Travelogues are never news. It's really that simple.
But who ever accused the press of getting the basics?
Last week was the news industry took their own vacation as they trotted around the globe after Barack Obama. The whole thing reeked of the Deadheads and, considering what they produced, that may be the apt comparison (and a pot-induced high would provide some excuse for the 'coverage').
Oh look! There's Barack in the Holy Land! And there he is in Jordan! And there he is England! And Germany! At a time when Where In The World Is Matt Lauer no longer results in a ratings bump for Today, why anyone should care that Barack -- who we always assumed was mobile and capable of travel -- traipsed across the MidEast and Europe in search of adoring throngs and press, was always a mystery? Maybe the press was just itching to see Europe?
They certainly weren't itching for journalism.
Late in the game, some would notice that. Andrea Mitchell (NBC News) may have expressed it better than most (and only a few bothered to try) when she declared on MSNBC's Hardball: "He didn't have reporters with him, he didn't have a press pool, he didn't have a press conference while he was on the ground in either Afghanistan or Iraq. What you're seeing is not reporters brought in, you're seeing selected pictures taken by the military, questions by the military, and what some would call fake interviews, because they're not interviews by a journalist. So there's a real press issue here." [Campsunk (Alegre's Corner) posted the video for those who'd like to watch.] There was always going to be "a real press issue" and it started with the fact of who the hell cares?
Seriously, who the hell cares that Barack got his passport stamped?
We were supposed to believe -- to focus on one of the countries Mitchell noted -- that Iraqis gave a damn about the visit. That they were thrilled. And happy. And thank goodness for Saint Barack of Anitoch. Like Saint Nicephorus of Antioch there is no evidence whatsoever of any miracles performed by St. Barack; however, Nicephorus just had Matthew (and possibly Luke) while Barack got the entire US press corps to invent him.
On the very face of it, the left should have damn well known better with regards to Iraq. You expect the right-wing to reduce Iraqis to a US cheering section and to pawns with no real thoughts or desires of their own. But that Barack 'Magic' had all the gals turning into gushing Heddas and Lollys -- everyone from the breathless Aileen Alfandary (news reader of KPFA) to Tom Hayden (who has truly become a John Waters parody of himself).
When even the left can't stop from going ga-ga and soft in the head, you really have to appreciate the work of Said Rifai and Siaf Rasheed (Los Angeles Times) who, wacky move, decided that to know what Iraqis actually thought, you might have to, you know, speak to them. We think Khalil Ibrahim said it best, "If either McCain or Obama visits Iraq, it would be for campaign purposes, and therefore at this point in time it won't have any effect on the situation in Iraq." What Rifai and Rasheed did was reporting. Reporting is not a CSpan feed from exotic locales. Nor is 'Barack huddles with al-Maliki!' reporting -- take note, Good Morning America. But that sort of fluff does 'get-the-get' -- who knew Barack was right up there with the Victims of Sitdowns? Terry Moran landed an exclusive . . . Barack infomerical for Nightline.
Last week it was time for all the women haters to pile on CBS Evening News' Katie Couric. First it was SHE ASKED HIM THAT QUESTIONS THREE TIMES! (Actually, four times.) Then it was all about how Katie (& company) had covered for McCain. They'd hidden what McCain said. No, they didn't find it as newsworthy of other remarks made. They aired what, in their judgment, was news. You can disagree with them on that, you can't claim a cover-up.
The way the lie goes, a little War Hawk who pimped the Iraq War before it started (Spensy Ackerman) broke the censorship story, the one CBS was hiding!
Spensy isn't much of a reporter. In fact, he's not a reporter. In the tank for Barack, Spensy thought the way to live blog US Gen David Petraeus and US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker testifying to the US Senate (two different committees -- one in the morning, one in the afternoon) back in April was to pimp the man who gives him the tingles (Barack) and render the woman (Hillary Clinton) invisible. He thought he was being 'cute' (he's never cute) by claiming he lost the feed during the five minutes plus of Hillary's exchange; however, he was at a computer. Had he really lost the feed, he could have gone online and pulled up CSpan TV for the streaming video or CSpan Radio for the streaming audio. He didn't do that. He wasn't interested in covering Hillary so he censored her. Now he wants to act outraged by CBS News?
