MSM Hard at Work

Maggie says:
Kudos to Erik for pointing out this absolutely ridiculous piece of "journalism." I mean seriously - the White House Press Corps sleeps on the job for eight years and all we get are exposés on whether or not Obama really quit smoking and endless strategy pieces about Clinton "crying"?

Ugh.

PS: I highly recommend inviting the Loomis brothers over for dinner.

Pimping Petitions

Mikaela says:
I'm not really one for sharing petition drives. I very rarely mail them to people.

This one got me, though.

From Working Assets:

Big media is perverting our democratic process. The sexist coverage of Clinton's tears was prejudicial and beyond the pale. Tell them to knock it off.

I can drink to that!

Regis Philbin Glimpses Left

Mikaela says:
I haven't been so amused in a while. Democracy Now is such a mainstay source of my daily news that I barely remember a time before... B.A.G. -- before Amy Goodman.

But when the Iraq War was threatening, I'd wait all day for the show to come on and then huddle around the radio like I imagined people did for WWII... She had me at "protest."

Regis Phillbin discovered Amy Goodman at a dinner party hosted by Phil Donahue & Marlo Thomas! To his eventual horror, he was seated next to Amy, and when he turned to her and asked politely what she did for a living, she answered, “We cover global events.”

Here's him sharing his discovery with co-star, Kelly on their version of a daily talk show:

REGIS: Well, now, excuse me, but what am I going to have in common with someone who covers global news?

KELLY: [sarcastic] What is the global news?

REGIS: The beautiful baby contest? That ain’t going to do it! Santa Claus getting pawed? No! I’ve got nothing in common.

KELLY: Yes. I know what you’re saying. I’ve been there. I’ve been in that anxiety situation, where you realize that you are the weak link at the table...

REGIS: You may be better known than anyone else, because they see you every day on television, but what have we got to say? Nothing.

KELLY: Nothing.

REGIS: We’ve got nothing to say. "So, what do you do?" We talk about nothing.

KELLY: Mm-hmm. And then it’s sweet, though, because like heady people who are very accomplished—

REGIS: Very smart, very sharp.

KELLY:—they’re very good at like, you know, sounding interested, or like, “Well, it must be fascinating, what you’re doing.” I’m like, “It’s very fun. We had hot toys on yesterday. And then, today we’re going to make our own shirts out of waste.”

REGIS: You’re absolutely right. You realize then—

KELLY: You’re lacking contribution.

REGIS:—what you are doing? You’re doing nothing!

KELLY: Nothing! Gosh, how can you stand us? [To audience.]

REGIS: It’s just so sad. It really is. Anyway—

You really have to watch the whole reported exchange here. It's very funny. And classic.



But after you watch it, you realize they have a huge number of viewers, combined with the huge viewer-ship (is that a word?) of other shows just like it -- vacuous, fluffy, oblivious shows about ... nothing. And then there's Amy Goodman with a steadily growing but still small in comparison listener-ship, on "one of the PBS stations" as Regis points out off-handedly. And you think ... what is wrong with this picture?

People just really don't want to know. Even my boss the other day wished that there were no global news so that we didn't have to be depressed about all the horrible things happening around the world. I said, "Being depressed is the least we can do in exchange for the relative comfort and luxury that we take for granted every day. It's our responsibility to bear witness." What I didn't say is that going one step further -- doing something about what happens -- is the really courageous act that some of us sacrifice and some of us are privileged enough to do.

And then there's Regis & Kelly, raking in the bucks, momentarily embarrassed that their whole lives "contribute nothing." Oy.

Media gripe: Analyzing, not reporting

Maggie says:
I have endless gripes about the media, but my gripes about the media during campaign season are very specific. Here's my overarching pet peeve: media coverage of debates is all about who bested whom, and not about what anyone actually says, just like media coverage of campaigns is all about strategy and performance rather than about issues.

This morning on NPR, I heard all about the Giuliani-Romney spar during last night's Republican debate regarding who is the more fiscally conservative candidate. To recap, Giuliani said that while he was the mayor of New York he lowered taxes, whereas Romney raised taxes in Massachusetts. Romney immediately stepped in asking if he could rebut, and insisted that Giuliani needed to check his facts, because he actually lowered taxes while governor.

