Mon, May 12, 2008

It took me by surprise, I must say ...

If you missed Bill Moyers' appearance on Charlie Rose, you can find it here.

And if you missed Christopher Hitchens' descent in the kind of neoconservative, McCarthyite thuggery that we would not even expect from, say, Bill Kristol, take a look at this piece from the apparently unedited Slate magazine.

Hitchens brings up Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, Malcolm X, Tawana Brawley, and Stokely Carmichael, all by way of seeking to discredit Barack Obama with an attack on, believe it or not, Michelle Obama's undergraduate college thesis. He does not actually quote from the thesis, not that it would matter. It's hard to believe he's serious, much less sober. The first time I met Christopher, in the summer of 1982, we spent an afternoon getting drunk in a Dupont Circle bar during which he said a great many silly and, to my young ears, shocking things, which I imagine he would not wish to hear repeated today. Hitchens was already 33 by then, but nevertheless remained under the illusion of a brand of Marxism he has since denounced -- along with virtually everyone who remains wedded to the views to which he committed most of his life's work. The idea that the views of a college-aged Michelle Obama are somehow relevant to her husband's qualification for presidency is McCarthyism of the most disreputable order.

We all know what Christopher's problem is, and for reasons of sentimentality, many of us in the fraternity of his ex-friendships are likely to continue to forgive him. He's been through a great deal I wouldn't wish on my worst enemies, and no less sadly, has wasted more talent than most of us will ever have. But what the hell is going on at Slate? Are there no editors there who care enough to save him from publishing such a pathetic performance?

The true cost of this war is being purposely hidden from us. It's hard to imagine, if Bush and his allies had declared war on this country from someone's government, how they might have been able to any worse damage.

Hey, look, Pierce.

It's officially mutual: Karl Rove (hearts) Mark Halperin (and John F. Harris).

From TomDispatch:

Here's how well-known environmentalist Bill McKibben begins his latest piece -- and it should startle you: "Even for Americans, constitutionally convinced that there will always be a second act, and a third, and a do-over after that, and, if necessary, a little public repentance and forgiveness and a Brand New Start -- even for us, the world looks a little Terminal right now... All of a sudden it isn't morning in America, it's dusk on planet Earth."

And here's the news he wants to convey that leads toward that startling conclusion: "There's a number -- a new number -- that makes this point most powerfully. It may now be the most important number on Earth: 350. As in parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere." In fact, just recently our foremost climatologist, NASA's Jim Hansen, published a piece in Science magazine saying that we must somehow return the planet's atmosphere to 350 ppm (it's now at 385) -- and fast -- "if humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted."

Think about that. In other words, if humanity doesn't act in the next few years, we may quite literally run out of history. It's hard even to take this in, but McKibben, who has started a new campaign, 350.org, to get this number (and what it means) around the world and into consciousness, sounds the alarm in this piece, discussing the climate change "tipping points" that lie in our immediate future.

He adds: "We might stop just short of some of those tipping points, like the Road Runner screeching to a halt at the very edge of the cliff. More likely, though, we're the Coyote."

Consider this piece a powerful warning about what humanity must bring itself to do -- or else.

Correspondence Corner:

Name: Norman Gravely
Hometown: Woodbridge, VA

It seems to me that what is defined as liberal means that if one disagrees with the far-right agenda then you are liberal. The middle ground appears not to exist. I look forward to reading Why We're Liberals.

Name: Matthew Saroff
Hometown: http://40yrs.blogspot.com

You write, "These programs are chosen as if specifically designed not to work."

That is too mild. They are specifically designed not to work.

The driving force for the people behind these programs is that they believe that sex is evil.

The scripture, "It is better to marry than to burn," states that marriage is preferable to lechery, but inferior to celibacy, and people behind this are not interested in protecting children, they are interested in punishing them.

Sexual freedom, even within the context of marriage, is an anathema to them, which is why they are now protesting birth control available to married couples.

Name: Todd Hedley
Hometown: San Antonio (go Spurs!)

I'm surprised no one has brought this up, but recently the Pew Charitable Trust conducted a survey of news consumers (basically a 4-question current events quiz), and found Fox viewers to be the least informed (more incorrect responses) of all the major cable news networks.

