Fox Nation Gives Birth To Christmas Bomber Truthers

Posted by on December 30, 2009 at 3:51 pm. 2 Comments :

Establishment conservatives have long assailed fringe groups who believe that there has been a cover-up of government involvement in the attacks on 9/11. The “Truthers” have been ridiculed as conspiracy theorists who are something less than patriotic. The very act of implying a government role was viewed as misguided and disrespectful at best, treasonous at worst. So why is Fox Nation featuring this as their top story?

U.S. Knew of Airline Plot Before Christmas

The story linked to by the Fox Nationalists doesn’t actually allege that anyone in government knew of a plot to bomb an airplane on Christmas. It merely restates what was previously disclosed in the press, and by the President, that there had been a “systemic failure” to correlate information from multiple sources that might have raised warning flags. That’s a far cry from knowing the identity of a specific Nigerian individual who had conspired with Yemeni members of Al Qaeda to blow up a plane on Christmas day.

Fox: US KnewThe glaringly misleading headline, that was also featured on Fox News and Foxnews.com, is identical in form to the Truthers’ claims regarding 9/11. So where is the outrage at this blatant promulgation of anti-American propaganda? How does Fox get away with espousing such repugnant disloyalty? Is it because the difference this time is that it is the Obama administration about which there is an insinuation of shared guilt?

New York Post: Bush KnewBefore we presume that there is a partisan nature to this story, we need to take note of another Rupert Murdoch “news” vehicle that in May of 2002 was supportive of the 9/11 Truther movement. Just eight months after the attack on the World Trade Center, the New York Post published a story that charged then-President Bush with having prior knowledge of those attacks.

So maybe it is just that Murdoch is an equal opportunity accuser of the U.S. government with complicity in terrorism. Remember, Murdoch is a native Australian who moved to the U.K. before eventually applying for U.S. citizenship so that he could take control of the Fox network. So it’s difficult to ascertain to whom he has allegiance. Strike that. It is clear that Murdoch’s allegiance is only to himself, his rightist agenda, and his bank account. Any assessment of Murdoch’s motives as they are revealed by his media enterprises must be seen in the context of his obvious disdain for the United States, its people, and their welfare.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Republicans Are To Blame For Terrorism

Posted by on December 28, 2009 at 4:44 pm. 8 Comments :

On Christmas day the passengers of a plane bound for Detroit narrowly missed a catastrophe. At this time there is still much that is unknown about the attempted act of terrorism, the culprit, or his affiliations. But one thing is clear: It is all the Republican’s fault.

Republicans Screw AmericaIs that too hyperbolic an assertion so soon after the incident occurred? Of course it is. But that hasn’t stopped Republicans from asserting that very same claim against Democrats with all seriousness. In a cynical and self-serving search for blame, it only took a few hours for Republicans to start throwing charges at President Obama.

Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) was asked Sunday if it was fair to blame Obama. Without hesitation he answered, “Yeah, I think it really is.” Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) fingered the unionization of airport security workers and the closing of Gitmo, along with the standard allusion to appeasement. And scads of right-wing bloggers piled on the Transportation Security Administration and Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano.

A closer look at the circumstances preceding the attempted attack paint an entirely different picture. For instance it is DeMint who has been personally blocking the President’s TSA chief appointment for months. House Republicans, including most of their leadership, just voted against funding for explosives detection systems and other aviation security measures. And the House recently passed a Republican-authored bill to ban the use of the full-body scanners that many are claiming could have prevented this incident.

The most damning evidence of the Republicans guilt is seen in the rhetoric they’ve employed for many months that casts Obama as weak and our nation as more vulnerable than ever. They seem to be signaling to Al Qaeda that now is the time to strike. Take note of what Dick Cheney said about this five years ago:

“Terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength; they are invited by the perception of weakness.”

And ever since Obama took office Cheney and other Republican officeholders and pundits have been striving to manufacture such a perception. Some examples:

Cheney: It is recklessness cloaked in righteousness and would make the American people less safe.

