Wednesday, December 25, 2024

Raison d'ĂȘtre (Ava and C.I.)

 Better a little early than a little late, right?  That's what people say.  And we suppose it's true as long as you're not the person opening up and their "little early" isn't arriving before you've had time to unlock the doors and turn on the lights.


We're about 22 days early.  In 22 days, we will have been covering the media here for 20 years.  And maybe it's time to reflect on that.  No, this isn't a clip job where we pull paragraphs from various pieces over the years and call that writing.  


tc2


Raison de'etre.


A French term that details our reason for existence.  


One reason we're here at this site covering media is to note things worth catching APPLETV+ has PALM ROYALE.  We don't know that it works as a comedy.  It's funny but it's also a drama.  Carol Burnett's five episode, 1986 mini-series FRESNO was more of a sitcom than PALM ROYALE.


So what is this new series?  It a comedy-drama blend about Maxine Dellacorte (Kristen Wiig) and her need to push herself into Palm Beach society in 1969 while dragging her husband Doug Dellacorte (Josh Lucas) along with her.  His aunt Norma Dellacorte (Carol Burnett) is a social queen in Palm Beach who has suffered a health setback.  Robert Diaz (Ricky Martin) is a Korean War veteran, bartender and pool boy or "pool boy" for Norma.  Laura Dern is also in the cast as Linda who is really Penelope the daughter of Skeet Rollins (Laura's real life father Bruce Dern) and the step-daughter of Skeet's second wife Evelyn (Allison Janney).  Along with Julia Duffy, Mindy Cohn, Leslie Bibb and so many others, it's a first rate cast that really delivers.  Kristen and Carol were both nominated for Emmys and more than deserved it.  PALM ROYALE also got a an Emmy nomination for Best Comedy.


Last month, Stan wrote "Tonight I hand out the Emmys" noting some of his picks for the best in TV this year.  Along with naming PALM ROYALE best comedy, he noted the programs AMERICAN SPORTS STORY: AARON HERNANDEZ, MATLOCK, ELSBETH, ENGLISH TEACHER, THE NEIGHBORHOOD,  NIGHT COURT, ORPHAN BLACK: ECHOES, THE PERFECT COUPLE,  BILLY JOEL: THE 100TH LIVE AT MADISON SQUARE GARDEN, EVERYBODY STILL HATES CHRIS and the NETFLIX movie FIGHT NIGHT: THE MILLION DOLLAR HEIST.  We join Stan in recommending those programs.  We also recommend NETFLIX's film THE SIX TRIPLE EIGHT starring Kerry Washington, Kerry Washington's UNPRISONED whose second season started last July (HULU has canceled the series), PARAMOUNT+'s LANDMAN and THE AGENCY, DISNEY+'s AGATHA ALL ALONG, PEACOCK's LAID, NETFLIX's CARRY-ON, MARIA and BLACK DOVES, AMAZON PRIME's EXPATS, MGM+'s FROM,  STARZ's THREE WOMEN (and let's jump the gate and note THE COUPLE NEXT DOOR which premiers next month is really worth watching), APPLETV's SUNNY, BAD SISTERS, DISCLAIMER and LOOT, and HBO-MAX's GET MILLIE BLACK. 


That's part of our reason for being here -- to praise programs worth watching.  Praise is a part of criticism -- it's not all of negative.


But, yes, there is negative criticism and we offer that as well.  Sometimes, we can offer negative and positive.  Like last week when Nate Bargatze had two comedy specials debut.  The one on NETFLIX? YOUR FRIEND, NATE BARGATZE, by all means catch that.  It's hilarious and completely the type of strong comedy we expect from Nate. But the one CBS offered?   NATE BARGATZE'S NASHVILLE CHRISTMAS?  It was garbage.  It had a few bits of Nate's comedy but really didn't seem to know what it was.  There was no real theme or structure.  We were puzzled by that but what we found more puzzling was two CBS friends in management who couldn't understand why the audience for the first airing fell off in large numbers about ten minutes in.


