Thursday, April 17, 2008
ABC: Attack Barack Continuously
Last night's nationally-televised debate between Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama could not have been more of a disgrace and misuse of public airwaves had it been aired on FOX.
In fact, the vacuous, gossipy questioning by the usually likable and intelligent George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson were more akin to the sound bite-baiting tactics of a Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly. In fact, Stephanopoulos had appeared on one of Hannity's shows just the day earlier, and must have been taking notes. Most of the two hours of "debate" concerned itself with Obama's minister, his recent statements about frustrated Americans and whether he was or was not patriotic for not wearing a US flag pin.
It seemed as though ABC wished to paint a portrait of the Democratic primary campaigns as a smarmy mess of accusations, cross talk and affiliations with unsavory people. In that regard, they did a bang-up job. As for presenting the candidates' views on the issues of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the economy, high gas prices, lost jobs, the mortgage and foreclosure disaster, foreign policy, the use of torture by the Bush administration and other important matters, ABC should pay a fine to the FCC.
Americans deserve better than what was offered by the network. They deserve a debate and primaries that present issues with which a prospective president will have to deal, not rehashed television-and-talk-show trash.
It was aggravating to have to watch and listen to question after dumbed-down question from the ABC interrogators. Both candidates tried to steer the debate away from the mundane to the real issues and should be praised for not losing their cool under such extremely stupid circumstances.
However, it would have been nice - as Obama nearly did to Stephanopoulos, saying one of his questions didn't "make sense" - to hear Obama answer with what was honestly on his mind. Something to the effect of, "If I thought wearing a US flag lapel pin everywhere I go would get me to the White House, I'd wear three of them."
Neither the candidates nor the voting public should have to be subjected to forums such the one ABC put forward last night. It was dull, moronic and trivial and has no place in American politics. We can only hope that ABC will learn a lesson from the commentaries which are certainly critical of their "debate" and get back to serious coverage of real issues affecting Americans.
In fact, the vacuous, gossipy questioning by the usually likable and intelligent George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson were more akin to the sound bite-baiting tactics of a Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly. In fact, Stephanopoulos had appeared on one of Hannity's shows just the day earlier, and must have been taking notes. Most of the two hours of "debate" concerned itself with Obama's minister, his recent statements about frustrated Americans and whether he was or was not patriotic for not wearing a US flag pin.
It seemed as though ABC wished to paint a portrait of the Democratic primary campaigns as a smarmy mess of accusations, cross talk and affiliations with unsavory people. In that regard, they did a bang-up job. As for presenting the candidates' views on the issues of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the economy, high gas prices, lost jobs, the mortgage and foreclosure disaster, foreign policy, the use of torture by the Bush administration and other important matters, ABC should pay a fine to the FCC.
Americans deserve better than what was offered by the network. They deserve a debate and primaries that present issues with which a prospective president will have to deal, not rehashed television-and-talk-show trash.
It was aggravating to have to watch and listen to question after dumbed-down question from the ABC interrogators. Both candidates tried to steer the debate away from the mundane to the real issues and should be praised for not losing their cool under such extremely stupid circumstances.
However, it would have been nice - as Obama nearly did to Stephanopoulos, saying one of his questions didn't "make sense" - to hear Obama answer with what was honestly on his mind. Something to the effect of, "If I thought wearing a US flag lapel pin everywhere I go would get me to the White House, I'd wear three of them."
Neither the candidates nor the voting public should have to be subjected to forums such the one ABC put forward last night. It was dull, moronic and trivial and has no place in American politics. We can only hope that ABC will learn a lesson from the commentaries which are certainly critical of their "debate" and get back to serious coverage of real issues affecting Americans.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Republicans Walk Out, Americans Pray They Won't Return
Republican lawmakers in Washington, DC, did today what voters and citizens across the country have been trying to do for the better part of the last 8 years: they removed themselves from the House chamber of the Capitol.
Following an impassioned speech decrying "political grandstanding" by minority leader John Boehner, Republican members of the House of Representatives walked out of congress and onto the steps of the Capitol in a move oddly similar to "political grandstanding."
Many Americans cheered the move, but asked, "how can we keep them from coming back? Could they all just go home and stop bothering us?"
The Republicans supposedly walked out in protest that the Democratic members would not approve a Senate bill that granted blanket retroactive immunity to telecom companies involved in the Bush administration's "warrantless wiretapping" practices.
Strangely enough, since that measure was not going to come to a vote, the next item on the agenda, forwarded by Chairman of the Judiciary Committee John Conyers, was to hold administration officials Harriet Miers and Josh Bolton in contempt of Congress and authorized a civil contempt suit against the two by the House. When that issue came to a vote, there were no Republicans in the chamber and the measure passed, 223-32.