Mitt Romney: It’s the very kind of thinking that left America vulnerable to the attacks of Sept. 11th.

Joe Scarborough (MSNBC): I knew by the second day that America was less safe.

Laura Ingraham (Fox News): I think you can make a pretty compelling case that we’re less safe today.

John Boehner: I think this is a pre-9/11 mentality, and I think it’ll make our nation less safe.

Karl Rove: They’re doing the wrong thing for our country, they’re doing the wrong thing for our men and women in uniform, and they’re making us less safe.

David Gregory (Meet the Press): But do you agree with the vice president when he says that the country is less safe under President Obama?
Newt Gingrich: Absolutely.

In other words, “Come on down, Al Qaeda. The door’s wide open and we’re sitting here playing tiddlywinks.” I first asked this question last May:

“How does announcing to the terrorists that they believe our nation is becoming weaker make us safer? Do they even care? Are they just pasting a big bulls eye on America and hoping for an ‘I told you so’ moment?”

It appears from the Republican’s response to this latest incident of terrorism that my speculation was sadly on target. It appears that the only things the right are interested in are bashing Democrats, announcing alleged security flaws, and gloating when the unthinkable (almost) happens. That is not a recipe for national security. And if they don’t cut it out, they are going to regret the consequences which will be tragic and entirely their fault.


Bill O’Reilly Gets His (Pin)Head Spun By Russian TV

Posted by on December 25, 2009 at 4:26 am. 7 Comments :

In the opening of every show, Bill O’Reilly points his finger at the camera and delivers this warning to his viewers: “Caution, you are entering THE no spin zone.” While it is obvious to sentient beings that O’Reilly’s pretense of being spin-less is preposterous, we should be grateful for the disclaimer advising caution. You can’t be too careful when watching anything on Fox News, and O’Reilly is particularly hazardous.

However, he has recently outdone himself (which is saying something) with comments he made regarding an interview of Bill Ayers on RT, an English-language Russian television broadcaster. In the course of the interview, Ayers said…

“We have to get the United States to participate in the world. The idea that we have been a force for good for the last six decades is nonsense.”

That caused O’Reilly’s head to spin. He began his retort by declaring his desire to slap Ayers. To O’Reilly, if someone expresses their opinion, that is sufficient cause to assault them. Way to honor the First Amendment, Billo. Then he continues with an utterly absurd attack on RT’s reporter, Anastasia Churkina:

“You saw the Russian interviewer nodding off like this. She had no idea. She didn’t even speak English. I mean that’s what she was doing. They assigned a Russian interviewer to interview that pinhead who didn’t even speak English. Because they knew what he was saying was so stupid they didn’t want to hear it. So if you don’t speak English, you don’t know how stupid it is.”

This criticism, aside from being immature, is laughably false. Churkina conducted the entire interview in better English than O’Reilly is able to summon. What’s more, she also speaks French, Italian and Spanish, in addition to her native Russian. I wonder how many languages O’Reilly speaks. He actually asserted that Churkina couldn’t speak English twice, in case his first lie went unnoticed by his indolent audience. If O’Reilly can lie so brazenly about something that is so easily proven to be false, how can anyone take anything he says seriously? The fact that this is all there on the videotape illustrates just how ludicrous O’Reilly’s “no spin” sloganeering is. He clearly has no qualms about deliberately misinforming his viewers with fabrications disguised as commentary. It is also clear that both Ayers and Churkina offer commentary on the media that far exceeds O’Reilly’s dishonest ranting:

Ayers: I think the best place to get the news is The Daily Show, Comedy Central, The Onion. Those places, they’re trustworthy, they’re honest, they strip the mask off the hypocrisy. They do what the media is supposed to do.

Churkina: The mainstream American media: Crusaders of truth, pathological liars, or just scary clowns? […] As Americans begin to wake up to the thought that what their mainstream media says is often detached from reality, the question rises as to whether the US media’s ever-increasing attention-grabbing tactics could cause its credibility to fly out the window.

