The thing about the newspapers that still land on many a stoop across this great land every morning is that there is rarely any news in them. Which is to say that news "breaks" elsewhere. TV, the Internet etc. The "news" of any big event in the paper is already known to most everyone.
Much has been written about what this all means for print media. The big city papers and the small town papers will survive and the middle level papers are in trouble makes the most sense to me. So what is print media's place? That's the question. Often, it very much feels like that of a life coach...whispering in our ears "Look over here! This is important!"
All this is my lead up to saying: OKAY, I GET IT. OBAMA HAS A TOUGH DECISION TO MAKE ON AFGHANISTAN.
Now, I'm NOT criticizing any potential Presidential decision on Afghanistan in this post. I'm observing that a large portion of the media narrative right now is not about the potential decision - it's about how seriously Obama is taking it. How he's "listening" and "taking all factors into account" and having meetings, reading books, and being terrifically responsible and "won't be rushed". All of which one would assume is the norm for a President thinking about an ongoing war.
The Administration has not helped matters - Gates, Clinton and others have been tasked with making public pronouncements about Obama's deliberations. They were, no doubt, forced by the leaking of the McCrystal recommendations. It may also be civilian push back against the military. A way of saying "look we are in charge here. Not the Pentagon."
"Listen to the commanders on the ground and do what they say" is one of those often repeated, rarely examined memes that feels right but may not be in all cases. Lincoln and Truman famously did not "listen to commanders on the ground" all of the time. Judge the outcomes in those instances for yourself. Regardless, civilian control of the military is an essential element of a democracy. Listen with respect to the commanders on the ground and question them with respect - is the proper stance for an elected Preisdent.
I want the President do be serious and deliberate about such matters. Who doesn't? However, I wonder why we need such overt, loud reminders that he's being serious and deliberate. I hope it's because of the obvious: Whatever he decides to do he's going to anger many people and needs the country to know his decision was not taken lightly.
My fear is that Obama will attempt to split the baby down the middle and all this deliberation is to create cover for a half baked tactic masquerading as a strategy.
We shall see.
What we don't need is another week being reminded that the Commander-In-Chief takes war seriously. That ought to be a given.
The deaths of two iconic figures in one day is a shock. That they followed so quickly after another - albeit lesser - icon of the that era - Kung Fu (David Carradine) died- made the day rather thoughtful for this forty something. I heard the train whistle in the distance get a little closer.
Farrah's death (she rightfully shed any need of a surname 30 years ago.) probably hit a bit deeper for me. She was a startling personality whenever she came forth from the pop culture background. When a beautiful actor pushes past her/his looks to give a fine performance they often get too much credit - as if solid acting was somehow miraculous for the terrifically gorgeous among us. Farrah, I felt, did not get enough credit. Or possibly it is truer to say she did get "credit" for her performances in Extremities and The Burning Bed - but did not get the respect she deserved.
Jackson is a different sort. Unlike Farrah who's talent occasionally subsumed her personality, Jackson's astounding talent was, in later years, obliterated by his personality - that seems to have not fully formed - even at 50. The delicious joy of ABC 1, 2, 3comes from another era and almost - another person. The Michael Jackson of 2009 was an echo of an echo of Thriller. As is too often the case in a culture driven by the cult of personality, Jackson's stunted maturity - for at least the last decade - became the only thing that mattered to all but the most bizarre groupies...of which there remain millions. He and his later fan base became an outlying warning to a society that makes and worships the false idols of youth. Beauty and/or talent that refuses wisdom becomes weak and brittle - as does the society that covets it.
When someone dies it is right and proper to reflect on the "good stuff" and ignore the unpleasant. With Jackson, I am not up to the enormity of the task. We ought to take in his life whole, or not at all.
Unlike a lot of what I've heard from reporters tonight - his death did not surprise me. Jackson's tether to this world has seemed tenuous for at least ten years. He was ghostly both metaphorically and physically.
When I sat down to write, this post was to be about yet another round of media mania - so I'll start now. The reporting on Jackson's death - at least in Los Angeles - is over the top, cringe worthy, and ridiculous. "Stunning" and "tragic" are being misused and overused. Jackson's life had all the elements of tragedy. His death is unfortunate, a bit of a surprise, and sad - not tragic.