Sadly, the Republicans returned to their offices and various hearings moments later, dashing the hopes of millions that once gone, they would stay away.
Hack N. Spend, an interested bystander, hoped the Republican lawmakers would make use of FEMA trailers that New Orleans hurricane victims have been living in for the past two years and now were being told by FEMA executives that they are unsafe for human habitation.
"The Republicans could camp right out here in those FEMA trailers since they're said to be not fit for regular people," said Spend. "Believe me, these Republicans are anything but regular," he added.
Following an impassioned speech decrying "political grandstanding" by minority leader John Boehner, Republican members of the House of Representatives walked out of congress and onto the steps of the Capitol in a move oddly similar to "political grandstanding."Many Americans cheered the move, but asked, "how can we keep them from coming back? Could they all just go home and stop bothering us?"
The Republicans supposedly walked out in protest that the Democratic members would not approve a Senate bill that granted blanket retroactive immunity to telecom companies involved in the Bush administration's "warrantless wiretapping" practices.
Strangely enough, since that measure was not going to come to a vote, the next item on the agenda, forwarded by Chairman of the Judiciary Committee John Conyers, was to hold administration officials Harriet Miers and Josh Bolton in contempt of Congress and authorized a civil contempt suit against the two by the House. When that issue came to a vote, there were no Republicans in the chamber and the measure passed, 223-32.
Sadly, the Republicans returned to their offices and various hearings moments later, dashing the hopes of millions that once gone, they would stay away.
Hack N. Spend, an interested bystander, hoped the Republican lawmakers would make use of FEMA trailers that New Orleans hurricane victims have been living in for the past two years and now were being told by FEMA executives that they are unsafe for human habitation.
"The Republicans could camp right out here in those FEMA trailers since they're said to be not fit for regular people," said Spend. "Believe me, these Republicans are anything but regular," he added.
Monday, January 28, 2008
State of the Union Drinking Game
Tonight, the world will cheer President Bush's State of the Union address... because it will be his last. Personally, I intend to be already fairly hammered by the time the faux-presidente takes the podium, shortly after 9:00 pm Eastern time tonight.
Having painfully watched and listened to all seven of his previous SOTU addresses (sad, but true), I plan on celebrating this final assault on my sensibilities with unprecedented gusto.
George Bush... this ass-hole has brought the American people nothing but pure grief for seven long years and if he ends up hanging by the gallows in the Hague for his crimes, it won't be justification enough.
In my own way, I plan on reveling in this jerk's departure, beginning tonight, so I've devised a devilish drinking game designed to maximize my pleasure (always a good idea).
Here are the rules:
You take a drink of the beverage of your choice if Bush says any of the following (or any close variations):
That should just about cover it. Make sure to get good and primed. If you can't keep up with all the drinking words, just drink throughout what figures to be about a 40-minute speech. Enjoy the beginning of the end of one of the worst eras in US history.
Having painfully watched and listened to all seven of his previous SOTU addresses (sad, but true), I plan on celebrating this final assault on my sensibilities with unprecedented gusto.
George Bush... this ass-hole has brought the American people nothing but pure grief for seven long years and if he ends up hanging by the gallows in the Hague for his crimes, it won't be justification enough.
In my own way, I plan on reveling in this jerk's departure, beginning tonight, so I've devised a devilish drinking game designed to maximize my pleasure (always a good idea).
Here are the rules:
You take a drink of the beverage of your choice if Bush says any of the following (or any close variations):
- "hard work" - his trademark line of BS
- "Al Queda" or "terrorist" or "War on Terror"
- "stimulus"
- If he calls anyone "brave", drink
- any mention of "Iran", drink
- if he mentions "Crawford" or his "ranch", drink
- If he says "the surge is working" or "we're winning" related to Iraq, Afghanistan or the overall War on Terror, drink
- if he says anything about giving the economy a "shot in the arm" two drinks, plus a bong hit
- any time he "urges Congress" drink, bong hit and masturbate enthusiastically
- if he says the word "legacy" at all, immediately become addicted to heroin
- Any reference to Dick Cheney, DRINK hard!
- if he says the economy is "strong", "resilient" or "growing", drink, bong hit, shot of heroin, fornicate with anything in the room even if it's not human (cats count), snort cocaine, then go out for a drive.
