing that I have written here is new," and the information about those events could be found in myriad sources). Noonan speculates at points on what Hillary was thinking, or why she did certain things. She also includes a strange 30-minute segment detailing a meeting of entertainment industry moguls at which Hillary spoke at length about moral responsibility, which Noonan was able to record surreptitiously; only at the end of the chapter does she reveal that this was simply her fantasy.
And last but not least, a book excerpt:
I thought, seven years ago, that the Clintons might turn out to be inspiring. They had guts, came from nowhere, were bright and hard-driving; he was educated, credentialed, a political moderate but not a boring one; she appeared to be something new and interesting, a modern woman who operated with confidence in all the circles of the world.... Hillary could have been a strong and encouraging presence, maybe continuing to work in the world as a lawyer, as Cherie Blair has in Great Britain--a judge, working mother, and "first lady" who is everywhere a figure of respect.
What a presidency this would have been. What a legacy they would have left .
What did the Clintons do with their two administrations? They left behind a country more damaged, more removed from its old, rough idealism; a country whose children live in a coarser and more dangerous place; a country whose political life has been distorted and lowered.... And for this reason, for all of these reasons, Clintonism should not be allowed to continue.
And if it is not to continue, the next great battle may prove to be the decisive one, and that is the battle of New York.
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (8)
|
The flip side of celebrity journalism
6/23/05 19:34:36
|
Those of you who have had a chance to watch CNN International realize that it
bears no resemblance whatsoever to its shallow American sibling (thank
God). Well, it appears that the members of the European MSM also have a
slightly, shall we say, different approach to celebrity journalism. Consider, if
you will, the
following interview in DER SPIEGEL, in which the interviewer takes Tom
Cruise 2.0 to task for his adherence to rather odd religious beliefs and his
insistence on proselytising. I wonder what was going through Steven
Spielberg’s mind? Perhaps something like this: "Oh for the love of Christ,
there he goes again. Fuck. Hail Mary time, I guess....better play the Holocaust
card. That should shut this arrogant Kraut up..:
SPIEGEL: We
visited one of your locations near Los Angeles and were amazed to find a fully
staffed tent of the Scientology organization right next to the food tents for
the journalists and extras.
Cruise: What were you amazed
about?
SPIEGEL: Why do you go so extremely public about your personal
convictions?
Cruise: I believe in freedom of speech. I felt honored to
have volunteer Scientology ministers on the set. They were helping the crew.
When I’m working on a movie, I do anything I can to help the people I’m spending
time with. I believe in communication.
SPIEGEL: The tent of a sect at
someone’s working place still seems somewhat strange to us. Mr. Spielberg, did
that tent strike you as unusual?
Spielberg: I saw it as an information
tent. No one was compelled to frequent it, but it was available for anybody who
had an open mind and was curious about someone else’s belief
system.
Cruise:The volunteer Scientology ministers were there to help the
sick and injured. People on the set appreciated that. I have absolutely nothing
against talking about my beliefs. But I do so much more. We live in a world
where people are on drugs forever. Where even children get drugged. Where crimes
against humanity are so extreme that most people turn away in horror and dismay.
Those are the things that I care about. I don’t care what someone believes. I
don’t care what nationality they are. But if someone wants to get off drugs, I
can help them. If someone wants to learn how to read, I can help them. If
someone doesn’t want to be a criminal anymore, I can give them tools that can
better their life. You have no idea how many people want to know what
Scientology is.
SPIEGEL: Do you see it as your job to recruit new
followers for Scientology?
Cruise: I’m a helper. For instance, I myself
have helped hundreds of people get off drugs. In Scientology, we have the only
successful drug rehabilitation program in the world. It’s called
Narconon.
SPIEGEL: That’s not correct. Yours is never mentioned among the
recognized detox programs. Independent experts warn against it because it is
rooted in pseudo science.
Cruise: You don’t understand what I am saying.
It’s a statistically proven fact that there is only one successful drug
rehabilitation program in the world. Period.
SPIEGEL: With all due
respect, we doubt that. Mr. Cruise, you made studio executives, for example from
Paramount, tour Scientology’s "Celebrity Center" in Hollywood. Are you trying to
extend Scientology’s influence in Hollywood?
Cruise: I just want to help
people. I want everyone to do well.
Spielberg: I often get asked similar
questions about my Shoa Foundation. I get asked why I am trying to disseminate
my deep belief in creating more tolerance through my foundation’s teaching the
history of the Holocaust in public schools. I believe that you shouldn’t be
allowed to attend college without having taken a course in tolerance education.
That should be an important part of the social studies
curriculum.
SPIEGEL: Mr. Spielberg, are you comparing the educational
work of the Shoa Foundation with what Scientology does?
Spielberg: No,
I’m not. Tom told you what he believes in, and after that I told you what I
believe in. This is not a comparison between the Church of Scientology, the Shoa
Foundation and the Holocaust. I was only showing you that some of us in
Hollywood have set out to do more than just be actors or directors. Some of us
have very personal missions. In Tom’s case, it’s his church, and in my case,
it’s the Shoa Foundation, where I’m trying to help other people learn about the
mortal dangers of pure hatred.
SPIEGEL: How do you set about doing
that?
Spielberg: I think that the only way we’re going to teach young
people not to kill each other is by showing them the reports by the survivors of
the Holocaust -- so that they can tell them in their own words man’s inhumanity
to man. How they were hated. How they were displaced from their homes. How their
families were wiped out and how by some miracle they themselves survived all
that.
Cruise: How did the Holocaust start? People are not born to be
intolerant of others. People are not born bigots and racists. It is educated
into them.
Spiegel: Mr. Cruise, as you know, Scientology has been under
federal surveillance in Germany. Scientology is not considered a religion there,
but rather an exploitative cult with totalitarian tendencies.
Cruise:
The surveillance is nothing like as strict anymore. Any you know why? Because
the intelligence authorities never found anything. Because there was nothing to
find. We’ve won over 50 court cases in Germany. And it’s not true that everyone
in Germany supports that line against us. Whenever I go to Germany, I have
incredible experiences. I always meet very generous and extraordinary people. A
minority wants to hate -- okay.
SPIEGEL: There is a difference between
hate and having a critical perspective.
Cruise: For me, it’s connected
with intolerance.
SPIEGEL: In the past, for example when "Mission:
Impossible" (1996) came out, German politicians called for a boycott of your
movies. Are you worried that your support for Scientology could hurt your
career?
Cruise: Not at all. I’ve always been very outspoken. I’ve been a
Scientologist for 20 years. If someone is so intolerant that he doesn’t want to
see a Scientologist in a movie, then he shouldn’t go to the movie theater. I
don’t care. Here in the United States, Scientology is a religion. If some of the
politicians in your country don’t agree with that, I couldn’t care
less.
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (12)
|
More on Fox spin tactics
6/23/05 19:27:30
|
A few posts below, I noted that Susan Estrich had resorted to using Fox’s
favorite deflection tactic: When asked about bias, talk about ratings. Case in
point: Here’s an excerpt of the transcript of the infamous Bill O’Reilly-Paul
Krugman August 8, 2004 encounter on Tim Russert’s CNBC show. Note O’Reilly’s
dodge:
RUSSERT: Do you think that Fox News Channel has a conservative spin to
it?
Mr. O’REILLY: If you look at the Fox News commentators in prime time,
starting with Hume and ending with Van Susteren, it comes right down the line,
OK? Van Susteren is a liberal, Colmes is a liberal, Hannity is a conservative,
I’m a traditionalist, Shepard Smith is really nothing and--you know, he’s just
in--a neutral guy, in the neutral zone, and Hume, I would say that he’s slightly
conservative, but certainly no bomb thrower. All right?
Prof. KRUGMAN:
Unbelievable.
Mr. O’REILLY: It is unbelievable because you don’t know
what you’re talking about. We put more liberals on the air than conservatives.
We put more liberal voices on the air than conservatives, and we can--we have a
tally every day of what we put on. There is no talking points. There is no
marching order. It doesn’t exist. But these people, they want you to think that.
But here’s the bottom line. In the Democratic convention,
"The Factor" killed CNN and MSNBC from 8 to 9. You’ve got to assume many
Republicans weren’t even watching that. It was an independent Democratic
audience primarily. Wiped them off the face of the Earth. And the reason is, the
people know we give voice to all sides, unlike this guy and his
newspaper.
Estrich:
Asked to respond to Vice President Cheney’s comments about him to
Fox’s Sean Hannity, Dean said: "My view is that Fox News is a propaganda outlet
for the Republican Party, and I don’t comment on Fox News."
Three times as many people watch Fox every
day as watch CNN.
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (6)
|
A whole new level
6/23/05 19:17:43
|
So most rational, thinking people know that the "Reverend" Fred Phelps is
batshit insane, a hater of the first order. After all, it takes a very
special man to picket the funeral of a young gay man who was beaten within an
inch of his life and left to die crucified on a lonely fence in Wyoming.
Picketing the funerals of AIDS victims is also a most excellent way for a man of
"God" and his "flock" to spend their time. But I have to admit, even by
this man’s standards, that this behavior really takes the cake:
His church was bombed, and now he protests funerals of the war
dead Kansas preacher says he’s coming to
Idaho
By CHUCK
OXLEY
THE ASSOCIATED
PRESS
BOISE, Idaho -- A Kansas preacher and gay rights
foe whose congregation is protesting military funerals around the country said
he’s coming to Idaho tomorrow to picket the memorial for an Idaho National Guard
soldier killed in Iraq.
A flier on the Web site of Pastor Fred Phelps’
Westboro Baptist Church claims God killed Cpl. Carrie French with an improvised
explosive device in retaliation against the United States for a bombing at
Phelps’ church six years ago.
"We’re coming," Phelps said yesterday.
Westboro Baptist either has protested or is
planning protests of other public funerals of soldiers from Michigan, Alabama,
Minnesota, Virginia and Colorado. A protest is planned for July 11 at Dover Air
Force Base, the military base where war dead are transported before being sent
on to their home states.
Phelps gained national notoriety in 1998 when he
picketed the funeral of Matthew Shepard, the gay college student beaten to death
in Wyoming.
Since then, Phelps said his church has been the
target of hateful words and actions, including a bomb attack six years
ago.
Phelps’ church has picketed the funerals of AIDS
victims for more than a decade.
French, 19, was a Caldwell High School graduate
and varsity cheerleader. She was killed June 5 in the northern city of Kirkuk.
French served as an ammunition specialist with the 116th Brigade Combat Team’s
145th Support Battalion.
Phelps said the fact that French led an
all-American life gives him all the more reason to picket her final public
tribute.
"An all-American girl from
a society of all-American heretics," he said.
"Our attitude toward what’s happening with the
war is the Lord is punishing this evil nation for abandoning all moral
imperatives that are worth a dime," Phelps said.
Caldwell Police Chief Bob Sobba said he cannot
bar Phelps from going to the public funeral, which is scheduled for 1 p.m. at
the Albertson College of Idaho in that city.
"While we respect Mr. Phelps’ right to protest,
we would hope that he would respect the family and friends of this young person
by not disrupting the memorial," Sobba said.
Idaho Air National Guard Lt. Tony Vincelli,
acting as spokesman for French’s family, said there were no plans to change the
funeral arrangements.
The Rev. Brian Fischer, pastor of Boise’s
Community Church of the Valley, and himself a past target of protest by the
Westboro Baptist Church, decried Phelps’ plan.
"What Phelps is doing is a reprehensible thing,
to take a funeral and turn it into a photo op for his hate cause," Fischer
said.
"We hope everyone will ignore Phelps’
group."
In 2003, Phelps demanded that he be allowed to
erect an anti-gay monument in a Boise public park. To avoid a lawsuit from his
group, city officials voted in 2004 that a Ten Commandments monument be moved
out of the park.
