Phoning It In, Sailing Along

We realize some days have to be rough. But we think some people are living in a pre-internet world. Specifically some commentators. They believe the world awaits their every word, slowly in print. And that something like actually having a topic doesn't matter.

We'll start with Katha Pollitt whom we like. She ended 2006 in her usual manner, a list of charities. We'll assume the list took much longer to research than it did to read or skim. She does one every year. But apparently she's a seasonal type because for her first column of 2007, she offers up the new year in "Happy New Year!" (page 20, January 22, 2007, The Nation).

We're told she next reviews a book. But might we remind her that February 2nd is Groundhog Day?

The column is a joke. Sorry, Pollitt. When you're doing shout outs to Alan Wolfe, you're writing a joke or maybe you missed his slams in The New York Times. ("Libs" like Wolfe always slam the left.) In fact, that's why the column falls apart. She gives him a shout up in her second point: "Stop giving the right credit for our ideas." How about we stop giving shout outs to the mushy center? Seriously, Pollitt, go The Times archives and look up his reviews. Note that they include serious errors as well as slams at the left.

But we think a 9 point column is an embarrassment. We'd think that even if "point nine" wasn't "Party like it's 2007!" What is that? Did you have nothing to say? Was it a bad day with a deadline looming? When your next collection is published, we'd suggest you don't consider this one.

Now Pollitt we like. ("Oh my God, could you imagine what they'd say if they didn't like her?") And, in the past, she's usually managed to produce something that didn't read like it was written by a newspaper columnist who burnt out on ideas about a decade ago. (Nora Ephron addresses the topic of columnists brilliantly in her novel Heartburn.) Hendrik Hertzberg?

We laughed this week when a left link-fest featured one of his columns. The whole world had weighed in (and their dogs) long before Hendrik decided to grace us with what some see as style. We don't need style, we need commentary. And we don't need it from a fool who can't tell you when the shift started on Iraq or, for that matter, who goes on the road to promote a book and doesn't even know what he wrote in the book. (During the 2004 DNC convention, he was asked a question pertaining to a point he'd made about the 1992 race and his reply can be summed up in one word: "What?")

Both of the above columns appear in print. If we can take a moment of your time, might we steer you towards Margaret Kimerley's "Racism, Fascism at CNN and ABC" (Freedom Rider, Black Agenda Report) and John R. MacArthur's "Who's the Journalistic Hypocrite?" (Harper's magazine). Notice that they both feature thought and analysis. Point of view. Neither reads like the writer is ticking off topics as they try to reach the magic word count.

If you missed it, there were massive layoffs in the publishing world last week. The New York Times reported that People magazine might no longer be able to assign seven people to write five paragraphs on Britney Spears (Katharine Q. Seelye and Richard Siklos' "As Time Inc. Cuts Jobs, One Writer On Britney May Have to Do", C1, January 15, 2007). After columnists have had their chuckles, we suggest they look in the mirror.

The pedestrian column isn't cutting it. People can get that online for free. Printing up lists really doesn't cut it for columns these days. We're sure there was a time, when newspapers thrived, that there was time to be silly (or at least immature) and offer up lists. We're sure that the likes of Thomas Friedman would probably still like to sneak those by.

But for political coverage, it doesn't cut it.

Bland isn't the new Pink which briefly became the new Black.

You could also check out Amy Goodman's "Make King's dream come true" (Seattle Post-Intelligencer).

Now before you think, "Oh no, another White person writing about Martin Luther King, timed for the federal holiday," note that Amy Goodman doesn't just bring up King on the designated day. On Democracy Now!, his work will be brought into conversations on any given day of the year. You should also note that Amy Goodman didn't write the piece trying to promote a (Democratic) candidate. She ties it into her recent trip to Memphis, she opens with the blood stains. This isn't someone looking at the calander and exclaiming, "Oh! MLK Day! Let me pull some thoughts together!"

But that's what people seem to think they can do. They think they can offer laundry lists, for instance. Here's a suggestion for the next person who writes a ten-point column (Pollitt wrote nine-points, this isn't aimed at her), learn how to write one-point before you get giddy with ambition. Learn how to develop a theme. Superwoman or Superman though you may be, leave the things to do list on the fridge. No tree need die so you can reproduce your jottings for a readership.

It's not just that the internet allows commentary on topics in real time, it's also that this society moves at a faster pace. For those thinking, "Well I offer deep insight" -- we suggest that unless your last name is Zinn or Chomsky, you've probably overrated your own offerings.

We do think it is amazing (and we'll include Pollitt in this category because we happen to agree with Martha's e-mail to The Nation), that those who seem to really struggle to find some topic to cover were unable to ever write about Abeer.

We'd further suggest that even Thomas Friedman's ill thought out, wack job, poorly phrased columns exceed much of what passes for commentary in independent print. Why is that? Thomas Friedman wants to sell you on big business and on the war. He believes in something. He takes a side. It's the wrong side. His facts are wrong. But he doesn't put you to sleep. (He does give you a headache.)

