Giuliani: I Am MoveOn’s Worst Nightmare

The MoveOn advertisement challenging General Petraeus’ congressional testimony is continuing to stir up dust. After drawing heat from Fox News war apologists like Bill O’Reilly, and taking fire from Dick Cheney, and being threatened with deportation by John McCain, and having GOP congressman Tom Davis call for hearings, now another Republican presidential candidate has weighed in with a unique fund raising scheme.

Rudy Giuliani has already hit MoveOn with an ad that attacks both the advocacy group and Hillary Clinton. He has also made comments that trample that pesky Constitutional notion of free speech. Now he is on the attack again, this time wrapping his assault in a plea for campaign donations:

“Why is MoveOn attacking Rudy Giuliani? Because he’s their worst nightmare. They know Rudy is a Republican who can beat the Democrats.”

This radio campaign is accompanied by an Internet keyword campaign that delivers Rudy’s anti-MoveOn message when searching for either “MoveOn” or “Hillary Clinton” on Google.

Many candidates are using Google AdWords in their ad campaigns. But Rudy is using keywords that are associated with his opponents to bring attention to himself. In fact, searching for keyword combinations of his own name return only ads for his campaign web site with no mention of MoveOn or Clinton.

Several weeks ago, the media was aghast that John Edwards would include appeals for donations after he and his wife Elizabeth were attacked by Ann Coulter, though his fund raising was limited to his web site and emails to his supporters. Do you think the press will respond with equivalent indignation now that a Republican candidate is doing the same thing in an even more brazen fashion?

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Sally Field’s Emmy Speech Uncensored

In accepting her Emmy award for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series for her role as the matriarch in “Brothers and Sisters”, Sally Field delivered an impassioned tribute to mothers everywhere in a message that spoke of world peace.

Unfortunately, it was too much for the censors at Fox who cut Field’s comments at a critical point.

The video above is from the Canadian broadcast that aired the speech unedited. The nannies at Fox snipped the remarks for U.S. viewers as Field said, “If mothers ruled the world, there wouldn’t be any…” The expunged ending of the sentence was, “god-damned wars in the first place.” Was it because Fox thinks that Americans are just too fragile to be exposed to such fiery language? Was it because they were seeking to suppress legitimate dissent in a public forum? Tom O’Neil at the Los Angeles Times reports that it may not have been a matter of shielding the network from liability for broadcasting an obscenity:

“Technically, Field’s censored words are not profane. A 2004 FCC ruling specifically stated no objection to the use of “god damn” on TV when making a judgment on the uproar over Bono swearing at the Golden Globes in 2003 where he used more colorful language.”

Backstage, Field spoke with reporters and responded to the controversy that was already swirling:

“I have no comment other than, ‘Oh, well.’ I said what I wanted to say. I wanted to pay homage to the mothers of the world. And I very, very seriously think that if mothers ruled the world we wouldn’t be sending our children off to be slaughtered.” […] “If they bleep it, oh, well. I’ll just say it somewhere else.”

This is the second instance of Emmy censorship this season, following Kathy Griffin’s remarks a night earlier when, mocking award winners who give credit to God for their victory, Griffin said that, “…no one had less to do with this award than Jesus.” Isn’t it interesting that in both occurrences of a clampdown on free speech, a reference to God was a key factor?


A Tale Of Two Rallies

On Saturday, September 15, 2007, A rally was held in Washington, D.C. to protest the Bush administration’s policy of perpetual war. As has become routine in modern demonstrations, a counter- rally was quickly organized in support of the war and the continued deployment of American troops in Iraq.

The images here show how C-SPAN characterized the competing demonstrations. By labeling the events as either anti-war or pro-troops, C-SPAN leaves viewers with the impression that peace advocates are anti-troops. This is a dishonest portrayal of the peace rally whose participants included Iraq Veterans Against the War, Veterans for Peace, Gold Star Families for Peace, and numerous other military organizations and individuals.

If you look at the pictures and not the labels, which side appears to be more aligned with the troops? C-SPAN should be more careful not to editorialize in their so-called non-partisan programming. And they must stop perpetuating the right-wing meme that if you favor an end to the war you are somehow opposed to the troops. The truth of the matter is that ending the war is the best way to show support for the troops.


Democratic Response Draws More Viewers Than Bush

When Bush addressed the nation last Thursday to persist in pushing his failed war agenda, he succeeded in pulling in a sizable portion of the television viewing audience. The only problem for him is that the response by Rhode Island Senator Jack Reed pulled in 7% more viewers.

