Fox News Is Very Concerned About Sexism

Posted by on June 14, 2011 at 11:54 am. 2 Comments :

On today’s front page of the Fox News online spew factory known as Fox Nation, there was a featured article that raised concerns about sexism in the media. Of course, it wasn’t directed to the dominance of ditzy blonds that populate Fox’s programming, or the fixation they have on First Lady Michelle Obama’s wardrobe or weight. It was that the Washington Post crossed some line of political correctness that offended Fox’s commitment to gender equality and respect when they published a story about Michelle Bachmann’s performance at the New Hampshire GOP debate. But take a look at the “Pic of the Day” that appeared just to the right of Bachmann’s on the web site:


The first thing that should be noted about this outrage is that the Fox Nationalists clearly don’t know what the phrase “Assume the position means.” They seem to think it has something to do with a sexual position. That, of course, is not so, but it tells us a lot about the pervs at Fox News. The phrase is a reference to a police command that a subject submit to a search for weapons or other contraband.

The next thing to note is that the Washington Post didn’t initiate the use of the phrase. They merely reported that John King, the CNN moderator of the debate, used it to prepare the candidates for the start of the debate. It was a play on words with an association to “positions” that candidates take on issues. In as much as the Post editorialized the phrase with regard to Bachmann, it was in a positive manner, saying that she “rose above the usual positioning” and that she “stole the show.”

Finally, the spectacle of Fox News becoming disturbed about sexism is a joke. As alluded to above, they are generally dismissive of legitimate complaints of sexism, which they portray as liberal whining and political correctness. But worse than that, they ceaselessly exploit sexism on the air in pursuit of horny viewers. So I took a look at Fox Nation’s “Pic of the Day” for just this year and found that they might not be as sensitive to the prevalence of sexism as they pretend to be.


This exploitation of women’s sexuality for commercial purposes is a part of the Fox News identity. It is Rupert Murdoch’s editorial creed and is practiced across his properties. If they could get away with it, they would broadcast nude pictures of women as Murdoch’s British tabloid The Sun does daily on its Page Three feature. This has long been one of the most blatant hypocrisies of the Murdoch empire which purports to advocate a Puritan-style, faith-based, morality. Somehow, Fox’s glassy-eyed congregation is able to ignore this contradiction.

To be fair, while researching this article I found that Fox was not entirely consumed with the sexual exploitation of women. There was one example of a male victim of this rhetorical abuse:


That’s Republican congressman Aaron Schock of Illinois. And, no, this is not a picture that he tweeted to a fan online. It is a picture that he posed for and was published in Men’s Health Magazine. Consequently it was on newsstands nationwide and seen by millions, not just a handful of individuals on a social network. That’s apparently the difference. If you send naked pictures of yourself to a couple of net-friends you are called upon to resign. If you publish them in magazines with millions of readers, as Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) did, it’s perfectly OK. Got that? And if you’re going to embroil yourself in a sex scandal, at least get some actual sex. Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) and Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA) were both caught with prostitutes in violation of the law, but they are both still serving in Congress.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Fox News Analyst Dick Morris Admits He Is A GOP Shill

Posted by on June 14, 2011 at 1:12 am. 2 Comments :

Anyone with a functioning brain stem knows that Fox News is the PR arm of the Republican Party. Their programming throughout the day is unabashedly partisan and overtly hostile to the White House and Democrats. And while they prove it every day in their news and commentary, it isn’t often that confess it openly.

Fox News contributor and political analyst Dick Morris appeared today on the Mike Gallagher radio show and made it clear that he has no intention of even pretending to be a objective analyst:

Morris: I decided a couple of – a month or two ago to stop dumping on Mitt Romney, for example … Not because I approve of Romneycare, not because I approve of his flip-flops, flip on abortion, but because I may have to be one of those who carries this guy for a couple of months when he’s running against Obama and I don’t want to make my own task harder.