Kimberley and MacArthur demonstrate in the articles above that media criticism can be written from the left . . . when you're not fearful that you won't get booked, that your book won't get reviewed, that . . . Go down the list.

All the bland writers of the left and 'left' who think they're auditioning for the New York Times op-ed page might want to check out all the layoffs this week and grasp that their fussy, little voices are not 'reasoned' and haven't gotten them the TV appearences they dreamed of (or the best seller list). Whether you're a useless male or "Truth," nobody needs it.

Nobody needs your slow to arrive, dithering approach anymore. A lot are overly praised for their "stryle" (they have none -- along with independent thought, independent style got squeezed out of them long ago and there's nothing graceful about their prose). Your days of slowly turning out your half-assed clip jobs could be numbered.

While the likes of Uncle Marty kept a lot of you on the speculation dole in the past. Those days may be about to end. While the useless males prefer to use the all knowing voice, the useless women prefer to act as though they observe from on high, a cloud just passing by.

Psuedo-lefties should be especially worried because daily papers aren't going to be adding any 'left' voices anytime soon.

As circulations continue to decline, don't kid yourself that you are 'set.' You might actually have to start earning that check by doing more than looking at the calander and musing, "MLK Day. What did I learn in school?" Or, "What did my neighbor say?" You might actually have to do some work. A scary thought for those who've spent the last year 'sailing along.'

Mailbag

When you spend six hours on a roundtable (which still needs to be edited), Dona goes into panic mode and starts her cry of "Short pieces! Short pieces!" So we're dipping into the mailbag with some e-mails from last week and two before that Ty thought to save for this feature when it was needed.

Last week's poem "Bacon" resulted in 17 e-mails all pointing out that Jess was a vegetarian. He is. He doesn't eat bacon. Sunday nights are awful. We're dragging from the all night sessions. We're trying to decide if we've got it in us to go out to eat. And what usually happens, for the core six and sometimes Kat, is that Ty's taken to saying, "I'll fix something if someone else cleans up." He fixes bacon. We eat bacon sandwiches. For Jess, he fries up tomatoes. This poem started out because C.I. had just gotten back and was going to fry up some bacon but there was none. There were other things but bacon was all C.I. could taste and the more the rest of us heard the talk, the more we wanted it too. Except for Jess, he is a vegetarian.

Noting our career retrospectives on Tina Turner and Stevie Nicks, Marcus wondered if we were planning to do anymore of those?

We actually thought we'd be doing Diana Ross this edition. That was before the never ending roundtable. In addition to Ross, we're also considering an exploration of Dolly Parton. By the time 2007 concludes, we hope to have offered both. (Dona is obsessed, the last few days, with The Essential Dolly Parton vol. 1 and vol. 2.)

On the same topic, Don wonders about other artists and includes 15 names that "you must consider." Sorry, Don, no, we mustn't. All the names on Don's list are male. We think there are enough people looking at the careers of men. We're an alternative. That doesn't mean we try to turn out yet another piece on Bob Dylan or any of the other things covered at length. We will do at least two more of those this year. If we do more than that, rest assured, we'll probably continue to stick with women. Our whole point of existance is not to be doing the exact same thing everyone else is doing. In addition to many sites online, Don can check out Mojo which shares his obsession with all things male.

Rodney notes a review by Virginia Heffernan of The New York Times. He writes, "See, feminists like King of Queens." We're not linking or even providing a date to that tired shit. Ava and C.I. actually had read that review because a friend pointed it out to them, a friend who was offended by it, a friend who works on King of Queens. Read it closer, Rodney, and tell us where the feminism is? Ava and C.I. note that it portrays Carrie as manipulative and scheming and Doug as an innocent good 'ol boy -- and they can provide you with the titles of many episodes where Doug is scamming and scheming throughout. How about when he fakes a heart attack? There's one. (They're listing more but this is a short feature and Wally recognized the title to the heart attack episode.) The point is, the lowbrow Virginia Heffernan always manages to endorse stereotypes. If that's your idea of feminism, Rodney, you need some help. Ava and C.I. say they'd wonder if Heffernan was just so tickled by Doug's last name that she found the show amusing if it weren't for the fact that low-brow and sexual stereotypes are all she has to traffic in? They also note that they write "a feminist look," not "the feminist look" -- and that even "a feminist look" would be hard to squeeze Virginia Heffernan into.

Robert wants us to know that, "Impeachment doesn't matter. If Nancy Pelosi says it doesn't matter, then it doesn't matter." All hail Our Lord Pelosi, apparently. But in the real world, it doesn't matter what Pelosi wants or doesn't want. Congress is supposed to represent the people. We know that's confusing because so few do. But demanding that they do their jobs is one way to change that.

Kelli passes on that she loves the roundtables and loves Betty especially in them. She writes: "When she guest blogged, I loved it. Both at Rebecca's site and at Kat's. Betty's always putting her writing down, so you tell her I think she's smart and funny and I'm always interested in what she has to say." Betty replies: "Thanks for writing, Mom." Seriously, Kelli, we agree with you. You left out one point about her though, you never know what she will say. We're serious. What Cedric first called her Deep Wisdoms from the Deep South always bring a new layer to the discussions. That's true of the non-roundtable pieces here as well.