- If he says he's sorry or has any regrets, drink as much as possible because you're either unconscious, dreaming or the nukes have already fallen, we're all dead and that is the rapture you're hearing
That should just about cover it. Make sure to get good and primed. If you can't keep up with all the drinking words, just drink throughout what figures to be about a 40-minute speech. Enjoy the beginning of the end of one of the worst eras in US history.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Media in the USA: Who's Watching?
It's getting pretty stupid out there in Mainstream Medialand. Last night was the Republican version of the YouTube/CNN debate featuring the mental pygmies and of course, the scourge of the party, Ron Paul.
While most of the press focused on Rudy Giuliani (the adulterer) and Mitt Romney's (the moron Mormon) "heated" slugfest over immigration, the "debate" was poorly staged and arguably scripted. The two Republican leading candidates are both such empty suits when it really comes down to it. Both have hired illegals or had them work on their properties in the past, and neither will do a damn thing about immigration if it costs US businesses one single penny more in wages. Neither would make a suitable president of this country. Maybe some backwater nation like Slovakia or Burundi, but not America.
The most entertaining parts of the debate were taking place off camera, actually, in the crowd that somehow got invited. This particular goon squad cheered every time the "troops" were mentioned and booed at even a hint of the hated Hillary.
It was also interesting to witness the Grover Norquist sighting. The public was told that ordinary citizens would be asking the questions, not paid pro-Republican, loyalist lobbyists like Grover, but there he was, live and in almost-living color.
According to more than a handful of analysts, CNN hijacked the debte, cherry-picking the questions. There was no mention of health care, energy policy or the environment, though considerable time was spent talking about guns and abortion and immigration.
It was not worth watching, even with the paucity of original programming available due to the writer's strike. The Republican candidates are hollow and script-fed phonies. But, on the other side, the leading Democrats don't look much better.
Self-rule is the answer. Without followers, we wouldn't need empty leaders.
While most of the press focused on Rudy Giuliani (the adulterer) and Mitt Romney's (the moron Mormon) "heated" slugfest over immigration, the "debate" was poorly staged and arguably scripted. The two Republican leading candidates are both such empty suits when it really comes down to it. Both have hired illegals or had them work on their properties in the past, and neither will do a damn thing about immigration if it costs US businesses one single penny more in wages. Neither would make a suitable president of this country. Maybe some backwater nation like Slovakia or Burundi, but not America.
The most entertaining parts of the debate were taking place off camera, actually, in the crowd that somehow got invited. This particular goon squad cheered every time the "troops" were mentioned and booed at even a hint of the hated Hillary.
It was also interesting to witness the Grover Norquist sighting. The public was told that ordinary citizens would be asking the questions, not paid pro-Republican, loyalist lobbyists like Grover, but there he was, live and in almost-living color.
According to more than a handful of analysts, CNN hijacked the debte, cherry-picking the questions. There was no mention of health care, energy policy or the environment, though considerable time was spent talking about guns and abortion and immigration.
It was not worth watching, even with the paucity of original programming available due to the writer's strike. The Republican candidates are hollow and script-fed phonies. But, on the other side, the leading Democrats don't look much better.
Self-rule is the answer. Without followers, we wouldn't need empty leaders.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Ken Burns "The War"offers perspective for today
If you are at least half aware of your world, you probably have tuned into PBS to view at least a couple episodes of Ken Burns' opus on World War II, simply titled, "The War." It's a lengthy examination of the "Great War" which took place in the 1940s between the Allies (the United States, Russia and Europe, generally) and the Axis (Germany, Italy and Japan).
What I've come away with so far is a better understanding of what actually took place in the decade preceding my birth, an understanding of what sculpted my parents' opinions and lifestyles, and, especially after viewing last night's episode with my father, an appreciation for his experience at the Battle of the Bulge.
I strongly suggest that everyone watch at least some of this series. It's extremely strong and the images are powerful. Most of us have no idea of the incredible suffering that people of the generation before the Baby Boom endured. It will also give you some perspective on our current bogus war in Iraq and how it doesn't really compare to the most serious conflict the world has ever seen.
If you watch "The War" for a couple of nights, you'll be convinced that President Bush's over-promoted "War on Terror" is a complete contrivance and that our current leaders have tried to fool us into thinking we're at war when we're really not.
Please, take a look around. We're at peace. Our leaders are lunatics.
What I've come away with so far is a better understanding of what actually took place in the decade preceding my birth, an understanding of what sculpted my parents' opinions and lifestyles, and, especially after viewing last night's episode with my father, an appreciation for his experience at the Battle of the Bulge.