So now we’ve seen O’Reilly being exposed as less credible than the pinko Ruskies he surely despises. That’s gotta hurt. And as far as O’Reilly is concerned, closing the window now wouldn’t do much good. His credibility has long since flown away. In fact, there have been reports of a flock of credibility heading south from the windows of Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Neil Cavuto, and the rest of the bird brains at Fox. It’s a migration of immense proportions.


Sarah Palin: Pitiful, Sniveling, Coward Of The Year

Posted by on December 24, 2009 at 4:52 pm. 23 Comments :

Having already won the coveted “Lie of the Year” award from PolitiFact, it is time that we recognize Sarah Palin for the truly superlative accomplishment of her brief public tenure. It is an achievement for which she has no peer. She has masterfully positioned herself as the undisputed champion in this highly specialized calling.

Congratulations Sarah Palin, for being this year’s most “Pitiful, Sniveling, Coward.”

The path to victory for Palin was characterized by her trademarked apprehension of, and disdain for, the press. Palin’s fear of the media is an all-consuming neurosis. She has exhibited these tendencies beginning with her initial introduction to the national stage. After being tapped by John McCain as his vice-presidential running mate, Palin immediately ducked for cover.

Free Sarah PalinFrom the earliest days of the campaign, Palin sought the refuge of friendly inquisitors like Sean Hannity and Greta Van Susteren. Needless to say, Fox News had a virtually exclusive relationship with Palin. That was smart strategy on the part of Palin and her handlers with the McCain staff. On the rare occasions that she strayed from the protective cocoon of Fox she was stymied by brain twisters like “What do you read?” Nevertheless, she pretends to have an interest in being accessible. At least that’s what she told Carl Cameron of Fox News:

Palin, 10/3/08: “I look forward to speaking to the media more and more everyday and providing whatever access the media would want. My life is certainly an open book.”

For something she claims to look forward to, she sure did avoid it like the plague. Palin’s fear is palpable. She runs from the press like a Tea Bagger from a library (the Teadiots really hate that “socialist” style distribution of elitist books containing “information”). Throughout the campaign, and to this day more than a year later, Palin has declined to appear on any of the Sunday news programs. Not even Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. She has not held a single press conference. And in a fit of uncharacteristic candor, she even admitted that she resigned her governorship to avoid further press scrutiny. Quitting, of course, is just another manifestation of her renowned chicken-heartedness.

So how does a media-phobe like Palin conduct herself in a public sphere that demands access and fresh bones on which to chew? By hiding behind a curtain of social media, an online version of a one-way mirror. Palin tweets and posts updates on her Facebook account as a means to communicate with her legion of fans. The problem is that the press seems to regard this as an appropriate method of interaction and they faithfully regurgitate every keystroke as if it were newsworthy. It isn’t.

The media seems to be oblivious to the absurdity of reporting Palin’s tweets. First of all, they don’t even know if they are from Palin or her ghostwriter. Secondly, there is no opportunity to question her about her comments. These postings are nothing more (and actually something much less) than press releases. Why do newsrooms on television and in print feel the least bit obligated to pass them on? And when they do so, why don’t bother to at least fact-check them?

By cowering behind an Internet firewall, Palin can shoot spitballs at the press and quickly duck back into her shelter. For that she deserves to be the Pitiful, Sniveling, Coward Of The Year. But what award do we give the news media? They present an even bigger problem by letting Palin get away with her cheap shots and cheesy antics. In some respects you can hardly blame Palin. She must know deep down that she’s a woefully unprepared dimwit who was elevated to national prominence by a fluke of political desperation. She has to behave this way now or risk further embarrassment. But the press has no such excuse.

So far this month, Palin has criticized Nancy Pelosi, Eugene Robinson, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Al Gore, and of course, President Obama, from the safety of her Facebook page. This sort of attack plan assures that she is shielded from return fire. It is a sterile battlefield that she controls and from which she need not worry about pesky rebuttals or corrections. She also took a couple of swipes at the press who still, for some reason, obediently yield to her siren’s call.

