Sunday, March 23, 2014

Media: Pacifica Radio (Ava and C.I.)

Pacifica Radio formed in 1946 and began broadcasting in 1949.  Friday, LA Weekly published Hillel Aron's "Left-Wing Darling Pacifica Radio Is Sliding Into the Abyss."

Thing is, people have been predicting the demise of Pacifica forever.  And remember how Pacifica began broadcasting in 1949?  That was KPFA serving the Bay Area.  KPFA went off the air in August of 1950 and 1951 would have already begun before it came back on the air.

kpfaradio


You could make many arguments with that.  You could argue that Pacifica death has long been predicted but never come to pass, for example.  Or you might argue Pacifica's been dying since the day it was born.

You could run anywhere with that, guessing this way and that.

Let's instead focus on what has happened.

Pacifica Radio is KPFA, KPFK, WBAI, WPFW and KPFT -- Bay Area, Los Angeles, NYC, DC and Houston.  For funds, the stations depend upon the model of listener donations which are mainly raised via pledge drives.  Many non-Pacifica listeners may be familiar with pledge drives via NPR but Pacifica, which predates NPR, invented the model.

WBAI's in the toilet currently and may soon be cut loose (or it may not).  Why is WBAI in the toilet?

The article notes:

According to emails obtained by the Weekly, three Pacifica stations — WBAI, KPFT in Houston and WPFW in Washington, D.C. — owe Null $74,000 as his cut of premiums he's sold. And according to Bob Hennelly, recently fired program director of WBAI, Null claims that up to 3,000 premiums purchased by listeners were never mailed, going as far back as 2009. If true, it's unclear whether that's due to incompetence (the mail is largely run by volunteers) or because the stations are funding past premiums with payments for recent premiums — a kind of public-radio Ponzi scheme.


Null is Gary Null and Aron clearly does not care for Null.

But that doesn't excuse acting as though 2009 is the issue.

Long before Null was put back on air at WBAI, they were failing to mail the 'gifts' for pledge drives.

This was a problem in 2004, in 2005 and in 2006.

And a lot of subscribers walked over it.

The ones who have contacted us over the years -- we've written of this topic many times -- tie it to Law & Disorder Radio, specifically when the program began offering an archive of past programs on a zip drive.

Did anyone receive that premium?

We've heard from several in Connecticut and from two in New Jersey and from one in Texas (and the Texas donor was especially pissed because he contacted WBAI three times about this over a six month period and never received the premium).  Some of them and some of the other out of NYC listeners took it as an insult to them personally and assumed that those within NYC received their premiums.  At least three didn't.

If you're giving two cents, you deserve to be thanked.

But to get a premium like that you had to toss in sixty dollars or more.

And the 'thank you' was receiving no gift?

This happened over and over with many programs.  And it went a long way towards making people angry at WBAI.

Pretend for a second that it's you and you dug into your pockets to give money for something you believed in.  And you were promised a 'gift' or 'premium' in exchange but you never received it.

Do you just forget it?

Not if you listen to WBAI because, every few months, it's another pledge drive, more on air begging, and you hear promises of premiums and it just makes you angry.  Most likely, you don't just stop giving, you also stop listening.


All stations have problems sending out premiums and that's to be expected due to human error.  But if you contact KPFA, KPFK or KPFT, they make a point to fix the problem.

WBAI burned their bridges with so many listeners as a result of their inability to deliver the promised premiums.

The premium model is an implicit trust agreement whereby a listener shows their appreciation for the programming by donating money and the station shows their appreciation for the donation by providing the listener with a premium.

When it's just taking money?  That's a lot like stealing.



In the article, Aron speaks with four  people: Marc Cooper, Tracy Rosenberg and Matthew Lazar and Ian Masters.

Matthew Lazar presents as a historian.  That's not true.  He went on air with Sasha Lily and trashed a group of listeners and pimped who should be voted during the upcoming elections.

He and Lily lost out because the Rosenberg faction won those elections.

When confronted now on that specific event?

Even Lazar has given up defending his actions.  But instead of getting honest, he takes the position of 'I've washed my hands of KPFA.'

It's a damn pity he didn't wash them sooner.  You can't play radio historian and also break the rules.  Matthew Lazar made himself a joke.  Check the archives, we offered nothing but praise for Lazar until that moment.  We treated him as a historian and were happy to note him.  But then he broke the rules -- there are written rules regarding what can be said on air regarding elections -- and he knew the rules, he's the 'historian.'  If he would acknowledge what he did, we'd be happy to let it go.