Presidential Address – Thursday, September 13, 2007 (000’s)
Network Bush Address Dem Response
Fox News 745 813
MSNBC 455 446
CNN 454 507
Totals 1654 1766

Ordinarily, the opposition party response to a presidential address would be expected to lose viewers relative to the headliner from the White House. Just being competetive would be considered a victory of sorts. Consequently, these numbers demonstrate that there is significant curiosity in the TV viewing public as to the alternatives to administration talking points. The fact that the President can’t easily outperform an obscure senator that most of the country has never heard of, is proof that people are dissatisfied with his tired rhetoric.

It’s interesting to note that the greatest divergence in viewers in favor of the Democrats occurs on Fox News. So even Fox News viewers seem to be open to fresh perspectives and policies on ending the war. It’s too bad the folks at the Fox Entertainment Network didn’t think their audience deserved to hear Reed’s response. They were the only broadcast network to decline to air the Senator’s remarks. Still, more viewers in the cable news universe were exposed to an alternative perspective than to another of Bush’s robotic recitations of his standard pro-war litany.

This may also mean that the audience for the paid-for response by John Edwards might have drawn a larger than expected audience, validating his strategy and expanding the reach of the anti-war message. The other candidates, and the Democratic Party, should pay attention to these results and develop new tactics that make effective use of them.


Changing the World of Internet and Politics

PoliticsOnline is conducting a poll to…

“…help select the top 10 individuals, organizations and companies having the greatest impact on the way the Internet is changing politics.” The award “seeks to recognize the innovators and pioneers, the dreamers and doers who bring democracy online.”

Top 10 lists are always somewhat problematic in that they invariably include and/or exclude wankers and/or winners. POL’s list of finalists is an eclectic and international group of nominees that span broad cross-sections of politics, activism, and technology. Notable amongst the group are:

DailyKos: DailyKos has been at the front lines of the blogospehere and challenging the MSM at every front. DailyKos has led the way for citizens to engage in serious discussion about the most challenging issues the world faces today.

John Edwards: John Edwards works hard to communicate directly and succinctly by speaking through the internet about actual and desperate problems faced by all of us as we try to maintain our standard of living.

CNN: CNN made history on July 23, when it teamed up with YouTube to give voters from around the world an opportunity to directly ask the Democratic presidential candidates for answers to the pressing issues of the day.

CNN may be a dubious choice in that, while they did initiate an innovative partnership with YouTube, they also tightly controlled the selection of questions as opposed to letting the online community decide. But many of the remaining nominees from around the world are engaging in acts of citizen journalism, civic activism, and political reform. The list even includes the Foreign Minister of Sweden. However, everyone on the list is not necessarily a true Internet angel:

Cong. Ron Paul: Ron Paul voted against the amendment for internet neutrality which forsakes the free market in favor of government price controls, would chill investment in broadband network and deployment of new broadband services, would reduce choice for internet users and disrupts experimentation and innovation of the internet.

To include Paul on this list might have been justified for his focus on Internet campaigning and his popularity amongst the Libertarian blogosphere. But by citing his opposition to network neutrality as the reason for his inclusion, along with an argument straight out of the Telecom industry’s PR playbook, POL casts suspicion on the whole awards program. Nothing could have a greater negative impact on the way the Internet is changing politics than snuffing out network neutrality.

I may or may not agree with some of the other, more exotic nominees, as I am not an expert in international tech-affairs, but I am now more skeptical of POL’s intentions. That said, it probably wouldn’t hurt if more honest progressives were to go to the site and vote for DailyKos or John Edwards. That would send a message that real progressive online activism is flourishing and those who would slam the gates closed are floundering.


TV Guide Says Fox News Is NOT News

The debate over whether Fox News is a legitimate news enterprise has seized many in the press and academia. But the transparently partisan presentation in their reporting should make for a short and dull debate. Now, an uncharacteristically honest depiction of Fox News can found in an unlikely place.

TV Guide publishes the industry’s most widely read magazine of program listings and this is how they categorize news programming for their readers:

Note that according to the legend on the top right of the page, the purple highlighting designates a program as “news”. Then, scanning down to the listings, you will see that TV Guide does not consider The O’Reilly Factor to be a news program. However, glancing down a little further reveals that TV Guide does view Keith Olbermann’s Countdown as news. Dig even further than that and you’ll see that the entire Fox News schedule is not designated as news with the exception of Studio B with Shepard Smith. Even Special Report, the program anchored by Brit Hume, Fox News’ managing editor and chief Washington correspondent, is apparently not really news. On MSNBC, Countdown and MSNBC Live are the only programs tagged as news. But CNN’s entire broadcast day is identified as news except for Lou Dobbs and Larry King. (Source: TV Guide September 17-23, 2007)

Now, on a cursory level, that may just appear to be an obvious and objective evaluation of the content on these networks. CNN has always been a dedicated news programmer, just as Fox has always been a propaganda vehicle for the Republican National Committee. But there may be something more to this than just the labeling of program content.

