Election

Michael Steele: The Era Of Apologizing Is Over

Posted by on May 19, 2009 at 4:47 pm. 2 Comments :

In a dramatic announcement on the passing of an historical epoch, Republican National Committee Chairman, Michael Steele, has declared that the Era of Apology is over. That’s right, the Apologiac Age has come to a close, according to Steele:

“The era of apologizing for Republican mistakes of the past is now officially over. It is done. The time for trying to fix or focus on the past has ended. The era of Republican navel gazing is over. We have turned the corner on regret, recrimination, self-pity and self-doubt. Now is the hour to focus all of our energies on winning the future.”

While it is encouraging to hear that Republicans will cease to gaze at their navels, that doesn’t explain how their new tunnel blindness with regard to the past will help them to win the future. It also doesn’t advance the argument that the Apologiac Age is truly over.

One argument against Steele’s hypothesis is that experts have been unable to identify the beginning of the Era of Apology. Despite rigorous searches, no apologies have been uncovered for any of the most profound failures of the last administration:

  • Missing all of the warning signs prior to 9/11.
  • Waging a preemptive war of aggression based on weapons of mass destruction that didn’t exist.
  • Permitting thousands to die in New Orleans due to incompetence and neglect.
  • Politicizing the Justice Department by hiring and firing attorneys based on partisan affiliation.
  • Diluting Constitutional rights through warrantless searches and the suspension of habeas corpus.
  • Violating domestic and international laws against torture.
  • Causing the collapse of the economy via deregulation, collusion with corporate cronies, and irresponsible spending and taxation policy.

The absence of any evidence that an Apologiac Age ever began inveighs heavily against the contention that it has now concluded. Conservative Apologiac theorists like Steele may seek to support their claim by pointing to the frequent apologies made by Republicans (including Steele) to Rush Limbaugh for having referred to him as an entertainer, or otherwise something less than the Republican Overlord. Or they may cite the apology made by Steele himself when, addressing the Wall Street bailout, he said we need to “own up, do the, ‘My bad,’ and move forward.” However, none of these apologies actually represent the Republican Party accepting responsibility for the tragedies it inflicted on this nation, and the world.

Moving forward was a primary theme in Steele’s Apologia speech. He seemed to be especially sensitive to the notion that Americans might linger too long on the failures of the GOP’s recent past. His message was simply to stop looking back. After all, he said, Ronald Reagan would never look back:

“Ronald Reagan always insisted that our party must move aggressively to seize the moment. He insisted that our party recognize the truth of the times and establish our first principles in both word and deed […] So in the best spirit of President Reagan, it’s time to saddle up and ride.”

Steele, it must be noted, had to look back over twenty years to come up with that advice from Reagan against looking back. For Steele, looking back twenty years is enlightening, but looking back at the the last eight years is just rehashing the irrelevant. And everyone knows that if you’re looking to the future, the most inspiring analogy is one that includes saddling up your horse.

Steele is intent on peddling his theory on the end of Apologia. He even borrows Barack Obama’s inspirational message of change. But Steele is quick to point out that his version of change “comes in a tea bag.” Historians, I am sure, will spend countless hours trying to figure out what that means. And this may be the underlying brilliance of Steele’s strategy. If no one knows what you’re talking about, they can’t make much of an attempt to dispute it.

Thus, the introduction of the end of the Era of Apology, an era that never began, should quite sufficiently confuse the people, the Party, and most importantly, the press. At least for another week or two.

Republicans Look To Bush Losers For Advice On Winning

Posted by on May 4, 2009 at 12:58 pm. NO Comments :

Republicans are already struggling to maintain some measure of relevance since the American people have banished them to the minority in both the House and the Senate, and evicted them from the White House. It is certainly understandable that, in their desperation, they would cast about plaintively, with arms outstretched, to grasp onto whomever might offer them aide in these dire days (weeks? years?). But in a move that can only compound their troubles, they are calling upon fellow castaways to lead them off of the island of the politically damned.