There you have it. It doesn’t matter what his actual opinion is about Romney, he is only going to comment in a manner that will be supportive. So regardless what questions he is asked by Fox hosts like Bill O’Reilly or Megyn Kelly, Morris can be depended on to give a dishonest answer.

It would be interesting to ask O’Reilly what he thinks about this and how he will engage Morris the next time Morris is his guest. It calls calls into question every answer Morris gives on any subject. Is he just advancing the GOP position on not increasing the debt ceiling even though he may believe it should be increased? Is he really pro-abortion but doesn’t want to want make his task harder when he’s promoting a family values, fundamentalist Republican candidate?

OK, a lot of this is obvious partisanship that has always been a part of the Fox psyche. And Morris is, perhaps, the most consistently wrong pundit in America. But it’s still a little jarring to hear him make this admission. And the fact that he feels free to do so is likewise disturbing. When will Fox’s colleagues wise up and stop treating Fox as if it were a legitimate news enterprise? Fox is making fools of every real journalist that allows them to get away with this.


Sarah Palin: An Excruciating Combination Of Bombast And Whining

Posted by on June 11, 2011 at 9:21 am. 10 Comments :

Sarah PalinThe upcoming Sarah Palin crockumentary, hilariously titled The Undefeated, has been screening before selected audiences. The reaction hasn’t been particularly encouraging. For the most part conservatives are swooning over its unabashedly reverential treatment of the former half-term governor and defeated VP candidate, while liberals note the historical revisionism that excises all of her missteps and muddle-headedness.

The most surprising critique comes from an unlikely source. Kyle Smith is the film critic for the New York Post. The Post is not only a notoriously right-wing, tabloid rag, it is also owned by Rupert Murdoch, the same person who employs Sarah Palin at his Fox News Channel. So here is what is being said about the movie from its friendliest faction:

“Its tone is an excruciating combination of bombast and whining, it’s so outlandishly partisan that it makes Richard Nixon look like Abraham Lincoln and its febrile rush of images – not excluding earthquakes, car wrecks, volcanic eruption and attacking Rottweilers – reminded me of the brainwash movie Alex is forced to sit through in ‘A Clockwork Orange.’ Except no one came along to refresh my pupils with eyedrops.”

In other words, the movie is a painstakingly accurate representation of its subject. It will be premiering in Iowa next month, followed by New Hampshire and other early primary states. And Fox News still keeps Palin on the air as if she were not campaigning. The producers hope to launch a limited release in mostly red states later in the year. Expect it to achieve success similar to that of the Tea Party-promoted Atlas Shrugged. Which is to say that it will fail miserably. And like Atlas Shrugged, the free market-loving, Randian, Tea Partiers will blame everything but the film’s shoddy production and tedious, predictability for its failure.

The prospects for this project are conspicuously weak. Despite the Pavlovian frenzy on the part of the media, Palin is actually a marginal figure with approval ratings in the twenties. That is not the sort of product that fills seats in theaters. Her books have sold successively worse, and her TLC cable show lost viewers just about every week it was on the air. So where is the audience for this outside of the waning Palin Appreciation Society?

The one potentially positive outcome of this film is that, after it bombs, perhaps the media will grasp that Palin is nothing more than a political pet rock – a gag gift that does not deserve the attention that is showered on her. And since she hates the press so much, and refuses to interact with it, maybe they will stop following her around like lost puppies.


Was Andrew Breitbart’s X-Rated Photo Release Really “Accidental”? [Updated]

Posted by on June 9, 2011 at 2:26 pm. 11 Comments :

Just when you thought that Andrew Breitbart could not become any sleazier, he is now accusing Anthony Weiner and his wife of releasing the news of her pregnancy as a PR stunt. That’s a stretch even for a scumbag like Breitbart. As usual, he has no evidence, not even an anonymous source. It is a wholly invented canard whose only purpose can be to smear the Weiner family and bring them more pain, and consequently bring more pain to his real target, the Democratic Party.