If the media is to preserve whatever crumbs of credibility they are clinging to, they need to start exhibiting signs of life. They need to start acting like professionals. And that means that they need to ignore Sarah Palin. If Palin will not stand before them and engage in a substantive dialogue, then let her tweet to her followers and enjoy her fame the same way other celebrities like Ashton Kutcher and Lindsay Lohan do. Let her sign books at church picnics. Let her go on Dancing with the Stars. But don’t under any circumstances patronize her contempt for the practice of journalism. Don’t be played for suckers. Don’t be seduced by the short-term attention rush you get from recounting Sarah’s latest online insipidness. That’s not reporting. That’s just repeating. And the public deserves more than that from the press.

Palin’s tweets, books and fluff pieces on Fox do nothing to contribute to the public’s understanding of her or her positions. If she persists in ignoring the media, then the media must ignore her back. When she wants to behave like an adult public figure and political leader who will address the issues of the day, then the press can pay her some attention. Until then, who cares? Twitter is not proxy for honest, informative discourse. Facebook doesn’t replace old fashioned newsgathering. If Palin won’t or can’t interact with news people, then she isn’t news. Walk away. Don’t look back. You’re not missing anything.


First Do No Harm: Jane Hamsher On Fox And Friends

Posted by on December 22, 2009 at 12:07 pm. 26 Comments :

Color me disappointed. Jane Hamsher is a first-rate blogger/analyst and an admirable advocate for progressive causes. Her web site, FireDogLake, is a must read. That is why what took place this morning on Fox News is all the more disturbing.

Steve DoocyIn a segment titled “First Do No Harm,” Jane engaged in an interview on her opposition to the Senate health care bill. It’s bad enough that Jane would appear on any program on Fox, but her decision to submit herself to Steve Doocy on Fox & Friends is just baffling. Doocy is the poster child for ignorant disinformers of the world. He makes Sean Hannity look like a Rhodes Scholar. For Jane to be subject to an interview by this evolutionary throwback to cave-dwellers is unconscionable.

For the record, I happen to think this bill should pass. Mainly because I am pessimistic that we can get anything better on this go-round. I think there are too many people in Congress who are compromised by their association with Big Pharma and that the process is dreadfully dysfunctional. The best political approach appears to me to be an incremental one. That said, I completely agree with Jane’s criticisms of the bill, and I respect her opinion.

Hamsher: People on the right, people on the left are looking at the Senate and they’re saying, “Nobody’s there representing us.” Nobody’s representing the people. It’s just a matter of who’s in power and who’s taking Pharma’s money.

Exactly. Jane and I have the same goals for health care reform. We just differ on whether to scrap this bill and start over, or pass it and push for more later. But she ought not to have sunk this low. Is she really this desperate for a platform? It doesn’t help her cause in the least to fraternize with the goons at Fox. They have just one agenda: Destroy Democrats and progressive reform. And there was a time when Jane recognized that (h/t pontificator):

Hamsher: Fox is not a news outlet, it’s an openly partisan opinion factory and the Democrats should not be legitimizing them (and allowing them to recruit Democratic viewers to propagandize to) by doing this.

Exactly. What happened Jane? The only purpose served by appearing on Fox is to validate them as a legitimate news enterprise. It permits them to persist in their dishonest claim to being “fair and balanced.” It lends credibility to a network that has not earned any on its own. And there is no benefit to promoting a progressive point of view on Fox, even if well stated, because their audience is not just unreceptive to it, they are overtly hostile.

What’s more, Fox will aggressively exploit your appearance to their advantage. They will either make you look stupid or portray you as supporting their agenda. In this case, Fox is using Jane to bash the health care bill. They are positioning her as another reason to defeat the evil, socialist Democrats in Congress. Fox looks upon this as, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Fox is opposed to the health care bill. Since Jane is also opposed to the bill, in its current form, let’s have her on to beat up the people on her own side. It’s a win/win for Fox. Bash the bill and Democrats in general too. And Fox will replay slanted excerpts of this interview over and over for the rest of the week. Jane ought not to empower that sort of cynical exploitation.

