Over the weekend,
NOW on PBS offered one of the best 'election' programs of 2008. Sadly to get to it was like walking through "
27 billion gallons of raw sewage and polluted stormwater discharge . . . into New York Harbor" -- in stiletto heels, no less.
NOW on PBS falls under the "news" and "public affairs" programming umbrella of public broadcasting. And while it achieved this week, many others failed miserably.
Sometimes, the fault wasn't the program. Take
The KPFK Evening News which truly thought they could provide a lively roundtable by bringing on a Democrat (Sarah Leonard), a Republican (Evan Sayet) and a Green (Donna Warren). How were they to know that the Green would forget her party's presidential candidate was, in fact,
Cynthia McKinney and not Barack Obama?
Though it's already been commented on at length, there's no way we can scorecard public affairs and news programming from public broadcasting without mentioning that embarrassing incident. Again, in that case, the outlet (
KPFK) wasn't responsible.
Other outlets don't get off so easy and, as always, the worst offender was
Democracy Now! which Amy Goodman likes to present as a national (or even international) program but the stench wafting from it is strictly the Hudson River.
This was made clear all week but never as much as when Goodman, Juan Gonzalez and Andrew Hacker all sat down to chew the fat. It was hilarious to see NYC 'values' imposed on Indiana (and, by extension, the rest of the country) in a moment so bad that a friend with
Saturday Night Live cited it as backing up a skit they offered Sunday.
Saturday Night Live's best skit in their second broadcast of the new season involved
The New York Times. At a gathering,
NYT reporters were being informed that, for the next six weeks, they'd be trolling Alaska. The point of the skit was just how out-of-touch the NYC inbred are with the rest of the country (such as their failure to identify either a shotgun or a snow mobile). At one point, the Alaska expert who had briefly reported from there asked for a show of hands on how many could drive a car with a stick shift? None could. Alright, he declared, not a problem, but how many had driver's license? None. How did they expect to get around Alaska? Taxi.
It was a hilarious skit (and we passed that on after seeing it Saturday night). And it did recall the nonsense
Democracy Now! offered as Queens College 'professor' Andrew Hacker felt the need to weigh in on voter ID.
Hacker: Well, going to the state of Indiana, which enacted this, I actually went. Believe it or not, here's your tax dollars at work. The Federal Highway Administration keeps a record of how many adult residents of every state has a driver's license. And, by the way, the court didn't even look at this. And I discovered that in Indiana, 14 percent of adult residents do not have driver's license. That's one-in-seven. Now, this means they can't vote, unless you go to a Bureau of Motor Vehicles office, which in Indiana could be miles away, and fill out a long form to get a non-driver's license. Well, not many people are going to do that, and in particular, not that many black voters are. Many of them are older; they're poorer.Hacker's really amazed. He needs to leave NYC and get into the real world. Most states have photo i.d.s offered to people without driver's license. The reason they offer an official state i.d. is, pay attention, when writing or cashing a check, you need i.d. with a photo. Hacker's trying to play alarmist but no one getting a pay check, a Social Security check, a pension check or a government assistance check can cash it without a photo i.d. It's all so 'exotic' to the citizens of NYC. It's the real world for the rest of us. We had a lot of fun laughing with our
SNL friend about that
DN! segment and even more so when we caught the
SNL skit.
Then it was time for Hacker to go off griping over the need for people to vote in the districts they live in. That
is behind the checking of the rolls by letters. Although all Hacker cared about was the presidential election, it is very much true that residents in all states will elect municipal officials and vote on various referendums. If you live in area and something passes that you're going to have to live under, you have a right to expect that only residents of the area voted on it. Hacker insisted, "Well, of course it's class-based. The poorer you are, whether you're white or Asian or whatever race, the less likely you are to have, let's say, a settled address or a driver's license." Again, most states offer state i.d. that is not a driver's license and as for the issue of "a settled address," you're not supposed to vote if you don't have a "settled address." Which is why all voter registration forms ask you for a physical address.