Did they watch the program?  If they'd watched the program they would have understood that was part of the problem. At our advice, they went and watched it.  They then agreed that the segment that aired should not have been included in the broadcast.  Nate's a funny man, a very funny man.  He's also comes off warm and friendly.  So to have him and a country music star (we'll be kind and not name her) show up on this Christmas love and together special to tell the audience watching that they could visit Nashville but that Nashville didn't want them moving there?


What fool thought that 'joke' fit on a Christmas special or fit Nate's type of comedy.  


It never should have aired.  The whole special was questionable but that segment is what had people -- a large number of people -- turning off when it originally aired. 


Sometimes we can use the podium to note a surprise or an improvement with regards to someone we've previously had to slam.  


Take George Clooney.  In a month shy of 20 years of media coverage here, we have offered praise.  We've also offered negative criticism.   Due to APPLETV+'s WOLFS, we can offer some praise again.  He's very effective in the film, he turns in a great performance -- possibly his finest ever.  At 63, he looks comfortable onscreen.  We should also note that he looks so much better than his two year younger co-star Brad Pitt.  The face sags, the body's pudgy and the skin is a nightmare.  Way too much drinking, way too much, has destroyed the leading man.  This is not a new development.  And we find it curious that if a woman looked like that after a few decades in the business, every review, every write up would be pointing out that the looks are gone.  Completely gone.  Ava Gardner also lost her looks to booze but when she died at the age of 67, she still looked better than Pitt does today.


It's a visual medium so, yes, it does matter.


Equally true, Brad's never been box office himself.  He's been eye candy since THELMA & LOUISE.  And he's given the same performance over and over.  AMAZON's lousy film RED ONE (now available for streaming as it slowly limps out of theaters) is a failure for many reasons but chief among them is that, at 43, Chris Evans is too mature to play the young kid to The Rock. Seven years ago, at the age of 30, Zac Efron was barely able to pull it off.  Both Chris and Zac can act.  But they are no longer convincing playing the young man in need of a life lesson from The Rock. 


That's the character Brad keeps trying to play and he should have cut it out at the age of 35.  This late in life, with so little talent and with a face which now looks like his liver is rotting, Brad Pitt really needs to get in rehab, find an acting teacher and grasp that the days of coasting on his looks ended about 15 years ago.


Evening the boards -- making sure that men don't get a pass -- is another reason we've spent almost twenty years here.  We offer a feminist critique -- not the feminist critique.  There are many feminist voices and we have never claimed to be the sole voice of feminism.

Many years ago, Muriel Rukeyser observed, "What would happen if one woman told the truth about her life?  The world would split open."


That's correct and we try to keep that in mind.  The late Nora Ephron was not the first female media critic but her work at ESQUIRE covering the media remains a benchmark that the rest of us strive for.   Feminism includes calling out media lies.  


Journalism is supposed to be accurate and truthful.  


So when Joan Jett lies about "I Love Rock And Roll" making it to number one on an 'indy label' and being sold out of the back of her trunk.  (In reality, the version that went to number one was issued by Neil Casablanca's BOARDWALK label and copies were shipped to stores.)  In that instance, NPR did correct the lie that Joan had told them.  Yes, it had already aired but they added a correction to the web page where the story remains.


We have to do that all the time.  And we shouldn't have to.  As we've noted repeatedly, entertainment journalism tries to act as though they can lie about anything -- as though it doesn't matter because it's just entertainment.  Sorry, NEW YORK TIMES, if you decide your outlet's covering entertainment, getting the facts right remains a necessity.  Otherwise, it's not journalism.


Documentaries are supposed to be works of journalism.  And they're supposed to be factual.  But, as we've long and repeatedly documented here, that's rarely the case.


We were reminded of that yet again over the weekend when we made the mistake of streaming Stanley Isaacs's MEL BROOKS: SERIOUSLY . . . WELL ALMOST. You can stream the abomination on AMAZON.


We have no idea why you would want to.


But then again, we have no idea why anyone would put Mel Brooks on camera.  A notorious liar on just about every topic really shouldn't be able to present facts.  And if you're making the documentary and you present the lies as facts, he's made you a liar as well.

