C.I.: Correct. The media's looking for any excuse not to cover it -- that's in this country and in England. Live television coverage in England ended within the first hour of Tuesday's hearing. So I'm really not sure how some pompous ass saying, "Nothing new here! And I blogged on it a few years ago!" accomplishes anything. There are new things being put before the hearing including new lies and instead of ignoring that people should be calling it out.
Jim: We're doing a piece here on it and I think we really got how much time you'd put in on this when you were quoting and citing various journalists' opinions on the hearing. Things that aren't necessarily making it into the straight reporting. Also true is Rebecca has some information which she'll probably share here and Elaine's been following the hearings but she'll probably table that due to her belief that personal is personal.
Elaine: And offline.
Jim: And offline. Okay. Rebecca, why don't you reveal what's going on that you know of.
Rebecca: Is it going to be a whitewash, the Iraq Inquiry? Maybe, maybe not. I don't know. I don't expect a lot from the committee but I do expect revelations. But the chief concern of Labour leaders right now is how the hearings are impacting the party. As I shared this spring and summer repeatedly at my sight, Labour was polling on Gordon Brown and the results were bad and got progressively worse. And Brown dismissed the polls to leadership. He thought he had a bounce coming up. He didn't. And it was only on his vacation in August that he finally started to face the reality that he's a drag on the party. He still, even now, tells leadership that he can turn it around but I don't think he can.
Jim: Based on?
Rebecca: On the polling.
Jim: Talk about that for people not reading your site.
Rebecca: Oh, okay. A friend that I worked with on some p.r. issues in the past is involved in the polling and has sought my input on the data. I'm not being paid for it and I was hesitant to blog on it at first. Then I was encouraged to do so because leadership wanted Brown to step down before he did further harm to the party. Once given the go-ahead, I began blogging on it constantly.
Jim: Last week, in England, a rumor emerged about Gordon Brown being replaced with someone and that's someone you've mentioned at your site. Do you know the man rumors are saying will be Brown's replacement?
Rebecca: Do not know him, have never spoken to him, have never e-mailed, texted or had any communication with him. David Miliband. Elaine and C.I. know him, I don't.
Jim: And I'm sure they have nothing to say on that matter.
Elaine: I will say a rumor's a rumor or it would be labeled "fact." I will say I like David. I will further add that when Rebecca's speaking of her sources and her friends, they are not people that C.I. or I know.
Jim: Do you think Miliband will replace Brown, Elaine?
Elaine: I have no idea. Gordon Brown needs to step down. Rebecca conveyed this at her site throughout the spring and summer. Labour leaders were correct to worry about the drag he was on the party. The sooner he's out of office and a new leader is in, the quicker Labour can work on convincing the people that this is a different Labour Party. Brown's too connected to Blair and too similar to him. Even more connected to Blair than John McCain was connected to George W. Bush. Brown drags every election down. As for Miliband, he's more than capable for the job. Rebecca wrote of him not knowing much about him other than what her friends were telling her and also she knew his appearance. There's no question that he's photogenic and, yes, that is a plus especially when attempting to put a new face on the party. But I don't live in England, I'm not a British citizen and I'm not going to predict across the Atlantic what's going to happen there.
Jim: Okay, thank you, Elaine. Back to the inquiry. Let's say the press ignores it, C.I.. Let's say they ignore it and don't cover it. How is that harmful?
C.I.: Well it's harmful to history and it's harmful to the present and it's harmful to the future. The Iraq War was built on lies. In England, Tony Blair tried to scare the British with the false claim that Iraq had WMD they could attack England with within 45 minutes. In the US, Bully Boy Bush and others in his administration repeatedly linked Iraq to 9-11 even though there was no link. The press didn't call out that linking in real time. Then they were surprised when it took root in people's minds. You have people -- Thomas E. Ricks -- making those false links today. Those links need to be called out. You also have an illegal war that hits the seven year mark in March. If you were 13 in March 2003, you're now 20-years-old. Some younger people may not have been able to pay attention back then. Some who were able to -- of all ages -- may have forgotten key details in the passage of time. It's important to know how a world was lied into war and it's important for historical reasons. It's also important for right now when Iran remains a target of some politicians. If a case is made for war on Iran, will it be a genuine case or will it be more spin? For people to determine that, they need strong walk throughs on how people are lied into war. That's what the Iraq War is.