Lazar is useless until that day comes because he's been publicly dishonest.

Tracy Rosenberg?

There are a number of people who don't like her.

That's fine.  You make your own decisions about who you like.

But a detached view would recognize that Rosenberg has not only tried to listen to listeners -- both before getting elected to the board and after, she's also been more open than anyone in her position has been.  She will answer questions in e-mails, she will answer them on the phone.  She will leave comments online when there is confusion in a thread.

We respect Tracy Rosenberg's work.  We haven't agreed with every move she's made but we haven't seen her try to hide from her decisions or to push the blame on others.

That leaves Marc Cooper and Ian Masters.

Cooper we've taken to task over the years and we'll go into him in a moment.

Here's a question for the readers:  If someone's running for public office and you're interviewing them live, after the interview is over, is it fair for you to trash the person -- especially on issues you never raised in the interview?

How about if that trashing takes place live on air?

Cynthia McKinney was the 2008 Green Party presidential candidate and Ian Master?

He was a dirty, little bitch.

McKinney served in Congress and is cited on many topics by journalist Greg Palast -- a journalist Pacifica has repeatedly promoted.

Ian Masters kissed McKinney's ass on air during the interview.  When it was over and McKinney was off the phone, still on air Ian Master ridiculed her.

For what?

For saying Bully Boy Bush stole Florida in 2000.

That's not an extreme view or one without supporting evidence.

But even if it had been an extreme view, if Masters disagreed, he should have said so during the interview, he shouldn't have been a little backstabbing bitch who waited until she was off the line and couldn't respond to his attacks.

Ian Masters is not to be trusted, he has not conducted himself in a journalistic manner so all of his attacks in the article and pretense of journalism standards are as laughable as he is.

That leaves Marc Cooper.

Cooper is opinionated.  He's also been very sexist in the past and won't cop to it.

He loves to trash women and tell them what to do.

For example, when Jane Fonda wanted to go around the country in 2005 speaking out against the Iraq War, Cooper wrote a column slamming her.  He'd then go into a slam of George Galloway but the way he slammed Jane, the vicious attacks, that's how he writes about women but not about men.

He can have the belief that Fonda would turn off more people than she would turn on.  He can express that.  But at what point does he get honest that this is why people hate him -- and many people actively hate Marc Cooper.

Assume he's right that Fonda, who had a bestseller autobiography on the charts when Cooper was writing that she shouldn't tour, would turn off a lot of people.  Let's go with a figure, 70%.

That would still leave 30% up for grabs.

(Fonda would not have turned off 70%.  As a well known anti-war activist, her touring would have rallied many anti-war activists and her history and her celebrity would have attracted interest from those who hadn't taken a position on the Iraq War.)

Marc Cooper can't allow that he's ever wrong, can't cop to his past problems with sexism, can't communicate because he's too busy repeating his opinion while covering his ears and refusing to hear anyone else.

And that's a real shame because Cooper is sometimes right and, even sometimes when he's wrong,  he can make an interesting point that may be valid or worth tossing around.

But he gets more and more rigid.

He also forgets that public radio is not Marc Cooper radio.

Public radio is public radio, it needs to serve the public.

A smart person accepts that while an ego maniac believes they scream loud enough to control all programming.


Marc Cooper really wants to be Ted Turner creating CNN but CNN isn't, and never was, public radio or public television.

Marc Cooper used to have a career.

He ruined it by launching non-stop attacks.

In the article, he calls out Amy Goodman, some might argue he attacks her (and he does have that history of attacking women in print).  That's not what we're talking about.

We're talking about when he goes after groups of people.

When he was still published by LA Weekly and could still be heard hosting programs on radio, he attacked those who questioned the official 9-11 narrative.

A lot of people question the narrative.  Skepticism should be encouraged by public radio, not conformity.

If there was one program on KPKF or one on KPFA questioning the narrative, Cooper would have a public fit and go into a rant.

Cooper, David Corn and Norman Solomon would attack premiums stations offered questioning the official narrative.

David Corn and Norman Solomon learned to let it go.

Cooper didn't.

They still have careers as pundits, Cooper doesn't.

If you don't care for the truth movement, then ignore it.

Why in the world are you attacking people?  Why in the world do you think you can dictate what gets aired and what doesn't on public radio?  Or that you should have a say over what's offered as a premium?


