May 29, 2008

CNN Correspondent Blurts Out Some Truth

Media

CNN correspondent Jessica Yellin, discussing Scott McClellan's new book on Anderson Cooper's show:

JESSICA YELLIN, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: When the lead-up to the war began, the press corps was under enormous pressure from corporate executives, frankly, to make sure that this was a war that was presented in a way that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the nation and the president's high approval ratings.

And my own experience at the White House was that, the higher the president's approval ratings, the more pressure I had from news executives -- and I was not at this network at the time [she was at MSNBC] -- but the more pressure I had from news executives to put on positive stories about the president.

I think, over time...

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: You had pressure from news executives to put on positive stories about the president?

YELLIN: Not in that exact -- they wouldn't say it in that way, but they would edit my pieces. They would push me in different directions. They would turn down stories that were more critical and try to put on pieces that were more positive, yes. That was my experience.

I'm shocked. Shocked.

Posted by Jonathan at 10:54 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

April 10, 2008

The Power Of An Image

Media

A picture worth a thousand words, and then some:

Enlarge.

By Margaret Bourke-White.

Simply superb.

[Thanks, Maurice]

Posted by Jonathan at 05:37 PM | Comments (2) | Link to this  

February 27, 2008

How Embarrassing

Media  Politics

Until last night, I hadn't watched any of the presidential candidates' "debates." Partly because I don't watch tv, but mostly because I just don't have the stomach for it: politics as an episode of "American Idol" (not that I've ever watched "American Idol," either.) But last night I did watch online, and I have to say: what's the deal with Tim Russert and his gotcha questions? That's the state of American journalism and politics? (Rhetorical question.)

Gawd, it's embarrassing. (Digby agrees.)

Posted by Jonathan at 03:51 PM | Comments (2) | Link to this  

December 24, 2007

AOL, You Suck

Media

This is just despicable. Gawd.

Posted by Jonathan at 05:45 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

November 19, 2007

It's Hard To Be This Breathtakingly, Jaw-Droppingly Dumb

Media  Politics

Unless you're Tom Friedman. Gawd.

Posted by Jonathan at 09:49 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

October 03, 2007

The Emptiest Of Suits

Media

There's a good chance you've already seen this, but if not:

Like a thousand fingernails on a thousand blackboards. But huge props to Jon Stewart.

Posted by Jonathan at 05:04 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

August 28, 2007

Dolphin Fighting

Media

Too funny.

Posted by Jonathan at 09:26 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

August 22, 2007

Poisoning Our Own Well

Corporations, Globalization  Media

This story's a couple of weeks old, but it's too important to let slide. AP:

Anything made by McDonald's tastes better, preschoolers said in a study that powerfully demonstrates how advertising can trick the taste buds of young children.

Even carrots, milk and apple juice tasted better to the kids when they were wrapped in the familiar packaging of the Golden Arches.

The study had youngsters sample identical McDonald's foods in name-brand and unmarked wrappers. The unmarked foods always lost the taste test.

"You see a McDonald's label and kids start salivating," said Diane Levin, a childhood development specialist who campaigns against advertising to kids. She had no role in the research.

Levin said it was "the first study I know of that has shown so simply and clearly what's going on with (marketing to) young children."

Study author Dr. Tom Robinson said the kids' perception of taste was "physically altered by the branding." The Stanford University researcher said it was remarkable how children so young were already so influenced by advertising. [...]

The study included three McDonald's menu items -- hamburgers, chicken nuggets and french fries -- and store-bought milk or juice and carrots. Children got two identical samples of each food on a tray, one in McDonald's wrappers or cups and the other in plain, unmarked packaging. The kids were asked whether they tasted the same or whether one was better. (Some children didn't taste all the foods.)

McDonald's-labeled samples were the clear favorites. French fries were the biggest winner; almost 77 percent said the labeled fries tasted best while only 13 percent preferred the others.

Fifty-four percent preferred McDonald's-wrapped carrots versus 23 percent who liked the plain-wrapped sample. [...]

Fewer than one-fourth of the children said both samples of all foods tasted the same.

Imagine you're a visitor from Mars, suddenly plunked down in the middle of American society. How crazy would this look: everywhere you turn, you see corporations directing powerful mind-control tools at our own population — every one of us, cradle to grave — with all the skill, sophistication, and guile they can muster. Programming us with insatiable desire for that which will leave us sick and empty and drowning in garbage. Treating our psyches like things to be plundered. Consequences be damned.

And we wonder why we're collectively going crazy. A system that brainwashes its own children to make a buck is one that has clearly lost its way. But we're so immersed in it we scarcely even notice.

