The Great Suppression: Republicans Clampdown On Art

The Republican Party likes to pretend that they are the defenders of individual freedom in America. Of course, that is a pretense that has never true. Their vocal protestations about government being “on your back” only apply to regulations aimed at corporations and taxes on the wealthy. The GOP has no problem with government leaping onto the backs of women seeking reproductive health care, or gays who want equality in marriage and military service, or kids who want to attend school without someone else’s religion forced down their souls.

In short, the GOP wants businesses to have the absolute freedom to run rampant over a population that is straight-jacketed by federal guardians of morality. And that constricting philosophy extends to the free expression of artists as well. Conservatives have long-held the view that the creative community is dangerous and subversive, and they must be silenced. They acted on those views when they blacklisted artists in the 1940’s and 1950’s. And today they are pressing hard to shut down public broadcasting and the National Endowment for the Arts. But it doesn’t stop there.

There have been some recent incidents that ought to stir outrage among Americans who value free expression and the First Amendment to the Constitution. Public figures have been stepping on the rights of artists in an official capacity and it is repugnant and un-American.


A few years ago, Secretary of State Colin Powell was scheduled to give a speech at the United Nations to make the case by the Bush administration for going to war against Iraq. Prior to the speech he had aides cover up a tapestry depicting Picasso’s painting, Guernica. Powell was not going to make an argument for war in front of such a powerful and iconic anti-war statement.

Bush’s Attorney General, John Ashcroft, held press conferences in the Justice Department in a hall where the statue “Spirit of Justice” had stood for decades. In 2002 he ordered that the statue, a female representation of justice with one bare breast exposed, be covered by a drape. It’s not clear whether he was worried more about this being embarrassing or arousing.

Earlier this year, Paul LePage, the governor of Maine, had a mural removed from the Maine Department of Labor. The mural depicted scenes of Maine’s working citizens and the history of labor in the state. Obviously it has no business taking up space in the Labor Department.

And just this week, Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin removed a painting from the governor’s residence. The painting was of children from diverse backgrounds and was meant to remind the residents of that home, which belongs to the people of Wisconsin, of the impact their work has real families. Now Walker won’t have to be concerned with that unless he runs into some in person, in which case he’ll have much more to be concerned about.

The brazen insensitivity of public officials censoring messages that were meant to inspire openness and a devotion to service is appalling. These people are not only offending the artists and the citizens whose views are being represented, they are astonishingly tone-deaf to the political backlash that was easily anticipated.

Republicans can’t seem to get enough censorship. It weaves through the party from state houses to the White House. There is even a current speculative candidate for the GOP nomination for presidency in 2012 who has a low regard for free speech.

Rudy Giuliani: An exhibition of paintings is not as communicative as speech, literature or live entertainment, and the artists’ constitutional interest is thus minimal.

That was Giuliani arguing in court to ban artists from displaying their work on the streets of New York City. His argument is that, while evangelists predicting the end of the world and banjo pluckers strumming out strains of My Clementine are protected by the Constitution, artists are not. That’s all America needs now is a president who doesn’t think that art is communication or that it is protected by the Constitution. Welcome to the Dark Ages.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

FLASHBACK: Pope Preaches Media Ethics

I just stumbled on this article I wrote in January 2008, while searching for something else. I am reposting it here for no good reason other than that the message from the Vatican is just so damn awesome, unexpected, and rarely told.


Who knew that the Roman Catholic Church observed something called “World Communications Day”? Well they do, and the theme for the 42nd annual observance to be held on May 4, 2008, was addressed in a speech by Pope Benedict XVI. He had some interesting things to say about the media. To begin with he recognizes the massive shadow cast by modern media conglomerates.

“Truly, there is no area of human experience, especially given the vast phenomenon of globalization, in which the media have not become an integral part of interpersonal relations and of social, economic, political and religious development.”

He goes on to warn that the media’s potential for positive contributions in society can be undermined by their basest tendencies, and that they…

“…risk being transformed into systems aimed at subjecting humanity to agendas dictated by the dominant interests of the day. This is what happens when communication is used for ideological purposes or for the aggressive advertising of consumer products.”