Let's pretend for a moment that the 9-11 truth movement is a big joke and the people look stupid.

Who hasn't looked stupid?

We sure have.

And our looking stupid doesn't mean that we should be silenced.

(The truth movement is composed of people seeking truth regarding an attack on US citizens.  They are dedicated to something more important than who's going to win The Amazing Race.  We wish them luck and we don't attack them.  Their actions have already prevented 9-11 from becoming a distant memory and they challenge many of the lies the government has told including Condi Rice's infamous "no one could have guessed" statement.)

What Solomon, Corn and Cooper were engaged in was similar to book burning.

It's not their job to dictate what can and cannot be discussed.

Cooper's ravings lately include pimping US government attacks on Ukraine.

He's really not qualified to determine who speaks and who doesn't.

Even if he were, it's not his choice.

He calls Amy Goodman a thug and that is something he's qualified to determine.  But few will listen to him because (a) he's attacked everyone and (b) he has no independent opinion from a Democratic White House.

Which is the real problem with Pacifica.

It's losing listeners because of it.

Aron writes:


Pacifica is still far to the left of anything else in mass media, and still gives voice to beliefs and ideas found outside the mainstream. It hasn't changed; the world has.
Decades ago, the left called for Lyndon Johnson's head. It was against Nixon, but also against Hubert Humphrey.

Today, those to the left of the Democratic Party have been relegated to the fringes — or perhaps they've relegated themselves, favoring new-age beliefs over science, seemingly invested in the idea that society is as bad off as it's ever been.


Relegated to the fringes?

Pacifica grew in that time period because it presented something other than "Republicans are bad so we must be in bed with Democrats."

That's what allowed it to grow and how it made an impact.

And then a lot of people glommed on to Pacifica and started confusing it with the voice of the Democratic Party.

Today, there's no difference.

Every few months a Dennis Bernstain will temporarily rail against the White House and then some Republican remark/attack/campaign will come along and it's time to stand with Barack.

Public radio stands with the public.

When it fails to, it becomes NPR.

With illegal spying and The Drone War alone, every hour of Pacifica not devoted to arts or health programming should be rebuking the White House.

Instead, they work overtime to make listeners think the White House is them.  But Barack's not part of ObamaCare.  He'll have insurance for life.  He doesn't need a job after he leaves the White House, he has a pension -- he who will not risk a thing to protect the workers of Detroit will leave public office a very rich man who never needs to worry again.

Barack Obama is not the friend of public radio listeners.

He needs to be pushed at every opportunity and that's how you get a left in this country.  That's how it was created in the first place, that's how it can be created again.  Failure to do so will allow 'the center' to continue to move to the right.



KPFA endorsed book burning in order to 'protect' Barack.  The 'book' was The New Yorker, specifically the 2008 cover parodying Barack and Michelle Obama.  Aimee Allison endorsed the destruction of the issue.  The fact that the cover was a joke or that it came from a magazine that was devoted to electing Barack or even that there's such a thing as free speech didn't matter to Aimee Allison.   If you thought this was an embarrassing moment for KPFA and Pacifica, it only got worse.  After pimping the Obamas as her Facebook friends,  Allison would go on, long after the 2008 election, to offer a YouTube video defending Barack's right to kill innocent people with drones.

That goes a long way towards explaining why people don't listen to Pacifica.

It's forgotten now because Air America Radio is forgotten but Pacifica Radio thrived during Air America Radio's brightest hours.

AAR was about defending Democrats, about promoting them, covering for them and lying for them.  Given the choice between the AAR programs that refused to note war resisters and hosts including Rachel Maddow who insisted that the Iraq War must continue, people chose to listen to Pacifica.  KPFA, WBAI and others were getting listened to via streaming from all over the country (and all over the world).


They thanked listeners for choosing them over Air America Radio how?

By, in 2007, pimping for Barack Obama -- pimping that continues to this day.

Marc Cooper in his published remarks has nothing to say about that.

He instead insists that it's journalism versus 'quacks' on Pacifica today.

No, ir's not.

For the sake of argument, let's pretend that all non-public affairs shows are "quacks."

Are the public affairs shows journalism?

March 19th was the anniversary of the start of the Iraq War in the US -- for countries to the east of the US, it was March 20th.  So we got coverage, right?

Because Iraq has gotten worse under Barack's leadership.

So we especially should be getting coverage.