Here’s more on this evil, reprehensible
man’s life:
-
Phelps left Mississippi for Bob
Jones University. While there, he was part of a failed mission to convert
Mormons in the town of Vernal, Utah. It was one of the earliest examples of
Fred’s newfound personality: When one of the missionaries choked during a
question and answer session, Phelps responded by attacking the person who’d
asked the question, sparking a near riot. While in Vernal, Phelps was ordained a
minister by the local Baptist Church; he returned to Bob Jones, only to
mysteriously drop out. Years later, he cited an opposition to the school’s
racial practices (blacks were not allowed to attend until the 1990s); in 1994, a
former employee of the university told the Topeka Capital Journal that the
school staff actually feared Phelps, and he was given an ultimatum to either
seek psychiatric counselling or be expelled (EDITOR’S NOTE: That’s a
first for me. Too crazy for Bob Jones University? Ouch).
-
Fred’s position at Eastside was
short lived; as some congregants would recall years later, he was a "reverend
from Hell," encouraging his congregants to beat their wives and children; he was
once forced to bail one of his parishoners out of jail after counselling the man
to punch his wife in the face until she became "subjugated." Parishoners of
Eastside recall one of Phelps’ sermons in particular:
A good left hook makes for a right fine wife. Brethren, they can
lock us up, but we’ll still do what the Bible tells us to do. Either our wives
are going to obey, or we’re going to beat them!
Most congregants recall an incident one Sunday morning when Phelps’
infant son, Mark, began to cry during his sermon; Phelps responded by walking
down from the pulpit, punching the baby in the face, and then returning to
continue the sermon, to the horror of his congregants. Phelps dismissal from the
church came when a female congregant admitted that she had committed adultery.
The next Sunday, Phelps’ sermon revolved around the woman, repeatedly referring
to her as a whore and encouraging the congregation to draw up an official "form"
declaring her to be damned to Hell and excommunicated from the church. In
response, the congregants voted to kick Phelps out of the
church.
-
In 1997,
before the fall of Saddam Hussein during the
second Gulf War, Phelps wrote him a letter praising his regime, and received
special permission from the Iraqi government to send a group of his children to
Baghdad to protest against the American
government. Hussein granted permission, and a group of WBC congregants traveled
to Iraq to protest against the U.S. The parishoners stood on the streets of
Baghdad and in heavily patronized Baghdad establishments holding signs
reading:
- GO HOME (with a cartoon of Bill Clinton)
- BABY KILLER (with a cartoon of Hillary Clinton)
- BABY KILLER (with a cartoon of Bill Clinton)
- FAG GORE
- FAG USA= SODOM
- STOP THE HOLOCAUST (in reference to Phelps’ "Topeka Baptist
Holocaust" campaign)
- FAG USA (with a picture of an inverted, burning American
flag)
- USA SIN (with a picture of anatomically incorrect stick figures
engaged in anal sex)
Phelps mourned the fall of Hussein’s regime and has consistently
criticized the invasion of Iraq, citing, "IRAQ=USA=SODOM" and keeping a toll on
his webpage celebrating the death of every American soldier killed and
pronouncing loyalty to Iraq.
Phelps has also repeatedly championed Fidel Castro for Castro’s
stance against homosexuality; in 1998 Harper’s
magazine published a letter Phelps sent to Castro in which he praised Castro and
lambasted the US. In 2004, when a pro-homosexual Cuban refugee announced plans
to travel to Cuba, Phelps sent another letter to Castro "warning" him of the
man’s plans and requesting travel visas for a group of WBC congregants so that
they could follow the refugee around Havana with signs bearing anti-US and
anti-homosexual slogans.
-
Though the children that remain loyal to him
claim that they were only spanked as children, there is an abundance of evidence
to support the claims of two of his daughters and two of his sons that Phelps
was physically abusive to his children and wife.
Phelps’ sons Nate and Mark, who claim that they were among the most
abused, each suffer permanent debilitating injuries consistent with their
stories of Phelps beating them with a mattock handle. According to the boys, he
woke them one Christmas Eve in the 1970s while under the influence, bent them
over a bathtub, and struck them nearly 300 times with the mattock
handle.
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (2)
|
Quite a week for Mr. O
6/22/05 22:05:13
|
Not a man to be tampered with, Bill O’Reilly thundered the other day that Rep. Curt Weldon would be banned for life from the Factor, for committing the unpardonable sin of not showing up for his turn in the "No Spin Zone".
Weldon sent O’Reilly the following response (thanks to the good folks at sweetjesusihatebilloreilly.com, ’An Organization of Hope’):
Bill O’Reilly,
I have now witnessed the ultimate spin -- from, of all people, you.
My scheduled taping last evening between 6-6:30 pm was pre-empted by a prolonged 5:15 pm meeting with the Secretary of Energy Sam Bodman regarding important National Security issues related to non-proliferation activities in the former Soviet states and by a series of 6 recorded votes on the Floor of the House that started at 6:30 pm and lasted until 7:15 pm.
Contrary to your spin, my staff did give notice to your staff of both conflicts and kept them informed of my status during the scheduled taping. In addition, my staff offered for me to appear as soon as votes ended. Finally when I tried to personally reach you, your staff was not willing to provide my staff with a suitable number.
As much as I would have enjoyed returning to your show, my job as a Member of Congress and as Vice Chairman of both the House Armed Services Committee and Homeland Security Committee is to cast my recorded vote on issues that affect our nation, in this case, the 2006 Defense Appropriations bill and related amendments which will fund our troops through 2006.
I hope you understand these obligations and I apologize for any inconvenience this unanticipated series of events caused to you and your staff.
Curt Weldon
For those of you who need reminding, O’Reilly takes snubs quite personally indeed, turning into the Glenn Close character in FATAL ATTRACTION ("I will not be IGNORED, Dan"). Here’s an excerpt from last year’s laugh-fest, THE O’REILLY FACTOR FOR KIDS:
I once had a friend in high school whom I confided in. This guy and I had known each other since first grade and we were pretty solid. At least, I thought we were. Freshman year is always tough because you are the youngest in the school and are still trying to figure out the program. There was this dance I wanted to go to, but I didn’t want to go alone. I wanted some guys to hang with so the girls would think I was cool. So I asked my friend, who was usually up for this kind of thing, if he would come along. He said he couldn’t go. I said fine and found a couple of other guys to go with me. But when we arrived at the hop (that’s what they called a dance back then), I couldn’t believe my eyes. My so-called friend who told me he couldn’t go to the dance was out there doing the twist like a madman. What was up with that? I cornered this so-called friend later, and he admitted that some of the guys he went to the dance with didn’t like me, so he didn’t want me around.
If that situation had happened in a TV sitcom, everybody would have made up and had a few laughs. But life is different. I never trusted that guy again and rarely spoke to him. Since he never apologized, I think I made the smart decision. He wasn’t a true friend, and that happens a lot in life. By not wasting any more time with him, I went on to make real friends, many of whom I hang around with to this day. I’m that kind of guy: once I become friends with you, I’m in for life unless you do something bad to me. Even though I am now famous and successful, I still keep my old friends. And believe me, none of them looks like Jennifer Aniston. It would not be hard being her friend.
Remember as you read the excerpt that it was written by a middle-aged man -- an exceptionally thin-skinned one at that, one who just can’t grasp the concept of "letting go". But never fear - he can always lift his spirits by fantasizing about what he would do to dissenters, false friends and runaway Congressmen if only he had the power....
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (11)
|
Programming note
6/21/05 20:47:14
|
Almost forgot - there’s an outstanding FRONTLINE on tonight about contractors in Iraq. Check local listings, as it were. And thanks to PBS for keeping me on the review list.
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (3)
|
Liberals to Susan Estrich: Drop Dead
6/21/05 19:50:04
|
OK people. We need to discuss the following:
A liberal’s defense of Fox News
By Susan Estrich
LOS ANGELES –
I work for Fox News as a commentator. I say whatever I want. I’m the blonde on the left, figuratively and literally - the one who’s usually smiling because it’s TV, not the Supreme Court or Congress, and I find civility more effective in any event.
Besides, why shouldn’t I be smiling? Prior to working for Fox, I worked for ABC and NBC, spent a lot of time at CNN, and almost ended up at CBS. I worked for a bunch of local stations in Los Angeles and had a talk-radio show at KABC for six years. In other words, I’m fortunate enough to have been around, and Fox News is the best place I’ve ever worked.
I’ve come to expect the jabs at Fox News - because being a liberal, I get more than most. I work there in part because, six or seven years ago, they offered me a better deal than NBC at the time; and because, as a feminist and a Democrat, I think it’s particularly important to have a dialogue with people who aren’t already members of the same choir - that’s the way we will ultimately have to win elections.
I also work there because of my respect for Roger Ailes, the man who created it, and hired me, and to whom I am extremely loyal for reasons having nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with integrity. The jabs have gotten stronger with success. No surprise there. When you get to No. 1 as fast and as impressively as Fox News has, it’s a bull’s-eye, and Mr. Ailes would be the last person in the world to expect his competitors to go gently.
But things have taken a personal turn in the last week or so, as the targets have shifted from the institution as a whole to the individuals within it. The criticisms have gotten personal, the tone has changed, the volume is up, and the value is down. Neil Cavuto? Brian Wilson? Under attack by a Washington press corps for not probing enough on Iraq (Cavuto) and being too tough on Howard Dean (Wilson)? Give me a break.
Mr. Cavuto, a Fox News anchor, sat down to do an interview with George Bush last week on his business show. He didn’t discuss Iraq. Cavuto doesn’t cover Iraq. As far as I know, he had nothing new to ask him, nothing new to add, and no important new question to pose. In fact, the president had nothing new to say on the topic. There was no news to be made on Iraq. So Cavuto didn’t use the opportunity either to beat up on the president or to let him say something we’d heard a hundred times. Instead, he asked him questions he didn’t know the answer to, where he might get an answer he hadn’t already heard.
For this, he’s been summarily beaten up by the press corps - the same one that still can’t figure out why it got it all wrong about those weapons of mass destruction that justified the war.
Then there’s Brian Wilson’s great sin. In his case, the problem wasn’t not asking a question, but trying too hard to ask tough ones of the Senate minority leader and the party chairman who’d joined together to make it look as if there was no problem when there very obviously was.
The Dean charge is, of course, the more serious one, particularly since the party chairman has taken to attacking Fox News. There certainly is disagreement among Democrats as to whether party leaders such as Joe Biden and John Edwards should have gone public with the obvious criticism that Dean had gone too far in calling Republicans a party of white Christians who don’t work.
But I’m hard-pressed to think of anybody who’ll tell you privately that in the midst of debates about such issues as Social Security and the deficits, it’s a good idea for the party leader to be turning himself into the issue by engaging in class and religious warfare.
This is precisely what congressional leaders and Dean agreed Dean wouldn’t do when he became party chair. He was supposed to leave the message to them. Because Dean hadn’t done so and had been criticized for it by two possible presidential candidates - neither of whom is even a conservative - Sen. Harry Reid was trying to put a perennial good face on a bad situation, while Brian Wilson was trying to puncture it.
And that’s what the press is supposed to do.
Asked to respond to Vice President Cheney’s comments about him to Fox’s Sean Hannity, Dean said: "My view is that Fox News is a propaganda outlet for the Republican Party, and I don’t comment on Fox News."
Three times as many people watch Fox every day as watch CNN. There were certainly times during the last campaign where I disagreed with decisions made by young Fox producers. But without exception, every time I raised an issue, I won. The joke was that I would tell them to set their stopwatches and transfer me to Ailes, so they could time how long it would take me to get their decisions reversed.
It never came to that, but everyone understood the commitment not to make decisions that would even give the appearance that Dean so cavalierly bandies about.
Is Fox News different from the other places I’ve worked? Sure. But all of the rest were pretty much alike, which is the larger point that Dean ignores.
Dear Susan Estrich:
You and I have never met, but I suspect you know who I am. I’m the OTHER blonde on the left - literally, not figuratively. I’m the woman in OUTFOXED who used you as an example of a Fox staple, the faux liberal. Ring a bell?