But the funny thing was who turned out to the the most informed viewers. CNN? No MSNBC? Nope.

The most informed cable "news"viewers watched The Daily Show.

Pretty sad commentary on the state of our media, really.

Name: Michael Green
Hometown: Las Vegas, Nevada

As one who views the program religiously, I think some are missing what "The Daily Show" really is. Stewart famously pointed out in his "Crossfire" appearance -- which ultimately led, I think, to CNN canceling that program, given his brutal discussion of how horrid it was -- that he is not a journalist. He is not.

What he is, I think (and this would be true of his producers and writers, so I will lump them together), is perhaps the nastiest, most perceptive media critic this side of A.J. Liebling, who beautifully vivisected the press in The New Yorker. The main thrust of "The Daily Show" most of the time is how stupid the MainStream Media are. And as they prove to any thinking person who watches them even without benefit of "The Daily Show," boy, are they stupid.

Name: Derrick Gibson
Hometown: http://allpanthersareblack.blogspot.com/

Thanks to Bill from CT for awaking our eyes (ok, mine) to the simple fact that like Ford and Daddy Bush before him, George is going out on the pardon train.

But, a president cannot pardon himself, right?

Which means that by signing those pardons, all GWB will have done is free his cohorts from any possible prosecution for their crimes. Is there not one weasel among them who -- once freed from cause and facing a suitably vengeful public -- will not step forward and call out "J'accuse!"?

Could this pardon train leave GWB alone at the station as the only one to face justice for the last eight years of criminality?

PS -- Good on ya, Siva! I say make room for BEHM!

Name: Brian Donohue
Hometown: http://dailyrevolution.net

Many thanks to the WaPo for this revelation; but the real problem is NOT that soldiers are being cremated with Fido and Fluffy, but that they have to be cremated at all.

1:14pm EST | Permalink | | Digg this!

Email Eric Alterman

You must have javascript enabled to use this form


The opinions voiced in these columns are those of the individual authors and do not represent the views of Media Matters for America or any other organization or institution with which any author may be affiliated.

Fri, May 9, 2008

Slacker Friday

We've got a new "Think Again" column here called "The Costs of Enforced Sexual Ignorance." And I'll be speaking at a conference on the future of the media at Princeton on Wednesday.

Name: Siva Vaidhyanathan
Hometown: Left field

The greatest baseball song of all time is Chuck Berry's "Brown-eyed Handsome Man."

Say hey.

Eric replies: Great song, but how far are we extending this? BEHM? Mrs. Robinson? Paradise by the Dashboard Light? Glory Days? Are these really baseball songs? These are important questions.

Name: Elizabeth
Hometown: Bavaria

I worked for half a dozen years as an obstetrics nurse in South Texas, and I can attest to the appalling numbers of teen pregnancies.

The lack of common sense behind "abstinence only" education was best summed up by a friend as, "sending your children to Mexico and telling them not to drink the water, but not telling them what to do when they get thirsty."

Name: Bill Ardis
Hometown: Frisco, TX

Eric,

So Hannity is still trying to tie Ayers to Obama, which of course means (in Hannity's tiny little mind) that Obama is unqualified to be elected. Isn't Hannity somewhat of a hypocrite? After all, Hannity has associated (on a very friendly basis) with someone who has suggested killing supreme court justices.

Ann Coulter acknowledged that she has previously suggested "putting rat poison in [U.S. Supreme Court] Justice [John Paul] Stevens' crème brulee"; suggesting people blow up the New York Times, saying: "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building"; and suggested killing Muslims or forcing them to convert.

Doesn't that mean Hannity is unqualified to be (and I use the word loosely) a pundit? After all, what is the difference between what Ann Coulter said and what William Ayers said? If one is reprehensible and should be condemned, shouldn't the other? And using the guilt by association standard, Hannity is definitely guilty of the same condoning this behavior. Will Hannity be forced to leave Fox? Will the media at least call Fox on this hypocrisy? Because it is not only Hannity, O'Reilly has said the same types of comments (like about terrorists attacking san Francisco).