This is politics at its worst. Despite Breitbart’s disingenuous assertion that he didn’t want to hurt the Weiner family, he now says that “We have every right to find out to what extent he’s been misbehaving.” Since when? And if we have that right with regard to Weiner, should we also be stalking every other public servant to disclose their misbehavior? Should we see what Breitbart is up to when he’s not peeking through the windows of his ideological enemies?

If anyone is engaging in PR stunts, it’s Breitbart. When the latest and most graphic picture of Weiner was “leaked” to the media this week, Breitbart feigned outrage, insisting that he had nothing to do with it. Why should anyone believe that?

Here are the known facts: Breitbart took the photo with him when he went to the radio studio of shock-jocks Opie & Anthony. That’s the first curious thing. Why would he need to have that picture with him while visiting a pair of professional jerkwads who make a living off of rank controversy? Then, without any prodding, he handed the photo, which was on his cellphone, to others in the studio who passed it around amongst themselves while making juvenile wisecracks. That is not something someone concerned about the subject’s privacy would do.

Later, Breitbart alleged that a surveillance camera in the room captured the photo from his cellphone. That is a suspect assertion at best. It is simply not credible that a surveillance camera could have picked up the image from Breitbart’s cellphone and produced the detail on the leaked photo that went public. Most surveillance cameras are positioned high on the wall near a corner of the room so that they have a broad perspective of the area they are monitoring. Breitbart expects us to believe that one of those cameras, that are not generally high resolution devices, got a clear and detailed shot over somebody’s shoulder of an image on a small cellphone screen. That assertion needs to be challenged.

Additionally, Breitbart claimed that he only offered to show the photo after he was assured that there were no cameras in the room. That is a verifiable lie. Breitbart knew very well that the show was being videotaped. You can see the video of the show below.

Clearly this was taken on a hand-held device, not a stationary surveillance camera. Breitbart even looks directly at the camera on several occasions. So he obviously lied when he said that he thought there were no cameras in the studio. And his assertion that he was told that there were no cameras was also a lie. The video shows that he never asked for, nor received such an assurance.

In my estimation, Breitbart wanted this photo to be released but he didn’t want to take the heat as the sleazeball who released it. So he manufactured this cover story with a couple of radio publicity hounds who would gladly insert themselves into a national melodrama. Anthony Cumia even admitted as much in an interview on Fox News:

“When you take a chunk of meat into a lion’s den, someone’s gonna take a bite. […] I do kind of like attaching ourselves to an international story. It is the credo of the shock jock.”

This appears to be a deliberate scheme to extend and amplify the controversy, and it is just the sort of thing Breitbart would do based on his Legacy of Sleaze. There are so many pieces of Breitbart’s story that don’t fit, or are certifiably false, that one has to refer to his history of dishonesty and purposeful deception. Until Breitbart can satisfactorily explain these discrepancies, we should assume that he deliberately devised this scheme to release the photo with his shock-jock pals as accomplices.

[UPDATE] Stephen Colbert also noticed Breitbart’s ridiculous cover story about the “accidental” release of the photo. Colbert succinctly nailed the notion that Breibart was an innocent victim of unforeseeable circumstances:

“What happened to the sacred tradition of confidentiality between respected journalists and shock-jocks?”

Colbert also mocked the absurd claim that Breitbart didn’t know there were cameras in the studio by pointing out that no cameras were visible in the video of Breitbart that was taken by a camera across the desk from him.


Don’t Forget Andrew Breitbart’s Legacy Of Sleaze

Posted by on June 9, 2011 at 11:21 am. 3 Comments :

With calls mounting for Anthony Weiner to resign, it would be prudent to take a look back at the public record of his accuser. It is Andrew Breitbart whose behavior is most repulsive and destructive. He is a liar and a hypocrite and causes far more harm than a horny congressman who never actually engaged in any sexual misconduct. If anyone should resign and skulk away in shame, it’s Breitbart.