Let's do a bit of a transcript and see if you can spot the lies on your own.  Mel's talking about his film SILENT MOVIE.


Mel Brooks:  I came to him with the idea to make SILENT MOVIE. He said, "In YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN you took away color. Now in SILENT MOVIE, you took away sound. So what are you going to do? Is this picture going to be -- you're just going to hold up photographs? Is that going to be the movie?"   I said, "No, it's going to be a satire of a silent movie." I said, "It's important stuff, Laddie. It's important." He said, "What do you mean?" I said we're-we're in a financial rate of art. STAR WARS, the picture that you made, that no one else wanted to make, Laddie, STAR WARS made so much money -- and this is what my-my late wife Anne explained this to me -- this was her theory -- that big business didn't give a s**t about movies -- didn't give a damn about plays or movies suddenly saw, "Holy s**t, you can make a billion dollars with this celluloid junk?"


Alan Ladd Jr -- "Laddie" -- then talks about STAR WARS being released ("in May, I think, the worst month of the year") and how theaters didn't want it but they got them to show it because theaters wanted THE OTHER SIDE OF MIDNIGHT) and how "nobody believed in it. It didn't go wide until Christmas."

Let's stop there to correct the statement made by the late Alan Ladd Jr.  It went wide much sooner than that that and, in the US, in August of 1977, with a bigger promotion press, it crossed the $100 million mark in ticket sales.  So, no, it went wide before Christmas  Ladd may have been mistaken, it was many years ago.  But Mel?  He's been lying above.  Let's include some more Mel.


Mel Brooks: So suddenly TRANSAMERICA takes over PARAMOUNT, Coca Cola takes over COLUMBIA. Suddenly big financial corporations are taking over studios that used to be run by Harry Cohn, by Jack Warner, by Louis B Mayer, by immigrant Americans who loved making movies, who loved art, who knew how to make movies and they just were bean counters and bottom line people. So that's where I got SILENT MOVIE from. I said, "But I'll make it funny. Don't you worry. I'll get Dom Deluise and Marty Feldman -- we'll all squeeze into a little yellow Morgan and will try and get our SILENT MOVIE made so it's like breaking the fourth wall with you. And I'll get the greatest comic that ever lived that I worked with for for ten years, Sid Caeser, I'll make him the studio chief smoking two cigars at a time and flying around under his desk. And I said, "It's going to be funny, I can tell you that." It's all about ENGULF & DEVOUR which, of course, which of a satire, a take off on GULF & WESTERN which took over PARAMOUNT -- PARAMOUNT which made THE GODFATHER -- PARAMOUNT which made the Cecil B DeMille movies [. . .]


Suddenly, in the 70s, big financial corporations are taking over the studios?  He mentions Louis B Mayer.  It was concern on Wall Street that led to Mayer being forced to retire from MGM in August of 1951 after too many films failed to make money.  1951.  But sure, pretend that this was a 70s development.  GULF & WESTERN?  We've noted them before.  They swallowed up RKO (paying Lucille Ball a small fortune for the studio) in 1967.  The year before?  That's when they purchased PARAMOUNT.  1968, not the 70s as Mel Brooks lies.  (They may not have made the Cecil B DeMille films but they were the owners when THE GODFATHER was made.)

As for his lie that TRANSAMERICA took over PARAMOUNT?  TRANSAMERICA never had a connection with PARAMOUNT.  In 1967, it did buy UNITED ARTISTS -- a studio unaffiliated with PARAMOUNT.  

He just lies and lies.  And the so-called director just posts it ax though it's truth.

STAR WARS is a legendary franchise.  We've never seen a STAR WARS movie -- a detail many readers have found shocking over the years whenever we've noted that fact.  

So we're not STAR WARS fans but the world is full of them.

And surely someone reading this is a STAR WARS fan.  So you caught Mel's biggest lie, didn't you?

He and Laddie got to make SILENT MOVIE because STAR WARS had come out and been such a huge hit so the money was there.  