So I read your defense of Fox, and I have a few comments.
How much did Roger Ailes pay for your soul? How much does a conscience go for on the open market these days? I realize that your lifestyle is expensive - those Hollywood plastic surgeons don’t do charity facelifts, after all - but wouldn’t you have been better off calling a madame that specializes in middle-aged call girls (uh, women) and peddling your ass for money? I think that becoming a literal whore would have allowed you to stay truer to your feminist principles than being Fox’s "liberal" Uncle Tom.
So you’re buddies with Roger Ailes. Excuse me, but isn’t he the same Roger Ailes who played a part in sinking the campaign of your candidate Michael Dukakis in 1988, by resorting to crude race-baiting and demagoguery? This is what you say about your buddy Roger:
I also work there because of my respect for Roger Ailes, the man who created it, and hired me, and to whom I am extremely loyal for reasons having nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with integrity. The jabs have gotten stronger with success. No surprise there. When you get to No. 1 as fast and as impressively as Fox News has, it’s a bull’s-eye, and Mr. Ailes would be the last person in the world to expect his competitors to go gently.
Here’s what this paragon of integrity did to YOUR candidate, Susan:
The GOP threw everything at Dukakis. They attacked him for mental problems (John McCain, are you listening?); his veto of a Massachusetts bill requiring public but not private school teachers to recite the Pledge of Allegiance; his "lax" furlough program; his membership in the ACLU; the filthy Boston Harbor (supposed proof that the "Massachusetts miracle" was a scam); and his refusal to support the death penalty, even for CNN’s Bernard Shaw, who posed a difficult question about the issue in a presidential debate. This was carefully designed helter-skelter -- there was no pattern, but the bottom line was, this guy is not like the rest of us.
Republicans also attacked Dukakis for allowing a weekend furlough for a convicted black felon, Willie Horton, who had attacked and raped a white woman -- under a program begun by Dukakis’ Republican predecessor. "When we’re through, people are going to think that Willie Horton is Michael Dukakis’ nephew," said political consultant Floyd Brown of Americans for Bush. By making the spot, Brown’s group allowed Bush and Ailes to deny that they had hatched it. (Brown’s group would later pump up the Whitewater pseudo-scandal against the Clintons, once again sucking in the press corps.)
You know, it must have seemed like old times in 2004, watching Ailes and his minions push the Swift Boat Vets for "Truth", a group so sleazy that even Bill O’Reilly - Bill O’Reilly! - was sickened by their tactics. It takes a real man of integrity to instruct his underlings to turn a decorated war hero into a lying, flip-flopping, Frenchified faker who may have received his Purple Heart under false pretenses, all in defense of a chickenhawk who went AWOL for a significant portion of his service (I guess defending Texas from Oklahoma was just too stressful). Yes, I think it’s safe to say many of us will never forget election 2004, and Fox’s role in it. Never.
Now let’s take a look at some of your other liberal bona fides, shall we?
- Telling the PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER that the Clintons need to "shut up" (I see your colleague Bill O’Reilly is rubbing off on you! But not literally...)
- Slamming Air America
- Slamming Howard Dean and Al Gore
- Sucking up to repulsive hypocrite and serial adulterer Newt "I know you have cancer, just sign the damn divorce papers" Gingrich
- Trumpeting your friendship with the fair and balanced Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter
- Defending Matt Drudge
- Defending Arnold Schwarzenegger against charges of groping and harassment
On this last point, Katie Roiphe writes in SLATE:
The week before the election she attacked the Los Angles Times for running an exposé about the charges. She complained that the paper had cited outdated accusations, which is a little odd when she herself has argued so passionately against the need for "fresh complaints," saying it often takes women a long time to conquer their fears and report a sexual crime; she also took the newspaper to task for seeking out women who hadn’t come forward, when she herself has written extensively on how hard it is to come forward in cases of sexual assault. It may or may not be relevant to all this that she was one of the Democrats later named to Schwarzenegger’s transition team.
She goes on to praise your honesty in facing your internal contradictions. Me, I just call it opportunism. Hey, tomato, tomahtoe, you know?
As to this preposterous point:
Mr. Cavuto, a Fox News anchor, sat down to do an interview with George Bush last week on his business show. He didn’t discuss Iraq. Cavuto doesn’t cover Iraq. As far as I know, he had nothing new to ask him, nothing new to add, and no important new question to pose. In fact, the president had nothing new to say on the topic. There was no news to be made on Iraq. So Cavuto didn’t use the opportunity either to beat up on the president or to let him say something we’d heard a hundred times. Instead, he asked him questions he didn’t know the answer to, where he might get an answer he hadn’t already heard.
To review: Cavuto asked Bush about MICHAEL JACKSON. I don’t know about you, but I really don’t care what Bush’s view is on MJ’s problems. He’s GEORGE Bush, not BILLY Bush after all. As to "nothing new to ask him, nothing new to add", are you out of your fucking mind? The insurgency continues apace, Americans are dying at a rapid clip, recruitment is so fucked that the military is bringing on, shall we say, undesirables to fill the rapidly emptying ranks. But I guess that when you spend all that time at Fox, guzzling the Kool Aid, you probably DON’T think there’s anything new to report. The Administration says all is well? Good enough for me! Move along, nothing to see here.
I have to say that I’m pretty amused by your use of a common Fox maneuver: When you’re accused of bias, change the subject. Howard Dean calls Fox’s content "propaganda", so your response is:
Three times as many people watch Fox every day as watch CNN.
Talk about misdirection! OK, so if you want to play the ratings card, how about this: On a typical night, a ten year old episode of LAW AND ORDER on TNT gets twice as many viewers as THE O’REILLY FACTOR. Come to think of it, that little reprobate in tight pants, SpongeBob, whips O’Reilly’s ass as well. What have we proven about Fox’s bias? Nothing, right? Ok.
Let me finish by telling you that I’m amazed you’ve come this far. Had I been in charge of hiring contributors, let’s just say you wouldn’t have topped my list, unless I needed an expert in how to blow a huge election lead and lose big. If you’re happy at Fox, good for you. But stop claiming to speak for me. You’re an embarrassment and a disgrace to liberals, feminists and people of conscience.
UPDATE: Gilliard and Wolcott join in the fun.
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (76)
|
David Brooks hearts the runaway groom
6/20/05 23:07:57
|
If, that is, the yella bellied man in question happens to be a solid
Republican named Bill Frist (thanks
to TBogg):
Bill Frist was his high school’s class president.
He was a quarterback on the football team and a member of the honor society, and
lived amid the upper crust of Nashville society. He dated the head cheerleader,
and while he was in med school they were engaged to be married.
But while
interning in Boston, he met another woman, spent a dinner and a night with her,
and fell in love. Two days before his wedding, he flew back to Nashville and
broke off his engagement. "Everyone listened carefully to what I said, all the
lame explanations I had that were and were not the truth," Frist later wrote,
"and they nodded and dealt with it and I went on my way."
I’ve always
admired that anecdote. It took guts to break off the grand wedding that was in
the works - to risk alienating everyone he had grown up with for the sake of the
woman he had suddenly come to love. Furthermore here was a Bill Frist who knew
his own heart.
As a woman, all I can say is: What a dick.
And speaking of Yellow Elephants, don’t forget the
General’s call to action.
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (15)
|
McPaper’s Web site reaches its nadir of shallowness
6/20/05 22:29:56
|
Beating the pop culture dead horse? Check. Publishing a piece that
tells you nothing about a "story"? Check. Witless "writing" (if
by "writing" you mean publishing bullet points)? Check. When USATODAY.com
meets the finale of Britney Spears’s television "show", prepare to
be...uh...what were we talking about again?
And for more by this writer, click
here.
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (3)
|
Why does Gitmo’s American human pinata hate America?
6/20/05 22:03:47
|
And, uh, freedom and stuff?
A U.S. military policeman who was beaten by fellow MPs during a botched training drill at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, prison for detainees has sued the Pentagon for $15 million, alleging that the incident violated his constitutional rights.
Spc. Sean D. Baker, 38, was assaulted in January 2003 after he volunteered to wear an orange jumpsuit and portray an uncooperative detainee. Baker said the MPs, who were told that he was an unruly detainee who had assaulted an American sergeant, inflicted a beating that resulted in a traumatic brain injury.
Baker, a Gulf War veteran who reenlisted after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, was medically retired in April 2004. He said the assault left him with seizures, blackouts, headaches, insomnia and psychological problems.
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (1)
|
And here’s the explanation
6/19/05 21:41:23
|
Why did so many Senators not sign on to the anti-lynching legislation?
The following quotes come from the 13 Senate Republicans — or their press staff — explaining their reasons for not signing on as co-sponsors of the bill apologizing for not approving legislation outlawing lynching during the civil rights struggle. These statements were provided by the Senators’ offices or culled from the Congressional Record. Some of the offices could not provide explanations by press time Friday.
Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) “I also condemn lynching. … But, rather than begin to catalog and apologize for all those times that some Americans have failed to reach our goals, I prefer to look ahead. I prefer to look to correct current injustices rather than to look to the past.”
Bob Bennett (Utah) “I come from a State that does not have a history of lynchings, but that does not mean I should be absolved from the concern that all Americans should have over the lynchings that have occurred. I note that it was the filibuster that made it possible for the Senate to be the body that blocked this legislation in the past. I would hope that in the future, we would all realize that the filibuster should be used for more beneficial purposes than that.”
Thad Cochran (Miss.) “I don’t feel I should apologize for the passage of or the failure to pass any legislation by the U.S. Senate. But I deplore and regret that lynchings occurred and that those committing them were not punished.”
John Cornyn (Texas) “There are different ways to acknowledge those times when Americans have failed to achieve the goals we have set for ourselves.”
Mike Enzi (Wyo.) “Sen. Enzi believes the lynchings that took place were tragic and that they never should have occurred. The legislation was passed by voice vote. Sen. Enzi agreed to that. He did not object.”
Judd Gregg (N.H.) “The fact that this amendment passed unanimously showed the depth of the support this resolution rightfully received, and Sen. Gregg was pleased to offer his support.”
Kay Bailey Hutchison (Texas) “You don’t have to co-sponsor everything that you are in favor of. She abhors lynching and thinks it is a horrific part of American history.”
Jon Kyl (Ariz.) No response. Trent Lott (Miss.) No response.
Richard Shelby (Ala.) “There are many instances where Sen. Shelby supports legislation and resolutions without being a co-sponsor.”
Gordon Smith (Ore.) “Sen. Smith strongly supports the resolution. He has a long record protecting civil rights.”
John Sununu (N.H.) “Sen. Sununu supported the resolution, and was on the Senate floor Monday evening when the resolution passed unanimously by a voice vote.”
Craig Thomas (Wyo.) “The Senator was working on the energy bill and CAFTA when that came around. ... If it passed by unanimous consent, that means everyone supported it. I don’t see the news value.”
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (9)
|
You have your orders
6/19/05 00:00:16
|
When the General speaks, I listen. So should you.
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (2)
|
The hate mailbag, 6/18
6/18/05 20:59:29
|
I had forgotten that there’s nothing like posting criticism of a Clinton
hater to bring out hostility. How these readers ended up reading this blog is a
mystery - maybe they got lost on the way to the Free Republic - but here’s a
sample of e-mails, and my responses.
When you spent all that money going to college ( I presume) I
guess they didn’t teach you that personal opinion of the person you’re assigned
to interview is irreverent, Klein might be a scumbag, hell you might be one too,
but knowing what the people of this country know about the treasonous pieces of
liberal shit Clinton’s and that probably 90 percent of what Klein wrote was true
you should have gotten off your high horse and did the interview, excusing
yourself because of some kind of moral dilemma is shallow and pathetic, you’re
in the media, you have no morals,, your friend XXXX (name deleted by
DCMG)
Dear Mr. X:
Since you’re a complete fucking
idiot with a very poor grasp of English grammar, let me explain how this
works:
Journalists are supposed to recuse themselves from conducting
interviews if they have a conflict of interest. My friendly acquaintance
with John directly affected my ability to conduct an objective Q&A with
Klein, so I told my editors no thank you. But thanks for sharing your
insightful views on the Clintons. Very original.