Ava and C.I.'s review of Ugly Betty resulted in more e-mails than anything else. Their commentaries always get the most e-mail, so let's clarify that, the number of e-mails are right up there with the response to Prison Break and other commentaries that generated a near obsessive outpouring. Sue Lynn noted that, "I thought, what's the big deal about Thursday. Everyone knows Rebecca Romijn is joing the cast and she's going to play the woman that's supposed to be dead. Then, in the final moments, when it turned out she was playing a dead character but it was Daniel's brother, my mouth just dropped. Thank you for the heads up. I may yet forgive you for not spelling out in your heads up to That 70s Show that Eric would be in the last episode."

Dennis wonders why child actors are not reviewed by Ava and C.I.? Because they're child actors. They're not adults. That's why they didn't review Malcomn in the Middle, though they really wanted to. To have done that would have meant either skirting their own rule or barely noting the show.

Supreena wonders if there's a show that's gone off while they've been covering TV that they wished they'd caught? Yes, Still Standing. They wanted to review that. They never got around to it. Partly because Jim kept giving them "assignments" every time they'd planned to review it. It's also true that the print edition contained a review of Twins (which also ran in the gina & krista round-robin). They had worked on that and needed to finish it (two paragraphs more, at least, they say now) but Jim "assigned" another show once we started the writing edition and they didn't have time to finish it. So they tossed it in the print edition so it could go out and worked on the review Jim had assigned.

Noting the media reform entry that appeared at all the community sites that posted Monday, DunDude deems it "powerful" but wonders if we worry about "not getting the shouts" and we'll assume he means shout outs. We don't worry about shout outs. We don't worry about links. Not long after we started, when we tackled a watchdog, we got hate mail from one with the watchdog and many from the one's friend telling us that we were "dead" and blah blah blah. We're still around. He's gone. Funny how life works out.

Another confession to the rape and murder of 14-year-old Abeer

It's not yet up to the Trident standards (four out of five recommend . . .) but it is worth noting that another US soldier confessed to his part in the war crimes of the gang rape of 14-year-old Abeer Qasim Hamza, the murders of Abeer, Hadeel Qassim Hamza (Abeer's five-year-old sister), Qassim Hamza Raheem and Fakhriya Taha Muhasen (their parents).

In November, James P. Barker confessed to his role and, last week, Paul Cortez confessed. Steven D. Green, who the press has reported was the likely ring-leader, continues to deny any involvement. Jesse Spielman and Bryan Howard also have yet to admit to any involvement. Green will be tried in a federal court (civilian), Howard and Speilman in a military court due to the fact that the latter two were still serving when the official explanation ('insurgents') of the March 12, 2006 war crimes began to disinegrate.

As part of their plea agreements, Barker and Cortez have agreed to testify against the other three. Cortez' attorney mainstains that Cortez was more of an observerer. In Barker's testiomny he offered that Cortez appeared to take part in the gang rape. Cortez did take part. Even if he didn't penetrate Abeer, he held her down while Barker did.

That's not "observing." A press that cared about the rape and murder of a fourteen-year-old girl and the murders of her family would be examing the attorney's claim; however, as we've well seen, the press really isn't interested in this story with very few exceptions.

The Nation Stats

The January 22nd edition of The Nation has arrived. There are two other editions that we'll assume are in the mail, en route. This picks up from the last check in on the stats.

In this edition, we're ignoring the letter page (billed as a "Ruckus") because we don't cover the letter pages.

Editorials & Comment
unsigned editorial (don't tell AlterPunk!)
Bruce Shapiro contribues "The Saddam Spectacle"
Victory Navasky contributes "Ford, Nixon, The Nation"
Salim Lone contributes "Destabilizing The Horn"
Bob Moser contributes "Johnny Populist"
John Nichols contributes "A Democratic Anomaly"

Seeing a problem?

No, not just that Lone would be expected to write about Iraq -- that was his UN role. Five commentarires, five men.

Columns
Calvin Trillin's "Another New Policy for Iraq"
Alexander Cockburn's "Greater Than Warren Harding"
Katha Pollitt's "Happy New Year!"

Pollitt's column is addressed in our roundtable. Readers voted and said Trillin needed to be counted ("or it would be a slap to poetry," wrote Nolanda). So you have three columns and the score is: 2 men, 1 women.

Articles
Bill Moyers' "A New Story For America"
Katrina vanden Heuvel's "Top 10 For A More Perfect Union."
Chuck Collins' "Ten Blockbuster Hearings"
John Nichols' "Oversight Returns"
Sasha Abramsky's "Blue-ing The West"

Well Stasha (not a typo) gives you more stereotyping. When they're bleeding readers, is it really necessary to continue to risk offending the south with press made stereotypes? You've got one woman in there. Score: 4 men, 1 woman.