Now I couldn't be less interested in voting for either of these two candidates, but if I were a Republican listening to NPR's morning-after coverage, I might want to know who was right and who was wrong. Instead, I only heard the made-for-TV (errr... radio) moment of Romney interrupting Giuliani and some pondering about how Fred Thompson wasn't the lead news angle that morning despite the fact that it was his first debate as a candidate.

So as a hypothetical Republican voter, I've not heard one thing that might help me decide who to vote for. Again. One might think news organizations would do a quick fact-check so that their immediate follow-up could be the real story behind both Giuliani and Romney's claims. But no. It's all strategy and performance, all the time.

We see this non-stop with Democratic coverage as well. The past two weeks have been full of news stories about how Hillary Clinton is increasingly being described - by other news organizations - as the Democratic front-runner. Let's take a moment with that one: media coverage about the Democratic race is largely about how one candidate is being covered as the front-runner. It's emptiness feeding emptiness, and the machine that produces hype perpetuating itself. This is how elections are won and lost, and it's absolutely sad.

Here's what I want:

1. During "debates," a term I use very loosely, I'd like an immediate fact-checker there with a computer to tell us when someone's bullshitting. I want someone to immediately squash spin with statistics and then make candidates accountable for their claims on the air. This shouldn't be difficult - cable sports shows do this kind of on-air fact-checking all the time. Why can't we quality-control presidential debates as seriously as we do sports debates?

2. I don't want any more coverage of disagreements between candidates about their records without some follow-up reporting on the issue they're disagreeing about. If the issue is important enough for candidates to bring up during a "debate," it's important enough to get that issue right for the voters. For example: NPR should play the Romney-Giuliani clip, then immediately follow up with: "Now here's what their records actually are..." The resulting headline, then, becomes the fact that one of the candidates was misrepresenting his record, not that he was interrupted on-air.

3. I want better issues coverage. I'm tired of endless pondering over who's ahead, who's behind, why someone's doing something, and what that implies. Occasional, thoughtful think-pieces on strategy would be great, as long as they're a strategy check-in from the everyday, routine coverage of candidates' platforms and records and actions on the campaign trail. I appreciate the important role of analysis in journalism, trust me. But I don't appreciate the fact that day after day we're served entrees of analysis made mostly from speculation and only a tiny side of real news.

Overly simplistic, I know. But hey, we operate in a day when I also use quotes to describe the "White House Press Corps." How far we've fallen.

By the way, the NY Times deserves kudos today for digging into the Romney-Giuliani spar, as reporters should. Of course, this happened on their political blog The Caucus and not in their actual newspaper, where the mainstream reporters are paid to write. And yes, that's part of the problem as well. Fact-checking and truth-seeking are now activities best left to bloggers, while the "real" political reporting is the territory of well-known journalists and their insider, political consultant sources.

According to The Caucus, both Giuliani and Romney were mistaken last night. The Times blog gives us the facts and tells us why each was overhyping their record.

Maybe the answer is that these "debates" need to be run by bloggers. Hmmm....

Mountain Time brain dump

Maggie says:
Blogging energy has been nil lately, but there's lots and lots that I've been reading and discussing and doing, so I promise I haven't been brain-dead. Before jumping on a plane, here it is, rapid-fire style:

• I wish this was me. This NYT profile of Catherine Orenstein gets me fired up in all the ways that dangerously prompt me to re-envision myself and my career. This project is brilliant, and the piece perfectly captures why Orenstein is the perfect woman to convince other women to write. Love those smart gals tearing down structural oppression.

• Movie love. I was just floored by Black Snake Moan, and I'm seriously enchanted with Craig Brewer. Actually, it's gone from blushing crush to full-on infatuation. This movie takes everything Hustle & Flow started and kicks it up about a thousand notches. I dare say Brewer's our most lyrical and honest U.S. filmmaker right now, and if you don't get it, fine. His challenge to see past stereotypes for the truth and humanity embedded there is one not suited for everybody. And besides, Gene and I will have fun sneering at you behind your back if you don't get him. :-) (And PS while we're on movies: the Alexander Payne event at the Kimo last week was great!)