Doocy began the segment by shamelessly exploiting Jane’s past experience as a breast cancer survivor. This is a typical ploy by Fox to tug at heart strings and to imply that this gives her opinion more weight. Jane’s contribution to the debate lies in her analytical ability and insight, not her medical history. But Fox doesn’t care about Jane, her health, or her position of the issues. They only care about disparaging their perceived enemies. At the close of the segment Doocy announced that…

Doocy: If you would like to sign her petition to try to kill the Senate bill, go to our web site at FoxandFriends.com

So Jane didn’t even get the benefit of a plug for her site (although it did appear on screen). Fox used the whole piece to promote themselves and drive traffic to their own site. Any Fox viewer who happens to click through to Jane’s petition will see a list of reasons to oppose the bill with which Fox viewers will fiercely disagree.
Starve the BeastFox conservatives oppose the bill for completely different reasons than Jane and other progressives do. Consequently, they would never sign her petition. Once again, Jane has achieved nothing of benefit by appearing on Fox.

There is some irony in the title of Jane’s segment on Fox: First Do No Harm. She should take that advice and stay the HELL off of Fox News! Such appearances only do harm to Democrats and progressive reform.

For a complete analysis of why it is pointless, and even harmful, to appear on Fox News, see my Starve The Beast series.

Update: Jane responded to criticism of her Fox gig on her own web site addressing the content of her remarks, saying…

“I stand by that message, and I think it’s important for both people on the left and people on the right to hear.”

The thing is, I have no problem with her message. My problem is with the platform she chose to dispense it. I still admire Jane and her commitment to changing this country for the better, but appearing on Fox does not serve that end. And for the record, I have also criticized others who appeared on Fox, including Obama:

Obama Capitulates To Fox News Barack Obama Falls Into Fox News Sunday Trap

Dick Cheney: Human Events’ Conservative Of The Year.

Posted by on December 21, 2009 at 7:20 pm. 2 Comments :

Award season is in full swing, and the latest recipient of a year-end tribute is former Vice-President Dick Cheney. Human Events magazine has named Cheney “Conservative of the Year.”

Dick Cheney - The End Is Near

To be sure, this commendation lacks stature. After all, last year’s winner was Sarah Palin. Chosen to pen Palin’s accolades was the professional conservative controversialist, Ann Coulter. In her attempt to praise Palin, Coulter wrote such back-handed compliments as…

[1] Who cares if Palin was qualified to be President? [2] Palin was a kick in the pants, she energized conservatives, and she made liberal heads explode. [3] Perhaps Palin’s year is 2012, but I would recommend that she take a little more time to become older and wiser.

Pretty much the only positive thing Coulter could find to say about Palin was that she was a “genius at annoying all the right people.” While annoying people is a subject that Coulter has some familiarity with, it still begs the question, with friends like Coulter, who needs enemas?

Cheney fared little better with regard to the selection of his advocate. The honor of fluffing Cheney fell to former United Nations Ambassador, John Bolton. Bolton begins his plaudits by enumerating a list of things Cheney is NOT doing:

He is not running for President or any other office. He has not formed a PAC or a D.C. lobbying firm. He is not dishing on former colleagues, not spreading gossip, not settling scores.

Those, however, all sound like things that last year’s honoree, Palin, IS doing, and about which Bolton apparently disapproves. It’s rather telling that Human Events had to settle for someone they admit is so completely out of the political limelight. It speaks to the absence of credible leaders warming up in the conservative bullpen. The rest of the article makes a case very similar to the one Coulter made for Palin. It is basically an argument that Cheney was an effective thorn in the new administration’s side. To conservatives, that is what constitutes qualification for a prestigious award. Not setting policy, or advancing ideas, or accumulating support, but by being a nuisance. Bolton does end on a positive note by summing up Cheney’s attributes as a loyal public servant, saying he is…

“…a very experienced, very dedicated patriot, giving his fellow citizens his best analysis on how to keep them and their country safe.”