I strongly suggest that everyone watch at least some of this series. It's extremely strong and the images are powerful. Most of us have no idea of the incredible suffering that people of the generation before the Baby Boom endured. It will also give you some perspective on our current bogus war in Iraq and how it doesn't really compare to the most serious conflict the world has ever seen.
If you watch "The War" for a couple of nights, you'll be convinced that President Bush's over-promoted "War on Terror" is a complete contrivance and that our current leaders have tried to fool us into thinking we're at war when we're really not.
Please, take a look around. We're at peace. Our leaders are lunatics.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Bush talks Burma to UN audience
Today, President Bush spoke to the General Assembly of the United Nations, and sadly, with three major issues - Global Warming, Iraq, and Iran - dominating all discussion, the president spoke about none of them. He chose instead to focus his remarks on freedom and the plight of the people of Burma.
In some small way, his expression for new sanctions against the repressive regime of Burma may have been an appropriate action, albeit about 20 years late. Recently, Buddhist monks have led marches of over 100,000 people in opposition to the military regime which has oppressed the nation for more than two decades.
The last time there were such large public movements, the military ruthlessly crushed them. Bush's new sanctions may only serve to fuel the outrageous autocratic rule to more oppressive measures.
Most Americans are unaware of the vicious human rights abuses in Burma because they are out of sight. While Bush may have overlooked the more pressing issues of the day, he may have opened some people's eyes to an ongoing tragedy.
In some small way, his expression for new sanctions against the repressive regime of Burma may have been an appropriate action, albeit about 20 years late. Recently, Buddhist monks have led marches of over 100,000 people in opposition to the military regime which has oppressed the nation for more than two decades.
The last time there were such large public movements, the military ruthlessly crushed them. Bush's new sanctions may only serve to fuel the outrageous autocratic rule to more oppressive measures.
Most Americans are unaware of the vicious human rights abuses in Burma because they are out of sight. While Bush may have overlooked the more pressing issues of the day, he may have opened some people's eyes to an ongoing tragedy.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
You, your kids and the Federal Reserve
Later today, Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, will announce some kind of cut in the Federal Funds rate, the base rate upon which the markets take their cue. Currently, it's at 5.25% and it's widely expected that the Fed will cut to 5% or even 4.75%.
What this means for the average American is actually not much on the surface, though what it means down the road and long into the future is important. If the Fed manages credit and risk properly, America generally has a well-functioning, robust economy. Bad management, such as what was committed by the previous Fed Chairman, Alan Greenspan, can cost dearly, as we're seeing today.
Greenspan, though he was revered in financial circles as a genius, was actually a credit pumper, ever ready to lower rates at the first sign of a bump in the economy. He's the major reason we have a credit crunch at major lending institutions today and why the housing market may not recover for years to come. Greenspan was far too loose with monetary policy and it's going to cost all of us and our kids, dearly.
Here's hoping that Ben Bernanke is a bit more circumspect and rational in his decision-making regarding not only interest rates, but te future of our country. Today will be a real test for him.
What this means for the average American is actually not much on the surface, though what it means down the road and long into the future is important. If the Fed manages credit and risk properly, America generally has a well-functioning, robust economy. Bad management, such as what was committed by the previous Fed Chairman, Alan Greenspan, can cost dearly, as we're seeing today.
Greenspan, though he was revered in financial circles as a genius, was actually a credit pumper, ever ready to lower rates at the first sign of a bump in the economy. He's the major reason we have a credit crunch at major lending institutions today and why the housing market may not recover for years to come. Greenspan was far too loose with monetary policy and it's going to cost all of us and our kids, dearly.
Here's hoping that Ben Bernanke is a bit more circumspect and rational in his decision-making regarding not only interest rates, but te future of our country. Today will be a real test for him.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Bush Wins in 17 Minutes
Well, the drinking only got me through one beer and the start of another. I am disappointed. Mr. Bush didn't say "we are winning", the terrorists would "follow us home", though he did say that they could "reach our cities and kill our people" so I took a drink on that.
Sadly, he didn't mention Osama or Uuuusama, the Sheik who died recently or mention the term, "bottomup." However, General Petraeus received five mentions and Iran came in a close second with four.
Due to the paucity of drinking potentialities, I had to fill in with some of my own. The president said "Al Queda" five times, used the phrase "one year ago" four times and the word "reconciliation" three times. Smashing, though not enough to get me smashed.
Thumbs down to Rachel Maddow on this one. She really misread the thrust of the message. Either that or she didn't want anyone to get too schnockered.
