TV Pundit Jeopardy

Posted by on January 9, 2008 at 1:49 pm. NO Comments :

Full disclosure: Of the top three Democratic presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton is my third choice. But seriously…

Coverage of this campaign has been laughably bad. In New Hampshire, Clinton was predicted to lose to Obama by double digits. Her “emotional moment” torpedoed any chance she had of winning. Her staff was about to undergo a major upheaval. Fox’s Major Garrett even announced that Clinton vets James Carville and Paul Begala were about to take over her campaign. He continued to report this after both publicly denied it, and Begala told him personally that it wasn’t true. Speculation then turned to when Clinton would drop out of the race.

There is a sad irony to this since not too long ago all the press could talk about was Clinton’s “inevitability.” Then Obama’s win in Iowa made him inevitable and Clinton a has-been.

Coverage of every Democrat has fallen far short of any standard of professionalism. Edwards, when not being outright ignored, was ganged up on for trivialities like haircuts and homestead. Obama was slandered as a potential Muslim extremist who was schooled in a Madrassa. But Clinton has suffered some of the most vile attacks based on the misogynistic tendencies of the male-dominated press corps. Among the most frequent criticisms is the myth that she starts off with higher negatives than other candidates. Here’s the truth:

Dec 2007 Favorable Unfavorable
McCain 53% 27%
Edwards 49% 42%
Clinton 48% 50%
Obama 43% 51%
Thompson 42% 42%
Giuliani 40% 55%
Huckabee 40% 47%
Romney 38% 51%

Both Giuliani and Romney score lower in favorability and higher in unfavorability than Clinton. But do we ever hear reporters talking about how devastatingly unpopular they are?

So the pundits, as usual got it all wrong. They’ve been wrong every step of the way. And when they are shown to be wrong, they simply shift their weight and devise a new theory that will later be shown to be wrong as well. The big problem with that is that they will be on the air tomorrow (and many more tomorrows) to get it wrong some more.

Why does it have to be that way? Wouldn’t it be great if punditry worked more like Jeopardy? Whoever has scored the highest by the end of the day gets to come back and play the next day. Those who got more of their answers wrong are never heard from again. This simple modification of the rules of the game would vastly improve the media’s political analysis.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

America Is Uniting – Against Fox News

Posted by on January 8, 2008 at 5:19 pm. 2 Comments :

Any fair-minded observer of American media is well aware of the intrinsic bias of Fox News. It is a bias that is recognized by journalists and scholars, analysts and amateurs. Even Fox no longer tries to pawn the euphemistic “fair and balanced” nonsense off on their viewers. They now cast themselves as “the most powerful name in news.” That slogan should provoke an obvious question: Is “power” something that is desirable in a news network?

Many divergent camps in politics and media are answering that question with a resounding “NO!” Those camps may now be coalescing into a united front that shares a healthy disrespect for Fox News.

It hardly needs mentioning that progressives view Fox as a festering boil that serves only to stain the otherwise honorable pursuit of journalism. Democrats like John Edwards and Barack Obama decline to appear on the network. As a result, the network has escalated their already derogatory coverage, going so far as to refer to them as “fools“ for having the temerity to steer clear of Fox’s venom.

Having alienated the Left, Fox has now set its sights on estranging their natural allies on the Right. This approach began with the exclusion of Ron Paul from a Fox debate co-sponsored by the New Hampshire Republican Party. Not surprisingly, Paul’s supporters were aghast, along with others who saw the blatantly prejudicial intent on the part of Fox News. Paul commented on the affair saying…

“They are scared of me and don’t want my message to get out, but it will. They are propagandists for this war and I challenge them on the notion that they are conservative.”

Paul may have something there. While it is plain that everything Rupert Murdoch touches reeks of rightist propaganda, Fox viewers actually appear to be more loyal to Fox than to Republicans or conservatism (see The Cult Of Foxonalityâ„¢). The New Hampshire debate went on without Paul and without the state Republican Party who withdrew their sponsorship in protest of Fox’s candidate exclusions.

Long-time conservative icon, Richard Viguerie had this to say about Fox:

“While Fox has ended the Democratic monopoly in TV news, it is becoming disturbingly clear that it is perpetuating the pro-Big Government monopoly in TV news.”

Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson is peeved at Fox’s coverage of him which he thinks is excessively negative:

“This has been a constant mantra of Fox, to tell you the truth. […] for you to highlight nothing but the negatives in terms of the polls and then put on your own guys who have been predicting for four months, really, that I couldn’t do it, kind of skew things a little bit. There’s a lot of other opinion out there.”

NewsBusters (the right’s lame answer to MediaMatters) doesn’t think Fox’s conservative bona fides are worth much:

“Even the allegedly “conservative” Fox News gave the New York Senator a softball interview.”

The freakin’ John Birch Society is weighing in with criticism of Fox and their in-house pollster (and serial dissembler) Frank Luntz:

“Whatever Luntz is doing on Fox with his ‘focus groups,’ its not science and its not even social science. Instead, it is an example of yellow journalism and nearly undisguised political propaganda designed to be misleading and manipulative.”

So Ron Paul, Richard Viguerie, Fred Thompson, NewsBusters, the Republican Party, and the John Birch Society have come together in recognition that, whatever it is that Fox does, it isn’t news. They are now in an uneasy harmony with most of the progressive end of the political spectrum. Perhaps now they will join us in shunning the network that is more focused on its own welfare than on the ethical practice of their craft.

A network consumed with bias, that revels in its own “power,” is dangerous to all of its potential subjects and to democracy itself. The state of journalism, and of the union, is greatly enhanced by this unity against media corruption. And our nation could only benefit if we can all get together and expel Fox News from the body politic. On that count we may owe Fox a debt of gratitude for uniting such far flung elements of society behind a frothing opposition to Fox itself. Thanks.


The O’Reilly Meltdown Will Be Televised

Posted by on January 7, 2008 at 8:01 pm. 4 Comments :

Today on the Factor, Bill O’Reilly played his videotape of the Clash in Nashua. It was truly disgusting listening to that belligerently egotistical megalomaniac barking orders at Obama’s aide, who was just doing his job. I don’t understand how The Fester can show this video and think that it makes him look sympathetic. I’m a little surprised he showed it all (though he did censor the part where he called the aide a “son of a bitch” and he ends it before his talk with Obama). Perhaps he had no choice but to show it after saying publicly on Saturday that he would do so. (Here is CSPAN’s version that contains the exchange between O’Reilly and Obama)

The video does clear some things up. For instance, it was clear in the video that O’Reilly lied when he said that there was no physical engagement. O’Reilly can be seen pushing the aide several times. It was also clear that O’Reilly lied when he said there was no intervention by the Secret Service. The video plainly shows an agent getting in between O’Reilly and the aide, and making sure that O’Reilly stayed back.

Perhaps the funniest part of this sorry escapade is O’Reilly’s attempt to characterize this as a defense of the Constitution. On his radio program today he made that argument twice:

“…in the tradition of the freedom of the press, I had to remove the man from blocking our camera shot – which I did.” And… “This guy’s clear intent was to block The Factor. And he knew it was me – he knew I was standing there – from getting any shot of the Senator and that’s against the Constitution.”

Then on TV he cast himself as a reluctant champion of the First Amendment:

“Well that’s a total violation of press freedom so I had no choice, ladies and gentlemen, but to uphold the Constitution.”

That’s right…O’Reilly thinks he has a Constitutional right shove his way into a crowd and demand that everyone make room for him and his camera crew. Can you imagine what O’Reilly would have said if Keith Olbermann was caught shoving an aide to John McCain so he could get a better shot? And what journalistic principle was O’Reilly fighting for? Did he have an issue of critical interest to the public to raise with Obama? Well, not unless you think that sucking up to the Senator to try to get him to appear on his TV show is high on the list of the American people’s concerns, because that’s all O’Reilly did.

When O’Reilly finally caught Obama’s attention, it sounded like Obama agreed to appear on The Factor sometime after the New Hampshire primary. I will be very disappointed if that occurs. First, because I have long been advocating that Democrats stay off of Fox News as a matter of principle (see Starve the Beast). And second, because after learning what led up to O’Reilly’s invitation, Obama would be foolish to reward him with an interview.

This is a point also made by NBC’s David Shuster, who couldn’t hold his tongue any longer. Shuster breaks loose and calls O’Reilly a “jerk” and a “buffoon.” And he adds that…

“Fox News ought to be so embarrassed with this guy.”

That’s not likely to happen as O’Reilly epitomizes the Fox News ethic of blustery ignorance. But this video is a rare example of a newsman speaking candidly and honestly about a repulsively demagogic colleague.

