I so don't miss pop culture.
YES WE CAN
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Friday, December 3, 2010
Wikileaks
I am of at least two minds regarding Wikileaks. Firstly, the previous leaks of classified information were absolutely criminal and probably damaging in ways that we have not yet seen.
Secondly, even though I think the recent leaks are not good for the country, if I had more time I would be all over those cables. This might be better than anything Harold Robbins ever gave us. The Saudis wanted us to bomb Iran? Qaddafi digs blonds? The Karzai brothers waddle around with $52 million and they still wear goofy hats? This is tabloid material for the extra-ugly.
Thirdly, I would muster some respect for our vapid commander-in-chief if he said or did anything at all. Anything. Pro. Con. Beer summit with Assange. Anything. Sorry about the fat lip, big guy. Hope you heal real soon. Was there a theme song to "Being There" ???
Fourthly, we need to reconsider our policies on acccess. Many of these cables are not classified and hundreds of thousands of government employees could have access to them. Once more, "is there a president in the house?"
Fifthly and most importantly, we need to compare and contrast the mainstream media's coverage of these purloined cables with the hijacked East Anglia emails. Sometimes the constant, the chronic, the continuous is harder to see than a moment frozen in time. Sometimes a snapshot is more powerful than a truckload of video. The once reputable "New York Times" has devoted substantial resources to report on the Wikileaks cables. One year ago, they boldly announced that they would not publish the East Anglia emails because "they were not meant for publication."
The ongoing video shows the NYT constantly engaging in selective truth, if not overt falsehood. But the snapshot of their East Anglia coverage (an empty backdrop) placed side by side with the snapshot of their Wikileaks coverage (the following link credits 12 reporters on the case) provides what our commander-in-chief might call a teachable moment.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29cables.html?pagewanted=4&_r=1
From my perspective, the bigger story now, as always, is Big Media's influence on information. Wikileaks good. East Anglia bad. What more do we need to know?
Secondly, even though I think the recent leaks are not good for the country, if I had more time I would be all over those cables. This might be better than anything Harold Robbins ever gave us. The Saudis wanted us to bomb Iran? Qaddafi digs blonds? The Karzai brothers waddle around with $52 million and they still wear goofy hats? This is tabloid material for the extra-ugly.
Thirdly, I would muster some respect for our vapid commander-in-chief if he said or did anything at all. Anything. Pro. Con. Beer summit with Assange. Anything. Sorry about the fat lip, big guy. Hope you heal real soon. Was there a theme song to "Being There" ???
Fourthly, we need to reconsider our policies on acccess. Many of these cables are not classified and hundreds of thousands of government employees could have access to them. Once more, "is there a president in the house?"
Fifthly and most importantly, we need to compare and contrast the mainstream media's coverage of these purloined cables with the hijacked East Anglia emails. Sometimes the constant, the chronic, the continuous is harder to see than a moment frozen in time. Sometimes a snapshot is more powerful than a truckload of video. The once reputable "New York Times" has devoted substantial resources to report on the Wikileaks cables. One year ago, they boldly announced that they would not publish the East Anglia emails because "they were not meant for publication."
The ongoing video shows the NYT constantly engaging in selective truth, if not overt falsehood. But the snapshot of their East Anglia coverage (an empty backdrop) placed side by side with the snapshot of their Wikileaks coverage (the following link credits 12 reporters on the case) provides what our commander-in-chief might call a teachable moment.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29cables.html?pagewanted=4&_r=1
From my perspective, the bigger story now, as always, is Big Media's influence on information. Wikileaks good. East Anglia bad. What more do we need to know?
Thursday, December 2, 2010
CBS Shakes Up Its Morning Show
Someday I might have a web site that tracks changes in the news media. Media Monday is a feature of Post Obotomy Syndome. But we just scratch the surface.
Things are changing and they are changing fast. Put a media-related website on the back burner and bookmark articles. Check back in a few months and the environment changes radically. Change we can believe in most of the time.
The Silent Majority votes LOUD and CLEAR with their pocketbooks and remote controls. NYT ad revenue was down 82% in one quarter. Katie Couric maintains the lowest ratings for a CBS anchor since they started tracking this metric. Now CBS has shaken up their morning news lineup following atrocious ratings. http://www.tvsquad.com/2010/12/01/the-early-show-exec-producer-why-smith-and-rodriguez-had-to-g/
Despite his pathetic ratings, Harry Smith remains under contract to CBS and you will see his high-priced face from time to time if you click through the dial. Of all the fawning media stars, Harry Smith might be the most Obama-Friendly. It seems that the affection might be mutual.
We previously featured this video on the president's last birthday.
BARRY LOVES HARRY
We could produce dozens of Harry Smith infatuation vids but this one seems to touch most of the bases. The afterglow of a romantic evening.
HARRY LOVES BARRY
It gets even more fawning than this. Harry was able to compose himself following his night to remember. There were reports that he was tearful (for different reasons than most of us were) during the election coverage. Of all of the mainstream media shills, Harry Smith has possibly been the coziest with Barry. That is saying something, I know. To distinguish oneself in that field, that very crowded and competitive band of slobbering adulators, is not an easy task. But Harry runs at the front of the pack.