Kudos to the media, however. They managed to squeeze the whole speech, the Democrats' rebuttal and some of their own commentary into a half hour. NBC even thrrew in a preview for next season's "The Office." Fabulous. Gloss over the war in a half hour and throw in a promo. Move on. Nothing to see here. American politics at its absolute nadir. Lovely. Drink up. I have extras.
Sadly, he didn't mention Osama or Uuuusama, the Sheik who died recently or mention the term, "bottomup." However, General Petraeus received five mentions and Iran came in a close second with four.
Due to the paucity of drinking potentialities, I had to fill in with some of my own. The president said "Al Queda" five times, used the phrase "one year ago" four times and the word "reconciliation" three times. Smashing, though not enough to get me smashed.
Thumbs down to Rachel Maddow on this one. She really misread the thrust of the message. Either that or she didn't want anyone to get too schnockered.
Kudos to the media, however. They managed to squeeze the whole speech, the Democrats' rebuttal and some of their own commentary into a half hour. NBC even thrrew in a preview for next season's "The Office." Fabulous. Gloss over the war in a half hour and throw in a promo. Move on. Nothing to see here. American politics at its absolute nadir. Lovely. Drink up. I have extras.
Drinking with George W. Bush
OK, I'm ready. George is speaking and I am drinking according to Rachel Maddow rules, as follows:
If Bush says “we are winning”, drink once.
If Bush says “they’ll follow us home”, drink once.
If he says OSAMA BIN LADEN, drink once.
If he pronounces it UUUUSAMA bin laden? Drink twice.
If he says the name of that Sunni sheik he was photographed with two weeks ago, who got blown up today? Chug half of what’s in your glass.
Any mention of IRAN? Drink once.
Every mention of PETRAEUS, drink once.
If he says the phrase “bottom up”? (Which is the thing they leaked in advance about his new fake-new Iraq strategy)? Then BOTTOMS UP. Chug it.
And lastly... if he says, that actually he’s not just ending the surge, he’s ending the war? He's bringing our troops out of there, totally? Then don’t drink a thing. Because clearly you’re already plastered and are having optimistic auditory hallucinations. See you on MSNBC this evening, and out of the bottom of a bar glass soon thereafter.
If Bush says “we are winning”, drink once.
If Bush says “they’ll follow us home”, drink once.
If he says OSAMA BIN LADEN, drink once.
If he pronounces it UUUUSAMA bin laden? Drink twice.
If he says the name of that Sunni sheik he was photographed with two weeks ago, who got blown up today? Chug half of what’s in your glass.
Any mention of IRAN? Drink once.
Every mention of PETRAEUS, drink once.
If he says the phrase “bottom up”? (Which is the thing they leaked in advance about his new fake-new Iraq strategy)? Then BOTTOMS UP. Chug it.
And lastly... if he says, that actually he’s not just ending the surge, he’s ending the war? He's bringing our troops out of there, totally? Then don’t drink a thing. Because clearly you’re already plastered and are having optimistic auditory hallucinations. See you on MSNBC this evening, and out of the bottom of a bar glass soon thereafter.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Where is Harriet Miers?
Since failing to appear before the House Judiciary Committee by the imposed deadline on Tuesday, July 17, there's been little news on the issue, either from the White House or from Committee Chairman John Conyers, who only said that he and the committee members were "planning their next move."
It's a little past the time we'd like to see the committee "planning", as seeing Ms. Miers hauled before the committee in irons would be far more preferable. The woman has no right to executive privilege according to most scholars, and she should have been compelled to appear.
There's been no Miers sightings nor any statements other than the one prepared by the legal team of Fred Fielding in Ms. Miers' stead.
Harriet Miers should be forced to comply with the subpoena from the committee just like any ordinary citizen. It's time for the House (and Senate) to take off the gloves.
It's a little past the time we'd like to see the committee "planning", as seeing Ms. Miers hauled before the committee in irons would be far more preferable. The woman has no right to executive privilege according to most scholars, and she should have been compelled to appear.
There's been no Miers sightings nor any statements other than the one prepared by the legal team of Fred Fielding in Ms. Miers' stead.
Harriet Miers should be forced to comply with the subpoena from the committee just like any ordinary citizen. It's time for the House (and Senate) to take off the gloves.
Labels: Harriet Miers
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Big Ed Schultz Jumps on the I-Hate-NBC Bandwagon
OK, I can't stand the fat lump, radio talk show poser, faux-leftie, Ed Schultz, but I have my reasons. Today, he opened his show with a monologue about NBC's airing last night of the video made by the Virginia Tech gunman, Cho Seung-Hu, and criticizing NBC for doing so.