Spensy went online to CBS and read the transcript of the full interview. That's where he found what he insists is oh-so-important (read the transcript and make your own call). The very fact that CBS News posted the full transcript (and video) online makes it a hard sell on the "censorship!" and "hiding" charges -- but watch as all the pathetic males bark.
Why they're really barking is rather obvious. It's not about McCain, it's about the interview Couric conducted with Barack Obama.
Yes, she did ask him repeatedly about the 'surge.' So what? He didn't answer her question --repeatedly. What she did is called journalism. And, as usual when journalism is practiced around Barack, he can't handle it and his groupies and Cult go into overdrive (as they did after the ABC debate between Barack and Hillary) screaming like wounded banshees.
Here's the first portion of that exchange from the CBS transcript.
Couric: Before the surge, as you know, Senator, there were 80 to 100 U.S. casualties a month, the country was rife with sectarian violence, and you raised a lot of eyebrows on this trip saying even knowing what you know now, you still would not have supported the surge. People may be scratching their heads and saying, "Why?"
Obama: Well ... because ... what I was referring to, and I've consistently referred to, is the need for a strategy that actually concludes our involvement in Iraq and moves Iraqis to take responsibility for the country.
Couric: But didn't the surge ....
Obama: And ....
Couric: .... help do that?
Obama: Let me finish, Katie. What happens is that if we continue to put $10 billion to $12 billion a month into Iraq, if we are willing to send as many troops as we can muster continually into Iraq? There's no doubt that that's gonna have an impact. But it doesn't meet our long-term strategic goal, which is to make the American people safer over the long term. If that means that we're detracting from our efforts in Afghanistan, where conditions are deteriorating, if it means that we are distracted from going after Osama bin Laden who is still sending out audio tapes and is operating training camps where we know terrorists' actions are being plotted. If we have shifted away from the central front of terrorism as a consequence of enormous and continuing investments in Iraq, then that's a poor strategic choice. And ultimately, what we've got to do is - we have to recognize that Iraq is just one of our ... security problems. It's not the only one. We've got big problems in Afghanistan. We've got a significant threat in Iran. We've got to deal with Pakistan and the fact that there are safe havens there. Those are all the factors and all the issues that I've gotta take into account when I'm president of the United States.
The question was about the 'surge' and why Barack says the 'surge' worked but says he wouldn't have supported back then even knowing what he knows now? He goes off to Afghanistan and Pakistan, he does not answer that question. Back to the transcript and we've added a ":" that it leaves out in one spot:
Couric: All that may be true. But do you not give the surge any credit for reducing violence in Iraq?
Obama: No, no ... of course I have. There is no doubt that the extraordinary work of our U.S. forces has contributed to a lessening of the violence, just as making sure that the Sadr militia stood down or the fact that the Sunni tribes decided to flip and work with us instead of with al-Qaeda -- something that we hadn't anticipated happening. All those things have contributed to a reduction in violence. So this, in no way, detracts from the great efforts of our young men and women in uniform. In fact, that's one of the most striking things about visiting Iraq is to see how dedicated they are, what a great job they do -- all those things ... are critically important. What I'm saying is it does not solve the broader strategic question that we have been dealing with over the last five, six, seven years. And that is how do we take the limited resources we have, both militarily and financially, and apply them in such a way that we are making America as safe as possible? And I believe that my approach is the right one.
If he's accepting that the 'surge' worked, then he is saying he was wrong on that aspect regarding Iraq. Barack has touted his superior judgment, it is a fair question and one that needs to be asked until he responds.
Couric: But talking microcosmically, did the surge, the addition of 30,000 additional troops ... help the situation in Iraq?
Obama: Katie, as ... you've asked me three different times, and I have said repeatedly that there is no doubt that our troops helped to reduce violence. There's no doubt.
Couric: But yet you're saying ... given what you know now, you still wouldn't support it … so I'm just trying to understand this.
Obama: Because ... it's pretty straightforward. By us putting $10 billion to $12 billion a month, $200 billion, that's money that could have gone into Afghanistan. Those additional troops could have gone into Afghanistan. That money also could have been used to shore up a declining economic situation in the United States. That money could have been applied to having a serious energy security plan so that we were reducing our demand on oil, which is helping to fund the insurgents in many countries. So those are all factors that would be taken into consideration in my decision-- to deal with a specific tactic or strategy inside of Iraq.