Name: Ralph Sommerer
Hometown: Berne, Switzerland

Dear Dr. Alterman,

I've already found quite a while ago that I watch fake news shows like The Daily Show to get "real (U.S.) news" because they provide context of the sort that you'll never get on the MSM (perhaps "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" excepted). Where else can you actually witness the current administration officials' barefaced lies by simple being shown two video pieces side-by-side where they say one thing and then the exact opposite. Swiss Broadcasting Corporation, by the way, did this once in a news programme and were subequently being accused by a political party of attempting to "dismantle" their Federal Councillor. I haven't seen anything like it since in Switzerland on TV. "What liberal media" everywhere.

PS: Are you having any plans of coming to Europe to give talks/book tours this year? Travelling to the U.S. has become sort of a hassle lately.

Eric replies: Thanks for asking, but no. I am going to Israel in late June/early July in case anyone wants to set up a talk for me there...

Name: Beth Harrison
Hometown: Arlington, VA

Eric, you aren't being fair to viewers of "The Daily Show," comparing them (numerically) to the viewers of "Hannity & Colmes." I bet that you compared the "money" demographic (18-53), Jon Stewart would have more viewers than that joke of a program on Fox News (was that an oxymoron?). And TDS viewers need to know what Jon Stewart is talking about in order to get the satire. Unfortunately, "Hannity & Colmes" isn't satire -- they're deadly serious. Wasn't there a study somewhere several years ago that said that Faux viewers and Druggie Rush listeners were actually LESS informed after three hours?

Name: Dev Tobin
Hometown: Rensselaer, NY

Fox News shows like Hannity and Colmes get 2 million viewers, on their best night.

O'Reilly is Fox's top draw, at just 3 million viewers.

That's more than other cable TV political shows, but still a micro-minority of voters.

In 2004, Bush/Cheney got 62 million votes.

Fox viewership, at its best, is less than 5 percent of that.

Fox News preaches to the micro-minority Bush/Cheney choir, and, therefore, has no real influence on anything.

Name: Thomas Heiden
Hometown: Stratford, CT

Eric,

So the Blue Dog Democrats are balking at the new GI bill because their fellow Dems will not offset the increased spending with new revenue sources or spending cuts.

They seek fiscal responsiblity on the backs of our soldiers, but will always borrow money to continue the occupation of Iraq.

If it is true that they need to do this to get re-elected, perhaps it's time for them to lead their consituents instead of trying to follow them in such irrational and immoral priorities.

Name: Bill Strachan
Hometown: Enfield, CT

Oh how we rant and rave about the lawlessness, the anti-Constitution bias, the unconstitutional behavior, and the Administration's view that the Constitution is only a minor obstacle to their shenanigans. Well, since Bush has become so massively unpopular to the American electorate, a parting salvo to all of us -- especially the "Democrat" party -- I see a slew of pardons and clemencies on the near horizon. All members of his administration, both appointed and civil service hires, will be pardoned for any and all acts they have committed or will commit in the future for as long as they live. It will be signed by the President, Vice President, Secretary of State, Chief Justice Roberts & Justice Alito, and ruled OK fine by the Attorney General, and voted Constitutional by Justice Scalia. In this way they can easily negate any Statutes of Limitations and make sure the "Fix is In"!

They will then return to Crawford and LOL as the nation erupts with outrage powerless to prevent it.

The perfect ending to the "No Accountability" administration. I do smell it coming.

Name: Ken
Hometown: Cherry Hill, NJ

In response to Ed from Arlington, I am truly sorry for your loss.

Eric replies: As are we all. May he be among the last to die for this folly.

Name: Brian Donohue
Hometown: http://dailyrevolution.net

Last month, I argued that Obama left out a key element in the Joe Six Pack existential-crisis remarks that were so blatantly twisted in the media. He got guns and god in there, but forgot Grand Theft Auto. $500M in a week, folks. Call me an elitist, then, but a society in which a computer game featuring exploding cars outsells anything Hollywood can make has got to have some serious growing up to do.

I have to wonder how GTA IV might do in Baghdad ... hell, they're building Disney theme parks there.

12:36pm EST | Permalink | | Digg this!