Books & Arts
Jeff Chang's "Jay-Z"
Henry Siegman's "CARTER: Palestine Peace Not Apartheid"
Stuart Klawans on two films
Peter Gizzi with a poem

Apparently only male poets desire to be published in The Nation. Who knew? Four pieces. Score: 4 men.

Total score for issue: 15 men, 2 women.

Year to date stats: 35 men have authored (or co-authered) pieces since the first 2007 issue. How many women? 9 women. That's nearly four times as many male writers as female writes that the magazine has featured in their first three issues of 2007 (one of which was a "double issue").

Do women compose 1/4 of the adult population in the United States? No, just at The Nation.

Do you see why media reform needs to include independent or "independent" media? We thought so.

Highlights

Selected by Mike, Kat, Cedric, Rebecca, Wally, Elaine and Betty, our picks for the best at the community sites last week.

"Thomas Friedman plays at being Chauncey Gardiner" -- this is hilarious. All the more so if you've seen Being There where the gardiner gets all his 'wisdom' from TV.

"robert parry, sarah olson, etc" -- Rebecca weighing in on a number of topics.

"Diana's Dud" -- step away from the latest CD from Flawless, Kat advises.

"The literary set?" & "THIS JUST IN! THE PUZZLES OF S.M.U. AND ALBERTO" -- Cedric and Wally probe the non-readers.

"Serving symbolism and trying to pass it off as the real thing" & "THIS JUST IN! IT'S A SYMBOLIC WORLD AFTER ALL!" -- in the spirit of Cedric and Wally's post, might we suggest that regular column change its title from "Sweet Victories" to "Symbolic Victories"?

"Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Celibacy in the City (Series Finale)"" -- All good things, gotta come to an end. Sing it Jackson Browne. And bid farewell to Harri and her gal pals.

"Help Wanted: The Nation's in need of direction" -- Mike weighs in on thoughts as to what the problem at the magaine really is.

"Comics -- Celibacy in the City" -- Elaine explains the story of Celibacy in the City.

"Cajun Chicken Wings" -- it's more than just a recipe, folks.

"Ruth's Report" -- Ruth takes a look at PBS.
"Iraq snapshot" -- our favorite snapshot of the week.

Thoughts on media reform

This is a bonus joint-post going up at community sites.


The media's collapse, said actor and activist Jane Fonda in an earlier speech, shielded the government's own failures.
Telling the story of Abeer Qasim Hamza, a 15-year-old Iraqi who was raped and murdered by U.S. soldiers, Fonda criticized the news media's impotence in covering the war.
"The cold-blooded murder of Abeer and her family is a tragedy," Fonda said. "But it's almost as great a tragedy when her story and all the other stories that are difficult to hear and difficult to accept are buried in the back of news pages and quickly shuffled off the nightly news." She added: "A truly powerful media is one that can stop a war, not start one."
A founder of the Women's Media Center, which advocates for greater representation of women in media and in newsrooms, Fonda said American journalism takes pride in balance but "forgets that the world is not divided only by right and left."
"During the coverage of the 2004 elections," she added, "journalists were more than twice as likely to turn to a male source than a woman."

The above, noted by Cindy, is from Trevor Aaronson's "Fonda Wraps up Media Conference: Advocate for women in newsrooms says journalism forgets divide not just right and left" (Memphis Commerical Appeal via Common Dreams). That's a jumpoing off point for a joint entry. Participating are:

The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and, me, Jim;
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude;
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills);
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man;
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review;
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix;
Mike of Mikey Likes It!;
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz;
and Wally of The Daily Jot


Fonda's comments strike at the heart of the problems with media today. They address the issue of Abeer, Iraq, and the portrayal of the 'other' (anyone who's non-White, non-middle-aged, non-straight, and non-White). As Rebecca has argued, Abeer's story is the story of Iraq.And what did the media do with it?

Independent media ignored it. Early on (June), it looked like there might be some interest in but that was quickly dropped as independent media marched off elsewhere. It never really bothered to pick up the story after it was done completely ignoring Iraq. No article in The Nation ever ran on Abeer or has run as of today. A fourteen-year-old girl was gang raped, murdered, her five-year-old sister was murdered, her parents were murdered and the initial blame for the war crimes was 'insurgents.' The reality was that the war crimes were committed by non-Iraqis. In November, James P. Barker admitted to his involvement in the war crimes (he entered the home as part of a plan to rape Abeer and kill her and others in the house). His court confession also included the actions of others. Since they've yet to be tried, or to confess, you can toss "alleged" in front of their names if you like.

But Abeer was raped and killed and where was the media when the details emerged?
The Washington Post, the Associated Press, Off Our Backs and Robin Morgan were accounted for, they weighed in. Where was everyone else?

The New York Times specialized in a funny sort of reporting. Before the defense could present their legal argument in an Article 32 hearing that was held in August, the New York Times, supposedly presenting objective reporting, managed to run an opinion piece as reporting and somehow managed to argue the defense's case. In a piece published before the defense had presented their case. In a defense that a military legal expert said had no known basis in legal history. Wow. Those New York Times reporters (Carolyn Marshall and Robert F. Worth) are certainly amazing. They predicted it all -- and without any help from the defense! What seers are they.