I sincerely hope that a lot of people watch O’Reilly tonight, and I know many more will see this affair on YouTube. After catching this little slice of strife it may just start to sink in that this guy needs Dr. Phil’s help more than Britany. And we may have a sound bite that can supersede last year’s “Don’t tase me, bro.” That would be O’Reilly hollering…

“Don’t block the shot, got it? Don’t block the shot!“

By the way, O’Reilly has a poll at billoreilly.com asking if he “was right to remove the guy that was blocking the Factor’s shot?” Feel free to go and vote.


Fake News Frets About Jon Stewart’s Return

Posted by on January 7, 2008 at 1:00 pm. 1 Comments :

Daily Show

It is the “fake news” purveyors from the likes of Fox News that will be most impacted by tonight’s return of Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show and the Colbert Report with Stephen Colbert. It has been a rough two months while these programs were sidelined by the writer’s strike. But the drought is over and politicians and journalists who have had a free ride will be vulnerable once again to the truthiness of Stewart and Colbert. I have long asserted that The Daily Show is as least as reliable a resource for useful information on current affairs as any supposedly “real” news program (see The Real Fake News).

The Writer’s Guild remains on strike and the many people associated with it are undergoing severe hardship. I would have preferred that these programs returned with their writing staff as did David Letterman’s show, but the complexities of the industry are still presenting obstacles to that scenario. But I also believe that our country needs the insight and analysis that is unique to quality satire, especially in an election year when candidates and reporters are scurrying around like cockroaches in the dark. Now we will get to see what happens when someone switches the light on again.

To be sure, these programs may not return quite the same as when they left. They are much more script-driven than talk shows like Letterman and Leno. Even the breaking news segments covered by a lone host cannot reasonably be expected to be on par with the work of a dozen talented comedy writers. They may attempt to mitigate this handicap by relying more on interviews, but that presents its own set of problems as some potential guests may decline to cross picket lines to appear on the shows. And there will be picket lines.

Although the striking writers have said that their picketing is targeted more at the networks and studios than the program hosts, who have been supportive of the writers, there will be reluctance on the part of some to cross the lines. But we should not overlook another benefit of the return of these programs: the hosts will almost certainly comment on the strike in a manner that is favorable to the writers. In fact, Stewart’s guest tonight is Ronald Seeber, Cornell University professor and associate dean in the School of Industrial and Labor Relations (ILR) and co-director of the ILR School’s Institute on Conflict Resolution. I don’t think he’s there to discuss the upcoming release of Rambo.

So let’s welcome back Jon and Stephen and wish them well. I, for one will be glued to the set, grateful that the establishment pretenders in the press and the political arena will be subjected to the scrutiny and ridicule they so richly deserve.

Oh…and screw the AMPTP! Support the WGA!

Update: Jon Stewart, as I predicted, delivered an inspired rant ridiculing the AMPTP. He also gave a touching tribute to his absent writers saying that the program “The” Daily Show with Jon Stewart, was the work of a talented team that included the writers. So for the duration of the strike, the program would be called “A” Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Nice touch, Jon.

For the record: David Letterman also offered a tribute to his writers, and those still on strike, when he returned to the air. Here’s a video of Late Show writer Bill Scheft slamming the AMPTP: A Message from the WGA


Why Is The Edwards Surge Not A Headline Story?

Posted by on January 6, 2008 at 2:32 pm. NO Comments :

A picture sometimes really is worth a thousand words…

Rassmussen conducts a daily national tracking poll of all presidential candidates. The latest shows John Edwards picking up significantly more support, since the beginning of the year, than any candidate of either party.

The percent change for Republicans is: Huckabee 18.8% / Giuliani 13.3% / McCain 11.8% / Thompson 8.3% / Romney -6.3%.

So why isn’t this news?

Because some networks are more interested in trivialities than substance:
[Chris]Wallace asked a total of five questions, three of which concerned Edwards’ non-appearance on the network.

Because some candidates are unafraid of taking on the media:
Edwards continues to solidify his position as the candidate most committed to media reform and supportive of efforts to rollback consolidation. He has spoken out on many occasions on the need for independence and diversity in the press and he has been a leading voice of opposition to the FCC’s policy of weakening regulations on ownership caps.

