Hunting The Muse

Fact Check Confuses Facts Again

I smelled a rat in factcheck.org months ago. They've been in the news more often lately. Here's the latest.

Kerik And The Nanny

Now, I don't really have a lot of patience for stories like this, but Josh is really on top of the whole thing about whether Kerik's immigrant nanny, his reason for withdrawing, actually ever really existed in the first place.

Like I said, I don't really care. But, replace "nanny" with "WMD in Iraq". Finally the press seems a bit invested as to whether claiming proof of a negative is all that credible. Wish they had spent this energy into investigating whether the claimed Iraqi WMD actually existed or not.

Fifteen (Well, Two) Minutes of Fame (Well, Public Anonymity)

This is really funny. So, I'm reading the front page of dailykos. There's an posting there from kos mentioning a must-read article about linguistics, framing, Lakoff, and Luntz from The Texas Observer.

So I go and read the article, and in there it mentions a discussion thread over at daily kos that discussed Lakoff. Here's the quote.

A glance at the liberal blog www.dailykos.com gives you some idea of the readiness of the troops that Lakoff is sending into battle. In late September, the site’s main blogger, a Berkeley, California, lawyer named Markos Moulitsas posted a short review of Don’t Think of an Elephant, calling it “the best book this cycle.” In the thread of responses that followed, the liberal stereotypes were on parade. The moralist: “I hate pr/marketing/spinning.” The feminist: “Ummm...wonder what he’s got against women?” The post-feminist: “I don’t want to be known as the Mommy party. We’re the party of Solomon.” The literal: “I’m not the child of the government.”

So here's the funny bit - I was the post-feminist! That was me! That was my comment they quoted! Even though I was used as an example of what's wrong with liberals.... Yay!

So. What's a post-feminist?

Michael Moore and Fahrenheit 9/11

I rented it from Netflix and watched it last night, for the first time.

I had been putting off watching it because I figured I pretty much knew everything that was in it, and my vote was already solid. Plus, while I enjoyed Bowling For Columbine, it also left a bad aftertaste because I thought it went over the top on Heston. I felt bad for the guy. Sometimes Moore has this talent at displaying what feels like false indignation for something that we are (and he is) actually truly indignant about.

Anyway, the moment that got to me most was watching the Iraqi woman screaming about her village being destroyed. I can't imagine anyone watching that, even the most right-wing fundamentalist, and not being affected by that. She was screaming "Allah Akhbar" and those sorts of things that are unfamiliar to us, but her words would be interrupted by these wracking sobs... and sobs sound the same all over the entire world. It's impossible not to relate to it. When you hear those sobs, that's where you get a glimmering of how deep the wrong is.

I think that no matter how opposed we are to the war or to this administration's choices in the war, we don't get touched by how evil the effects of it are until we see scenes like that. We know it's wrong even while we don't always feel the depth of the wrong. Even if we're opposed to it, we are still on the wrong side of a gap between what life is like here, and understanding what life and death are like there. It's the emotion that can help bridge that gap. And yet, it's the area of emotion that I think gives Moore the most trouble with these films.  Here's what I mean:

Lila Lipscomb was hit and miss for me. I don't doubt that all her emotion was genuine, but there was again some of that feeling that I could just sense, that it was undermined a bit by Moore silently shouting, "See? SEE?!" in the background. What's so frustrating about that is that even though it's there, he's RIGHT. But people pick up on it, and it undermines the presentation. I don't know why. My best theory is that he's got a lot of (understandable) frustration against his viewership, worried that they just won't get it unless he underscores it. He needs to trust the audience more. He's improved since Bowling For Columbine, but he needs to work on it more. One of the hardest lessons to learn about conviction is that there is a difference between expressing/communicating your own conviction, and evoking those responses in others. The Iraqi woman wasn't trying to convince us to feel badly for her. She was just unashamedly showing us all her grief, and as a result it was deeply affecting. I think that's a lesson for Moore. Moore confuses his roles as an affected citizen, and as a filmmaker. He has his own emotional responses to his subjects, but he's weirdly private about it, choosing to channel his emotionality through his films even while he's trying to seem dispassionate and "out of the way" at the same time. So the result is that there's this sense of him being both in and out of the frame at once, and it's distracting. He needs to pick one of the two approaches. Without doing so, it's almost like he isn't taking responsibility to fully express his own feelings about the issue, so he pressures us to express his own emotions, rather than ours.

I think Moore could make an amazing artistic work exploring his own feelings about an issue, and I also think Moore could make an amazing documentary. The combination just doesn't work well for me, though. I like his emotional take on the issues, but while watching the movie, I also want there to be room for my take, too.

I think what could be an incredible documentary is a documentary about Moore, shot by someone else. Make a movie about him making his movie. Catch him in his unguarded emotional moments. I think that it's only then that people would grasp how much of a flawed hero Moore is; that he is greater than his films.

O'Reilly Scandal

In the past, O'Reilly has expressed an interest in eventually running for office. I haven't written much about the whole sex scandal, but I do think that one result of this is that the chances of him ever running for office have greatly declined. The lawyers of the two parties are in private talks now, and the issue will likely settle. Which means a lot of evidence will likely exist that will not become public. Which increases the danger of it becoming public later. That's my take on it, anyway.

He Just Doesn't Get It

Win Back Respect has a new ad that hits Bush hard about an appearance he made at a D.C. Washington Correspondents Dinner. At the dinner, Bush made jokes about not being able to find WMD. Looking under the desk in the Oval Office, etc: "Nope, no weapons of mass destruction here!"

The Correspondents Dinner has a tradition of self-deprecating humor. The president roasts himself; makes fun of his own mistakes or foibles.

The question is where the cost of the mistake is. Self-deprecation is appropriate when the result of the mistake is your own humiliation. It means you have a sense of humor about it, enough to show that you are bigger than the humiliation.

The failure to find WMD had plenty of cost. Bush and his handlers evidently believed that the only cost was that it made him look silly; that it was a hit on his credibility. Self-deprecation is about overcoming that momentary lack of credibility. It's incredible that they thought that was the only issue, and that making fun of it was enough to overcome it.

It proves that they saw the other costs of the failure - including deaths of soldiers - as irrelevant. In fact, it's worse - it proves that the other costs of the failure didn't even register to them. Because it wasn't just about them believing they were irrelevant - it was that they didn't believe they were even worth acknowledging to the entire media.

