Law And Order LBO: Limbaugh, Beck, O’Reilly

As the year comes to a close, many people view the remaining days as an opportunity to tie up loose ends, complete unfinished projects, and maybe produce another accomplishment or two to top off the year on a high note. For folks like Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly that means achieving something that surpasses their ordinary annual output of anger, hatred, and ignorance. This is the time of year to go for the gold, and you have to admire the tenacity of these professionals as they endeavor to reach new heights of stupidity and malice. Happy Holidays.

To this end, both Beck and O’Reilly serve up a heaping portion of boorish outrage directed at an episode of NBC’s Law and Order: SVU. The storyline concerned the murder of three immigrant children by a man obsessed with illegal aliens and possessed by the hateful rantings of a fictional TV talk show host, Gordon Garrison. In a pivotal scene, the lawyer for the defendant, played by John Larroquette, describes Garrison, Limbaugh, Beck, and O’Reilly as…

“…a cancer spreading ignorance and hate. I mean, they’ve convinced folks that immigrants are the problem, not corporations that fail to pay a living wage or a broken health care system.”

Perhaps that description, and the general plot, cut a little too close to the bone for Beck and O’Reilly. They may have seen more of their own dark underside in Garrison than they are comfortable acknowledging. This sends them both into a tizzy, infuriated by what they regard as a direct insult by the show’s producers and writers.

Billo-pediaBill O’Reilly starts off by telling his television audience that Dick Wolf, creator of NBC’s Law and Order, is “a despicable human being,” a “liar” and a “coward.” Seconds later he asserts that he doesn’t “demonize innocent human beings.” Apparently you lose your innocence if you disagree with O’Reilly or say anything unflattering about him. The entirety of his Talking Points rant was devoted to disparaging Wolf and glorifying himself. He even took partial responsibility for security fences on the US/Mexico border. But most of his tantrum made little sense, as usual.

In the course of his tirade, O’Reilly labeled NBC as “Propaganda Central in the USA.” (He must not watch much Fox News). But he undermines his own argument by immediately adding that it has the lowest ratings. How can it be the paragon of propaganda if no one is watching it?

For the record, NBC Entertainment is in fact the lowest rated broadcast entertainment network, but NBC News is the highest rated news broadcaster with four times as many viewers as O’Reilly. And that’s what makes all of this particularly bizarre. O’Reilly can’t seem to differentiate between reality and theater. He thinks that the dialogue of a character in a fictional TV program represents the opinion of the author. He thinks that if John Larroquette’s character says that O’Reilly is a cancer, then it is Wolf who believes that. And that’s as deep as O’Reilly’s comprehension can go.

The problem is that Larroquette is portraying a thoroughly unsavory character. He is not remotely sympathetic. He is, after all, defending a man who murdered innocent children. He is attempting to get his client off on an insanity defense and cast the blame elsewhere – to the talk show host. He is reviled by the show’s main characters and heroes. [SPOILER ALERT] He ultimately demonstrates his own extreme behavior by murdering his client. So the words to which O’Reilly objects were put into the mouth of the most unethical and unlikeable character. How on earth does O’Reilly interpret this as advocacy for those remarks? All of this easily discernible context notwithstanding, O’Reilly was mad as hell and he wasn’t going to take it anymore:

O’Reilly: I mean enough is enough with these network pinheads who shove propaganda down our throats under the guise of entertainment.

Is he referring to Dick Wolf or Roger Ailes? Because it seems to me that it is Fox that is using entertainment to disseminate propaganda. It is Fox that turned journalism on its head by casting loudmouth demagogues and witless beauty pageant rejects as news anchors. It is Fox that decorated their broadcasts with flamboyant graphics, alarmist “alerts,” and noisy soundtracks and gongs to announce even the most trivial events. And it is Fox that still pretends to be a news enterprise, while Law and Order has never presented itself as anything but drama.

Can O’Reilly tell the difference? Maybe his comment above is referring to Glenn Beck, who describes his own program as the “Fusion of Entertainment and Enlightenment.” Wouldn’t that make Beck a “pinhead” shoving “propaganda down our throats under the guise of entertainment?” For his part, Beck also misread the Law and Order segment for all the same reasons O’Reilly did. But Beck took a different tack. Rather than hysterically attacking Wolf and company, Beck launches into a self-serving defense to absolve himself of responsibility for the sort of violence portrayed in the program. He describes himself as “just a dad” and defiantly asks: “Where is the evidence for inciting any violence?”

