Farrah Fawcett’s Legacy Will Be The Beauty Of Her Courage

Posted by on June 25, 2009 at 1:38 pm. NO Comments :

With the passing of Farrah Fawcett, there will be endless references to her beauty, to her smile and hair and the figure so famously captured in a poster. But there is much more to this woman than the surface assets that fueled her celebrity.

After her star-making role in Charlie’s Angels, Farrah was cast as a victim of domestic abuse in the television drama, “The Burning Bed.” It was a role that required her to challenge the critics who, at the time, dismissed her as eye candy. It was a role that called for her to set aside her most bankable qualities and portray a character that was often grotesquely beaten and painful to look at. And it was a role that was controversial in its day, not just for addressing a subject about which few people spoke, but for the assertive, defiant, and aggressive response of the character she played.

The Burning Bed was directed by Robert Greenwald who now runs Brave New Films, a progressive production company and Internet enterprise. The TV movie was nominated for eight Emmys, including Outstanding Directing and Outstanding Lead Actress. Amongst Greenwald’s more recent projects is the brilliant “Outfoxed.”

While Greenwald has gone on to be a profound spokesman for progressive causes, Farrah became a featured guest at conservative events. Yet they never lost their affection or respect for one another. The Huffington Post has just published Greenwald’s account of his last meeting with Farrah a month ago. He recalled their working together:

“I was directing her for the first time and her fearless commitment to going to the darkest places emotionally never wavered. She never hesitated when I took her to battered women’s shelters. To interview women with painful stories.

And she never flinched when I described how we needed to take away her wonderful beauty and life force to make the film and role authentic.”

In her final months, Farrah demonstrated her unique courage by being uncommonly public about the dire state of her health. She appeared in a gut wrenching documentary, “Farrah’s Story,” that chronicled her search for a cure. The ultimate result of her generous accessibility will be to empower others to face and fight the misfortunes in life that most of us will encounter at some point. The same is true for her contribution to the fate and strength of women in destructive relationships that she brought to the forefront of the national dialogue more than twenty years ago.

Rest In Peace, Farrah.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Barney Frank Falling Into Bill O’Reilly’s Trap

Posted by on June 24, 2009 at 1:48 pm. 3 Comments :

Will these people never learn?

So soon after Joan Walsh’s education about the purposeful abuse that is doled out to guests of Bill O’Reilly, Barney Frank is now scheduled to appear later today.

What could he possibly hope to achieve? There is simply no point to submitting oneself to a dishonest and sensationalistic pundit with psychotic tendencies.

You can’t win if your opponent is intent on humiliating you, and he has complete control of the environment – the audio, the visual, the editing, and any access to supporting material that he can display for the audience, but you can’t see or respond to in kind.

You can’t win if your opponent is unethical, and has no misgivings about lying or raising tangential issues with the goal of catching you off-guard and making you appear foolish.

You can’t win if your opponent’s strategy is to yell louder than you, and to goad you into a shouting match that makes you look insane, but doesn’t impact him negatively because it is just a part of his persona that his audience loves, and upon which he trades.

The only thing that can explain why people like Frank would lend O’Reilly their credibility is that they have egos so large that they believe that they can overcome a fixed fight and come out on top. They can’t! It has nothing to do with their ability or intelligence. It’s just an unfair forum.

What’s more, they are only validating O’Reilly and Fox News and, like lambs to slaughter, they permit him to boast about another victory which he will hype for weeks. He is still cashing in on Frank’s last embarrassing performance.

After her ill-advised appearance, Joan Walsh wrote that she, “was sandbagged, but that’s the O’Reilly game plan.” It is about time that these people recognize that there is nothing to gain by accommodating O’Reilly and Fox News. Even in the unlikely event that you achieve some relative success, you still come away empty handed because the audience couldn’t care less about you or your positions.

Stop it already. Now I’m going to have to follow this up tomorrow with a column about how miserable Frank was made to look. Would you people just Stay the HELL off of Fox News!

[Followup] As I expected, the interview was a complete waste of time. While it didn’t devolve into a verbal mosh pit as the last episode did, it was nonetheless pointless because O’Reilly’s audience isn’t going to be persuaded by anything that Frank says.

One notable exchange occurred wherein O’Reilly revealed the true nature of his programming philosophy:

Frank: Can we have a rational discussion without interruptions?
O’Reilly: No, no, there’s always going to be interruptions. You’ve seen the program.
Frank: No. I don’t accept that. I don’t accept that. This is more complicated than your yelling would make it look like.

