Election

American Idol Joins The Race For President

Posted by on April 8, 2008 at 3:26 pm. NO Comments :

American IdleOn Wednesday American Idol will present its second annual “Idol Gives Back” broadcast wherein viewers are asked to call in donations to benefit a banquet of charitable enterprises. This year will feature appearances by all three remaining presidential contenders, John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama. The taped segment by Obama says in part…

“I’d like to say a few words not just as the father of two young girls who are big American Idol fans, but as someone who cares deeply about what tonight’s show is all about. Whether it’s across the street or around the world, Idol Gives Back is proving that when ordinary people come together, they can do extraordinary things.”

I suppose this is one way for Fox to get Obama to go on their network. Of course it is the Fox Entertainment Network, not the Fox News Channel. It is still a poke in the eye to Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday (which does air on FEN), whose juvenile Obama Watch is still counting down the days that Obama has not appeared on that program. Hang tough, Barack. Let Wallace run that Obama Watch clock up another 10,000 ticks.

Personally, I can’t stand American Idol. I think it trivializes art by pitting artists against one another. And I think the contestants are cliche cutouts who rely on theatrics and vocal bling rather than talent and originality. Idols are not created by game shows. They are adopted by fans who are moved by an artist with whom they connect emotionally.

That said, it is admirable that the wealth that flows to this program is being directed to people who are suffering and in need of advocates. Sure, it is also a big advertisement for the program, the network, and the sponsors who will claim credit for the event. But in the end there will be some relief provided for the recipients of the donations collected from this program. Unless, of course, there isn’t. From the New York Times:

“But even as ‘American Idol” and Fox Broadcasting prepare for their second annual star-studded ‘Idol Gives Back’ appeal on Wednesday, officials at the charity have declined to release a formal accounting of last year’s effort.”

The article goes on to say that most of the targeted charities have expressed satisfaction with the distribution of last year’s donations, but it would be nice to have some documentary evidence that they are successfully administrating these funds. Last year $76 million was raised, and estimates are that the figure will increase this year to $100 million. That’s a lot of money not to be fully accounted for.

Update: As it turns out, the jam-packed entertainment bonanza that Idol producers put on last last was so pressed for time that all three presidential candidates were cut out of the program. Thank God they made time for Celine Dion, Miley Cyrus, and Snoop Dogg.

The Media Make Terrible Tax Accountants

Posted by on April 4, 2008 at 6:52 pm. NO Comments :

Politico’s Ben Smith examines Hillary Clinton’s tax returns and finds this interesting:

The interesting part, of course, is the roughly $18 million that the summary doesn’t account for.

Jeez, I wouldn’t let him balance a ten year old’s checkbook.

Here’s the meat of the controversy. Financial guru Smith adds up these numbers from Clinton’s summary of her tax records for the past eight years:

  • Senator Clinton’s Senate Salary: $1,051,606
  • President Clinton’s Presidential Pension: $1,217,250
  • Senator Clinton’s Book Income: $10,457,083
  • President Clinton’s Book Income: $29,580,525
  • President Clinton’s Speech Income: $51,855,599

He comes up with $94,162,063. That’s about $16 million less than the $110 million her returns show. Smith’s first mistake is that his calculation shows an $18 million discrepancy instead of the actual $16 million. But beyond that simple math error, Smith is imagining a controversy where none exists. A quick look at the returns show that the Clinton’s earned $16.5 million dollars on capital gains and real estate investments. They were accounted for in the summary which was prefaced with “Including, among other items…” The summary never pretended to itemize every source of revenue.

Controversy solved! But not until after the media picks up this non-scandal and turns it into another prospective Whitewater. Dick Morris, in an appearance on Fox News, jumped on it about 30 seconds after the returns were made public. He went on to allege that the “missing” funds were connected to all manner of evil like phone scammers and the Emir of Dubai.

This article is not intended to defend Clinton, but to indict the media. This sort of ignorant, sensationalized, pseudo-analysis can and will be used to damage any candidate the press wants to disparage. It needs to be exposed and should never be tolerated.