Beck has the sort of convenient memory that allows one to be a sociopath without any messy recollection of his vile deeds. He forgets that he once fantasized about choking Michael Moore to death with his bare hands:

“I’m thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I’m wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out…”

He forgets his frequent radio bit wherein he mulls over who he would like to beat to death with a shovel:

“I’ve been sitting here for the last few minutes trying to come up with a list of people I want to kill with a shovel. […] How many people have I said let’s kill with a shovel, huh? How many people have I said let’s line ’em up and shoot ’em in the head? I think quite a few.”

I don’t know many dads who articulate these revolting ideas. Beck also forgets the numerous calls for his legion of demented disciples to “fight back” against an enemy that is deliberately trying to attack your family, your values, your faith, and even to destroy your country. Marxists and fascists are taking over Washington. They are indoctrinating your children. They are on your doorstep. Beck insists that this is not a time for compromise or debate. He says that “You don’t compromise on your destruction.” It is an Apocalyptic Gospel that leaves little option for true patriots. They either fight or they, and everything they love, dies. It doesn’t matter if Beck occasionally recites legal disclaimers to refrain from violence. Once you’ve convinced people that the very essence of their existence is threatened, there are going to be those who will conclude that violence is acceptable – even inevitable – as self-defense.

Rush Limbaugh - Riot in DenverBeck speaks in a Da Vinci coded language about things that only he can see to a congregation that is especially vulnerable to a message that only they can hear. Rush Limbaugh is even more direct. In advance of the Democratic National Convention in Denver last year, Limbaugh told his listeners to Screw the world! Riot in Denver!

“I mean, if people say what’s your exit strategery, the dream end of this is that this keeps up to the convention and that we have a replay of Chicago 1968, with burning cars, protests, fires, literal riots, and all of that. That’s the objective here.”

He couldn’t be much clearer than that. Limbaugh has yet to comment on the Law and Order episode that mentioned him and O’Reilly and Beck, but his record of offensive and hostile rhetoric like that above is well documented.

If you take the combined blather of these shoutcasters, it isn’t hard to foresee an outcome not unlike that of the one played out on Law and Order. And perhaps much worse. Yet they will continue to deny any culpability for their irresponsible fear mongering. And they will fire back at any criticism that holds them accountable. Even if it doesn’t make any logical sense, as this incident with Law and Order demonstrates. And even if it contradicts their professed appreciation for the First Amendment, as they seek to silence the creative output of a television dramatist. (Note: O’Reilly’s guest for the discussion on this subject was Laura Ingraham, author of “Shut Up and Sing,” a repulsive assault on free expression that reduces the role of artists to trivialities, ignoring their contributions to society and their potential for insight and inspiration).

But more than anything else, this affair reveals how intellectually vacant these losers are. They are incapable of grasping the meaning of a popular TV cop drama – which is not exactly the pinnacle of human intelligence. They are just angry that someone said something about them that they vaguely regard as adverse. And that’s enough to launch a full scale media war. Because, in the end, all they really want is an issue to blow out of proportion; a hyperbolic fireball of frenzy; a meaningless and dishonest controversy. An excuse to raise their voices, pull out their hair, and drive their viewers into a panic.

Like I said above…Happy Holidays.

p.s. Ice-T has a few words for O’Reilly.

Update: Just one day after all the whining about how liberal Law and Order is, and how it is spewing leftie propaganda, the program aired an episode that told a very different story. This one featured an ACORN-like community organizer whose murdered body was found with the word “FED” scrawled across his chest. However, the conclusion revealed that it was not some right-wing, anti-government, Beckoid who was responsible, but the head of the community organizing group who was attempting to cover up an affair. So having indicted the liberals in this episode, will Beck and O’Reilly and the vast, conservative, Hollywood-bashing, over-reactionaries retract their allegations of bias against producer, Dick Wolf? Don’t bother staying tuned.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Greetings from The War On Christmas

Just when you thought hostilities were subsiding, Fox Nation is escalating the War on Christmas. Their new volley of seasonal aggression kicks off with insinuations questioning President Obama’s sincerity with regard to his faith:

Fox Nation Obama Christmas

So the Obama’s cards don’t mention Christmas. Well, that must mean they are secret Muslim after all. Except for…..Uh oh…..