He keeps asking what was added to the the story other than "added grief," etc. Maybe, since Ed isn't a journalist, somebody should clue him in. The video is news, you idiot, big news. The video manifesto was produced by the killer after he had killed one person and was on his way to kill more. It brings up plenty of questions, most remarkably, where were the police for an hour and a half while this nutjob was making this video?
NBC had the video, photos and text as they were FedEx'ed to their headquarters in New York. They had them exclusive of all other media outlets. NBC apparently ran them by the FBI, who said they had no problem with NBC airing the video and reporting it. What was NBC to do, admit they had it, explain that they aren't airing it out of "sensitivity" to the parents, and just recap, with no photos and no video?
In case fat boy Ed and any of the other morons criticizing NBC haven't noticed, NBC is in the television news business. Video is their lifeline and exclusive video is like a bag of fresh plasma. Any other network would have done the same thing and rightfully so. The media exists to cover news and report events without bias. This video was enormous and NBC would have been chastised roundly if they hadn't aired it.
Sure, the video was distasteful, nasty and played to the most morbid interests, but it may provide some insight into the perpetrator and may provide researchers with some insight into the mind of a deranged killer. Maybe that information may lead to preventing of this kind of rampage happening again.
Ed is criticizing Matt Lauer and Brian Williams, two of NBC's top newsmen, and Steve Capus, president of the news division, for running their business in a prudent manner and defending that decision. Big Ed would have done exactly the same thing, because he, just like Williams and Lauer, is a poser, just not such a big one as those network biggies.
He wishes he was, and since people are critical of NBC out of sympathy towards the parents of the victims, Ed's jumped on that particular bandwagon today, because that's the money side of the issue, the side with which most of his listeners will agree. What a windbag, perfectly willing to be blown about by popular opinion. Maybe he should go on American Idol.
I'm not necessarily a big fan of NBC news or any of the mainstream outlets, but I'd much rather have those people making decisions on what to air than an unsophisticated midwestern hick who pretends to know what's right and wrong in the news business. Ed's a talk show host, not a journalist, and as such, he should stay out of the fire lest he get burned.
He's gotten a whole three callers agreeing with him after 45 minutes and he's still saying, "I think I'm right on this one..." Maybe not, chubby. NBC was right and you're, as usual, wrong.
UPDATE: At 2:27 pm Eastern, Ed Schultz zays live on the air, "I think Americans are split on this issue, how about hand guns?" suggesting that listener feedback on the NBC airing of the killer video didn't fit his profile (i.e., people disagreed with him) and that he has to switch topics to keep his listeners. What a simpleton,
He keeps asking what was added to the the story other than "added grief," etc. Maybe, since Ed isn't a journalist, somebody should clue him in. The video is news, you idiot, big news. The video manifesto was produced by the killer after he had killed one person and was on his way to kill more. It brings up plenty of questions, most remarkably, where were the police for an hour and a half while this nutjob was making this video?
NBC had the video, photos and text as they were FedEx'ed to their headquarters in New York. They had them exclusive of all other media outlets. NBC apparently ran them by the FBI, who said they had no problem with NBC airing the video and reporting it. What was NBC to do, admit they had it, explain that they aren't airing it out of "sensitivity" to the parents, and just recap, with no photos and no video?
In case fat boy Ed and any of the other morons criticizing NBC haven't noticed, NBC is in the television news business. Video is their lifeline and exclusive video is like a bag of fresh plasma. Any other network would have done the same thing and rightfully so. The media exists to cover news and report events without bias. This video was enormous and NBC would have been chastised roundly if they hadn't aired it.
Sure, the video was distasteful, nasty and played to the most morbid interests, but it may provide some insight into the perpetrator and may provide researchers with some insight into the mind of a deranged killer. Maybe that information may lead to preventing of this kind of rampage happening again.
Ed is criticizing Matt Lauer and Brian Williams, two of NBC's top newsmen, and Steve Capus, president of the news division, for running their business in a prudent manner and defending that decision. Big Ed would have done exactly the same thing, because he, just like Williams and Lauer, is a poser, just not such a big one as those network biggies.
He wishes he was, and since people are critical of NBC out of sympathy towards the parents of the victims, Ed's jumped on that particular bandwagon today, because that's the money side of the issue, the side with which most of his listeners will agree. What a windbag, perfectly willing to be blown about by popular opinion. Maybe he should go on American Idol.
I'm not necessarily a big fan of NBC news or any of the mainstream outlets, but I'd much rather have those people making decisions on what to air than an unsophisticated midwestern hick who pretends to know what's right and wrong in the news business. Ed's a talk show host, not a journalist, and as such, he should stay out of the fire lest he get burned.
