This weekend the Fox News… er … Comedy Channel will air its latest stab at humor. Fox entertainment reporter, Bill McCuddy, will host “Reel Politics: If Hollywood Ran America.” The program purports to take a humorous look at the denizens of Tinseltown who inject themselves into the political arena and extends the premise into what a celebrity-led administration might look like.

The program actually undertakes a daring assignment. They’re stuck having to defend the position that it’s possible to do worse than the current administration. In order to do so, the celebrity team would have to exceed BushCo’s record setting marks for dishonesty, corruption, and incompetence.

If the promos for the show are any indication, Fox will be cementing their liberal-bashing reputation with an emphasis on notorious lefty thespians (no, that doesn’t mean Mary Cheney). This animation (wmv), which begins with a warning to, “Watch out America. Stars already think they run the world,” features Alec Baldwin, Rosie O’Donnell, Michael Moore, Madonna, Oprah Winfrey, Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, Sean Penn, Spike Lee, George Clooney, Diddy, and of course, Barbara Streisand. What, no Dixie Chicks? Sylvester Stallone, Mel Gibson, and Tom Cruise were likely added in search of some demented sense of balance.

What seems to be missing is any mention of the fact that none of these folks has ever expressed an interest in elective office. They are merely Americans with opinions and a sense of civic duty. They are not trying to run the country, but are proud to exercise their rights as citizens. While the program has not aired yet, the hype leading up to it neglects any reference to the many right-wing celebs that actually have entertained the notion of “running America.” For instance, Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Fred Thompson, Sonny Bono, Fred Grandy, George Murphy, and more. And we rarely hear anything but praise from the anti-Hollywood chorus for conservatives in the Biz like Tom Selleck, Dennis Miller, Patricia Heaton, Ted Nugent, Bruce Willis, Toby Keith, etc.

Reel Politics will air in conjunction with a Fox/Opinion Dynamics poll that surveyed the nation’s preferences for a celebrity president (a post that, I remind you, none of them seek). Amongst the field offered, Clint Eastwood and Oprah Winfrey led with 32% and 30% respectively. No other “candidate” made it into double digits (although, amongst Republicans only, Mel Gibson did pull a frightening 18%). It is also notable that 71% of Republicans think most Hollywood movies reflect a liberal viewpoint. That compares with 26% of Democrats and 36% of Independents. If you needed additional proof that Republicans are either out of touch with mainstream America or brainwashed, there you have it.

In the end, the only thing Fox is interested in here, is the opportunity to take another swipe at creative people who have the audacity to pursue what is, in fact, their mission in life: to express themselves. Disguising this assault on free expression with comedy only makes it all the more insidious. (And we’ve seen how they massacre comedy: The 1/2 Hour News Hour). And for repressive critics, like those at Fox, it is only artists who should be censured for having opinions and daring to utter them aloud. As I’ve written before in “Join The Art Insurgency:”

The obvious extension of [shut up and sing] is that anyone who does any job other than serving in Congress is unqualified to have an opinion about what our government does in our name. Just try changing the word “sing” with the word “farm” or “teach” or “weld.” This is unadulterated elitist bullshit. If we’re qualified to vote them into office, then we’re qualified to comment on the job they are doing.

“Shut up and sing” is just a longhand way of saying “Shut up.” And they mean all of us. If your son was killed in Iraq, Ms. Sheehan, shut up and grieve. If civil liberties are eroded by Congress, shut up and obey. If terrorists fly jets into skyscrapers, shut up and shop.

But I’ve got bad news for them. We won’t submit to their tyranny. We won’t whither under their lash. We won’t tolerate censorship. And we most definitely will not shut up.

For Reference:

• This CBS poll also also surveys the public attitude toward celebrities in politics.
• Fox says that you will “laugh-out-loud” at these hypothetical campaign commericals. Fox must think the Paint Drying Channel is funny.

There is seemingly no subject on which professional know-it-all, Bill O’Reilly, does not consider himself to be an expert (and no subject on which he actually is). Last March, wearing his music biz (dunce) cap, he predicted that the Dixie Chicks’ soon-to-be-released CD, “Taking The Long Way,” was destined to fail. He said at the time that it would sell “2 million tops.”

Let’s see how he’s doing.

Taking The Long Way:

• is certified double platinum.
• finished the year 9th in overall sales.
• is still on the Billboard 200.
• is still on the Billboard Country 25.
• nominated for 5 Grammys.

For those not in the biz, double platinum means sales of 2 million. So they have already reached what O’Reilly thought would be their peak (in just 7 months). They are assurred of blowing past that number considering that they are still on the charts and the Grammys nods will boost sales as well. If they win, all the better. Plus, they will be performing in the Grammy broadcast on February 11.

So this is proof that O’Reilly is a fraudulent moron with a talent for being wrong and embarrassing himself. Not exactly a revelation, but still…..