The American media is incapable of balance and sobriety. This never stops bothering me - and it ought to. I ought to be used to it by now. The "first responders" in the media always seem to be reporting to children or adolescents. Adolescents who must be told quickly how to think and feel about any event, lest, God forbid, they think for themselves. When watching CNN - which I rarely do now - I am often tempted to look over my shoulder to see the 12 year old being addressed.
The deification of youth leads to infantilized adults which must, in turn, lead to a society wide denial of death. Show me a society that denies death and I'll show you a dying society.
Since most of us did not know Jackson, his life and the reporting on his death thus far should be taken as what they are: warnings.
I am sick of Cheney. That's not new. I was sick of Cheney before I was born. Having said that I do wonder what he is up to. For a while now my theory has been that for the last 8 years Cheney was - in effect - President until sometime around Katrina. The man behind the curtain pulling the strings (is there another metaphor I can fit into this sentence?), perfectly content to allow Georgie to enjoy the perks of office while he ruled the roost...(Yes! A metaphor trifecta!) By the time the ill wins of Katrina blew he'd gotten most of what he wanted: The invasion of Iraq, a windfall for Haliburton, insanely expanded powers for the executive branch...Katrina hit and Cheney said "You're up, George!" Then with his security blanket gone with the wind, W's ineptitude was flapping in the wind, visible to all.
So my theories on Cheney's emergence in the early months of Obama's term are three fold - obvious, angry, or conspiratorial. I do not know which rings truest.
Obvious: The GOP has no one capable or willing to take Obama on right now. Cheney is deeply committed to and believes in the changes he wrought during his 2 terms. He felt, with clear reason, that Obama would - or might - dismantle the national security apparatus Cheney implemented. Mr. Obama certainly talked a good game on this front. There was reason to believe he might roll back the civil liberties incursions of the Bush years, and Obama did announce the closing of Gitmo early on. Granted, he had no plan so the announcement was, as per usual for Obi, all smoke and no fire.
Angry: Cheney is unpopular but he does not give a sh*t because he is angry. He is pissed off at W for not pardoning Scooter, he's pissed that he got no respect for "keeping America safe for seven years." (Though, he forgets that all W's men and women ignored the advice of the Clinton team and the warnings in the Summer of 2001.) Cheney is not going to wait for a major Obama screw up in security. (One is coming, my friends, WATCH.) The angry old man's moment is now and he is shrewd enough to know it.
Conspiratorial: In keeping my jaundiced eye trained on the MSM - I can't escape the sense that this Cheney/Obama show is concocted. Cheney yet again playing the role of bad cop and Obama the "good" cop. Cheney is out of power - but he is outflanking Obama and the Democrats. (No, I don't think polls now matter on this issue. Disliking Cheney is a national pastime. We've been trained to snort in his direction.)
Obama is pulling one of his classic stunts: talking a good game to distract his supporters, and, in actuality, not changing Bush policy much at all. The shoving match occupying the media is producing little movement in reality. The chances of Gitmo closing anytime soon are waning. Obama has blinked on military tribunals, his Justice department has shifted to the Right of Bush on civil liberties, and his administration is towing the Bush line on Abu Ghraib. Finally, no one will be prosecuted from the former administration. What is the point of this "fight"?
At the end of this tussle detainees will either be in Cuba or super ultra maximum security federal prisons in the states. Housing these people here is creepy and politically dumb, but not a substantial risk.
Frankly, I do not know why Obama has allowed himself to be sucked into this debate. His policies are not different in substance from Bush's and chances are good he'll lose the argument with Cheney anyway. One attack and Cheney wins going away. Does Obama really believe he's right? Doubtful. Obama never picks a fight on core beliefs. He flip flops if he is going to look bad. That's his pattern.
So what are we left with? Dueling politicians playing a high stakes game, with an upside for both. Cheney gets to fill the GOP vacuum - solidifying its base. Obama gets to play the "wise and moral leader" taking on the difficult issues - at least when the TelePrompTer is booted up. He gets the added bonus of taking on a media punching bag.