He skirted the Social Security issue in Florida, so we'll ignore it as well. But it is illegal to use someone else's Social Security number and a presidential election in the United States is something that only citizens can vote in.
While he skirted that issue (especially with regards to African-Americans), he was happy to toss out that Israel and Canada allow people in prison to vote. So what? What does that have to do with the 2008 US presidential election? Not a damn thing. Nor did his little jab at Alabama for pulling voting rights over treason. (Many laws are on the books in many states. They are old, they are outdated. If you want a ha-ha, show us when it's been enforced in the last few years. It was a cheap jab from another snooty elitist. As
The New York Sun reported in 2006, 40 U.S.C. section 6134 forbids oration in the Supreme Court. You can find something on the books to laugh at in every area. It's only an issue if it's enforced.)
Hacker's an idiot, a longterm idiot. You know that because he thinks he has the power to overturn laws that the Supreme Court has already ruled were Constitutional when time would be better spent advocating that libraries begin issuing photo i.d.s and that these i.d.s be allowed as verification when voting. If you're still doubting what a longterm idiot Hacker is, register that even friendly reviewer
Laura Miller (Salon) had to note that his 2003 book "offers the occasional insight and, more frequently, equally fascinating examples of cluelessness". We think she was being incredibly kind.
We warned you in May, "If FAIR's planning to scream racism every time a GOP operative works the same standard shtick that they trot out every election cycle, it's going to be a long summer." We forgot to include Amy Goodman and, goodness knows, she's the worst offender when it comes to screaming racism at everything from actual racism to the browning of the leaves in autumn. And sure enough, she and Hacker were off on a "they're all racists!" kick. Hacker, NYC elitist, offered that when he goes around to "a hundred colleges, at least," he's been surprised to find that when he speaks like a NYC fringe radical prig and tossed around "racism" and "racist" "the audience freezes." If there's someone stuck in the past it's Hacker who still thinks the entire country is racist except for himself and a few of his Leninist spouting friends.
Because America lacks Hacker's 'depth' and 'soulfulness,' he's decided to stop using the term in 2008. He explained that decision after using the word and applying it to White people he never engaged or spoke with. (He lectured to them and, for him, that probably qualifies as a close, personal and deep relationship.)
Hacker goes on to list reasons "men or women in the street" (none of whom he's spoken to himself) give for not supporting Barack Obama which include "his policies, . . . his lack of experience" or that he strikes them as "an intellectual snob". You might not be supporting Barack Obama and you might have listed one of those reasons.
Well Hacker's here to inform "that people don't exactly tell the truth when they're asked about race in elections. I won't go into the details" -- of course not. Details would mean you were backing up what you said. Better to make baseless charges when you tar and feather Americans you've never interacted with.
Hacker starts talking about the non-scientific (though he fails to admit that) "Bradley Effect." Hacker goes on to declare that seven percent of White Americans are not just racists, they're also liars.
We'd say "Hacker, meet
Marcia's mother" were it not for the fact that we like Marcia's mother.
Marcia's mother (African-American) is regularly polled in a news outlet's voting survey. She repeatedly states she's voting for Barack Obama. She's not voting for him. She has no intention of voting for him. Unlike Hacker, she grasps that Barack is not Black, he's bi-racial. But that's not why she's not voting for him. She's not voting for him because she feels his campaign has targeted women ("all women") with attacks, scorned the elderly and she thinks his policies are "not at all different from a Republican's." Marcia is supporting
Ralph Nader and has advocated for Ralph to her mother.
Marcia's mother saw a speech by Matt Gonzalez online and that's what decided her vote for her. (Matt Gonzaelez is Ralph Nader's running mate.)
Why does she say "Barack" when polled?
"The first time I said undecided, the pollster seemed surprised and she actually raised my race with me in the middle of the poll," Marcia's mother explains. "The poll takes about twenty minutes of time as is. I'm not going to waste more time explaining, 'Yes, I am Black. What does that have to do with it?' The poll doesn't include Ralph or Cynthia McKinney or Bob Barr. The choices I'm given are Barack, McCain or undecided. I've been called in a poll every presidential election year and never had my race raised when I offered my choice for president. I'm not in the mood to go through that again. So I just say Barack so we can move on to the next question. But I would never, ever vote for Barack Obama."
