Sarah Palin: Conservative Of The Year

Posted by on December 23, 2008 at 6:43 pm. 4 Comments :

The uber-conservative Human Events Magazine has named Sarah Palin its “Conservative of the Year,” and I couldn’t agree more. Palin exemplifies the vacuous philosophy of Republican politics. Her strident anti-intellectualism, blind faith, and personal corruption are the hallmarks of her Party and stand as testimony to her worthiness for this honor.

The tribute paid to Palin by Human Events was authored by another icon of rightist infamy: Ann Coulter. In the opening sentence of the article, Coulter identifies Palin’s key attribute as “her genius at annoying all the right people.” I’ll defer to Coulter on this since annoying people is a talent for which she has no peer. As proof of this, Coulter devotes most of her column, not to praising Palin, but to slamming McCain, Obama, and Democrats in general. About McCain’s selection of Palin, Coulter says…

“I assume Palin was chosen because McCain had heard that she was a real conservative and he had always wanted to meet one — no, actually because he needed a conservative on the ticket, but that he had no idea that picking her would send the left into a tailspin of wanton despair. “

Aside from the insult to McCain, Coulter totally misread the response from the left. It was quite apparent that the left could not have been more thrilled with McCain’s choice of a theo-con nitwit that believed geographical proximity was a measure of one’s grasp of foreign policy. Palin does have her supporters. Polls amongst Republicans show that 64% want Palin to run for president in 2012. I haven’t seen a similar poll of Democrats, but I would venture to guess that 100% would want to see Palin run in four years. I sure do.

What becomes obvious in Coulter’s homage is that she has a serious crush on Palin, referring to her at one point as “our beauteous Sarah” and later waxing poetic about “her beautiful head.” But it was not enough for Coulter to champion the object of her affection, she also had to attack the women who threaten her:

“Democrats may have a fleet of women politicians, but they don’t have a deep bench of attractive ones. You don’t even think of most Democratic woman as women.”

Classy as always, Coulter continued by disputing, even ridiculing, the contention that Palin was not accessible to the media. Of course, Palin’s aversion to the press was well documented. During the campaign she didn’t hold a single press conference, she never appeared on a Sunday news program, and most of the rare interviews to which she agreed where conducted by friendly inquisitors like Sean Hannity. It was only when she sat down with relatively neutral reporters like Charlie Gibson that she embarrassed herself. But the funny thing about Coulter’s assertion that Palin was readily available to the press is that Palin herself denies it. In an interview with Human Events accompanying her award, Palin laments…

“…the opportunities that were not seized to speak to more Americans via media. I was not allowed to do very many interviews, and the interviews that I did were not necessarily those I would have chosen.”

So not only does Palin confirm her press scarcity, she reveals that it was because she was not permitted out of her bubble by her handlers. On this point I have to score one for the handlers. Clearly they knew what they were doing. Palin was so plainly unprepared, she could only hurt her cause. On this, surprisingly, Coulter seems to agree, but doesn’t care:

“Who cares if Palin was qualified to be President? She was running with John McCain! There was no chance that ticket was going to place her anywhere near the presidency.”

On the contrary, putting Palin on a ticket with a 72 year old man who has had four bouts with cancer is placing her very near the presidency indeed. But Coulter apparently discounts the need for any vice-president at all and, therefore, an inadequate one is no disgrace. And Coulter goes even further to extinguish Palin’s flame by disparaging her experience and advising her to sit out 2012 in order to “become wiser and better read.”

Now that’s the kind of testimonial that justifies an award for Conservative of the Year. Even the author of the tribute thinks Palin is a cerebrally deficient lightweight who is ill-prepared for leadership. And yet, by Republican standards, she ranks above all of the other conservatives in meriting this award.

Congratulations Sarah.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Why Christmas Matters To Bill O’Reilly

Posted by on December 21, 2008 at 2:16 am. 1 Comments :

In his Talking Points Memo this week, Bill O’Reilly endeavored to describe a matter that must be very dear and personal for him: Why Christmas Matters.