That's interesting.  Remember when STAR WARS came out?  May of 1977.  And when did SILENT MOVIE come out?  June of 1976.  Are you seeing the problem?  Laddie was so big and and powerful thanks to STAR WARS, Mel insists, in 1977 that he could afford to take a chance on a silent movie.  It's a cute story, but, again, SILENT MOVIE was released one year prior to STAR WARS.

It's a lie.

Mel Brooks is a known liar.  He's a backstabber (ask the late Johnny Carson and ask Joan Rivers).  He's a fake and a fraud.

If you're making a documentary about him, you're an idiot if you don't fact check.  And if you're making a documentary, you have to fact check.


Please note, the above? Those aren't the only lies Mel tells on camera -- lies that get presented as fact.  We could do this over and over.  We'll give you one more example, here's Mel talking about his 1977 film HIGH ANXIETY.


Mel Brooks: When we were writing it, they asked me, "Well what are we going to call it?" And I said, "We're going to call it HIGH ANXIETY." I said, "There's no such term. It sounds like a real term. It sounds like a real word. And when there was -- after it came out -- there was a cover in TIME MAGAZINE about Wall Street and it said "High Anxiety." I -- we -- we made up the word. I made up the term.
 

You can view the cover here -- it's the October 15, 1990 issue of TIME.


Mel Brooks did not make up the term.  It was not invented or coined in 1978.  The term goes back many, many years.  December 1971 is when it was most utilized in the press.  Newspapers were filled with stories about "high anxiety."  Bernard Weinraub's "Psychologist Reports 'Anxiety Level' High In Japan, West Germany, France" is widely syndicated that month.  It contains sentences such as, "Lynn's high anxiety countries are Japan, West Germany, Austria, Italy, France and Belgium." 


A newspaper search notes many more examples.  And goes back decades.  For example?  THE SALT LAKE CITY DESERT NEWS, September 4, 1954 edition carried the syndicated column by Dr A E Wiggam* entitled "Let's Explore Your Mind" (syndicated by Chicago's NATIONAL NEWSPAPER SERVICE) asks a series of questions and then provides this answer to the third one, "How do high anxiety and low anxiety students scholastically?"


1954.  No, Mel Brooks did not invent the term "high anxiety."  


He did lie about it on camera and  Stanley Isaacs did include the lie in the 'documentary' thereby popularizing the lie.  


MAGA won the 2024 presidential election as a result of racism (racism itself is a lie, no race is better than any other) and sexism (sexism is also a lie, a refusal to believe in equality).  MAGA nuts like Roseanne Barr believe the lie that Donald Trump is a secret avenger for children sold into sex slavery and they spread  this lie.  They spread so many lies.


On an awful episode of HOT IN CLEVELAND, we called it out here because Melody found a letter from a lover of Abraham Lincoln's and decided, at the end of the show, to destroy the letter to preserve Lincoln's reputation -- nearly two centuries after his death.  We called that crap ass storyline out.  


You have to call out the lies.  Media critics especially have to call out the lies.  And that's probably been our biggest raison d'etre since we started covering All Things Media Big and Small.



------------------


Dr A E Wiggam is the billing for the column in the print version of the newspaper.  In books (such as his 1949 collection of LET'S EXPLORE YOUR MIND columns), he often went by Albert Edward Wiggam.  Noting his use of "high anxiety" is not an endorsement of his work.  For example, he was a proponent of the pseudo science of eugenics -- a fake and false science that we do not endorse. 

 


Wednesday, December 18, 2024

Truest statement of the week

 Why did ABC News throw in the towel? It‘s hard to know for sure, but gets easier if you are aware that the news organizations is owned by Disney, a huge corporation with a lot of turf to protect. As the Times reported, the Disney executive who oversees ABC News had dinner with Trump’s top aide, Susan Wiles, just days before the settlement, as “part of a visit by several ABC News executives to Florida to meet with Mr. Trump’s transition team.”

Was this settlement, which includes ABC’s public expressions of regret, a simple case of kissing the ring? It sure looks that way. Trump has sworn to get revenge on his enemies and he values, above all, loyalty and kowtowing.