Another journalism expert
writes:
Are "journalists" supposed to be unbiased? Are
"journalists" supposed to bury their agendas and write balanced stories?
Thought so...guess you failed. By the way, did you read the book? It
would be really, really embarrassing for you to write- even in a blog- on a book
you never read. It doesn’t seem that you did.
You better get set for many stories on the honorable Senator
Clinton given her attitudes and her past. Especially her past. Might
help for you to do a little background. We are.
XXXXX
xxx-xxx-xxxx
Call anytime- would love to
chat
Dear Mr. X Number 2:
You got me! I didn’t read the book, but I was
a producer in Washington, D.C. during impeachment, so I’ve heard and read most
of these libelous, unproven, thoroughly
discredited allegations. Here’s what I HAVE read:
From the Clinton-unfriendly NEW YORK POST:
ED Klein’s new hatchet-job book on Sen. Hillary Clinton
says she was heavily influenced by the "culture of lesbianism" at her alma
mater, Wellesley College — but a classmate of the former first lady tells us
there was no such thing.
"The Truth About Hillary," to be published by
Penguin’s right-wing Sentinel imprint this month, makes much of Clinton’s
supposed lesbian affinities. Klein says that she "embraced" lesbianism and that
it "shaped" her politics in a profound way.
Klein also makes much of
Clinton’s friendship with Nancy Wanderer, a classmate who came out of the
closet. He recounts an episode at their 25th reunion when Clinton — who, Klein
says, was "widely rumored" to be a lesbian herself — fondled Wanderer’s
buzz-cut hair.
"Yes, I am a lesbian, but I wasn’t at Wellesley or for 20
years afterward," Wanderer tells PAGE SIX. "There was no lesbian culture there
at the time. I couldn’t have told you one person who was lesbian. If there was,
it was underground."
Wanderer continues, "I hope [Klein] doesn’t suggest
there was anything going on, because there just wasn’t. And if the hair
[episode] is being portrayed as a sexual thing, it wasn’t that at all. I have a
very short haircut, and we were all talking about it [at the reunion]. Probably
everyone at the table touched it."
Klein also writes about another
college pal of Hillary, Nancy Pietrafesa, who later moved to Little Rock and was
"rumored" to have had a lesbian relationship with the future senator. "I did
not," Pietrafesa, who’s been happily married for years and whose name is
misspelled in Klein’s book, tells us. "No one deserves this kind of
crap."
"These allegations are totally false and unsubstantiated,"
Pietrafesa’s lawyer, Jim Brosnahan, said. "Klein has apparently done no
investigating. This is scurrilous, despicable and politically
motivated."
I hope this helps.
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (10)
|
"Culture of life"
6/18/05 19:58:21
|
Just in case you’re still under the impression that conservatives care more about "life" than liberals do, I urge you to read the following piece in the WASHINGTON POST, which revisits the hospice where Terri Schiavo’s "protectors" protested the removal of her feeding tube. Randall Terry and his merry band of parolees, fanatics. rank opportunists and escapees from the witness protection program ought to hang their heads in shame, as should the governor of the state of Florida for allowing this circus to continue, but you know they won’t. That would suggest they had a sense of shame to begin with:
..Annie Santa-Maria, director of inpatient and residence services, enters her pitch-black office.
"Since the Terri thing, I’ve had trouble sleeping," she says. "So I just come in. I get e-mail done or read."
Like many of the staff, Santa-Maria is only now processing the Schiavo episode. Her nightmares are the what-ifs. What if one of the bomb threats was real? What if someone had broken past the barricades and given Schiavo a sip of water?
"If they had given her a cup of water, she would have choked to death," Santa-Maria says, her frustration bubbling up. "I just wanted to yell at them, ’We have people die with feeding tubes all the time.’ "
Some of her devout Catholic siblings disapproved of her role in the Schiavo case. The Catholic police chief peppered her with questions of ethics and morality. Congress subpoenaed her.
Santa-Maria opens her laptop to a PowerPoint presentation. The working title is "Woodside: A Fortress of Caring." Unlike the television images beamed around the world, the photos depict The Siege from the inside. Police in camouflage patrolling the verdant back grounds, people in wheelchairs pressing against orange mesh fencing, and the signs:
"Feed Terri! For God’s Sake."
"Stop the Murder."
"Auschwitz Woodside."
"I would watch volunteers feeding and bathing our patients day and night, and they’re out there calling us murderers," she says, her voice piercing the 5 a.m. silence.
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (7)
|
My friend Larry Johnson is back
6/18/05 15:15:23
|
|
YEAH, BUT HE ENJOYED THE GLAZED CHICKEN AND PITA
by Larry C. Johnson
The point of the outrage over abuses at Guantanamo is that we are a
country based on morals and principles that require us to conduct ourselves in
an honorable, proper fashion. If we lower ourselves to use the tactics and
methods of terrorists we become the very thing we are fighting against. We
cannot be content to argue that it only happened to a few. One act of deliberate
abuse is one too many.
Today we learn in L.A. Times that a U.S. soldier was badly beaten by
the U.S. guards at Guantanamo because they were misled to believe he was a
Muslim prisoner who had attacked a U.S. soldier. According to the Times: "Spc.
Sean D. Baker, 38, was assaulted in January 2003 after he volunteered to wear an
orange jumpsuit and portray an uncooperative detainee. Baker said the MPs, who
were told that he was an unruly detainee who had assaulted an American sergeant,
inflicted a beating that resulted in a traumatic brain injury."
Hopefully this causes Congressman Duncan Hunter to reflect on his
idiotic assertion that what a prisoner eats determines how well they are
treated. We are confronted with an uncomfortable reality that U.S. soldiers were
beating unarmed prisoners. That my friends is the conduct of bullies and
cowards. When you have guns and clubs and your opponent is unarmed and you
proceed to beat the hell out of your opponent then you are a bully and a coward.
Maybe Representative Duncan Hunter could take Specialist Baker out
for a lunch of glazed chicken and warm pita bread and try to persuade him that
his brain damage is no big deal. Maybe it is Hunter who is brain damaged? Too
much time at altitude without oxygen
Congressman?
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (8)
|
Thoughts on Ed Klein’s newest product
6/16/05 21:48:02
|
I’ve been putting off writing about the Klein book in Hillary Clinton, for the simple reason that so many others have written so eloquently and angrily on this topic. But I feel strongly about this author, so I decided to bite the bullet and post.
Ed Klein and I have a bit of history, although he doesn’t know it. In my 13 years of working as a journalist, I’ve recused myself from conducting two interviews, and Ed Klein was one. This happened when he released his last controversial tome, THE KENNEDY CURSE, which put forward all sorts of theories about John Kennedy Jr.’s and Carolyn Bessette’s marriage (she abused him, she was a cokehead, she cheated on him, they were headed for divorce, blah blah blah). I declined for a couple of reasons. One, Klein is a vulture who makes his living off stirring up the bones of dead Kennedys (apologies to Jello Biafra), and two, JFK Jr. and I knew each other. As a matter of fact, we were friendly in college. No, we weren’t "friend" friends. We never grabbed lunch after class or hung out, but we took a class together at Brown, and would often sit together, chat, pass notes, and act silly. I thought John was just great. He was funny, down to earth, extremely likeable, completely unpretentious, and he wore his stardom well. When his plane went down in 1999, I hadn’t seen him in 16 years, but I was heartbroken. A number of my former colleagues, who were desperate to get someone on the air who could remenisce about "the real John", called me to see whether I would go on TV, and I refused every request. Why? Because number one, I was shocked and saddened by his death, but more importantly, the truth is we were friendly acquaintances, and I wasn’t about to exploit his death to get attention for myself.
So fast forward to 2003, and my refusal to interview Klein. Believe me, this didn’t go over well at all with my editors, but fuck them. I recused myself because I had a conflict of interest. I don’t mention this to make myself out to be some fucking paragon of journalistic integrity, believe me. Besides being uncomfortable at the conflict, the other reason I didn’t want to do the interview was I also thought Klein was a scumbag and a graverobber, who had the nerve to use his "friendship" with Jackie O. as a get out of jail free card for any- and everything he wrote about the Kennedys. And what a joke that is. Believe me, if I died tragically, I would be willing to bet that none of my mother’s friends would have the gall to write an exploitative memoir about me, despite my huge Internet celebrity (that was a joke, by the way).
As I saw it, it wasn’t just that Klein simply couldn’t let the dead rest in peace (and let’s face it, John was a public figure because he was, in the public’s mind, the little boy saluting his father’s coffin. He never had any choice in the matter. He was a celebrity from a terribly young age, and there was no escaping it). His theory of a Kennedy "curse" was simply absurd. Consider his reasoning:
Are the Kennedys really cursed?
Klein says not in the supernatural sense: “It’s my view that the Kennedy family has what you might call combination of classic hubris and modern genetics," Klein says, "and they have this obsession with power, almost to the exclusion of ethical standards. This has led them to a feeling that they can get away with things that others can’t.”
Klein says it is really a “psychological and genetic curse, if you will, in the sense that they’re impelled to do self-destructive things.” He says this does not necessarily mean bad behavior; it can simply mean making poor choices.
He says, “In the four years since John Kennedy was assassinated, Kennedys and those associated with them have been dying, literally dying, at the rate of one every two years. I searched high and low for families that have anything near this kind of record and I couldn’t find anything unless you go back to Greek mythology.”
It all started back to Ireland, he says.
“We forget the Irish people were colonized by the British and kept under the boot of the British for centuries, the only white immigrant group in this country that had been colonized," Klein says. "They came here with a terrible sense of inferiority and found more prejudice here. I think they compensated for that in some cases with this sort of grandiosity.”
Klein says he is often asked whether the Kennedy curse continues, and his answer to that is, “I think, in the case of John, it did. We thought that he was exempt from this curse. And I think that his death was an example of a young man who was psychologically distraught over his marriage and the collapse of his magazine and physically was in no shape to fly the plane because he had just broken his leg. Technically, couldn’t handle the plane and yet, to prove himself, as so many Kennedys have done, went ahead and tragically died.“
At the time, I suggested to some of my colleagues that Klein would have found an equally high death rate (or perhaps even higher) had he written about a family of police officers, or coal miners, or firefighters. But the bottom line is that Klein’s real motivation is not mulling over the Kennedys and their family dynamic. It’s peddling sleaze. It’s using anonymous sources, and lots of them, to stick it to someone richer, more successful, more famous; using the pages of a "book" to act out their petty grievances and vendettas. Which is what we’re seeing with this Hillary book.
So that’s it. I hope Senator Clinton, and the other people he smeared in his "book", sue him from here to doomsday. The man is a scumbag. Somewhere, you can hear the sound of Jacqueline Kennedy rotating in her grave.
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (12)
|
Whither Frist?
6/16/05 21:08:05
|
Face it: "Dr." Frist has had to eat a heaping, steaming pile of dung
over this Terri Schiavo autopsy report. She could "follow the balloon"?
No. Respond to outside stimuli? No? Talk? Nope. She was abused by her husband?
Negative. So Frist’s faith-based diagnosis technique is, shall we say, now
being scrutinized. But if you’re expecting, oh, an apology or to see Frist
hang his head in shame, you’re SOL:
Some medical professionals questioned the
appropriateness of Frist challenging court-approved doctors who have treated
Schiavo. Laurie Zoloth, director of bioethics for the Center for Genetic
Medicine at Northwestern University, said she was surprised to hear Frist weigh
in, given that he has not examined Schiavo. "It is extremely unusual -- and by a
non-neurologist, I might add," Zoloth said in an interview.
Were Frist rendering an official medical
judgment, she said, relying on an "amateur video" could raise liability issues.