[The following News Corpse article was originally published by Alternet]

Andrew BreitbartPublic apologies are often the source of captivating and prurient entertainment. There seems to be a genetic compulsion in the human DNA to observe our heroes, celebrities, and, of course, adversaries, fall from grace and beg forgiveness. This week we saw what may be Rep. Anthony Weiner’s curtain call but, like any good melodrama, he was upstaged by an ambitious and vainglorious rival, Andrew Breitbart.

After commandeering the podium at Weiner’s press conference, Breitbart declared “I’m here for some vindication.” He portrayed himself as a media-contrived victim of character assassination and challenged the reporters in the room substantiate their alleged assaults on his reputation.

“The media says ‘Breitbart lies, Breitbart lies, Breitbart lies, Breitbart lies.’ Give me one example of a provable lie. One. One. Journalists? One. Put your reputation on the line here.”

For some reason, no one in the room responded. It’s almost as if the press were clueless stenographers, unfamiliar with Breitbart’s past, and were incapable of providing a substantive rebuttal.

This is actually fairly typical of the modern press corps. Another example occurred when the New York Times asked Breitbart about the Weiner affair on Saturday and 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.”

Really? What the Times failed to note was 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 (except for the plug for his lame book), and that was four full days after the story broke.


For those who are interested, including members of the press who were struck dumb at the press conference, here is a brief compilation of Breitbart’s reportorial resume, replete with dishonesty and deliberate disinformation. Feel free to offer these in response to Breitbart’s future challenges. We will await his profuse and heartfelt apologies.

1) ACORN: Breibart’s web site was the central agency for disseminating videos that were later shown to have been heavily edited in order to convey a fictional scenario that smeared a social service organization that had for years been assisting low income citizens with financial advice and voter registration. Every investigation of the affair exonerated ACORN and affirmed the deception of the videos. Breitbart’s henchman, James O’Keefe, is currently being sued by former ACORN employee, Juan Carlos Vera.

2) Shirley Sherrod: In this episode, Breitbart was responsible for slandering a USDA employee as a racist. Lately he has been defending himself by saying that he had included the “redemptive arc” of her story that revealed her innocence. But let’s not forget how he originally portrayed the situation:

“In her meandering speech to what appears to be an all-black audience, this federally appointed executive bureaucrat lays out in stark detail, that her federal duties are managed through the prism of race and class distinctions. […] In the first video, Sherrod describes how she racially discriminates against a white farmer.”

That is a pretty clear accusation of discriminatory behavior on the part of a federal employee. And it is also a lie. Sherrod did not discriminate against the farmer, as Breitbart later acknowledged, and the story she told was of an incident that occurred 20 years before she held a federal post. Nevertheless, Breitbart’s reaction at the time was another demonstration of his paranoid Narcissism as he whined, “As difficult as it probably was for her, it’s been difficult for me as well.” Poor guy. Sherrod is currently suing Breitbart.

3) Clinton Plotting a Tea Party Attack: Breitbart published a story with no evidence, about an alleged conspiracy that never came to pass:

“Big Government has learned that Clintonistas are plotting a ‘push/pull’ strategy. They plan to identify 7-8 national figures active in the tea party movement and engage in deep opposition research on them. If possible, they will identify one or two they can perhaps ‘turn’, either with money or threats, to create a mole in the movement. The others will be subjected to a full-on smear campaign.”

Also never coming to pass…a retraction. This story bubbled up through the media like much of Breitbart’s fiction, eventually getting coverage from Fox Nation.

4) Jason Mattera’s Punking of Grayson and Franken: Jason Mattera, who later became editor of Human Events, was employed to run a couple of “ambush” interviews that were posted on Breitbart’s web site. One interview targeted Rep. Alan Grayson and castigated him for his support of bill that funded a program to prevent child abuse. The other interview was directed at Sen Al Franken who was attacked for supporting student health and school safety. In both cases Mattera twisted the purpose of the legislation into something unrecognizable and patently false. Expect more of this because, as Breitbart says in his book, Righteous Indignation, “Ambush journalism is the most valuable kind of journalism.”