I’m not so sure that having Cheney’s “best analysis” is particularly comforting. I mean, this is the guy under who’s watch the nation suffered its worst act of terrorism ever. It’s the guy who led America into an unnecessary war justified by lies. And it’s the guy who has consistently been the herald of doom and worse, a virtual advance man for Al Qaeda. By repeatedly proclaiming his view that our country is less safe under President Obama, and therefore more vulnerable, Cheney and his cohorts are effectively inviting another terrorist attack. How does announcing to our enemies that he believes our nation is becoming weaker make us safer? Does he even care? Or is he just pasting a big bull’s eye on America and hoping for an “I told you so” moment?

In any case, I give you Richard Bruce Cheney – Human Events’ Conservative of the Year. I suppose it’s the best they could do.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Glenn Beck: 2009 Misinformer Of The Year

Posted by on December 21, 2009 at 1:19 pm. 4 Comments :

On the heels of the announcement that Sarah Palin had edged out Glenn Beck for “Lie of the Year,” Beck has bounced back to nab the Media Matters honor of 2009 Misinformer of the Year.

This award caps a year of distinguished prevarication by an acknowledged master of the art. Beck has broken records for dishonesty with creative use of insinuation, hyperbole, conspiracy, insults, exaggeration, and paranoia induced hallucination.

Congratulations Glenn. You earned it.


Sarah Palin Wins ‘Lie Of The Year’ Award

Posted by on December 19, 2009 at 1:57 pm. 5 Comments :

Congratulations are in order for Sarah Palin. PolitiFact has bestowed upon her the great honor of being the author of the “Lie Of The Year.” Granted, she was competing vigorously for the award by submitting the most entries for consideration. It was inevitable that one of her numerous and extravagant deceits would capture this venerated commendation.

The falsehood specifically singled out for this acclaim was Palin’s classic confounding of an otherwise non-controversial component of the health care bill that permitted reimbursement for end-of-life counseling. These were simply discussions with your doctor on what measures you would want taken in the event you were gravely ill and unable articulate your desires. But Palin turned these prudent consultations into “Death Panels.”

Palin: The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

Yes indeed. That would be downright evil – if it existed. And for inventing this dastardly conspiracy out of thin air, Palin has earned the distinction of having spewed the year’s biggest whopper. She had to beat some formidable competition including Glenn Beck and the inimitable Orly Taitz. But Sarah came through.

For sheer volume, however, I still think Glenn Beck is the unparalleled champion. PolitiFact doesn’t seem to have this as a category, but if they did Beck would have to be the odds on favorite. Here is just a sampling of his fibbery:

  • Obama is creating a Nazi-like civilian force.
  • Van Jones is a convicted felon.
  • ACORN is receiving billions of dollars.
  • Eco-terrorists bombed radio tower in Washington.
  • 1.7 million Tea Baggers at 9/12 rally.
  • UAW workers earn average $154.00 per hour.
  • Carbon dioxide not a dangerous pollutant.
  • Anita Dunn worships Mao.
  • Obama threatened to close Nebraska military base.

Perhaps PolitiFact will create a Lifetime Liars Achievement Award. They could call it the Becky.


The Tea Party Delusion

Posted by on December 19, 2009 at 1:54 pm. 2 Comments :

Much has been made this past week about a poll (pdf) by NBC and the Wall Street Journal. It seems that virtually every newsroom in America saw fit to report the astonishing results that showed that the Tea Party movement was viewed more favorably than either the Democrats or Republicans. The poll said that the notorious Town Howlers were viewed favorably by 41% of poll respondents, compared to 35% for Democrats and 28% for Republicans.

First of all, it needs to be noted that establishment politicians are currently about as popular as Rush Limbaugh at a nudist colony (I apologize for the mental image that may have generated). I would venture to say that a Swine Flu Party would be better received than today’s Democrats or Republicans. So Tea Baggers haven’t really got much to be proud of in this respect.

What’s more, in case the press hasn’t noticed, there is no such thing as the Tea Party. It has no candidates or policies to compare with any other party. So the pretense of the comparison is dubious at best.

