Believe it or not, the left-wing media in America hates Bill O’Reilly. It’s the Secular Media vs. the Traditional Media (traditional?). Well, he’s not going to sit still for that anymore. He’s taking names. He’s making a list and checking it…..well, he’s making a list.
(Click the pic here to go to Stalking Points Memo page, then click the pic there to start the Flash movie)
Jay Rosen at PressThink wins the “Best Idea Of The Year Award” for this little piece of brilliance in response to Josh Bolton, the White House Chief of Staff, who hinted that he may end the daily press briefings:
“End the briefings! I suppose it would never occur to Bolten that such a decision also belongs to the people being briefed. If Snow turns out to be McClellan with better hair, the press ought to quit the briefing room and give up on getting explanations from the White House. Beat Bolten to the punch, in other words.
By “quit” I mean pull your top talent. Send interns instead to occupy the seats without asking questions or filing reports. That means no correspondents at the two daily briefings, none on the President’s plane, none at his public appearances. (Except for foreign trips where other heads of state might speak.) Let the White House publicize itself.”
Just imagine it. Tony Snow steps behind the podium and gazes out to a room of youthful and unfamiliar faces. He stumbles uncomfortably with his opening statement and then opens the floor to questions…..
Silence…..
Maybe he will muddle through some topics the Communications office planned to highlight, but all he would see is a pack of kids hurriedly scribbling down what he’s saying. On first blush it may seem like everything the White House has ever dreamed of – a corps of stenographers. Except for two things:
We can only hope.
While television news programmers fret over strategies to attract younger viewers, they are plastering their air with coverage that can only serve to drive younger viewers further away.
In an article in Variety, Brian Lowry, reveals that:
Fox News Channel and CNN are two of only three leading basic networks (the other being the Hallmark Channel) whose median viewer age is over 60. Headline News rings in next at 59.9, and MSNBC is still on the rickety side at 57.
Despite this demographic maturity, much of the programming is the sort that would be most appealling to the grumpy old man that yells at kids to, “Get off of my lawn.”
The networks’ obsession with missing white girls, columbine kids, and child predators, paints a picture of a generation in turmoil. To that generation it must seem insulting and shallow. It is certainly not the way to encourage them to tune in more often.
In its many forms, movies, books, music, etc., art entertains, enlightens, challenges and comforts us. We encounter it in virtually every waking moment, if not in the creative aspect, then in the commercial. We transform the creators into objects of desire and curiosity. Creativism, the pursuit of truth through expression, in one way or another consumes more of our consciousness than any other activity of life not directly associated with survival.
And yet, the past decade has seen an unsettling evolution of thought with regard to the artist’s place in society. That place has increasingly become a wobbly axis of discord. Painters, poets, actors, authors and musicians are battered and belittled for doing nothing more than what they were born to do: express themselves. While the artist’s contribution to the world community was once valued for its conscience and vision, in recent years it has depreciated and even become a liability.
Now there has arisen a class of self-appointed, civic hall monitors who believe that they can decide who passes through the corridors of free expression. These martinets of virtue want artists to repress their natural inclination to share their insight and their soul. Emblematic of this trend is the book by censorious pundit Laura Ingraham, “Shut Up and Sing.” The publisher touts the book for exposing, “the outrageous howlers and muddled thinking peddled by a rogues’ gallery of Hollywood celebs…” This view has infected modern society and is propelled by critics, moralists and pseudo-patriots whose shallowness demands that artists be nothing more than amusements. They must certainly never make us think or feel.
I’m sick and tired of limp-brained gasbags like John McCain saying, “Do I know how to sing? About as well as she [Barbra Streisand] knows how to govern America!”. The obvious extension of that thought is that anyone who does any job other than serving in Congress is unqualified to have an opinion about what our government does in our name. Just try changing the word “sing” with the word “farm” or “teach” or “weld.” This is unadulterated elitist bullshit. If we’re qualified to vote them into office, then we’re qualified to comment on the job they are doing.
When did this happen? How did artists come to be assaulted for having opinions and the courage to express them? That is, in fact, their strength and purpose. Throughout history it was artists who shaped the character of our culture. It was artists who illustrated our spiritual quests; documented our humanity; exposed our flaws; inspired us to repair them. The enlightened observations they shared were like medicinal potions. They were sometimes caustic, but they always served to heal. Today, merely being controversial (a side effect of honesty) subjects the artist to condemnation and ridicule from the ranks of the cultural imperialists.
This is not happening by accident. There is a deliberate campaign to denigrate artists due specifically to their ability to communicate. Popular artists are natural targets because their popularity increases the volume of their voices. Thus we find artists, whose work was once profound enough to enrich our lives, are disparaged for employing that same vision to touch our lives in ever more meaningful ways.