KPFA didn't offer coverage.  Iraq was absent on the 19th, on the 20th and on the 21st.

What did we get instead as listeners?

Dennis Bernstein used Flashpoints  not to note Iraq but to offer 'in depth' jabbering about lime disease.  Kris Welch, always one to whore, served up not Iraq but  "women's anatomy and what the right-wing appears to not know."  This type of garbage was true of all the programs.  (Presenting the Democratic Party as the defender of reproductive rights is not just laughable, it's damaging.  Democratic politicians have chipped away -- and are chipping away -- at reproductive rights.  They don't need to be embraced, they need to be called out in the hopes that they'll stop selling out reproductive rights.)

Up Front?  It's a new program which KPFA describes as: "An hour-long news magazine with a strong focus on state and local issues. A statewide collaboration, featuring hard-hitting interviews, debates, and in-depth reporting from journalists working everywhere from Los Angeles to Oakland to Sacramento."

Great, maybe a news program could cover Iraq?

Nope.

B-b-but, they cover "state and local issues."

Do you know what they covered on those days?

One full show was devoted to an author promoting his new book on the slave trade.  On Friday, they offered a writer promoting her piece on sex workers in Arizona.

None of it was reporting, none of it was journalism, none of it was "state and local issues."

And, in the end, none of it was necessary.

"Pacifica" Radio started in California.

"Pacific" does not refer to the ocean, it refers to the founders belief in pacifism.

They made their name during Vietnam.  After years and years of struggle in the 90s, they found their voice with the Iraq War.

But they walked away from it.  Listen to the embarrassing DC station, for example, where you'll now find anti-war peace activist Verna Avery-Brown playing the part of a disgusting whore.

It's interesting that Norman Solomon, Marc Cooper and David Corn could and did whine about 9-11 truth being on the air.  9-11 effects people lives, it was a tragedy.

Verna?    She devoted a segment to Sarah Palin's 'faked' pregnancy.

Norman didn't call it out, Marc didn't call it out, David didn't call it out.

It was treated as acceptable.

Even though it's not.  Palin didn't fake a pregnancy.  Had she done so, however, it wouldn't rise to the level of journalism but would instead be a personal matter.

But that's the sort whoring Verna does today.  She's a dirty whore for the White House.

Guess what?

Pacifica wasn't created to embrace the power or serve politicians.  The refusal of the network to ditch trash like Verna Avery Brown, the refusal to demand that Pacifica always question power -- regardless of who is in the White House, it goes a long way towards explaining why the listeners have vanished.

And the demise of Pacifica, if it does come to be?  No great loss.

It's become a propaganda outlet for those in power.

Losing it now would be no loss at all.


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

Note we're not including a kiss ass mentioned in the article for a number of reasons including her role really isn't what the article said.  She's the host of two programs -- not one -- and the second one airs on more than just KPFK.





Who should run in 2016?

The Democrats don't have much to offer in the next presidential election presently.

Hillary Clinton's embarrassing herself as she screams for war and comes off like some sort of American war monger.

Vice President Joe Biden is too old and was tasked to be over Iraq -- one of the administration's worst disasters.


Senator Elizabeth Warren's made herself a joke and she's also a 'new' Democrat, having spent most of her life as a Republican -- a detail presidential the press would probably have to explore.

Ex-US Senator Russ Feingold?

Russ was the great hope.  Russ was the big one who could save us all.

Big, bad, brave Russ.

Except remember how he lost his Senate seat?

By basically dry humping Barack Obama when what voters needed was a message that Russ would fight for them, not waste his time defending the honor of Lady Barack.

By the way, The Progressive?  Pay attention right now because this applies to you as well.

You're wasting all your time trying to bring down Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker.

It's a waste of time.

Because no one takes you seriously.

You don't look like journalists, you look like a hit squad for the Democratic Party.

As Barack's approval rating continues to drop in your state, your refusal to hold him accountable discredits you and anything you try to do.  You're not seen as journalists or even activists, just a Democratic partisans  which feeds right into Scott Walker's argument that this is about partisanship and not about what's right for Wisconsin.

Back to big Russ.

After he got spanked in public in his 2010 re-election bid, Russ wasn't smart enough to pull up his pants and tried to regroup.

The man who argued against The PATRIOT Act is silent on the illegal spying.

Few know why that is.