Republicans are completely incapable of self-deprecation, because it involves actually acknowledging a mistake or vulnerability. Bush's joke wasn't an admission of vulnerability. It was a crass declaration that the failure to find WMD didn't even matter to him. In a way, it was the opposite of self-deprecation, because rather than admitting humility, it exposed arrogance.

I think the ad does a good job of exposing that arrogance.

Jon Stewart on Crossfire

Every once in a while, we sit and fantasize about what we'd REALLY like to say to those blowhards on the political cable tv shows. Jon Stewart went on Crossfire today and actually said it.

He also called Tucker Carlson a dick. And when Carlson snidely said that Stewart should just take a job at a journalism school, Stewart shot back, "You should go to one!"

Watching this is like going over the rainbow. He's rebelling so strongly against the format of the show that Carlson and Begala seemed like the fish out of water. Salon mentions it in their latest war room - they make the point that Stewart treated Crossfire like what it pretended to be - a show to talk about tough issues - and it showed that Begala and Carlson were completely out of their element.

And, for the first time, I grasped that Stewart could actually do a lot more good for the country on a show that wasn't The Daily Show. Before I wanted him to stay on TDS forever; now I want him to quit ASAP. TDS's format could continue to exist without him, but Stewart is the only one who could create the kind of show he'd like to see.

Yikes: O'Reilly

Drudgereport (I'm sorry, I just can't link to it) has news on a sexual harrasment accusation against O'Reilly. Just... back away. I don't take satisfaction in him being accused, or in it happening. It's just ugly. And it's a big distraction in political circles from the election.

In other news, it looks like there is something to the Wu allegations. His congressional site has an apology. There are now questions about his re-election, although there seems to be a consensus that Wu is handling the situation responsibly so far. And there's a discussion about it over at dailykos - lots of ambivalence.

My own beef with it is how the Oregonian handled it. A multi-month investigation, most of it completed months ago, but it comes out three weeks before election day. And in the meantime they endorse Ameri while making no mention of the investigation.

Wu Sex Assault Allegations

Great. Just great.

Evidently, there are allegations of David Wu sexually assaulting a young woman, 28 years ago. Let's take a whiff:

Early in the reporting, The Oregonian approached Wu for his side of the story. Over several months, his campaign manager repeatedly said Wu would not comment on "unsubstantiated allegations."

Several former Stanford officials and professors, as well as friends of the woman, provided accounts of what they said was a violent encounter.

The woman did not seek out reporters to tell her story. A reporter contacted her, and she declined to comment for privacy reasons. Reporters talked numerous times with a representative of the woman in an attempt to confirm the various accounts.

So, a clear case of he-said, she-said. Except that neither of them are saying anything. And, over several months, only to come out three weeks before the election? Is that just a coincidence? What was it about the timeline that made now the most appropriate time for it to come out? Why not six weeks ago, or six weeks from now? Did it just happen to correspond to three weeks before the election? Or was it timed?

Let's look again:

Wu's ex-girlfriend has steadfastly declined to comment, both in person and through an intermediary, citing privacy concerns.

Reporters contacted scores of former Stanford students, current and retired university officials and professors, law associates, and former campaign staffers and friends of Wu to determine what occurred.

Current Stanford officials would not discuss what happened between Wu and the woman or the university's handling of the matter, citing university policy and student confidentiality laws.

The meat of the article comes from an interview that happened in May - the woman who gave the interview died in August.

I'm not the biggest fan of David Wu. I didn't like his Medicare mischief, and his replies to me about the Help America Vote Act have been less than satisfying. But if there was actually anything serious to these allegations, evidently an open secret in Democratic circles since before Wu took office six years ago, it shouldn't have been withheld until three weeks before election day. Shame on the Oregonian.

Update: - Only three days previously, the Oregonian endorsed Wu's opponent, Gol Ameri. Note how it makes no mention of these allegations or the investigation they had underway. The Oregonian shouldn't have made an endorsement in this race when they were so heavily invested in this multi-month "investigation". This is an incredibly transparent conflict of interest.

Oregonian Endorses Kerry

It's not up on oregonlive.com yet, but will be in the Sunday paper.

When George W. Bush took office in a deeply divided nation, he promised to reach out to unite the country.  If anything, he has helped make the rifts deeper.  That may be his real failure as president.  John Kerry can do better.

The Oregonian endorsed Bush in 2000.

SBVT - Bored Now

Yes, a left-wing 527 has the right to free speech and express their views in an ad. Yes, a right-wing 527 does too. The point is that they shouldn't lie. The SBVT ads are full of provably false lies. The left-wing ads aren't. There GOP is trying to make the two sides equivalent, and they aren't. One side lies, the other side doesn't.

I don't know how to solve it. If a group of passionate people unconnected to a campaign wants to put an ad on television, they should be able to do so. Maybe the penalties for lies should have more teeth somehow. Maybe there should be a vetting process. What stops up from putting up an ad up saying Bush ran from his responsibilities on 9/11 and tried to order Air Force One to Mexico, hid under his seat, cried for his Mommy the whole time, and tried to call up Osama to give our unconditional surrender? That's about the best parallel I can find. I really don't believe it happened like that, but any evidence otherwise could easily be spun as his defenders just playing politics and lying for him. It's ridiculous.

It's not the 527's that are the problem. It's the lies.

By the way, some people are saying that Bush ran from his responsibilities on 9/11 and tried to order Air Force One to Mexico, hid under his seat, cried for his Mommy the whole time, and tried to call up Osama to give our unconditional surrender. Why isn't the press asking George Bush about this? It really makes you wonder. Bush needs to address this scandalous charge.

Put It On Your Queue

OutFoxed will be availble on Netflix on August 15th.

This Land Ain't The Same

For those of you who haven't seen the JibJab treatment of Bush and Kerry singing "This Land Is Your Land", go see it.

You should probably see it soon in case it gets taken down, because they are being threatened with a lawsuit for copyright infringement. This for satirizing a song whose songwriter said of it:

This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright # 154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ourn, cause we don't give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that's all we wanted to do.

Thanks to Tamara for the tip.