Posted by Jonathan at 05:35 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

August 20, 2007

Petraeus Report To Be Written By White House

Iraq  Media  Politics

We're supposed to all be waiting to hear what General Petraeus will say in his September "progress" report. But buried deep in an LA Times story about the upcoming report, we find this:

Administration and military officials acknowledge that the September report will not show any significant progress on the political benchmarks laid out by Congress. How to deal in the report with the lack of national reconciliation between Iraq's warring sects has created some tension within the White House.

Despite Bush's repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government.

And though Petraeus and Crocker will present their recommendations on Capitol Hill, legislation passed by Congress leaves it to the president to decide how to interpret the report's data.

The senior administration official said the process had created "uncomfortable positions" for the White House because of debates over what constitutes "satisfactory progress."

During internal White House discussion of a July interim report, some officials urged the administration to claim progress in policy areas such as legislation to divvy up Iraq's oil revenue, even though no final agreement had been reached. Others argued that such assertions would be disingenuous.

"There were some in the drafting of the report that said, 'Well, we can claim progress,'" the administration official said. "There were others who said: 'Wait a second. Sure we can claim progress, but it's not credible to...just neglect the fact that it's had no effect on the ground.'"

The Defense official skeptical of the troop buildup said he expected Petraeus to emphasize military accomplishments, including improving security in Baghdad neighborhoods and a slight reduction in the number of suicide bomb attacks. But the official said he did not believe such security improvements would translate into political progress or improvements in the daily lives of most Iraqis.

"Who cares how many neighborhoods of Baghdad are secured?" the official said. "Let's talk about the rest of the country: How come they have electricity twice a day, how come there is no running water?" [Emphasis added]

Everybody pretends the report will be from Petraeus, but it's being cooked up by political hacks in the White House. Which is to say, it will be completely useless as a basis for deciding anything. Watch, though, as the mainstream media play along and portray it as a serious evaluation originating from Petraeus himself. Pardon me while I retch.

Posted by Jonathan at 12:45 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

July 24, 2007

Unfair, Unbalanced, Unhinged

Environment  Media

This really ticks me off:

Millions of people get their version of reality from Fox News. Not a trivial matter. Garbage in, garbage out.

Time to make their advertisers pay.

Petition (and more videos) here.

Posted by Jonathan at 03:46 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

July 22, 2007

NYT: Harry Potter Not A Best Seller

Media

I read the first Harry Potter and stopped there. But I know plenty of bookish adults who are avid fans of the series. Some have read each book multiple times.

But apparently the grinches at the New York Times, pressured by publishers whose own books were blown out of the water by J. K. Rowling's, decided to categorize the Potter books as children's books to keep them off the influential NYT Bestseller list. In fact, they're not even on the main children's list; they're relegated to the Series Books subsection of the Children's List.

So the publishing phenomenon of all time is officially not a NYT Bestseller. Not earth-shaking, obviously, but not very sporting, either. Kind of dumb, really.

Posted by Jonathan at 05:38 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

July 16, 2007

How The News Works

Humor & Fun  Iran  Iraq  Media

This is excellent.

Posted by Jonathan at 04:53 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

June 14, 2007

3400, 3500

Iraq  Media

The carnage continues in Iraq.

While I was gone from the blog, US troops deaths in Iraq passed the 3400 mark. Then 3500. US troops killed in Iraq as of today: 3513.

And hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. For what?

230 US troops were killed in April and May, the worst two-month total of the entire war, a fact worthy of some public discussion, one might think.

The situation is deteriorating. Fox News responds by cutting its Iraq coverage, a policy Bill O'Reilly likes just fine. Yes, let's all shut our eyes, stick our fingers in our ears, and go "La la la la." As if this isn't all happening in a real place, to real people. Unspeakable.

Posted by Jonathan at 11:45 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

May 01, 2007

Narrowcasting Ads Via Focussed Audio

Corporations, Globalization  Media  Science/Technology

Hearing voices? Maybe this is why. Boston Globe (via Cryptogon):

Advertisers have a new way to get into your head.

Marketers around the world are using innovative audio technology that sends sound in a narrow beam, just like light, making it possible to direct messages right into consumers' ears while they shop or sit in waiting rooms.

The audio spotlight device, created by Watertown firm Holosonic Research Labs Inc., has been used to hawk everything from cereals in supermarket aisles to glasses at doctor's offices. The messages are often quick and targeted -- and a little creepy to the uninitiated.