Uncle SantaSo with an earnestness that befit the occasion, he began by talking about his TV ratings and why his viewers, who are insufficiently alarmed by the War on Christmas, are wrong:

“While our ratings have been very high this month, some viewers have written to me complaining we’re over-covering the Christmas controversies. They say the subject really isn’t that important. Well, they’re wrong.”

Apparently O’Reilly has gotten over his suspicion that the Nielsen ratings were conspiring against him. Last October he unleashed a paranoid rant directed at Nielsen that included an absurd threat:

“The bottom line on this is there may be some big-time cheating going on in the ratings system, and we hope the feds will investigate.”

Of course, the Feds have nothing to do with private market research firms, so let’s get back to the importance of Christmas. O’Reilly proceeds to explain how Christmas was made officially into a holiday in 1870 as a measure to unite a nation that had been bitterly torn by civil war. Surprisingly, he actually got the basics facts about this right. However, he thoroughly mangled the interpretation saying…

“…President Grant realized that Christmas was one of the few things that Americans had in common, that just about everybody back then respected the holidays.”

Actually, there were significant differences at the time, with some Christian denominations discounting the December feast as a remnant of Paganism. But more to the point, Grant was not seeking to sanctify a date that everyone respected. He was merely trying to find one that a majority would tolerate. He previously rejected Easter as being too overtly religious, and the Fourth of July for having too close an association with a Yankee victory. So the Christmas holiday was not a commemoration of a shared faith in God – it was a calculated, political compromise.

That doesn’t stop O’Reilly and his ilk from glorifying the occasion and disparaging those who truly seek unity and inclusiveness. He says that the “extremely vicious” secular progressives are out to diminish religion. On the other hand, O’Reilly considers himself a stalwart defender of faith. As evidence he offers up a sales pitch for his book “Culture Warrior,” and claims to be prevailing over what sounds like a nocturnal, Zombie army:

“…we are up against some very bad people. Thanks to you, we destroy them every night.”

Despite destroying them every night he also claims that they “have made huge gains.” An interesting and absurd contradiction. What then is O’Reilly fighting for? He has previously hailed Christmas as a celebration of holy consumerism:

“Every company in America should be on its knees thanking Jesus for being born. Without Christmas, most American businesses would be far less profitable.”

Now that’s a sentiment that just oozes with the season’s warmth, joy, and humanity. But what more can you expect from a man that considers himself proof of the existence of God:

“Next time you meet an atheist, tell him or her that you know [me]. Then, while the non-believer is digesting all that, ask him or her if they still don’t believe there’s a God!”

And just a couple of days ago, O’Reilly was promoting his new book, “A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity,” on the Christian Broadcasting Network, where he was asked if he considers himself “someone who has a personal relationship with Jesus?”

“I don’t look at it that way. My whole theology is based upon what I believe I’m here to do on earth. I believe I was given talent. I don’t believe it just happened because a meteorite crashed into the world and all of this is just luck. I believe I’m here for a reason, that I was blessed with talent.”

So O’Reilly’s whole theology is based on himself and his alleged talent. And that’s the Culture Warrior who is promising to save Christmas and the rightful place of religion in American society. That’s the self-centered, ego-maniacal demagogue who is intent on convincing us that…

“There’s a struggle going on to redefine America. And in 2009, that struggle will become even more intense.”

Yes, that’s the expression of Yuletide spirit that unites all people. O’Reilly, in this rant, has revealed himself for what he is – a narcissistic, self-promoter who thrives on division and an imagined sense of superiority. He is an opportunistic provocateur who cannot exist without conflict. He must nourish hostility to survive.

And that’s Why Christmas Matters to Bill O’Reilly.


Fox Business Network Sues U. S. Treasury

Posted by on December 19, 2008 at 11:09 am. 2 Comments :

The U. S. Department of the Treasury is taking on friendly fire. The Fox Business Network has just announced that they are suing them to force the disclosure of information about the Wall Street bailout and how the funds are being used. FBN filed a Freedom of Information Act request last month, but the Treasury’s failure to respond has prompted this more aggressive action. In a press release, FOX News Executive Vice President, Kevin Magee, said…

“The Treasury has repeatedly ignored our requests for information on how the government is allocating money to these troubled institutions. In a critical time like this amidst mounting corruptions and an economic crisis, we as a news organization feel it’s more important than ever to hold the government accountable.”