Hacker thinks he comes off enlightened. We didn't know "prig" was synonymous with "enlightened."
We also know no one's required to tell how they voted, many refuse to in exit polling (the only election polling that matters) and some people, offended by being asked, will give an answer to get away from the creep.
But let Hacker jabber on (without details) about the non-scientific "Bradley effect." Goody certainly did. Remember what Laura Miller said about his 2003 book offering large numbers of "fascinating examples of cluelessness"?
While jaw-boning about the "Bradley effect," Hacker did just that referring to the 1998 election in Washington (state) where Patty Murray was elected to the Senate and yet a proposal to ban affirmative-action passed. Well Patty wasn't newly elected. It wasn't a race for an open seat, she'd held the seat since the 1992 election. The rate of re-election for incumbents would make most social scientists refuse to try to piggy back onto Murray's election, but Hacker's a hack of a social scientist which is why, for him, Murray's victory and the passage of the affirmative-action ban are equivalent. He also tries to draw meaning from Debbie Stabenow's 2006 victory in Michigan the same year affirmative-action was banned in a vote. Again, Stabenow was not competing for an open seat. She won the seat in 2000. She was running for re-election. If Hacker's unfamiliar with the rate of re-election for incumbents, we'd urge him to check out
Maria Hinojosa's report from NOW on PBS -- but then she went into details.
It was that kind of nonsense all week long from Goody.
Tuesday, while supposedly discussing Wall Street (the segment was titled "Rev. Jesse Jackson on the Wall Street Crisis, Escalation of War in Afghanistan and Obama's Historic Nomination"), Goody felt the need to quote a bad report on Barack Waffles. Barack Waffles is a pretend ad created by conservatives for a pretend product. Goody, who loves to remind that her show is TV and radio, didn't feel the need to show the illustration but she read from the bad report claiming Barack was rendered "bug-eyed" and "dark-lipped". For "dark-lipped," we'd have to see the original illustration and not some web version (which we wouldn't trust -- not after Team Obama doctored a clip of
The War Room to put the n-word in the mouth of someone who didn't say it). As for "bug-eyed," the child who wrote that report doesn't know what the hell "bug-eyed" is. Barack's rendered Disney-fied. Bug-eyed goes back to the stereotypical film portrayals from the early days of film where an African-American would, for example, see a ghost (or an apparent ghost) and there eyes would fly widely open. There's a world of difference between "bug-eyed" and Disney-eyed. (The Bratz dolls offer their own version of Disney-eyes.) Children have larger heads than bodies. (That changes as they grow.) Disney-fied is making someone's head prominent and their eyes Bambi-like.
Rev. Jesse Jackson had clearly not seen the illustration judging by the fact that he avoided weighing in. Instead, he wanted to offer that it's "a takoff on Uncle Ben's rice and Aunt Jemima and all of those stereotypes." It may or may not be. The illustration is supposed to emphasize that Barack waffles on the issue (no argument from us on that) and Barack is infamous for whining to the press that "I just want to eat my waffles." If he'd said, "I just want to play my Gameboy," another illustration might or might not have been created.
What any of that had to do with Wall Street or Afghanistan might be the question? But the reality is that it was time to play the race card yet again last week. So Donna Brazile took to the airwaves to play it and so did Governor Kathleen Sebelius. Whenever Barack's doing poorly, pull out the race card.
Maybe Howard Dean will again start referring to the GOP as the "White party" and the press will again pretend not to notice?
Last week, news outlets filed over 400 reports on the "Bradley effect" -- an unproven, hypothesis at best. And yet, we're supposed to be discussing real issues? In fact, last week, failed . . . well
everything Katrina vanden Heuvel ("Dark Kat" as the latest Nation cruise bills her -- Goody will no doubt see "racism" in that as well) was insisting that it was time to "get real" and focus on the issue yet the current issue of
The Nation includes an article on polling and, yes, the "Bradley" effect. (An article on the worst pollster of them all, John Zogby.) Tip to Katrinket, when an unproven hypothesis (not a theory) eats up that much time that could have gone to actual issues, no one is 'getting real' about the actual issues -- including
The Nation.