Dem Convention Week

Well, it's the week of the convention. I'm not enough of a hound to watch all the footage live, but I also don't want to miss anything in hindsight. I think the best solution here in Portland is to Tivo all of the OPB footage - they seem to be doing three hours of coverage a night for all four nights. Not as thorough as the incredible bore of CSPAN's probable all-day coverage, and not as sparse as the network's drop-in of only three speeches. But I honestly doubt I'll watch any of it live. I'm more of a highlights kind of guy.

Stories That Fell Behind - The CA Energy Crisis

The California deregulation nightmare is still a huge story that has not gotten the coverage that it deserves in the press. It was kind of like the Iraq war - any of us who were paying attention knew it was a sham when it was happening, but were treated like we were left-wing conspiracy-theorist scum when we tried bring up the possibility. And then later we dealt with news - quiet news cycles, mumbled admissions - that confirmed everything we were trying to say. It hasn't been acknowledged yet in the mainstream media, not in the way it deserves.

This was corporations holding families and businesses hostage for political purposes. A huge energy shortage that caused fear and anxiety and caused billions of dollars worth of damage was invented and manipulated for political purposes. If the blackouts and brownouts led to any deaths, it would be tantamount to a terrorist attack. The fact that this hasn't ruined political careers (other than Gray Davis's, who was right all along) is an exposure of how grotesquely incompetent the mainstream media is at uncovering the real story.

There's still opportunity to make up for it - Ken Lay was indicted, and while the scam was much bigger than just Lay, it's a huge opportunity for the press to make up for their eight years of incompetence on this matter and finally grow some balls.

Iraq Statue Pulldown Staged

About a year ago, I wrote an entry that linked to a site that showed the Saddam statue pulldown was staged and managed for the media (and for Bush).

Atrios links to an L.A. Times article that has the military finally admitting it was staged.

Given the adulatory treatment this received in the press, I would think this should be a huge story, that the military and administration duped them. But somehow I don't think it will be. Remember the issue is that it was presented as huge crowds of spontaneously celebrating Iraqis.

Open questions: who suggested the operation? Who was aware of it ahead of time? Was this something just intended for the Iraqi people that the Bush administration then simply took advantage of, or was it more tied together than that?

I think it's harder for mainstream America to laugh at left-wing media than it used to be. At times it is the only place that has room for the truth.

Opposing Luntz' Talking Points

I write a fair amount here about political rhetoric and psychology. The granddaddy of Republican Rhetoric is Frank Luntz. This is the guy that puts together all the phraseology that is so infuriating because we liberals can tell that it's horsecrap, even though we recognize that it sounds good. It's convincing to way too many people out there.

Atrios got his hands on one of the latest issues of Luntz' talking points. Let's review some of it here.

Communicating the Principles of Prevention & Protection in the War On Terror

The overwhelming amount of language in this document is intended to create a lexicon for explaining the policy of "preemption" and the "War in Iraq."

However, you will not find any instance in which we suggest that you use the actual word "preemption," or the phrase "The War in Iraq" to communicate your policies to the American public. To do so is to undermine your message from the start. But those are not the right words to use.

Your efforts are about "the principles of prevention and protection" in the greater "War on Terror."

Please do not underestimate the importance of these rhetorical nuances. Let us understand the stark reality of public opinion which provides the context for this language research. Like it or not, the situation in Iraq is the poster-child for the War on Terror. It is today's ground zero. You must develop a better way to talk about Iraq in the greater context of the War on Terror.

Now, what are some good ways to oppose these talking points?

First, Luntz pitches us a big fat softball. Obviously, something about "preemption" doesn't work very well for their message. Why would that be?

"Preemption" implies stopping something that may or may not have occurred in the first place. "Prevention" implies stopping something that is otherwise inevitable.

"Prevention" is also a comforting word. It implies a guarantee. This thing that was definitely going to happen will now not happen, which means you don't even have to think about what it was going to be.

And we know that this is what they actually want. They want us to believe that something Will happen, that their policies will Keep it from happening, and that we don't have to Think about it.

Obviously, these attitudes don't serve an informed electorate. Now, our electorate isn't necessarily interested in being informed, but in order for them to make the right choice of who to vote for, we have to convince them not only that our candidate will solve the problem, but is in fact taking the problem seriously in the first place - which means exposing the other candidate as someone who is not taking it seriously.

So, we say the part of their argument that they are trying to leave unsaid, and then we show how it's ridiculous. It's like the opposite of a straw man - we're not propping up a ridiculous argument that our opponent isn't making. We're exposing a ridiculous argument that our opponent is making.

Their first implication is that they are preventing something. Point out that they have never actually identified what it is they are preventing - they've never shown that something was certain to happen, that is now less likely to happen. Ask rhetorically, "What did invading Iraq improve for us? What are we safer from? What were we in danger of that we are not in danger of anymore?"

The other part of their ridiculous argument is that you can tell that their only hope is to keep Iraq connected to the War On Terror. This is because they are extraordinarily vulnerable to the idea of Iraq being a distraction to the War On Terror. They cannot let this idea take hold of the American people.

Invading Iraq protected us from nothing. Invading Iraq made us more susceptible to Iraq-sponsored terrorism, not less. We were winning the War On Terror, but the decision to invade Iraq distracted us from that goal, and now we are in danger of losing the War On Terror. We have fallen seriously behind, and it is vitally important to our nation's security to start implementing policies that will reduce the threat of global terrorism.

More Luntz:

What Matters Most

1. "9/11 changed everything" is the context by which everything follows. No speech about homeland security or Iraq should being without a reference to 9/11.
2. The principles of "prevention and protection" still have universal support and should be addressed prior to talking about Iraq.
3. "Prevention at home can require aggressive action abroad" is the best way to link a principle the public supports with the policies of the Administration. "It is better to fight the War on Terror on the streets of Baghdad than on the streets of New York or Washington."
4. "Terrorism has no boundaries, and neither should efforts to prevent it." Talk about how terrorism has taken the lives of the British, the Spanish, Italians, Germans, Israelis, innocents from all across the globe. Remind listeners that this is truly an international challenge. "Americans are not the only target."
5. "The world is a better place without Saddam Hussein." Enough said.

First, go ahead and experience the willies, because this certainly warrants it.

One great way to oppose this is just to quote item #1, and attribute it to Frank Luntz' GOP Talking Points. It proves there is a deliberate attempt to link Iraq to 9/11.