Politico is reporting that former Bush media staffers have been drafted to show House Republicans the way back into the hearts of American voters. The team consists of Bush press office alums, Dana Perino, Tony Fratto, and past RNC chief and Bush counselor, Ed Gillespie. Presumably they were deemed up to the task by virtue of how masterfully they molded Bush into the beloved figure he is today.

The Politico column reveals that House Republicans, on the advice of Conference Chair Mike Pence, are beefing up their media staffs. The stated goal of this strategy is to place more emphasis on press relations than on legislation. GOP flack Matt Lloyd is in full agreement with Pence, and hails this new initiative by saying that:

“The press secretary workshop is one more tool in our belt that we are using to ensure press secretaries continue to get their members the most coverage possible, which in turn drives the Republican message across the country.”

I couldn’t agree with him more. From the perspective of someone who is anxious to see the Republican minority shrink even further, nothing could more effectively produce that end than to “drive the Republican message across the country.” If the House PR machine wants to help “get their members the most coverage possible,” I would heartily encourage them. And they should start with getting more coverage for Michele Bachmann. Minority Leader John Boehner could use a little more exposure of his dynamic personality and spray-on tan, as well. And since we’re resurrecting Republicans of yore, throw in Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay.

You have to hand it to the GOP – they sure know how to cling to the anchors that have hastened their descent to the depths of political triviality.

AP Seeks Bailout From Shepard Fairey

Posted by on February 5, 2009 at 11:56 am. NO Comments :

Obama HopeIn the course of last year’s presidential campaign it was impossible to avoid an image that became irreversibly associated with Barack Obama. The work by Shepard Fairey was everywhere, distributed by the artist, the campaign, and by millions of individuals who, with Fairey’s consent, downloaded and printed the “HOPE” poster and plastered it on every available wall.

Apparently, it was impossible to avoid by everyone except the Associated Press, who seem to have just found out about it and are now seeking credit and compensation. They claim the work was derived from their copyrighted photo. In fact, Fairey admits that the photo was used as the source for his work. The question is whether it was “fair use.”

Now, there are plenty of people who would criticize Fairey for his tendency to take inspiration from the work of other artists. But in this case, the claim is beyond absurd. The derivative work was plainly an artistic representation of the original and was executed as constitutionally protected, free, political speech. And, according to Fairey, it was entirely non-commercial, with proceeds going to the Obama campaign.

This action by the AP is certain to further tarnish the reputation of the Conventional Media that is already suffering from a deficit of respect. You would have to wonder why they waited until after the campaign; after the image was globally recognized; after its inclusion in the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery; for the AP to assert its claim. Are they merely hoping to benefit from the success of the image that was achieved without any effort on their part? Are they so hard-up for cash that they have taken to suing artists to keep their struggling enterprise afloat?

Surely the AP’s legal team is aware that they will have to show that they suffered financial harm in order to claim damages. That will be a hard case to make since, more likely, Fairey’s work has enhanced the value of the AP photo beyond anything they could have accomplished on their own.

McCain NOPEBut the big question here is: Why won’t anyone sue ME? I’ve been working my ass off promoting a variation on Fairey’s theme directed at John McCain. It is derivative of both Fairey’s art and a photo (of which I no longer know the source) that was probably copyrighted, so I have a double infringement liability. Fairey is already a wealthy artist whose work is published, collected, and displayed in galleries and museums. I, on the other hand, am trying to scrape up rent money and put my artwork on bus stop benches or telephone poles or anywhere else it can be seen. I need the fucking publicity!

It must be great to be AP and let somebody else, in fact, millions of somebody elses, do their work for them and then collect after the fact.

Martin Luther King: A Creative Rebel

Posted by on January 19, 2009 at 10:50 am. NO Comments :

The significance of this Martin Martin Luther King Jr. day takes on a new meaning with the awareness that tomorrow an historic milestone in American history will occur. The first African-American president is as potent a validation of King’s dream as anything I can imagine.