But loyalty and kowtowing isn’t the job of the press, which is supposed to represent the public in holding powerful people and institutions accountable. 


-- Margaret Sullivan, "ABC News caved when it settled with Trump" (SUBSTACK).  


A note to our readers

Hey --

Wednesday.



Let's thank all who participated this edition which includes Dallas and the following:


The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Trina of Trina's Kitchen, 
Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ,
Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends,
Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts,
and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub.

 

And what did we come up with? 


Peace.

 

-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.

 




Editorial: We see you and we won't forget

 Kamala Harris offered Americans leadership.  Elect her, she'd go into the White House with a to-do list to work for the American people.  She also told them what the alternative would be: Trump going back into the White House with an enemies list.


And the American people, by a tiny sliver, chose to the enemies list.

Now that's due to a number of things and the primary problem on the left, of course, was the fact that 'left' media used their time -- and the money we donate to them -- to attack Kamala.  THE NATION, DEMOCRACY NOW!, THE PROGRESSIVE, COMMON DREAMS and many more posted daily attacks on Kamala.

We needed every Democrat to turn out in order to defeat the very real threat that is Trump.  We needed to rally.  We needed to encourage voter turnout.

But racism and sexism intersected and left way too many of our 'trusted' outlets attacking Kamala.

Never forget that DEMOCRACY NOW! and THE NATION actively worked to elect Trump by attacking Kamala daily.

They hope that you will forget.  They need for you to forget.  If you hold them accountable, they go under.  

This reality should have led them to some analysis of their own and to confess to their journalistic malpractice.  Instead, as Ty notes this edition, THE NATION has published another garbage article keeping the focus off their own actions.

They don't want to get honest?  You shouldn't support them.

Left voters consuming 'progressive media' were fed a daily dose of Kamala The Horrible and then left voters ended up turning out in lower numbers than they did in 2020.  That's a direct link.  

They elected Donald Trump and they must be held accountable.



Kash Patel, President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee as the next director of the FBI, has big plans.

He has called for the prosecution of a long list of people he accuses of conspiring to undermine Trump, including President Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and outgoing FBI Director Christopher A. Wray.




That's on IN THESE TIMES, THE PROGRESSIVE, COMMON DREAMS, DEMOCRACY NOW! and THE NATION.  For decades now, 'progressive media,' 'beggar media,' 'panhandle media,' whatever you want to call it has critiqued corporate media.  After they actively worked to defeat Kamala and re-elect Donald Trump, they think they owe nothing.  They're due for an accounting and then some.


When Amy Goodman laments, in future months, the erosion of rights and liberties, remember that in the three months prior to the election, she attacked Kamala every single day on her program.  As the country is attacked from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue on a daily basis over the next four years, never forget how Goodman and the rest worked overtime to ensure that Kamala would not become president. 

Media Lessons (Ava and C.I.)

Life lessons?  Not sure we're qualified to offer those.  We're really not t We mige Dottie Ingels type.  But media lessons?  We might have a few to share.

 

tc2


Ty passed on an e-mail from reader Carl Stanton.   Carl agrees with our call that outlets like DEMOCRACY NOW!, THE NATION, THE PROGRESSIVE, et al depressed turn out in the 2024 presidential election with their non-stop attacks on Kamala Harris.  He notes that there were many more left outlets than what we've listed here since August who took part in those attacks.  


Carl is absolutely correct.  


And he's absolutely correct to note ___ ___ ____ as one of the worst offenders.


Media lesson number 1: We're not naming them.


They attacked -- from the 'left' -- Kamala several times each day in one video after another. They repeated and popularized GOP attacks -- including the lie that she was drunk.  They did this while pretending to be part of the left -- a crazy kind of left you understand -- one that worships liar Glenn Greenwald and reposts interviews done by I-was-attacked-by-a-demon Tucker Carlson.


Some might argue that they're of the Jimmy Dore 'left' but they aren't and that's why we aren't noting them.  


Confused?


The drunk lie?  It's their biggest video in months.  It got 14,000 streams.  Everything else?  You're lucky to see one of their videos crack 1,000 views.  There are some that don't even crack 500.