But the GOP has owned 9/11 for too long. 9/11 meant something else, other than the need for carpet bombing, and it's not convenient to the GOP. A good Democratic speechwriter could weave in these themes and reclaim 9/11.

9/11 was a day when an enemy thought they would break us, but instead they brought us closer together. On the day of 9/11, two towers came tumbling down, and instead of everyone in New York City hiding in their houses, they lined up around the block to give blood. Our citizens spilled blood, and we lined up around the block to give more. There is nothing that symbolizes America's strength to me more than that image. I know that nationwide, we all started valuing human connections a bit more after that day. Overseas, they see us as imperialists, because of our GOP policies. But our true identities are that of the scrappy underdogs. Ingenuity, individuality, and above all, heart. Terrorists can try to hit us, and they may hit us harder than they've hit us yet, but they're still destined to lose, because they don't understand us.

As for "prevention and protection", the relevant question is still "from what?" What did invading Iraq secure us from? See above.

Point number Three is a complete platitude. As with most platitudes, it's best to either ask for an example, or labor to come up with one and show how they don't work. Try to explain some sort of American disaster that was likely before invading Iraq, and isn't likely now. As for "Better Baghdad than Washington", ask for their evidence that invading Baghdad prevented a planned attack on Washington.

As for number four, just agree with it. There's nothing wrong with the point. But if it's used in defense of invading Iraq, ask again what terrorism invading Iraq secured us from.

And for number five, agree wholeheartedly. But then ask, "But is the world better off with Saddam Hussein being replaced with two hundred Osama bin Ladens?"

All of those points are reaction points, however. The point to use to get out in front is to argue for better protection from terrorism, to make the point that invading Iraq has made us less safe from it, and that it was a distraction from the War On Terror.

Remember, with Bush, the point isn't that he lied. Republican voters will defend a lie if they see it as being in service to an honorable agenda. The point is that Bush was wrong. That is what is unforgiveable to GOP voters. Bush followed his instincts on what would make us safer from terrorism, his instincts were grossly wrong, and we're going to pay for it if we don't make changes now.

Journalism Commandments

Big, Left, Outside: The Ten Suggestions of Authentic Journalism

Al Giordano has a draft list of ten guidelines for Real Journalism. They're thought-provoking. For a career centered around these aims, I'd probably want to be a journalist, myself.

Randi Rhodes and Treason

I'm bumping up a comment from the bowels of my weblog, as well as my response.

I wrote an entry a while back complaining about Randi Rhodes. I was venting at the time and have since relaxed my opinion about her, but the link got shopped around the web a bit, and people have started commenting.

So, here's a comment that was left today, by a "Chattipaula".

I've discovered a true treasonous women on the Liberal radio station, Air America, her name is Randi Rhodes and I've dubbed her "Baghdad Randi". Like Tokyo Rose and her counterpart Hanoi Jane this Randi is spewing hatred for this country and our president during a time of war.. It never ceases to amaze me how the liberal left has nothing but hatred for this country. This country, in their eyes does everything wrong from taking the country from the Indians to using too much of the earth's resources. This terrible country, America, is where these hate spewing Liberals make their money and drive their SUV's and have the freedom to babble out their hateful rhetoric. I've heard enough and I'm trying to circulate this around the Internet. This radio station, which is a Bizarro copycat of conservative radio, will die off soon enough but a lot of harm can be done in the interim. There is no substance, originality or entertainment value to this station. Listening to it is like holding your hand closer and closer to the flame, until the pain is unbareable, and you stop. So do your thing and forward this to all. Remember end Air America, let the clean air in.

My response - every time I see one of those trains of thought that appears genuine, I'm fascinated. There's plenty of that rhetoric coming from GOP politicians and columnists, but in those cases it's almost always spin and an attempt to manipulate public opinion, to serve some sort of agenda - they don't actually believe it. But once in a while someone repeats it from actually believing it, and it's fascinating.

Maybe I'm surprised that that entire comment was written with only one obvious spelling error. Because usually, that line of thought is only held by people that are stupid enough to be conned by it.

I honestly don't know the right approach to dealing with people that believe this horseshit and also seem reasonably intelligent. Do you just patiently explain that just because the U.S. manages to do something, it doesn't mean it's the right thing to do? Of course the U.S. does good things, but it's also capable of doing bad things, and sometimes it does. But what kind of moron actually believes that just because the U.S. does something, it means by definition that it is good? How can you reconcile that attitude with the ability to spell correctly?

My mind is still boggled.

Times: Sorry

The New York Times > International > Middle East > From the Editors: The Times and Iraq

The New York Times does what the Administration won't: acknowledge they were trafficking in false information about the Iraq war.

FBI Apology to Portland Lawyer

My Way News has another article on Brandon Mayfield, the Portland lawyer that was wrongly arrested for the Madrid bombings. The FBI has issued a rare apology, and it looks like Mayfield might sue. Hopefully this will draw more attention to the abuses of the Patriot Act.

Also, the NY Times (!) has a scathing editorial about the case.

The Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation ought to hang their heads in shame over the mistaken arrest and jailing of a Muslim lawyer in Oregon who was supposed to be a material witness in the Madrid train bombing case.

Finally, the Times even made reference to it in a surprisingly well-done examination of Bush's latest commercial.

Dr. Jon Stewart

Jon Stewart (from The Daily Show) received an honorary doctorate and gave this commencement speech. It's worth a read.

Lets talk about the real world for a moment. We had been discussing it earlier, and I…I wanted to bring this up to you earlier about the real world, and this is I guess as good a time as any. I don’t really know to put this, so I’ll be blunt. We broke it.

What We Want To See

I'm reading this great article about integrity in television journalism, and while it doesn't make the point explicitly, it reminds me of another point I've seen before. Television producers sometimes mention that viewers will say they want to watch one thing, when what they really want to watch is something else. For instance, given the choice between "When Animals Attack" and a documentary on space exploration, viewers will overwhelmingly say they want the documentary. But they'll watch "When Animals Attack."

You know, that's largely true. I don't see the point in arguing that. But the problem is, they use it as justification to broadcast "When Animals Attack." They say, "We're just giving the viewers what they really want to see."

It's really stupid. And I don't just mean that it's worthy of being vented about. I mean it's stupid from a business perspective, from their perspective. Don't they know there's a long-term marketable benefit towards appealing to our better selves?