The New York Times specialized in another kind of reporting on the war crimes -- never mentioning Abeer's name. To name the victim would be to give a face to her and since their own 'reporting' had already crossed the line into advocacy journalism (not anything wrong with advocacy journalism but the paper self-presents as 'objective') it was very clear that their interest wasn't in the truth, wasn't in reporting what happened, but in rendering Abeer and what happened to her invisible. How do you, as reporters at the paper repeatedly did, cover the trial of men accused of gang raping and murdering Abeer and never manage to mention her name?


You do it very carefully when you're interests are in managing and mitigating public opinion. Better to make her a faceless victim if you're interested in continuing to sell the illegal war which the paper is interested in doing.


Now the paper's actions should have been called out. So you might think you got that. You didn't. If in no other way, The Nation could have covered Abeer as a media topic. There media columnist could have addressed the way the paper of record rendered Abeer invisible. But he wasn't interested in that. AlterPunk was interested in useless articles such as his lengthy take on why the New York Times shouldn't run unsigned editorials -- a column that ran in a magazine (The Nation) which runs unsigned editorials.

He was interested in getting upset that he'd recently learned the New York Times' policy on quoting from comments on websites was questionable. In a piece where they rushed to lynch Janet Jackson -- a piece riddled with inaccuracies, only a few of which resulted in corrections by the paper -- it was apparently okay to 'doctor' a quote from a website. The paper is aware of the docotring -- at every level -- and they issued no correction on that. If AlterPunk wants to feign shock about the Times' 'quoting' from websites, he might do better to know the paper's history on it.) (Altering quotes, failure to research your articles, presenting half-baked theories that blow up with the most basic examination and not even grasping that just because you say something was or wasn't a number one doesn't make it true didn't result in the arts section's version of Judith Miller being banned from the paper for anyone interested. We could also touch on the topic of allowing people to create titles for themselves and the paper running with them. That started in the arts section and then, as the Times well knows up through the editorial offices -- carried over to the front page of the news section. The defense on that, expressed by the editor responsible for the front page piece, was that the executive in question didn't like his actual title so he preferred to use a title that doesn't exist. That may be the executive's wish but if the company wanted him to have that title, they'd give it to him. (They haven't and his being billed by a title he doesn't hold has caused anger at the company and caused those still expressing disbelief to note that when you're 'friends' with writers at the paper you can write your own ticket in what passes for 'objective' reporting.) Maybe the Cindy Brady of the faux left can next tackle that?

Probably not because it's safer for all involved (safer translates as coverage and book reviews) to offer up useless topics (unsigned editorials? A pressing issue in the bull pens of high school papers, no doubt) .

And independent media played 2006 safe and cowardly with few exceptions.

Today, John Nichols and Katrina vanden Heuvel write of Dr. Martin Luther King. It may be less than generous to note that the magazine's choosing to note him on the federal holiday in his honor. It's pointing the obvious to note that the passing last year of Coretta Scott King produced no article -- in print or 'online exclusive.' So it strikes us as a more than apalling that the same magazine who didn't appear to give a damn about Coretta Scott King now rushes pieces on MLK to their website.


Like Abeer, Coretta Scott King meets the defnition of an 'other.' African-American, a woman, she couldn't get any traction. The media critic for The Nation couldn't even note that the paper of little record didn't editorialize about her passing -- though, in the same week, they could note a playwright (and personal friend of Gail Collins) who died. Her passing didn't rate a column either. The closest to a column, and the only mention in the editorial section, was Bob Herbert's tacked on one paragraph noting she had died.

What does that say? What does the above say?

Quite a lot and if people want to address media reform, they better do seriously. The Nation is the left magazine with the largest circulation so we'll focus on it.

In 2006, when both Katha Pollitt and Naomi Klein were on leave while they worked on books, two prime spots were open to be temporarily filled. When two strong voices are absent and they happen to be female, you might think The Nation would fill those spots with women. But apparently having nearly wall to wall contributions from male writers wasn't quite enough for "Nobody Owns The Nation," they needed more male voices.

This operating belief goes a long way towards explaining why a freelancer placed her article on Abu Ghraib last year not with The Nation but with a fashion magazine (Marie Claire). The Nation should be leading and it isn't. That's in terms of what gets covered and who gets to cover it. (Already in 2007, their appalling low number of pieces written by women threaten to match the disgraceful numbers for 2006.)

Is the nation White, male, middle aged and straight in all regards? No, but if you got that impression from reading The Nation in 2006, your mistaken beliefs were certainly supported by the magazine.

Alternative media is supposed to provide an alternative, to present what media could be. (On a lower budget, granted.) Offering what the mainstream provides (often the worst it provides -- such as handicapping political races as though they were horse races) but with a left/Democratic spin (for many in independent media, the 'left' view is determined by what the DNC decides it is) isn't an alternative. It's a negative, a photographic negative, it's the bizarro world, it's just not an alternative.

An alternative requires providing an alternative. That requires covering topics that the mainstream isn't interested in. That requires creating the kind of media that demonstrates what is wrong with the current system.