While I have to applaud the spunk of FBN for turning on its master, there a couple of funny things in Magee’s statement:

  1. …we as a news organization…
  2. …hold the government accountable…

The first item, of course, has never been proven, and is disputed by most reputable journalism analysts. The second item raises the question as to why Fox has never before sought accountability from the Bush administration. Perhaps Magee’s revelation that accountability is now “more important than ever” was triggered by the imminent inauguration of President-elect Barack Obama.

Nevertheless, it will be interesting to see if they follow through and extract anything useful from government bean counters. Well, “counters” may be too generous a description for the unsupervised and reckless bean scattering that the Feds have engaged in. But it’s nice to know that Fox is on the job with muckraking broadcasts like this.


Labor Secretary Designee Hilda Solis On The Media

Posted by on December 19, 2008 at 1:53 am. NO Comments :

President-elect Barack Obama announced today that he will nominate Rep. Hilda Solis (D-CA) to be his Secretary of Labor. Solis has a solid record of advocacy for workers and unions. She has fought for the protection of minimum wage laws and for workplace health and safety. She has creatively combined her interests in the working class and the environment to produce legislation that promotes the creation of “green” jobs. She appears to have precisely the sort of experience and commitment to undue the damage of the Bush Labor Department and set the nation on a more productive and compassionate course. But wait, there’s more…

Solis also serves on the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, which gives her a firm background in matters of the media. In that regard she has been a vocal proponent of increasing diversity in the media and for creating more opportunities for women and minorities.

Solis endorsed the Free Press study that exposed how consolidation in the radio industry narrowed the range of expression on the air and in the management suites. She also challenged the FCC and its Bush appointed chairman, Kevin Martin, to look into media ownership issues. She worked with Media Matters on a project that identified how right-wing broadcasters like Lou Dobbs, Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck were propagating racist myths about immigration.

In short, were it not for her exemplary credentials in the field of Labor, Solis would have made a great FCC commissioner. But even as Labor Secretary there are areas that overlap with the media, and Solis has already proven herself to be a leader in that regard. And it certainly won’t hurt to have her voice in Cabinet meetings when the subject of the media comes up.


Media Reform Alliance Presses Obama To Keep His Word

Posted by on December 18, 2008 at 1:07 pm. NO Comments :

Free Press has assembled over 100 media reform organizations and activists to sign a letter to President-elect Barack Obama that asks, in essence, for him to implement the media agenda that he articulated in his campaign. What follows is from the press release issued by Free Press:

We congratulate you for putting crucial media and technology issues in the public spotlight. Not only did your campaign embrace new technology and innovative media, you have embraced these values in your policy agenda. Your commitment and detailed plan represent a fundamental shift toward communications policy in the public interest. We happily offer our support and service in pursuit of our common goals.

We look forward to working with the leaders you will appoint to the White House, such as the Chief Technology Officer, the positions on the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, Corporation of Public Broadcasting and in the Commerce, Education, Justice and Agriculture departments. We urge you to select strong proponents of the public interest who will embrace and enact the policy proposals you made on the campaign trail to shape the future of the media, the Internet, the economy — and our democracy.

Together, we have a unique opportunity to break with the past, lift the stranglehold industry lobbyists have had on communications policy, and put the public’s priorities first. In your own words, you pledged:

  • Protect an Open Internet: To “take a backseat to no one in my commitment to Net Neutrality” and “protect the Internet’s traditional openness to innovation and creativity and ensure that it remains a platform for free speech and innovation that will benefit consumers and our democracy.”
  • Promote Universal, Affordable Broadband: To see that “in the country that invented the Internet, every child should have the chance to get online” by bringing “true broadband to every community in America.”
  • Diversify Media Ownership: To create “the diverse media environment that federal law requires and the country deserves.”
  • Renew Public Media: To foster “the next generation of public media,” and “support the transition of existing public broadcasting entities and help renew their founding vision in the digital world.”
  • Spur Economic Growth: To “strengthen America’s competitiveness in the world” and leverage technology “to grow the economy, create jobs, and solve our country’s most pressing problems.”
  • Ensure Open Government: To reverse “policies that favor the few against the public interest,” close” the revolving door between government and industry,” and achieve “a new level of transparency, accountability and participation for America’s citizens.”