Click to enlarge:

These are the “Holiday” cards sent out by George and Laura Bush in 2006, 2007, and 2008. None of them mention Christmas either. I wonder what religion the Bush’s belonged to secretly. I’m going to guess it’s the Snake Handlers. That would explain how they could work so closely with people like Cheney and Rove.


The Felons Of Fox News: Glenn Beck’s Blind Spot

For two days now, Glenn Beck has aimed his goofball dementia at what he hopes will be his next Van Jones. Beck is employing all of the same smear tactics that prodded a weak White House into jettisoning Jones even though the circumstances are not remotely similar.

Chief amongst these tactics is calling your target a convicted felon over and over again as if your audience were mentally incapable of grasping a thought without repeated hammering. Well, Beck obviously knows his audience. However, Jones was never a convicted felon (which Beck recently acknowledged after months of lying), and Robert Creamer, Beck’s latest target, can’t be fired because he doesn’t work for the administration.

Robert Creamer is longtime activist and the author “Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win.” He is also married to Democratic representative Jan Schakowsky (whose name Beck thought it would be funny to mock). The double infraction of being a progressive and related to a Democrat was all that was needed for Beck to go bonkers.

On a tip from his pet propagandist, Andrew Breitbart, Beck laid into Creamer for having been convicted of financial charges in connection with a non-profit organization that Creamer ran. As per Beck’s modus operandi, he related a thoroughly dishonest version of Creamer’s past, accusing him of stealing from the group he was heading. In fact, Creamer pleaded guilty to check kiting in an attempt to help his struggling organization to continue providing services. The judge even cited the fact that none of Creamer’s unlawful activities benefited him personally as justification for a lenient sentence. But far be it from Beck to let facts get in the way of a good smear campaign.

Now, this being Glenn Beck, it certainly is not enough to slander and lie about an obscure activist and author. To really make it worthwhile it has to be tied to a global, socialist conspiracy, preferably involving the President. This is where Breitbart comes in with his tip that Creamer had attended an event at the White House. That was all that was necessary for Beck to connect the dots and conclude that Barack Obama is fraternizing with convicted felons (in addition to the radical communists and the terrorists he has been known to pal around with).

Glenn Beck, of course, is pure as the driven snow in this regard. He would never associate with convicted felons. Never mind that he himself is an unconvicted felon, as he has admitted to using copious amounts of drugs. He never got caught, and therein must lie the difference. And he had this to say on the subject of felonious literature:

“Obama – He must read a lot of books, cause I read a lot of books and I don’t usually get to the ones that were written by…uh…felons, that were written in prison.”

That’s too bad, because Beck must therefore not have gotten to books written by Martin Luther King, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, Malcolm X, or Nelson Mandela. He must also have missed the literary musings of people like St. Paul, Mahatma Gandhi, and Jesus Christ, all of whom have suffered incarceration and have either written, or been written about, extensively. These are the sort of people that I’m sure Beck would object to being on a White House guest list.

Here are a few more books Beck must not get around to: Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau, Letters and Papers from Prison by Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Le Morte d’Arthur, by Sir Thomas Malory, Don Quixote, by Miguel de Cervantes, Pilgrim’s Progress, by John Bunyan, A Hymn to the Pillory, by Daniel Defoe. It’s safe to assume that Beck is not particularly literate.

So that brings us to the caliber of people for whom Beck does have high regard. People like convicted felon, Oliver North; convicted felon, G. Gordon Liddy, and convicted felon, Mark Fuhrman. All of these folks not only have criminal records but they are also Beck’s colleagues at Fox News. Liddy is the spokesperson for one of Beck’s most frequent advertisers (a gold scam). Other Fox personnel who have had brushes with the law include Judith Miller and Shepard Smith. And I wouldn’t want to leave out prostitute toe-sucking pundit Dick Morris. These are all people with whom Beck has ongoing relationships, not casual encounters at a party. I wonder when he will do a couple of days of programs about any of them.