You can already see the negative business impact in the network television entertainment schedules. All the reality shows - the quick bucks - tend to die out quickly, and many of the networks have massive holes in their schedules now, larger than in previous seasons. There's not many franchises anymore, no long-term investment, and hardly any reason for viewer loyalty. It's self-destructive.

It's too bad. It's kind of like marketing yourself as a fitness instructor, and then when you're hired, only taking your clients to the doughnut shop. They'll love you, and eventually fire you.

Great Moments In Satire

Rob Corddry in reaction to the Abu Ghrain torturings:

"There's no question what took place in that prison was horrible. But the Arab world has to realize the U.S. shouldn't be judged on the actions of a-- ... well, we shouldn't be judged on actions. It's our principles that matter. Our inspiring, abstract notions. Remember, just because torturing prisoners is something we did doesn't mean it's something we would do."

Absolutely classic. The audience knew it too - you could feel it sinking in to them before they went back to laughing.

Media Matters

Similar in intent to Fact Check (which I delinked for it being a little too Republican), and Campaign Desk (which I delinked for being boring), there is a new fact-checking website with much bigger names behind it, called Media Matters.

Randi Rhodes Is A Bully

I'm really glad that Air America is here now, but today I ended up solidifying my impression of Randi Rhodes, and she's a bully. I was on the fence for a while, but I heard a couple of calls in a row today that were along the lines of someone calling in to say something Randi didn't agree with, and then she wouldn't even let them talk. There was a liberal who considered himself pro-life, and I honestly wanted to hear what he had to say because I find it pretty interesting. But she wouldn't let him say a thing. Same with another guy who was trying to bring up something about Kerry's position regarding withdrawing troops. I don't honestly know what he was trying to say because Randi just called him stupid. Anyway, if I wanted to just listen to a bunch of noise from people who won't let anyone speak if they disagree, I'd listen to Rush - at least that would be more entertaining because his beliefs are so completely ridiculous.

Air America Radio

God, that had so much content that I wanted to listen to that I quickly got overwhelmed. It sort of makes me want to get a full-time job with a long commute just so I can justify listening to the show more. :-)

I caught the section of Randi Rhodes slamming Nader. I loved it. I wish she had made the point that she would agree with him if it weren't for how the election system was set up.

The only thing is, however, if Nader were on the verge of considering dropping out and endorsing Kerry, as some have been theorizing given his upcoming meeting with Kerry... then I think that possibility just got a little bit less likely.

FactCheck.org

I thought the idea of FactCheck.org was really cool, but its appeal has worn on me. Sometimes even the attempt to be "accurate" can be slanted, such as by strongly opposing Dean's tax argument even after he left the race, and by giving weak opposition to Kerry's "liberal elite" status, and releasing an article about Bush's ads by saying that there's not that much to oppose. Why release the article then? There's one bookmark going away.

Outrage Fatigue

There's this new chic meme out there in the blogosphere that people are calling outrage fatigue. I dislike the term immensely. I actually think there's this kind of spiritual battle between the concept of "standing up for what's right" and the concepts of cynicism, snarkiness, and bitchy hopelessness. Referring to "outrage fatigue" is just another way to make it okay to lose hope. I've gathered together weblog entries before of bloggers merely linking to horrible news and making snarky comments, rather than actually registering their vocal disapproval, and I've complained about it. Sometimes all you have left is your voice, and that's when you need to use it most.

Bush's TV Ads

So, Bush's TV Ads are out.

The first one I saw was Safer, Stronger. It really is beautifully done in terms of production values. The theme is that it looks back to bad stuff that has happened, that helps us feel nice and sorry for ourselves. Oboe and piano music that is somewhat healing. And then, the message that we are now turning the corner. Hooray! I mean, I felt convinced - I think we are too. But then, George Bush showed up on screen and I started laughing. Honestly, it's a complete non sequiteur. There's nothing in the ad that convinces us that we're turning the corner because of him. Why would a viewer think "because of" Bush rather than "despite" Bush?

Tested does a (slightly) better job at making the link. It says we've been through change. It has this line that says that what gets America through the tough times is "Freedom, Faith, Families, and Sacrifice", which is in itself enough to make me feel disgusted. But I don't know how it would play to swing voters. Then it says that Bush is steady leadership in times of change. It's again, almost a non sequiteur, but at least there's the rhetorical link with the concept of change. It's basically an admirable effort to paint Bush as someone who is helping us deal with the change, rather than the guy who either caused the change or made it more traumatic.

Lead is just ridiculous. He sounds slightly defensive. He says a few times he knows what we need to do to accomplish various liberal aims. What he doesn't say is that he has no intention of actually doing them. This one is vulnerable to the whole Bush doesn't do what he says thing. It's completely see-through. It would have worked in 2000, but the advantage Bush had then is that nobody knew him. This ad won't convince anyone that has been paying attention these last four years, like most swing voters.

Update: Boy, these ads sure seemed to backfire. Check out this list of reactions against the ads, from 9/11 victims and firefighters.

Rush And ACLU

This article (scroll down) makes the point of Rush, historically anti-privacy and anti-ACLU, agreeing with the ACLU when it comes to fighting his own drug conviction case.

There's a lot of clucking in the blogosphere about this issue and how Rush is a hypocrite, etc. I think the problem is that people stop there and believe that proves more of a point than it does.

I have been reading George Lakoff's Moral Politics recently and he makes a good point about morals and power that can be applied here. Rush is probably very much aware that the two attitudes are contradictory. It's not the same thing as cognitive dissonance or him being insane. He just feels no need to reconcile the two. To folks like him, and frankly to many of those on the left, it's simply all about power, not fairness. I think a lot of politically naive people see these inconsistencies and think, "My god! Does he even realize he's doing that?" They imagine some huge blind spot, that Rush can be saved or turned, or that the experience will soften Rush up and make him more tolerant to the viewpoint in the future, etc. It's naive, because of course he realizes. He just doesn't care. After he uses the right to privacy and the ACLU to defend himself, he's going to come right back to the radio show and continue to trash the right to privacy. He's not interested in consistency. Hypocrisy is irrelevant to him. He's got an agenda to promote.