When Russ isn't dropping his pants and hopping over someone's knee for a good spanking, he's schilling for the White House, Barack made him a special envoy grasping that co-opting Russ would shut him up about the illegal spying.

Which it has.

Little Rusty Feingold is well behaved boy now that he's been taken over the knee repeatedly by Barack.

Maybe he'll be a hit in gay S&M porn videos?

He won't be a hit in politics.  He made himself a joke.

Doesn't have to be that way.

Remember this guy?




That's Jimmy Carter.

It's never really been established if a person elected to two terms as US president could then leave office and serve another term (or two) a little while later.

But Carter was one term, from January 1977 to January 1981.

So he's still got another term he could serve.

And maybe he should seriously consider running.

Dana Davidson (CNN) reports:

Former President Jimmy Carter said Sunday he believes the National Security Agency is monitoring his e-mails, so when he wants to communicate with a foreign leader, he sends an old-fashioned letter via snail mail.
Asked by NBC's Andrea Mitchell about the debate surrounding the spy agency and the conflict between privacy and national security, Carter said the surveillance practices have "been extremely liberalized and I think abused by our own intelligence agencies."
"As a matter of fact, you know, I have felt that my own communications were probably monitored, and when I want to communicate with a foreign leader privately, I type or write the letter myself, put it in the post office and mail it," Carter said.


No one wanting the Democratic Party's presidential nomination can afford to be silent.

But they all are, aren't they?

Jimmy Carter has no plans to seek another term.


But if he'd look around at all the others in his party playing cowards right now, he might realize that he's needed, desperately so.











Mailbag

mailcall





Again into the mailbag.  Our e-mail address is thethirdestatesundayreview@yahoo.com.


Erika asks how we pick what to highlight from others, "for example Workers World?"

Okay, this edition we were picking and we wanted to go with the protest story because we believe in people power.

However, the story is garbage.

It calls out John McCain.  For those who missed it, McCain is a US senator.  He's not President of the United States.  Guess who didn't have his name in the article?  Barack Obama.  We're not interested in that garbage.

Kim Plunk e-mails to ask if we "could do an article where one of you interviews Ava and C.I.?  They've been doing TV coverage since 2005.  I would really like to see a piece where they were asked about it and that included questions from readers.  Mine would be: What was your personal favorite TV show of all you reviewed?"

That sounds like an interesting feature.  Jim says he'll try it next weekend and if you've got a question you want him to ask, e-mail us to let us know.


Ronald B e-mails to note "Jim's World" and the poll.  "I appreciate the effort of attempting the poll and especially appreciate Jim explaining what it was all about.  But, honestly, I don't need to have 'interaction.'  I see this website as a magazine.  I come here to read.  If I have a complaint or praise, I'll write an e-mail."

Ronald, a lot of people felt like you did.  Thanks to everyone who shared their thoughts.

Grahm e-mails, "I've been around long enough to remember the great collages you used to do about Bush, the MyTV's Fascist House series.  I miss those collages.  But I do enjoy the short features and agree with Dona that they add a lot to the site."

Dona's always thinking about the look and the design and she's made many important contributions there (as well as elsewhere).  We'd honestly forgotten about MyTV's Fascist House.  Those were fun to do but they needed to die with the Bully Boy Bush administration.  It was a lot of time to do and it's a signature thing for that era.  We did do a few collages with Barack early on.  The feature didn't work that way.  In part because Hello (image hoster) was gone and no one else could make the image large enough to really enjoy it as a reader.


Mark e-mailed to ask, "What are the chances of getting a TV roundtable before the end of April?"  Very good.  We may go for it next week, in fact, we haven't done one in a long time.  Thanks for suggesting it.

____ e-mails to inform, "You are full of s[**]t!"  About what?  Research reveals ___ has three different sites calling him out for cyber stalking.  He's a thug and a criminal.  Why is he writing us?  Apparently because of this 2007 article: "Ike Turner (Ava and C.I. feature)."  See, he goes all over the web insisting Ike Turner was a saint who never laid a hand on Tina.

In other words, he's 100% f**king nuts.


Let's note this:

Two poems by Luis Arias Manzo:
Music by the Brazilian poet Bernadethe Ribeiro:



We'll gladly include links but without the author's permission, we can't reproduce poems.

Calvino e-mails to complain that we have not accepted his Twitter invitation, while Inez complains she joined LinkedIn and we haven't acknowledged her on LinkedIn.  To those and many others, we're not on Twitter or LinkedIn or any of that.  We're right here where you're seeing us right now.