Email Eric Alterman

You must have javascript enabled to use this form


The opinions voiced in these columns are those of the individual authors and do not represent the views of Media Matters for America or any other organization or institution with which any author may be affiliated.

Thu, May 8, 2008

Put me in, coach

We've got a new "Think Again" column here called "The Costs of Enforced Sexual Ignorance."

It can be a depressing spectacle indeed watching the sideshow that is Hannity & Colmes as it goes into overdrive attempting to smear Democratic candidates, in particular Sen. Barack Obama -- note that in a one-hour show on Monday (5/5/08), there were 26 mentions or video clips of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and 33 mentions of former Weather Underground member William Ayers, according to Nexis. (Accounting for commercials, that's a combined rate of nearly 1.5 mentions every minute). One wonders, of course, what exactly is being seen -- is this journalism? An infomercial for conservatives or, rather, against liberals? Or, if you're not familiar with Fox News, you might wonder: Could this be satirical --- are these guys serious?

Hannity & Colmes draws an average of 1.9 million viewers per night. Unsettling, until you find out that Comedy Central's The Daily Show gets about the same -- 1.8 million. The Daily Show also poses similar questions to viewers: Am I watching satire, or -- given the often political content and the nature of the jokes, which often puncture misguided dialogue like that of Sean Hannity -- am I watching a real bit of journalism?

The Project for Excellence in Journalism has attempted to measure some aspects of the show that go toward answering these questions. In examining The Daily Show for an entire year (2007), they found that:

  • The program's clearest focus is politics, especially in Washington. U.S. foreign affairs, largely dominated by the Bush administration's policies in Iraq, Washington politics and government accounted for nearly half (47%) of the time spent on the program. Overall, The Daily Show news agenda is quite close to those of cable news talk shows.

  • The press itself is another significant focus on The Daily Show. In all, 8% of the time was made up of segments about the press and news media. That is more than double the amount of coverage of media in the mainstream press overall during the same period.

  • A good deal of the news, however, is also absent from The Daily Show. In 2007, for example, major events such as the tragic Minneapolis bridge collapse were never discussed. And the shootings at Virginia Tech, the most covered story within a given week in 2007 by the overall press, received only a cursory mention.

  • Republicans in 2007 tended to bear the brunt of ridicule from Stewart and his crew. From July 1 through November 1, Stewart's humor targeted Republicans more than three times as often as Democrats. The Bush administration alone was the focus of almost a quarter (22%) of the segments in this time period.

  • The lineup of on-air guests was more evenly balanced by political party. But our subjective sense from viewing the segments is that Republicans faced harsher criticism during the interviews with Stewart. Whether this is because the show is simply liberal or because the Republicans control the White House is harder to pin down.

The Daily Show, of course, often advances a more serious political discussion than the allegedly news-centered Hannity & Colmes, and it serves as a good counterbalance in that way. Whether it roasts Democrats if they happen to take political control next year is, I suppose, still an open question -- but really, the target of the show's ridicule is essentially incompetence, which has no political stripe. It's just that one political party has owned the market share of incompetence over the past seven years, along with a good deal of the media.

Greg Mitchell at Editor & Publisher notes another disparity in coverage between The New York Times and McClatchy over Iraq, not unlike what was seen in the run-up to the war. He writes:

Michael Gordon, the military writer for The New York Times who contributed several false stories about Iraqi WMD in the runup to the U.S. attack on Iraq in 2002, has written several articles in the past year about Iran's alleged training of Iraqi insurgents -- or supplying them with weapons to kill Americans. He produced another major report on this subject for today's Times - based solely on unnamed sources -- which is at odds with an account from McClatchy's Baghdad bureau.

Note the list of officials quoted in Gordon's stories:

  • "An American official"

  • "But the Americans say"

  • "American officials"

  • "American officials"

  • "The Americans "

  • --"American officials"

  • --"An American official"

More here.

McCain Suck-Up Watch: "The Associated Press' Libby Quaid wrote that Sen. John McCain "dismissed Democratic rival Barack Obama as having zero national security experience," quoting McCain as saying that Obama "obviously has no national security experience, and therefore that's reflected in his judgment on a number of those issues." Quaid did not challenge McCain's accusation, nor did Quaid note that Obama has been involved in several bills and initiatives related to national security." More here.