By silencing the voices of creativism, the ruling class seeks to dominate an inconvenient public. The McCarthyites did it to the Hollywood 10, and they’re doing it still. They don’t even try to be subtle. An example:
In January of 2003, shortly before the U. S. invasion of Iraq, Colin Powell assembled the media at the United Nations to comment on his presentation. But before the media arrived, the tapestry of Picasso’s masterpiece, Guernica, was covered by a blue drape. A press conference to discuss launching an unprecedented war of aggression could not be held in front of one of the twentieth century’s most moving anti-war statements.
The symbolism of literally throwing a blanket over this representation of truth is unmistakable. They know the power of art – and they fear it. Another example:
Shortly after 9/11, Clear Channel Communications, the world’s largest radio conglomerate, distributed a list of 164 songs they deemed inappropriate for airing. The list bordered on the absurd, including:
And in a master stroke:
The time has come to restore the dignity of creativism. We must beat back the repressive forces that would prefer the Dark Ages to the Renaissance. We must recognize the power that speaking the truth brings to our world and ourselves. We must support our creative advocates. They are more reliable as leaders than their political counterparts. Too often, the politician’s voice is reduced to platitudes for fear of alienating a listener. The artist’s voice, unencumbered by these fears, is more likely to resonate with independence and honesty.
Every great social movement was fueled in part by the arts – from the Napoleonic era Disasters of War by Goya, to the guerilla postering of Robbie Conal. The art insurgency is latent now, but it is strong and committed. Like other insurgencies, it blends in with the populace and can strike with fierce and startling force. It stockpiles its weapons of mass construction for the building of consensus and passion and hope.
Now is the time to reignite creativism for social progress. A new generation of artists is already engaged. But they need to be embraced by the political actors – the campaigners and strategists; the wonks and activists; the publicists and what’s left of the independent media. Those that presently grip the reins of our society know the strength with which art speaks, and they are doing their best to suppress it. We must not leave them alone on that battlefield.
Bill goes after the Far-Left Bomb Throwers who don’t seem to have anything nice to say about Fox shill, and new White House Press Secretary, Tony Snow. Watch as Bill lays into the disgraceful Howard Dean and His Minions (CD available now).
(Click the pic here to go to Stalking Points Memo page, then click the pic there to start the Flash movie)
I’m afraid a lot of folks are missing the big story on the White House Stenographer’s Association Dinner.
First of all, I think Colbert’s material was devasting but his delivery was a little stiff and he was too dependent on his notes. But that’s really irrelevant. The routine itself was more about media punditry than the president. even when he addressed politics, it was in the context of how a pundit would frame it. He never broke character.
The most important thing that happened that night was the routine with Bush and his impersonator. Here’s the reason it’s important:
In satirical comedy the key is to identify the most recognizable characteristic of the subject and amplify it. It must be an actual characteristic or there will be no humor. Think about every good impersonation you’ve ever seen whether political or celebrity. You laugh because you recognize the subject’s peculiarities.
And what charactersitic was selected for amplification in that routine:
Bush Is Stupid!
This may not be news to people with measurable brain activity, but it is significant that it has now been validated in public by this event. And the fact that the president would participate in this certification of his idiocy is astonishing.
This was not typical self-deprecation, it was a confession. It was an acknowledgement that the one element of Bush’s character that is obvious to all is what an ignorant boob he is. And it was funny because it was true.
I suppose it was inevitable. Former Poppa Bush speechwriter, current Fox News commentator and Fox Radio talk show host, Tony Snow, been appointed White House Press Secretary. Since Snow has been shilling for the president for years in his current job, a guest on Keith Olbermann’s Countdown recently asked if he would be getting back pay. It must be convenient for the White House to have the farm team at Fox available any time they need a new relief spinner.
Amongst the jokes that write themselves when stupefying events like this occur, there are some seriously funny moments to treasure. ThinkProgress has compiled some commentary by Snow that refers to the president as “an embarrassment,” “impotent,” and more. If that’s the kind of counsel he’ll be giving in the Oval Office, this might turn out pretty well after all.
Unfortunately, we can’t expect Snow to be any more honest in his new job than he was in his old one. Media Matters has documented some of the many falsehoods that were a regular feature of his broadcasts.
However, as we bid farewell to Scotty McClellan and welcome Tony to his new digs, we must not forget why this substitution is taking place. The administration is in turmoil:
Their solution to this perfect storm of political chaos? A new press secretary!
This game plan clearly holds the hope that the new face will create a diversion. They expect that the White House Press Corpse will honor Snow with a Honeymoon Period. They’re going to say, “He needs to get his bearings and figure out which drawer the paper clips are in. Give him a break.”
Well I say Hell No! He is a veteran of both the media and the White House. If he can’t do the job he shouldn’t have been appointed. There are too many critical issues facing the country to allow precious time to slip away. We need answers to the questions raised above and others, like health care, tax fairness, immigration, wiretapping, global warming, and on and on. It is the Press Corpse’s job to elicit these answers from our representatives and they better damn well do it.