Court TV recently installed the audio spotlight in ceilings of bookstores to promote the network's new murder-mystery show. A voice, whispering, "Hey, you, can you hear me? Do you ever think about murder?" was beamed toward customers as they browsed the mystery section in several independent bookstores in New York.

For advertisers, the audio spotlight is a way of marketing to consumers, sending tailored messages without disturbing an entire store with loudspeaker announcements such as Kmart's iconic "Blue Light Special." The flat disk speakers with precision targeting have made sound possible in unlikely places -- from Boston's Museum of Fine Arts to the New York Public Library -- and are increasingly attractive to merchants trying to improve the shopping experience with a peaceful environment. [...]

Unlike traditional speakers, which broadcast sound in every direction, sound from an audio spotlight speaker can be focused directly at one spot, so no one else can hear it, or projected against a surface so that sound appears to come from the surface itself.

For example, a box of Fruity Pebbles can advertise its nutritional content, heard by shoppers only as they walk by boxes in the cereal aisle. The audio spotlight uses ultrasound to stimulate the air into making sound, which is emitted in focused, laser-like beams. [Emphasis added]

What an awful idea. First time I encounter one of these things in a store, I'm going to boycott that store for life.

Posted by Jonathan at 10:25 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

April 28, 2007

Blind Spot

Extremism  Media

When is a terrorist attack on US soil not a terrorist attack — in fact, not even worthy of mention on the evening news?

When the target is a women's clinic.

Posted by Jonathan at 04:59 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

D-E-S-P-I-C-A-B-L-E

Media

Despicable "satire" from Rush Limbaugh. How does he stay on the air?

Posted by Jonathan at 04:44 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

April 16, 2007

The Edge

Culture  Future  Media  Science/Technology

Just wanted to make a plug for an extraordinary website called The Edge. It brings together world-class thinkers from a variety of fields and has them talk or write about what's on their minds: what's interesting and important to them right now, with an emphasis on leading edge ideas.

People like Lee Smolin, Steven Pinker, Jared Diamond, Lisa Randall, Stuart Kauffman, Daniel Dennett, Freeman Dyson, Richard Dawkins, Marvin Minsky, Ernst Mayr, Brian Greene, Susan Blackmore, John Barrow, Ray Kurzweil, E. O. Wilson, Esther Dyson, and an old professor of mine, John Allen Paulos. And many more.

Check out the page of videos, lots of goodies there.

Most addicting, though, is the World Question Center. Each year, a hundred or so luminaries are invited to submit a short answer to a question like "What's your dangerous idea?" or "What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it?" The variety of viewpoints and ideas is astounding and endlessly fascinating. Mind-expanding in the best sense of the word.

Well worth a bookmark.

Posted by Jonathan at 05:06 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

April 09, 2007

Get Me Rewrite!

Iran  Iraq  Media

A couple of months ago, the government line was that resurgents' use of EFPs was proof of high-level Iranian involvement. Remember this? CBS:

U.S. military officials charged on Sunday that the highest levels of the Iranian leadership ordered Shiite militants in Iraq to be armed with sophisticated armor-piercing roadside bombs that have killed more than 170 American forces. [...]

The deadly and highly sophisticated weapons the U.S. military said were coming into Iraq from Iran are known as "explosively formed penetrators," or EFPs.

But now Reuters says different:

"Iraqi army soldiers swept into the city of Diwaniya early this morning to disrupt militia activity and return security and stability of the volatile city back to the government of Iraq,” the US military said in a statement.

[Lieutenant-Colonel Scott] Bleichwehl said troops, facing scattered resistance, discovered a factory that produced "explosively formed penetrators" (EFPs), a particularly deadly type of explosive that can destroy a main battle tank and several weapons caches. [Emphasis added]

So the devices that couldn't possibly have come from anywhere but Iranian government sources are actually manufactured by insurgents in Iraq. Not surprising in itself: what don't they lie about? But the story doesn't end there. As Atrios noticed, the Washington Post online picked up the Reuters story, as captured by Google News:

Then almost immediately, the original version was down The Memory Hole, becoming instead:

The U.S. military said two U.S. soldiers died in separate roadside bombings in the east and west of Baghdad on Friday.

One of the bombs was an explosively formed projectile, a particularly deadly type of device which Washington accuses Iran of supplying Iraqi militants. [Emphasis added]

Like it was written by the Pentagon itself. Either it was, or the WaPo thinks it's their job to do the Pentagon's work without being asked. Either way, disgraceful.

Posted by Jonathan at 10:48 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

March 01, 2007

Goring Gore

Media  Politics

Two things.