From TomDispatch:

"Nineteen years ago," Michael Klare -- author of the just-published book, Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet -- reminds us, "the fall of the Berlin Wall effectively eliminated the Soviet Union as the world's other superpower." Less than a month ago, Klare writes, the United States similarly lost its claim to superpower status. In a strikingly original analysis of where rising energy prices have put an oil-addicted America, he suggests that the United States suffered its own equivalent of the fall of the Berlin Wall when, last month, oil prices first surged over $110 a barrel, gasoline prices at the American pump crossed the $3.50 a gallon threshold, and diesel fuel soared over $4. The U.S. as a superpower, he concludes, is as all-over as the Soviet Union was in 1989.

"The USA," he adds, "will no doubt continue to stumble on like the superpower it once was; but as the nation's economy continues to be eviscerated to pay for its daily oil fix, it, too, will be seen by increasing numbers of savvy observers as an ex-superpower-in-the-making." The rest of the startling piece is a sharp-as-tacks consideration of just how this happened, how a country whose wealth and strength rested on an abundance of cheap petroleum, was transformed into a "dry hole superpower."

From Middle Eastern "sovereign wealth funds," stuffed with U.S. petrodollars and cherry-picking prime American assets, to a gas-guzzling Pentagon, Klare explores the bleak energy landscape of the former "sole superpower" -- as well as the irony that, as the U.S. sinks in a sea of oil, Russia has been refloated as an energy power of the first order.

His final words: "As a result of our addiction to increasingly costly imported oil, we have become a different country, weaker and less prosperous. Whether we know it or not, the energy Berlin Wall has already fallen and the United States is an ex-superpower-in-the-making."

Correspondence Corner:

Name: Victor Navasky, Christopher Cerf
Hometown: New York City

We were pleased to see your May 5 comments on expertology, but regret that you did not draw on the latest, and recently published, study of the Institute of Expertology, "Mission Accomplished! Or How We Won the War in Iraq: The Experts Speak" by Christopher Cerf and Victor S. Navasky. Had you done so, you would have been able to cite the failed expertise of half of the Op Ed "experts" the Times quoted. Example: "The only prudent and realistic course of action left to the United States is to mount a full-scale invasion of Iraq to smash the Iraqi armed forces, depose Saddam's regime, and rid the country of weapons of mass destruction." Kenneth M. Pollack, former Director for Persian Gulf Affairs, National Security Council, September, 2002.

Christopher Cerf
Victor S. Navasky
Co-Founders, The Institute of Expertology

Eric replies: Please don't fire me.

Name: Brendan Keefe
Hometown: Rochester, NY

I enjoyed the video of your talk at the Strand quite a lot. Thanks for posting the link to it.

I miss seeing you on BloggingHeads.tv. I hope you'll reconsider your position about not going on there. Perhaps you could have Will Wilkerson interview you about your book on his "Free Will" series, rather than doing a standard debate-style diavlog. We could use a few people on that site who aren't afraid to say they're liberals.

Eric replies: We're working on setting up one about the book. Thanks for asking.

Name: John B
Hometown: Des Moines, IA

I ask this question way too often these days, but why is this not the biggest story in Washington right now? When the person most responsible for PROTECTING whistleblowers is instead IGNORING or ratting them out to superiors we have reached a level of perverse criminality that is absolutely mind-boggling. Think back to the days when the incoming Bush administration mockingly promised "the most ethical administration in history." Even at the time it was obvious they were taunting the outgoing administration and had no intention of being held to that. It was creepy, ridiculous, maddening how the press let them get away with it -- without even straight faces. The MSM is still letting them get away with it. And we should respect the talking heads because of their oh, so serious, straight faces.

Name: Ed
Hometown: Arlington, TX

One year ago, my cousin was killed by a sniper in Baghdad. Lord, how much longer ...

Name: RuthAlice Anderson
Hometown: Portland, OR

In today's anti-Hillary column, Dowd wrote: "Obama is like her idealistic, somewhat naive self before the world launched 1,000 attacks against her, turning her into the hard-bitten, driven politician who has launched 1,000 attacks against Obama."