I don't buy Obama's posturing here. I DO buy Cheney's - which is hardly comforting.
The smart thing would have been to ignore Cheney and tell his legion of MSM lapdogs to do the same.
This is fascinating to watch. Obama, the President, is in the odd position of having to speechify scholarly explanations for his wobbles. While, quite frankly, Cheney appears more Presidential. Cheney is positioned perfectly for a large, loud TOLD YA SO if anything scary happens.
I am a part of a small writer's circle at church. We meet every other week, read stuff we've written, listen to each other's writing. Very nice. Community building. Given the very diverse nature of the church itself the group gives me a chance to witness people and hear stories I would otherwise never be exposed to...and, of course, to be witnessed and heard.
Most members write from direct experience. I tend to write short fiction. It's a nice practice. Since I like - check that; I love- seemingly random combinations (I once knew a traffic reporter slash actress who also occasionally trance channeled an oracle from ancient Greece...) my short stores are almost always a based on some whiff of actual events in my life - which I then play around with, combine in some false way, and make fiction. This is many fiction writers' process...obviously.
Speaking of the obvious: It occurred to me that it is the American media's process as well. Take actual events, stir gently, and then pour the mix into a largely fictional mold that looks remarkably similar to reality when the concotion is presented on television.
Hmmm. So there you have it...my flash of the obvious...That's all I have to say this Friday morning.
USC plays that school across town on Saturday - I must now sacrifice a chicken to the Trojan gods and then do some work... see ya in about 4 hours with a lunch break post...
Check this out: Boycott the NYT. This is a right wing site. Don't agree with the people but I am glad to highlight an example action being taken against the MSM.
The media is the myth maker.
Here's the truth - I think we should boycott all of them. Further I think we should be marching outside CNN in Atlanta and 30 Rock (NBC) and the NYT building.... at least until they gobble up the "event" of the protest and make it a meaningless story.
For now: Turn OFF the news. Stop reading the major myth making newspapers. If you tune in for coverage of a major event - like the attack in India this week - learn to perceive at what point it stops being event coverage and starts being about manipulating you. The switchover happens. Every time. After 9/11 is took about 24 hours. Every thing every one of us needs or wants to know can be obtained in less than 10 minutes of - mostly local - news.
Be selective about "news" outlets. Very selective. As selective as you are about food...even if you "eat anything" you don't choose arsenic for supper. Far lefty Hans Enzenburger calls the media the "consciousness industry" - as true a name as I can think of. The goal is to turn us all into "manipulators" as well- or as a recent rather large example implies - turn as many of us as possible into "co-myth makers".
I don't want to live in a Marxist or "Christian" nation. (the "Christian" nation the Right fantasizes about is every bit as repressive as the William Ayres's Left wing anti-utopia.)
I do not like beliefs being shoved down my throat. (Or is an I.V. drip a better metaphor?) Didn't like it during the run up to Bush's invasion of Iraq. Didn't like it this year as I watched Obama being forced on us. (Thanks George Soros and Move On and all your pals in the MSM! Whoo Hoo!! Good job!!!)
So be conscious of what you are being told to accept. There IS an agenda. Harmful or Helpful? - doesn't matter. Just be aware that you are being sold something. Buy or pass on it - but remember it is a sales job.
Some music - A modern classic (is that possible?) - try this "a pop classic" (sounds like coke)
Elvis Costello's "What's so funny about peace, love and understanding?"
For me, the very best thing about this year has been turning off the noise media. Sometime late last year I was watching Olbermann and thought 'he really has some issue with Hillary Clinton.' I checked in with others and they felt the same thing. Then he turned on her like a rabid dog. About the same time KOS engineered an anti-Clinton coup. Americablog had a fund drive then - without notice - became all Obama love, all the time. Since the head of Huffington is an intellectual near do well, The Huffington Post was always nonsense to me.
By December the Obama adulation had overtaken all of MSNBC and CNN. When Jack Caferty's sexist puss oozed all over midday news I was long gone. The last echoes from the MSM I bothered to listen to came around March when the stick they were hitting us with was "Why doesn't Clinton drop out?"