Gemstar-TV Guide International, Inc., the publisher of TV Guide, is owned by … wait for it … Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation. Murdoch sits on its Board of Directors along with News Corp. president and COO, Peter Chernin. The Board is chaired by Anthea Disney, a News Corp executive VP. So why would Murdoch’s own publication seemingly disparage the cable network he is working so hard to establish as a source of reputable journalism by declining to identify it as news? Could it have something to do with the fact that news programming routinely under-performs entertainment programming and that intentionally mislabeling Fox broadcasts could result in driving more viewers to their network? By extension, they could also be attempting to suppress viewers for their main competition, Countdown, by coloring it purple and diverting the broader interest entertainment viewers away from the program.

By owning both the networks and the publications covering them, News Corp. can circle the PR wagons around itself and effectively manipulate viewers, coverage, and potentially, ratings. TV Guide presently has almost 3.3 million subscribers. Although that is a 12% decline from the previous measurement period, it is still a significant audience. They also operate electronic TV Guides on cable, satellite, and the Internet, that expose them to another 82 million viewers. That reach allows them to define the market in ways that accrue to their own benefit. For example, look at how TV Guide describes the O’Reilly/Olbermann match-up:

The Factor: The bestselling author mixes news, interviews and analyses, and some of his most passionate commentaries, not surprisingly, deal with liberals (such as, to pick one name at random, Al Franken). The conservative guru’s `No Spin Zone’ has been the major factor in Fox News’ climb (past CNN) to the top of the cable-news chart, with some three million viewers nightly.

Countdown: The nightly news program ranks the day’s top five stories by what will likely be the next morning’s hottest topics for discussion. `It’s a hard-news broadcast produced and hosted by people who are uncontrollably silly,’ quips the wry Olbermann, who also conducts newsmaker interviews.

In short, The Factor is the number one show hosted by a popular and passionate bestselling author, while Countdown is a hard-news broadcast that is also regarded as “silly.”

This state of affairs is just another reason for rolling back the consolidation that has occurred in the media since the abominably irresponsible Communications Act of 1996 (thanks Bill Clinton). But in the short term, Murdoch and TV Guide need to be called to account for their abject dishonesty and their efforts to deceive the public.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Tony Snow Celebrates Iraq

White House press secretary Tony Snow appeared on The O’Reilly Factor yesterday to discuss, amongst other things, the war in Iraq and the magical progress being achieved by General David Petraeus, whom Snow described as, “the author of a plan that succeeded.”

Prior to introducing Snow, O’Reilly delivered his Talking Points Memo that surprisingly stumbled onto a factual statement:

“It is almost impossible for the folks to get the truth about Iraq or the war on terror in general. Because there is so much misinformation and propaganda being spit out there by the media and Internet partisans.”

He then proceeded to spit out misinformation and propaganda by promoting the lie that, “Moveon and the others are actually hoping for defeat.” But the real propaganda started when he introduced his guest, Tony Snow, who repeatedly portrayed the situation in Iraq as improving and hopeful. This delusion was capped by a this startling and disturbing comment:

“Americans love to succeed and they love to know that our people are embarked on a noble enterprise. We got young men and women who are doing amazing things. We ought to be celebrating.”

Indeed. Let’s put an end to the dismal memorials and moratoriums. Let’s decline invitations to those depressing funerals and services of slaughtered soldiers and civilians. Why be glum when we could be enjoying 3,800 wakes? Let’s get our party on, dude. C E L E B R A T E good times, come on…..


Petraeus? Betray Us? Falacious!

When General David Petraeus appeared before Congress to give his long-awaited report on the state of the war in Iraq, Republicans found a subject that, in their minds, took precedence over the war itself. Rather than focus on the life and death struggles in the Middle East, Republicans repeatedly assailed a newspaper ad by MoveOn.org that asked some provocative questions.

The headline on the ad asked, “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?” Republicans immediately pounced on a shallow interpretation that MoveOn was calling Petraeus a traitor. A more profound analysis would show that they were merely warning readers that the General’s testimony might be more aligned with White House spin than with the facts on the ground saying:

“General Petraeus will not admit what everyone knows; Iraq is mired in an unwinnable religious civil war.”