But there are still battles ahead. Contrary to the declarations by some (at Fox News) that the election of Barack Obama is evidence that the struggles for equality are over, last year’s campaign actually brought out some of the darkest expressions of prejudice ever made publicly. We must not forget that many of the opponents of Obama’s candidacy were overtly racist. Obama’s electoral victory was not unanimous, and although it obviously cannot be said that every John McCain voter was voting against Obama because of his race, there were certainly some of those millions who did just that.

Still, Obama’s election goes a long way toward a realization of King’s dream. It is an epic event that is both a frightful burden and an unparalleled opportunity. It’s too bad King couldn’t be here to celebrate along with us, but our reflections on him help to keep the dream alive. Following are excerpts from the article I wrote last year that still convey a personal expression of the impact King had on me, as a young artist.

~~~ ~~~ ~~~

Today as we celebrate the memory and legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr., millions of Americans will reflect on the impact his life had. That impact, for many, is very personal. There is much for which to be grateful in the gifts of hope and justice that he left behind. For me there was a speech that was particularly transforming. It was his public entry into the anti-war movement, Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence. As a twelve year old peace activist and an aspiring artist, one sentence stood out and helped to shape the next 40 years of my life:

“We must be prepared to match actions with words by seeking out every creative means of protest possible.”

That’s one of the first recollections I have of perceiving art as an act of conscience and rebellion. Prior to that I drew a lot of superheroes and hot rods (I was twelve, after all). I had become radicalized, and I knew that at least part of my work had to be devoted to making a better world.

~~~ ~~~ ~~~

The value of art in movement building stems from the uniquely personal relationship that binds us to works of insight and honesty. Speeches and op/eds will never evoke the intimacy of artistic expression. That’s why, despite protestations of the Cultural Imperialists, artists remain relevant and influential. At its best, art inspires, motivates and unites. It’s even better when it incites and provokes.

~~~ ~~~ ~~~

[W]e must persist in producing thoughtful, provocative work that leads us to a world with more liberty, more peace, more justice, and fuller hearts and bellies. We must confront the censors and the bullies who fear our voices and would silence them. And we must seek new and aggressive forms of distribution that spreads our messages from the Internet to the Interstate and beyond. As the activist/artist Vladimir Mayakovsky said:

“Art must not be concentrated in dead shrines called museums. It must be spread everywhere…on the streets, in the trams, factories, workshops, and in the workers homes.”

And as Dr. King declared, we, as artists, must be prepared to match actions with words and use our talents to manifest a world that reflects our dreams.

~~~ ~~~ ~~~

The extraordinary juxtaposition of the King holiday and the Obama inauguration present a profound opportunity to look both backward and forward at the same time. Backward to the contributions and sacrifices of King and an entire generation of freedom seekers. And forward to a new era of hope for justice and harmony.

Celebrate today. Get back to work tomorrow.

Bill O’Reilly Congratulates Senator Al Franken

Posted by on January 6, 2009 at 1:56 am. 5 Comments :

After a meticulous and prolonged recount, Al Franken has prevailed and will be Minnesota’s new senator. Although the defeated incumbent, Norm Coleman, is still threatening legal action to retain his seat, most observers give him little chance of succeeding. His legal arguments wouldn’t even produce enough votes to alter the outcome if he prevailed on every one.

There are, however, some determined holdouts, including the editorial page of Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal. The Journal itemized what it considers to be grievous errors on the part of the state Canvassing Board. But, while most of their complaints were unfounded, misconstrued, or outright false, it was spread throughout the rightist press by folks like Rush Limbaugh and Joe Scarborough, who characterized it as a news report rather than the opinion piece that it was.

Another Journal disciple is Fox News kingpin, Bill O’Reilly. O’Reilly referenced the Journal’s story in his talking points memo and concluded that…

“Evidence shows that MN Secretary of State Mark Ritchie is not honest enough to run a clean election.”