He's gotten a whole three callers agreeing with him after 45 minutes and he's still saying, "I think I'm right on this one..." Maybe not, chubby. NBC was right and you're, as usual, wrong.
UPDATE: At 2:27 pm Eastern, Ed Schultz zays live on the air, "I think Americans are split on this issue, how about hand guns?" suggesting that listener feedback on the NBC airing of the killer video didn't fit his profile (i.e., people disagreed with him) and that he has to switch topics to keep his listeners. What a simpleton,
Labels: Ed schultz, Virginia Tech
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Media Bias: Dead Students Trump Dead Soldiers
I had wanted to get this post up a day ago, but the rigors of competing in the great American fiction writing contest, otherwise known as the federal income tax filing deadline (yeah, I know, I'm a procrastinator), and some interesting research into dream theory kept me more than busy enough yesterday.
The 32 deaths at Virginia Tech are surely a tragedy worthy of our attention, remorse and sharing in the grief of the families of the victims. The murder rampage was an horrific act perpetrated by a deranged individual who apparently needed psychiatric medical attention more than the right to buy handguns.
But the media coverage of the tragedy bordered on pandering and sensationalism in its most overt form. On Tuesday, a day after the awful event, all three major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) expanded their usual half-hour nightly news programs to an hour to provide wall-to-wall coverage of the aftermath, the grief, the President's visit and speech. PBS devoted their entire news hour to coverage of the Virginia Tech tragedy.
The networks also each aired special reports on the story, grasping desperately for every last heart-string and crushed emotion.
I, for one, found no good reason to immerse myself in the media spasm and could not bring myself to watch. There was nothing newsworthy in rehashing these morbid events.
But the networks' coverage got me to thinking about death, Americans and the media. Why is it that a senseless tragedy such as this merits additional coverage when our military routinely loses that many American soldiers - many of them roughly the same age - every two weeks in Iraq?
Are the students more deserving of our attention and grief than the soldiers? The students were victims, unsuspecting and innocent. The soldiers who die in Iraq (to say nothing of the countless Iraqi civilian deaths) are ostensibly putting their lives on the line for the rest of us. They deserve at least the same coverage by the media, if not more - more focused, more poignant, more probing - than the sobbing narration that substituted for journalism these past two days.
I offer no apologies for the media's choices, nor do they, but perhaps events such as those in Blacksburg, Virginia are easier to cover than those in Baghdad, Iraq. The networks can get more reporters, film crews and staff in place much more quickly and efficiently than to the arrival points of the flag-draped caskets from Iraq. (The sad fact is that the media is barred from covering the homecomings of dead soldiers by the government.)
As I grieve for the students, I grieve for the soldiers and their families who are not given rightful respect and honor even in their deaths. These too are sons and daughters, some mothers and fathers, yet when they die, the American public is hardly made aware.
Maybe a picture and a name may be flashed across the screen some days later. PBS does this most often on Fridays and ABC regularly displays the names of the fallen on their Sunday news show, This Week. But that is all the coverage they get, when they deserve so much more.
The truth is that Americans are mostly ashamed of the war in Iraq. A majority of us want our military to stop the carnage and come home, but the best the media can do is ignore the dead and report the routine killing of Iraqis and Americans in the loathsome maw of war.
Shame on them.
The 32 deaths at Virginia Tech are surely a tragedy worthy of our attention, remorse and sharing in the grief of the families of the victims. The murder rampage was an horrific act perpetrated by a deranged individual who apparently needed psychiatric medical attention more than the right to buy handguns.
But the media coverage of the tragedy bordered on pandering and sensationalism in its most overt form. On Tuesday, a day after the awful event, all three major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) expanded their usual half-hour nightly news programs to an hour to provide wall-to-wall coverage of the aftermath, the grief, the President's visit and speech. PBS devoted their entire news hour to coverage of the Virginia Tech tragedy.
The networks also each aired special reports on the story, grasping desperately for every last heart-string and crushed emotion.
I, for one, found no good reason to immerse myself in the media spasm and could not bring myself to watch. There was nothing newsworthy in rehashing these morbid events.
But the networks' coverage got me to thinking about death, Americans and the media. Why is it that a senseless tragedy such as this merits additional coverage when our military routinely loses that many American soldiers - many of them roughly the same age - every two weeks in Iraq?