Jim: I'm going to stop there because we do have an article we're going to write this edition on the topic. Marcia wrote "With Six You Get Egg Roll." She wanted to bring an aspect of that over here. That's the title of a movie starring Doris Day. Marcia?
Marcia: Ruth and I both caught All Things Considered, NPR, on Tuesday and were really appalled. They were discussing Thanksgiving dishes and one was from the fifties or sixties, a mock plum pudding. It was apparently very vibrant looking.
Ruth: And tasted awful.
Marcia: Right. The male cook said it tasted awful and advised the female host not to even try it. She then went on to say it looked like one of those things from a Doris Day movie and how you expected to see Doris Day come out of the kitchen carrying that.
Jim: Marcia paused so I'll ask: And?
Marcia: I don't know who All Things Considered thought they were describing but that wasn't Doris Day's movie persona.
Ruth: It was June Allyson in any of her dreadful films and any other little talented actresses who did nothing but play helpmates.
Marcia: Doris Day wasn't the 'little woman in the kitchen.' In the bulk of her films, she's not even shown cooking. Even in With Six You Get Egg Roll, where she's got three kids, she's a working woman -- she runs a lumber store -- and has a house keeper.
Ruth: And certainly that is true of her most famous films such as Pillow Talk which started her teamings with Rock Hudson. In that one, Thelma Ritter's her housekeeper. Again, June Allyson you'd see in the apron all the time. Doris Day played strong women characters whose lives were not defined by cooking for men.
Marcia: And Ruth and I talked about it and talked about it and we're really offended by it. This 'analysis' of Day came on NPR from a woman. Why? Because she didn't know what she was talking about and Doris Day sprung to her mind. It didn't matter that her slams against Day didn't reflect who Doris played onscreen, she just needed a name to hurl the snide at.
C.I.: I didn't hear the report on NPR so I can't comment on that but I'll share a story that may give perspective on how loose people in the press feel they can be with pop culture. Newsweek, in the 90s, did an S&M story -- that's what it was -- and on how it was more popular as a theme on TV shows. As one of their examples, they offered that Matthew Perry's character Chandler, on NBC's Friends, had handcuffed a woman.
Mike: Wait. Rachel's boss handcuffed Chandler for sex. He didn't handcuff any woman.
C.I.: You are correct. And so were the many, many readers of Newsweek who pointed that error out in letters. But they didn't care, the editors. And one of them told me the story and thought I'd share his laughter over it. I didn't and don't. And as I told him, "If you report it, if you think it's important enough to mention in your magazine, then it's important enough for you to get it right and to instead say 'It's just a TV show' is bulls**t'." And that was the excuse for not doing a correction: It was just a TV show. Well you're the ones covering it, you're the ones writing about it. It was required that you write about it correctly. You didn't and instead of correcting your error now want to make fun of the people complaining about it.
Jim: Can you give another example? That really covers it but there's an ongoing battle you have with a friend at The New York Times.
C.I.: That's over. They finally got it correct. There's a man at Rolling Stone, Joe Levy, whom the paper allowed to create his own title. Actually, he's now at Blender. But back then, he was at Rolling Stone and he didn't like his title at that magazine. The New York Times allowed Levy to create his own title by which they would refer to him in their articles. It wasn't the position he held on the masthead and it wasn't a position at the magazine. I even checked with Jann to make sure the masthead wasn't just out of date -- Jann S. Wenner, publisher of Rolling Stone. But Joe Levy didn't like his title so the paper allowed him to create a new one. When confronted repeatedly -- because they miscredited him for over a year, the friend Jim's referring to would ask: 'What does it matter?' What does it matter? You're the ones giving him a title in print. If it's not his title, don't give it to him. If no such position exists at the magazine, don't 'create' or 'invent' it for your paper. I'm really sorry that Joe Levy didn't like his job title. A lot of people don't like their job titles. Is The New York Times going to let all the other people invent their own titles as well? It's bulls**t. If you're saying, "Joe Levy is the ___ at Rolling Stone," that better be his title. And if it's not, you need to issue a correction and you need to stop referring to him as that. And it shouldn't take me griping to a friend at The Times about it. It never should have appeared in print, it was the editor's job to immediately check the title before the article went to print. Had it been checked, the question to the reporter would have been: "Why are we calling Levy a __ when he's not?" And the reply back would have been Levy doesn't like his title. And the journalistic response too that is: Too f**king bad. The New York Times is not supposed to be in the position of doing public relations, it's supposed to report the facts.