• Who knew? (Probably every local but me, since I'm not really local...) But Teresa Tapia rocks. Really. This woman is tough, and I admire the hell out of her no-bullshit approach to her husband.

• A raid is a raid is a raid. Last Sunday, the Ms trekked up to Santa Fe to hear Barbara Ehrenreich speak, and the event was fabulous. Lots of chatter there about the recent immigration raids in Santa Fe, and some impressive responses from Mayor Coss and the progressive community about the networks they're establishing to help warn families in advance of future raids and to assure them of their rights. A day after the talk, I couldn't help but recall what's happening in the City Different as I read the latest from New Orleans, where FEMA is raiding mobile home parks and giving disaster-weary residents just 48 hours to leave. The parallels make my head spin, not to mention my heart hurt. Aren't we better than this?

• Dad knows best. I was chastised by my father for not being on top of the Walter Reed series as soon as it was published in the Post weeks ago, and as usual, he was right. Days after he was disappointed to hear I hadn't read the Post that weekend and predicted that people were about to be hearing a lot more about it, the outcry heated up nationwide. I think good 'ol Dad has always been my personal political barometer. Maybe he should be everyone's, too. His instincts are always right-on; someone should pay him for that.
  

• "You, sir, are no Michael Dukakis." This Salon piece that draws parallels between Bill Richardson and Michael Dukakis has been amusing me all week. Now, I'm biased as hell, because I was privileged enough to get to know Dukakis very well through the years in Boston, and I don't think there's a better man around. But, if the paraphrase fits...

• Plame has my vote. What political theater. Politics have been very, very fun to watch lately. Go Valerie! Go Patrick! Go David!

• Juniper sucks. This City sounds like a wheezing, sneezing, hellhole right now. And we look awful, too - at the Chama taproom the other night Jessie and I must've appeared to be crying our eyes out to each other. But no, just dealing with a constant stream of allergy tears running out of our eyes. Too bad I love gin and tonics so much. But still, I need to leave soon for juniper-free environs, at least for a weekend. Oh wait, I am! Happy trails, everyone.
  

Honoring Molly Ivins

Maggie says:
Molly Ivins died today after a long struggle with cancer. Hearing the news on NPR tonight, stuck in traffic making my way up to Bernalillo, I started crying. It was an emotional day already, but in the cold air with brake lights reflecting all around me, the news of her passing struck me to the bone. I was inconsolable, because just knowing Molly was in our world was always a comfort. She was proof that talking back is always a good idea, proof that real smarts come from the heart, proof that positive change could and would come one day. And it will.

I became hooked on Molly Ivins in high school, an ultra-serious girl who saw that Molly's true power was not in how fast she could make my head spin, but in just how hard she could make me laugh. And oh, she made me laugh. She was a firecracker with a red-hot brain, a gracious lady with compassion for miles, a down-home woman who could take me back home with her expressions in a second, a no-nonsense stalwart who could tell you before you knew it was happening that you're full of shit and here's why...

I liked to imagine that Molly and my Grandma Jessie Mae were cut from the same cloth, women who could burst in from the fields and put fresh coffee on while dismissing the administration-sponsored newscast playing in the kitchen with a shrug and slice of wit. Guests in their kitchens were leveled with their signature blends of gravitas and ease, a mix that made you feel comfortable but left no question whose home you were in, whose table you were sitting at. Molly's words sat me right down at her kitchen table, offered up a seat in her Austin office, and maybe even a glass of sweet tea on the front porch if I was lucky enough. Molly was the kind of writer whose words came straight from her heart, who didn't want to believe the realities she was writing about, if only they weren't so predictable. After all, this is the old boys' club at work again; this is a system that rewards the most uncreative and unrewarding men alive with the most powerful job in the world...

As I've been lucky enough to see at countless points throughout my life, there is no power like that of a formidable woman who can make you feel at home. Molly took us home in every column.