Are the students more deserving of our attention and grief than the soldiers? The students were victims, unsuspecting and innocent. The soldiers who die in Iraq (to say nothing of the countless Iraqi civilian deaths) are ostensibly putting their lives on the line for the rest of us. They deserve at least the same coverage by the media, if not more - more focused, more poignant, more probing - than the sobbing narration that substituted for journalism these past two days.
I offer no apologies for the media's choices, nor do they, but perhaps events such as those in Blacksburg, Virginia are easier to cover than those in Baghdad, Iraq. The networks can get more reporters, film crews and staff in place much more quickly and efficiently than to the arrival points of the flag-draped caskets from Iraq. (The sad fact is that the media is barred from covering the homecomings of dead soldiers by the government.)
As I grieve for the students, I grieve for the soldiers and their families who are not given rightful respect and honor even in their deaths. These too are sons and daughters, some mothers and fathers, yet when they die, the American public is hardly made aware.
Maybe a picture and a name may be flashed across the screen some days later. PBS does this most often on Fridays and ABC regularly displays the names of the fallen on their Sunday news show, This Week. But that is all the coverage they get, when they deserve so much more.
The truth is that Americans are mostly ashamed of the war in Iraq. A majority of us want our military to stop the carnage and come home, but the best the media can do is ignore the dead and report the routine killing of Iraqis and Americans in the loathsome maw of war.
Shame on them.
Labels: Iraq, Virginia Tech
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Imus in the Twilight
If you were awake at all this past week, you couldn't have missed the unfolding drama surrounding radio talk show superstar Don Imus in the aftermath of his unfortunate remarks about the Rutgers University women's basketball team.Imus actually uttered the infamous three words, nappy-headed hos, characterizing the Rutgers' players as such, on Wednesday, April 4. By the 6th, Imus had already apologized on the air. He did so again on Monday, the 9th, but by the morning of Thursday, April 12, Don Imus, one of the original "shock jocks" (the other being the notoriously raunchy Howard Stern), was out of a job.
Both CBS, parent of the companies which aired and syndicated his morning show, Imus in the Morning and NBC, parent company of MSNBC, which simulcast his show on their cable network, had dismissed the jock permanently. Just a day earlier, the networks had decided on a two week hiatus for Imus, but the continuing cries for his dismissal - and probably more importantly - the defection of large advertisers like Staples, General Motors, GlaxoSmithKline,
Read the complete Imus Timeline at Media Matters for America.
Bigelow Tea, American Express and Sprint Nextel - were taking a toll on network executives behind the Imus image.By the weekend, both networks had gone into "mea culpa" mode, along with fellow giants of the public airwaves, PBS, FOX, and ABC. Soon everybody was talking about a "national dialogue" on race, women's rights and decency, pointing the finger at various rappers like Snoop Dogg, 50 Cent, Ludacris, who routinely use the N-word, and other racially, and sexually-charged language in their rap lyrics.
Finally, by Sunday night, CBS' 60 Minutes and ABC's Dateline featured the Imus, race, women's rights story on their shows and maybe the furor will subside and maybe some good will come of it.
The matter is pretty simple, especially concerning First Amendment rights, public decency notwithstanding. As Imus has overwhelmingly proven, anyone can say anything on public airwaves, though not necessarily without consequences. Our constitutional rights are well-established and are not threatened by this incident.
And while it may be OK to call President Bush misguided, suggest he's mentally-challenged or even opine that the Vice President is deliberately evil, it's quite a different thing to call a group of female college students - athletes or otherwise - prostitutes. Make no mistake, that was why Imus was fired. Had he stopped at "nappy-headed" he probably would have escaped with an apology and his job. But calling them "hos" stepped over the line.
He completely denigrated ten women he had never met and whose backgrounds he did not know. The fact that most of them were black makes little to no difference. Nobody, not Imus or anybody else, can publicly characterize a private person in a degrading, derogatory manner.
There are laws that preclude such speech, mostly under defamation of character statutes, and the Rutgers' women could, if they so choose, pursue the matter in the courts, and they'd likely have a winnable case against not only Don Imus, but CBS and NBC. Those are some deep pockets there, but the Rutgers women have shown themselves to be a singularly classy group of young women, and they probably won't pursue the matter in the courts.
Maybe that ought to tell us something.
As for the rappers, their use of the N-word, the "gansta" lifestyle and the self-degradation of their own race is a cultural issue - a black cultural issue - and one that I, being a 50-something white guy, have no dog in that fight. I'll leave that up to Ludacris, Snoop Dogg, Jesse Jackson, Oprah and the Reverend Al Sharpton to sort out. I have a feeling they'll - apologies to Spike Lee - do the right thing.
Labels: Al Sharpton, Don Imus, talk radio