At least O’Reilly is honest about his blatant trivialization and sensationalism of the issues he pretends to discuss. Frank seems to be aware of O’Reilly’s strategy, but still subjects himself to it. That is collaboration, as far as I’m concerned. It only helps O’Reilly and the effort to dumb down public discourse.


The Fox Frame: Gov. Sanford Not At A Tea Party

Posted by on June 24, 2009 at 12:48 pm. 2 Comments :

The mysterious disappearance of South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford has now been resolved. To absolutely no one’s surprise, Sanford was not hiking the Appalachian Trail. The truth is he was trailing his Republican colleague, Sen. John Ensign, down the path of infidelity.

Fox News, however, has stayed faithful to their deceptive mission by identifying Sanford as a Democrat in their on-screen graphics (h/t Media Matters). At what point can we agree that this is deliberate? Fox seems to have a tough time delineating between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. And, remember, Sanford was also a big advocate of last April’s Tea Parties. His backing won him the admiration of Teabagger Supreme, Glenn Beck. Beck came to Sanford’s defense yesterday, asserting that the hoopla over his disappearance was just a partisan attack:

GLENN: I mean, this is what happens when ‑‑ I mean, look. This guy’s a threat. He’s standing up. What do they do? Let’s smear him.

I wonder what Beck will say today. [Beck must be off hiking today]


Proof That Media Matters Is Working

Posted by on June 24, 2009 at 10:33 am. 9 Comments :

For an organization that does nothing more than document the words and images disseminated by the press, Media Matters has accumulated some of the most odious critics and criticisms. And they wear it as a badge of honor, and an affirmation of their efforts to expose the dishonesty of the right-wing media.

Who would have thought that just playing back their own words would push these conservative ranters so far over the edge? Despite their complaints, Media Matters is meticulous about providing the full context of the comments featured on the web site.

If the characters featured in the video below object so much to their remarks being recorded and replayed, maybe they shouldn’t say such stupid and repulsive things. As professional communicators, they can hardly argue that they were taken advantage of.

The problem they face is that, prior to Media Matters, they had the luxury of being able to lie, insult, and threaten, their perceived enemies without consequence. Now they are confronted with their own bestial behavior, and they don’t like it much. All that is left for them is to viciously, and without foundation, attack the folks who are merely keeping the records.

Watch and cringe – and donate to help them continue this important work.

[Update:] Media Matters is now reporting that Michael Savage has threatened to retaliate against them by posting personal information, including photos and addresses, and urging his listeners to ….. well, he doesn’t say exactly what.


Republicans Yearning For Fairness Doctrine At Healthcare Forum

Posted by on June 23, 2009 at 11:31 am. 2 Comments :

For at least the past six months, conservative pundits and politicians have fashioned their fear of the Fairness Doctrine into an obsession. Despite the fact that liberals and Democrats, including the President, have expressly stated that they do not favor the Doctrine’s reinstatement, Republicans continue to scamper like frightened ducklings in the shadow of an enemy that doesn’t exist.

How ironic then, that it is the Republican Party and their media mouthpieces who are now crying foul and demanding fair treatment. The object of their scorn is the upcoming ABC News broadcast of a healthcare themed town hall held in the White House. The cry has gone out from the right that this is nothing more than an infomercial for Obamacare and further evidence that the media is “in the tank” for Obama.

There is good reason to maintain a general skepticism with regard to how the press will cover any event, but common sense demands that assessments be made based on what actually occurs and not on imaginary prognostications. How these critics can claim that they know what is going take place before the forum is held, I don’t know. But that is exactly what they are doing.

Immediately after ABC announced the program, the Republican National Committee fired off an indignant letter complaining that they were…

“…deeply concerned and disappointed with ABC’s astonishing decision to exclude opposing voices on this critical issue”

However, there was no such decision made by ABC. To the contrary, they clearly stated that multiple views would be represented and that the President’s policy proposals would be challenged. The RNC’s position went even further saying that…

“Today, the Republican National Committee requested an opportunity to add our Party’s views to those of the President’s to ensure that all sides of the health care reform debate are presented.”

How cute that the RNC now wants to ensure that all sides are presented, and that they believe the media has an obligation to provide this balance. That view has been parroted by everyone in the right-wing mediasphere. All of the usual suspects: Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Drudge, Hot Air, Human Events, and, of course, Fox News, have weighed in on this perceived violation of journalistic ethics. They have all agreed with the RNC’s demand that ABC provide equal time for their views and their spokespeople.