But the biggest cognitive disconnect in this story is that none of the press accounts that I saw bothered to report the results of another question in the same poll:

14a. How much do you know about the Tea Party movement-do you know a great deal about this, a fair amount, just some, very little, or nothing at all?
  Know a great deal: 7
  Know a fair amount: 22
  Know just some: 23
  Know very little: 25
  Know nothing at all: 23

So 48% of respondents know very little or nothing at all about the Tea Baggers. Boy, they must really be a powerful force in America. I think it’s a lot easier to register positive poll results if half the country hasn’t even heard of you. And this fact was ignored by most of the media as they clamored to position Tea Bagging as a surging movement.

The fact that the Tea Baggers have failed to create a significant presence despite being bankrolled by some of the biggest and wealthiest AstroTurf lobbying organizations in the country (i.e. FreedomWorks, Americans for Prosperity), and having the promotional backing of Fox News, illustrates just how unappealing most Americans regard that brand of disruptive griping.

This is typical of how the press distorts trends. They make an observation from a narrowly defined (and usually conservative) vantage point and then extrapolate that to the broadest scope of interpretation. For instance, take a look at how Glenn Beck is viewed within the prism of the conventional media. He is profiled in the mainstream press as a phenomenon who has taken the nation by storm. He is said to command an army of followers and an explosively expanding multimedia empire.

But the truth is he has a program on Fox News that is viewed by about three million people. That’s fewer viewers than SpongeBob SquarePants and less than one percent of the population. Fox News itself is a big fish in a small media puddle with an average daily audience of about 1.3 million viewers. And more to the point as regards Beck’s popularity, or lack thereof, an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll (pdf) conducted in September revealed that 42% of respondents didn’t even know who he was.

There may be a level of intensity that is driving interest in the rightist agenda, but it is strictly confined to the squeakiest of wheels. That intensity corresponds to the fervor currently on display in Republican circles that now show a significantly higher intention to participate in the coming elections. While this may be a red flag for democrats, it is also a natural pattern for a party that swept into power in the past couple of years and is now experiencing a season of self-examination. There are bound to be disappointments in the interplay of politics. Still, taking all of the data into account, it is fair to conclude that the characterization of a right-wing ascension is an illusion, or more accurately, a delusion of the media. Reports that Beck or Fox News or the Tea Party are assuming greater sway over the public are not borne out by the facts.

In short, when 40 to 50 percent of the public cannot even recognize you or your movement, you are not much of a player. It would be nice if the media would report that.


Avatar: Another Hollywood Plot To Destroy America?

Posted by on December 18, 2009 at 3:04 am. 15 Comments :

Obamar: Obama as AvatarThe blockbuster, mega-million dollar, groundbreaking, techo-marvel, spectacle, Avatar is opening tonight. Thank goodness it hasn’t been over-hyped. Nevertheless, there is still a fair amount of anticipation for this cinematic tale of a person of color from another country…er…world.

With regard to the film itself, don’t expect to find me in line for an early screening. In fact, don’t look for me on February’s lines either. Suffice it to say that I don’t plan on rushing out to see this flick. There are two reasons in particular that sap any motivation for me to sit through this two and a half hour plus epic.

First, I’m terminally bored with special effects. Particularly when I am advised beforehand that they will change filmmaking, or my life or, or the rotation of the earth, forever. That’s a promise that has never been kept. I’ve seen enough special effects that I am now fully cognizant that anything that can be imagined can be committed to film. It comes as no surprise that digital artists (of which I am one) can produce wonders both realistic and fantastic. Consequently, to stoke my interest in a movie, I prefer to be moved by storytelling, character development, and the sort of drama or comedy or suspense that registers on an emotional level. To be sure, that can occur in a film that contains special effects, but the effects should compliment the storytelling, not supplant it. I really am not impressed by another realistic looking robot or alien or landscape.

Second, I hated Titanic. To be precise, it was something more than hate. I regard it as one of the worst movies I’ve ever seen. The acting, the effects, the script (oh lord), the naked schmaltz – there wasn’t a single thing I can recall that was redeeming about it. And in its time it was the mega-million dollar epic that was going to change everything.