After 15 years, "there should be no confusion about the medical data, and that’s
what was so surprising to me about Dr. Frist disagreeing about her medical
status," Zoloth said.
It is not the first time that Frist has
created a stir in medical and political circles. In December, on ABC’s "This
Week With George Stephanopoulos," he repeatedly declined to say whether he
thought HIV-AIDS could be transmitted through tears or sweat. A much-disputed
federal education program championed by some conservative groups had suggested
that such transmissions occur.
After numerous challenges by Stephanopoulos, Frist said that
"it would be very hard" for someone to contract AIDS via tears or sweat. The Web
site of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says: "Contact with
saliva, tears, or sweat has never been shown to result in transmission of
HIV."
Frist’s aides say political considerations played no role in his
actions regarding Schiavo. "His interest in this was sparked solely as a medical
and human rights matter," said Eric M. Ueland, his chief of staff. "It’s time
for people to take off the 2008 rose-colored glasses and see Bill Frist for who
he really is."
Ah, but the Family Resource Council keeps hope alive:
Schiavo Update: Conclusively Inconclusive
Yesterday an autopsy report was released on Terri Schiavo, the young
Florida woman whose court-ordered death caused controversy across the nation and
in the halls of Congress. The report found no evidence of physical abuse or
strangulation but noted that the cause of Terri’s brain injury was inconclusive
due to the length of time (fifteen years) from injury to her death. The examiner
did conclude that Terri did not suffer from bulimia. It was bulimia that her
estranged husband, Michael Schiavo, insisted was the cause of her brain damage
while the autopsy documents the fact that Terri was severely disabled, it also
showed that deliberate dehydration, not disability, killed her. In short, Terri
Schiavo would be alive today if a Florida judge had not ordered her execution.
All innocent life should be protected, society failed Terri Schiavo and her
parents, steps should be taken that this does not happen again.
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (5)
|
More celebrity mishegoss
6/16/05 21:00:40
|
For those of you who haven’t had the pleasure of negotiating the terms of a celebrity interview, let me tell you, it’s a true delight. Crazy publicists. Insane managers. Topics, wording of questions, and length of interview are hashed over with the fervor of lawyers going over the finer points of the Law of the Seas Treaty, or two young yeshiva buchers poring over Talmudic passages. Once you get into the celebrity stratosphere, however, all this changes. Reporter, publicist and celebrity become locked into a National Geographic-like struggle for dominance, in which the purest form of the law of supply and demand applies. In short, the celebrity has a monopoly on that which you, the journalist, demand: Access to his or her image and "thoughts", such as they are. The bigger the celebrity, the uglier the requirements, and the more humiliation is heaped on the news outlet. I believe I’ve seen the nadir of this ugly codependency, and not surprisingly, it’s been brought to us by the newly liberated-from-the-deathgrip-of-his-former-publicist, quite unhinged Tom Cruise 2.0:
Last Wednesday, Radar ran with an online article alleging that Reader’s Digest sold its soul and didn’t even get a mess of pottage (though it did get Tom Cruise on the cover of its current issue). "According to well-placed sources at the magazine, to ensure Cruise’s cooperation, the Digest’s reporter, Meg Grant, promised to give ’Scientology issues’ equal play in her profile of the star, and agreed to enroll in a one-day Church ’immersion course.’"
But that wasn’t the end of the Digest’s acquiescence. Sources said the magazine "also agreed to submit its questions for Cruise to his church handlers, who weeded out any queries they deemed inappropriate." That step turned out to be unnecessary, since in the end "one of Cruise’s handlers asked the star the list of pre-approved questions, as Grant recorded Cruise’s responses."
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (2)
|
Behold the power of wingnuttery, redux
6/16/05 20:29:37
|
Remember, this individual once held a position of some influence. I know it comes to us courtesy of the Moonies, but I’m willing to believe the story. Join me, won’t you?
A former Bush team member during his first administration is now voicing serious doubts about the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9-11. Former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush’s first term Morgan Reynolds comments that the official story about the collapse of the WTC is "bogus" and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7. Reynolds, who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas and is now professor emeritus at Texas A&M University said, "If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an ’inside job’ and a government attack on America would be compelling." Reynolds commented from his Texas A&M office, "It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7. If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely to be correct either. The government’s collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings."
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (4)
|
From a man who really knows freaks
6/16/05 19:52:50
|
Stephen King weighs
in on the Michael Jackson trial:
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (514)
|
Lawrence of Arabia, then and now
6/15/05 06:47:13
|
My friend Larry Johnson, terrorism expert and inhabitant of the
reality-based cmmunity, sends in the following post:
Wishful thinking is no substitute for empirical analysis and a
policy grounded in reality. The Bush Administration is coming slowly and
uncertainly to this realization, particularly in Lebanon. Now that the premature
euphoria about the birth of democracy has collapsed under the weight of the
political realities of that godforsaken country we will now see whether the
Administration can keep its counter terrorism policy intact. For starters
Lebanon is host to Hezbollah. In the past Lebanon was not identified as a State
Sponsor of terrorism because it was under the thumb of Syria. That excuse no
longer holds.
So
what are our new pals in Lebanon doing? Setting terrorists free!! As my friend
Pat Lang observed, "Nobody is saying anything about the dozen or so Jihadi
activists who Saad Hariri bought out of jail last week. He paid their fines,
bail, etc because he needed the political support of the families and other
tribal associates. I guess he has been trying to "line up" both the Shia zealots
(Hizb Allah_ and the Sunni ones as well)."
For
people who truly want to understand what lies before us I recommend doing two
things: 1) Watch the movie The Battle of Algiers and 2) Read the following
"Report" by Lawrence of Arabia. It is Deja Vu all over again.
A Report on Mesopotamia by T.E. Lawrence By Ex.-Lieut.-Col.
T.E. Lawrence Sunday Times August 22, 1920
[Mr. Lawrence, whose organization and direction of the Hedjaz against
the Turks was one of the outstanding romances of the war, has written this
article at our request in order that the public may be fully informed of our
Mesopotamian commitments.]
The people of England have been led in Mesopotamia into a
trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honour. They have
been tricked into it by a steady withholding of information. The Baghdad
communiques are belated, insincere, incomplete. Things have been far worse than
we have been told, our administration more bloody and inefficient than the
public knows. It is a disgrace to our imperial record, and may soon be too
inflamed for any ordinary cure. We are to-day not far from a disaster.
The sins of commission are those of the British civil authorities
in Mesopotamia (especially of three ’colonels’) who were given a free hand by
London. They are controlled from no Department of State, but from the empty
space which divides the Foreign Office from te India Office. They availed
themselves of the necessary discretion of war-time to carry over their dangerous
independence into times of peace. They contest every suggestion of real self-
government sent them from home. A recent proclamation about autonomy circulated
with unction from Baghdad was drafted and published out there in a hurry, to
forestall a more liberal statement in preparation in London, ’Self-determination
papers’ favourable to England were extorted in Mesopotamia in 1919 by official
pressure, by aeroplane demonstrations, by deportations to India.
The Cabinet cannot disclaim all responsibility. They receive little
more news than the public: they should have insisted on more, and better. They
have sent draft after draft of reinforcements, without enquiry. When conditions
became too bad to endure longer, they decided to send out as High commissioner
the original author of the present system, with a conciliatory message to the
Arabs that his heart and policy have completely changed.*
Yet our published policy has not changed, and does not need changing.
It is that there has been a deplorable contrast between our profession and our
practice. We said we went to Mesopotamia to defeat Turkey. We said we stayed to
deliver the Arabs from the oppression of the Turkish Government, and to make
available for the world its resources of corn and oil. We spent nearly a million
men and nearly a thousand million of money to these ends. This year we are
spending ninety-two thousand men and fifty millions of money on the same
objects.
Our government is worse than the old Turkish system. They kept
fourteen thousand local conscripts embodied, and killed a yearly average of two
hundred Arabs in maintaining peace. We keep ninety thousand men, with
aeroplanes, armoured cars, gunboats, and armoured trains. We have killed about
ten thousand Arabs in this rising this summer. We cannot hope to maintain such
an average: it is a poor country, sparsely peopled; but Abd el Hamid would
applaud his masters, if he saw us working. We are told the object of the rising
was political, we are not told what the local people want. It may be what the
Cabinet has promised them. A Minister in the House of Lords said that we must
have so many troops because the local people will not enlist. On Friday the
Government announce the death of some local levies defending their British
officers, and say that the services of these men have not yet been sufficiently
recognized because they are too few (adding the characteristic Baghdad touch
that they are men of bad character). There are seven thousand of them, just half
the old Turkish force of occupation. Properly officered and distributed, they
would relieve half our army there. Cromer controlled Egypt’s six million people
with five thousand British troops; Colonel Wilson fails to control Mesopotamia’s
three million people with ninety thousand troops.
We have not reached the limit of our military commitments. Four weeks
ago the staff in Mesopotamia drew up a memorandum asking for four more
divisions. I believe it was forwarded to the War Office, which has now sent
three brigades from India. If the North-West Frontier cannot be further denuded,
where is the balance to come from? Meanwhile, our unfortunate troops, Indian and
British, under hard conditions of climate and supply, are policing an immense
area, paying dearly every day in lives for the wilfully wrong policy of the
civil administration in Baghdad. General Dyer was relieved of his command in
India for a much smaller error, but the responsibility in this case is not on
the Army, which has acted only at the request of the civil authorities. The War
Office has made every effort to reduce our forces, but the decisions of the
Cabinet have been against them.
The Government in Baghdad have been hanging Arabs in that town for
political offences, which they call rebellion. The Arabs are not at war with us.
Are these illegal executions to provoke the Arabs to reprisals on the three
hundred British prisoners they hold? And, if so, is it that their punishment may
be more severe, or is it to persuade our other troops to fight to the last?
We say we are in Mesopotamia to develop it for the benefit of the
world. All experts say that the labour supply is the ruling factor in its
development. How far will the killing of ten thousand villagers and townspeople
this summer hinder the production of wheat, cotton, and oil? How long will we
permit millions of pounds, thousands of Imperial troops, and tens of thousands
of Arabs to be sacrificed on behalf of colonial administration which can benefit
nobody but its administrators?
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (7)
|
Driftglass has got it going on
6/14/05 22:12:44
|
Just read this post and dare tell me that it isn’t brilliant. I dare you. Excellent, clever headline that makes me green with envy, clever segue, celebration over the Pink Floyd reunion (and boy, woudn’t I love to be at their rehearsals right now, overhearing all that bitter small talk).
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (43)
|
Insted of hosting another pointless panel
6/14/05 20:53:52
|
The Electronic Freedom Foundation offers something really useful: A Legal Guide for Bloggers. Food for thought.
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (0)
|
Thank God I don’t book for television anymore
6/14/05 20:48:57
|
I just can’t imagine getting all bent out of shape to ensure that my
network/show/whatever was the first to have the privilege of sitting
down with the bug-eyed runaway bride:
In TV terms, Wilbanks
is a big "get," the buzzword insiders use for interviews with major
newsmakers.
One question: Newsmakers? So now she’s a "major newsmaker"? Pathetic.
But here’s my advice to Katie Couric: Don’t back down until you see the whites
of her eyes.
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (6)
|
All hail my pal Finn-Olaf
6/14/05 20:22:45
|
Read this, and I think you’ll understand why I my then-classmate was the apple of my eye all those years ago. Now, thanks to the Internets, you can all get a kick out of his stuff. Good times.
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (0)
|
More great satire
6/14/05 19:50:06
|
The story of Job with some slight twists, via Legal Fiction. Great, great stuff, just the kind of thing I’d post if I weren’t so damned lazy.
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (0)
|
Wal-Mart trolls out in full force
6/14/05 19:48:07
|
My good friend Robert Greenwald is getting his behind handed to him in the comments section of his Huffington Post, uh, post, about his new Wal-Mart film. Apparently many of the posters don’t find anything wrong with a multi-billion dollar company depriving their workers of health care, and indeed encouraging them to sign up for Medicaid, thereby ripping off the taxpayers. So go give Robert a hand.