Because the media’s pack mentality kicks into high gear when it gets defensive:
They are ultimately afraid that the populist appeal of a movement that truly seeks to bring economic opportunity to every citizen, instead of just the elite, could catch on. That’s why it has to be strangled in the cradle of a candidate who is running third in national polls. The risk extends beyond Edwards himself. If voters responded positively to the issue, the other candidates would adopt it. So even if Edwards does not become a contender, the issue stays on the table.

Because media conglomerates make billions from their political connections:
There doesn’t seem to be an end in sight for the profligate spending on political ads and events. These expenditures are sponsored, for the most part, by mega-corporations with interests in the outcome of the elections.

And because sticking your neck out to curtail media abuse can attract some freshly sharpened axes:
Responding to the FCC’s proposed new rules for media ownership, John Edwards has written a letter addressed to Commission chairman Kevin Martin. Like his predecessor Michael Powell (Colin’s boy), Martin has drafted a set of rules aimed at advancing the interests of Big Media conglomerates and permitting them to get even bigger and more powerful.

And now the media fails to report the strongest surge of support of any candidate. What a surprise. However, it is important that we do not become sullen and defeatist. We cannot allow the media establishment to lead our nation around by its nose. Just because they have an immense quantity of old-world firepower is no reason to surrender to them. We have new weapons that give us more power than they imagine. The very fact that Edwards’ support has accelerated despite the media resistance, is evidence that the people’s message can be heard over the din of propagandists. We only need to keep our voices and our spirits up.

While the circumstances related above are specific to the campaign of John Edwards, it could (and will) apply to any candidate with the courage to take on entrenched media institutions. So even if Edwards is not your candidate, this is still your fight because your candidate will be next.


Fox Business Network Limps Out Of The Gate

Posted by on January 5, 2008 at 6:11 pm. NO Comments :

The new Fox Business Network may not be living up to the hype.

Although Nielsen ratings are not being officially released, numbers have leaked that don’t auger well for Murdoch’s new baby:

“After less than three months on the air, Fox Business Network is averaging a mere 6,000 viewers in daytime and 15,000 in primetime”

Putting that in perspective, FBN’s main competition is CNBC which averages 284,000 viewers in total day and 238,000 in primetime. And CNBC passes 90 million homes, about three times as many as FBN. Of course, it is still too early to gloat, but the network’s honchos led us to believe that they had much higher expectations. Roger Ailes told us that he would not settle for “anything short of a revolution.” And Murdoch gave this comment a few days after the launch:

“It’s two and a half to three days old and looks just terrific. Everybody, even in the industry, (recognizes) how different it is to CNBC, which is half-dead,”

It appears that the FBN revolution is having a little trouble taking on their half-dead competition. Time will deliver a fuller picture, but clearly FBN has work to do. However, rather than getting down to business, FBN’s executive vice president, Kevin Magee, is just sniping at CNBC, whom he accuses of having leaked these numbers:

“They spent dearly to get [FBN ratings], which is pretty crazy […] I think it shows how uber-concerned they are about us.”

Actually, it’s pretty much routine to get competitive ratings from Nielsen. And when you consider that Murdoch is well known for deficit financing his ventures indefinitely, it is a fairly hollow complaint that CNBC is investing in itself. This sort of griping just makes one wonder who is uber-concerned about whom?

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Developing: O’Reilly Tangles With Obama Aide

Posted by on January 5, 2008 at 12:47 pm. 7 Comments :

O'Reilly Fear FactorThe Chicago Sun-Times is reporting that Bill O’Reilly had a less than cordial encounter with an aide to Barack Obama at a New Hampshire campaign event. Apparently The Fester wasn’t getting the preferential treatment to which he was accustomed. Here is Lynn Sweet’s account of this developing story:

The incident was triggered when O’Reilly–with a Fox News crew shooting–was screaming at Obama National Trip Director Marvin Nicholson “Move” so he could get Obama’s attention, according to several eyewitnesses. “O’Reilly was yelling at him, yelling at his face,” a photographer shooting the scene said.

O’Reilly grabbed Nicholson’s arm and shoved him, another eyewitness said. Nicholson, who is 6’8, said O’Reilly called him “low class.”

“He grabbed me with both his hands here,” Nicholson said, gesturing to his left arm and O’Reilly “started shoving me.” Nicholson said, “He was pretty upset. He was yelling at me.”

Secret Service agents who were nearby flanked O ‘Reilly after he pushed Nicholson. They told O’Reilly he needed to calm down and get behind the fence-like barricade that contained the press.

Obama had his back turned at this point and did not see any of this.