First, the world would be a very different place today if Al Gore had been elected (or selected) President in 2000. No war in Iraq, for starters. No attack on Iran, should it come to that. Nothing like the worldwide antipathy towards the United States we see today. One could go on.

Second, Al Gore would have been elected President — probably with relative ease — if the mainstream media had given him a fair shake. All that nonsense about Gore being stiff, unlikable, a serial exaggerator — inventor of the Internet, the subject of Love Story — while George Bush was the likable, straight-talking guy everybody'd want to have a beer with. It was unrelenting, and it made all the difference.

Which is to say, the US media have a lot of blood on their hands. But don't hold your breath waiting for them to acknowledge, let alone apologize for, the great wrong they did to Gore and the great harm they did to the country and the world.

Which brings us to Bob Somerby. He chronicled many of the media outrages at the time, and he hasn't forgotten who said and did what. And is still saying and doing what. In yesterday's Daily Howler, Somerby looks at how little things have changed, and he's pissed. It's a good read, and an important one, as the media prepare once again to sanctify the likes of McCain and Giuliani, while covering Hillary and Obama — and Gore — with snide innuendo. Go read it.

This isn't a game. The media's consensus narrative shapes people's perceptions and changes history. Millions of lives have been shattered by Bush's presidency. While the pundits feed their egos, ordinary people pay the price. You'd think the pundits would look around at what they have wrought, at the rising tide of wreckage and ruin that surrounds us, and feel chastened. But you'd be wrong.

Now watch, as they get ready to do it all again.

Posted by Jonathan at 10:31 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

This American Life

Culture  Media

Best possible news for fans of NPR's "This American Life": starting on March 22, a new video version will premiere on Showtime. Here's the trailer:

Wow. This could turn out to be about the best tv show ever. Three weeks from today.

[Thanks, Ali]

Posted by Jonathan at 11:26 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

January 04, 2007

Olbermann On "Sacrifice" And The "White Noise" Of Endless War

Iraq  Media  Politics

As Bush prepares to sell a troop surge escalation in Iraq in terms of "sacrifice", Keith Olbermann provides blistering commentary:

One of Olbermann's best. Just outstanding.

Posted by Jonathan at 01:18 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

December 30, 2006

Your Liberal Media

Media

Scroll down here and find the interview with John Edwards. Imagine CNN hounding a Republican in the same way. John McCain, say. Never happen.

[Via Atrios]

Posted by Jonathan at 11:25 AM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

December 23, 2006

Stompin'

Media

This is a lot of fun. Sound required.

I love the different ways they leave at the end.

Posted by Jonathan at 03:57 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

December 12, 2006

Teeing Off

Media

Suburban Guerrilla has a blistering clip of Henry Rollins teeing off in favor of net neutrality. Strong stuff, and rightly so.

Posted by Jonathan at 10:44 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

November 15, 2006

Fair And Balanced

Media

FOX News internal memo posted at HuffPo:

The elections and Rumsfeld's resignation were a major event, but not the end of the world. The war on terror goes on without interruption...And let's be on the lookout for any statements from the Iraqi insurgents, who must be thrilled at the prospect of a Dem-controlled congress. [...]

Just because the Dems won, the war on terror isn't over.

Shorter version: the election/Rumsfeld was a bummer, but cheer up, people: we still got our war!

Pardon me while I retch.

Posted by Jonathan at 05:25 PM | Comments (3) | Link to this  

November 02, 2006

Katie Couric Gets Shrill

Iraq  Media

From the NBC Nightly News CBS Evening News (via Atrios):

Whoa. Things really must be unravelling over there if mainstream network news is this dark.

Posted by Jonathan at 11:14 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

October 31, 2006

Blacklisting Air America

Media

Media Matters has obtained an internal ABC Radio Networks memo that lists nearly 100 advertisers who demand, according to the memo, that "NONE of their commercials air during AIR AMERICA programming."

Among the advertisers blacklisting Air America are Bank of America, Exxon Mobil, Federal Express, General Electric, McDonald's, Microsoft, Wal-Mart, and the U.S. Navy.

Posted by Jonathan at 04:26 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

October 29, 2006

Letterman v. O'Reilly — Round Two

Media

This is awesome. Bill O'Reilly gets pummelled by Dave Letterman. Video at Crooks and Liars. The usual blowhard condescension from O'Reilly, but Dave's having none of it. Not to be missed.

Sample Letterman lines:

I didn't say we're a bad country, I didn't say Bush is an evil liar. You’re putting words in my mouth. Just the way you put artificial facts in your head.