Beck appears to be obsessed with the prison aspect of this story. Aside from repeating it incessantly for his addle-brained viewers, he now calls the health insurance reform bill being debated in Congress the “Prison Bill,” because it has something to do with the book Creamer wrote, which was allegedly written in prison, and is somehow the basis for the bill, except that that’s not actually true, and…oh…I don’t really have any idea why he calls it that. I’d need more background in clinical psychology to be able to figure out Beck’s labyrinthine thought processes. He probably just liked the sound of it, and thought it would make a good cudgel with which to bash the President. Any deeper analysis of Beck’s psychosis will have to come from a professional. I sure hope he finds one.


Fox News Faux Pas: Math Is Hard

Fox News Faux PasHere’s another Fox News violation of their Zero Tolerance policy for on-air mistakes. This morning Fox broadcast President Obama’s speech wherein he announced that the TARP program cost $200 billion less than originally anticipated. But on the Fox screen the number was reduced by $198 billion:

And as if that wasn’t bad enough, in a segment that appeared on Fox & Friends this morning, they displayed this chart of a poll that managed to interview 120% of the American people. I guess if you have to distort data, it helps if you don’t know how to add. It probably also helps if your viewers are similarly challenged.

Never mind that Fox continues to rely on the disreputable Rasmussen organization for polling, even that suspect data is further distorted by the Fox News graphics department. As for the poll itself, Rasmussen asked:

“In order to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming, how likely is it that some scientists have falsified research data?”

I would have answered that question “Very likely.” Of course “some scientists” have falsified data. However, I would have been referring to scientists at Exxon or the American Enterprise Institute, not those with universities or non-partisan environmental research facilities who overwhelming report honest figures that document Global Warming. By not drawing that distinction, Rasmussen has rendered his poll meaningless.

Just as a reminder, Fox said that errors such as these would result in those responsible being punished, and even terminated:

“Mistakes by any member of the show team that end up on air may result in immediate disciplinary action against those who played significant roles in the “mistake chain,” and those who supervise them. That may include warning letters to personnel files, suspensions, and other possible actions up to and including termination.”

At this rate, Fox isn’t going to have any employees at all by the end of the month.

Update: A Fox News spokesperson responded to the erroneous chart on Global Warming by claiming that it wasn’t erroneous:

“We were just talking about three interesting pieces of information from Rasmussen,” Petterson said. “We didn’t put on the screen that it added up to 100 percent.”

So at Fox News, if you don’t put up on the screen that it adds up to 100 percent, you can put in whatever numbers you want. Even their own host, Steve Doocy, added up the numbers to point out that 90+ percent think scientists falsify data.

This explains why the new Fox policy of Zero Tolerance will never work. They can’t count up to hundred. Hell, they can’t even count up to zero.

And on a side note, this blatant misrepresentation of the poll results occurred on poll about people misrepresenting data. So Fox wants to make you believe that the scientists are not trustworthy when they themselves are falsifying data. Cute, isn’t it?


It’s Beat Sarah Palin Day!

A little over a year ago Barack Obama was elected to the presidency of the United States of America. It was an historic event that made headlines around the world and will forever be remembered as milestone in American politics.

No one deserves more credit for this achievement David Plouffe, Obama’s campaign manager. He orchestrated a brilliant strategy that emphasized hope and change, and the result was a remarkable victory over both the entrenched Democratic Clinton dynasty and the wealthy Republican Grand Old Machine of Washington.

Now the winner of this contest has a book out that is competing with the second banana of the loser’s ticket. It is a contest that pits Sarah Palin’s book, “Going Rogue,” that was ghost written for her from the perspective of defeated candidate, and is chock full of the ideology that contributed to her defeat, against a book written by a modern master of politics with insight into the winning philosophy and strategy.

The Audacity to Win: The Inside Story and Lessons of Barack Obama’s Historic Victory
David Plouffe, Audacity to Win

David Plouffe not only led the effort that put Barack Obama in the White House, but he also changed the face of politics forever and reenergized the idea of democracy itself. The Audacity to Win is his story of the groundbreaking achievement, taking readers inside the remarkable campaign that led to the election of the first African American president.