Of course there was no such evidence in the Journal piece or elsewhere. The attack on Ritchie’s honesty was O’Reilly’s own invention and a trademark of his brand of personal assault commentary. But, as usual, he saved his finest vitriol for Franken himself. It’s classic O’Reilly:

  • “You don’t get any lower than that man, Franken.”
    – So, Charles Manson would be a step up?
  • “That’s the worst thing I’ve ever seen in American politics – is this man maybe becoming a senator.”
    – Really? Worse than Joe McCarthy? Or Watergate? Or Monica Lewinski?
  • “It’s personal with me. He’s lied about me. He’s slandered me.”
    – Ah…Now we’re getting to the heart of the matter. He’s told the truth about you.
  • “The fact that he was even competitive […] depresses me about America.”
    – So it’s America’s fault?

O’Reilly is fond of hyperbole, so it isn’t surprising that he would blast Franken as the lowest and the worst of whatever delusion in which he is presently immersed. However, he is also fond of bashing what he’d call the “blame America first crowd,” so it is a little surprising to see him throw that sucker punch at America – but only a little. It is very much like O’Reilly to be a major league hypocrite. And it is similarly like him to turn against anyone he perceives as opposing his dementia.

O’Reilly has given up on America. They opposed the war in Iraq. They favor universal healthcare. They elected Barack Obama president. And now they have put his nemesis in the United States Senate. So O’Reilly’s message to the nation as Al Franken prepares to take his seat is, “Screw you, America. You make me sad.”

The Powerful Powerlessness Of The Liberal Media

Posted by on November 23, 2008 at 12:28 pm. NO Comments :

Mark Halperin is a political analyst for Time Magazine and runs “The Page,” a political website, for Time.com. Prior to that he was the political director for ABC News for ten years. It’s important to know this about him when considering what he said at a conference on the recently concluded election this past week at USC. He was expressing his opinion on the performance of the media during the campaign:

“It’s the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war. It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage.”

You can’t get more mainstream than Mark Halperin. Yet this exemplar of institutional media is taking his colleagues to task for failing to adhere to standards of objectivity that presumably he employs. So you have to wonder why Halperin didn’t bother to sound the bias alarm until two and a half weeks after election day. If he noticed what he now calls a “disgusting failure” in campaign coverage, why didn’t he bring it up when something could have been done about it? For that matter, why didn’t he bring up the failures with regard to Iraq before this? Seeing as he had a prominent platform in both publishing and broadcasting, but was absent with regard to these issues, what does it say about his credibility?

You also have to wonder how Halperin ranks failures with respect to their disgustingness. Does he really think that a candidate bias is equivalent to the utter professional neglect that the media exhibited while cheerleading for the war in Iraq? Even if there were a slanting of political preference, does that compare to inventing mortal enemies and printing lies about their imminent threat? Does he rate the consequences equally now that 4,000 plus Americans have been killed and perhaps more than a million Iraqis; now that we know the truth about WMDs and our leaders dishonesty; and now that our nation is approaching bankruptcy having spent $2 billion a month in Iraq for five years?

It strains the imagination to explain how he could place those two events in the same sentence. But what makes it even worse is that he doesn’t bother to offer proof of his contention that the media was pro-Obama. He seems to be jumping on the right-wing, Republican bandwagon that is flailing around to manufacture excuses for why they lost. It certainly couldn’t be because the people preferred the Democrat. Much of the noise about an alleged bias for Obama actually amounts to a realistic appraisal of events. Every report of McCain’s more frequent use of negative ads, a fact documented by independent studies, is regarded by conservatives as anti-McCain. Likewise, every report of Obama leading in the polls, which was the case for most of the last six weeks of the campaign, is regarded by the same right-wingers as pro-Obama. Under these circumstances, the only way to be considered neutral would be to distort the truth.

There is a rather duplicitous argument circulating that there is no way voters would have been stupid enough to have chosen Barack Obama were they not mislead by the media. However, that argument still implies that voters were stupid for having been mislead. So no matter how you look at it, the right believes that the voters are stupid.