To those writing e-mails such as "We linked to you now if you could link to our Netflix coupon, for profit college page, blah, blah, blah."  We're not doing it.

We're not here to advertise you.

You're being paid to promote something.  Good luck with that.  But we're not here to amplify that.


Our e-mail address is thethirdestatesundayreview@yahoo.com.












Slap and Tap Kerry




That look in the eyes, that grip, the sexual tension between US Secretary of State John Kerry and the US installed Ukranian puppet Areniy Yatsenyuk threatens to erupt leaving both with damp crotches.  Get to humping, boys.









This edition's playlist


heart


1) Heart's Fanatic.

2) The Beatles' Revolver.

3) PJ Harvey's Let England Shake.

4) Nirvana's In Utero.

5) David Rovics' Into A Prism.

6) Jefferson Airplane's Volunteers.

7) The Go-Gos' Beauty and the Beat.

8) Ben Harper's Both Sides of the Gun.

9) Neil Young's Living With War.

10) Korn's The Path Of Totality.







Get real, Hillary

Hillary Clinton.

In 2008, she seemed to be the one needed.

In 2014, she's trying to pretend she still is.

Jake Miller (CBS News) reports on her efforts Friday to try to woo young voters.


"Look, I am very much concerned about the direction of our country. And it's not just who runs for office, but what they do when they get there," she said. "I'm obviously thinking about all kinds of decisions."


Is she for real or has she gone completely nuts?

She wasn't portrayed as weak by her opponents in 2008.

They tried that but it didn't stick.

What she was attacked for was for trying to out macho everyone.




But you could dismiss that nonsense because she actually spoke about important issues like jobs, like breast cancer, like families, like equality . . .

All she's done in the last 12 months is flap her wings and shriek for war.


She's a War Hawk.


 “Look, I am very much concerned about the direction of our country. And it’s not just who runs for office, but what they do when they get there.”

No, you're not concerned.

You want war, war, war.

You don't speak out about our rights as citizens and how they're violated with illegal spying.

You don't decry that lack of jobs.

You act like ObamaCare needs a light dusting when the whole thing is unworkable and will not help most Americans one bit.


You say nothing about any problem that exists in this country.

But apparently war turns you and gets you all excited so you're always demanding war -- war on Libya, war on Syria, war on Ukraine.


You are not the woman of 2008.


And you're not doing a damn thing to help America.

If this is what you plan to offer in a 2016 run, let us be the first to point out: You're not offering one damn thing to the American people.







Media: Washington Post's conflict of interest (Ava and C.I.)

The Washington Post has a written ethical code and it applies to all -- editors, reporters, columnists, free lancers, etc.

Which is why we were surprised last week to read "Without facts on the missing airliner, the media make stuff up."  The column, by Eugene Robinson, sported a title that implied the media would be taken on.

Now we're media critics and we encourage everyone who can be one to be one.

Eugene can't be one.

We've always known that and last week he proved it.

"Media" boiled down to CNN and Fox News.

He slammed Don Lemon and Anderson Cooper by name (both host programs on CNN).

Did no one see a problem with that?


At the end of paragraph five (most people stopped reading already, it's a poorly written column), Eugene Robinson slips in, "Full disclosure: I do commentary for MSNBC, a competing network that also is obsessed with the lost plane."

That's actually not full disclosure.  You do commentary?

What do you mean as a guest?

Eugene's a little more clear on his Twitter feed where he identifies himself with this, "I am the Washington Post columnist, MSNBC analyst and author. Washington, D.C."




An MSNBC analyst was allowed to use the pages and imprint of  The Washington Post to savage CNN and Fox News -- two networks that regularly beat out MSNBC.

Robinson didn't call out MSNBC, certainly didn't name Rachel Maddow or anyone else.

He is paid by The Washington Post -- as a columnist and editor -- to do his best work for the paper.  He is not paid by them to attack MSNBC's rivals.

The paper's ethics guidelines are very clear that there will be no conflicts of interests or even the appearance of a conflict of interest.

What Robinson did last week went beyond appearance.

It was an actual conflict of interest as he used The Washington Post to attack the two chief rivals of his other paid employer MSNBC.

As a Washington Post employee, he would have needed to have specifically called out MSNBC and include the disclosure that he is paid by MSNBC to avoid a conflict of interest.