In this extraordinary book, David Plouffe unfolds one of the most important political stories of our time, one whose lessons are not limited to politics, but reach to the greatest heights of what we dream about for our country and ourselves.

For some reason, the loser is winning this book race. I’m not sure what this says about the America’s book consumers, but there is a disturbing message in there somewhere. Well, Plouffe is not taking it laying down. He has launched “Beat Sarah Palin Day,” an effort to sell more copies of his book, “The Audacity to Win,” in one day than Palin’s collection of fables and self-indulgence. This no easy task, as Palin’s disciples are motivated and hungry for more of her shallow platitudes and liberal bashing. Plouffe describes her book and his impression of her in the video below saying…

“Her book obviously talks about an agenda that was completely rejected November 4, 2008, by the American people, and I think would take us in the completely wrong direction. So the truth is, I hope her book tour goes on for a long time because I think having her out there, and her message, as the kind of opposing viewpoint to what the President is trying to do, could not be more helpful.”

I agree. Palin is the best thing to happen to Democrats in decades. Republicans like to demonstrate how popular she is by citing polls that show 60-70% of the GOP want her to run for president in 2012. I bet if they polled Democrats the number would be 100%.

Today is our opportunity to give Sarah a big smackdown. We can show that we are out here too, and we’re not buying her garbage. To be clear, the results of this contest don’t really have a great deal of meaning in the big picture. It is more for the fun of it. Book sales are not an accurate barometer of electoral strength. Just as right-wingers like to believe that Fox News’ ratings validate their superiority, the truth is that that is a poor gauge. It is always better to win at the ballot box than at the idiot box, which is what we did in 2006 and 2008, despite Fox’s ratings. And the same holds true for publishing. Especially when the rightist propaganda engine skews the numbers by purchasing tens of thousands of books that they give away or offer as premiums for joining their organizations or subscribing to their magazines.

So if you are interested in reading a true account of a brave campaign, today is the day to buy Plouffe’s book. If you are looking for a gift for family or friends, this would be an excellent choice. If you just want to stick it Palin and thumb your nose at the Tea Baggers lining up at Barnes & Noble, here is your chance. Plouffe says in the video that if you weren’t already planning to buy his book, that you shouldn’t do so for this event. But I disagree. If you’ve got $15.00 that you don’t need for rent, this is a great way to use it. Not only do you get an enlightening literary experience, you also get to poke Palin. And on top of that, $1.00 from every book sold today will be donated to child and adult literacy programs.

So now is the time to take up the challenge. Let’s BEAT SARAH PALIN today. And then every day thereafter. What could be more satisfying – and fun?


NPR Asks Mara Liasson To Reconsider Fox News

Now that it has been established that Fox News is not a legitimate news network, the question arises as to whether reporters from other news enterprises who appear on Fox are merely pawns in Fox’s game of alleged balance. I have long argued that such appearances serve no purpose other than to validate Fox’s brand of propaganda. Lately, there have been others who share that view, as illustrated in this article at Politico:

According to a source, [NPR’s Mara] Liasson was summoned in early October by NPR’s executive editor for news, Dick Meyer, and the networks supervising senior Washington editor, Ron Elving. The NPR executives said they had concerns that Fox’s programming had grown more partisan, and they asked Liasson to spend 30 days watching the network.

At a follow-up meeting last month, Liasson reported that she’d seen no significant change in Fox’s programming and planned to continue appearing on the network, the source said.

Liasson’s assertion that she doesn’t see any significant change in Fox’s programming is a bit of a dodge. It could easily be argued that Fox’s programming has not changed – it has always been partisan, dishonest, and factually challenged. In which case, she should never have agreed to appear on the network in the first place. However, Fox’s rightist slant has become noticeably steeper. So much so that it has even been noticed by people associated with Fox.

Just in the past couple of months, longtime Fox News contributor Jane Hall left the network citing the extremism of Glenn Beck as part of her reason. Also, former Fox anchor Eric Burns emerged to declare that he is grateful that he no longer has to “face the ethical problem of sharing an employer with Glenn Beck.”

While Fox News has indeed been solidly right-wing since its inception, recent changes have cemented their already hard-core partisanship. They hired Mike Huckabee and Glenn Beck. They parted ways with Alan Colmes. In fact every recent announcement from their editorial management took them farther to the right.