When I (a lowly artist) can quickly and easily see the explanation that professional journalists, with resources to consult experts, cannot see, it is nothing less than shameful on the part of the press. This is why media reform should be at the top of every activists list of priorities.

Murdoch Holds Fundraiser For Obama – No, Not That Murdoch

Posted by on April 3, 2008 at 3:22 pm. 1 Comments :

I don’t know quite what to make of this, but I thought it should be noted:

Television tycoon Elisabeth Murdoch, daughter of News Corp. owner Rupert Murdoch, is holding a fundraiser for Barack Obama at her London home.

Maybe it’s just a typical rebellious child, establishing a separate identity from her famous father. Maybe it’s a way of having the family cover all the bases. Maybe Hell froze over. Or maybe she just really likes Obama.

Stay tuned.

Clinton Continues Embrace Of Right-Wing Media

Posted by on March 31, 2008 at 1:01 pm. 5 Comments :

Hillary Clinton and her campaign has displayed the most overt fondness for right-wing media of all the presidential contenders, including Republicans. She has agreed to participate in Fox News-sponsored debates when her Democratic colleagues have declined. She accepted donations from Rupert Murdoch. Just last week she sat for an interview with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, and its owner Richard Mellon Scaife, who has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to smear her and her family.

This morning Scaife published an editorial that praised Clinton as having “courage and confidence” and proclaimed that his impression of her is now “a very favorable” one. Can Scaife expect this endorsement to be taken seriously when he has previously accused her of everything from financial corruption to murder? A couple of other inconsistencies to ponder: Scaife is in the midst of an ugly divorce with an ex who supports Obama. And Scaife has contributed the maximum allowed donation to John McCain.

Also this morning, Clinton surrogate and Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell appeared on Fox & Friends to say that “Fox has done the fairest job, has remained most objective of all the cable networks.”

Perhaps Rendell was referring to the steady stream of Obama bashing as evidence of their fairness.

John McCain’s Ad: Connecting The Dots

Posted by on March 30, 2008 at 3:33 pm. NO Comments :

Upon closer examination of John McCain’s new campaign ad, some interesting messages become apparent…

John McCain's Kool-Aid

Announcer: Keep that faith. Keep your courage. Stick together. Stay strong. Do not yield […] we’ll never surrender.

Was that McCain or Jim Jones? No matter. The ad goes on to ask, “What must a president believe about us?” John McCain believes we’re idiots whose views are irrelevant. When challenged on the state of the war in Iraq he harrumphes, “We’re succeeding. I don’t care what anybody says.” Then he yells at the kids to get off of his lawn.

The ad closes with the redundant declaration that McCain is “the American president Americans have been waiting for.” I suppose he’s just being precise so you don’t think that he’s talking about the Swedish president Americans have been waiting for; or the American president Brazilians have been waiting for.

Maybe we should appreciate his specificity, or maybe he just needs everything explained to him twice. He’s already confessed that he doesn’t understand important subjects like the economy or AIDS prevention, and he’s clearly demonstrated his ignorance of the Middle East. If he is the president Americans have been waiting for (which should read “the president for whom Americans have been waiting”), then we have seriously lowered our standards. Cue H. L. Mencken:

“As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”

I thought that applied perfectly to Bush, but McCain is rapidly becoming a contender.

The Media’s Gift To John McCain

Posted by on March 28, 2008 at 4:55 pm. 3 Comments :

What is being called the first general election campaign ad has hit the airwaves. It is a biographical ad for Sen. John McCain that features him in a North Vietnamese hospital bed. Most of the Conventional Media is reporting on this as if it were somehow newsworthy. The New York Times covered the ad’s release on its political blog, The Caucus, and they have shown the same level of cluelessness as every other media outlet. In demonstrating how little they seem understand even the simplest truisms of modern candidate marketing, they note that the ad…

“…for now will play only in New Mexico – a sign that the campaign expects that state to be a major battleground this fall.”

The Times doesn’t provide any support for their contention that the New Mexico ad buy is a sign of the campaign’s view of the state’s role in the upcoming election. They haven’t interviewed the candidate or queried the campaign managers. They haven’t provided any context such as the ranking of the state in the electoral college (36th, with only 5 electoral votes). They simply make a dangling statement that fails to inform the reader of any substantive facts, and they present it as if it were verifiably true.