That's why they're not part of the Jimmy Dore 'left,' Jimmy's grift continues to see him getting 75,000 or more views a video.  ____ ____ _____ desperately needs attention to get viewers.  They used to get 80,000 easy on a video.  And, again, most of their videos now don't even get a thousand.  And only one video since August has gotten more than a thousand streams -- 14,000 when they went on YOUTUBE to lie that Kamala was drunk.


Media Lesson 1: When a bad show's going down the toilet, don't rescue it by bringing attention to it.


Media Lesson 2: How to tell when you're not appreciated.


We consume a lot of media.  We like to believe that the people delivering the information care about the information and care about the audience; however, that is not always the case.

As Maya Angelou noted long ago, when they show you who they are, believe them.

MORNING JOE's Mika and Joe have shown you.  So have Cenk and Ana of THE YOUNG TURKS.  

We can't imagine why anyone would ever watch those shows again.

"B-b-b-but Ava and C.I., Mika and Joe might be worried about their lives."

They might be.

But (a) who cares and (b) we're not talking about that.

We're talking about how Mika and Joe and Cenk and Ana have both used their broadcast time to yell at their audience.  Repeatedly.

Now you might like impassioned commentary about political figures -- you might not -- but that's not what we're talking about.  We're talking about two sets of hosts who now see their program as a way to dress down their audience.  

If they're yelling at you and raging at you, you're not being appreciated and you need to turn off.  Tolerating abuse is encouraging abuse.

3) Media Lesson 3.  

Most of us are familiar with the phrase "If you can't do, teach."  It's a bromide. (Trite and unoriginal.)  And also untrue.  That was driven home last week.

As briefly as possible, PROPUBLICA had a story that they were going to run.  We ignored it here when others were running with it -- due to a Tweet the subject of the upcoming report published.  I don't want to spread false information.  So a military institution was asked about a claim by a person -- we'll dub X -- and they said the claim was false.  They said that on the record when and PRO PUBLICA prepared a report.  The report was not published because it turned out X had told the truth. 


This is where the idiot and liar jumped in, "Dr" (she's not) Naomi Wolf.  She tweeted:


No, that’s not how journalism is supposed to work. It’s 1/ hear something. 2/ Check something. 3/ Change course if the rumor does not check out. 4/ Look into and report on the people at West Point who issued a newsworthy and defamatory claim.
Quote
Jesse Eisinger
@eisingerj
·
Dec 11
Replying to @eisingerj
11/ So: No, we are not publishing a story.

This is how journalism is supposed to work. Hear something. Check something. Repeat steps 1 and 2 as many times as needed.

The end.
Show more



For the record, PROPUBLICA did journalism -- Tom Jones (POYNTER) covers that here -- and, in fact, did steps that Dummy Wolf says they didn't do.


Now normally, when two people are at odds, you may not know who's telling the truth and who isn't.

But this is Naomi Wolf.  

It's hilarious that she wants to tell others how to do journalism -- as hilarious as her claiming "Dr."  Maybe you missed it, but we covered it at length here.  Naomi Wolf embarrassed herself.  She did a dissertation for her doctorate.  Then she got it published as a book.  And then it fell apart.  We did not immediately jump on her even though we don't like her.  We thought there might be some reason or factor that everyone was missing.  We were trying to be fair.  To stay with that, we'll go with WIKIPEDIA's summary of what took place: 

Wolf's book Outrages: Sex, Censorship, and the Criminalization of Love was based on the 2015 doctoral thesis she completed under the supervision of literary scholar Stefano-Maria Evangelista, a Fellow of Trinity College, Oxford.[22][23] It studies the repression of homosexuality in relation to attitudes toward divorce and prostitution, and also in relation to the censorship of books.[93]

Outrages was published in the UK in May 2019 by Virago Press.[94] On June 12, 2019, Outrages was named on the O, The Oprah Magazine's "The 32 Best Books by Women of Summer 2019" list.[95] The next day, the U.S. publisher recalled all copies from U.S. bookstores.[96]