Couric: And I really don't mean to belabor this, Senator, because I'm really, I'm trying ... to figure out your position. Do you think the level of security in Iraq ...
Obama: Yes.
Couric: .... would exist today without the surge?
Obama: Katie, I have no idea what would have happened had we applied my approach, which was to put more pressure on the Iraqis to arrive at a political reconciliation. So this is all hypotheticals. What I can say is that there's no doubt that our U.S. troops have contributed to a reduction of violence in Iraq. I said that, not just today, not just yesterday, but I've said that previously. What that doesn't change is that we've got to have a different strategic approach if we're going to make America as safe as possible.
He never answers the question and, after the fourth evasion, Couric moves on.
It was embarrassing for Barack. But, as is so often the case, it was embarrassing because he couldn't answer the question.
There are a number of ways that the question can be answered but running off to Afghanistan or Pakistan in your answer isn't one of them. A left position would be as follows:
The 'surge' has not worked. When people say the 'surge' has worked that confusing realities in Iraq and crediting the 'surge' for things it has not done. 1) The 'surge' runs for at the same time that an increasing number of Iraqis are leaving the country -- the external refugee crisis. When over a million people flee a country, violence -- like the population -- may go down. 2) As Ambassador Croker admitted to the Senate in April, the US government is paying $300 a month to Iraqis that they call "Awakening Council" members (also "Sons of Iraq") and putting these Iraqis on the payroll so that they will stop attacking American troops. The huge sums of money paid out each month have a great deal to do with any drop in violence just as any school yard would see a 'drop in violence' if the school yard bullies were paid off. 3) Moqtada al-Sadr and the US military have a cease-fire/truce. When it was temporarily in question during the March assault on Basra, you saw an increase in violence. All of these things factor into what it is going on in Iraq. The 'surge' is not responsible for this. To credit the 'surge' is to overlook the fact that US troop brigades have been and are being brought home.
He could have added any number of details to the above or any additional points. But he didn't do that. He accepted that the 'surge' worked. (It didn't work.) Once you accept that, if you did not support the 'surge' before it started, it is fair game to ask you why you say today -- when you say it worked -- that you still wouldn't have supported it back then.
It has nothing to do with Pakistan or Afghanistan. That's a tired debater's ploy of shift the focus when you can't answer the question. The question was about Iraq. No one prevented Barack from saying the 'surge' had not worked. Had he answered as we did above, Katie Couric might have had a follow up for clarification but the very fact that he was not saying the 'surge' didn't work would explain why he didn't support it then and wouldn't support it now. (That his tutors are so stupid is only a surprise if you don't know grasp how cautious they are and how quick they are to accept each day's news headline as the ultimate reality.)
According to claims put forward by Arianna Huffington on ABC's This Week -- and by many others at many other outlets -- Barack is now the presumed Democratic Party presidential nominee because of his 'stand' on the Iraq War. He better get used to being asked about the Iraq War. And having claimed he was right, that he has superior judgment and that his position on Iraq has never waivered, Iraq will most likely always be one of the issues he will be probed on in any sit-down interview. That's only a surprise if you've forgotten his claim in Denver back in January, "It's not enough to say you'll be ready from Day One - you have to be right from Day One."
After that statement, he can't be upset when he's questioned today as to how he can say the 'surge' worked but that he still wouldn't have supported it. "It's time for new leadership that understands that the way to win a debate with John McCain," he declared at the end of January in the Los Angeles debate, "is not by nominating someone who agreed with him" on this and that. Well now Barack's agreeing that the 'surge' worked. He's agreeing with McCain. It is an issue.
The groupies don't like it but that's reality. Instead of booing and hissing at Charlie Gibson or Katie Couric when Barack can't deliver an answer, his Cult would do better to insist that Barack is prepared before the interview begins.
That exchange caught the most attention from Couric's interview with Barack (and had the Cult ready to nail her to the wall for anything). But the Couric interview was the strongest and it was real journalism.
Couric also asked him why he had held no hearings while chairing a Senate Foreign Relations Committee's subcommittee, especially when he says Afghanistan is "the central front in the war on terror" and again, he tried to side-step the question. This time he insisted what "I chair is the European subcommittee" so it wasn't necessary because "any issues related to Afghanistan were always dealt with in the full committee". Couric let that slide and she shouldn't have. Click here for a list of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittees. You should be able to note the obvious: There is no subcommittee on Afghanistan. Subcommitees work on issues that the committee takes up. That's how it works, that's the chain of work flow. The committee Barack 'chaired' should have been a leader on the issue of Afghanistan.