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (0)
|
So we knew Duke Cunningham is unhinged..
6/14/05 19:17:43
|
..but nailing him for corruption would be truly sweet.
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (0)
|
It’s not often that you get a message from Papa Ratzi’s people
6/14/05 19:15:00
|
This scam e-mail is so brazen, so hilarious, I had to post it in its entirety. And yes, I find it entirely plausible that the Vatican’s official correspondence is sent via Hotmail:
From: office of the holy father [mailto:officeoftheholyfather11@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2005 4:32 PM Subject: [SPAM] - RE: OFFER FROM THE VATICAN CHURCH, VATICAN CITY. -
Attn: Your Humble Goodself.
RE: OFFER FROM THE VATICAN CHURCH, VATICAN CITY.
Greetings to you from the office of the Holy Father of the Vatican Church, Vatican City, Rome Italy.
We are writing this letter to you today as a Holy offer/opportunity to work for the Vatican Church, Vatican City Rome Italy, as our only official secret distributor of charity funds to our several registered charity organizations around this global earth with topmost secrecy.
In August 9 1903 when Giuseppe Sarto assumed office as the second pope of the Vatican Church Vatican city as Pope Pius PP. X, he included a new amendment to the constitution of the Vatican Church, which relates that as a result of the continuous rising several cases of corruption and mis-use of the funds allocated by the Vatican Church to charity organizations, via the power of the Cardinals of the Vatican Church, the appointment of the official distributor of funds allocated by the Vatican Church for distribution to registered charity organizations, MUST be secretly issued to a non Vatican Church individual/personnel, who must be unknown by all living person’s except the office of the Holy Father and the official holy Treasurer of the Vatican Church, in-order to curb and eliminate the continuous rising several cases of corruption and mis-use of the charity funds, since without the knowledge of the official distributor by any other personnel of the Vatican Church except from the office of the Holy Father and the official holy treasurer of
the Vatican Church, the corruption cases would be brought to an immediate halt, and this new measure worked perfectly well from that time till this current time frame.
In the Addendum of this new amendment contained in the constitution of the Vatican Church, it is also clearly stated that every new Pope assuming office in the Vatican Church, must select a new official secret distributor for his regime, and upon his death, his selected official secret distributor must immediately have his/her post terminated, with the replacement of a new official secret distributor, secretly chosen by the new governing Pope only.
And with the passing away of our previous Pope, Ioannes Paulus PP. II Karol Wojtyla as Pope John Paul II on April the 2nd of 2005, and with the recent appointment of I Joseph Ratzinger as Pope Benedictus XVI on April the 19th of 2005, the previous secret distributor in Pope John Paul II time has been relieved of his position, and as a result a new secret distributor is immediately required without delay to serve till my regime is over via death.
In the light of the above related sentences, you have been nominated by this Holy office of the Holy Father of the Vatican Church Vatican City, to be our secret distributor of charity funds to our several registered charity organizations around this global earth SECRETLY with topmost secrecy, in which you would be continually paid a commission of 10% only, of every total amount of funds released to your goodself every four (4) months by the reputable funds organization the Vatican Church holds its charity funds in, for immediate distribution to our several registered charity organizations around the world, as charity funds from the Vatican Church Vatican City.
In-order to pre-qualify for this secret official Holy post in the Vatican Church, you must satisfy our basic requirements below;
1. You must be a honest, straightforward and God fearing individual. 2 You must be an aristocrat or an influential rich individual with a
designated bank account in a reputable Bank, which can completely and always accommodate the released charity funds to your goodself, without the need of questioning by relevant authorities. 3. You must be 100% fully ready and oblige to keep your post as our only official secret distributor of charity funds as Topmost secret, and guide this secret post in the Vatican Church Vatican City with your life. 4. You must not for any reason perform as not required by the office of the Holy Father i.e embezzlement and mis-use of charity funds. 5. You must at all time adhere fully and promptly to the instructions furnished your goodself by the office of the Holy Father of the Vatican Church.
Please kindly note that, Age, Sex, Religion, and Nationality, does not in any way affect your qualification eligibility, so if your humble goodself is confident and eligible for this secret holy post in the Vatican church, please kindly respond immediately to this electronic message by sending your personal response to our direct secret email address at (office_ofthe_holyfather@vaticanchurch-vat.org) from your private/personal email address without delay, and we shall guide you through the mandatory required steps to attain the secret holy post.
Thank you for your time as we expect your goodself to keep this electronic contact as topmost secret, in-order to protect the interest of the Vatican Church, Vatican City, Rome Italy, while we await your personal response from your personal email address to our secret email address.
Remain blessed and best regard’s from the office of the Holy Father of the Vatican Church and please take time out to visit our official website at (www.vaticanchurch-vat.org) and to view our profile please kindly visit
(http://www.vaticanchurch-vat.org/holy_father/benedict_xvi/index.htm)
God Bless you.
Office of the Vatican Church, Pope Benedictus XVI Joseph Ratzinger Pope, Vatican Church, Vatican City. Rome, Italy. Website address: http://www.vaticanchurch-vat.org
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (2)
|
I hate to say "I told you so"
6/14/05 19:11:44
|
..but if the shoe fits, what choice do I have? If we keep expecting people to join up with our causes just to be on the side of the angels, but we don’t lure them with cold, hard cash, I’m afraid we may be buggered. And please don’t tell me there’s no money in Leftieville. If some of these high rollers out in Hollywood tithed 1% of the interest on their risiduals, believe me, we could get a whole lotta programs funded. Trust me on this one.
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (0)
|
The Michael Jackson verdict
6/13/05 20:47:31
|
Am I surprised that he didn’t get convicted of the child molestation
accusations? Not really. The family, particularly the mother, came off as
creepy grifters, so that’s not much of a surprise. Not to mention the fact
that a) he’s wealthy and famous, and b) the world watched him grow from an
adorable tot to a troubled adult, which I guess absolves him of all
wrongdoing. You know, much like Robert Blake. So that’s where Scott
Peterson fucked up. He was too obscure a guy to have his guilt written off by an
adoring jury.
What I will say is that I was shocked he got off on the counts having to do
with feeding booze to kids. Even if you don’t believe he diddled the
youngsters, you have to believe he fed them "Jesus juice". So the jury’s total
dismissal of all charges was a major FU to the accuser’s family.
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (15)
|
Irony meter up and running
6/13/05 09:32:48
|
During the great Neal Pollack imbroglio on this blog, some of you left
comments and e-mailed indicating that you thought I was unable to detect
satire. Just to prove that I know good satire when I see it, I offer up
brilliant Richard Cohen sendup from the latest issue of THE NEW
REPUBLIC. Enjoy!
"A long time ago I wrote a magazine piece about how Bob
Woodward’s famous source, `Deep Throat,’ could have been a mere Secret Service
technician.... I showed the piece to Woodward, who would not say whether it was
right or wrong, just that it made sense. We both knew, though, that `Deep
Throat’ was Mark Felt."
--Richard Cohen, The Washington
Post, June 1, 2005
It was the fall of 1960 when I
first realized Mark Felt was Deep Throat. That’s technically impossible, since
there wasn’t yet a Deep Throat back then. Or even a Nixon administration. But I
could sense from the Nixon-Kennedy debates that Nixon would one day be elected
president, engage in colossal acts of corruption, then alienate the FBI, which
would turn against him in a fit of bureaucratic pique. That the critical FBI
leaker would be Mark Felt was self-evident: Felt had prematurely graying hair
and bore a passing resemblance to Hal Holbrook, who, I reasoned--and "reasoned"
actually overstates it, given how obvious it was--would be the only logical
choice to play Felt in a movie about the young reporting duo that broke the
story. (Full disclosure: I mistakenly predicted Jon Voight would play Woodward,
reprising the chemistry he and Dustin Hoffman shared in Midnight Cowboy. How I
overlooked Robert Redford has provoked much soul-searching and is still not
entirely clear to me.)
As the years passed, the
evidence supporting my casual hunch began to mount. First, President Nixon
resigned amid scandal. Second, my cousin Maggie, while working at a private club
in New Haven, had a momentous encounter with Carl Bernstein. Happy
Endings--regrettably, no longer in business--was that rare place where Bernstein
would let down his guard. I don’t know why exactly he trusted Maggie, but, on
several occasions, he shouted his terrible secret to her: "Felt!" He called it
their "safe word."
Finally, I asked Woodward directly.
He dodged the question--I think his exact words were, "How did you get into my
bedroom?!" The very thought of revealing his secret had apparently sent him into
a blind rage. Woodward kicked me several times in the solar plexus and dragged
me out his front door. As groggy as I was when I came to, I’ll never forget the
phrase he shouted before the final blow: "Mother F
*."
M.F. Hello?
Still, like everyone else, I occasionally
wavered. Due to some poorly worded passages in a book I once wrote, some
associated me with the case for Diane Sawyer. (Sadly, Case Closed: Diane Sawyer
was Deep Throat, is now out of print.) Betty Ford once told me she was Deep
Throat over a bottle of Wild Turkey. I half believed her. There was a brief
period in the early ’80s, while I was covering President Reagan’s illegal war in
Central America, when I flirted with the idea that Deep Throat was Francisco,
Checkers’s Salvadoran valet. But Felt was always my man.
In retrospect, what makes my achievement so remarkable isn’t just that
I was right. It was the way I was right: smug, self-assured, contemptuous of
those who couldn’t see the glorious truth staring them in the face. I began
refusing invitations to parties because I couldn’t stand being around people who
lacked my powers of deduction. I arranged to have a journalist friend fired
after he second-guessed me. At times, I would approach small children on
playgrounds and taunt them about how I knew who Deep Throat was and they didn’t.
Well I did, didn’t I, you sniggering little brats?
Now
that I’ve been vindicated, I’m left with a vague, almost haunting, sense of
emptiness. "It’s like having tried to protect something precious for all these
years that you carry around, and, for the first time, it’s not there to protect
in your pocket anymore," Bernstein recently said. "It’s a very strange feeling."
Strange, yes. But, sometimes, strangeness is the price we brave few must pay.
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (2)
|
America’s future, pt. II
6/9/05 20:03:21
|
Something has gone horribly wrong:
Three students came out strongly in defense of W. Mark Felt’s decision to guide reporter Bob Woodward, and the public’s right to know the behavior of its elected leaders.
"How are people supposed to elect the president if they don’t know if he’s doing the right thing or the wrong thing?" asked Brijesh Patel, 16. "If nothing came out about President Nixon, how are we supposed to know he was doing something wrong?"
However, most of the 12 juniors in the class said it was unethical for Felt to talk to Woodward. One student said Felt’s job was "to go to his superiors," while another said the public "should only know so much."
Kristen Dooley, 16, suspected that Felt, then the FBI’s No. 2 official, was acting out of spite because President Richard Nixon passed him over for the agency’s top job. Charles Kozak, 16, said that, "if it was truly to benefit society, he wouldn’t have kept his name secret."
In a journalism class down the hall, junior Sierra Harris was itching to talk about the Vanity Fair article naming Felt as Deep Throat, which she had read, but she and her classmates were scrambling to finish the last issue of the school newspaper.
"It’s something more people my age should care about, but you can’t force people," said Harris, who will be co-editor of the Catonsville High Comet next school year. She knew of one classmate who didn’t know what Watergate was until this week.
Among those who do know, she said, "it’s kind of upsetting me because there’s lots of people calling [Felt] a traitor. ... I don’t understand how you can even have that opinion."
Sigh.
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (14)
|
What a waste
6/9/05 19:56:19
|
Phone rage:
In an exclusive interview, Crowe spoke of his shame over the altercation, but insisted he was "not aiming at" concierge Nestor Estrada when he threw a telephone in the lobby of an exclusive New York hotel.