He is starting to sound like a fairly radical advocate for reform. He introduces the notion of “info-ethics” that, like bio-ethics, would serve as a guide in the practice of principled journalism. But he isn’t through yet.

“We must ask, therefore, whether it is wise to allow the instruments of social communication to be exploited for indiscriminate ‘self-promotion’ or to end up in the hands of those who use them to manipulate consciences. Should it not be a priority to ensure that they remain at the service of the person and of the common good…”

Well that settles it. The Pope has fallen in with the subversives who are calling for a wholesale restructuring of media’s place in society. A key goal of reformers is to insure that the media does not “end up in the hands” of manipulators and those who fail to acknowledge an obligation to the public interest. And if that’s not enough, tell me that this isn’t a slap at Fox News:

“Today, communication seems increasingly to claim not simply to represent reality, but to determine it, owing to the power and the force of suggestion that it possesses.”

Alright, maybe I’m reading a bit too much into that, but if I had presented it as a quote from Bill Moyers or Bob McChesney, it would have been entirely believable. The same would be true for the following:

“The media must avoid becoming spokesmen for economic materialism and ethical relativism, true scourges of our time. Instead, they can and must contribute to making known the truth about humanity, and defending it against those who tend to deny or destroy it.”

I couldn’t have said it better myself. It’s great to see a mainstream spiritual leader like this articulate an agenda that is so anti-materialism and pro-truth. I wonder if the faithful will get behind these ideas and pursue, with a missionary zeal, the reform of a system that demeans humanity and freedom of thought and will.


Andrew Breitbart Is Offended (And Offensive)

The New York Times interviewed Andrew Breitbart about the Anthony Weiner affair on Saturday. He attempted to strike a non-partisan tone saying that…

“I am as offended when John Ensign acts like an idiot, when Chris Lee acts like an idiot.”

However, the Times failed to note that Breitbart’s BigGovernment blog did not publish a single story about the travails of either Ensign or Lee. Not one single story. How offended was he?

Compare that to his obsession with Weiner that produced 17 separate stories and consumed every single headline on his masthead (except for the plug for his lame book), and that was four days after the story broke.

Obviously Breitbart was not as offended by the sexcapades of Ensign and Lee as he was about Weiner. He was lying as usual. And as usual the Times, our so-called liberal mainstream media, was clueless and unable to set the record straight. That’s how Breitbart gets away with being a dishonest slug and propagating his horse manure brand of pseudo-journalism.

[This is partially excerpted from an article I wrote for Alternet:
10 Reasons Andrew Breitbart Should Apologize (Or Just Shut Up and Go Away)]


Media Democrats Shouldn’t Run GOP Presidential Debates

The headline of this article is taken verbatim from the headline of an article by Hugh Hewitt in the Washington Examiner. If only Hewitt and his Republican pals actually meant it.

Hewitt’s complaint has to do with his conjecture that these “fine journalists…carry with them all the biases and predispositions of the mainstream media.” He presumes that inquiries posed at the debates will be designed to embarrass the candidates. He says they should…

“Expect the standard stunt questions on abortion in the event of rape or incest, weapons of mass destruction, evolution, global warming, or any of a dozen other dog whistles to the left designed to create the moment that replicates across the Web, that seeks to wound prospects by defining the GOP field as outside the mainstream.”

Hewitt seems to believe that only the liberal press would ask probing questions about these issues that form the basis of the Republican platform. Does Hewitt realize that he is insulting conservative inquisitors by insinuating that they would not ask the candidates about their positions on abortion, evolution, climate change, etc.? These are areas of intense interest to GOP voters who demand ideological purity. How could you have a GOP debate without addressing these subjects? Would Hewitt regard such questions as stunts if they were asked by George Will or Sean Hannity?

Hewitt further predicts that candidates would not be asked about national security, the economy, unemployment, or Medicare, by MSM panelists. How ever did he arrive at that conclusion? Has he ever seen a presidential debate before? And why would asking about abortion be a stunt question that is out of line, but not so asking about Medicare?