And the Times is not alone. Here is how the Associated Press covered it:

“For now, the 60-second ad will air only in New Mexico – a signal that McCain plans to compete in that swing state come the fall…”

And this is CNN’s take:

“The ad will air for now in the battleground state of New Mexico […] a sign the presumptive nominee will focus heavily on the swing states this fall.”

Sound familiar? Did these guys synchronize their alibis?

The truth, however, is likely quite different than these portrayals suggest. The McCain campaign, like most politicians and interest groups these days, knows that they can purchase a small amount of airtime in inexpensive television markets like New Mexico and announce the release of the ad to the press. Then the media will dutifully regurgitate the ad repeatedly, giving the campaign what amounts to hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of free airtime.

The McCain people know that they can manipulate the media to serve their ends. The media knows that they are being manipulated, but they allow it anyway. It should make one wonder what these big media corporations expect to get in return for their willingness to be exploited. After all, if they declined to provide free promotion for theses ads, the candidates would have to pay for them. That means the media is not only making valuable in-kind contributions to the candidates, they are also forfeiting untold millions in lost revenue. For what?

I previously wrote about this phenomenon with some historical examples of its use. I also recommended these reforms:

  • Don’t bother to report on any ad that has not exceeded a defined threshold of paid impressions. In other words, if the campaign doesn’t make a significant purchase of air time for their own ad, it isn’t news.
  • If the ad is shown it should be confined to a small percentage of the screen with a video watermark over the whole piece labeling it is a campaign ad. This would serve to blunt the promotional value of the airing and focus on the news value.

The press needs to start thinking about ways to be better servants to the public than they are to the powerful. But first they need to acknowledge their shortcomings. For the New York Times, the AP, CNN, etc., to make the wholly unsupported assertions that they did in the articles linked above is shameful. For them not to acknowledge their role in the campaign hype is an abdication of their journalistic integrity. They know better. They just hope that we don’t.

Clintonstein Meets The Scaife Man

Posted by on March 25, 2008 at 6:04 pm. NO Comments :

Hillary Clinton was interviewed yesterday by the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. She took the opportunity to continue a pattern of personal attacks on her opponent, Barack Obama:

“He would not have been my pastor,” Clinton said. “You don’t choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend.”

What’s interesting about this encounter is not the rough and tumble tenor of modern electioneering. That has sadly become all too familiar in these dog days of democracy. What rattled my antennae was the venue Clinton chose for these remarks.

Clintonstein Meets The Scaife ManThe Pittsburgh Tribune-Review is owned by billionaire right-winger, Richard Mellon Scaife. Scaife has a place all his own in what Clinton herself tagged the “vast right-wing conspiracy.” He is a principal in, or contributor to, rightist political and media organizations like NewsMax, the Media Research Center, the American Enterprise Institute, the David Horowitz Freedom Center, the Landmark Legal Foundation, the Manhattan Institute, and the American Spectator.

During the presidency of Bill Clinton, Scaife funded investigations into the Clinton’s public and private lives that was as expansive as it was incredulous. He promoted allegations of sexual infidelities, real estate scams, drug running, even the murder of Clinton aide Vince Foster. Through his newspapers, books and films, he relentlessly sought to destroy the Clinton administration and reputation via smear and innuendo.

Independent Prosecutor Ken Starr, who came to head the official Clinton inquisition, was unable to prove any allegation or to succeed in producing a conviction in the Clinton impeachment. However he was later named the inaugural dean of the Pepperdine School of Public Policy, which was created with an endowment by Scaife.

It would have been bad enough for Hillary Clinton to sit down with the Tribune-Review staff given the facts set forth above. But this meeting was more than an editorial gathering. Amongst the participants was head honcho himself – Richard Mellon Scaife.

How could Clinton sit across the table from the man who has made the most vile accusations against her and her family? According to her it was for a lark. She said it was…

“…so counterintuitive that I thought it would be fun to do.”