He conceded that the incident may not only see him locked away in a New York jail, but could prevent him from ever working in the US again.
He blamed his state of mind on "the combination of jet lag, loneliness and adrenalin", having just returned to the US after a flying visit to London for the Kostya Tsyzu fight, without wife Danielle.
"I’m at the bottom of a well. I can’t communicate how dark my life is right now," Crowe said. "I’m in a lot of trouble. I’ll do my best to solve the situation in an honourable way. I’m very sorry for my actions."
You know, this claim on Crowe’s part that he "just snapped" would be a lot more believable if he didn’t have a long history of acting like a belligerent assclown. A friend of mine who gave out gift bags at the Academy Awards the year that Crowe was nominated for THE INSIDER told me he was rude and abusive. A publicist I spoke with who dealt with him during the promotion of GLADIATOR expressed her relief at not having to go through that agony again during A BEAUTIFUL MIND. Yes, he’s that bad, and has been that bad for years, apparently. Oh, and with all due respect for his "dark life" excuse, HE’S A FUCKING MOVIE STAR. I’ll trade my darness for his any day.
What really breaks my heart is that I think that Russell Crowe is an incredibly gifted actor, a true artist. He has deserved every Academy Award nomination he’s ever gotten, and I still think he was robbed the year that Denzel Washington won (great actor, deserving of a Best Actor Oscar, wrong part to win the Oscar for). But even Hollywood, which is full of abusive pricks, can’t deal with his bullshit. He has much ’splainin to do. Maybe an appearance on Dr. Phil or Oprah will kick off his rehabilitation.
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (8)
|
Artistic temperament
6/9/05 19:48:24
|
Believe me, I know what it’s like to feel betrayed by an editor...but I never blew my stack like this very touch book critic...nor did I get this upset over the swapping of "the" to an "a". Over the top? Of course. Who wins? We ALL do, my friends.
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (3)
|
Anne Bancroft R.I.P.
6/8/05 23:10:03
|
The sublime Anne Bancroft is gone, and the acting world is the poorer for it.
Many male movie critics will dwell on her sexy, icy turn as Mrs. Robinson in THE GRADUATE. and why not? It was her breakout role, one that launched a thousand Oedipal fantasies. She was Stiffler’s Mom before Stiffler was a glimmer in his mom’s eye, the original suffocated suburban desperate housewife, a ravenous MILF.
I prefer to remember her in one of the all-time great ballet movies, THE TURNING POINT. Playing the middle-aged fading ballerina Emma, Bancroft conveyed icy detemination and heartbreak in one magnificent, skinny package. Which other actress could hold her own against the wonderfully hammy Shirley MacLaine, a bundle of hurt pride and failed dreams? Who else could starve herself down to anorexic proportions and yet seem so substantive at the same time?
Like a female Morgan Freeman, Bancroft could elevate every crappy B-movie she appeared in, just by virtue of gracing the set with her presence. Exhibit A: MALICE, the Nicole Kidman-Alec Baldwin vehicle. Bancroft stole every scene she was in, a broken alcoholic in her crappy shmatte - but every inch the great actress.
A great loss to the acting world, but what a great body of work. Thank you.
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (8)
|
Please give
6/8/05 22:13:11
|
My good friend over at Crooks and Liars is raising money. Give early and often, please. He does great work and his efforts should be recognized.
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (1)
|
Meanwhile, back in Iraq
6/8/05 06:52:29
|
The word "clusterfuck" comes to mind, but somehow it’s not strong
enough. Suggestions are welcome:
The
chief of police in Basra admitted yesterday that he had effectively lost control
of three-quarters of his officers and that sectarian militias had infiltrated
the force and were using their posts to assassinate opponents.
Speaking to the Guardian,
General Hassan al-Sade said half of his 13,750-strong force was secretly working
for political parties in Iraq’s second city and that some officers were involved
in ambushes.
Other officers were
politically neutral but had no interest in policing and did not follow his
orders, he told the Guardian.
"I trust 25% of my force, no more."
The claim jarred with
Basra’s reputation as an oasis of stability and security and underlined the
burgeoning influence of Shia militias in southern Iraq.
"The militias are the real
power in Basra and they are made up of criminals and bad people," said the
general.
"To defeat them I would
need to use 75% of my force, but I can rely on only a quarter."
++++++++++++
Sciri is one of the
dominant parties in the Shia-led government in Baghdad and Mr Sadr, a radical
cleric, has become a mainstream political player since leading two uprisings
against occupation forces last year.
Both groups have been
implicated in targeting officials from Saddam’s ousted regime. Since such people
tend to be Sunni Arabs, the score settling is often perceived as sectarian.
"Some of the police are
involved in assassinations," said Gen Sade. "I am trying to sort this out, for
example by putting numbers on police cars so they can be identified."
In March, police watched
impassively as their friends in the Mahdi army members beat up scores of
university students at a picnic deemed immoral because music was played and
couples mingled. Gen Sade identified the officers, but did not punish them for
fear of provoking the militia.
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (4)
|
So who WOULDN’T want to share the Caribbean experience with Bill O’Reilly...
6/7/05 06:49:52
|
...apart from that uptight Andrea Mackris? As it turns out, quite a lot of people indeed. Tsk, tsk. First the ratings sink, now this humiliation. I guess Bill’s "battle for American values" will have to continue on dry land.
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (35)
|
Yes, I know it’s a fake...
6/6/05 19:11:57
|
...but could the real thing be far behind? And although this site advertises a "coming soon" mag that’s not really coming, soon or otherwise, did they have to stick Gilliard in the "C" column?
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (6)
|
That’s no way to act
6/5/05 23:29:37
|
Donnie Fowler, DNC chair wannabe loser, should take some lessons in civilized behavior from his father instead of trying to punch out that nice Bob Brigham.
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (2)
|
America’s future
6/5/05 11:20:29
|
A number of recent articles have addressed the troubling topic of the madness that has gripped the American classroom. Last week, THE NEW YORKER came out with this crazy piece about how schools are handling lawsuits and complaints over who will get to be the high school class valedictorian. Today, the WASHINGTON POST MAGAZINE published an article written by an American University journalism teacher. Excerpt:
It was the end of my first semester teaching journalism at American University. The students had left for winter break. As a rookie professor, I sat with trepidation in my office on a December day to electronically post my final grades.
My concern was more about completing the process correctly than anything else. It took an hour to compute and type in the grades for three classes, and then I hit "enter." That’s when the trouble started.
In less than an hour, two students challenged me. Mind you, there had been no preset posting time. They had just been religiously checking the electronic bulletin board that many colleges now use.
"Why was I given a B as my final grade?" demanded a reporting student via e-mail. "Please respond ASAP, as I have never received a B during my career here at AU and it will surely lower my GPA."
I must say I was floored. Where did this kid get the audacity to so boldly challenge a professor? And why did he care so much? Did he really think a prospective employer was going to ask for his GPA?
I checked the grades I’d meticulously kept on the electronic blackboard. He’d missed three quizzes and gotten an 85 on two of the three main writing assignments. There was no way he was A material. I let the grade mar his GPA because he hadn’t done the required work.
I wasn’t so firm with my other challenger. She tracked me down by phone while I was still in my office. She wanted to know why she’d received a B-plus. Basically, it was because she’d barely said a word in class, so the B-plus was subjective. She harangued me until, I’m ashamed to admit, I agreed to change her grade to an A-minus. At the time, I thought, "Geez, if it means that much to you, I’ll change it." She thanked me profusely, encouraging me to have a happy holiday.
+++++++++++
My colleague Wendy Swallow told me about one student who had managed to sour her Christmas break one year. Despite gaining entry into AU’s honors program, the student missed assignments in Swallow’s newswriting class and slept through her midterm. Slept through her midterm! Then she begged for lenience.
"I let her take it again for a reduced grade," Swallow says, "but with the warning that if she skipped more classes or missed more deadlines, the midterm grade would revert to the F she earned by missing it. She then skipped the last three classes of the semester and turned in all her remaining assignments late. She even showed up late for her final."
Swallow gave the student a C-minus, which meant she was booted out of the honors program. The student was shocked. She called Swallow at home hysterical about being dropped from the program. To Swallow, the C-minus was a gift. To the student, an undeserved lump of Christmas coal.
John Watson, who teaches journalism ethics and communications law at American, has noticed another phenomenon: Many students, he says, believe that simply working hard -- though not necessarily doing excellent work -- entitles them to an A. "I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard a student dispute a grade, not on the basis of in-class performance," says Watson, "but on the basis of how hard they tried. I appreciate the effort, and it always produces positive results, but not always the exact results the student wants. We all have different levels of talent."
Now, why do you suppose these students are so arrogant? Why do they have this entitlement mentality? Could this mindset begin at home? Yes, says the writer, since she herself is one of these nudnick, hyper-competitive parents:
Though I haven’t received any menacing phone calls from parents, Mom and Dad are clearly fueling my students’ relentless demand for A’s. It’s a learned behavior. I know, because I’m guilty of inflicting on my son the same grade pressure that now plays out before me as a university professor.
Last fall when my Arlington high school senior finally got the nerve to tell me that he’d gotten a C in the first quarter of his AP English class, I did what any self-respecting, grade-obsessed parent whose son is applying to college would do. I cried. Then I e-mailed his teacher and made an appointment for the three of us to meet. My son’s teacher was accommodating. She agreed that if my son did A work for the second quarter, colleges would see a B average for the two quarters, not that ruinous C.
There’s a term for the legions of parents like me. The parents who make sure to get the teacher’s e-mail and home phone number on Back to School Night. The kind who e-mail teachers when their child fails a quiz. The kind who apply the same determination to making sure their child excels academically that they apply to the professional world.
We are called "helicopter parents" because we hover over everything our kids do like Secret Service agents guarding the president. (My son refers to me as an Apache attack helicopter, and he’s Fallujah under siege.) Only we aren’t worried about our kids getting taken out by wild-eyed assassins. We just want them to get into a "good" (whatever that means) college.
Oy.
It’s hard to overstate what a huge disservice this teacher is doing to her students. Why? Because journalism is a hyper-competitive, merciless occupation, which in the past few years has been overtaken by beancounters. These accountants are forever exerting pressure on editors to keep producing at or above current output while cutting more and more jobs from the newsroom. What sort of coping mechanisms are these professors instilling in their students? Do you honestly think a managing editor or executive producer will be sympathetic to the sort of whining described in this piece, when her or she is trying hard to hold on to his or her own job? The key is to sharpen claws and work on survival skills, not to sulk off into a corner or expect to be handed the keys to the kingdom after turning in sub-standard work. News organizations get sued for being careless, and the sooner that young people who aspire to enter the craft learn this, the better. You can’t game your boss the way you do your teacher. This may explain why so many of the young people I met who were entering the field were so wholly unprepared for the business realities they encountered; they had absolutely no frame of reference.
Now, by way of anecdote, a story about how incredibly pushy and irritating high-powered "helicopter" parents can be.
Several years ago, I befriended a famous journalist who has a byline in a popular weekly. Over lunch one day, he started telling me how dissatisfied he and his wife were with the education their children were receiving at Sidwell Friends, which is one of the private schools of choice for the well-heeled in DC. And why were they so unhappy? As he put it, his daughter, a top student, "wasn’t working up to her potential", and his son was "lazy and not accomplishing what he should be by his age."
His daughter was 8, his son, 4.
I told this guy that at the age of four, a child’s main preoccupation should be climbing trees and making mud pies. I asked him what he expected his son to have accomplished. Splitting the atom? He looked at me like I was insane, and made some comment about "you’ll understand when you have kids."
Rather than take his warning at face value, I learned the following: DC bigshots are not only competitive in the workplace, but through their kids as well. And I never, never want to teach at one of these schools.