In a 2019 BBC radio interview, broadcaster and author Matthew Sweet identified an error in a central tenet of the book: a misunderstanding of the legal term "death recorded", which Wolf had taken to mean that the convict had been executed but in fact means that the convict was pardoned or the sentence was commuted.[97][98][99] He cited a website for the Old Bailey Criminal Court, which Wolf had referred to in the interview as one of her sources.[100] Reviewers have described other errors of scholarship in the work.[101][102]

At the Hay Festival in Wales in May 2019, a few days after her exchange with Sweet, Wolf defended her book and said she had already corrected the error.[103] At an event in Manhattan in June, she said she was not embarrassed and felt grateful to Sweet for the correction.[104][105] On October 18, 2019, it became known that Houghton Mifflin Harcourt's release of the book in the U.S. was being canceled, with copies already printed and distributed being pulled and pulped.[106] Wolf expressed hope that the book would still be published in the U.S.[107][108]

In November 2020, Virago published a UK paperback edition of the book that removed the incorrect references to the execution of men for sodomy included in the hardback edition. Interviewed about the new edition, Sweet said that the book continues to misread historical sources: "Dr Wolf has misrepresented the experiences of victims of child abuse and violent sexual assault. This is the most profound offence against her discipline, as well as the memories of real people on the historical record". Cultural historian Fern Riddell called the book a "calumny against gay people" in the 19th century and said that Wolf "presents child rapists and those taking part in acts of bestiality as being gay men in consensual relationships and that is completely wrong". The Daily Telegraph reported that there had been calls for Wolf's 2015 DPhil to be reexamined, and for Virago to withdraw the book.[109] In a statement to The Guardian, Wolf said the book had been reviewed "by leading scholars in the field" and "it is clear that I have accurately represented the position". Oxford University stated that a "statement of clarification" to Wolf's thesis had been received and approved, and would be "available for consultation in the Bodleian Library in due course".[110]

In March 2021, Times Higher Education reported that Wolf's original thesis remained unavailable six years after it was examined. Oxford doctoral graduates can request an embargo of up to three years, with the potential for renewal.[111] The thesis finally became available in April 2021, with nine pages of corrections attached dealing with the misreading of historic criminal records.[112][23] Wolf had submitted the thesis to the archive in December 2020, more than five years after her DPhil was awarded, and had requested a one-year extension to the embargo period so that she could seek legal advice.[113] The extension request was declined.[24]

In university teaching, Outrages has been used as an example of the danger of misreading historical sources.[114]



Get it?  nine pages of corrections to her thesis.  Nine pages.  Oxford's excuse is that they just wanted to move beyond it.  That's not sufficient.  Her shoddy scholarship means her doctorate should be rescinded.  The book is no more.  The publisher did the right thing by pulping it.  Naomi's entire premise was wrong.  But addressing that, for Oxford, would mean admitting to just how unrigorous the doctoral process is for famous individuals.  And that would bring to light other problematic people who received doctorates from Oxford.  They think they can skate on this but every year they fail to address it, their reputation sinks a little more.

Naomi Wolf can't do journalism.  That does not mean she can teach it.  Her list of nutty is incredible long.  She was threatened with the nut house according to the father of her children -- not the mercenary she married as she restyled herself into the fat frump of MAGA. 

The point here is: Be careful of who you listen to.  Some people are not qualified to even be bobble head pundits.




Media Lesson 4: Be careful who the media listens to

It's a subtle difference. It applies to the above.  We'll say no more on this.




Media Lesson 5: It is not better to just try to get along.