To allow herself to be questioned by Scaife after his smear campaign against her requires a measure of cognitive disconnect that seems superhuman. It certainly isn’t an afternoon of playful recreation. And what makes this even more bizarrely unthinkable is that she cavorted with her abuser in order to cast abuse at her Democratic rival.

Clinton has previously shown poor judgment in this campaign with regard to the media. She accepts donations from Rupert Murdoch and recently agreed to participate in a Fox News-sponsored debate (which did not take place because Obama declined the invitation). But this transcends any mere deficiency of judgment. What justification is there for submitting yourself to questioning from a man who falsely accused you of murder and other atrocities? Is the need to exploit every media availability so overwhelming that nothing is too repulsive?

If there wasn’t a photograph of it, I wouldn’t have believed it.

Clinton & Scaife
Hillary Clinton and Richard Mellon Scaife

Where exactly are the outer limits of her ambition?

Update: The outer limits are apparently not at distributing articles from the American Spectator, the same magazine that Scaife used to accuse her of murder. The Clinton campaign is circulating a Spectator article that accuses Obama adviser, and former Air Force chief of staff, Merrill McPeak of antisemitism. If she expects people to believe the Spectator’s allegations about McPeak, should we also believe their allegations about how she murdered Vince Foster?

Bill Kristol’s Call For Benign Neglect On Race

Posted by on March 24, 2008 at 12:05 pm. NO Comments :

William Kristol’s latest column for the New York Times responds to Barack Obama’s recent speech on race and actually advocates sweeping the whole issue under the nation’s rug.

Kristol begins with an itemization of bits of Obama’s speech that don’t make him shudder. In fact, you can feel the shuddering vibrate off the page as he uses this editorial ploy to list his objections to the thoughtful questions Obama raised in his forthright address. But the real message Kristol espouses is prominently displayed in his headline: “Let’s Not and Say We Did.”

What he is referring to is engaging in a national conversation about race as initiated by Obama last Tuesday. Kristol declares that:

“The only part of the speech that made me shudder was this sentence: ‘But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now.’

As soon as I heard that, I knew what we’d have to endure. I knew that there would be a stampede of editorial boards, columnists and academics rushing not to ignore race.”

In Kristol’s tunnel-vision view of the world, a discussion of race is an ordeal to be “endured” rather than an opportunity for reconciliation and understanding. To Kristol, the prospect of pursuing real progress on civil rights is akin to shudder-inducing torture.

His suggestion that editorial boards and others would respond to Obama with a “stampede” of articles thoroughly fails to observe that such articles were appearing before Obama even gave the speech. In fact, had Obama said nothing, there would have been a stampede of columns brimming with outrage at his neglect of such an important matter, with Kritsol leading the charge. The issues that Kristol regards as important also deserve some attention:

“What we need instead are sober, results-oriented debates about economics, social mobility, education, family policy and the like.”

Those are the very issues that Obama tackled in subsequent speeches last week. But rather than guide the debate into matters that he agrees “can lead to real change,” Kristol chooses to focus on the issue that makes him shudder.

Kristol’s solution to racial problems in America today is to reach back forty years to the Nixon era artifice of “benign neglect.” That was the Pat Moynihan hatched notion that there was too much talk about race and that, if everyone would just shut up, we could make some real progress. But the evidence that that plan would not work is present in the fact that Kristol himself won’t shut up. He and hundreds of other pundits are still choosing to write about race when other pressing matters, like the economy and war, have been raised by all three candidates after the groundbreaking speech by Obama.

There is a reason that race is being so closely followed by politicians, the people, and the press. It is still a sensitive issue for many Americans and, in case Kristol hasn’t noticed, we have a candidate who could become the first black president in the country’s history. I, for one, am not afraid to endure a stampede of public discourse on race. It would be far better than Kristol’s advice to keep our heads firmly planted in the sand.

Email Bill Kristol.

NewsMax, Kristol Conspire To Plant False Obama Story

Posted by on March 17, 2008 at 1:16 pm. NO Comments :

On Sunday, March 16, 2008, the rightist tabloid NewsMax published an article by Ronald Kessler that claimed that Barack Obama had attended a controversial sermon by Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Obama has previously denied that any of the sermons he attended at Wright’s church contained the inflammatory language that has been getting so much attention from the press as of late.