If the extent of 'wrong' is that more Republican hacks are tossed on the airwaves than Democratic hacks, then The Nation is doing a wonderful job. If being a party organ for the Democratic Party is an alternative, congratulations to The Nation.

That would explain why coverage of students qualifies in the magazine as covering what an Iowan poli-sci student deemed "Eisnhower Democrats." Look, they're War Hawks, well funded one with the usual crowd of useless names speaking to them and funding them! Oh, look, here's another piece about 'activists' who are overjoyed by their 'success' (they farmed out volunteers to Congressional campaings) and who explain that sometimes you have to stop 'hugging a tree,' 'put on a suit,' and get down to business. Such business doesn't include serious concern over the environment as the dismissive 'tree hugging' reference telegraphs.

Meanwhile, in the real world, students organize to end the war, organize to rebuild in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, organize to halt the imprisonments at Guantanamo, organize (and lead!) on the immigrations rights issue.

The immigration rights issue? "Alternative" coverage apparently means you go down to the deep south and speak to White people opposed to immigrant rights. You also toss in a male (of course male) activist. You avoid the students who led the protests, who woke a sleeping nation.You avoid their bravery and maybe you even offer a slap to them that the Mexican flag shouldn't be carried at a protest. Now those words generally come from people who didn't participate in any of the protests so the words are as useless as the owners of the mouths uttering them.

Where is the place at the table for people of ethnicities and color, for women and LBGTs?

The Nation is looking for a publicity director. That's not going to change the opinions of students opposed to the magazine, students who see it as useless and judgmental of them, students who see their own work and the issues that matter to them ignored.

A new publicity director won't conceal the fact that 'equality' has a funny meaning at The Nation. Equality doesn't mean when two female columnists are on leave, you fill their posts with other male voices. Equality does seem to mean that you demonstrate how fair you are by criticizing Harry Belafonte. At last! African-Americans can be slammed equally at The Nation! (If undeservedly.) Now they can't get covered, Coretta Scott King's death demonstrates that, but they've 'achieved' enough at the magazine that they can be slammed.

Will a publicy director speak to the staff about how they conduct themselves in on air interviews?

We think she or he should. We think that's now a requirement after Laura Flanders was called everything but stupid on air. (Flanders an astute journalist, critic and broadcaster.) That hostile, patronizing, impatient and dismissive treatment didn't come from a guest billed as being on the right, it came from a Nation staffer (and Lyndon La Rouche refugee). We think that interview, the hostitility expressed towards Flanders, says a lot. How does anyone at the magazine come to believe it's okay to treat Flanders, or any woman, in such a manner? (It was bullying. Flanders stood her ground.)

Well it helps when the culture is predominately male, predominately straight, and predominately White. And we're speaking of the culture at the magazine. Media reform is suddenly an issue (for a week or so) and we're reminded of the 2006 issue on media reform which played like celebrity even if it didn't make for good reading. Having something to say wasn't apparently a requirement, just name value. (Which led to it playing out like the what-are-they-reading feature in Vanity Fair -- though in fairness to Van Fair, that's a tiny item in the magazine, not something they provide for pages and pages.)

Margaret Kimberley (Black Agenda Report) is very popular with this community, so let's get practical: when does she get invited to the table?

Or does she have to blindly cheer every Democrat to be included?

If impeachment was a topic worthy of a January 2006 cover, why is it a topic dropped when Nancy Pelosi announcing she is pulling it off the table? Last time we checked, she wasn't listed on the masthead of The Nation.

Independent media needs to show some independence. That's independence in thought and in coverage. Talk of media reform is meaningless if alternative outlets aren't willing to provide an alternative currently.

As 2006 drew to a close, CounterSpin finally found a woman they could interview for the full program (a practice common with male guests). We see that and her topic (the way the press covers war) as a big step in the right direction. But having lived through one of the worst years for independent media (2006), we're not about to act like media reform is something required of the mainstream and that the bulk of independent media has done a good (or even an okay) job in the last year. It hasn't.

It has not reaffirmed the core of democracy (that would require covering actions that included more than running for office or urging that readers vote). It has not practiced anything resmembling Brown v. Board in their own coverage. And we're all dying for the moment where a host (male or female) of a panel has the guts to stop a male, who repeatedly cuts off a female guest, by pointing out just how dismissive he's treating the woman and asking him why he thinks that treatment is acceptable? We're also dying to get something other than The Elector.

We're not interested in The Elector and we're not interested in linking to sop. A perfect example would be an article that David Enders has written. Does the writing qualify for sop? No. It's well written. But The Nation feels it's only worthy of 'online exclusive' status -- implying that they grade outside writers much more harshly than they do insiders. (Possibly they're under the mistaken belief that their print editions are awash with Iraq coverage?) While we're glad that both John Nichols and Katrina vanden Heuvel chose, on the MLK federal holiday, to note MLK, we're not interested in linking to the articles because of the magazine's own silence on Coretta Scott King. In fact, community wide we probably won't to link to anything from The Nation other than Naomi Klein or Katha Pollitt. Why?