Financial health?  There is no media without that.  And some argue the concern is why ABC NEWS disgraced themselves over the weekend by agreeing to pay Satan Trump $15 million in damages for George  
Stephanopoulos.  A woman says Satan raped her.  He said she wasn't his type.  She sued him.  A jury found him liable 

Again, to be fair, WIKIPEDIA:


On May 9, 2023, a jury of six men and three women found Trump liable for sexual abuse, battery and defamation. On the issue of rape, the jury found it was not proven that Trump had raped her as specified in New York law, which specifies rape as the nonconsensual and forcible penetration with one's penis. The jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse in that he nonconsensually digitally penetrated her.[6][61] Carroll was awarded $5 million in damages. CBS News stated, "They found Trump liable for sexual abuse, not sexual assault."[5] Following the verdict, during a Town Hall on CNN, Trump repeated that Carroll's narrative was a "fake", "made up story", invented by a "whack job".[77] He filed an appeal with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on May 11, 2023.[78]

On May 23, 2023, seeking $10 million in additional damages, Carroll asked the court to expand the 2019 defamation lawsuit to include Trump's post-verdict remarks on CNN and Truth Social.[79] The court granted the motion, and the second defamation trial was scheduled for January 15, 2024.[80] In June 2023, Trump counter-sued Carroll for defamation, after she told CNN "yes he did" rape her, in response to a question about the jury not finding him liable for that offense. Judge Kaplan dismissed the lawsuit in August, ruling that Carroll's rape claim against Trump was substantially true.[81] In September 2023, Judge Kaplan issued a summary judgment in Carroll's favor, stating that the facts established by the trial jury were indisputable.[82] On January 16, 2024, after Joe Tacopina dropped his representation of Trump just as the case was about to resume, ex-Trump attorney Tim Parlatore said that he thought Tacopina had, in prior proceedings, "barely cross-examined Jean Carroll".[83]

On January 26, 2024, a jury found Trump liable for $18.3 million in compensation for emotional and reputational harm, and $65 million in punitive damages, totaling $83.3 million.[84] After Judge Kaplan denied a request by Trump's team to delay the payment to the plaintiff, Trump, on March 8, 2024, three days before the payments deadline, appealed the verdict and posted a $91.6 million bond. Carroll stated that the bond size is "stupendous", and suggested that had the appeal not been submitted, she would have "quickly" begun seizing Trump’s assets.[10]

Judge finds that Trump did “rape” Carroll in a sense

In a July 19, 2023, memorandum opinion, Judge Lewis Kaplan, who presided over the trial, wrote that the evidence demonstrated Trump "raped" Carroll in the plain sense of the word as “many people” understand it.[7] He clarified that despite the "far narrower definition" of rape under New York's statute, as the term is understood "in common modern parlance", and, citing definitions from the US Justice Department and the American Psychological Association, "the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that":

“The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape,’ ” Kaplan wrote.

He added: “Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.”

Kaplan said New York’s legal definition of “rape” is “far narrower” than the word is understood in “common modern parlance.”

The former requires forcible, unconsented-to penetration with one’s penis. But he said that the conduct the jury effectively found Trump liable for — forced digital penetration — meets a more common definition of rape. He cited definitions offered by the American Psychological Association and the Justice Department, which in 2012 expanded its definition of rape to include penetration “with any body part or object.”[6]







They shouldn't have settled.  They allowed a bully to intimidate them.  They refused to stand up.  Each time someone does that, it emboldens a bully.  Yes, the judge overseeing the trial against ABC NEWS is a Trumpette, a media hater and gruesome individual.  But the reality is she was not the final say. 

You have laid down before the monster.  In doing so, you make it harder for everyone other outlet practicing actual journalism to do their job.




ABC News' decision to settle a defamation lawsuit filed by President-elect Donald Trump drew harsh criticism from former New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan Monday.
Writing on her Substack page, Sullivan ripped ABC for agreeing to pay $15 million to Trump's presidential library in exchange for the president-elect dropping his defamation lawsuit against the network.
Among other things, Sullivan predicted that ABC News' settlement with Trump will only encourage him to launch more lawsuits against news organizations who give his administration negative coverage.




Liz Skalka (HUFFINGTON POST) added, "President-elect Donald Trump said he’s planning a lawsuit against the Des Moines Register over its final election poll showing Trump running several points behind Vice President Kamala Harris in Iowa, a traditionally red state."  And now?  Now we have Satan  Trump declaring publicly that these attacks he's been launching on the press?  That they should actually be carried out by the Justice Dept which brings us to our final media lesson -- the First Amendment never seems more important than when we're at risk of losing it. 


 
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
 
Poll1 { display:none; }