The more than one hundred people who signed onto this letter — and the millions more we represent in our organizations, workplaces and communities — join your call to create a more vibrant and diverse media system and to deliver the benefits of the open Internet and new technology to all Americans.

That is an ambitious and commendable agenda, and one that we all must work hard to pursue. It is very easy for a new administration to get bogged down in competing priorities, particularly in challenging times such as we are enduring today. And it is easy for politicians to abandon principles in the face of opposition or in the name of compromise. That is a pattern that both Obama and the Democratic Party has displayed far too often.

However, despite the obvious severity of our nation’s present condition – economic turmoil, multiple wars, environmental calamity, legal and Constitutional decay, etc. – media reform must remain at the top of the priority list. The solutions to every problem that threatens America’s well being relies on the participation of the people in the process. The media provides the only channel to communicate and educate on a mass scale, and without it there can be no progress. It is, therefore, critical that we shape the media in a fashion that promotes independence, diversity, and respect for openness and honesty.

The Obama agenda, as articulated by him, is a good model for how to proceed. Now he (and we) need to follow through.


Fox Greetings: May Your What Be What?

Posted by on December 17, 2008 at 4:03 pm. NO Comments :

The corporate headquarters for the War On Christmas is sending out their seasoned greetings, but the message may be getting somewhat muddled.

First of all, the wishes being conveyed are not for Christmas at all, but for some vague, unspecified “holiday.” And the graphic treatment of the message makes clear that what Fox is really wishing for is a season of conservative ideology and partisanship.

That’s the spirit!

There are more examples of the Fox holiday spirit at Jossip, where they received cards that exploit the joy of this season to make nasty comments about their competitors.

As the say at News Corp: “Tis the season to be assholes.”

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

The Wall Street Journal And Network Neutrality

Posted by on December 16, 2008 at 2:18 am. NO Comments :

An article in the Wall Street Journal is reporting that prominent advocates of Network Neutrality are reversing or softening their positions on the concept of treating all Internet traffic equally. The authors go into some depth in support of their contention that the movement is losing steam. And they name names.

“Google Inc. has approached major cable and phone companies that carry Internet traffic with a proposal to create a fast lane for its own content…”

“Microsoft Corp. and Yahoo Inc. have withdrawn quietly from a coalition formed two years ago to protect network neutrality.”

“In addition, prominent Internet scholars, some of whom have advised President-elect Barack Obama on technology issues, have softened their views on the subject.”

“Lawrence Lessig, an Internet law professor at Stanford University and an influential proponent of network neutrality, recently shifted gears by saying at a conference that content providers should be able to pay for faster service.”

Unfortunately for the WSJ, almost everyone they cite denies the conclusions the article draws and affirms their commitment to Network Neutrality.

Google: Despite the hyperbolic tone and confused claims in Monday’s Journal story, I want to be perfectly clear about one thing: Google remains strongly committed to the principle of net neutrality, and we will continue to work with policymakers in the years ahead to keep the Internet free and open.

Barack Obama: The Obama transition team is reaffirming his complete commitment to net neutrality and is disputing a much-discussed report today claiming that the President-elect is softening his support for it or shifting his position on it.

Lawrence Lessig: I don’t know what Google is doing, though if they are trying to negotiate exclusive deals for privileged access, that shows exactly why we need network neutrality regulation […] I’ve not seen anything during the Obama campaign or from the transition to indicate it has shifted its view about network neutrality at all.