If Liasson can’t see this and admit that her ties with Fox are damaging her reputation and that of NPR, then perhaps her NPR handlers should take it upon themselves to cut ties with her. They previously had a similar situation with Juan Williams, an NPR contributor who also appears on Fox and sometimes fills in for Bill O’Reilly. Williams was ordered to stop identifying himself as an NPR reporter when he appeared on Fox’s opinion programs (which is most of them). NPR could go no further than that as Williams is not a full time employee.

As for Liasson, her blindness ought to yield some sort of consequences. NPR is not commenting, but Fox took the opportunity to demonstrate what a bunch of sanctimonious jerks they are by releasing this statement:

“With the ratings we have, NPR should be paying us to even be mentioned on our air.”

Any journalist who works with Fox News must be held accountable for that decision. It should follow them throughout their career and tag them as the disreputable hacks that they are. They should be regarded professionally as being in the same category as reporters from the National Enquirer. If Liasson wants the attention she gets from the Fox family, she will have to live with the scorn she receives from everyone else.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Fox Nation Finger Bangs Obama

Alas, technology has not yet developed a measuring device strong enough to gauge the stupidity of the Fox Nation, its partners, and the community it hosts.

Obama FingerFeatured today on Fox Nation is a story asking whether President Obama gave the finger to a guest in the audience. This controversy was triggered by video of the President scratching his head. To the Fox Nationalists this is a cryptic, Da Vinci coded gesture of disdain. Apparently Fox is now forming strategic political direction by watching episodes of Seinfeld. Thank goodness Fox Nation was there with their secret decoder rings to capture the incident.

The Fox Nation story linked to a post on the uber-rightist Breitbart web site where the FingerGate scandal has blown up into near Balloon Boy proportions. This is not simply an itchy eyebrow at issue. It is a covert master plan to flip off America and impose a tyrannical dictatorship, or something. And you’ve got to “hand” it to the Fox Nationalist/Breitbart/Tea Bagger crowd for turning this into a racial cesspool and a platform for (once again) advocating assassination.

This is becoming more and more representative of the level of discourse from this pathetic throng of losers. They have already tried to make federal cases out of phony death panels, presidential bowing scandals, child indoctrination via stay-in-school speeches, White House guest lists, and how many pages a bill contains. The ever more lame content of their complaints reveals just how desperate they are to come up with something about which to bitch.

There is an obvious evolution of lameness on the right. In the old days they employed the primitive flag lapel pin gambit. Then they tacked to the War on Christmas. And there is the always popular idiocy of “Who would you rather have a beer with?” But now they have shattered all previous records if idiotic asininity with the ticklish temple tactic.

Next on the Republican scandal agenda: How often does Obama floss? I probably shouldn’t give them any ideas.


The Case For The Comcast/NBC Merger

There has been, and will be, much discussion about the proposed merger between entertainment giants NBC/Universal and Comcast. Now that an agreement has been formally entered into, the discussions will likely become even more heated. Media reform advocates like FreePress are already organizing opposition to the deal. Free market capitalists want it to go through without interference from the government.

However, the government has a legitimate role to play to insure fair competition and to advance the interests of the public. Hearings will be held by the FCC, the FTC, and several congressional committees over the next year before the marriage can be consummated. Opponents will make the argument that a combined Comcast/NBCU would dominate access to entertainment programming and news on both cable and the Internet. Estimates show that Comcast, already the largest US provider of cable service and Internet access, would control up to 25% of all content. Comcast, on the other hand, will promise not to abuse their market position. If you’re naive enough to take their word for that, you might not think it’s such a bad deal. Unfortunately, Comcast has not been a particularly conscientious steward of the power they already have. And approving the merger would surely propel competitors to similarly bulk up to face the new, more scopious Comcast.

Ordinarily, I am a knee jerk opponent to any kind of media consolidation. The scope and reach of the Five Families of media (GE, Disney, Viacom, News Corp, and Time Warner) already wield far too much influence over everything we see, hear and read. I have long advocated breaking up these anti-competitive conglomerates and re-introducing real competition, independence, and diversity into the media marketplace. I still believe that deconsolidation is an achievable objective, though fairly far off on the time line.