The stupidity is compounded by the assertion that the people have fallen under the sway of an omnipotent press that is dominated by liberals. Everyone from Rush Limbaugh to William Krystal complain that Obama was given a free ride. They must think that there was never any negative coverage of him. They must have never heard of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, or the “fact” that Obama was a Muslim, or how he “refused” to wear an American flag lapel pin, or that he was a Socialist, or an elitist, or that he palled around with terrorists. There must not have been any reports of how women would not support him, or Latinos, or Jews, or hard-working whites, or people who cling to guns and religion. The press must have buried news that Obama was the most liberal senator with a long record of far-left extremism, but was also inexperienced with no record of public service.

What it really comes down to, from the rightists perspective, is that the so-called liberal media has manipulated the people, who are so subjugated to its authority. This view requires acceptance as fact that the media has an unfettered ability to control the thoughts of its audience. Actually, I believe there is some degree of truth to that. The problem is that, in a feat of championship self-contradiction, the people making the complaint don’t believe it. In fact, they argue that the media has lost its influence due to its lack of balance. There is some degree of truth to that as well, but not what is proposed by conservatives. A study by the Center for Public Leadership at the Harvard Kennedy School shows that 62% of those surveyed are distrustful of campaign media coverage. That will certainly have an impact on the media’s influence and business status. Conservatives say that the presence of liberal bias is the principle reason that business is slumping and that people have stopped watching and reading. Rupert Murdoch calls it “a culture of ‘complacency and condescension.'”

“The complacency stems from having enjoyed a monopoly–and now finding they have to compete for an audience they once took for granted. The condescension that many show their readers is an even bigger problem. It takes no special genius to point out that if you are contemptuous of your customers, you are going to have a hard time getting them to buy your product.”

In other words, give the people what they want, not what represents reality. And in Murdoch’s world, the people want non-stop bashing of liberals and promotion of free-market, evangelical conservatism (along with Page 3 soft-porn and Page 6 gossip). Unfortunately for him, his theory falls apart when you note that his company, a condescending monopoly if there ever was one, has lost 67% of it value in the past year. It would be difficult to blame that on the liberal bias of Fox News and the New York Post.

Bottom line: According to conservatives, the all-powerful liberal media is directing the votes of a pliable electorate. And they are doing this despite the fact that voters don’t trust the media and are tuning them out. So somehow the media is able to sway public opinion even when the public has stopped listening to the media. That’s a neat trick. It’s also a failure of logic on the part of rightists who are desperately searching for an explanation for their loss that doesn’t include the phrase, “We suck!”

No Success Like Failure

Posted by on November 18, 2008 at 7:08 pm. NO Comments :

In Bob Dylan’s classic “Love Minus Zero/No Limit” he makes the counter-intuitive observation that “There’s no success like failure.” Well, much of the establishment of America’s politics and press have taken that to heart.

The latest example is that of the Senate Democrats who have opted to let Sen. Joe Lieberman get away with political treason. Lieberman, who was ejected from the Democratic Party by his constituents in Connecticut, spent much of the last year campaigning against Barack Obama. In the course of the campaign he declared that Obama was too inexperienced to be president, was unsupportive of the troops, may have been a Marxist, and many more insults to his character and ability.

Today Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced that there would be no repercussions for Lieberman’s betrayal. Lieberman would be allowed to keep his chairmanship of the powerful Homeland Security Committee. What Reid has done is to compound Lieberman’s betrayal with one of his own. And the rest of the Democratic Caucus who went along with it are equally to blame. Reid told reporters that he didn’t want to pursue a course of vengeance. But selecting Party leadership based on loyalty and shared goals isn’t revenge, it’s common sense. And besides, Dylan also realized that, “Even the pawn must hold a grudge.”