Perhaps the only position correctly reported in the WSJ story is that Yahoo and Microsoft have strayed from the pro-Network Neutrality crowd. However, that separation occurred two years ago when they tightened their relationships with Telecom companies and was therefore, not a new development as the Journal implied.

So why would the Journal so badly mangle this story? They obviously didn’t bother to seek comments from the people or companies they quoted. Reporting the accurate positions of these parties would not have been difficult to do. Instead, the misquoted parties had to find other forums to set the record straight after the Journal had already hit the streets.

It would be easy to blame this shoddy work on the new Wall Street Journal as envisioned by its new owner, tabloid merchant Rupert Murdoch. But it goes deeper than that. The main companies that oppose Network Neutrality are the big Telecom and Cable businesses. Murdoch’s News Corp is heavily dependent on them for distribution of his television networks. He launched his Fox Business Network one year ago and it is still struggling for carriage. It presently passes less than half the homes of its primary competitor, CNBC. Do you think that Murdoch might be interested in getting AT & T, Comcast, Time Warner, etc., to put FBN on all of their systems? Do you think that he might like to get favored treatment and channel space for Fox News, FX, Fox Sports, National Geographic, and the rest of his cable properties?

And the big question: Do you think that Murdoch would use his Wall Street Journal to lobby for the interests of his other business assets? Of course he would – he’s Rupert Murdoch.


George W. Bush: Lame. Duck!

Posted by on December 14, 2008 at 2:18 pm. 7 Comments :

On what George Bush must think is his victory lap, the president surprised the country he destroyed with one last visit before he slips off into irrelevancy. However, during a press conference with Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki, one of the reporters slipped off his shoes and hurled them at Bush.

After the incident, Bush dismissed it saying that it was merely “one way of getting attention.” But in the Middle East, the symbolism of shoes is much deeper than that. Even crossing your legs in a manner that shows the sole of your shoe to someone is considered a supreme insult.

Take this, Bushie…



The Wall Street Journal After A Year With Murdoch

Posted by on December 13, 2008 at 2:30 pm. NO Comments :

It was one year ago today that the Dow Jones Company, parent of the Wall Street Journal, agreed to be acquired by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. That transaction marked another step in the shrinking universe of media ownership. Specifically, it was the consumption of a revered publishing institution by a voracious international megalopoly. So what did the Bancroft family and other shareholders get for their greedy acquiescence to the power-mad mogul?

One year ago, the $60.00 per share offer from News Corp was about a 67% premium over Dow Jones’ then current price. Anyone who immediately liquidated their holdings following the transaction (which no one did) would have made a nice profit. Everyone else just watched as their fortunes shriveled up. The parent of Fox News has declined 60% in the past year. That means that the $5 billion dollars spent on Dow Jones has a current value of $2 billion. That’s not a particularly impressive performance.

As for Murdoch’s financial fate, rather than adding a $5 billion asset to his empire, his company’s market cap declined $32 billion – that’s more than six times what he spent on Dow Jones.

Now it would be easy to blame this all on the economic collapse, and certainly that plays a significant part. The only problem is that News Corp fell further than any of its competitors.

Company % Decline
News Corp 60
New York Times 55
Washington Post 50
Time Warner 44
Dow Jones Index 35
Disney 29

From a financial perspective, it doesn’t appear that the folks at Dow Jones made a particularly sound decision. While it’s impossible to say where these investments would be had News Corp not come along, it seems that they would have done no worse than the rest of the field. The difference is that they would still have their independence. They would not have had their publisher replaced by a Murdoch loyalist from England. And they would not have been ordered to shorten their stories and shift their focus from business to general news so that Murdoch could taunt his enemies at the New York Times (which he is also now rumored to fancy).

Murdoch’s business prowess is widely exaggerated. His New York Post has lost money for the past decade – the whole time he has owned it. And his celebrated purchase of MySpace when it was the unchallenged leader in social networking, hasn’t really worked out so well. MySpace is now second to a surging Facebook. Fox News itself is consistently the slowest growing news network on cable TV.