Eugene Robinson needs to be suspended but as one editor with The Washington Post told us, "Editors never get real punishment.  They're fired or everyone looks the other way."

We'll assume that's the case at the paper.

But if Eugene not even going to get suspended for breaking the ethics code, he should at least be informed that he is no longer allowed to write about CNN or Fox in his column for the paper or the paper's website.











Paste magazine: Home of the Racist Chubby Chaser

Last week, "Paste magazine: Home of the Racist Chubby Chaser," "Paste magazine: Home of the Racist Chubby Chaser" and "Paste magazine: Home of the Racist Chubby Chaser" went up.  We're reposting it here.



 Paste magazine: Home of the Racist Chubby Chaser


by Marcia, Ann,  Ava and C.I.



"I think the race argument about Girls is a completely tired and unfair debate. She's giving her account of her version of New York and her experiences, and if that doesn't involve any black people, then she shouldn't have to shoehorn them in just because of audience backlash."


Look, everybody, it's the welcoming committee of the Augusta National Golf Club.

No, actually it's a bad writer, a White man who just wishes those mean people -- "audience backlash" -- would stop demanding that all-White television shows become inclusive.


We've covered this before -- see  "We do not embrace sexism (Marcia, Ann, Ava and C.I.)," "We do not embrace sexism (Marcia, Ann, Ava and C.I.),"    "We do not embrace sexism (Marcia, Ann, Ava and C.I.)"  and "We do not embrace sexism (Marcia, Ann, Ava, C.I.)"  -- in 2012:


If your show is set in Iowa, demographics of the state more than explain why you might have an all White cast.  (93% of Iowa is Anglo-White.) But when you're show is set in New York City?
We do realize that less than half of NYC is Anglo-White, right?  That a quarter is African-American and slightly over that is Latino or Latina?  That 11% are Asian-Americans?
Yet Lena's brought us a show revolving around 5 characters in NYC and all 5 are White.



But the Paste writer disagrees,  "I think the race argument about Girls is a completely tired and unfair debate."

Addressing the racial make up of a show set in NYC is "tired and unfair"?

To whom?

To the people who are under-represented on TV?

Or to Lena Dunham?









It's really funny how the racist gets defended.

It's really strange how the people advocating for inclusion are part of a "tired and unfair debate" while the White, Jewish woman who wants to set a TV show in NYC is not being "tired and unfair" by refusing to include even one lead character who is a woman of color.


The Paste writer insists, "She's giving her account of her version of New York and her experiences, and if that doesn't involve any black people, then she shouldn't have to shoehorn them in just because of audience backlash."

So she's to be applauded for failing to make friends with any women of color in her entire life?

And here's the other thing, stupid Pastey, Lena doesn't write all the episodes.

If she's truly unable to write characters who aren't White, she can hire some writers.

We all are aware, aren't we, that of the show's 32 episodes thus far, 24 had co-writers or were written by someone other than Lena?

A large number of them (14, in fact) were written or co-written by men.  Nearly half the episodes were written or co-written by men.


Strange that men can write   women but Lena can't write women of color -- not in lead roles.



It all started with a bad article by a bad writer, Paste's Ross Bonaime.

Ross kicked it off with this laughable claim, "Considering how gigantically popular Lena Dunham has become in the past few years, we haven’t really seen her in any large roles that she wasn’t completely in control of."

Lena Dunham's not popular.

It's possible she will have a bestselling book because you don't have to sell a lot of books to have a bestseller these days.

Ross wanted to double down on his claim of popularity and 'back it up' by insisting in a comment, "Yet to say Dunham hasn't become more popular since Girls aired is sort of ludicrous. Girls IS a popular show and it is HBO's most popular comedy in years."


You didn't write she was more popular, you wrote she was "gigantically popular."  And she's not either.

She may be known because she's on TV but her ratings don't crack a million.  Girls is not "HBO's most popular comedy in years."  How far up Lena's crack are you?

Curb Your Enthusiasm.

That is "HBO's most popular comedy in years."

Before that, it was Sex In The City.


Popular goes to liked, Ross, and Lena's not liked.

That's why her show's in the ratings toilet and why she pulled Saturday Night Live in there with her when she hosted.

In his comment to his own article, Ross has a White race panic and, in the midst of meltdown, types this, "No other reviews that I've found mention it [race] either because it's irrelevant. I don't understand why this review and all other reviews should glaringly point out racial differences for no reason rather than not mention whenever diversity is shown.."