The problem is not as simple as Lieberman being an untrustworthy weasel who ought to pay a price for his deceit. The problem is that Lieberman was an ineffective chairman even before the campaign. He has long been an advocate of George W. Bush’s policy in Iraq and he refused to hold hearings that would have provided necessary oversight because they might also have reflected poorly on the President he adored. The same is true for other matters under the Committee’s jurisdiction like Katrina, torture, and warrantless wiretapping. Lieberman should have been ousted as chair if for no other reason than that he would not represent the new administration’s priorities.

Senate Democrats have an obligation to manage their institution in accordance with the political aspirations of their constituents. They failed to meet that obligation today. But Dylan foresaw the consequences of failure, and the Lieberman affair is only one instance in recent history that proves Dylan’s wisdom.

    Successful Failures:

  • John McCain failed in the election a couple of weeks ago, yet he is now regarded as an elder statesman who has already met with the President-elect.
  • Joe Lieberman rode on McCain’s failed coattails but gets to retain his committee chair.
  • Hillary Clinton failed in the Democratic primary where she said that all Obama would bring to the presidency was a speech in 2002. She belittled his view that foreign leaders should be engaged with diplomacy. But now she may become the focal point of his foreign policy as Secretary of State.
  • Sarah Palin also failed in the election, yet she is now regarded as a front-runner for 2012 (I hope).
  • Mike Huckabee failed to win the Republican nomination, but was rewarded with a program on Fox News.
  • Corporations like AIG and Lehman Brothers failed to the tune of billions of dollars, and they get handed billions more courtesy of American taxpayers.
  • Now the automobile industry is joining the failures in financial services in line for bailout fortunes.
  • Last, but not least, are the multitude of pundits like Dick Morris, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, William Krystal, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, etc., who failed repeatedly to make a correct assessment of anything that happened in the last year, yet they keep their media megaphones, and in some cases get promotions and raises.

At some point, reasonable folks will have to wonder why losers are so often rewarded, when more deserving players are snubbed. The benefits of membership in exclusive clubs like the U.S. Senate and the Mainstream Media are clearly lucrative for the lucky few. But the rest of us are saddled with less representative government, more debt, and bigger headaches brought on by louder and stupider commentators.

Those in politics and the press who exercise such disrespect for the people, are going to regret their self-centeredness some day. They are going to learn that we will eventually find alternatives to their protectionist institutions. They can’t fail upward forever because, in the end, “Failure is no success at all.”

New York Times Goes Soft On New York Post

Posted by on November 17, 2008 at 12:48 pm. NO Comments :

In a New York Times column today by Richard Perez-Pena, the case is made that the New York Post’s owner, Rupert Murdoch, has gone soft on Barack Obama and liberals in general. The evidence cited for this ideological tectonic shift is a shallow observation that the Post has not published its usual brand of slander in the few days that have passed since the election. The Times writes…

“Starting the day before the voting, the paper’s coverage of Mr. Obama turned positive, even admiring, sprinkled with gauzy bits about his family life, even urging him at one point to adopt a particular puppy for his daughters. A few days after the election, The Post published a 12-page special section about Mr. Obama, wrapped in that two-page photo of him.”

Anyone who regards this as anything but a convenient post-election holiday from their customary hostility has thoroughly lost perspective. Murdoch is a businessman and the Post is a money-losing rag in the heart of the Democratic haven of New York City. What was the Post supposed to do in the wake of this historic election, publish pictures of Obama in Hip-Hop gear with his arm around Osama Bin Laden? (That’s for next month’s issue).

For the Times to project from that that Murdoch is a secret Obama fan suggests they are taking their own holiday from sanity. Fox News is as vitriolic as ever. As a national network, they are not confined to a single market that is in disaccord with their views. So folks like Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, and Neil Cavuto, are still free to brutally disparage Obama and all Democrats and other liberals. Gary Ginsberg, a Fox News spokesman, made an effort to disguise Murdoch’s prejudice against Obama by saying that…

“Rupert met him, spent a good deal of time with him, and I think he’s been very taken by his intellect, by his ability to inspire and by the opportunity that he has to truly take America in a positive direction on education issues, social issues and others.”