And:

You raise some points, but the truth of it is, a reasonable person can't believe what you're saying.

Go watch. It'll brighten your day.

[Thanks, Paul]

Posted by Jonathan at 02:25 PM | Comments (2) | Link to this  

October 01, 2006

25 Most Censored Stories

Media

Project Censored has published its list of the 25 most important news stories that went largely uncovered for the year. Here they are:

1. Future of Internet Debate Ignored by Media
2. Halliburton Charged with Selling Nuclear Technologies to Iran
3. Oceans of the World in Extreme Danger
4. Hunger and Homelessness Increasing in the US
5. High-Tech Genocide in Congo
6. Federal Whistleblower Protection in Jeopardy
7. US Operatives Torture Detainees to Death in Afghanistan and Iraq
8. Pentagon Exempt from Freedom of Information Act
9. The World Bank Funds Israel-Palestine Wall
10. Expanded Air War in Iraq Kills More Civilians
11. Dangers of Genetically Modified Food Confirmed
12. Pentagon Plans to Build New Landmines
13. New Evidence Establishes Dangers of Roundup
14. Homeland Security Contracts KBR to Build Detention Centers in the US
15. Chemical Industry is EPA's Primary Research Partner
16. Ecuador and Mexico Defy US on International Criminal Court
17. Iraq Invasion Promotes OPEC Agenda
18. Physicist Challenges Official 9-11 Story
19. Destruction of Rainforests Worst Ever
20. Bottled Water: A Global Environmental Problem
21. Gold Mining Threatens Ancient Andean Glaciers
22. Billions in Homeland Security Spending Undisclosed
23. US Oil Industry Targets Kyoto in Europe
24. Cheney's Halliburton Stock Rose Over 3000 Percent Last Year
25. US Military in Paraguay Threatens Region

No matter how much of a news junkie you are, many, if not most, of these stories will be news to you. Which is exactly the point. They're important stories, but media self-censorship keeps us from hearing about them.

Project Censored publishes extensive details on all of these stories. Check them out.

Posted by Jonathan at 10:17 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

September 20, 2006

Olbermann Demands An Apology

9/11, "War On Terror"  Media  Politics

[Thanks, Kevin]

Posted by Jonathan at 01:25 PM | Comments (4) | Link to this  

August 31, 2006

Olbermann's Murrow Moment

Media  Politics

Great stuff from Keith Olbermann:

The last three minutes, especially.

[Thanks, Ken]

Update: [5:08 PM] - Text is here.

Posted by Jonathan at 04:17 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

August 22, 2006

Garbage In, Garbage Out

Media  Palestine/Middle East  War and Peace

Take a look at this shamelessly propagandistic slide show from The Jerusalem Post. Stunningly one-sided.

The problem with turning propaganda against your own population, whether in Israel, here in the US, or anywhere else, is that the short-term gains turn into long-term disaster: a population whose heads have been stuffed with phony nonsense is incapable of choosing well.

Accurate information has survival value. Garbage in, garbage out.

[Thanks, Miles]

Posted by Jonathan at 04:53 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

August 20, 2006

Chauncey Gardiners

Media  Politics

Following a trail of links, I happened to arrive at Robert Parry's 1999 review of Edmund Morris's Reagan biography, Dutch. In a remarkable passage, Morris provides a rather shocking list of examples of Reagan's utter cluelessness. Parry:

[T]he Reagan in Dutch comes across as a shallow human being — a man so self-absorbed that he failed to recognize his own son, Michael, at his high school graduation.

Morris also judges Reagan as a one-dimensional leader who himself mixed fantasy with fact in the service of his ideological goals, a man who possessed an "encyclopedic ignorance."

In one sardonic passage, Morris wrote that "the world that rotates inside [Reagan's] cerebellum is, if not beautiful, encouragingly rich and self-renewing. It is washed by seas whose natural 'ozone' produces a healthful brown smog over coastal highways, and rinsed by rivers that purify themselves whenever they flow over gravel. ...

"Reagan's world is not entirely without environmental problems. It glows with the 'radioactivity' of coal burners (much more dangerous than nuclear plants), and is plagued by 'deadly diseases spread by insects, because pesticides such as DDT have been prematurely outlawed.' Acid rain, caused by an excess of trees, threatens much of the industrial northeast.

"Geopolitically, the globe presents many challenges. ... North and South Vietnam should never have been permitted to join, having been 'separate nations for centuries.' The Soviet Union [is] bent on invading the United States via Mexico (a strategem of 'Nikolai' Lenin). ... The economy of South America is a mess, particularly in Portuguese-speaking Bolivia."