Today's populist tinge of activism and local roots politics is Molly Ivins through and through. Molly always spoke truth to power. She always identified with the underdog, and she didn't stop at the party line to do that. Right was right and wrong was wrong, no matter who was bombing innocent civilians or cutting single mothers off of the government aid that was their lifeblood. Molly Ivins' politics ran deeper than the current election cycle, her reach much farther than a city whose favorite pastime is patting itself on the back.

As Molly proved, the biggest influence you can have has nothing to do with Capitol Hill. It's in the appeal that grabs us where our hearts are, in the places we shape our lives.

Thank you, Molly, more than you will ever know. Maybe one day we'll meet to talk and laugh over grits and eggs. I'll make the coffee. Grandma Jessie Mae will handle the grits, cooked in the same pan as the sausage in that way that only she knows how. You and Ann Richards can decide who's in charge of the eggs.

And oh, how we will laugh.

what exactly is news?

marjorie says...

It's all over the "news" this morning about the new O.J. Simpson book coming out in which he "hypothetically" describes how the murder would have happened "if" he had killed his wife Nicole.

You know, this book is utterly crass but that will be covered plenty so I won't go into it here.

The most interesting thing to me about this is how its covered as "news." There are certain news sources that tell us point blank what it really is, like this Washington Post article, by Lisa de Moraes:

"And, in one of those incredible coincidences that make covering the TV industry so fulfilling, the book is being published under the Regan imprint, headed by Judith Regan, who will conduct the interview with O.J. on Fox. And her publishing outfit, ReganBooks, is a division of HarperCollins, which is owned by News Corp. -- which also owns Fox!"

Ok, just to make sure everyone gets that:

News Corp. owns Fox and the publisher of this book, Regen Imprint. The book is coming out just in time for Christmas sales and Fox is promoting the book under the guise of "News" when it airs an "interview" with O.J. Simpson, as news...

There are other news sources that give us this tidbit as well, and to be honest, I don't really know how its being covered on the T.V. "news" outlets of choice for most Americans. Please, somebody tell me.

What is news really, for me, is the fact that so many "news" outlets are covering this as "news"...rather than the corporate money making venture that it is...just like any new product coming in time for our Christmas love affair with material goods. Just skim through all the "news" articles today and you'll see what I mean. In one after the next, the reporter never mentions the money angle...see for yourself here, here, and here.

Fox represents the utter corruption of the concept of News. Here we have a station that mixes shows with so-called news "commentators" and "experts" who are blatantly biased with these types of completely gross entertainment pieces masquerading as news. What kills me is how it reverberates throughout the "news" world, with bonafide outlets simply picking up the schtick and running with it.

Save Indie Community Radio in NM!

Mikaela summarizes:
First ClearChannel bought KBAC, then they watered down its programming.

Now they're selling it to a company that will change it to a Christian broadcasting station.

Below is a letter urging you to action to protest the sale and save this long-loved local community station. Time is of the essence.

Mikaela edits & re-posts courtesy Friends of KBAC, Radio Free Santa Fe:

KBAC
has been making a difference in the LIVES of the community
11 years now.

It is time we as a community gave KBAC the same support.

RADIO STATIONS ACROSS THE COUNTRY
ARE BEING BOUGHT UP BUY BIG RADIO COMPANIES, REGARDLESS OF HOW COMMUNITIES FEEL.
THIS NEEDS TO STOP!
COMMUNITIES NEED TO BECOME MORE INVOLVED
AND GET BACK OUR LOCAL COMMUNITY RADIO STATIONS ACROSS THE COUNTRY
STARTING WITH KBAC!

Who is buying this station?

Clear Channel is in process of selling KBAC to a Christian Broadcasting Company, EMF Broadcasting out of Rocklin, California.

Who to write?

I encourage you to write letters and/or fax and EMAIL to the following addresses to air your opinions and get others in the community to do the same. Your letters will make a difference AND please make sure that a copy of your letter gets sent to Friends of KBAC, 223 North Guadalupe #533, Santa Fe, NM, 87501 so that we have a copy on file to send out as well when I write the FCC to protest this sale.