My transition away from the noise media has been remarkably easy. It was an addiction of sorts for me. But one of those addictions that is easily remedied with a deep surrender. When I was done, I WAS DONE.
Any true alcoholic who has gotten sober can spot a real alcoholic at 100 paces. As a sober drunk, I've spent a hell of a lot of time coming to understand what alcoholism is and how it works. Self - knowledge never gets a drunk sober. But once he/she is sober self knowledge becomes an essential ingredient in maintaining sobriety.
My trip away from addiction to the noise media is somewhat similar. I asked: How did the addiction work for me? What did I get out of it? How does it affect those around me ( in this case the entire society)?
I've come to a simple and obvious conclusion: The noise media exists to tell us what our opinions should be and to manufacture consent for their agenda -whatever it is at the moment - Attacking Iraq or electing Obama, or...
This weekend I had a remarkable example of the effectiveness of the noise media. From 3 very different people, in wildly disparate locals, I heard the exact same talking points about Sarah Palin. Not close approximations - EXACT RENDITIONS. All three were disengaged, and disinterested types who do not follow politics. And yet, the message got through. This is not a Left/Right problem. After all, how many people still think Iraq was connected to 9/11?
Right now, the pathetic dramedy on the Obama Left is that they have much of the media "on their side." They are not handling it well. Many of the same people who spent the long weekend trashing a pregnant 17 year old were rightfully appalled a few short years ago when Michelle Malkin posted the phone numbers of anti-Bush protesters. The media WANTS Obama elected. 5 years ago the media WANTED an invasion of Iraq. I'll break a rule I break too much and make a prediction: If Obama wins, by this time next year much of the media will be ripping him to shreds about Ayres, Rezko and every other currently unreported scandal. They may not need Ayres and the rest, though. The crappy economy will be Obama's and Pelosi's "fault" soon enough. This is an easy prediction to make. Obama is not who he says he is and Pelosi is an unskilled hack. The only change the former can really bring is his skin color and the latter is already the least popular politician since Nixon in 1974.
So the trash and burn party the Obama Left is having now will end when the media decides it is in their best interest to end it. I'll bet the media will kick KOS, HUFF, Obama, and the rest to the curb either in October or sometime next summer if BHO wins.
Am I "news-less"? No , not at all. I am as well informed as ever. Probably more so. By being highly selective AND picking up informationin passingI still get plenty of "news". This weekend, by perusing NoQuarter, RCP and glancing at a headline in a corner newsbox, it was quite easy to know the Palin "experience" feeding frenzy was in overdrive. The Daily Kos then attacking her 17 year old child is as surprising as a sunny day in Los Angeles.
The benefits of avoiding the noise media are numerous. Metal clutter is cut down. Time is opened up. I am generally more serene. And - and this is most important: I am much less defensive. A rule of the media game that no one talks about is the invitation to learned helplessness. See, if you and I won't get with their current program (Invade the bad guys! Obama is amazing!) then choice two is to infuriate with the bias. The result is more bias from them and an entire subset of defensive refuseniks. The goal is to keep you and me on the defensive. If we won't play the game, then we must be victims of the game.
Don't be defensive. Respond - but never from a defensive stance. And I don't mean in the streets protesting or anything like that. Protest if it makes sense or write letters...whatever. I am talking about not being defensive in our heads. Example: If Palin's experince is what the MSM is hammering - find out about her experience - but NOT from CNN - and decide for yourself. The disappearance of the American 4th Estate makes me sad as hell, but my sadness will not become learned helplessness.
I own my vote and my opinion. I saw no legitimate reason to support Obama in December, I see none now. In fact, my reasons to oppose him are much more numerous now. No one at CNN or NBC has presented any facts that refute what digging into his background revealed. Therefore, my opinion stands. All the talking boobs on all the talking boob tubes have yet to rationally explain why 20 years in a black Theology church should NOT offend my deepest liberal sensibilities. Most readers here have tipping points like this with Obama. Ayres's group maimed and killed people. Rezko benefited while people froze in BHO's district...He shafted his constituents on Excelon...and on and on... A real leader looks across the table at the Woods Foundation and says "Mr. Ayres, you may have gone free, but I cannot and will not serve if you are here."