The funny thing is that Hewitt’s laments are rooted in delusion. The debate upcoming next week is being hosted by CNN and local media in New Hampshire. CNN is the network that has partnered with Tea Party Express for another debate scheduled for September. What more could they ask for? Does Hewitt regard the Tea Party as inappropriate for Republican campaign events?

Hewitt is not alone in worrying about Republicans interacting with imaginary liberals in the media. None other than Sarah Palin has been adamant about snubbing any media she regards as unfriendly. Last year she advised Delaware Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell, to “speak through Fox News.” And just last week she told Fox’s Greta Van Susteren, “I don’t think I owe anything to the mainstream media.”

Exactly. I would love to see Republicans take Palin’s and Hewitt’s concerns to heart. They ought to practice what they preach and decline any coverage from the MSM. They should stick to Fox News and talk radio venues like Hewitt’s and Rush Limbaugh.

Conversely, Democrats should steer clear of Fox. However, that suggestion was greeted with ridicule by Fox’s CEO Roger Ailes in 2007, when he said that “The candidates that can’t face Fox, can’t face Al Qaeda.” So what does that say about the candidates that can’t face CNN or any other alleged mainstream news enterprise?


Weiner Apologizes. When Will Andrew Breitbart Apologize?

Today Congressman Anthony Weiner held a press conference where he apologized for his “shameful” personal behavior. He said he was taking full responsibility for what he called “dumb” mistakes that included inappropriate communications on Facebook and Twitter and for lying about it when confronted.

There is no question that Weiner should and will suffer consequences for these serious lapses in judgment. But Weiner isn’t the only character in this morality play. The media must be held accountable for presenting the issue fairly. They must ask themselves whether this story is as critical to the American people as the debate over the debt ceiling, foreign wars and terrorism, and other pending matters of public concern. Of course it is going to be covered, but to what extent, for how long, and what issues will be displaced as a result?

The press must also seek to position it in context to prior similar events. If they raise questions as to whether Weiner, who broke no laws, ought to resign, they should also press GOP Congressman Ken Calvert and Senator David Vitter, both of whom illegally patronized prostitutes.

Another character in this melodrama is Andrew Breitbart who engaged in a bizarre hijacking of the Weiner press conference. He showed up at the hotel and commandeered the podium for nearly twenty minutes. He spent most of that time in a display of self-aggrandizement and bemoaning his victimhood. But if justice is to be served, Breitbart should be required to apologize for his part in disseminating purposefully deceitful videos smearing the reputations of ACORN and former USDA employee, Shirley Sherrod.

Just because Breitbart lucked into being correct (like a broken clock) doesn’t mean that his pattern of deception should be dismissed. Charles Manson can honestly testify that he had nothing to do with the death of Marilyn Monroe, but that doesn’t absolve him from his participation in other atrocities. Breitbart deserves no accolades over this, and he still owes the people he deliberately harmed an apology. Weiner, at least, was man enough to own up to his mistakes, eventually. If Breitbart exploits this matter for his own gain, I predict it will backfire on Republicans, simply because Breitbart is such a repulsive figure that he will produce more disgust than support.

The tabloid circus surrounding this is going to heat up for a few days. Smarmy, holier-than-thou martinets of virtue will speak out while hypocritically suppressing information that reflects poorly on themselves. Glenn Beck, not surprisingly, has leaped to the front of that line, spending the opening minutes of his program railing against Weiner. And equally unsurprising, Beck failed to note that he previously was engaged in a public feud with Weiner over investigations into the corrupt practices of his sponsor, Goldline. Again, Weiner’s misbehavior does not absolve Beck or Goldline of their own malfeasance.

Let’s see if we can get through the next week without ignoring some of the serious matters that face our nation. We have to address the budget and the Republican threat to Medicare. We have to deal with unemployment, energy, the environment, and funding for programs like education and infrastructure. Our country has a lot on its plate that is more important than the overactive libido of a New York congressman. Will we rise to that challenge?


News Corpse Part Of Soros-Funded Echo Chamber?