The biggest advantage for a Dow Jones tie in with News Corp was the potential for a television platform. The Wall Street Journal badly missed out by allowing CNBC and Bloomberg to run away with that market. Murdoch of course has his new Fox Business Network, but due to contractual commitments with CNBC, he is not permitted to use the DJ assets. And by the time those contracts expire, the dismally low-rated FBN may be history.

So…all in all, Dow Jones probably would have been better off if they had left well enough alone. They lost some prominent and experienced talent when Murdoch took over. And although he is moving slowly, so as not to spook his staff and subscribers, we can still expect him to put his personal stamp on the enterprise by dumbing down the content to reach a broader market. That’s been his M.O. throughout his entire career and there are no signs that he is abandoning his affection for tabloid sensationalism and rightist propaganda.


Brit Hume Doesn’t Get The Internet – Or Journalism

Posted by on December 12, 2008 at 3:26 am. 5 Comments :

It’s a good thing that Brit Hume has already announced his retirement. When the primary anchor and managing editor of the Washington bureau for Fox News has such a total misconception of modern media, it is well past time for him to leave the scene. On the December 11 broadcast of the Fox News Special Report, Hume led off his Political Grapevine segment with this:

“The Obama-Biden transition team has launched a new feature on its Web site called “Open for Questions” which is designed to be an open forum for users to ask policy and issue questions. However, it is subject to what amounts to censorship by other users because the more votes an entry gets the higher it moves on the overall list. But some questions are being downplayed by Obama supporters who are trying to remove the entries entirely.”

Someone needs to explain to the old feller what “community moderation” is on social networks. They could start by telling Grandpa Hume that it is sort of like Democracy. He may remember what that is.

The whole point of the Open For Questions project is to solicit the public’s views on what issues the new administration should pursue. By allowing people to vote on the suggestions submitted, it presents a community consensus of what ought to take priority. But Hume is complaining that some comments were poorly received, or even flagged as inappropriate. He cites as an example this question:

“Is Barack Obama aware of any communications in the last six weeks between Rod Blagojevich or anyone representing Rod Blagojevich and any of Obama’s top aides?”

That may be interesting question if you’re a Republican toady trying to smear Obama, but it is not a policy suggestion for the President-elect. So it should come as no surprise that it would not rate highly, and that it might even be deemed inappropriate. It is certainly irrelevant and a distraction from the topic at hand.

Nevertheless, Hume’s assertion that the results of the public’s voting amounts to censorship is both ridiculous and utterly false. While some instances of the Blagojevich question were removed as inappropriate, many more remain on the site – just farther down the list. What’s more, commentary that went even further off topic, and could only be characterized as intentionally disruptive (not to mention immature), was also available for all to read. For instance…

  • Will Rev. Wright sing God (bleep) America at your inauguration?
  • Besides Rezko, the governor, and Bill Ayers, are there any other crooks you associated yourself with that we need to know about?
  • Are you a Muslim Terrorist in disguise? I do not believe you are American, prove it to us!
  • Is Michelle proud of America now that you are the president-elect?
  • Did you beat Clinton ’cause for the Dems it’s Bros befo’ Hos?
  • Are you a natural born citizen and if so will you show an authentic birth certificate?
  • Is it hard to be such a fucking phony all the time?

The fact that none of these items were removed proves that there is no censorship being practiced on the web site. It also proves that there are a lot of childish Republican smart asses clogging up the blogosphere. More to the point, it proves that Brit Hume is a lousy reporter and a flagrant promoter of disinformation. It took me all of fifteen minutes to compile this list. What kind of reporter is Hume if he cannot even use the search function provided on the web page to look for any information except that which affirms his predetermined view?

The transparency of Hume’s agenda driven ravings is testimony to the lie that Fox News is fair and balanced. It is further confirmation that Hume and his colleagues are dishonest and brazen purveyors of propaganda. And it is evidence that Hume is past his prime and unable to keep up with advances in new media. The sooner he trades in his anchor’s chair for a rocking chair the better. Buh bye, Brit.

Update: It appears that Hume’s source for his non-reporting is Ben Smith at Politico. Smith made the same inane accusation of censorship a day before Hume.