Setting aside for the moment that ABC has promised that there will be multiple views represented, why is this Republican demand not seen as an endorsement of the Fairness Doctrine? How do they reconcile their past abhorrence of fairness with their new found affinity for it?

The truth is, Republicans are only interested in fairness when they feel that they are the aggrieved party. They never mentioned it when Fox News presented infomercials for George Bush. It isn’t an issue when Dick Cheney gets wall-to-wall coverage to bash Obama. And it is wholly irrelevant in the context of the right’s domination of talk radio. But if a TV network should propose to question the President on one of the most important issues of the day, Republicans believe that the media should guarantee them a seat at the inquisitors table.

To illustrate the absurdity of their claims, try to imagine how Fox News would have handled this program. Would they have refused to come to the White House for such an event? Of course not. Any news enterprise would have jumped at this opportunity. Would they have invited Howard Dean to join their panel of reporters? Yeah, sure they would, and Hugo Chavez too. Would they have altered their programming plans to facilitate critics? Well, they never have before, so…..

The hypocrisy of Republicans pretending care about fairness is really only part of the story. In all likelihood, they are just attempting to work the refs. By complaining about bias they hope to influence ABC reporters to overcompensate by taking a harder line against the President’s policies. That’s a pretty good tactic that usually works, given the mushiness of the mainstream media. The RNC is also exploiting this issue to raise money, and have already sent out fund raising appeals tied to the ABC broadcast.

When this is all over, it will be interesting to see how the right-wing opponents of the Fairness Doctrine continue to justify their opposition. Scratch that. It won’t be the least bit interesting. They will just ignore this episode and act as if nothing has changed. That’s how hypocrites operate.


Rasmussen Continues To Lead The Fake Poll Index

Posted by on June 22, 2009 at 12:05 pm. NO Comments :

In a survey conducted by News Corpse of pollsters who invent statistical models for the purpose of advancing their bias, Rasmussen scored a new high of 100% disreputability.

Last April, I wrote about how Rasmussen had created a bogus new index to classify polling results. He labeled his survey break points as being either “mainstream Americans” or the “political class.” These groupings were based on the answers to a set of three questions that had less to do with the new classifications than on whether the subject was clinically paranoid.

Rasmussen is at it again. Now he has a survey that he calls a “Presidential Approval Index.” He arrives at the results by subtracting the number of respondents who strongly disapprove from those who strongly approve. Then he states the remainder as representative of the President’s national popularity.

The problem with this method is that it ignores all of those who approve or disapprove, albeit not strongly. In his own survey, the Presidential Approval Index is a negative 1 (-1), which he then releases to the media as demonstrating that the Obama honeymoon is over. However, his results including all respondents show that Obama is regarded favorably by a healthy majority of 54%, compared to 45% who disapprove (+7). This does not get reported to the press, but is published on the Rasmussen web site and seen only by those who sought the additional data.

Obama’s approval ratings have not varied by more than 5 points in the past three months according to Rasmussen (who typically produces lower numbers than other polling firms). But he has found a novel and dishonest way of portraying the President’s numbers as falling off. As a result of this trend toward opinion-driven polling, Rasmussen has emerged as the number one most likely pollster to be interviewed on Fox News.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

The Daily Show Defense

Posted by on June 21, 2009 at 6:51 pm. NO Comments :

A new legal precedent has been introduced by the Obama Justice Department. If permitted by the court, defendants nationwide may have a powerful new tool to assert in pursuit of legal vindication.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed a Freedom of Information Act request for documents containing statements by former Vice-President Dick Cheney to Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. The documents were part of Fitzgerald’s investigation into the leaking of Valerie Plame’s identity as a CIA operative. Scooter Libby was convicted of obstruction of justice and perjury for his role in the matter, but his sentence was later commuted by George W. Bush as he slinked from office.

The Bush administration originally denied a congressional request for these documents citing executive privilege. Now Obama’s Justice Department is also seeking to prevent this disclosure for many of the same reasons that Bush’s lawyers argued. But going further, civil division lawyer Jeffrey M. Smith, claimed that the documents should remain confidential because their release might inhibit future vice-presidents, or other officials, from speaking candidly to investigators researching criminal activity.

That is a rather surprising argument in that most Americans probably expect their representatives to be cooperative in criminal investigations. The notion that they would deliberately impede an investigation because their testimony might be made public is disturbing, to say the least. But the specific reference made by Smith as to what might scare off official witnesses is even more disturbing. He said that the prospect that “it’s going to get on ‘The Daily Show’, “ was enough for the judge to grant a denial of the FOIA request.