Jim: Thank you, I love that story. To me it eptomizes all that is wrong with The New York Times.
Marcia: And it goes to how the press treats popular cultural references. They want to make them, but they don't want to be held accountable for them. Doris Day was the name that stuck in the NPR woman's head so she went with the comparison even though it was a false one and grossly unfair to Doris Day who did play strong women at a time when few women were allowed to be strong on screen.
Mike: I would agree with that and take it to something Ruth said recently here. Last week, in fact, in "Roundtable." She was talking about NPR versus Pacifica and how NPR will play the statement in the news being said by the person. But Pacifica rarely does and more often you get a Kris Welch who deliberately takes an already bad statement and makes it worse by distorting it and if confronted she would claim, "Well everyone knew I was joking!" No, they wouldn't. You've just said X has said "All dogs should be shot dead" when he said "All dogs should be in a pound." People listening that havne't heard the original quote think you are accurately capturing what was said. But, like Bill O'Reilly, the Pacifica goons will claim, "I was joking!" It's really off-putting and Kris Welch is one of the worst, she's not only the one.
Betty: Andrea Lewis was awful about distorting what people said once she became host of Sunday Sedition.
Mike: I was thinking that but didn't say it.
Betty: Because she's dead? Boo-hoo. She's the one who disgraced her own name. She was something to listen to once upon a time but when she returned from her sabbatical, she became the worst about inventing quotes and she also ripped off AP something fierce.
C.I.: She really did. A friend at KPFA was always asking me to include her, Lewis, in the snapshots. I did that and friends at AP got on my ass saying, "That's our copy." And it was. And she even did that on the Steven D. Green verdict. Word for word, her 'report' was the Associated Press' copy. And she never attributed it. Every single word. I knew Andrea, I liked her, but I'm with Betty, she disgraced herself.
Betty: She really did. But there really aren't many at KPFA who haven't. And what's that woman I hate, the news reader?
C.I.: Aileen Alfandary.
Betty: She's another one who needs to say into the microphone, "Everything I'm telling you during this news break or on this evening news broadcast is Associated Press." I would never have guessed that so-called news readers would read the work of other news outlets and not give credit. But that's what happens at KPFA all the time.
Jim: Staying with media, an e-mail came in for Ava and C.I. Ava, you can reply to this, the reader wants to know why Bill O'Reilly is falsely claiming he got Bill Moyers fired. She, the reader's a woman, points out that you and C.I. have documented this "for almost two years" and she wasn't surprised to read Bill Moyers was leaving as a result. She's wondering if you plan to write about it?
Ava: I really don't know what Bill O'Reilly is saying, sorry. As for Bill Moyers. He was a negative for PBS and becoming more so. His fan base, a small group, loved him and didn't mind that he wasn't doing journalism. He used an hour of PBS each week to push for Barack beginning in the Democratic Party primaries. He was not a journalist and what he did was appalling. Because those things were wrongly applauded by the freaks -- they know who they are -- Bill got more and more loose with the standards. By the time he brought on a Communist and a Socialist to critique the Democratic Party and did not reveal to his audience that the two men were not Democrats, he had crossed his last line. When C.I. and I reported on that incident here, we were aware of it, as we explained in the article, because friends on the CPB were the ones bringing it to us. Bill Moyers is a liability to PBS and he's that because he's taken one short cut after another. He's that because he became a schill for candidate Barack Obama and then for the Obama administration -- a charge he's privately owned up to and wants to whine that he regrets it. It's too little, it's too late. PBS can't afford him. He's been highly dishonest with viewers and they can't afford to have someone like that on air knowing that he's gotten away with way too much and will only propagandize even more. So he's leaving, he's being pushed out. NOW's over as well for different reasons but, in part, due to the early Moyers' connection. If C.I. and I had reported on everything about Bill that the CPB's been saying since 2008, we wouldn't have written about anything but Bill Moyers. Instead, we largely avoided him. He's been pushed out of PBS and that's probably all either C.I. or myself will have to say on the subject unless he really goes stark raving mad on television between now and his last air date.