See also Helen Caldicott's account of a meeting she had with Reagan, one of my very first posts here at Past Peak.

Morris calls Reagan an ideologue with a "Daliesque ability to bend reality to his purposes." He was aided immeasurably in this by his "encyclopedic ignorance." This was one of the secrets of Reagan's success as the Great Communicator. He could utter all manner of nonsense and lies with completely convincing sincerity because his inner world was unencumbered by facts. He believed what he was saying, and that made him believable.

The appearance of sincerity is one of the factors that made Reagan the perfect front man for the television age. It didn't hurt, too, that he was an "amiable dunce" (all the more so after his shooting by Bush family friend John Hinckley, from which Reagan never fully recovered). He seemed well-meaning and was so obviously clueless that to criticise him too sharply violated Americans' sense of fair play. Sure he was muddled, but he seemed such a sweet old guy. Picking on him was like picking on the mentally handicapped. This consequence of Reagan's cluelessness, together with his amiable sincerity, was the source of his famous Teflon coating.

Reagan's backers may not have anticipated in advance how spectacularly well Reagan's ideologically-driven cluelessness would play on tv, but the lesson surely was not lost on them as it played out. Bush, Sr. and Clinton, in contrast, were obviously not dunces, so they lacked the ignorance defense, and it cost them.

As the Republicans searched for someone to cast in the role of President in 2000, it seems clear that they looked for a telegenic figure with the same kind of ideological sincerity unencumbered by facts. Dubya doesn't have Reagan's doddering amiability, but he's got the encyclopedic ignorance and the reliance on "gut instinct" over analysis. And he's got something Reagan didn't have: a well-crafted image as a born-again, evangelical Christian. So, once again, we're in the position where pointed attacks on Bush's ignorance seem like picking on a dummy — rude and off-putting. Bush plays the front man, and behind him Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, et al, run the country.

Democrats look back on Clinton with nostalgia because he was so bright, so knowledgable, so nuanced, so talented. Republicans look back on Reagan with nostalgia because he was so uncomplicated, appealing to simplistic ideological belief, not analytical thought. You really didn't have to think or to know anything, you just had to believe in the man.

Look again at Morris's small peek into Reagan's bizarre inner world and consider that this man was leader of the free world for eight years. And now we've got Dubya. A political formula is being perfected. If we don't demand knowledgable, capable leaders, we are going to be subjected to a succession of dunces whose job is to go on tv, while the real power is exercised elsewhere.

Posted by Jonathan at 05:50 PM | Comments (2) | Link to this  

August 09, 2006

Lying Liar

Media

Ann Coulter's a serial liar, but Republicans treat her like a rock star.

The GOP rewards people who reduce public discourse to a fact-free shouting match. Not hard to see why: the facts aren't on their side. But who needs facts when you can just make stuff up?

Meanwhile, mainstream media will continue to give Coulter a pass. It's like they think that everybody already knows Republicans are liars (and plagiarists), so Republican lies aren't news.

Posted by Jonathan at 01:04 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

July 29, 2006

Summer Rerun

Iraq  Media

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. Boy, are they ever. E&P:

An analysis released today by Frank Newport, director of The Gallup Poll, shows that current public wishes for U.S. policy in the Iraq war eerily echo attitudes about the Vietnam war in 1970.

The most recent Gallup poll this month found that 52% of adult Americans want to see all U.S. troops out of Iraq within a year, with 19% advocating immediate withdrawal. In the summer of 1970, Gallup found that 48% wanted a pullout within a year, with 23% embracing the "immediate" option. Just 7% want to send more troops now, vs. 10% then.

At present, 56% call the decision to invade Iraq a "mistake," with 41% disagreeing. Again this echoes the view of the Vietnam war in 1970, when that exact same number, 56%, in May 1970 called [Vietnam] a mistake in a Gallup poll.

While the U.S. involvement in the Korean war is often labeled unpopular, the highest number calling it a mistake in a Gallup poll was 51% in early 1952. That number actually declined to 43% by the end of that year. [Emphasis added]

So, the Iraq war is now tied for most unpopular American war ever.

There's one essential difference between now and 1970, though. Back then, opposition to the war had become a somewhat respectable position, openly advocated by the likes of Walter Cronkite and Bobby Kennedy. Today, if all you did was watch tv, you'd think it's only fringe elements who want the US to pull out of Iraq. Instead, it's a majority of Americans. Liberal media.