That, of course, flies in the face of Murdoch’s own words. The Post endorsed John McCain and Murdoch admitted publicly that he “had something to do with it.” It is extremely unlikely that he has changed his anti-Obama positions from those expressed just last month, and hardly represent an endorsement of Obama’s inspirational abilities:

Murdoch: “[Obama’s] policy is really very, very naive, old fashioned, 1960’s socialist.”

In the same commentary, Murdoch also said that an Obama administration would worsen inflation, ruin America’s relationships with other nations, and drive companies to leave the country. That’s funny, I thought that George W. Bush had already done all of that. Perhaps that’s what Murdoch means when he talks about “tak[ing] America in a positive direction.”

The Times went on to mention a meeting held with Murdoch, Obama, and Fox News CEO Roger Ailes. It is characterized as “a bid to moderate Fox’s coverage of Mr. Obama,” but that’s just more PR manure. In truth, it was a transparent bid to persuade Obama to appear on their network. For most of the campaign Obama had snubbed Fox News. They were was missing out on the most exciting political story of the year because of their overt bias. Obama reportedly let Ailes have it during the meeting:

“Obama lit into Ailes. He said that he didn’t want to waste his time talking to Ailes if Fox was just going to continue to abuse him and his wife, that Fox had relentlessly portrayed him as suspicious, foreign, fearsome – just short of a terrorist.”

This is the real Murdoch, and the one who will endure over time. The notion that he has grown fond of Obama is naive in the extreme. And the fact that the Times would suggest such nonsense ought to bring them much embarrassment. It is not just poor analysis and shoddy journalism, it is delusional. Yet somehow it is in sync with the media conclusion that despite Obama’s overwhelming victory we are still a center-right country. That’s our liberal media talking.

John McCain’s Campaign Concedes Fox News Is Biased

Posted by on November 14, 2008 at 4:51 pm. 7 Comments :

In an upcoming article in the National Review, Rich Lowry interviews John McCain’s campaign manager, Rick Davis. Much of the interview deals with the handling of Sarah Palin, the VP candidate who Lowry says…

“…was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. [Her TV appearance] sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America.”

Wiping the drool from his chin, Lowry asked Davis why he booked Palin on Katie Couric’s CBS News program. Davis replied…

“Our assumption was people would not let us release her on Fox or local TV.”

If McCain’s campaign manager can admit that Fox News is a de facto arm of the Republican Party, and that nobody would take seriously a softball interview conducted on that network, why does Fox still try to peddle the myth that they are “fair and balanced?”

After the McCain team nixed Fox for the initial interview, they chose Couric because they were…

“…under the impression the Couric thing was going to be easier than it was. Everyone’s guard was down for the Couric interview.”

Let’s count the stupid: First they presumed that Couric would be easier on Palin because they were both women. Of course, Couric had an incentive to perform at a high level due to her low ratings and expectations. Plus, a woman reporter would actually have more leeway to be aggressive when interviewing a woman candidate. It was political malpractice for McCain and company not to recognize this. And it opens them up to charges of sexism as well because it presumes that a woman reporter would not be as probing or professional as a man.

Secondly, they actually think that the questions Couric asked were too hard for Palin. Their guard was down for such confounding inquiries as, “What newspapers and magazines do you read?” Or, “What does Alaska’s proximity to Russia have to do with foreign policy experience?” If that’s their idea of tough questions, it’s a good thing they kept her under wraps most of the time.

Thank goodness they have Fox News around for the post-election interviews where Greta Van Susteren delved into Palin’s recipe for moose chili.

The Fanatical Fear Of The Fairness Doctrine

Posted by on November 12, 2008 at 3:44 pm. 9 Comments :

Let’s face it – Change is scary. America now has a new President-elect swept to victory on a wave of change. Those on the winning side are anxious to implement a new agenda, but are also wary of the movement being diluted by political cowardice. The losers, however, are struggling to retain their composure as they imagine all variety of horror that awaits.