I will not join those who say "these things don't matter." My religion and my politics cannot be stuffed into that cubby hole. Wish they could. I tried. These choices by Obama do matter more to me than his current stances. Personal morality rarely matters to me. Personal ethics always do. I don't care if a candidate has group sex with his wife. I do care if a candidate signs off on vicious sexism directed at a female candidate.
For now, the noise media tells me all this is A Okay. Forget it. If the noise media decides to vet the Democratic nominee in the next 6 weeks, I may tune back in. Until then - they cannot and should not be trusted by me - or anyone else.
Big thanks to ESQMANAGEMENT for sending me this gem:
Senator Clinton was taking Dalai Lama to see the Statue of Liberty. During the boat ride the Tibetan leader's shawl is caught by a breeze and blows away. The security detail goes into panic mode - scrambling about in disarray since the shawl has great religious significance.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton calmly bows to the Dalai Lama, climbs down the ferry's side, walks on water and retrieves the shawl.
Every one cheers, including the Dalai Lama .
The headlines the next day across the country scream:
Obama has injected a poison into the body politic of the United States. The ugliness Obama has stirred up is real and severe - all the more damaging because he is so charming. We are past now the dizzying, frothing, mindless adoration from Huffington and the Daily Kos. We are now past the snotty, childish attacks on Clinton by Olbermann and Caferty. We are into a new realm now. The hatred quietly coached and encouraged by Axelrod is now bubbling forth everywhere. The media has been taken by over by a hate filled sickness. The nastiness and bias against Senator Clinton is so severe at this point that it can only be called psychosis. Clinton bashing for sport has infected a huge portion of the media. This infection results in a fear of questioning Obama the man - not the hype. But mostly it is a fear to face the cold truth about how much we have willingly surrendered since 9/11. Which is, finally, our soul. This infection has a host. It is the Obama campaign.
The Obama campaign has no basis in reality. Nor does it want a basis in reality. This means anything can be projected on it. Hope, progress, better times, sexism, denial. The man leading this infection is profiting greatly from it. He is a skilled magician. Nothing in his history, and nothing about what he promises indicates an understanding of reality. This makes him the perfect post Bush man. Even questioning his most basic lies - that the Kennedy's brought his father to America - is off limits to those who hold the megaphone.
Our sickness serves them too. The infection is spreading:
Randi Rhodes called Senator Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro "fucking whores" on stage. Do the math with me on this one moment: a liberal female talk show host called the first female V.P. candidate on a major party ticket and the first viable female Presidential candidate "fucking whores".
For fun.
This is a symptom.
Obama supporters are rallying behind and defending Rhodes.
This is a symptom.
The Democratic Governor of New Mexico refused a a call from the Democratic President who appointed him to 2 cabinet posts.
This is a symptom.
Barrack Hussein Obama spent 20 years in a church that preached, bluntly, racial separatism. Yet, the national conversation on this has been stuffed by a media infected.
This is a symptom.
The Obama campaign is responsible for this. I include Olbermann and the rest of the Obama adoration society in the media as part of the BHO campaign. It began last spring with the "1984" video. Barrack Obama has run his campaign with misdirection. Because misdirection is all he has.
It did not have to be this way. He could have run an honorable campaign. But he is not an honorable man. William Ayres, Rezko, Rev Wright and his repeated lies prove this now - beyond doubt. He is a demagogue.
Those of us who have not been infected by the Obama psychosis can see those who are. We can see them clearly. I now hold out no hope that sanity will return. The media has determined that the electronic lynching of Senator Clinton must proceed. Facts be damned.
Whether this means they will turn on him once the nomination is settled or it means BHO is truly the Manchurian candidate I do not know.
I do know we their will be a post Obama moment. A point when those left standing will see clearly what happened. We won't stay unconscious forever.
From the Idea of Ancient Literary Critisism by Yun Lee Too: Invective ( in the Illiad) is meant to be perceived as a challenge to the elite monopoly of public discourse.