The ultra-rightist Media Research Center has just completed its four part series purporting to reveal the truth about the George Soros domination of the media. The series was authored by the MRC’s Boone Pickens Fellow, Dan Gainor. The first three parts of Gainor’s project were laughably muddled dissertations on an imagined world ruled by the omnipotent Soros.

The allegations submitted thus far put Soros at the helm of a network of dozens of “major media organizations” with a reach of over 300 million people worldwide. The only problem with Gainor’s theory is that he never proves any it. The entire series is based on phony assumptions, ludicrous extrapolations and tangential associations. For instance, Gainor’s idea of a major media organization is the Center for Investigative Reporting, which is not exactly the New York Times or CNN. What’s more, it is also supported by Rupert Murdoch, whose Times of London is a CIR affiliate. Gainor also lists NPR as beholden to Soros despite the fact that his total contribution to the radio network amounted to a mere fraction of 1% of NPR’s receipts.

The fourth chapter of this faulty thesis runs farther off the rails than the three that preceded it. It focuses almost entirely on Fox News as a victim of leftist hostility. The opening paragraph attempts to belittle criticism of Fox News but actually defines it pretty well.

“To hear the left tell it, Fox News has a ‘history of inciting Islamophobia and racial and ethic animosity’ and tries to ‘race bait its viewers.’ One staffer is called a ‘hit man,’ while his network is accused of ‘attack politics.’ A highly questionable study is hyped by numerous outlets claiming that it ‘confirms that Fox News makes you stupid.’ Fox is called simply: ‘The Liars’ Network.'”

That’s all pretty much true. Fox does have a history of lying, inciting racism, and engaging in attack politics. But one of the items enumerated above hits close to home here at News Corpse. Gainor’s reference to the study that “Fox News makes you stupid” was linked to an article I wrote that was re-published by Alternet. It reported the results of a University of Maryland survey that showed that Fox viewers were significantly more misinformed than consumers of other news sources.

Consequently, Gainor is now alleging that I am part of the Soros-Funded Echo Chamber. To that accusation I would just like to say: “I Wish!”

As usual, Gainor’s logic is riddled with nonsense. His attempt to tie me to this supposed Soros plot demonstrates how far he has strayed from reality. And because he cannot produce an actual link between me and Soros (because there are none), he settles for the connection to Alternet. Then he attaches Alternet to the Soros empire by virtue of their membership in The Media Consortium, which has received donations from Soros. However, the Consortium is a trade association whose members are not beneficiaries of Soros. To the contrary, they pay to belong. Gainor’s argument against my article is summed up in a “disclaimer” he extracted, minus the context, from the study:

“This suggests that misinformation cannot simply be attributed to news sources, but are part of the larger information environment that includes statements by candidates, political ads and so on.”

That statement affirms the integrity of the study that Gainor, nevertheless, disputes. However, the study’s researchers did not insert it to refute their own findings. Whatever effect the statements of candidates and political ads had on viewers, that effect would have been produced across the board, not just at Fox. Yet the study’s results unequivocally show Fox viewers as being the most misinformed even considering the “larger information environment”.

Gainor cites as further evidence of the Soros-left’s assault on Fox News that the blog ThinkProgress “slammed Fox more than 30 times in six months.” No, really? When you calculate that down it comes to one slam per week. If you ask me, that’s a fairly restrained schedule of slamming because Fox broadcasts dishonest, partisan attacks on Democrats and progressives numerous times every day. If ThinkProgress reported on Fox smears only once a day that would come to 180 times in six months. How on earth did they keep it down to 30? I’m gonna have to call them on the Soros Hot Line we’ve all been issued and ask them why they’ve been slacking off.

There is a sublime irony in the primary objective of Gainor’s poorly reasoned treatise. While harboring a compulsive obsession with Soros as a left-wing financier of partisan media (which he never proves), he exhibits a severe blindness to his own rabid partisanship. The media analysis organization for whom he produced this paper is itself funded by right-wing media barons like Richard Mellon Scaife and the Koch brothers (through their Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation). His articles were dutifully re-published by Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News and Fox Nation. And his position at the MRC was endowed by oil billionaire T. Boone Pickens.And let’s not forget that it was Murdoch who donated a million dollars to the Republican Governor’s Association and another million to right-wing Chamber of Commerce.