Speaking of losers, the most notorious amongst them are pundits like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, etc. Their losses are not confined to being on the wrong side of public opinion in the recently concluded election. They are also losing listeners and viewers who are rapidly awakening to the dishonesty and hostility wafting through the conservative media’s airwaves. Fox News, once a runaway leader in cable news networks, is now threatened by upstart MSNBC, who has emerged as a surging second place competitor, and even beats Fox with some frequency. Radio’s problems are much deeper, facing stiffer competition from television and new media.

The response to this changing marketplace, however, is not to retool the product and search for new ways to connect with an audience. The tunnel vision of right-wingers like those at Fox is inhibiting self-awareness and ironically gaining fans amongst liberals who are happy to see them shrinking their own audience. Harold Meyerson at the Washington Post observes what he calls “the Palinization” of the Republican Party:

“During the campaign just completed, you guys focused on Barack Obama’s allegedly Muslim and alien roots and socialist ideology; meanwhile, in the real world, unemployment rose, foreclosures soared and Wall Street went flooey […] And the way your flock sees it, the modifications that Republicans need to make to become competitive again in American politics — acknowledging a need for state intervention to make the economy work, backing off the primitive religiosity, embracing a more tolerant pluralism — amount to nothing less than heresy.”

In a feat of denial, though, the conservative punditry is barreling headlong into a campaign of fear-mongering and frightful tales of censorship. They believe, and hope to persuade others, that Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress are surreptitiously plotting to reinstate the dreaded Fairness Doctrine that their hero, Ronald Reagan, vanquished 20 years ago. Should that happen, they say, their little ideological monopoly of the air will come crashing down. The main problem with their scare tactic is that there is neither substance nor truth in it.

Stephanie Mencimer has nicely summarized the situation for Mother Jones Magazine:

“In 2005, Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) introduced legislation to bring back the doctrine. Conservatives dubbed the measure the “Hush Rush” bill. Then last year, Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) said publicly that he thought the Fairness Doctrine should be revived, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), after noting that talk radio was overwhelmingly conservative, suggested that Congress hold hearings on the political imbalance […] But Hinchey’s bill went nowhere, Feinstein never held hearings, and the issue died down after President Bush in March threatened to veto any attempt to revive the Fairness Doctrine.”

What’s more, Obama has explicitly stated his opposition to the Doctrine on multiple occasions. That hasn’t stopped rightist enterprises like the National Review, the Center for Individual Freedom, and WorldNetDaily from spreading fabricated stories about conservative voices being kicked off the air. The prospect of this happening is not only false, but pointless. As Mencimer notes, the territory allegedly being fought over has been declining in value for years:

“Conservative talk-radio hosts love to position themselves as the victims of liberal media conspiracies, and the Fairness Doctrine gambit certainly fits the bill. But there is little substance behind the overheated rhetoric. Most Democrats have little interest in a big legislative fight over government regulation of the ever-shrinking sphere of broadcast media.”

And Obama recognizes this himself:

“He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible. That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets.”

Obama’s position correctly describes the field of battle as encompassing issues of corporate consolidation, diversity, independence, and open access to new media. Let conservatives whine about imaginary assaults on their dying medium. They can have it. And if they want to shiver in the shadows, pretending that rabid liberals are coming after them, that’s their prerogative.

Like I said above – Change is scary. But it is also necessary. The media world is changing whether we like it or not (we like it). If effective media reform is implemented, the problems facing progressives (and conservatives for that matter) will work themselves out. If ownership caps are enforced, more diverse voices will have access to the airwaves. If anti-trust law is enforced, more independence will be exercised by commercial media. Support for network neutrality and public broadcasting will provide opportunities for alternative media.

That’s what reform is about. That’s what change is about. It’s only scary if your melded to outmoded technology and institutions that profit from corporate domination and propaganda minded government agencies.