That didn’t stop Senator John Cornyn from introducing legislation to censure MoveOn, an action that impinges on the rights enumerated in the First Amendment to the Constitution. Although, Cornyn’s statement on the ad twice references freedom of speech, in each instance he qualifies and constrains it:

“Every American, including a Washington special interest organization like MoveOn.org, has the right to voice their opinion on the Iraq war. But to suggest that the four-star General leading the fight against al-Qaeda in Iraq has ‘betrayed’ his country is abhorrent.”

There should be a full and honest debate on the war on terror […] But hateful, personal attacks that call our military leaders traitors should be condemned.”

These attacks on MoveOn are nothing but a desperate attempt to shift the public’s attention from an unpopular war to a false and irrelevant controversy that has been manufactured for media consumption. Cornyn, and the rest of the Republican cabal, should cease their efforts to stifle free speech. Likewise, they should consider placing greater emphasis on the core issues that impact our military and our nation than they do on advertisements that express the views of millions of Americans.


DeadLines

nullJustice Dept. against ‘Net neutrality’
The Justice Department on Thursday said AT&T and other Big Telecom are more important than mere citizens. They believe that the industry should have the right to decide what you can and can not access on the Internet.

Democracy, the press at a critical juncture
American democracy is suffering. The natural strain on our political system after more than two centuries is accelerating with the purposeful weakening of the press. This article is one of the best on the subject of media consolidation that I’ve ever read.

Americans Feel Military Is Best at Ending the War
Despite the headline, the real news in this column is that 33 percent of all Americans, including 40 percent of Republicans and 27 percent of Democrats, say Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. That’s just so sad.

Dow Jones chief paves way for job cuts
Despite a promise from Rupert Murdoch that there would be no layoffs if he were to acquire the company, Dow Jones is talking now about layoffs.

Study finds left-wing brain, right-wing brain
Previous psychological studies have found that conservatives tend to be more structured and persistent in their judgments whereas liberals are more open to new experiences.

Rupert’s Attack Dog Gets Bitten, Keeps Barking
The [New York] Post hasn’t won a Pulitzer Prize since 1931 (which was well before Murdoch), a fact that pleases [editor Col] Allan. “Hopefully never!” he exclaims defiantly. “Who would want to win an award that is dished out by the hard left of American journalism? Who’d want that?” Sore loser?


The O’Reilly Fracture: Countdown To Victory Edition

Keith Olbermann’s Countdown has reached a milestone that many thought was out of reach. After getting a boost from an airing during the pre-season football broadcast on NBC a couple of weeks ago, Countdown has burst into a real competition with its nemesis, The O’Reilly Factor.

The highpoint of the week for Olbermann was Friday when he bested O’Reilly in the 25-54 demo by 39,000 viewers. But the trend has been heading this way for a while. On Thursday, O’Reilly took the hour, but Olbermann had won the first half (Countdown: 408K – Factor: 373K). An average of all airings for the shows for the week gave O’Reilly a lead of just 11.7K demo viewers. A year ago O’Reilly was clobbering Olbermann by 279K. Are the walls closing in around you Billy?

The first full week after Olbermann’s NBC appearance, Countdown spiked 17% over its 2nd quarter 2007 average. This week that bump is 37%, so there is no evidence that this train is losing speed. The Factor, on the other hand, is still under-performing its 2nd quarter average by 16%. O’Reilly is quickly becoming the Little Train That Couldn’t.

A key point in this victory is that, while last week’s success was achieved with O’Reilly on vacation, this week Bill was on duty and he still got his loofah handed to him. Also, for the record, Olbermann appeared during halftime on the Saints-Colts game Thursday which might have given him an extra push on Friday. And the week was shortened by the Labor Day holiday (Countdown did not air on Monday but O’Reilly did. The Factor pulled in just 329K which was its 2nd worst number for the week).

All of this leads me to quote from the insightful analysis of a truly visionary media scholar:

Hopefully NBC will recognize what’s happening here. And it isn’t just that Olbermann is a phenomenon who warrants additional network attention (although that’s true). It is also that there is a vastly underserved market for mainstream progressive news that is factual and compelling. That is a message that all of the media should heed and act on. It’s time to stop coddling losers like Glenn Beck and Tucker Carlson. It’s time to stop pandering to rightist, corporate media. It’s time to start reshaping the media into something more diverse and representative of America.

Mark @ News Corpse ~ September 4, 2007

By the way…Happy Birthday Bill-O.