I found the lack of agency in this sentence remarkable given that at least half those 1,000 attacks came directly from Dowd's own pen.

Name: Chuck
Hometown: Kansas City

I also watched some coverage of the Indiana and North Carolina election returns, and was put off by the likes of Pat Buchanan and Bill Bennett giving advice to the "Democrat" party for the general election. Kind of like hiring the Fox as a henhouse security consultant, no?

I've always thought the "genius" of Karl Rove is very simple. In a 2 person race, all you need to do is make the other candidate look worse than yours, preferably by a proxy smear. It worked against Gov. Richards in Texas, vs. McCain in 2000, vs. Kerry in 2004, and for Gov. Siegelman's opponent in Alabama. My hope is the Obama campaign will not hire the same consultants that have allowed this to happen to their candidates over and over. Or bet everything on Ohio or Florida again.

And much has been made of Chris Matthews' comments on Limbaugh's Operation Chaos, calling it unpatriotic, but during the MSNBC coverage Tim Russert acknowledged the e-mails he's received complaining about McCain's free ride on his Iraq/Iran comments and support from Rev. Hagee may yet slow down the Straight Talk Express. After the primaries are over.

Name: Alan Beckoff
Hometown: Hollis Hills, NY

I am the one who had the linked exchange with the NY Times' public editor last year about the disproportionate Yankees/Mets coverage. It may have evened up slightly this season, but I have to admit that the way the Mets are playing, most days I skip the sports section altogether.

Eric replies: Hey, they win 12-1 and are still on the bottom of the page, below a Yankees loss. No justice, no peace ...

Name: Roger H. Werner
Hometown: Stockton California

Although I have lived in Stockton since 1981, I grew up in NYC and was an avid baseball fan until I moved to California in 1974. I recall that the NYC newspapers were always biased against the Mets (except for Newsday). Even when the Mets won the World Series against Baltimore in 1969, the Yankees received the greater total coverage. Back then I seem to recall that the most popular sports section of any New York paper was provided by the Daily News (probably due in part to Dick Young) but if one cared about the Mets, Newsday was the paper to read. The NY Times sports section was not popular in my circle of fanatical sports friends. It is interesting that after 40+ years, Yankee bias remains rooted in the NY Times and the remaining NY papers (except Newsday). Frankly, I can understand a Times bias but how can one explain bias at the Daily News or NY Post since they don't have a national reach?

Name: john
Hometown: Seattle

How could you leave out the greatest baseball song of all?

"Take Me Out to the Ballgame"! And while the Hold Steady may or may not do a fine cover, the only version that matters is the one belted out by the 7th-inning faithful.

I'd also put "Mrs. Robinson" on the list.

Eric replies: No and yes ...

Name: Jeff Weed
Hometown: Little Elm, TX

Dr. A,

How about "Willie, Mickey & the Duke (Talkin' Baseball)" by (former Jim Croce producer) Terry Cashman?

On the not-so-good side, after the death of Harry Caray, the Cubs paraded out a number of celebrities to lead the 7th inning stretch sing-along of "Take Me Out to the Ballgame" at Wrigley Field. Among the most hilariously awful of these were Mike Ditka and Ozzy Osbourne.

Almost done reading Why We're Liberals -- good work, Doc!

Eric replies: Not a bad song, but I was going by their list ...

Name: Paul Goode
Hometown: Redmond, WA

What about Bruce Springstone's "Take Me Out To The Ballgame"? It's the B-side of the hilarious "Meet The Flintstones" parody.

Eric replies: One of the great songs of all time, actually, both sides. And I heard it performed live, once upon a time. I think the guy died relatively recently, though.

Speaking of Bruce, we all apparently missed this. I would have sprung for the grand if it had been a better cause (and I hadn't seen him last week). I think I goofed, alas.

3:03pm EST | Permalink | | Digg this!

Email Eric Alterman

You must have javascript enabled to use this form


The opinions voiced in these columns are those of the individual authors and do not represent the views of Media Matters for America or any other organization or institution with which any author may be affiliated.

Make a Donation

Links

Recent Columns

Bookmarks