NYT, Couric, Harry, Oprah, MSNBC... The decline of the mainstream media continues and it continues in a predictable manner. Obama Fatigue was instantaneous. The backlash is underway and the backlash has hit the Obama courtesans the hardest.
Who will be next? Let's let Frank have the final word.
Things are changing and they are changing fast. Put a media-related website on the back burner and bookmark articles. Check back in a few months and the environment changes radically. Change we can believe in most of the time.
The Silent Majority votes LOUD and CLEAR with their pocketbooks and remote controls. NYT ad revenue was down 82% in one quarter. Katie Couric maintains the lowest ratings for a CBS anchor since they started tracking this metric. Now CBS has shaken up their morning news lineup following atrocious ratings. http://www.tvsquad.com/2010/12/01/the-early-show-exec-producer-why-smith-and-rodriguez-had-to-g/
Despite his pathetic ratings, Harry Smith remains under contract to CBS and you will see his high-priced face from time to time if you click through the dial. Of all the fawning media stars, Harry Smith might be the most Obama-Friendly. It seems that the affection might be mutual.
We previously featured this video on the president's last birthday.
BARRY LOVES HARRY
We could produce dozens of Harry Smith infatuation vids but this one seems to touch most of the bases. The afterglow of a romantic evening.
HARRY LOVES BARRY
It gets even more fawning than this. Harry was able to compose himself following his night to remember. There were reports that he was tearful (for different reasons than most of us were) during the election coverage. Of all of the mainstream media shills, Harry Smith has possibly been the coziest with Barry. That is saying something, I know. To distinguish oneself in that field, that very crowded and competitive band of slobbering adulators, is not an easy task. But Harry runs at the front of the pack.
NYT, Couric, Harry, Oprah, MSNBC... The decline of the mainstream media continues and it continues in a predictable manner. Obama Fatigue was instantaneous. The backlash is underway and the backlash has hit the Obama courtesans the hardest.
Who will be next? Let's let Frank have the final word.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Wild Card Wednesday: Frank Luntz
Ok, Penn and Teller were a bit harsh in their assessment of Frank Luntz. And they ambush him. He had no idea what kind of tenor or tack or tone they would be taking. So yes, one might be inclined to suggest that those magnificent magic men might have overstated their case a bit. But still...this is Frank Luntz exposed.
WHEN YOU SEE FRANK LUNTZ, YELL OUT THIS MESSAGE
The Paulists saw Luntz and Hannity as shills. High-priced call girls but call girls just the same. Ron Paul presented a problem for the GOP. He reminded one and all of the gulf between GOP rhetoric and GOP action, especially on matters of fiscal and monetary policy. Later, when the Paulists would play a part (how big a part, I cannot say. The Tea Party might have happened without them. But the Paulists nonetheless helped pour the foundation.) in creating the Tea Party movement, Rush Limbaugh would grow infuriated at the suggestions that this rabble sparked a movement he wanted to claim for his own.
Incidentally, when Ron Paul's son would run for the Senate in Kentucky he would be vehemently opposed by the Republican establishment at both the state and national level. Rand Paul is less robotic than his father. He possesses common sense in areas where his father only possesses constitutional scholarship. Specifically, he is more hawkish than his father and he recognizes the unique challenges to our survival that Al Qaeda and other terrorists present. Nonetheless, Ron Paul was a pebble in the shoe and his son would receive an icy reception.
Have the Republicans kissed and made up? Not exactly. Obama, Reid and Pelosi are so polarizing and so destructive that they served to unify the divided such as we have never before seen. But the 2012 Presidentials will be coming to a town near you (if you live in Iowa or New Hampshire) and old wounds and older grudges will be exposed. Grab the popcorn.
GOP FAMILY FEUD GOES PUBLIC
WHEN YOU SEE FRANK LUNTZ, YELL OUT THIS MESSAGE
The Paulists saw Luntz and Hannity as shills. High-priced call girls but call girls just the same. Ron Paul presented a problem for the GOP. He reminded one and all of the gulf between GOP rhetoric and GOP action, especially on matters of fiscal and monetary policy. Later, when the Paulists would play a part (how big a part, I cannot say. The Tea Party might have happened without them. But the Paulists nonetheless helped pour the foundation.) in creating the Tea Party movement, Rush Limbaugh would grow infuriated at the suggestions that this rabble sparked a movement he wanted to claim for his own.
Incidentally, when Ron Paul's son would run for the Senate in Kentucky he would be vehemently opposed by the Republican establishment at both the state and national level. Rand Paul is less robotic than his father. He possesses common sense in areas where his father only possesses constitutional scholarship. Specifically, he is more hawkish than his father and he recognizes the unique challenges to our survival that Al Qaeda and other terrorists present. Nonetheless, Ron Paul was a pebble in the shoe and his son would receive an icy reception.
Have the Republicans kissed and made up? Not exactly. Obama, Reid and Pelosi are so polarizing and so destructive that they served to unify the divided such as we have never before seen. But the 2012 Presidentials will be coming to a town near you (if you live in Iowa or New Hampshire) and old wounds and older grudges will be exposed. Grab the popcorn.
GOP FAMILY FEUD GOES PUBLIC
Monday, November 29, 2010
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)