Kessler’s article would be a startling revelation that brings Obama’s veracity into question, except for one thing. Kessler’s article isn’t true. Obama’s campaign provided proof that he was in Miami on the day that Kessler’s source (another NewsMax columnist) said that he was in the pew. But NewsMax’s dirty deed was already done. The story had proliferated into the Conventional Media and was already polluting the news environment.

First and foremost, William Kristol of the New York Times cited Kessler when he regurgitated the false story in his Monday column. The bulk of the editorial was devoted to praising the “next generation” while insulting his own:

“Many of its members seem more serious and impressive than we baby boomers were when our elders were foolishly praising us, 40 years ago, as the best-educated, most idealistic generation ever. Many of the best of this young generation are serving their country – either in the military or otherwise.”

Frankly, I don’t recall many elders lavishing much praise on the youth of 1968, although they were the best-educated, most idealistic generation up to that time, and they did serve their country in numbers far greater than today’s youth. And they died in far greater numbers as well – 58,000 in Vietnam. Kristol doesn’t think that’s impressive, but he has no qualms about using the issue to infect the news cycle with lies about Sen. Obama.

Next comes Fox News, who featured Kessler’s fiction in their own story. Originally titled “Report Places Obama at Controversial July ’07 Wright Sermon,” it was altered to “Schedule Puts Obama in Miami During July ’07 Wright Sermon,” after Kessler’s errors were revealed. Still, Fox soft-peddles the correction by saying that:

“Doubts were cast on the story Monday as records showed the Democratic presidential contender was in Miami that day.”

“Doubts were cast on the story…” is how Fox characterizes the production of documentary evidence that eviscerates the story. The spin is dizzying. And it is continuing as the falsehood is spread through the conservative media. Even though Kessler and Kristol have published corrections of sorts, the virus has been unleashed and is circulating. Kessler’s correction merely conceded that the date was wrong, but he stands by the assertion that Obama was present at some unspecified sermon that occurred on some vague date, and he expects us to swallow the rest of the story’s details as factual.

This is how mythical slander about Obama being a Muslim or swearing the oath of office on the Koran gets adopted by much of the public. It is how the war in Iraq was sold by Vice President Cheney when he appeared on Meet the Press and cited an article in the New York Times that was sourced to a leaker in the Vice President’s own office. It’s a circular wheel of propaganda that needs to be exposed if Americans ever to get honest representations of their government and their world.

The Obama Watch On Fox News Sunday

Posted by on March 17, 2008 at 3:02 am. NO Comments :

Two weeks ago, I wrote that Chris Wallace was obsessed with absent Democrats when he featured a viewer email inquiring as to why Barack Obama has not appeared on his fourth-rate Sunday talk show. Now Wallace is escalating the obsession with a stunningly juvenile device he calls “The Obama Watch.”

This blatantly prejudicial, unprofessional, and self-serving inanity demonstrates precisely why Obama, and all Democrats, should avoid Fox News at all costs. The idea that an update on a candidate for president consists solely of the candidate’s disinclination to accept an invitation to appear is uniquely Foxian. And by incorporating the audio device from Fox’s own “24” they even reduce this childish prank to little more than a promotion for their entertainment fare.

As I’ve said before, the Fox News embargo is working or they wouldn’t be constantly addressing it. Every mention is a validation of its effectiveness. Add this to Wallace’s previous attempts to bully Democrats onto his program, like the time he called them “damn fools [for] not coming on Fox News;” or the time he blamed “the left wing of the party – and I’m talking about the ‘net roots'” for “put[ting] Democratic candidates through a kind of loyalty test.” Wallace really knows how to charm the objects of his fetish.

If Wallace is looking for an explanation for why he is being snubbed, perhaps he should consider the fact the he and his network persistently insult the guests he is now pursuing. Fox News is hardly a fair and balanced forum for Democrats. He might also be reminded that his program, Fox News Sunday, finishes consistently last amongst the Sunday news interview programs – behind Meet the Press, This Week, and Face the Nation. Tactics like this are not likely to improve those standings.