Slanted Media; News At Eleven

I've long felt that media bias was a real problem, but this last week has just been ridiculous. Atrios over at Eschaton has been railing against this most consistently. Earlier this week there was an article by Nedra Pickler on the AP wire that invented a quote for Dean which was precisely the opposite of what he actually said. I (among with hundreds of others I guess) wrote to complain, and actually got a reply when the AP issued a contraction. You can read the details over at my diary on dailykos.

Another entry of mine focuses on an article I found myself, but in the comments someone else pointed to another article - again, issued over the wires by the AP - which is nothing short of an editorial. The Associated Press is not supposed to be releasing editorials disguised as hard news. Looks like a lot of people are writing about this too.

Much of this is anti-Dean bias. This is all an example of the bias in the media - it's not so much liberal or conservative (read rhetorica for details) as it is their bias for an exciting story. The last thing they want is for Dean to make it not even a contest. So they pound on any made-up flaw they can until they can make the case that it's close again.

Really, they should just call it what it is and report on the horse race between the leading candidate and the press. "Will the press's latest misrepresentation cause Dean to stumble in the eyes of the public? Stay tuned!"

The Daily Show tonight made the point that they knew that Dean was "angry" because the media told them so. Plus, they heard the rumor that he ripped the head off of a goat. :-)

Definition Of Bling Bling

UrbanDictionary.com/bling bling

So I saw an MSNBC headline that said, "Don't be dissing the bling bling! Teach!" And, you know, what the hell is bling bling? I mean, I know it's some rap thingyadayadayada. That's what my head does right after I hear or think the word "rap"yadayadayada. So I look it up: Google: "bling-bling" definition. And I came to this page. It is hilarious. Excerpt:

n. synonym for expensive, often flashy jewelry sported mostly by African American hip-hop artists and middle class Caucasian adolescents.

the sound light makes reflecting off of chrome

Eric (Robert) Rudolph

Olympic bombing suspect captured

I think that whole "Why do killers always go by all three names?" thing is a sham. This guy probably just goes by Eric or ER or something. Lee Harvey Oswald probably went by Lee O. It's just the media that ascribes the middle name as a way to separate them, I bet. I can't believe this has never occurred to me before. Silly me.

SARS In Toronto

Possible new Toronto SARS cases

Once again, SARS is on the front page of msnbc.com with a big scary image, with a United States health agency putting Toronto on their do-not-travel list.

Compare this with the latest graphs of active SARS cases in Canada and worldwide.

Fear of SARS is a stronger threat (and weapon) than SARS itself.

Liberal Media

Anshell Media

It's a company that plans to launch a major liberal radio station in 2003.

Klingon Interpreter

County seeks Klingon interpreter

Another example of independent and social journalism trumping mass media. Right now this AP article is linked to off of the front page of msnbc.com.

At the same time, there is another article over at kuro5hin describing what the actual truth is.

SARS Fear In Media

Graph of the SARS Epidemic

You've probably all noticed the increase in media coverage about SARS. It's got the front-page headlines on msnbc.com for the last three days straight, and newsweek has an awful cover of a masked woman with eyes widened in fear, devoted to SARS.

Meanwhile, the graphs don't show any increase in exponential growth. The first graph above makes scary predictions of 10 million deaths at some date, but it is making the point that that would only happen if the growth is exponential. The graph shows that the growth is less than exponential, though, so it is not a true epidemic.

Also the Canada graph makes an excellent point about cumulative versus active cases, and shows that the active cases in Canada are actually going down.

Peter Arnett

Peter Arnett is a famous reporter who won a Pulitzer Prize for reporting in Vietnam, and won awards for his reporting in the 1991 Gulf War. Over the weekend, he told Iraqi television that America's first war plan had failed. Today he was fired.

It's really curious to me - yesterday I read an article where NBC is defending them. But then on Monday, they fired him. Plus, it was widely supported that Arnett apologized. Well, he's been rehired by the British media and it's clear that his "apology", as explained by an exclusive written by him, was merely apologizing for leaving himself so open for commercial pressure to convince his employers to fire him.

To me, I what is more interesting than the events: that he talked to Iraqi television, that he was defended, that he was fired; is what happened that led to him being fired. Who got called? Who complained? What led to the decision being made? Why the turnaround from Sunday to Monday?

Not everyone thinks the firing was unwarranted. Check out what Walter Cronkite has to say.

Fox Hawks

Fox News is being idiotic again.

Non-Embedded Iraqi Journalism

[ t e c h n o \ c u l t u r e ] : [ t e c h n o \ c u l t u r e ]

Excerpts from a radio interview with a well-respected independent journalist alleging that the media messages from Iraq are not accurate.

War Links

Three points on the war in this article: Jordan's protection from Iraqi refugees, predictions of future foreign policy and how it could supposedly lead to Israeli-Palestinian Peace, and reports of Iraqis begging the U.S. to invade, including threatening to commit suicide if he didn't. But then, there are other reports of Iraqis being quite suspicious and dismissive of Bush's motives, leading to my stunning theory that maybe, just maybe all the Iraqis don't have a unanimous opinion? Iraq Body Count has a counter that tracks the minimum and maximum estimated number of Iraqi civilian casualties. Despite wide reports to the contrary, no Scud missiles (nor any other WMD) have yet been launched or found. The American Serviceman who rolled grenades into command tents of the 101st Airborne is allegedly Muslim - note how the article mentions a Scud launch, which is unsubstantiated. GOP Donors invited to bid on Iraq Reconstruction contracts. Russia is quite open about their oil-based concerns regarding the U.S. invasion. (And I wonder how the Nigerian Oil Crisis impacts this whole thing?) Britain is having a bad war. Finally, some American coverage on the perception gap between American and European media coverage on the war. The conclusion is that it's because American media is "balanced". And for homework, research the meaning of the following two phrases: "embedded journalism" and "neoconservatives".

Corporate Media

I've Been Asked...

pfft. That's what I think about this. pfft. This disgusts me. Kevin Sites is a correspondent for CNN that also has a personal blog where he uploads photos. He's been asked to stop doing it. This is a microcosm of all the points I've been making. Corporate media getting in the way of the spread of information. This is blatant proof. This absolutely disgusts me. You don't have access unless you're part of the corporate media, and if you have corporate media access you're restricted from spreading the information.

Welcome to being part of the problem, Kevin.

In The News

I got an email from a reporter from the Oregonian today. He wants to quote the paragraph in this entry where I talk about blogging and free press. It'll be in an article about what Oregon bloggers are writing about the war.