Race is irrelevant?

What world do you live in?

One that still has separate water fountains?


The episode was about race and if you could do something other than offer bad synopsis -- you know, something like write an actual critique -- you might grasp that.

Sitting on your Whiteness, all you saw was an episode of Saturday Night Live.

Though you accuse others of raising race, Lena's the one who raised it in the Scandal skit and she did so at two different points in the skit.

How did you miss that?

She says her character shouldn't go to Mexico, Olivia Pope should because she's a beautiful Black woman in a tailored outfit. "Just saying, like, you're a stunning Black woman [. . .]"


What did Olivia's race have to do with anything?

Is "Black" a qualifier?

Is Olivia supposed to be less stunning to White Kelsey because she's described as "a stunning Black woman"?


Did you miss that, Rossy?

Did you also miss her parting comment?

Lena of the all-White Girls cast makes a point to note how Scandal has a racially diverse cast -- and by making a mockery of that, she gets a laugh.


"But I want you all to know that you are the most beautiful and ethnically diverse people I've ever seen in one room."

Again, this got laughter.

Let's think about that for a moment.

It kind of reminds us of how we supposedly have more women -- or "way more women" -- in our music collections than we have male artists.

It's actually about 50%  but it seems like more than that to some people who just aren't comfortable with women.

"Ethnically diverse"?

So that's Huck, Olivia and Harrison.

That leaves Fitz, Abby and Quinn as well as Kelsey herself.

Four Anglo Whites (we're not assuming Kelsey was Jewish).

Four White people, 1 Hispanic and 2 African-Americans?


That's the most "ethnically diverse people I've ever seen in one room"?

As Demi Moore says in The Butcher's Wife, "Well you ought to get out more."


Race was also on full display in the 'feminist' sketch as a Latina was stupid and dumb and needed White women to save her.


In the comment to his own article, Ross  types, "I have brought up racial implications in the past of SNL, especially during the Kerry Washington episode, because that was when it needed to be discussed."


Oh, f**k no.

Kerry Washington's hosting is "when it needed to be discussed"?

Kerry Washington hosted one episode.

That was when "it needed to be discussed."

Golly, thank you, Ross, for finding one week in all these years when race "needed to be discussed."


By your 'reasoning' -- it's a stretch to call it that -- all the other weeks of the year weren't weeks that you should bring it up?

That's kind of like the racist who suffers through February trying to hold his breath while longing for March 1st to put an end to Black History Month.

As an alleged critic, it was your job to comment on such things.  And to do so long before Kerry Washington hosted an episode.



In his comment to his own article, Ross insists, "I personally think Girls is an important show because of its portrayal - sometimes universal, other times very personal - of what it is like for many people in their twenties today."

But not for people of color, remember.  Dunham can't write women of color.  They're a whole other species in her eyes.



So it can't "sometimes" be universal.  Not by her 'logic' and not by your own since you back her up.

Do we need to send you a dictionary so you can look up what "universal" means?


Ross also insists, "Saying she is unattractive or overweight should have no bearing on the fact that she actually is a talented writer and director who has a unique voice unlike most people writing for TV these days."

No, she's actually not a talented writer.  She is, however, unattractive and overweight and she's chosen to work in a visual medium where visuals will be noted.


And as was pointed out at Third on Sunday:

So overweight Lena says it's fat shaming to note her gross obesity but does a skit where a woman rejects a man because he's 'puny'?
In the sketch, Bruce is described as a "little skinny guy" and laughed at for having "little arms."
So fatty wants to make fun of skinny but wants to say no one should talk about how grossly obese she is?
In the skit, the woman whom Bruce has brought to America tells him, "I don't like your body.  I don't like your face "
And she does so to the glee of the other women present.
And Lena wants to whine that she's being fat shamed?
No, it doesn't work that way.
The phrase we all learned as children was, "Don't dish it out if you can't take it."



You're so very quick to defend a woman who keeps insisting that her body shape and weight are off limits but she took part in the ridicule of a man for how much he weighed.

Do you not see the problem?

Maybe not.  Because you don't seem to grasp that Nat King Cole, Anna May Wong, Bill Cosby, Diahann Carroll and a lot of others had to break down the walls for television to reflect even a small degree of diversity today.

Into this mix comes a spoiled brat who decides to put up barricades and create an all White show.

The year's 2014.

And yet you think the problem is the people objecting to the racism and not the racist?





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