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (50)
|
Emerging from the weeds
6/5/05 10:36:40
|
A follow-up to my posting on liberals and money:
In your comments and e-mails to me, many of you have focused your attention on campaigns. I guess I should have been clearer in my post. I’m NOT talking about campaigns, for the simple reason that campaigns rely on volunteers to function. What I’m talking about is paying living wages to those who enage in activism 365 days a year, the people who get the message out when there’s no candidate to focus the message. I’m talking about interest groups, bloggers, and others. I’m talking about the people who keep the pressure on the media to give our point of view a fair shake, who turn up the heat on corporations and the legislatures.
If we truly want to represent the values and interests of working people, we need to start at home and treat OUR OWN workers with respect. That includes good salaries and decent health insurance.
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (2)
|
More on money
6/4/05 09:23:55
|
On the subject of compensation for results-oriented activism: Remember the recent Microsoft kerfuffle? While the Human Rights Campaign Fund sat on its hands (that is, when they weren’t wringing them), John Aravosis swung into action. So before you begrudge him his CNN-sponsored sedan rides and his desire to be compensated, remind yourself that he got to work and brought about change.
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (2)
|
It sounds like a great party...FOR ME TO POOP ON
6/3/05 22:02:00
|
This excerpt is from NEW YORK Magazine’s Andrea Dworkin obit. You’d have to cross the river Styx to find a more demonic dinner "party" than this one:
(John Stoltenberg’s and Andrea Dworkin’s) big, bright apartment in D.C., in a Deco building with a vaguely old-Hollywood feel, is all on one level, so it was easier for Dworkin to get around, and she had started to settle into the area. She’d been reaching out to other writers and had gone to dinner at Christopher Hitchens and Carol Blue’s apartment, where Dworkin and Stoltenberg were joined by the former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum and his wife, Danielle Crittenden. “Andrea had fun that night- she had wicked fun,” says Stoltenberg. They found common ground talking about how much they hated Bill Clinton and how they thought he was a rapist.
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (12)
|
$$
6/3/05 21:38:32
|
We need to discuss the issue of money for a minute.
John Aravosis brought
the subject up a few days ago, and other bloggers, including Atrios and
Steve Gilliard, have tried to suss out why it is that some lefties are so
uncomfortable with the issue of money.
Here’s what I know. Over the past several months, I’ve had many
conversations with Democratic activists (bloggers, campaign types,
journos) of all ages, and the one thing they agree on is that
you essentially have to be wealthy or living off a savings account to go
work for a progressive organization. If you’re not that lucky, then you have to
take a vow of poverty. The wages, if you’re "lucky" enough to draw a paycheck,
are generally low to the point of being insulting. Health insurance is a
luxury for many, particularly those who are freelancing. Bloggers have to
put out their begging bowls to buy equipment, or to launch new sites or upgrade
existing ones. The model seems to be that of St. Ralph Nader, with his
crappy suits and ascetic lifestyle. But remember : The man is a millionaire.
It’s easy to play poor when you’ve got a ton of dough in the
bank.
Meanwhile, there’s a party going on to the right of us. Their think
tanks are swimming in dough. Their bloggers are living quite well, thanks very
much. And believe me, right wingers are NOT ambivalent about the
acquiring, raising and spending of money.
I think it’s time for rich liberals to face the fact that they’re simply not
doing enough for the cause. It’s outrageous that progressive bloggers need
to rattle a tin cup to keep going while those on the Right live like pigs in
clover. And for those of you who argue that the left doesn’t have the
resources the right does, all I can say is give me a fucking break. What,
there’s no money in Hollywood? What about all those VCs who gave money to
Democrats? Why should a kid busting his ass 80 hours + a week working on
grassroots campaigns have to live like a pauper? For the greater glory of the
cause? Come on. How long do you think the Right would survive if they
expected their storm troopers to get by on subsistence wages? Those are
sacrifices conservatives would never expect their people to make.
I think that this is an issue that progressives have to take a good hard look
at. You cannot sustain a movement with only the aid of young scions, leaving
aside the good activists who simply can’t afford to work for you because the
wages are so pathetic. Let me know what you think - what’s the
solution?
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (15)
|
What he said
6/2/05 07:46:13
|
Turner: CNN Focuses Too Much on Perverts
ATLANTA - CNN should cover international news and the environment, not the "pervert of the day," network founder Ted Turner said Wednesday as the first 24-hour news network turned 25.
Turner, an outspoken media mogul who started CNN in 1980 but no longer controls the network, said he envisioned CNN as a place where rapes and murders that dominated local news wouldn’t be emphasized, but he’s seeing too much of that "trivial news" on the network he created, now second in ratings to Fox News Channel.
"I would like to see us to return to a little more international coverage on the domestic feed and a little more environmental coverage, and, maybe, maybe a little less of the pervert of the day," he said in a speech to CNN employees outside the old Atlanta mansion where the network first aired.
"You know, we have a lot of perverts on today, and I know that, but is that really news? I mean, come on. I guess you’ve got to cover Michael Jackson, but not three stories about perversion that we do every day as well."
His remarks won applause and laughter from CNN employees, but the moderator for Turner’s remarks, CNN correspondent Christiane Amanpour, said: "But everyone else is doing that. Why do you think it’s important not to?"
Turner replied: "Somebody’s got to be a serious news person. Somebody’s got to be the most respected name in television news, and I wanted that position for CNN.
"I wanted to be The New York Times of the airwaves. Not the New York Post, but The New York Times. And that’s what we set out to do, and we did it."
The brash Turner acknowledged that CNN wasn’t all highbrow when he was in charge, either. "We followed O.J. Simpson ... It was pretty trivial, but high-interest."
As usual, the 65-year-old Turner made his remarks with a roguish smile.
The media pioneer called CNN his greatest professional achievement.
And at one point he claimed partial credit for ending the Cold War.
Amanpour asked his if he honestly thought he had a hand in it.
"I’m absolutely certain I did," he said.
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (5)
|
More on Deep Throat
6/1/05 22:39:34
|
One of the downsides of reviving the Watergate conversation is that scumbags like Chuck Colson are invited to come on the air to belch out yet another round of lies, obfuscation and character assassination. Remember, this is the same Chuck Colson of whom it was said "he would have run over his grandmother for Nixon"..that is, before he "found" Christ in the penitentiary. The same Chuck Colson who was a political godfather and inspiration to the likes of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove. The same Chuck Colson who used to have a sign on his office wall that read "When You’ve Got ’Em By the Balls, Their Hearts and Minds Will Follow". Thanks to Crooks and Liars, though, we get Tom Brokaw’s response to the former president’s men.
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (8)
|
Thoughts on Watergate, journalism and more
6/1/05 22:16:38
|
Watergate is my first political memory. I remember WaPo’s headline about the break in, and I can’t forget the long, hot summer of the Watergate hearings. Why? Because my friends and I were forced to stay home day after day while our parents were glued to their television sets, watching Sam Ervin and company grill the shifty eyed scumbags from CREEP and the White House. Watergate hearings = no parents to drive the kids to the pool = a huge bummer for the under-10 crowd.
A few years later, I picked up a copy of ALL THE PRESIDENT’S MEN, which kindled my desire to become a journalist. I suspect I wasn’t alone in that regard. Woodward and Bernstein’s exploits were fascinating; part Sherlock Holmes, part John LeCarre, there was enough intrigue and excitement to motivate many to want to join the fourth estate.
Over the years, however, I’ve noticed that more and more young aspiring journalists have no interest in becoming Woodward and Bernstein (if they even know who Woodward and Bernstein are; many of them don’t); they’re more interested in being Redford and Hoffman. In other words, they want the flash and the fame, but the hard work isn’t very appealing. In my 13 years as a journalist, I chatted with many an intern. Not one expressed an interest in becoming an investigative reporter, or working for 60 MINUTES (still my dream job, despite my disappointment with the business), or believed in journalism as a calling. They all wanted to be on the air (none wanted to be behind the scenes) making the big bucks. They spent more time focusing on the advice of image consultants than reading about politics, or economics, or history.
There’s a scene in the film ALL THE PRESIDENT’S MEN that perfectly depicts the frustrations and hard work of investigative journalism. Woodstein get a tip that members of Nixon’s inner circle are obsessed with Ted Kennedy and have been checking books out of the library to do research on the hated senator. The reporters ask the Library of Congress clerk to turn over the White House book request slips. The clerk refuses. Woodstein then go to another clerk, and ask for all the check out slips for the year. There’s a great overhead shot of the two reporters sitting in the LOC’s reading room, going through the slips of paper one at a time. The investigation leads nowhere, and off they go to chase their next lead. That’s the kind of work that very few news organizations are willing to fund, and that not many journos are interested in doing. Investigative journalism is hard, boring, maddening work, usually leading to dead ends and blind alleys, and those who pursue it are to be commended. But as news budgets shrink, there just isn’t the money or the will to fund these investigations the way there used to be (unless the charges involve blow jobs, but that’s a conversation for another time).
Woodward and Bernstein were incredibly lucky. They had a supportive publisher in Katherine Graham and a tireless, legendary SOB of an editor in Ben Bradlee, the newspaperman’s newspaperman. The same can’t be said for the WaPo of today, I’m afraid. And that’s what’s made this Deep Throat revelation all the more poignant. Reading the Post’s stories that describe the salad days of the 70s, when the paper finally emerged from the shadow of the NEW YORK TIMES and established itself as a force to be reckoned with, only served to throw into stark relief the extent to which the practice of journalism has degraded since then. And the WASHINGTON POST, whose editors happily linked arms with the neo-cons to form a high-kicking chorus line in support of the invasion of Iraq (when skepticism should have been the order of the day), along with its inability to hammer the current administration about non-existent WMD and phony intelligence the way it did the previous occupant of the White House about hummers, has fallen very far indeed. It’s hard to read about the amazing work of two young Metro reporters 30+ years ago without feeling sadness and loss along with the vicarious thrill of the hunt.
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (8)
|
Can’t leave Paris
6/1/05 19:56:41
|
My friend and role model Gene Lyons pays me the enormous compliment of quoting from this blog in his latest column, but accomplishes the amazing by finding the link between Paris Hilton and Ken Starr. Genius.
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (3)
|
The Pollacks get a spanking
6/1/05 07:26:18
|
It appears that Salon’s readers share my disgruntlement with the Pollacks and their childrearing skillz. They’re brutal and worth a read.
Here’s one that deserves a special mention:
Let me get this straight. Neal’s 2-year-old went on a month or longer binge of biting children every day and he’s upset and shocked that his son was expelled? The child should have been expelled much earlier, to protect the other children from his mouth. Neal is lucky that he’s not getting sued by another parent.
Attitudes like his are a major reason I got out of teaching. Parents "these days" (I’m 32, mind you) don’t seem to have the patience or time to parent and discipline their own children but expect teachers to do the job for them. They don’t say no to their child for anything, don’t teach them respect for others, let alone for adults, and are shocked -- just shocked -- when their kids get in trouble in school.
What’s especially maddening is that Neal and his wife are so upset that they have to spend the entire summer in "hell" with their 2-year-old! You mean parenting is hard, exhausting work, will change your life and your marriage forever, and make you question what the hell you were ever thinking? You’re kidding. Yet they expect others to do it with more tact and patience than they’ve shown their own child, just because the others are getting paid for it.
Let me provide some perspective. When I graduated from college in 1995 with a teaching certificate, the only job I could find immediately was at a Montessori school and at another preschool. I was interviewed numerous times. I got hired at both ... for the excellent salary of $8 an hour, without benefits. Double that and add benefits, and I still don’t think it would be enough. The numerous assistants and teachers that had contact with Neal’s 2-year-old probably weren’t making much more than that. They should be commended for putting up with him for as long as they did.
Mothers and fathers are always saying that parenthood is the hardest, least appreciated, least compensated job on earth. When they fail to do their job, teachers take that title easily.
-- Kim
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (17)
|
Just a reminder
6/1/05 07:07:27
|
My postings haven’t disappeared. It’s the first of the month, so May has been archived. Check out the archive links in the left hand nav, and stay tuned for more postings.
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (3)
|
|  |  | 
|