If you're not grasping that, you aren't grasping which foreign forces are in Afghanistan. From NATO's own website: "NATO is a key component of the international community’s engagement in Afghanistan, assisting the Afghan authorities in providing security and stability paving the way for reconstruction and effective governance. . . . NATO’s role is a key part of the Afghanistan Compact, a five-year plan between the government of Afghanistan and the international community, which sets goals relating to the security, governance and economic development of the country. " Click here to find out which countries make up NATO (if you don't already know). Barack's committee is supposed to provide oversight of NATO. If you're not grasping it, Gordon Brown, Prime Minister of England, has made no secret that he sees Afghanistan as the battle for England. He has made no secret of the fact that he feels more troops are needed in Afghanistan. Not just this year but since he became Prime Minister.
Couric's follow up question should have been, "You're saying that Afghanistan is something the full Senate committee should address and you're touting Afghanistan as 'the central front in the war on terror.' Well on January 31st, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on Afghanistan, heard testimony from the State Dept.'s Richard Boucher and you didn't attend that hearing. Do you think now you should have been at the hearing?"
We're sure Barack would have tried to weasel out with the claim that he was debating Hillary in Los Angeles. Yes, that night. The hearing started at 9:30 a.m. EST. With a three hour time difference between the East Coast and the West Coast and a 'new' thing called "airplanes," there was no reason for him to skip the hearing.
While the hearing was going on, Barack was speaking at the Trade Technical Community College -- which was only one of his many campaign stops that day. We do not agree with a 'war on terror,' nor do we claim that Afghanistan needs more US troops or more war. But Barack claims that . . . now. What did he say about 'ready on day one isn't enough, you have to be right on day one'? On January 31st when Afghanistan was the issue of the committee he 'serves' on, he thought it was more important to visit community colleges and drum up votes than to focus on what he calls 'the central front in the war on terror.'
Couric did better on the issue of Israel where Barack attempted to go light and airy as usual and to dismiss questions of whether Israel, in his opinion, had a right to declare a war with Iran. He insisted that was speculation and he wasn't going to speculate. (He's been far less reluctant on that subject in his speeches.) Couric pressed on, "Was it appropriate, in your view, for Israel to take out that suspected Syrian nuclear site last year?" The left may want to brace themselves for his answer, "Yes. I think that there was sufficient evidence that they were developing a site using a nuclear or using .... a blueprint that was similar to the North Korean model."
Sufficient evidence? In April, the White House released 'evidence.' As with the Iraq War, their visual 'evidence' was spotty. A videotape that revealed nothing and several laughable photographs. The Syrian government, in fact, compared it exactly to the 'evidence' offered of Iraq's WMD program (which turned out to be non-existant). In addition The International Atomic Energy Agency's director Mohammed El Baradei condemned Israel's bombing in a statement released in April, "The director general views the unilateral use of force by Israel as undermining the due process of verification that is at the heart of the nonproliferation regime."
But Barack's okay with it?
He told Couric -- based on a one-day fly over stop -- that Iraq's "scary situation's improved" and spoke of how you could "see that markets are reopening, that in places like Anbar province you have seen a complete reversal in terms of the attitude of Sunni tribesmen towards American forces there." He sure 'saw' a lot in a one day visit that lasted less than 24 hours. Anbar is where the "Awakening" Council begins -- pay off your enemies so they won't attack. It is far from a peaceful region and, were John McCain to make these type of observations, the 'left' would be eating him for lunch (most days, they just have him for breakfast).
Barack has no promise on Iraq. He has no pledge. In March of this year, Samantha Power made it very clear as she told the BBC he wouldn't be bound by any pledge on the campaign trail and would decide it after he enters the White House. Barack repeated those sentiments on CNN June 5th. The 16-month non-pledge is also non-withdrawal despite Tom Hayden creaming his own shorts over it. Barack says combat troops would be withdrawn (in his non-promise) and that a residual force would be left behind. Estimates of that 'residual force' most commonly peg the number of US troops which would remain in Iraq past 2010 at 50,000. (Please note that there are approximately 32,000 US troops in Afghanistan today). That's not an end to the illegal war. Better, apparently, to stone CBS Evening News than to talk about what Barack said on Iraq. On national television, Couric noted that his talk of "residual force" doesn't include anything "specific, though some of your advisors have said it could be tens of thousands of troops. Why can't you be more specific as to what you envision?" His response included the following:
As I've said before . . . I am not interested in a false choice between either perfect inflexibility in which the next 16 months or the next two years I ignore anything that's happening in Iraq. Or, alternatively, that I just have an open-ended, indefinite occupation of Iraq in which we're not putting any pressure on the Iraqis to stand up . . . take this burden on. What I'm gonna do is to set a vision of where we need to go, a clear and specific timeframe within which we're gonna pull our combat forces out.