In the meantime, what does this merger present to the current marketplace? Is Comcast really a worse partner for NBCU than GE, the world’s biggest defense contractor? Conflicts of interest in program content and distribution cause considerable harm, but is it any less harmful than conflicts that involve the production of military goods and weapons? GE’s reach extends even further into consumer products, financial services, information systems and health care technology. That’s a pretty broad scope for potential conflicts.

The Comcast merger offers some opportunities if implemented responsibly. Regulatory agencies can impose restrictions to prevent market abuse that would apply to all players, not just Comcast. They could mandate open access to airwaves and cable lines. They could codify network neutrality. They could promote localism to enhance the community service obligations that networks routinely ignore.

Comcast is already making noises about how they want to be better corporate citizens. They contend that they will comply with reasonable conditions set for the merger by the FCC and others. They promise that the corporate office will not influence news reporting at NBC or MSNBC. They vow to keep their content available to competing services like DirecTV. They have even taken a position in support of health care reform, explicitly repudiating the position of the US Chamber of Commerce, of which they are a member.

Of course, These may all be tactics designed to curry favor with the administration in hopes of clearing a path for approval of the merger. If so, that could also be an opportunity. The agencies and congressional committees reviewing the matter could extract significant concessions and make them binding for all of the monopolistic media enterprises.

Another somewhat more amusing benefit is the new relationship that would be forged between Fox and the NBC News unit. Bill O’Reilly and others at Fox have taken great pleasure in demonizing NBC and its current parent GE. For the most part they go after the executives because they are afraid to utter Keith Olbermann’s name aloud. O’Reilly has called GE’s CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, “a despicable human being” and has spewed impotent threats, saying…

“That Immelt man answers to me. . . . That’s why I’m in this business right now, to get guys like that.”

Um, OK. If you say so. So who will O’Reilly bash now? If he were to go off on Comcast CEO Brian Roberts, he might find himself regretting it. Comcast may decide that Fox News would be better off on a more expensive, upper tier, cable package. That could significantly reduce the number of homes that Fox would reach. Such a move would impact their ratings as well as their revenue from both advertising and cable subscription fees. Comcast might also decide that its new asset, MSNBC, would be a better fit on their basic cable packages, which it is not currently on in many markets. That obstacle to access has been a longstanding impediment to MSNBC’s ratings performance.

Like all bullies, O’Reilly is likely to keep his fat mouth shut about Roberts and Comcast. When there is really something at stake, he will cower in the corner and stick with his War on Christmas shtick. O’Reilly would never send Stuttering Jesse Watters to ambush Roberts. He’d rather stay comfy in his studio holding hands with Dick Morris as they demonstrate how little they know about any subject they address. And Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch would probably bury O’Reilly if he were to damage their relationship with the nation’s biggest cable operator. So maybe O’Reilly might actually have to confront Olbermann man to man. Although he would certainly lose that contest too.

In conclusion, I can’t get excited about another merger of big media megaliths. But I can’t really muster a great deal of antagonism about this one. I don’t see it as worse than the status quo, and I do see an opportunity to tighten regulatory oversight for the whole industry. That is, if the regulators and the administration have the will. Stayed tuned.


Fox News Faux Pas: Gretchen Carlson’s Conflict Of Interest

Last month Fox News was so disturbed by a string of journalistic mishaps that they had to issue a memo declaring a “zero tolerance” policy with regard to broadcast mistakes. Apparently the memo didn’t succeed in suppressing Fox’s proclivity for ignoring professional ethics.

On Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson conducted an interview with Yankee Derek Jeter that was more adulation than inquiry. This is her introduction:

“Derek, thank you so much for doing this interview. It’s always so great to sit down and talk with you. Especially today, because you’re the hottest athlete right now in the world. I’m looking at this list of awards you’ve had this year. You’ve broke Lou Gehrig’s all-time hit record for a Yankee. You won yet another Golden Glove award. The Hank Aaron award. The Silver Slugger. You’re captain of the team that won the World series. And now you’re the “Sportsman of the Year,” by Sports Illustrated.”