Why bother? Why bother to link to a magazine that refuses to cover war resisters? They can't get ahold of Kyle Synder? (Puts them in the minority.) No, they just don't want to. They've demonstrated that throughout 2006 and the slam they printed on Ehren Watada is so offensive and does not pass the 'free speech' phrase that's used as a bully club.

Isn't it funny how free speech lets in Christopher Hitchens, La Rouche refugees and sexual predators but it doesn't let it people of color, it doesn't let it in women, it doesn't let in coverage of peace activists and demonstrations, and it doesn't let in war resisters.

Ehren Watada's beliefs about the illegality and the immorality of the war could be backed up with citations from (much earlier) coverage of Iraq that The Nation provided. So he takes a stand and they play dumb. That's not cutting it. At some point, when you know the war is wrong, you have to take a stand. Ehren Watada has done that. The Nation reads like its unsure. A war resister is a cover story, not a sidebar and especially not a sidebar after you've just printed a useless (unneeded and uninformed) quote from a man slamming Watada. That a magazine which says it is opposed to the illegal war continues to be unable to offer one editorial or column in support of Watada or any of the other war resisters to go public in the summer of 2006, while filling pages of the magazine week after week with useless trash like AlterPunk's nonstop shout outs to various men (someday he'll prove he's a real boy, just like Pinochio!) (and when that happens, he still won't correct his lie that Naomi Klein was a fashion consultant to the Gore campaign).

We're tired of it and we think media reform is a useless topic until independent media is willing to practice some of it themselves.

Truest statement of the week

Starting with US war resister Ehren Watada who, in June 2006, became the first officer to publicly refuse to deploy to the illegal war. Last Thursday, at the Fort Lewis Army, a military pretrial, presided over by Lt. Col. John Head, heard arguments to outline the scope of the scheduled February 5th court-martial.
Today, the supposedly educated (if not enlightened) members of The Seattle Times editorial board issued their own journalistic ruling -- one that they apparently hammered out with bully clubs. Representing the finest of mob mentalities, if not journalism or democracy, The Seattle Times argues that Ehren Watada should be convicted on both counts (missing deployment and conduct unbecoming an officer) because . . . well the system just won't survive otherwise. Having killed the invidual to "save" what they see as a weak and dottering system (otherwise Watada wouldn't have to be convicted -- if they had any faith in the strength and resiliency of the American system, the Nervous Nels wouldn't have argued for his conviction for the good of the system), they embrace a long history of knuckle draggers who chose expediency over true democracy because there's nothing like a moral imperative to have the most closed minded reaching for the white sheets and rope.
For the system to struggle on, the editorial board argues, the individual must be stamped out and the accusers of Socrates couldn't have said it better in ancient times. If they've learned anything from their (limited) education, the only evidence is that, while calling for a judicial death, they stop short of imprisoment because they fear a martyr who could galvanize a public.
So, by their rudimentary and flawed logic, Ehren Watada must be found guilty to give pause to any other service member that might follow in his footsteps thereby defending the "good Nazi" argument overruled in the Nuremberg Trials which found that following orders was not a valid excuse and that each soldier is an individual agent responsible for his or her own actions.
The Seattle Times sees service members as worker bees and one wonders how far they'd be willing to carry out their flawed logic. Were it The Berlin Times in the immediate aftermath of WWII would they editorialize in favor of Nazis sending Jews, gypsies and gays to the gas chambers? Doubtful because the only basis for their stand today is that the individual must be stamped out at all costs due to the board's own deluded belief in the weakness of the American system. (Possibly they'd term it "the American experiment"?). In an apparent correction to Max Weber (and a dismissal of Robert K. Merton's work on Universalism), the editorial board argues that the state must not only use military might as they see fit but also narrowly define "justice" when it suits their own purposes.
In a decade of journalistic cowardice, the editorial echoes many of the themes that saw the punishment of those journalists who, in real time, called out the Bully Boy for his Bunny-Fu-Fu hop around the continental United States on September 11th for what it was (cowardice), and saw a rush to pass off press releases as investigative journalism. The system will survive, it always does, it's modern day journalism that has decayed.
In the real world, where a spine is required to stand erect, Ehren Watada is part of a movement of resistance within the military and The Seattle Times' hoped for guilty verdict hasn't stopped the movement which includes people such as Watada, Kyle Snyder, Darrell Anderson, Ricky Clousing, Aidan Delgado, Mark Wilkerson, Agustin Aguayo, Joshua Key, Ivan Brobeck, Camilo Meija, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Jeremy Hinzman, Corey Glass, Patrick Hart, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.

The above is from C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for Tuesday, January 9, 2007 and Mike and Jim both agreed last Tuesday that it was the pick for truest statement of the week. Juding by e-mails to this site, they were far from alone in making that call immediately.

A Note to Our Readers

Hey --
Another Sunday.