I was initially concerned about context. Blogging encourages emotional venting and freewriting, neither of which hold up well when an excerpt is quoted out of context. For instance, that particular passage could make it look like I don't believe there's any free press anywhere in America, or don't respect the work that honest journalists do.

But, I decided to trust - I chose a license for this weblog to allow quotes, given proper attribution, and if the attribution includes the link to this weblog, then I feel like context is protected. I wouldn't necessary stand by a couple of sentences off of this web log by themselves, but I stand by the entire weblog as a collection.

So look for an article in the Oregonian where I'll be quoted and my weblog will be mentioned. And let me know what edition it's in.

War, War, War

Despite everything else, I don't feel very alarmed at the horrible things that could happen to us as a result of the war. I just don't think anything horrible will happen inside the states. I think fear is being whipped up to build more war support. What I am is stunned at all the doublespeak and inconsistencies that have happened as a result of this, and how they aren't being just slammed in the press. I'll name a couple... I might come back and edit this entry to name more as I find them.

1. We are reassured that our military is mighty and that the war will be over quickly, in weeks if not days, because Iraq's army is less than half as powerful as it was in 1991. Yet the might of Iraq's WMD program is the rationale for invading. (reference: Robin Cook's speech)
2. We are told that if we don't act, then terrorist attacks will be more likely in the future. Then we are told that since we are attacking, the terror alert is raised to Orange and that terrorist attacks are more likely. (By "Iraqi operatives"?!?!)
3. We are told that Iraq has WMD. Blix says today that he found no evidence of WMD, just materials unaccounted for.
4. We are told that Iraq has sponsored the training of al qaeda. This had never actually been officially alleged before Bush's speech as far as I know.
5. Bush reassures Iraq's army that just because they're in an Army doesn't mean they actually have to follow orders. Couldn't help but imagine leaders of other countries saying that to our Army.
6. Bush over and over again refers to 9/11 in reference to Iraq when there is no link. 46% of the nation (reference, poll cited from salon.com) believes that Iraq was behind the hijackings. The administration is deliberately encouraging that impression, when the truth is that none of the hijackers were Iraqi.
7. Bush has told the U.N. he would accept disarmament in lieu of regime change, when in his speeches he equates disarmament with regime change.
8. Bush has alleged Iraq has WMD without offering proof, and threatened invasion from day one from Iraq's inability to prove the unproven allegation wrong.

It is so hard to see past all that crap. So hard that I don't feel like I've even solidified my view of whether invading Iraq at some point is warranted. I also feel cynical about the U.N. though - I think the principles of the various nations are much much murkier than they are presenting them to be. I can't overlook that it is convenient for them to act indigant of the U.S., as much as it is correct.

In all this, the nation I feel like I can respect the most (of the ones I know much about) is Canada. Canada isn't making a big dramatic display out of either their patriotism or their indignance. They merely offered a compromise measure that made the most sense out of anyone's, and when it failed, they released a brief statement simply saying they would not participate in the war and never intended to without a full U.N. mandate. It just feels genuine to me, and without posturing. O Canada. Are you the only civilized nation with integrity?

I have been blogging so much about War, as has everyone else. I'm glued to the "Where Is Raed?" weblog of the Iraqi citizen. But I do have so many other thoughts about other subjects as well. I hope to be able to delve down to them soon.

The one thing I am excited about is that I am firmly convinced now that blogging is so, so, so important. I think it's the only thing that can lead to us being saved from the lack of free press. Our corporate press is not free press anymore, not even close. But through blogging and good linking technologies, I believe we really can actually have a fully free press. And... I think the administration is underestimating it. They got a hint of it with Trent Lott (for those who don't know, that would have been overlooked if not for bloggers). Maybe they'll get a huge slap in the face due to something that gets out, unreported through normal media but brought to light through blogging. Look out.

Davos Reactions

damon wright | administrivia: Davos: WEF This is a fascinating email that Damon links to (three links downstream).

Then I saw an even more fascinating discussion here.

In summary, Laurie Garrett attended the WEF, wrote a flippant email to her friends with fascinating and disturbing content about the world stage of political leaders and what they really think and say, and it got forwarded everywhere. The lawmeme article bemoans the fact that someone wrote something perfectly suited for what email is all about, and then because of other qualities of email (like how easy it is to forward), got burned, and will now no longer be using email for a task for which email is perfectly suited.

Here's what I think about that: Big Deal. Maybe Laurie Garrett will stop sending these emails to friends. Big Deal. She falls away from the new reality because she can't hack it. Someone else replaces her. The information flow will still happen, the information will still get out, the boundaries between the general population and the conspiratorial truths will continue to break down, information will continue to be shared to anyone regardless of their class or political beliefs. That's just the way it is. The people who can't hack that are just making themselves irrelevant.

Conjectures on Truth and Quality

Conjecture on Truth:

For you to accept a happening as absolutely true, you must either:

• Witness the veracity of the happening firsthand
• Have the happening reported to you by a source you know and trust absolutely

Conjecture on Quality:

A quality judgement is the same as a Truth judgement, except with the added variable of your own subjective preferences mixed in. Therefore, for you to accept an item as being high quality, you must either:

• Judge the quality of the item firsthand
• Have the item referred to you by a source that you absolutely trust can interpret your quality requirements (tastes) accurately

What technology can do for you is approximate the second requirement in both cases. However, there are tradeoffs.

For truth, if the happening is not reported by a source you explicitly trust as truthful, an alternative is for the happening to be reported by several independent and non-conspiring sources. This is corroboration. There is a loophole here in that if you don't explicitly trust any of the sources yourself, it is possible for them all to be fooled. You are choosing to trust a safety in numbers, rather than trusting one independent personally-known source.

For quality, it requires the recommending source to know your tastes. In the case of a source that knows only your tastes, it is difficult if not impossible for the source to judge your reaction to an item when that item's qualities do not have a relationship with the taste qualities you have shared.

If you want your source to be able to recommend items to you that you might like even when its qualities don't have a clear relationship with your communicated tastes, then it is necessary to compare your communicated tastes with those of several other participants to find commonalities. If any of these participants have judged the quality of the item, your probable reaction to an item can be extrapolated. But the requirement in this case is for the item in question to be rated by several sources before it can be recommended to you.