Jim: I will just add that, as the reader notes, Ava and C.I. have reported on this for almost two years now. They've reported when, for example, Bill had so crossed the journalistic line that some PBS stations refused to even carry that week's program. They've noted his 'let's talk about what's wrong with the Republican Party' that 'forgot' to invite on Republicans. That's not news and it's not public affairs. He became as sloppy as Amy Goodman. Okay, Kat's here but doing a spell check on her review and posting it so she might not speak until the very end. Stan and Cedric, I need for you to bring a topic you want to address and I've got one for Jess and Ann. So I'm going to move over to Jess and Ann. Ann, a number of people were surprised to find out that, like Jess, you'd supported Ralph Nader in previous elections. To clarify, in the 2008 election, all members of the community supported Ralph Nader except for Ava and C.I. who would only allow that they either supported Ralph or Cynthia McKinney and that they weren't going to say who because they don't believe in endorsing. But the rest of us supported Ralph in 2008. What's emerged since Ann started her own blog is the fact that, like Jess, she supported him in 2004 and also in 2000. Jess supported Ralph in 2000 but didn't vote for him because he wasn't old enough to vote then. So Jess, Ann, what do you think of Nader right now? What's he doing right or wrong?
Jess: Well, first off, C.I. just mouthed "Cindy Sheehan." So let me include that Ralph's her guest later today on Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox. I'd like to see him be more independent and more vocal. He's doing much more than the Green Party or any of their silly asses online but he's not doing enough. He needs to be on the administration every second of the day. Just holding them accountable.
Ann: I would agree with that. I think he's done a far better job than Cynthia McKinney. Maybe I can say that because I'm an African-American? Cynthia McKinney -- as Betty pointed out last week in the roundtable -- embarrassed herself. I have no respect for her now. She shouldn't have written that column to begin with and she sure as hell shouldn't have said that "we" all supported Barack in the 2008 presidential election. "We" didn't. And Cynthia, you do not speak for me. And how very sad that you were the Green Party's presidential candidate -- or Trojan horse -- and you reveal that despite being on the ballot in many states as a presidential candidate, you were supporting Barack Obama. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
Jess: I would agree with Ann and Betty and said so last week when Betty raised the issue. That's just embarrassing. My party's been embarrassing and lame this entire year. I understand Kimmy Wilder is a Green again -- which just goes to show you how useless the Green Party is that Kimmy I-Can-Green-No-More Wilder is back in the party. Apparently she grew tired of kissing Barack Obama's ass. At least for the moment.
Cedric: Kimmy. What a joke. The original White Mama. Now, I've got a topic. Stan and I have both been reading Hillary Clinton's Living History because C.I.'s has explained, repeatedly, how liars like the self-loathing lesbian Laura Flanders and Batsy Bitsy Reed of The Nation lied about Hillary and claimed that all she had was one speech on women's rights as First Lady to point to as feminist credentials. So it's really amazing to read Hillary's book and realize just what big liars Laura and Batsy were.
Stan: Good topic. Right. It's been an eye opener. And you have to wonder if Reed and Flanders were that ignorant or that big of liars. You also have to wonder about their rank sexism because many of the issues, for example, households headed by single mothers, may not have been seen as 'feminist' to them. Flanders, of course, has no children and never will have any. She's very anti-child. You have to wonder how much that played into her attacks on Hillary because, both before becoming First Lady and after, Hillary worked a great deal on issues involving children. Such as her work in 1998 on bankruptcy reform. Or what about Working Women Count in 1994? Laura Flanders -- Mike was talking about Kris Welch and I'm the way he is on Welch about Laura Flanders -- is just disgusting. She's a liar, she's a fake, she needs to leave the country and go back to England but, of course, they don't want her back so we're stuck with her.
Rebecca: Well, karma's got her, just look at her. She's obviously very unhappy. The corners of her mouth now permantly droop, she appears to be losing her hair and her complexion is a joke. And, as C.I. and Ava would say, "You get the face you deserve after forty." Flanders' face become more mannish every day. She's really a freak show in slow-mo.
Jim: Kat's review is now posted. Not only is it posted, it's cross-posted at the mirror site. It's entitled "Kat's Korner: Joni Mitchell's unearthed treasure." Kat, what would you add to any of the topics we've discussed?
Kat: I would echo most strongly what C.I. said about the Iraq Inquiry. That is important and it's one of those, we either make sure that as many people as possible know what happened or we accept that we will be lied into war over and over, repeatedly from here until the end of time. To me that is so basic and so important and yet the press is focused on everything but that inquiry -- the press in the US. I think, and I'm not talking about corporate media here, our media encourages us to be dumb, delights in it.
Jim: Alright. And that's going to be the last thoughts. This was a rush transcript. Our e-mail address is thirdestatesundayreview@yahoo.com.