What Gainor imagines to be a leftist cabal determined to bring down Fox News and advocate on behalf of progressive ideology is nothing more than like-minded authors and activists pursuing an agenda in which they believe. The left doesn’t need Soros to slam Fox. We are fully capable of recognizing unethical journalism on our own and taking action independently.

Much of the rest of America is starting to take action as well. The results of the latest Nielsen ratings book for May 2011, show that viewers are turning off Fox News in growing numbers. That isn’t Soros’ fault – or mine either (though I like to think I played a role). It is the result of Fox’s repeated deceptions and overt advocacy of GOP doctrine. Their decision to flaunt an editorial bias rather than engage in honest journalism is the cause of their problems in the ratings and amongst critics.

So despite Gainor’s delusional paranoia, there is no Soros-funded echo chamber. We are not a zombie horde prowling the conservative mediasphere. Nothing like that exists. You can’t prove it. We are a figment of your demented imagination. However, we are coming to get you, Dan. And your little Fox News too. Be afraid.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Jon Stewart’s Daily Show Is More Popular Than Fox News

The recent May ratings data revealed the weakness of Fox News, particularly when compared to their competitors. But Fox is also getting whipped by an old adversary about whom their CEO, Roger Ailes, once said

“He openly admits he’s sort of an atheist and a socialist. […] He hates conservative views. He hates conservative thoughts. He hates conservative verbiage. He hates conservatives. He’s crazy.”

That attack on Jon Stewart came right after Ailes said of the folks at NPR that “They are, of course, Nazis.” And who can forget Bill O’Reilly dismissing Stewart’s audience as a bunch of “stoned slackers.”

Well, Stewart is getting the last laugh. His program on Comedy Central averaged 2.3 million total viewers this May and was 19% higher than May of 2010. The Fox News primetime lineup for May averaged only 1.85 million viewers and declined by 10%. In fact, Stewart beat every program on Fox in total viewers except for Bill O’Reilly. However, projections for demographic breaks of 25-54 and 18-49 suggest that Stewart beat even O’Reilly, likely delivering twice as many demo viewers as O’Reilly.

Jason Easley at PoliticusUSA provides additional detail as well as the observation that Stewart’s victory was achieved in the late night time period against Fox programs that air in primetime.

“This is why Fox News both hates and fears Jon Stewart. Not only is he more popular than they are, but he devotes much of his program to exposing the biased reporting of FNC. […] He is literally teaching his audience, which is bigger than FNC’s, how to see through the partisan propaganda that Rupert Murdoch has based his network on.”

The May ratings book also noted that MSNBC is the number one cable news network among 18-34 year-olds. This reinforces the growing conclusion that the next generation of television news consumers is rejecting the Fox News model of a hyperbolic, sensationalized, rabidly partisan, lie factory. Young viewers are clearly more discriminating, more intelligent, and more open to diverse news sources. That is a formula that can only contribute to Fox’s problems as they continue to lose market share.

Fox is a network that relies on a closed loop of information and opinion to keep their audience ignorant and obedient. They can circulate their disciples amongst their own programs, talk radio, and a few sanctioned web sites, but they cannot tolerate free-thinking individuals. The young viewers who made MSNBC first in the category, and those who watch the Daily Show, can’t be fooled into attending Tea Parties or believing that the president is socialist Muslim from Kenya. So the more impact programs like the Daily Show have on illuminating the inanities and hypocrisies of the media, the better for our society, our country, and our world.


Neil Cavuto Preaches Economic Apocalypse

Yesterday marked the end of a bad week on Wall Street. The market declined all of 2.3% for the week. So if you haven’t already escaped to your bunker in Idaho you may want to pack up the kids, the rations, and the gold coins, and hit the road.