Therefore, if a happening is reported to one source unknown to you, and you hear of the happening through only that source, it is impossible for you to reasonably trust that it is true.

And, if you find an item through a recommending source, and you have not shared any preferences for qualities of that item, and no one else has shared opinions on that item, it is impossible for that source to predict if you would find it of high quality.

In either case, if you want to be exposed to new happenings of truth, or new items of quality that you haven't explicitly described beforehand, without witnessing these happenings and items first-hand, it is a hard requirement for these items and happenings to be rated by multiple sources before you can trust them.

Comments?

Quote Of The Day

"Manny Moe, you get the bathroom first, followed by your copilot."

MC Hammer, to Emmanuel "Webster" Lewis, upon waking up together after sharing a bunk bed.

I don't know. I just don't know.

Blogging Tools

Just learning how to use all the new blogging tools is an adventure in new journalism. I pulled together all the media for the previous entry in under ten minutes after hearing about the show. How? Well, I went to Daypop and searched for O'Reilly Glick. I found Tom Tomorrow's blog entry. Then I used Technorati's link cosmos bookmarklet to see who was talking about his entry. And I found the mp3 and the discussion of what O'Reilly did afterward. In that entry I found the link to the Democracy Now interview, and in the comments to that entry I found a link to video footage.

Damn, what's it like to be a high school student writing a report these days?

O'Reilly and Glick

You remember Mr. Glick, who said "Let's Roll" on 9/11? Well, his son was on The O'Reilly Factor because he signed the "Not In Our Name" declaration. O'Reilly tried to embarrass him, Glick kept his composure, and O'Reilly promptly embarrassed himself. Here's the transcript. Here's the audio. Then there were the moments afterward. You can hear Glick talk about it on a Real Audio interview from Democracy Now.

Evidently O'Reilly apologized to the audience after the break for having Glick on the show, saying that he never would have had him on the show had he known what Glick would be saying, and said more in later days about Glick spewing anti-American hatred and propaganda and was behaving crazily like a maniac.

Update and Correction: Evidently Jeremy Glick's father was not the "Let's Roll" Glick; he was another Glick that died in the WTC. "We regret the error."

Fear Will Protect You From Terror!

Salon.com News | Orange agents - Reporters also placed too much emphasis on the dramatic congressional testimony by the heads of the CIA and FBI, says Vince Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism chief. He notes those presentations didn't happen because threatening new terrorist information had just been uncovered. Instead, they're prescheduled annual events.

I don't watch television news. I saw a few articles on the web and saw a couple of extra warnings and didn't think much of it.

Then I sat down and watched an episode of Buffy. Here in Portland, every commercial break had a newsbreak with the anchors saying things like "Tune in tonight to see what landmarks in Portland have been named as terrorist targets!" while showing pictures of local churches. While watching 24, they actually shrunk the screen and had a flashy graphic that said "TERRORIST TARGETS IN PORTLAND".

I watch the beginning of the newscast and it's a wide angle start showing three anchors, extra bustle and activity, alarm in their voices and concern in their eyes, with teasers about what other Portland residents are doing to prepare themselves. (They even found a couple of people to interview on the street who said something about buying extra bottled water or something.)

After the break they cut to an anchor to explain what they meant about TERRORIST TARGETS IN PORTLAND. They had a guy standing in front of a church with his 13-page report from the FBI... saying (with alarm in his voice) that the FBI had said "Christian Churches MAY BE A TARGET!"

The FBI said... Christian Churches... may be a target.

Duh.

I don't know how to communicate the disgust I feel about the shamefulness of this whole thing. My mind was racing that night to the extent that I was pacing around the apartment muttering to myself about what I would have said to the fucking news anchors had they stopped me on the street.

More and more, news media reminds me of junior high school. It used to be we looked UP to journalists, to Walter Cronkite, to the all-american senior. Now there's all these snot-faced hyper nerdy kids - not the smart kinds but the kinds that throw glueballs at the teacher and pull wings off of moths - who think that Fox News is the cool kid. And so they try to emulate him. They have no room or patience for integrity because it complicates things too much, slows down the pace too much.

They are blatantly encouraging fear. (Have you seen that "High Alert" terror icon they have in the lower right of their screen 24x7?) It sounds silly for me to say - I mean, it's so obvious that everyone sees it and so making the observation doesn't really even have any power anymore. But it is still harmful even though people have moved on to talking about it off-handedly. When people feel fear, they become convinced they need more protection. And protection from what? Really, what? Terror? We're terrified of experiencing terror? We better get scared enough to take steps to protect ourselves from terror? Or terrified enough to be thankful that others are protecting us from terror? What?

It is hard to be too blunt about this because it isn't that there isn't something serious going on here. It isn't that the emperor is wearing no clothes. It's just that it's been co-opted so thoroughly. And it's so distasteful to imagine someone co-opting 9/11 that it's hard for us all to collectively accept it (even if we all might secretly individually believe it). Should we respect that there's a major imbalance in the world right now, of a greater clash in culture and ideology, with all parties mutually committed to not understanding each other? Yes. But should we really be worried about the odds of ourselves being victims of a terrorist attack? More than we worry about being in fatal traffic accidents?

Chris Matthews Interview

Salon.com Interview: Chris Matthews - All right, I guess I do read Salon a bit still. I didn't pay attention to Matthews too much during the whole Clinton fiasco but since then I never found him too annoying. Neat interview.

What Peace Movement?

Billboard Ban - The First Amendment loses meaning if the corporations keep gaining the power that the government keeps abdicating.

Reacting to 9/11 coverage

I swam in the news coverage of 9/11 for the first few days, then took time off, then swam in it more... we've got this range of channels here on portland TV, 34-40 or so, where it's being covered all the time, and whenever I flip through it's just about overwhelming, and then I come to the idiots on FOX News who are saying all these awful things and it pushes me over the edge so I flip past to something silly. I think I'm emotionally "on schedule" so to speak but then I come across a pocket of coverage or opinions, somewhere on the tube or on the web or on a mailing list, and it's fresh all over again. So I don't know. It is odd to be in two places - to be affected deeply sometimes and not at all at other times... I'm at the third degree, which is pretty far - I know a couple of people who know people who know people who were injured or killed. It'd be different if I were closer, maybe? But maybe only in intensity...