WRITE, EMAIL, FAX ALL NAMES BELOW

(especially Mr. DICK JENKINS, CEO, EMF Broadcasting).
FLOOD THEM WITH YOUR LETTERS.
THAT IS THE ONLY WAY WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

IT ONLY TAKES A FEW MOMENTS TO WRITE A LETTER.

and

IF YOU COULD PASS INFORMATION ALONG to others,

THAT WOULD HELP TOO

EMF Broadcasting,
Attention: Mr. Joe Miller, VP
email : jmiller@emfbroadcasting.com
Attention: Mr. Dick Jenkins, CEO
email : djenkins@emfbroadcasting.com
5700 West Oaks Blvd, Rocklin, CA 95765
Phone: 916.251.1600; Fax: 916.251.1650

and, go right to the source...

Clear Channel Communications
John Hogan, President & CEO
email : johnhogan@clearchannel.com
Clear Channel Radio, Clear Channel Communications, Inc.
200 East Basse, San Antonio, TX, 78209
email : johnhogan@clearchannel.com
Jerry Kersting, Acquisitions
email : jkersting@clearchannel.com
Phone : 210.822.2828 / fax : 210.822.2299
and closer to home
Mr. Chuck Hammond, VP Sales, NM Market
email : ChuckHammond@clearchannel.com (Albuquerque Office)
Phone: 505.830.6400 / fax : 505.830.6599
5411 Jefferson NE, #100, Albuquerque, NM, 87109

but WHY stop there?

Governor Bill Richardson / MAIL: Office of the Governor,
Attention : Annette Sedillo, State Capital #400, SFE, NM, 87501
EMAIL : annettet.sedillo@state.nm.us / FAX: 505.476.2226
Mayor David Coss / MAIL : Mayor David Coss,
Attention : Marge Sandoval, 200 Lincoln Ave, SFE, NM, 87501
EMAIL : mdsandoval@santafenm.gov / FAX : 505.955.6683
Senator Bingaman / MAIL : 119 East Marcy Street, SFE, NM, 87501, Attention : Landri Rush / EMAIL : landri_rush@bingaman.senate.gov / FAX : 505.992.8435
FCC Commissioner Tate / MAIL : Commissioner Tate,
Attention : Susan Fifenne, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554 / EMAIL : susan.fifenne@fcc.gov / FAX 866.418.0232
Attention : Chris Robbins, Media Advisor to Commissioner Tate /
EMAIL : Chris.robbins@fcc.gov

What is going to happen?

Friends of KBAC plans on protesting this sale, BUT WE CAN'T DO IT ALONE. WE NEED YOU, THE COMMUNITY. When this sale becomes official on the FCC docket, we plan on fighting this sale to preserve the "REAL LOCAL" community radio station and its unique format with your help. If this sale does not go through, there will be an opportunity for the local management of KBAC to purchase the station. This would "FREE" KBAC once and for all from Clear Channel. The raised voices of the Santa Fe community are needed to prevent this sale as we as a community will have only 30 days to voice our opinions once this sale hits the FCC.

NOW
IS THE TIME TO WRITE, FAX, EMAIL AND VOICE YOUR OPINIONS.


How can YOU show your IMMEDIATE support?

Friends of KBAC will be needing volunteers, as we are going to need as many signatures and letters as we can get, so if you feel moved to become more involved and can spare a block of time, please contact Friends of KBAC at the email address below.

Thank you,

Skye Rivers, FRIENDS OF KBAC @ friendsofkbac.com

Woodward's lost legacy

Maggie says:

Amidst the hyperventilating coverage of Bob Woodward’s new book State of Denial – a “detailed and inside story of a war-torn White House” – lies progressive emptiness in the wake of this "indictment" of the president. While I recognize that progress is made every time someone decides that this war and this administration are just plain wrong, the backstory here is so stomach-turning I can’t even feign delight.

Bob Woodward’s legacy, of course, comes as one-half of the Nixon-busting duo at the heart of the Watergate scandal. But Robert Redford portrayal or not, let’s make no mistake about what State of Denial is and isn’t. It’s not a one-man exposé of the seedy conspiracies and dirty corruption behind the push for war in Iraq. It’s not a tome produced in the name of effecting positive change. It is an example of the establishment shifting its opinion on the Bush administration and the “war on terror.” And while an establishment symbol making that shift does have value, this is no time for a victory lap.