It was inevitable. Rupert Murdoch’s purchase of MySpace was going to destroy it. Everyone knew that. Now the evidence is at hand and on display in the New York Times.
The decline begins with monetizing everything that moves. With Fox as the parent company, MySpace becomes just another mainstream vehicle to inject advertising into the tattered veins of a public that is viewed as nothing but consumption junkies. The lust for revenue will overpower whatever social benefit the service presently offers. And for those who hoped that MySpace’s founders, Chris DeWolfe and Tom Anderson, would insulate their brainchild from the suits, they will only be bitterly disappointed by reality. The Times reports this repulsive initiative…
“…to expand one of Mr. DeWolfe’s advertising ideas – turning advertisers into members of the MySpace community, with their own profiles, like the teenagers’ – so that the young people who often spend hours each day on MySpace can become “friends” with movies, cellphone companies and even deodorants. Young people can link to the profiles set up for these goods and services, as they would to real friends, and these commercial “friends” can even send them messages – ads, really, but of a whole new kind.”
Deodorants as a whole new kind of real friend for the young people. Now that’s innovation! But that’s not all. The new bosses think it would be a good idea to start charging the many bands that have created profiles and use the site to develop and connect with their fans. This idea is so bad that even DeWolfe opposes it. Unfortunately, the Fox Interactive Media boss, Ross Levinsohn, has ideas of his own and dismisses DeWolfe’s objections…
“…saying it was appropriate for the people running MySpace to be more concerned at this point about serving users than making money.”
That’s essentially an admission that, at some point in the near future, it will be appropriate to be more concerned about making money than serving users. These examples of commercialization foreshadow precisely how the culture of MySpace will become tarnished and unappealing. Its members will come to feel disinterested and exploited. But I’ve always considered the real threat to be the invasion of privacy by intrusive marketing strategies. This avenue is not being ignored by Fox:
“Mr. Levinsohn says he also hopes to raise ad rates by collecting more user data so advertisers can find the most promising prospects. To use the site, people need to provide their age, location and sex, and often volunteer their sexual orientation and personal interests. Some of that information is already being used to select ads to display. Soon, the site will track when users visit profile pages and other sections devoted to topics of interest to advertisers.”
I’m sure that will provide them with a truckload of demographic data they can use to throw ads at their membership. But they will also know a lot more about their members than any of them would be likely approve. When you combine the personal data that members volunteer with the data that can be collected from the relationships in their network of friends and add the data acquired by monitoring their surfing habits, you end up with a profile that can be awfully revealing.
Knowing that the folks behind MySpace have previously been affiliated with business practices wherein they unlawfully spied on their customers, should give MySpace users sufficient cause for alarm to reconsider remaining in the network.
I was going to write a story about how the big telephone companies have launched a web site to deceive people about the impact of network neutrality. But Blue Meme has already done the work so well, I’m gonna link to it and go watch TV. Thanks, Blue Meme.
Oh yeah, go to Free Press and Save The Internet to learn more and take action.
Listening to John Moody, Sr. Vice President at FOX News, you may get the idea that all your worst fears about Fox were too restrained. In this interview with AlterNet, he speaks candidly about the press operation he controls.
The Highlights
On media critics:
“Most of the world envies us and our news media, because it is un-intimidated and — I’m going to make up a word here — largely un-intimidatable. That’s part of our patrimony.” So is making stuff up.
On reporter bias:
“Because of the qualities it takes to succeed in the media, we have bright and responsible people in this business — and bright people have opinions about everything. These opinions stay with them when they put on a reporter’s hat.” So it’s really the hat’s fault.
On staff development:
“I’ve hired more than 100 people here in ten years, and I have never asked about anyone’s personal political beliefs.” Because if I have to ask, they aren’t getting hired.
On charges that his morning memo dictates coverage:
“It’s not even called a ‘memo,’ it’s an editorial note. It is not a political directive — that’s a specious charge — but my attempt to communicate about what are important stories.” …and the difference is…..?
On the obsession with missing white women:?
“These freethinking bloggers amaze me. They refer to ‘dead white women.’ But what about live black pole dancers?” That clears that up.
On faulty pre-Iraq war coverage:
“There’s a misbegotten, self-comforting notion that we live in a country where nothing should ever go wrong — and if it does, someone must be at fault. I think that’s an unrealistic view of the world, and my viewers don’t think that either.” My viewers? What could be less realistic than accountability?
On increasing the variety of perspectives and opinions on Fox:
“Diversity is not necessarily a strength…Take the Duke lacrosse story — suppose there’s someone who believes that rape is good. We could put them on the air, but it wouldn’t add to the discussion.” So putting on a liberal view is analogous to putting on a rape advocate.
In summary:
“I think in ten years we have come to be recognized as a reliable source for alternative news. If some people want to scoff, go ahead. That doesn’t make it right!”
‘Nuff said.