5) University of Missouri Labor Class: In another phony video sting, Breitbart published a video of the proceedings of a class on the history of labor at the University of Missouri at Kansas City. As usual, the video was a deceitful mash-up that misrepresented the professors and students as supporting violent labor activity. The twist here is that it was Breitbart’s one-time friend Glenn Beck who published an accounting of the video deception and vindicated the professors. As a bonus intrigue, the party from whom Breitbart got the UM video is identified only as Insurgent Visuals. That, however, may be a ruse to disguise Breitbart’s long-time partner in crime, James O’Keefe.

6) Beck’s Back Alley Snitch: Speaking of Glenn Beck, in happier times when the two weren’t feuding, Breibart was the source for numerous Beck offensives. He provided Beck with scandalous material on Van Jones who, at the time, was a White House adviser on environmental initiatives. Beck lauded Breitbart, saying…

“You know where the great journalists of our time are? Andrew Breitbart. […] You were the only one, besides watchdogs, that were really aggressively working behind the scenes with us on Van Jones.”

The same thing occurred with Yosi Sergant, communications director for the National Endowment for the Arts. Breitbart went after him and provided the data to Beck, who said…

“This is again another Breitbart story, where the NEA communications director reached out and said, hey, listen, we have to be very careful with our language here.”

In both cases the information provided by Breitbart was vague and/or untrue, but both Jones and Sergant were jettisoned — just as Sherrod was — by a nervous White House for violations that were either false or greatly exaggerated.

7) Democrats Plotted to Blame Tea Party for Slaughter: Breitbart’s site featured an article that made the sensationalist claim that Democrats devised a plan to blame the Tea Party for the tragic shooting in Tucson, AZ. The allegation consisted of a single, unidentified source who merely offered his own opinion that the massacre could be pinned on Tea Partiers. There was no allegation of a conspiracy or even of any discussions of such a plan by anyone connected to the Democratic Party. But that didn’t stop Breitbart from posting the story with an irresponsibly provocative headline.

8) The Abbie Boudreau Affair: In one of the most bizarre adventures by the James O’Keefe gang, they set out to lure CNN reporter Abbie Boudreau into a floating love nest to embarrass her in some manner that was never really explained. While Breitbart did not act as the agent for this prank, he did provide a platform for O’Keefe to publish his defense after having been outed by an accomplice. O’Keefe managed to take a situation in which he appeared to be a revolting pervert and make it worse by saying about Boudreau…

“She would have had to consent before being filmed and she was not going to be faux ‘seduced’ unless she wanted to be.”

Considering the fact that he never sought the consent of his previous video victims, why should we accept his assertion that he was going to start seeking consent now? Even more troubling is his implication that his intended victim “wanted” it. O’Keefe is resorting to the disgusting defense that rapists offer about their victims. And Breitbart permitted this to be published on his site.

9) GEICO Gecko – Tea Party Crasher? Breitbart’s BigGovernment blog posted a mind-numbingly stupid article that accused Ricky Gervais, the actor/comedian and voice of the GEICO Gecko of disparaging the Tea Party in a profanity-laced voice-mail. The only problem is that Gervais had nothing to do with it. It was an actor (D.C. Douglas) who worked for GEICO a couple of years prior. But it wasn’t enough to smear Gervais with insinuations, Breitbart also posted a picture of the Gecko atop a table that was adorned with a poster of President Obama sporting a Hitler mustache. What that had to do with the story is anyone’s guess. It just appeared to be a gratuitous slap at the President while falsely slandering Gervais.

10) Racism: Breitbart is obsessed with the theme of racism. He is convinced that the charge is thrown around cavalierly, and mostly to insult Tea Partiers and himself. He embarked on a campaign to prove that congressman and civil rights hero, John Lewis, was lying when he said that he had been the victim of racial epithets when attending a congressional rally. He regards the Shirley Sherrod incident as an example of the racism demonstrated by the NAACP. But when discussing allegations of his own prejudice, Breitbart said this to radio host Adam Carolla:

“Can I prove that I’m not a racist toward Hispanics? Did you ever see Moscow on the Hudson? Remember Maria Conchita Alonso in that? The things I did to myself as a teenager prove that I’m not a racist.”