Posted by Jonathan at 04:29 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

July 22, 2006

Awesome Video

Activism  Media

(For links, see the comments)

Posted by Jonathan at 09:12 PM | Comments (2) | Link to this  

July 14, 2006

The Few And The Many

Media  Palestine/Middle East

You can read blogging from Lebanon, here. A recent post concludes with these words:

Lebanon is a hostage and all the Lebanese people are a pawn in the hands of the few.

One of the striking things about the Lebanon coverage here in the US is the extent to which it suggests that Hezbollah is somehow on a par with the IDF. CNN has even gone so far as to constantly mention the few Israeli casualties while largely ignoring the scores of Lebanese civilian casualties. (The US version of CNN, that is. The International version is more balanced, which should tell you something: CNN knows the facts but is tailoring the message to the audience.)

Hezbollah is not Lebanon, but it is the people of Lebanon who are being made to pay. Never mind that collective punishment is a war crime under the Fourth Geneva Convention. (But of course collective punishment is what the Palestinians have been facing for years.)

Hezbollah is no match for the IDF, but it's also not clear how Israel can defeat them. This is the conundrum of fourth generation war: how do you defeat a loosely-knit non-state enemy that is swimming in a sea of non-combatant civilians. It's what's defeating the US in Iraq. Billmon:

Hezbollah may have found the sweet spot in Fourth Generation War: It isn't a state and doesn't carry the political or defensive burdens of one, but it controls enough territory, commands enough popular loyalty and has enough allies to mount some fairly sophisticated military operations, using both conventional and nonconventional weapons. It's powerful enough to be successful — and be seen as successful — but not so powerful that state actors like Israel can fight it on equal terms. We may be looking at the New Model Army of the 21st century.

Israel, like the US in Iraq, may have started something it cannot finish — except by withdrawing.

Posted by Jonathan at 09:52 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

July 12, 2006

Bush At Stanford

Media  Politics

Did you know this? I sure didn't. Paul Craig Roberts:

Gentle reader, did you know that, in April, President Bush went to Stanford University to speak to the Hoover Institution fellows at the invitation of former Secretary of State George Shultz but was not allowed on campus? The Stanford students got wind of it and blocked Bush's access to the campus. The Hoover fellows had to go to Shultz's home to hear Bush's pitch for war and more war.

A person might think that it would be national news that Stanford University students would not allow the President of the US on campus. It happened to be a day when hundreds of prospective freshmen were on campus with their parents, many of whom joined the demonstration against Bush. I did not hear or read a word about it. Did you? I learned of it from faculty friends in June when I attended Stanford's graduation to witness a relative receive her degree. The June 16 edition of The Stanford Daily reprinted its April 24 report of the episode. [Emphasis added]

How could this not have been news? Stanford's not just any university. Weird. And pretty unnerving. Where's our free press, now when we need it most?

Posted by Jonathan at 05:43 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

July 10, 2006

One Red Paper Clip

Humor & Fun  Media

This is a fun story.

Posted by Jonathan at 11:22 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

July 09, 2006

Delusional Nonsense From Time

Media

Gawd, this is stupid. Time:

Even more surprising than the [North Korean missile] test...was Bush's response. Long gone were the zero-tolerance warnings, "Axis of Evil" rhetoric and talk of pre-emptive action.

Instead, Bush pledged to "make sure we work with our friends and allies ... to continue to send a unified message" to Pyongyang. In a news conference after the missile test, he referred to diplomacy a half dozen times.

The shift under way in Bush's foreign policy is bigger and more seismic than a change of wardrobe or a modulation of tone.

Bush came to office pledging to focus on domestic issues and pursue a "humble" foreign policy that would avoid the entanglements of the Bill Clinton years.

After September 11, however, the Bush team embarked on a different path, outlining a muscular, idealistic, and unilateralist vision of American power and how to use it.

They aimed to lay the foundation for a grand strategy to fight Islamic terrorists and rogue states, by spreading democracy around the world and pre-empting gathering threats before they materialize. And the U.S. wasn't willing to wait for others to help.

The approach fit with Bush's personal style, his self-professed proclivity to dispense with the nuances of geopolitics and go with his gut. "The Bush Doctrine is actually being defined by action, as opposed to by words," Bush told Tom Brokaw aboard Air Force One in 2003.

But in the span of four years, the administration has been forced to rethink the doctrine by which it hoped to remake the world. Bush's response to the North Korean missile test was revealing: Under the old Bush Doctrine, defiance by a dictator like Kim Jong Il would have merited threats of punitive U.S. action. Instead, the administration has mainly been talking up multilateralism and downplaying Pyongyang's provocation.

What an utter crock. From start to finish.