O’Reilly yelled “sir” at Obama and Obama walked over, not aware of what happened and told him he had an overflow crowd to visit.

This part is a little creepy:

Mr. O’Reilly said he thought Sen. Obama was great and that he loved him and loved to have him on the show and said he would think about coming on after the primaries.

O’Reilly “loves” Obama? With friends like that, who needs enemas? For all of O’Reilly’s obstreperousness, his only purpose in forcing his way up to Obama was to beg him to appear on The Factor. He didn’t even try to ask a substantive question. Since Obama and Edwards have refused to appear on Fox, I guess they feel they need to go out and stalk them. And I certainly hope that after Obama thinks about it, he will continue to decline to appear on Fox and particularly on O’Reilly’s program.

A few minutes ago (approx. 12:05pm), O’Reilly called in to Brian Wilson anchoring the Fox News broadcast. He denied that there was a scuffle but said, laughing, that he might have used profanity (called the aide an SOB). At the end of the call he menacingly warned mankind that “No one on this earth is going to block a shot from The O’Reilly Factor. It is not going to happen.”

Wilson, said that there will be limited video later today and that O’Reilly will show the whole thing on his show on Monday (presumably after having had time to edit/alter it).

I will try to stay on top of this and post video if it becomes available.

Update: Now Wilson says that the video will only be available on The Factor this Monday. Since when does a news channel withhold newsworthy video for two days? Since the video features their #1 personality and can’t be cleared for airing until they make sure it doesn’t reflect badly on him.

Update: For good measure, O’Reilly also crashed a Clinton campaign event (YouTube) earlier the same day and attempted to plant a question with a member of the audience. The woman stood up and fingered O’Reilly who Clinton then pointed out before answering the question.


Chris Wallace Justifies Fox News Embargo

Posted by on January 4, 2008 at 11:24 am. NO Comments :

Chris Wallace has proven once again why John Edwards (and any other Democrat) is thoroughly justified in declining to appear on Rupert Murdoch’s Foxic airwaves.

In a segment that was only three and a half minutes long (video below), Wallace wasted half of it badgering Edwards’ spokesman, Chris Kofinis, about why Edwards wouldn’t come out and play with Wallace. This already too brief interview, on the day of the Iowa caucus, was halved because Wallace was determined to make a self-serving point that could only have been of interest to Fox News insiders. Wallace asked a total of five questions, three of which concerned Edwards’ non-appearance on the network. Here’s the first question:

“Before we get to the caucuses, let me ask you a question. When is Senator Edwards going to stop boycotting the voters who watch Fox News?”

First of all, let’s be clear about who the voters who watch Fox News really are:

“…research revealed that Fox viewers supported George Bush over John Kerry by 88% to 7%. Only Republicans were more united in supporting Bush. Conservatives, white evangelical Christians, gun owners, and supporters of the Iraq war all gave Bush fewer votes than did regular Fox News viewers.”

Secondly, despite Wallace’s dishonest phrasing, Edwards is not boycotting viewers at all. He is sending a clear message to Murdoch and Fox that they cannot repeatedly disparage a party, its members, supporters and ideals, and expect to be received with gracious hospitality.

This exchange is proof that a concerted effort by Democrats to embargo Fox News (see Starve the Beast for more) is both warranted and working. It is warranted because, as you can see in this interview, Fox is more interested in its own affairs than in providing fair access to information. It is working because, as is also apparent, Wallace is obsessed with Edwards’ cold shoulder. If the strategy wasn’t hurting Fox, Wallace would not have spent half his time whining about it. He even came back to his lament at the close of the segment saying:

“Chris Kofinis it’s a pleasure talking to you. It would be even more of a pleasure to talk to your boss, but thank you so much.”

Wallace couldn’t let it go, and there is a reason for that. He knows that this strategy could result in delegitimizing Fox News on a broad scale (yeah I know, delegitimizing Fox News is like dehydrating the Sahara). A reputable news agency is not sustainable if half of its subjects refuse to respect its validity. Wallace knows this and that is why he is so fixated on it and fearful of it. Just last month he resorted to insulting the very constituency he is now pretending to covet:

“I think the Democrats are damn fools [for] not coming on Fox News.”

If that’s an example of how Wallace intends to cajole Democrats into his lair, he may encounter some resistance. However, it is a good example, along with this interview, of why Fox should be considered off-limits by reasonable Democrats and progressives.