First, if you see a "note" in the future and there's no note in it, remember this: "This will be up in a bit. C.I.'s doing the morning entry at The Common Ills. When C.I. rejoins us, we'll do the note. We're including this now so there's a link (for the entry C.I.'s working on)." We posted that
to explain what was going on. Doing that gives five of us a break and allows C.I. to be able to work on The Common Ills entry so that when the "note" is done here, we're all done at the same time.

Second, while waiting, Jess and Ty looked at the e-mails that had come in so far. There was a question about stats for The Nation. That should be in this edition but none of the six have seen the latest issue. (Subscribed copies still have not arrived.) If we have two issues we can cover next week, we'll do so. That feature, as Melanie worried, is not being dropped. Ava and C.I. were smart to start it when they steered the edition. We will continue it and we will cover every issue unless we announce that we're dropping the stats feature.

Now let's give some credit. The following worked on this edtion:


The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and, me, Jim;
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude;
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills);
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man;
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review;
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix;
Mike of Mikey Likes It!;
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz;
and Wally of The Daily Jot

We say thank you and also thank you to Dallas who hunted down links and was a sound board. We also thank Rebecca for her work on photo shopping our illustrations.

New content?

Truest statement of the week -- Mike and me (Jim) picked this early in the week. E-mails coming in throughout the week backed up that choice. The only problem with it? As JG wondered in an e-mail, "Why is this running at The Common Ills and not The Nation?" Good question.

Note -- We were off by 20 minutes. That was due to Kat and Dona finding the impeachment advertisement in the paper and wanting that to go with the editorial. It's also true that after Rebecca works on what we send her, C.I. has to send it to The Common Ills and we pick it up from there. Hello (the program used to send the illustrations) can be very slow.

Highlights -- Cedric, Betty, Kat, Rebecca, Elaine, Wally and Mike worked on this themselves -- writing and selecting. We thank them and then some.

MyTV's Fascist House -- Yes, it's back. We get e-mails requesting this all the time. It is a continous feature, a humor collage. It's also a pain in the butt. It's the core six plus Kat working on these. How it works is we keep clipping file of interesting photos. When it's time to do a collage, we all pick out what we think would work. Then we usually debate a theme. (This week's theme is Condi's Middle East Bully Trip won't garner the attention her usual trips do -- the bloom is off that rose.) When we've finally got both down, we begin cutting the pictures based on how we think they'll be used. At which points, we start assembling on our chosen background. Then it's time to recut (to take out edges and also to make them fit better). Then it's time to grab the glue sticks after we all agree on where things are going to go. It's usually at least an hour and half after we grab the clipping file before we grab the glue sticks. It's not a "quick feature" by any means.

Bacon -- we worked on this poem earlier last week and punched it up during the edition with input from all participating. (Text on the collage, FYI, is provided by all participating in the edition.)

File it under "Thank God she was born in 1925!" -- Kat was the one who came up with the suggestion for this feature. We'd forgotten about it but it was in the clipping file for future collages. She was looking at the picture that ran in The New York Times and noticed Big Babs delighted smirk/smile. It was a good idea and we bumped two other things to work on this.

The Little Boy Who Cried WMD -- Yes, we fixed the title since it first posted. Dick Cheney is the pig, note the glasses.

Abeer and Ehren -- Did you know that one of Abeer's alleged gang rapists and the one alleged to have shot her dead was diagonsed, by the military, with what we'll call 'mental issues' before the rape and murders? Hopefully, you did. Did you know that their is a Camp Resistance in support of Ehren Watada? Hopefully, you did. But considering how little coverage both have received in independent media, we won't assume you knew. These are two developments we think you need to know about.


Escalation: The non-plan -- One of our two longest features. It's a look at Bully Boy's foolish and tragic 'plan' to do more of the same. Many links in this feature. The photo is public domain. (Janet e-mailed already to ask about that. It was taken by a White House photographer (tax payer money) and is on the White House page -- public domain. Please note Anthony Arnove is hitting the road to make speaking appearences in conjuction with the new paperback version of IRAQ: The Logic of Withdrawal. Dates scheduled thus far are noted in the feature.

TV: Ugly Betty, Beautiful TV -- Ava and C.I. were surprised to discover that after their fall 2006 TV commentary, readers thought they'd immediately pick up this show for review. They were actually planning to wait awhile. With both coming down with food poisoning and being busy prior to that, they went ahead and reviewed this after finding out where the show was in broadcasted episodes. There are no spoilers but they strongly urge that if you already like the show, do not miss the broadcast this Thursday. (On ABC. And they say, "Sorry if we didn't note it airs on Thursday in the review. If we didn't, we'll go in and add that.") This is a long commentary. Their regular readers will probably read through it so quick that they may not grasp that but it is a long one (and one of the two longest pieces this week).


Editorial: The unmentionable -- Hey, remember when impeachment was being seriously raised by any number of independent media outlets? While Congress may have to follow Nancy Pelosi's lead when she says it's off the table -- why the hell is independent media? Or is not all that "independent"? Were the scanner large enough, we'd have feature the entire full page advertisement.

And that's it for this week. Hopefully, you found something that made you think or made your blood boil. Hopefully, it'll motivate you to take some action.

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