Update: The Dixie Chicks swept all 5 categories for which they were nominated in the Grammy Awards last night. Already on Amazon.com, the CD is #1 for Country and #2 for overall sales. Natalie Maines from one of the acceptance speeches:

“I think people are using their freedom of speech here tonight with all of these awards,” Maines said in accepting the album of the year nod. “We get the message. There’s a lot of awesome music this year and fantastic performances. I’m very humbled. I think people were using their voice the same way this loudmouth did.”

Suck on it Bill-O.

Last year Stephen Colbert delivered what will probably be the most memorable comic presentation that the White House Correspondent’s Association will ever see. He showed up in character as the bombastic pundit that presides over his Colbert Report. And throughout the routine he pounded the media just as much as he did the president. Here’s an excerpt:

“But, listen, let’s review the rules. Here’s how it works: the president makes decisions. He’s the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put ’em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know – fiction!” [Transcript] [Video]

Apparently the Colbert experience was too much for the WHCA. This year they have elected to go with the comfort food of comedy, Rich Little. The lasting legacy of Colbert’s performance may be that the WHCA may never have another poignant and provocative guest speaker. But not only did they book Little this year, they have also instructed him to layoff of the President. Says Little:

“They don’t want anyone knocking the president. He’s really over the coals right now, and he’s worried about his legacy.”

The latest salvo in this feud has Steve Scully. president of the WHCA, denying that any conditions were imposed on Little. If true, that would make Little a liar. But Scully’s statements have there own inconsistencies. After explaining to Little that the dinner is attended by, “people who live and eat politics,” he later critiques Colbert as being, “very sophisticated and if you’ve not seen his show you may not get it.” With Little, Scully added, “you don’t have to explain his humor.”

So Scully’s opinion of his White House press colleagues is that they are immersed in politics but incapable of understanding sophisticated political humor without an explanation. His opinion suggests that, despite going to all of the right congressional hearings and cocktail parties, they still don’t have a clue as to what’s going on.

Come to think of it, that’s my opinion of them too.

In it’s homage to You, TIME informs us that it is no longer…

“the powerful and the famous who shape our collective destiny as a species.”

As a member of a species whose collective destiny is in dire need of reshaping, this news is received with cautious optimism.

Along with the Internet there has come a surge in popularity for collaborative media. The problem with TIME’s analysis is that it’s several years too late. 2006 was a great year for YouTube, but all of the other examples cited, from MySpace to Wikipedia, and a bounty of blogs, were viable and growing long before TIME’s taking notice this year. You could easily go back to the presidential primaries of 2004, when candidates and independent advocates were organizing and fundraising, to observe this new media’s maturing significance. And that significance extends far beyond the trivialities of MySpace, restaurant reviews, and other leisure activities on which TIME seems to focus. There’s nary a mention of citizen media or education.

TIME itself captures the award for cop-out of the year by declining to honor any of the people that made these innovations possible, choosing instead to praise everyone, no matter what their level of participation. So I assume that the producers of the lonelygirl15 videos on YouTube are partying right along with former Rep. Mark Foley (R-Perv), an avid social networker.

Furthermore, by choosing You, TIME rejected other candidates for “the person who most affected the news or our lives, for good or for ill, this year,” Candidates like Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, with his growing influence in the Middle East and nuclear aspirations; Al Gore, whose documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” rocked the eco-house; or even the founders of the year’s true web sensation, YouTube. That’s right – TIME threw over all of that as well as Iraq, Darfur, North Korea, and the Democratic takeover of Congress, for You. You, lounging on your sofa in your underwear with a bag of Fritos in your lap. And You, cowering in your cubicle hoping your boss doesn’t catch you reading this. And You, trying to figure out how to attach this to an email to 400 of your dearest friends. (Hint: Just use this link). You’re all Person of the Year.

Given the rank absurdity of this selection, why then did TIME choose You? Seriously, I know You and, frankly, I’m not impressed.

The explanation starts with the magazine’s inability to perceive its own demise. TIME is an old media, dead tree, anachronism, grasping for relevancy in a world that is passing them by. So they are paying their respects to the new Electronic Godfather on the block with the hope that it will keep their little shop safe. At the same time, they are putting everyone who picks up their magazine at a newstand on the cover. I think they really believe that if you see yourself in the strip of mylar stuck to the surface, that you’ll be unable to resist forking over five bucks for your own copy.

Perhaps the most profound revelation in TIME’s essay about You, is the part where they admit that…

“You can learn more about how Americans live just by looking at the backgrounds of YouTube videos-those rumpled bedrooms and toy-strewn basement rec rooms-than you could from 1,000 hours of network television.”

Those of you who’ve seen 1,000 hours of network television know only too well how true that is (and you may want to leave the apartment once in a while). But I’m not sure whether that’s a tribute to YouTube or an indictment of television. Well, actually I am sure.