As usual, the prophet of the financial End Times is Fox News’ Neil Cavuto. He is to business what Glenn Beck is to…well, everything else. Cavuto spent the opening minutes of his program on Fox News insisting that America was in a state of deep decline and that no recovery has occurred, or will occur. He later shuttled over to his program on Fox Business Network to announce that the economy had “flatlined.”

Does he mean this economy?


A truly fair and balanced analysis of the situation would recognize that there has been a substantial move to the upside since President Obama was inaugurated. Over the past two years there has been a 43% increase. Compare that to the two years prior, during the Bush administration, that saw a 36% falloff.

The primary argument Cavuto is making for the catastrophe he perceives is that the market has been negative for 5 straight weeks. Of course, knowledgeable analysts never draw conclusions from such short periods of time. The chart above demonstrates why that is not considered wise practice. What Cavuto is spinning as a catastrophe is really a mere 5% drop over a long trend of gains.

This is nothing new for Cavuto or Fox News. They consistently hammer on any negative market activity while ignoring the positive. If the market goes down it is because of the looming Obama depression. If it goes up Fox labels it a bear market rally. Fox is so determined to deny Obama credit for anything positive that they once went so far as to claim that the Tea Party was responsible for market a rally – and that was a rally that began weeks before the Tea Party existed.

Later in the program Cavuto engaged in what he regards as a debate, but is really just him interrupting his guest after every four words. Democratic congressman Chaka Fattah put up a valiant fight to present the facts about the employment statistics that show significant increases over the past couple of years despite recent weakness. But Cavuto would have none of it, cutting off Fattah repeatedly to spin the data as negatively as possible while treating his guest with overt rudeness. Seriously…no Democrat should ever go on that show or that network.

The Fox News financial reporting has been nothing but atrocious, They have been predicting disaster since January of 2009. Anyone who took their analysis seriously missed one of the strongest periods of growth in this nation’s history. I sure hope nobody is taking them seriously now.


Primetime Propaganda And The Sesame Street Path To Socialism

Ben Shapiro’s “Primetime Propaganda” is a book that perfectly epitomizes the rightist paranoia about liberal bogeymen under our beds, in our closets, and, most of all, on our TV sets. The book is promoted as…

“The inside story of how the most powerful medium of mass communication in human history has become a propaganda tool for the Left.”

In the book published by Rupert Murdoch’s HarperCollins, Shapiro claims to have interviewed Hollywood’s most important power players and gotten them to admit that they have been secretly inserting their subversive messages into popular programs for decades. But his work is decidedly one-sided and he takes great pride in the obvious. For instance. the revelation that MASH had an anti-war theme is not exactly earth-shattering and it hardly exposes a liberal conspiracy. However, he presents it as a triumph of investigative journalism.

Big Bird - Sesame StreetIn a defensive posting on Andrew Breitbart’s BigJournalism, Shapiro complains about the criticism his book has received. He is dismayed that critics allegedly focused on the parts referencing Sesame Street, but then proceeds to bash Sesame Street for the remainder of the posting.

According to his own defense, Sesame Street is awash in propaganda. For instance, they broadcast segments teaching kids about divorce. He apparently thinks that subject has no relevance to kids today. The program also aired segments after 9/11 about peaceful conflict resolution. Shapiro asserts that these were designed to steer kids away from retaliating against terrorists, when the more likely purpose was to illustrate how wrong the actions of the terrorists were. Then Shapiro whines about everything from teaching kids not to beat up other kids of different cultures, to using gender-neutral language like firefighter or flight attendant. If that is evidence of leftist indoctrination, then Shapiro is implying that rightists support cross-cultural fights amongst children.

What doesn’t seem to be acknowledged in Shapiro’s book is that the vast majority of television programs in the period of time his research encompasses were far from being dogmatically left-wing. There were more police dramas and westerns than any other genre of program. Gunsmoke, Bonanza, and The Waltons, or Dragnet, Magnum P.I., and 24, were not exactly peddling liberal doctrine. Nor were the iconic sitcoms from Andy Griffith, The Golden Girls, or Frasier. Why didn’t Shapiro interview people from those shows to ascertain whether they were planting conservative opinions in their programs?