Enough already. You know you have reached a new low when a fawning analysis in the iconic Hollywood Reporter relates this overheard bit of artistic defeatism:

So obviously has the creative bar been raised that I heard one young writer-director at the premiere say to his friends, “What do we do now?”

I would suggest that that young writer-director look for work selling insurance. If watching one movie exhausts his capacity to express himself creatively, he doesn’t have a calling for creative pursuits. He can save us all a lot of money and himself a lot of heartache by quitting now.

However, there is a fun element of the hype machine churning around this marketing extravaganza. Right-wingers have latched onto the notion that the movie is a slap at America and its imperialistic ways. They are hammering director James Cameron as an America-hating leftist. I assume they would like to see this nearly half billion dollar monstrosity suffer a massive box office failure, just as they would like to see President Obama fail. And so far as Avatar is concerned, I eagerly support their desire. After all, Avatar is a production from Rupert Murdoch’s Fox studios and watching Murdoch lose money is always fun.

Here is a collection of some the rightist reviews of Avatar:

BigHollywood: Cameron’s ‘Avatar’ Is a Big, Dull, America-Hating, PC Revenge Fantasy
…a sanctimonious thud of a movie so infested with one-dimensional characters and PC clichés that not a single plot turn – small or large – surprises. I call it the “liberal tell,” where the early and obvious politics of the film gives away the entire story before the second act begins, and “Avatar” might be the sorriest example of this yet.

Hot Air: “Avatar” reportedly super mega ultra left-wing
Given the framework of the plot and the obvious allegorical intent – military invades planet to secure valuable commodity in the soil – what other way could this flick have conceivably tilted?

Debbie Schlussel: Don’t Believe the Hype: “Avatar” Stinks (Long, Boring, Unoriginal, Uber-Left)
It’s essentially a remake of “Dances With Wolves” and every other movie where we evil Americans terrorize the indigenous natives, kill them, take their land, and are just all around imperialistically wicked and inhumane. Oh, and we’re destroying the environment, clearing precious giant trees and natural landscapes and killing rare animals and their habitats, in order to invade and harvest valuable substances under the ground. Sound familiar? Yup, just like a million diatribes from Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, and every other far-left outlet about how we invaded Iraq for oil. Yes, “Avatar” is cinema for the hate America crowd.

Newsbusters: Is ‘Avatar’ A Multi-Million Dollar Ad For Global Warming?
With the imminent release of the science fiction blockbuster “Avatar,” some have characterized it as a multi-million dollar public service announcment for global warming.

Telegraph UK: Is Avatar an attack on the Iraq War?
The US public is frankly tired of the anti-war rhetoric of the Left, which has sounded increasingly hollow since the success of the surge in Iraq. James Cameron should leave the political commentary out as he promotes his new film, and acknowledge that the Iraqi people are immensely better off now than they were living under the boot of Saddam Hussein.

RedState: “Avatar” Is a Steaming Pile of Sith
In case you don’t get the analogy, we (the humans) are the Bad Guys who are going to attack the “Tower” that the Noble Savages hold dear. In other words, humans are attacking the environment with technology, and it’s analogous to 9/11. Americanism is terrorism, in other words. […] No one should be surprised that Hollywood liberals hate America and Western Civilization.

After all that I’m beginning to get more interested. I may yet decide to see Avatar if enough reviews like those keep coming out. Or if enough people I respect have good things to say about it. I haven’t seen a review of the film from Fox News. I wonder if that’s because they hated it and are hesitant to publish that, or because they loved it but don’t want to promote a treasonous piece of Marxist propaganda.

But I’m still waiting for the preeminent curator of culture to weigh in. After Glenn Beck’s revelations about the secret socialist art that is hidden in plain sight throughout Manhattan, I couldn’t really draw a conclusion on this without his insight. I’m sure he will find demonic horrors in the film that even Cameron didn’t know were there. And only Beck can decipher the coded signals to ACORN operatives and radical environmentalists that are surely cloaked in between the frames.

Sleep with one eye open, children. The lefties are now invading your thoughts in 3D.