Seriously? Is the Daily Show now considered to be so influential that the mere mention of its name can squelch a court case? Does that mean that anyone previously convicted of a crime, who happened to have been the subject of satire by Jon Stewart can now seek to have the conviction overturned on appeal? Does Comedy Central need to seek legal counsel prior to Photoshopping public figures with funny hats or broadcasting video of them saying stupid things (which happens with way too much frequency). Is the “Daily Show Defense” this generation’s “Twinkie Defense”?

At this point the judge seemed to be unconvinced and asked the attorney to come back with more evidence to support denying the FOIA request. But just the fact that a professional, respected, government lawyer would advance this argument is pretty sad. I can’t wait to see what Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert say about it.


Washington Times Lies About ABC News

Posted by on June 20, 2009 at 1:17 am. NO Comments :

This is a textbook example of how a dishonest news enterprise will employ deceit in pursuit of a partisan agenda. All it takes is an absence of conscience and ethics, and an intent to deliberately mislead your readers.

Ever since ABC announced that they would host a health care themed town hall from the White House, the conservative media machine has been blasting the move as evidence that the media is “in the tank” for Barack Obama. In an effort to advance this theory, the Washington Times commissioned a study by the Center for Responsive Politics on the campaign donations made by ABC employees.

The conclusion, as represented by the Times, was that ABC is a partisan operation that is unfit to call themselves a news service. They cited data from the study that said that over $124,000 was donated by ABC employees to Obama, as compared to about $1,500 to McCain or other candidates. In addition, they sought comments from Dan Gainor of the Business & Media Institute, a far right-wing group affiliated with ultra-conservative Brent Bozell’s Media Research Center. Gainor said that…

“ABC is in bed with their source, so to speak. ABC is supposed to be a news organization, not a producer of infomercials for national health care. And I wonder what they would have done if the Bush administration had asked for positive programming to support the war on terror or Social Security initiatives.”

Gainor couldn’t have come up with two worse examples to make his point. The Bush administration asked for, and received, multiple programming opportunities to hawk his war mongering and Social Security privatization schemes – including one-sided town halls and air time on both broadcast and cable networks.

However, the New York Observer obtained the same study from the CRP and discovered what the Times had conveniently left out. As it happens, the vast majority of the donations cited in the study were from ABC employees who had nothing whatsoever to do with the production of news. The actual breakdown revealed that, of the $124,000, only $885 came from the news division.

The Times was surely aware of these facts, they simply decided to misconstrue them in order to mislead their readers and promote the false allegation of partisanship on the part of ABC News. It is this sort of brazen dishonesty that makes one wonder why anyone would give credence to anything published by the Washington Times.


Fox News Covered Up Sen. Ensign’s Cheating Scandal

Posted by on June 19, 2009 at 8:22 am. 7 Comments :

A few days ago Sen. John Ensign admitted to having an extra-marital affair with Cythia Hampton, a woman who was an employee of his campaign operation and the wife of a staffer in his senate office. In the wake of this disclosure, Ensign has apologized, resigned his senate leadership post (but not his senate seat) and floated excuses for his confession that ran the gamut from media attention to blackmail.

Today, the Las Vegas Sun has identified another twist that puts Fox News squarely in the Ensign camp as a co-conspirator to hush up the affair.

“In a letter dated five days before Sen. John Ensign’s public confession of an extramarital affair, Doug Hampton pleaded to a national Fox News anchorwoman for help in exposing the senator’s ‘heinous conduct and pursuit’ of Hampton’s wife.”

So Fox News knew of Ensign’s infidelity five days before Ensign came forward. They got the information from the husband of Ensign’s mistress. That’s a pretty good source, especially when he asserts that he had corroborating evidence. Yet Fox News failed to report the affair prior to Ensign’s press conference, and has still neglected to disclose their receipt of the letter from Mr. Hampton.

Hampton addressed the letter to Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly. Both she and Fox News have yet to comment on the matter. However, the Sun obtained a copy of Hampton’s letter that began…

“More than any time in my life I understand why people take matters into their own hands. I am disheartened! I have sought wise counsel, tried to do the right thing and continue to run into road blocks (sic) in dealing with a very terrible circumstance and injustice that lives in my life. I am hoping you and Fox News can help.”

Hampton then summarized his relationship with Ensign and gave a brief description of the affair that roiled his family. He revealed that Ensign forthrightly pursued his wife, and would not desist even after confronted by other friends and colleagues, including Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn. The letter was sent to Kelly in an apparent, last resort plea for justice from someone he presumed would show fairness and empathy. He told Kelly that…

“I love this country and considered it a great privilege to work in the US (sic) Senate. I am bringing this to you and Fox News to address this professionally and correctly. I could have sought the most liberal, Republican hating media to expose this story, but there are people’s lives at stake and justice is about proper process as well as outcome. Senator Ensign has no business serving in the US (sic) Senate anymore!”