Nowhere in his answer above (or elsewhere in lengthy response) could he give a number. He did, however, agree he would be listening to "conditions on the ground" and that's not what he's told people when he had a Democratic primary opponent. Hillary Clinton said there was no military win and the US troops need to come home. (Joe Biden made similar comments with the qualifier that unless Iraq could become three regions -- a Kudish one, a Shia one and a Sunni one -- and when the Senate refused to endorse that, that ended the partitioning of Iraq which means Biden was on record stating if he were president, US forces would be coming home.)
What Barack's doing is saying that it might be 16 months, it might be 2 years, it might be longer. And what he's promising is not the end of the illegal war. It's a reduction in the number of US forces in Iraq (by approximately two-thirds if "conditions on the ground" hold -- and he's previously told The New York Times that if they don't 'hold,' he's fine with sending more US troops back into Iraq).
He's not an anti-war candidate but he's not even an "end the war in Iraq" candidate. He declared that Iraqi forces were "more and more" grabbing "the lead in actions where we're playing more of an advisory role." Barack Obama, read Nancy A. Youssef's "Iraqi forces aren't quite ready to take charge" (McClatchy Newspapers). It's very curious that the man Tom Hayden publicly hates (Joe Biden) could note in an open Senate hearing this year that the US is propping up a government in Iraq that is not supported by the people and yet Tom Hayden's man-crush can't ever point that out.
Publicly hates? Let's take a side-trip to news that's not getting traction. John McCain is the root of all evil . . . say the Democrats today. Of course, in 2004, the party's nominee was considering whether or not to ask McCain to be his running mate. Friday on NOW on PBS, John Edwards revealed he either didn't get this year's memo or he forgot it. In a sit-down interview with David Brancaccio (not the one on stage that also aired during the program), Edwards made some surprising remarks while discussing poverty. He noted -- as the press has heavily reported -- that after he suspended his campaigning, he met with both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to press them on the issue and extract promises. He then revealed he'd also met with John McCain to address the issue and found McCain receptive to several aspects. Brancaccio was obviously surprised as evidenced by both his facial expression and his immediate comment.
While we're on the topic of PBS, Foreign Exchange with Daljit Dhaliwal. Two Sundays ago we noted the Camilo Mejia interview. [Camilo is a war resister and chair of Iraq Veterans Against the War.] A number of readers were interested in watching or reading that. You couldn't. The segment they offer for streaming online is not the segment with Camilo. They state they offer podcasting (with no cost mentioned); however, 51 of you e-mailed to complain about the fact that the podcasting option did not work. One of you e-mailed Foreign Exchange and got what we saw (and see) as a laughable "The dog ate my homework" reply. There are problems with the website, but they're working on it! When the host of the program states repeatedly during the broadcast that you can visit the website and stream the program or see transcripts, you damn well better fix the problem immediately. (Two weeks later, it is still not fixed and, yes, on Friday, she was plugging the website again.) We weren't ignoring the complaints, we were holding them for a reason.
A number of you decided, "Screw it, I'll pay!" Pay for either transcript or a copy of the show. The host never mentions that you have to pay for a transcript and makes it sound as though the transcripts are posted at the website -- they are not posted. To purchase you needed to pay $10.00 by credit card for the transcript and $25.00 for a DVD copy of the program.
But here's the problem that the 35 who decided "Screw it, I'll pay!" (Camilo is someone worth listening to) then ran into: When you click on the link, you're taken to the payment page which gives you an amount $5.00 less than what Foreign Exchange tells you that you have to pay.