Even worse, Shapiro is attempting to position this book as a scholarly investigation into historical television practices and philosophies. But he provides no historical context whatsoever to support his obviously predetermined conclusions. He lumps shows like The Partridge Family, Happy Days, and Family Ties, into the liberal cabal that “took over your TV,” but fails to note that those years were mostly dominated by Republican presidents and conservative culture. It was the heart of the era that saw the rise of the Reagan Revolution, the Moral Majority, and the Christian Coalition. If the purpose of these pinko TV executives was to reshape America in their leftist image, they failed miserably. Yet Shapiro insists that this was their purpose and that they succeeded in turning America into a socialist state.

For the record, Shapiro is the Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, an ultra-conservative organization whose mission is to “combat the efforts of the radical left and its Islamist allies to destroy American values and disarm this country.” Shapiro was interviewed about the book by Horowitz’s Front Page Magazine who called him “a courageous defender of our civilization – and such a brave soldier on the frontlines in our culture war.”

Shapiro’s previous books were Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America’s Youth, and Porn Generation: How Social Liberalism Is Corrupting Our Future. He recently penned an article for CNSNews, a division of the rabidly right-wing Media Research Center, wherein he castigated Jews who support President Obama as…

“Jews in name only. They eat bagels and lox; they watch ‘Schindler’s List’; they visit temple on Yom Kippur – sometimes. But they do not care about Israel. Or if they do, they care about it less than abortion, gay marriage and global warming.”

That exclusionary and insulting diatribe suggests that the Jews are such a shallow people that they are incapable of caring about more than one thing at a time, particularly if it’s about the rights and well being of others. And Shapiro neglects to disclose who designated him as the Jewish certification authority.

Shapiro is a part of the conservative campaign to assault the media and popular culture, and he is tightly integrated with the leaders of that campaign. David Horowitz’s Freedom Center began as the Center for the Study of Popular Culture in 1988 to “establish a conservative presence in Hollywood.” Andrew Breitbart, who runs both the BigJournalism and BigHollywood blogs, wrote in his recent autobiographical book, Righteous Indignation,” that…

“The biggest point I wanted to make was one I’m still making: Hollywood is more important than Washington. It can’t be overstated how important this message is: the pop culture matters.”

This is a coordinated attack on the creative community that has long been a target of the right-wing martinets of virtue. They demonstrated their hostility for the arts when they orchestrated congressional hearings and blacklists against Hollywood in the 1940’s and 1950s. And they are demonstrating it today as they seek to defund public radio and television, as well as arts institutions like the National Endowment for the Arts. Their censorious mission is reflected in attacks on movies like Avatar and rappers like Common. It is ingrained in the works of the secret society of Hollywood conservatives, the Friends of Abe. They recognize the power in creative expression and they are determined to either hijack it or shut it down. That’s why Shapiro et al are so adamant about silencing overt propaganda like this alarming segment from Sesame Street that he explicitly rebuked for advancing a gay/liberal agenda:

Do you feel gayer or more liberal yet? Shapiro’s new book appears to be the literary equivalent of James O’Keefe’s dishonest video ambushes. Shapiro taped conversations with his subjects and is releasing them without having obtained permission to do so. Of course, he certainly won’t release any tapes that exhibit ideological fairness or otherwise don’t fit his agenda. And, as noted above, we won’t be seeing any comments from producers of the far more numerous conservative-themed programs that reveal their own biases. There is no way of knowing whether the tapes were edited in misleading ways, as the right is prone to doing – particularly the Breitbart right. And notice to whom Shapiro ran first to whine about being criticized.

Expect to see Shapiro making the Fox News rounds with an already announced appearance on Sean Hannity’s show. Watch as he shamelessly bashes the broader media even as he exploits it. And sadly, like a victim of spousal abuse, the media will forgive him and beg him not to go. His Murdoch-published book will get plenty of play from Fox News, the rightist blogosphere, and conservative talk radio as he laments the imagined prevalence of left-wing media. How ironic.