What's the difference between North Korea and Iraq? One has enormous oil reserves, lies at the very heart of the world's richest oil-producing region, offers a site for bases to replace the US bases in Saudi Arabia, and was defenseless against US attack. The other, not.

The rest is delusion.

Posted by Jonathan at 03:44 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

June 14, 2006

Robert Newman's History Of Oil

Activism  Humor & Fun  Media  War and Peace

This is absolutely, bar none, the most brilliant piece of political video ever. Also the funniest. No contest.

Learn the real cause of the First World War. Learn what Salvador Dali's checkbook has to do with the Axis of Evil and the current invasion of Iraq. And many more things besides.

It's genius.

Posted by Jonathan at 11:29 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

June 11, 2006

Al At The Movies

Activism  Environment  Media

Who wants to see an Al Gore documentary about global warming? Lots of people, apparently. Weekend box office (via Atrios), per screen:

Movie	Per Screen Average
Cars	$15,759
An Inconvenient Truth	$12,073
The Break-Up	$6,669
A Prairie Home Companion	$6,146
The Omen	$5,673
X-Men: The Last Stand	$4,225
The Da Vinci Code	$3,103
Over the Hedge	$2,920
Keeping Up with the Steins	$2,037
Mission: Impossible III	$1,592
RV	$1,233
Poseidon	$1,067

Not too shabby.

122 screens this weekend, 400 next. Opens here in Madison Friday. Be there or be square.

Posted by Jonathan at 10:43 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

June 10, 2006

Information

Media

This is amazing.

Posted by Jonathan at 09:13 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

June 05, 2006

Global Warming "Journalism"

Environment  Media

In her recent interview of Al Gore, NPR's Terry Gross pointed out the following jaw-dropping facts:

Let me mention a study that you cite in your documentary and your book, An Inconvenient Truth. This is a study from the University of California at San Diego. A scientist there named Dr. Naomi Oreskes published in Science magazine a study of every peer-reviewed journal article on global warming from the previous 10 years, and then in her random sample of 928 articles, she found that no articles disagreed with the scientific consensus on global warming. Then another study on articles on global warming that were published in the previous 14 years in the press, specifically published in The New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times and Wall Street Journal found that more than half of those stories gave equal weight to the scientific consensus and to the view that human beings played no role in global warming.

So just to sum up: the scientific journals, the scientists agreed about global warming, but in these four, you know, major American newspapers, equal weight was given in half the articles to the opposing view that human beings are not causing global warming.

Staggering — yet, in a sad way, unsurprising. This is what it has come to. Scientists publishing in peer-reviewed journals are 100% unanimous, have been for years, but readers of the newspapers of record would have no way of knowing that. No wonder people are confused. Journalists who insist on reporting the world-is-flat "side" of the "argument" have a lot to answer for.

The Daily Show (as usual) perfectly captured the essence of this kind of "journalism" back in August, 2004:

JON STEWART: Here's what puzzles me most, Rob. John Kerry's record in Vietnam is pretty much right there in the official records of the US military, and haven't been disputed for 35 years?

ROB CORDDRY: That's right, Jon, and that's certainly the spin you'll be hearing coming from the Kerry campaign over the next few days.

STEWART: Th-that's not a spin thing, that's a fact. That's established.

CORDDRY: Exactly, Jon, and that established, incontrovertible fact is one side of the story.

STEWART: But that should be — isn't that the end of the story? I mean, you've seen the records, haven't you? What's your opinion?

CORDDRY: I'm sorry, my opinion? No, I don't have 'o-pin-i-ons'. I'm a reporter, Jon, and my job is to spend half the time repeating what one side says, and half the time repeating the other. Little thing called 'objectivity' — might wanna look it up some day.

STEWART: Doesn't objectivity mean objectively weighing the evidence, and calling out what's credible and what isn't?

CORDDRY: Whoa-ho! Well, well, well — sounds like someone wants the media to act as a filter! [high-pitched, effeminate] 'Ooh, this allegation is spurious! Upon investigation this claim lacks any basis in reality! Mmm, mmm, mmm.' Listen buddy: not my job to stand between the people talking to me and the people listening to me.

It just makes you want to scream. Global warming is an issue where many millions of lives hang in the balance. Everlasting shame on all the big-shot reporters who comfort themselves with self-interested rationalizations about "objectivity". Their brand of "objectivity" is going to get a lot of people killed.

Posted by Jonathan at 07:57 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

May 28, 2006

Liberal Media

Media

This is excellent.

Posted by Jonathan at 11:45 AM | Comments (0) |