Sometime last fall it became clear that the media would not challenge the Obama campaign in any real sense. The Wright tapes, available to all for a while now, being ignored until the largest gap in the primary calendar being the central example of the media's timidity regarding Obama - or in MSNBC's case - its outright cheerleading for him.
Around the same time Clinton was hammered for a bumbled response to a question about drivers' licenses for those here illegally and the major left wing blogs began to function as a cheering section for the Obamites and as attack dogs on Clinton. The subtext of the media and blogs like the Dailykos is "ignore, excuse and blame Clinton" for any misgivings that may arise about Obama. While in Clinton's case the subtext has been to highlight and deride every move her campaign has made. The best example here is Olbermann's almost insane "special comment" about Ferarro's innocuous remarks and Clinton's response to it while excusing and encouraging a far more disturbing 20 year commitment by Obama to Wright's church.
The media narrative has been and remains: The Shining Knight versus the Evil Queen. This is patently false and based in a wild misreading of both Obama's and Clinton's histories. It is only since the Wright story was amplified that the dam has been breached somewhat. The tapes were so disturbing that Fox News could not continue to ignore their own audience - they risked losing it. The right wing radio heads have followed their lead - or lead them.
I have no issue with most of the invective used here. It has a purpose: to shove anyone who might read it into a different thought about the dominant and unfair narrative being manufactured and sold by Dowd, Olbermann and the rest. How and why Olbermann decided to use his platform to work for Obama I know not. But it is clear he has. It is no longer an outlet for those of us who want to see some balance to the mindless CNN and the biased Fox. He uses his show to dismiss Clinton and fete Obama. Nightly.
He is an asshole for this. A dirty, rabid cur.
Olbermann, like Obama, has created a situation that is more divisive not less. It turns out - that people can - and often do - think. They ask questions. They want to know more. In the case of Obama "more" never came. Further, it is became clear that no matter what negative story is on the horizon for Obama he can count on a large portion of the press to ignore or excuse it. So frustration among those who want more information became anger and sometimes fury. The reason 28% of Clinton voters state they will vote for McCain in November is, in large part, because the media has treated her so shabbily.
When Saturday Night Live highlighted this obvious to all pro Obama bias in the media MSNBC incredibly asked its viewers if SNL had an "pro Hillary" bias...stretching the bounderies of irony.
So yes: Dowd is a brittle, pissy priss. Olbermann is just this side of madness. Cafferty is a gas bag, and Huffington is what she has always been: envious of any woman with more power. Or to put it another way- she's a hack with enough money to create a following. Nothing about her has changed since she traipsed around California in 1994 insulting Diane Feinstein.
Until the media comes out of its Obama trance calling out the elite monopoly on publicdiscourse will be the order of the day here. If and when Olbermann and his ilk begin to ask fair and reasonable questions about Obama's fitness and history we can get back to a good old fashioned fight on the issues.
Why has no one in the press asked Obama about his William Ayers connection? It is possible that there is very little to the connection. But shouldn't we know? What is the press thinking? How have they ignored this story as Obama has made his run? Is it that they INTEND to make McCain President? William Ayers is an unrepentant serial bomber who was on the lamb for a decade. Obama has accepted a small contribution from Ayers and has chosen to appear with both he and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn, at numerous public and private events. Dohrn said this after the Sharon Tate murders: "Dig it! First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork into the victim's stomach! Wild!"
My God.
Is this not worth a mention on MSNBC? Imagine if the wife of a Clinton contributer had said such a thing? Obama sat on the board of the Wood Foundation with Ayers - since the turn of the century. They have collaborated. Ayers said this after 9/11: "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough"
Why is Obama even choosing to be in the same room as this man? Again, like staying in that church for 20 years Obama's bad judgement is scary.
Obama has chosen to associate himself with this couple on numerous occasions. Where is the media? Another chose Ayers quote: "Kill all the rich people. ... Bring the revolution home. Kill your parents." I don't care when Ayers said this - Obama sat on a board of directors with him. When will someone confront Obama about this?