Glenn Beck’s End Of Days Comes June 30


These are the indeed the End Times for evanga-pundit Glenn Beck. Mediaite has learned that the last broadcast of the Glenn Beck Program on Fox News will be June 30, 2011. Fox News confirmed the report. So get ready for some extend sobbing and hysteria. Not from disappointed fans – from Beck himself.

It already started today. Beck whimpered through much of his radio broadcast, and he could barely complete a sentence in the opening minutes of his TV show. The source of his tearful meltdown was a discussion of his new-found interest in the plight of Nazi-era Jews. Beck described himself as unable to walk after watching the movie “Schindler’s List.” I’m Jewish and my grandparents emigrated from Northern Europe. When I saw Schindler’s List I certainly thought it was an outstanding film, but I was fully capable of leaving the theater and driving home.

It is difficult to accept such deep despondency and theatrics from a man who recently said that Reform Jews, the largest denomination of Jews in America, were “almost like Islam – radicalized Islam.”. Earlier this year he made a list of the nine people whom he said most contributed to the 20th century being the Era of the Big Lie. Eight of them just happened to be Jewish. His attacks on George Soros as a tyrannical “Puppet Master,” another common derogatory insult aimed at Jews, are infamous. And Beck has even perpetuated the intentionally incendiary allegation that Jews killed Jesus. Just this morning Beck hosted Ben Shapiro on his radio show. Shapiro recently wrote an article that accused Jews who support President Obama of being “Jews In Name Only.”

Beck’s departure date is significant because it comes just about three weeks before his pilgrimage to Israel to help them Restore Courage, or something. This is a trip that will cost his followers over $5,000 a head for an experience about which he says “This may be it for our generation or for all mankind.” He even speculated that he may die over there. So he’ll need a few weeks to prepare for the trip. And he can use the remainder of this month to peddle it to his congregation.

The mood of despair and foreboding that has enveloped Beck was apparent today. He delivered some his his darkest sermons ever. And for him, that’s saying something.

“God Bless Fox. If Fox goes down…if Fox goes down the tubes, we’re done. We’re done. They’re the only bastion of truth out there. Now let me ask you…when I leave, who will play those videos? Who will play those videos?”

Don’t worry, Glenn. I’m sure Andrew Breitbart, Judge Napolitano, Sean Hannity, Megyn Kelly, Eric Bolling, Steve Doocy, etc., will pick up the slack.

“I don’t know why I have been given the the gift, the blessing, or the curse, of being able to see slightly over the horizon, but I am telling you I can. And it is not something that I take lightly. It is not something that I…I have to be careful.

Do you wish that this cup would pass from you? Has your father (Roger Ailes) forsaken you? Will Sarah Palin deny you three times before dawn?

“The left is making a push for the West along with the Islamic extremists. They do not have the same goal to be ruled under Sharia Law. They will sort that out when we are all dead. They will sort that out when the United States of America and her Constitution no longer stand. They will sort that out after they have destroyed the state of Israel. Right now they’re united to destroy the West. And they have all the artists. They have the movies. They every piece of propaganda. They have the news media. They have the singing artists. [screaming] They have all of it. We have something more powerful – the truth.”

First of all, why is he so worried if he is convinced that he has the greater power? Seems like he could just take it easy for a while.

Secondly, Beck again asserts that the left, whom he regards as Godless heathens, are going to conspire with religious extremists to bring down their own society. He really believes that liberals, who shun alliances between church and state, are prepared to happily work with fundamentalists for whom church and state are inseparable. And then what? They will negotiate with their unlikely partners for control of the ruins of western civilization? Makes perfect sense.

Finally, what’s all this about the artists? So now all the artists and filmmakers and singers are aligned with terrorists? I knew Beck didn’t like artists and, particularly, the Hollywood variety. I knew he wanted to defund the National Endowment for the Arts. I knew that he sees subversive Marxist messages in many of the art installations around Manhattan. But now he’s implicated ALL artists as accomplices to the destruction of western civilization.

As an artist I find that absurd generally. However, I see some degree of plausibility when I think about people like Ted Nugent and Victoria Jackson. If they aren’t signs of the end of civilization I don’t know what is.