After all, too much has been lost to get to this point. And that loss is exactly the problem with State of Denial: that in the years Woodward watched and waited in the West Wing, he published two best-sellers proclaiming the righteousness of Bush’s war, stood by as hundreds of thousands civilians and soldiers were killed overseas, watched a presidential election go by him, and only now, after much of mainstream media has decided Bush is down for the count, is ready to announce the bombshell news that this administration is dishonest with the American people.

To quote Arianna Huffington: “Welcome to 2002, Mr. Woodward.”

The truth is, Woodward lost his muckraker status long ago. His recent odes to machismo – Plan of Attack and Bush at War – solidified his sell-out, insider status. Now more known for his limp passivity on cable TV than for groundbreaking journalism or insight of any kind, Woodward is a product, but not a heart and a brain. Unless Woodward denounces his last two books – and then donates all the proceeds to peace-making organizations – his credibility is worthless.

Reeking of ego, the audacity of Woodward’s book is his assumption that there are no conclusions until he announces them. The thing is, we’ve all moved on with our conclusions; they came long ago. In a time when we can’t trust that newspapers will really tell us “all the news that’s fit to print,” we’ve gone outside of the mainstream for information, analysis, and perspective. We have to. Yet Woodward still believes he’s someone worth listening to. The name that will sell millions, yet say nothing at all…

Woodward’s betrayal isn’t just to American soldiers, to Iraqi civilians, and to voters who honestly believed Bush in his call for war. Woodward is actively betraying his own legacy, one of the richest that modern history has to offer. "Woodward and Bernstein" were about unrelenting demand for the truth, for government accountability, for the power of information, and for the right of everyday people to know and to decide for themselves. All of that is further lost with "exposés" like this one.

By forging a modern identity as a man who craves access more than truth, high-profile status more than credibility, and obliqueness more than assertion, the biggest "State of Denial" at work is actually Woodward’s own.

Technorati tag: bob woodward, state of denial

Not news for us?

Maggie says:
(Thanks to Counterspin for the tip-off.)

In a move I can only hope is understood by the masses, Newsweek is running two different magazine covers around the world this week. That's not at all uncommon, but the content of the cover stories this time around is cause for concern. Let's take a look:


On the left is the cover appearing in Europe, Latin American, and Asia. The cover story, "Losing Afghanistan," describes the "harsh truth" of Afghanistan, a place given up for lost by a superpower more focused on "fighting terror" in some other place instead.

"One year ago we couldn't have had such a meeting at midnight," says [Taliban fighter] Sabir, who is in his mid-40s and looks forward to living out his life as an anti-American jihadist. "Now we gather in broad daylight. The people know we are returning to power."

The problem, according to the article, is not enough manpower or direction.

In the countryside over the past year, Taliban guerrillas have filled a power vacuum that had been created by the relatively light NATO and U.S. military footprint of some 40,000 soldiers, and by the weakness of Afghan President Hamid Karzai's administration.

Meanwhile in the U.S., subscribers and (most importantly, in this case) checkout line customers are titallated by Annie Leibovitz, a talented photographer who touches us with her tales of celebrity.

"I talked with Angelina [Jolie] before the shoot," says Leibovitz, who's famous for her preparation. "She felt like she was coming back from having the baby and she felt very sexy and ready to go."

Which is the most important story here? Sure, celebrity infotainment regularly trumps hard news for its sex appeal. But the hard-hitting headline "Losing Afghanistan" is something that Middle America needs to see. And let's make no mistake: most of them won't see it unless it's splashed across the cover of a magazine.

Magazine covers speak to us for a reason. They tell us what's most important, most pressing, most exciting. A photographer playing with her kids doesn't exactly match up to a reminder of what we've done in a country that we have no intention of "fixing."

While the rest of the world gets the real story, Americans get fluff. As if we're not the ones who most need to face the repercussions of our actions. What makes the rest of the world more likely to hear this than us? And how can that dichotomy ever change if magazines like Newsweek don't start telling us the same news they tell the rest of the world, just as loudly?