It's those sort of unintentional laughs provided by our supposedly strongest voices on the 'left' that may make it so hard for comedy shows to actually be funny. However,
Saturday Night Live has other problems.
First to address an issue raised in e-mails about
last week's commentary, did we not know Amy Polar Bear was pregnant? Yes, we knew -- as did most who watch the program. That wasn't the issue about the widecam. If you watched this weekend, you may have again caught it (though Amy was lit better). Notice where the camera goes on Seth and where it goes on Amy. With Seth, the shot starts at the desk and goes to above his head. With Amy, the shot starts with the shoulders.
On the cameras, the camera work was actually better. We repeated that to our
SNL writer friend whose reply can be summed up as, "Yeah, yeah, did you laugh?"
The best skit was the one on
The New York Times. Another skit showed promise (and a cameo from Cameron Diaz added a lot of life to it). That was the one on Cougars. However, a rolly polly man talking about sagging bodies (of women) is never going to get laughs because the audience is a little more aware than
SNL and will be asking, "Who the hell is he to talk?" The three women (two cast members and a featured player) showed promise with what could be a strong recurring skit. The worst skit was "The Looker." Last week, we'd been kind and not noted the obvious fact that if
SNL can't hire women, the last thing they need to do is dress men up as women for skits. A Weekend Update sketch on the season debut featured the cartoon character Cathy portrayed by a man in drag and was not funny. It might not have been funny if it had been done by women. But considering how underutilized the female cast members of
SNL are (both of them -- Amy and Kristen are the only regular cast members), letting a male play a female character should be avoided.
They went to the well on that again last night -- apparently forgetting how the audience turned on Adam Sandler and assorted others when the initial he-hes vanished. "The Looker" was built around the 'concept' (which may be giving it too much credit) that TNT will follow
The Closer with a new program entitled
The Looker wherein actress and director Penny Marshall stares at someone until they confess. It was a long sketch. In the entire sketch, 'Penny Marshall' had only one line. Since the man (we're being kind and not naming the guilty) did not look a thing like Penny, that skit could have easily been slid over to Kristen who could have worn the same wig and glasses and done the same staring. There is currently no Jimmy Fallon, nor even an Adam Sandler. Translation, there's no real audience favorite among the males. We really think Andy could become this year's break-out and that he was on the verge last year; however, many more bits like his appearance in the OJ skit and the audiences will go running. Nerdy doesn't translate to "cool." He should be strongly steered away from Sci-Fi unless he's playing a high schooler who can't connect with women due to his Sci-Fi fetish. With
The New York Times skit,
SNL reminded the world they could address actual issues that needed no premise ripped from a TV show. It will be difficult for anything else to measure up to that level of quality and, overall, the show was much improved from last week.
NOW on PBS addressed actual issues this weekend. (If it hasn't aired in your area, check it out. If it has aired, it's available for streaming online.) Correspondent Hinojosa went around the world examining the role of women and politics. She didn't neglect the generation coming up or how they're preparing to own their power. As we've long noted, those who do not benefit from streaming are left out by
NOW. For those left out, we would recommend
Hinojosa's Reporter's Notebook for an overview. (Community members will find a full transcript of the broadcast in
Hilda's Mix Tuesday.)
It was a powerful hour and one that should result in (at least) Emmy nominations next year. It also spoke to
NOW on PBS' growing strength which has been leaving the studios. Hinojosa and Brancaccio regularly are leaving the studio and venturing beyond the set pieces of talking heads that far too many 'public affairs' and 'news' programs are relying on more and more. They've visited Africa in the last year more than any other US public broadcasting program. It's not only opened up the conversations (this weekend's report could not have been approximated on
Washington Week) it's given the show some real life. At a time when everyone's scrimping (including on facts or, as Hacker called them, "details"),
NOW on PBS is expanding.