So Breitbart’s proof that he is not a racist is that he used to masturbate to pictures of a Latino actress. That defense would also work pretty well to prove that colonial plantation masters weren’t racist either because they routinely raped their slaves. Breitbart’s repulsive pride in his perverse view of racial open-mindedness tells us much about him. And he is certainly in no position to assess the veracity of people like John Lewis.

This should be a good starting point for the press in case they ever get the chance again to respond to Breitbart’s call for evidence of his dishonesty and low character. Here’s hoping that they are listening and that no one presumes to use the Weiner affair to rehabilitate Breitbart’s deservedly sleazy reputation. Just because Breitbart lucked into being correct (like a broken clock) doesn’t mean that his long-established pattern of deception should be dismissed. Just because Charles Manson didn’t kill Marilyn Monroe doesn’t mean that he’s innocent of every other crime attributed to him.

Breitbart deserves no accolades over this. His reputation cannot be rehabilitated after one lucky scoop sent to him by a Twitter stalker. And he still owes the many people he deliberately harmed an apology. Weiner, at least, was man enough to own up to his mistakes, eventually. Will Breitbart ever do the same? Not likely.


Glenn Beck Attacks His Boss – Again

Posted by on June 8, 2011 at 11:30 pm. 2 Comments :

On his TV program today, Glenn Beck spent the whole hour with former Godfather’s Pizza CEO, Herman Cain.

Cain, who is challenging Joe Biden for the Gaffe King crown, discussed his previous slip-up when he said that he wouldn’t appoint Muslims to his Cabinet if he were elected president. He later had to backpedal that, but today he got himself in more trouble. When Beck asked him about it, Cain said that as president he would require Muslims to take a loyalty oath that Christians, Mormons, and others would not be required to take. He knows less about the Constitution than Palin does about Paul Revere. But he still doesn’t sink as low as his host.

Beck took a few minutes to bash American workers and products by slamming General Motors.

Beck: The newest GM CEO is Dan Akerson. He used to work for the Carlyle Group. That’s a global private equity firm that manages $106 billion. Hey, yeah, some of the players in the Carlyle Group are great. George Soros. Who would’ve seen that one coming?

Beck apparently thinks that GM is some sort of left-wing front group because of the resume of its new chief executive. However, the Carlyle Group is a notoriously conservative enterprise that has been headed by folks like Frank Carlucci, Ronald Reagan’s National Security Advisor; James Baker, Secretary of State under George H.W. Bush; and Caspar Weinberger, former Reagan Defense Secretary. Beck displays a graphic that lists the scoundrels associated with Carlyle:


Yep, there’s George Soros (right up at the top), Madeline Albright’s daughter (whose name Beck must have forgotten), and Colin Powell (Bush Jr.’s Secretary of State). But the cherry on top is Prince Al-Waleed who happens to be the largest shareholder of News Corp stock outside of Rupert Murdoch and family.

This is not the first time Beck has implied that his boss is somehow involved in nefarious activities. On one occasion he tagged him as a funder of the so-called Mosque at Ground Zero. On another occasion Beck actually accused Al-Waleed of being part of the Al Qaeda gang who attacked Manhattan on 9/11. And now we learn that it’s even worse than that. Al-Waleed is in cahoots with George Soros.

What a tangled web we weave…..

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

The Great Suppression: Republicans Clampdown On Art

Posted by on June 8, 2011 at 5:42 pm. 1 Comments :

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.


FLASHBACK: Pope Preaches Media Ethics

Posted by on June 8, 2011 at 11:38 am. 2 Comments :

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)

Posted by on June 8, 2011 at 2:22 am. 1 Comments :

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

Posted by on June 6, 2011 at 11:46 pm. 3 Comments :

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?