Conservative Vultures Circling Over Wounded Media

Posted by on January 3, 2008 at 2:33 am. NO Comments :

John K. Carlisle of the arch-conservative National Legal and Policy Center is peddling a cynical strategy to exploit an ailing newspaper industry. The plan is an undisguised blueprint for media manipulation [Note: The NLPC scrubbed this article from their website, but through the persistent survivability of the Internet it is still available here and here]. Here are some examples of how Carlisle presents his initiative:

“The long-term decline in newspaper circulation presents the conservative movement with an excellent opportunity to increase its influence with the media.”

“Falling readership and tighter budgets are forcing newspapers to dedicate fewer staff to investigative reporting. As a result, they are increasingly relying upon nonprofit organizations to fill the gap.”

“If conservative nonprofit organizations significantly increase their use of investigative reporting, then the movement will be able to partly offset the liberal bias of the mainstream media.”

“…by aggressively getting involved in investigative journalism conservative nonprofit organizations stand to enormously change the terms of the media debate, perhaps in much the same way that Fox News and Talk Radio revolutionized media coverage.”

The plan, in short, is for conservative think tanks to produce stories that they could feed to newspapers and television who, due to their desperation for content, would gladly publish it. But you have to wonder what need is being filled when so much of the media is already shoveling rightist propaganda produced from within the media companies themselves. Carlisle even supplies the examples of Fox News and talk radio, which are dominated by conservative ideologues.

The real purpose of this proposal is not to offset any mythical liberal bias, but to fortify a conservative one. Carlisle cites the launch of ProPublica, an independent investigative news service, as evidence that conservatives need to redouble their efforts to influence the media. He correctly points out that the founders of ProPublica are long-time progressive activists. But he dismissed the fact that the service is headed by a former editor of the Wall Street Journal who insisted on, and was granted, editorial independence.

The right’s echo chamber is already at work attempting to discredit ProPublica, beginning with a report on Fox News where Brit Hume criticizes the new firm and its founders before they have published even one story (YouTube):

“They are major Democratic political donors, who gave all their campaign contributions to Democrats in 2006. They have also been longtime critics of President Bush.”

If that’s the criteria used to discredit ProPublica, what can be said of Carlisle’s group, the National Legal and Policy Center, that has received about 73% of their funding since 1995 from the ultra-right Scaife Family Foundations? The network of Scaife institutions has not only contributed millions of dollars to Republicans and criticized President Clinton, they have also spread outrageous smears against other Democrats including a story that accused Hillary Clinton of murder.

The NLPC is an avowedly conservative group that proudly asserts its intention to infect the media with its rightist perspectives. Their plot to plant slanted news items into conventional media outlets is a nauseating assault on journalistic ethics. And this is coming from an organization whose motto is “Promoting ethics in public life.” They are also mimicking the M. O. of Bush administration agencies that have previously been caught engaging in illegal distribution of propaganda through the use of video press releases and payoffs to public figures like pundits and celebrities. If Carlisle succeeds the government’s abhorrent practice of shipping pre-packaged fake news “reports” to media outlets for distribution, without disclosing the producer, will shift to the private sector where it could pick up steam from aggressive fundraising, marketing, and the absence of oversight.

The tactics of the NLPC and other organizations like them must be closely watched and, when necessary, countered to prevent them from succeeding in contaminating the media any more than it already is. Keep an eye on the bylines in your local paper and be aware of who you are reading. Know the names of staff writers and regularly syndicated independent and wire correspondents. If you see reports from other outsourced authors who are affiliated with partisan think tanks, let the editors know that this will not be tolerated and will result in a lost subscriber. Don’t let your local media become a bazaar where any two-bit propagandist can set up a stall and hawk their snake oil.

See update here (4/21/2010).


Rudy’s 9/11 Generation

Posted by on January 3, 2008 at 12:50 am. NO Comments :

If you thought Rudy Giuliani couldn’t get more crass in his exploitation of the tragic attack on September 11, 2001, you underestimate Rudy. On the second day of the new year he proves that there is no bottom to his well of puke.

Rudy 911

“I think it wouldn’t be unfair to describe us as the 9/11 generation, because how we handle this is going to say something about us in history.”

That’s right, Rudy thinks that the entire current population should be defined by a single, horrible day that represents both the hatred of a small tribe of barbarous extremists, and the woeful unpreparedness of an incompetent and illegitimate administration. I think I’ll stick with Baby Boomer.