At this time there is no confirmation from Fox news that they received the letter. However, they did not deny having received it when given the opportunity. It seems improbable that a letter from a staff member of a U.S. senator, alleging that his boss and his wife were having an affair, would be ignored.

It is also curious how Ensign became aware that a major news organization was going to report the affair. Did he learn this from Kelly? That would not be surprising in the course of an investigation wherein a reporter sought comment from someone accused of impropriety. The problem is that, under ordinary circumstances, such a reporter would then publish the story, but neither Kelly, nor any other reporter at Fox did so. So if Ensign did learn of the letter to Fox News from Kelly, it was more of a tip off than a journalistic inquiry.

The Ensign scandal seems to get dirtier by the day. It is not merely a matter of his personal indiscretions, but Mrs. Hampton also received salary increases during the period the affair took place. And Ensign also gave the Hampton’s son, Brandon, a job at the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which Ensign chaired.

This combination of sexual, fiscal, and political improprieties, exacerbated by the collusion of a major television news network, would be juicy fare for a sensationalistic, tabloid news enterprise. Ironically, it would be perfect for Fox News, but i wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for their report.

[Update] Fox News was contacted by The Huffington Post and they gave this statement:

“We never received any letter from Mr. Hampton,” Lowell told the Huffington Post. “He might have sent it, but we never received it. He did reach out to us about 24 hours before the news conference, and he sent an e-mail to a booker on my staff.”

“We followed up with him, but he seemed evasive and not credible, thus we didn’t pursue it,” he said.

Hampton was apparently so lacking in credibility that Ensign came out and confessed less than 24 hours after Fox decided not to pursue it. The Fox spokesman also denied tipping Ensign off. He said that “Somehow, somebody told the Senator something” but insisted it wasn’t anyone from their editorial staff. Uh huh…..

[Update 2] The Sun has some more details, including financial compensation Ensign doled out to the Hampton family.

[Update 3] Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post is reporting that…

After the news conference, Lowell passed Hampton’s contact information to his Washington bureau but did not send the letter or show it to senior Fox executives, who have expressed unhappiness at not being informed. “The letter was an allegation of an affair,” Lowell said. “I don’t know that it would have shined a light on anything new.”

Two problems: First, there were several new developments revealed in the letter, like the involvement of Sen. Coburn and the fact that the Hamptons were fired. Second, If the Fox executives were so unhappy about not being informed about the letter after Ensign’s press conference, then why have they still not produced a single story about it three days after the fact? To date there have been precisely ZERO stories on Fox News, FoxNews.com, or TheFox Nation.com, that address the existence of a letter they have had in their possession for at least five days.

It appears that the Fox producer for Megyn Kelly’s program is attempting to fall on his sword.

[Update 4] Apparently Fox News lied (again) about when they received the letter from Hampton. The Las Vegas Sun has a FedEx receipt that confirms that Fox received the letter on June 12, three days before they previously acknowledged receipt. So Fox had three extra days to investigate (which they didn’t do) and to tip off Ensign (which they probably did do).


Murdoch Pawns Off Weekly Standard To Anschutz

Posted by on June 19, 2009 at 6:38 am. NO Comments :

Rupert Mudoch’s News Corp. has been bleeding badly financially. They have lost 49% of their stock value in the past 52 weeks. And acquiring the Wall Street Journal for $5 billion just as the newspaper business was collapsing couldn’t have helped matters.

Now News Corp. is reporting that they are unloading the Weekly Standard, the uber-rightist magazine founded by neo-icon, William Kristal. No reason or sale price was given in the announcement, but it is fairly evident that Murdoch needs to raise some cash and cut costs to service his massive debt.

The buyer is Clarity Media Group, a part of Phillip Anschutz’s billion dollar media and entertainment conglomerate. Clarity is the publisher of the Washington Examiner, a conservative freebie tabloid in D.C.

Don’t expect much to change at the Standard. Kristal will likely stay aboard, along with executive editor Fred Barnes. Both will also remain Fox News contributors. If anything, the magazine may begin to feature more stories dealing with Anschutz’s obsession for Dark Ages Christian Fundamentalism. He is a major backer of the Discovery Institute, a creationist think tank. He also finances anti-gay and pro-censorship organizations and initiatives.

In other words…more of the same.