No, they can't even get their prices right. One person did pay for a transcript, paid $5.00, and his concern was that he might not get it because that's cheaper than the price Foreign Exchange gives. We planned to wait until today to comment, hoping that he would have received his transcript. Having announced in Friday's Iraq snapshot that we would cover it today, we were a bit nervous when Friday came and went without his receiving the transcript. Fortunately, it arrived Saturday. Eight days after he ordered it. Apparently (and this is how the e-mail from Foreign Exchange reads) they don't even type the thing up unless someone orders it.
It's strange that they would have to type it since, in these days of closed captioning, they should have something resembling a transcript already. More strange -- and they took offense to this -- was the fact that they physically send it to you, via snail mail. Unlike some programs (don't say which when interacting with them -- it sets them off), you do not pay and then receive a code via e-mail that you plug in at a site and get a transcript. You pay and you wait. And then you wait some more.
Saturday afternoon we spoke with the reader about what he received. Postage was $1.17. The transcript didn't sound accurate. We didn't think he was lying but didn't want to make those claims without physically seeing it so we asked him if he could fax it or scan it and send it to us. As two who regularly review transcripts of news and public affairs programs, we've never seen anything like it. We're speaking of the layout itself -- as well as the marks on the copy in highlighter (put in before the transcript was mailed). The pages note that a Shelley Chance of Pro. Docs (http://www.prodocservices.com/) did the transcript. It's not like any transcript you're used to -- it looks more like a student paper. It's also not very accurate.
When the complaints started coming in about Foreign Exchange's website, we knew we were going to have to provide a transcript of the Camilo section. So we pulled out the disc of the episode we'd been passed on and went to work. (Transcription runs in Hilda's Mix this Tuesday.) It was also used for Friday's snapshot. As we read over the 'official' transcript (after it was faxed to us), we couldn't believe this was from a professional service. Several sentences, to give one example, spoken by Camilo are rendered as one sentence that last nine full lines. Double dashes are used for asides -- at the start -- never to close them out. We started to wonder if the real reason Foreign Exchange doesn't post transcripts is to save the program further embarrassment?
If that sounds rude, an eight day wait after payment is received strikes us as rude as well. Telling people watching you on TV that visiting the program's site will allow them to watch episodes and read transcripts is just flat-out lying. We really don't care that the program is having 'website problems' or that they're trying to 'fix them.' If you're promoting the website online and telling people they can find things there that they can't find, you either immediately fix it or you stop lying to people on camera. Two Fridays ago, they knew the website did not offer what Dhaliwal promised. And yet they continued to say on camera that it did. All that is is is lying. In the e-mails here (which we read), readers kept saying, "We're not blaming you."
Thank you for that but it is our problem, our error and our mistake. We apologize. We did check the website when we wrote our commentary. We checked by visiting and giving a quick look. We should have check it out completely. We saw the video boxes and assumed it was -- as the show said -- the entire episode. We saw the podcast options at the bottom and didn't check them out either. We were scanning quickly and aren't sure whether we even checked for transcripts or even saw the "transcript" button (we obviously didn't click on it or we would have known you had to pay for it). So it is our problem and we apologize for it. Last week, Gossip Girls was among the shows we were reviewing and we knew it wasn't streaming online (that was a big mini-scandal) so we didn't bother to offer a link to the site. It is supposedly now about to start streaming again. (They just knew that streaming was cutting into their broadcast audience. Last week they decided it wasn't.)
Our mistake was in believing what was said on PBS and, goodness knows, we've covered PBS more than long enough to know never to just believe what they say on air.
Bill Moyers Journal remains one of the only PBS public affairs programs that meets the mandate for PBS in terms of serving the community. Are you hard of hearing, deaf or with hearing difficulties? They've got the transcripts posted. Are you on an older computer, dial up or have some other computer problem? You can read the transcripts or just listen to the program. Do you and your computers have the ability to enjoy state of the art of the video streaming? They offer that. They also have a blog where you can comment. In terms of the mandate's requirement that they serve the public, Bill Moyers Journal has that covered online. It's a damn shame that other PBS programs can't grasp that America includes the disabled and that it includes the low-tech who can't afford every add on and option in the book.