Jeter responded with the understatement that “It’s been a good year.” What was left unsaid was that Carlson’s husband is Jeter’s agent, Casey Close. This interview was such a transparent puff piece lauding Jeter’s current professional status that he should have paid a fee for it to be broadcast. But in the world of Fox News, conflict of interest is business as usual. A reputable news organization would not permit such a transgression, and would punish any employee who engaged in it. But Fox is already knee deep in ethical conflicts via their association with the Republican Party. Remember, they are the network that broadcast GOP talking points straight from the party’s own memo – typos and all.

It may be necessary for Fox to come up with a new tolerance policy that is even more stringent than zero. Especially for Gretchen for whom screwing up is one of the things she likes best about working at Fox:

“When we make a mistake reading the news headlines, whereas at a [broadcast] network you’d probably get fired, instead, we’re like, ‘Eh, we screwed up.’

That just about sums up the Fox News commitment to journalistic accuracy.


Falling Out Of The Crazy Tree: Glenn Beck Loses Friends

“Please talk me out of the crazy tree, America.”
~ Glenn Beck, July 2009

It must be hard to be Glenn Beck. And not just because you would be perpetually burdened with nightmarish delusions of demons and communists conspiring against you. He must have abandonment issues on a grand scale. Perhaps it all goes back to having lost his mother to suicide when he was a teenager. His holiday story, “The Christmas Sweater” is largely centered on that relationship.

Exacerbating this problem, Beck is losing support from many of the folks he would ordinarily rely upon. For instance, Charles Johnson, the proprietor of the right-wing web site Little Green Footballs, just enumerated the reasons that he is parting ways with the right. Two of his top ten reasons explicitly cite Beck due to his support for anti-government lunacy, conspiracy theories, and hate speech. When you’ve lost LGF, you might really want to commence some serious self-examination.

Beck also lost Eric Burns, former host of Fox News Watch. Burns was a relative moderate on Fox News, which may explain why they fired him (watch your back, Shep). Burns has kept a low profile since leaving Fox, but now he opens up about his former haunt. And the first thing he wants to convey is his gratitude that…

“I do not have to face the ethical problem of sharing an employer with Glenn Beck.”

Ouch! Burns says that Beck is “an embarrassment” and likens him unfavorably to some rather unsavory characters from the past: Huey Long, Father Coughlin, and John Birch. Remember, these criticisms are coming from a former Fox News anchor. This is how far Beck has wandered from even conservative convention.

None of this, however, will phase Beck. He is confident in his confusion. He has knowledge that transcends the capability of mere mortals. He said so:

6:1) I’ve been talking for several years now – two in particular.
6:2) Because I know what our country is headed towards. I know the struggles that are ahead in my life and I know the struggles that are ahead in your life.
6:3) It’s not going to be pretty, but it’s going to be good.
6:4) We are going to again transform the world. We are going to have a miraculous rebirth. Things are all going to change.
~ More Beckisms in The Gospel According To Beck

Glenn Beck sees our future. His omnipotent vision will shield us from harm. Or at least it will be good harm. But when he speaks of miracles, I wonder if he is aware that Hitler also campaigned on a message of rebirth. It is also interesting to hear Beck say that “we are going to transform the world.” When President Obama said before the election that “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America,” Beck replayed the comment over and over again, insisting that there was something sinister in it. The same is true for his declaration that “Things are all going to change.” When Obama says the same thing, it is cause to hoard guns and ammo and gold and our precious bodily fluids.

Beck must feel awfully alone. Along with those mentioned above, he has lost upwards of eighty advertisers. And more recently, the Harlem Gospel Choir backed out of performing with his theatrical release of The Christmas Sweater. He is rapidly becoming segregated from the world of rational thinkers. He is devolving into a cartoon of himself. He already admitted that he is just an entertainer, a rodeo clown, and a worthless loser. And he beseeches America to talk him out of the crazy tree. In this self-appraisal he has a comrade:

“I have been laughed to scorn as a prophet; for many a year my warnings and my prophecies were regarded as the illusions of a mind diseased […] I appear in the eyes of many bourgeois democrats as only a wild man.”
~ Adolph Hitler, September 1936

We would be wise to remember history. Beck’s friends may be falling from the crazy tree like autumn leaves, but Beck is climbing to ever-higher branches that can’t possibly sustain his weight. He is going to come down from the tree, but not because he was talked down. Perhaps that is what he means when he says that “It’s not going to be pretty.”