We offer negative criticism of the Moyers program frequently -- and will in the future -- but we always try to note that regardless of what the content is, it is accessible to anyone who can be by a computer. In The Common Ills community, audio links became a requirement due to the fact that there were couples where one had perfect vision and the other didn't. Text only meant that everything had to be read outloud. An audio or video options, meant that the sighted partner could start streaming and they could listen together. By the same token, those with hearing problems couldn't enjoy the bulk of Pacifica Radio programs so community member Eli took it on himself to transcribe the headlines from Free Speech Radio News each week for the gina & krista round-robin. (Free Speech Radio News now offers a great deal of text options.) Especially for those members with hearing difficulties, the snapshot now provides transcripts (partial or full) for audio links that do not. None of this is difficult to grasp and is part of PBS' mandate to serve the communities.
In terms of content and serving the communities, watching PBS Friday night was rather depressing. We believe they're calling it "The Choice" and it starts in October . . . on Frontline. It's the presidential race. So how does Frontline think it can cover said race without covering all the candidates. The choice, according to Frontline's advertisement, is a two-person choice. You can vote for Barack or McCain. All other candidates are rendered invisible and no one's supposed to notice or complain (an organized campaign might force Frontline to expand its scope). PBS was created to give voice and cover topics that the broadcast networks were not covering. Somehow Frontline has made the choice that "The Choice" is only about two parties. It's elitist and, to use Ralph Nader's apt phrase, it's political bigotry.
We could turn to racial bigotry but we think that will be the topic this week . . . when CNN's embarrassing two-parter on race in America airs. Having seen an early cut of that two-parter, we expect that many will be complaining. We'll simply note that offering two programs begs for complaints. One is the "Black Men" and the other is "Black Women and Family." Apparently, by CNN's take, the "Black Man" is not connected to the "Black Family." But, on the plus for the "Black Man," he is so much more important than the "Black Woman" or "Black children" that he's worthy of his own program while the other two have to share. With all the stereotypes (and Barack's promoting) of the 'missing' African-American father, we really think CNN should have reconsidered the split.
"Women and children." We keep coming back to that bad CNN special. And we think about how TV is so often a reflection of either where we're headed or where people want us to head. Barack's "feeling blue" remarks (about abortion) are frightening enough. CNN is lumping grown adults in with children . . . on the women's side. Neither is a full person in CNN's eyes or worthy of their own special. Only the males are. What it's really doing (and we believe intentionally though friends at CNN disagree) is trying to bring back the stereotypes that the feminist movement demolished years ago. Like liquid metal (in Terminator 2), the sexism just regroups over and over and keeps coming back. You do know, we asked, that not all African-American women are mothers or want to be? "Most women are mothers." That was the response.
Well, golly, last time we checked, pregnancy required egg and sperm. So without any hard numbers on the mother issue, we could shoot back that most men are fathers. But that's not how the special breaks it down.
The news broke down last week. If you paid attention you caught it. The gushing over the Berlin speech. Barack spoke in Berlin. To a crowd of a 100,000 or 200,000 or 300,000 or -- they just seemed to make up whatever figure they wanted. (The police estimate was approximately 200,000.) So giddy and dizzy were they on his attempt to turn the duet "(Love Lift Us) Up Where We Belong" into a one-man ditty (which was as unsuccessful last week as when Diana Ross turned "Endless Love" into a solo number on her Why Do Fools Fall In Love album), that they weren't too concerned about the rest of his schedule. Late in the day Friday, they were noticing, gee, Barack was supposed to visit wounded US service members in Germany Thursday but he cancelled. Oh, his campaign explained that the Pentagon asked him to.
But wait, that's not reality.
After the Friday network news casts, Dan Balz was reporting ["Obama Campaign Cancels Visit to U.S. Service Members in Germany" (Washington Post)]:
The Pentagon said on Friday that it did not prevent an Obama visit.
"The senator's staff was informed of the limits on what the military can do with respect to a political campaign and how we could support a senator's visit to Landstuhl and, quite frankly, I expected them to have the visit," Whitman said.
Grasp that. Grasp how many US reporters were following Barack around and no one thought, "Hmm. Wounded GI event got cancelled. Let me dig into this?"
No, because that would have required (a) thought and (b) action. A travelogue is never news. But it sure ate up all the time on network news, on cable news, on 'independent' broadcast news. With nothing to show for it. Look, the then-First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy wowed them in Paris, Vienna and Greece (with her spouse at her side, note) decades ago but she also came back with something tangible to show for it (a gorgeous wardrobe). Barack wants to make like Jackie and we don't even get the fashion spread. It wasn't news. Summer vacations rarely are.
