|
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Highlights
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Truest statement of the week
Is Nouri al-Maliki becoming Iraq's next dictator and, if he is, does anyone in Washington care? The second half of the question is easy to answer. The Pentagon wanted to keep 8,000 troops in Iraq after withdrawal. But Maliki made it clear there would be no US troops after the agreement expired on 31 December 2011. The state department also planned for an embassy up to 16,000 strong, and a CIA station 700 strong, but the Iraqi strongman made short shrift of a sizeable US civilian presence, by insisting that his office take direct responsibility for approving every US diplomatic visa. Washington could use the soft power of military supply contracts, but is unwilling to do that. Maliki is allowing Iranian overflights to resupply Assad's embattled regime in Syria. Washington still does not want to know.
-- the editorial board of The Guardian weighs in with "Iraq: back to the future."
Truest statement of the week II
In the past few weeks, we have heard riveting stories of heroism and
valor from one of the U.S. soldiers who participated in the combat
mission that killed Osama bin Laden. His book, written under a pseudonym
(his true identity was subsequently made public
by Fox News), is by most accounts devoid of any classified information.
In fact, most of what is in the book had been already leaked by top
officials of the U.S. government themselves. I am dismayed to read the
steady stream of criticism flowing from the U.S. government aimed at the
book and its author. The Defense Department and administration
officials have called
the author's decision to publish the book the "height of
irresponsibility." Former CIA Director and current Defense Secretary
Leon Panetta has even gone so far as to say,
"I think we have to take steps to make clear to him and to the
American people that we're not going to accept this kind of behavior."
At the same time that they threaten the author and try to "make clear" they're not going to accept an honest account of what happened in Abbottabad, Americans have also recently learned that the CIA and other U.S. government agencies have been cooperating with Hollywood figures on a movie about the same topic. In fact, according to CIA emails released recently, one writer was given a "deep dive" inside the Agency as they wrote a screenplay on the bin Laden raid. Are U.S. government officials angry that the author wrote a book, or that his book came out before their movie? This, of course, comes after the U.S. government officials have participated in and been sources for newspaper articles, magazine features and even movies -- like Act of Valor.
It is time for the public to make clear to our government that we will no longer accept their unsubstantiated or spoon-fed version as the only one of significant historical events.
-- Valerie Plame Wilson, "Why is the U.S. Government Bullying An American Hero?" (Huffington Post).
At the same time that they threaten the author and try to "make clear" they're not going to accept an honest account of what happened in Abbottabad, Americans have also recently learned that the CIA and other U.S. government agencies have been cooperating with Hollywood figures on a movie about the same topic. In fact, according to CIA emails released recently, one writer was given a "deep dive" inside the Agency as they wrote a screenplay on the bin Laden raid. Are U.S. government officials angry that the author wrote a book, or that his book came out before their movie? This, of course, comes after the U.S. government officials have participated in and been sources for newspaper articles, magazine features and even movies -- like Act of Valor.
It is time for the public to make clear to our government that we will no longer accept their unsubstantiated or spoon-fed version as the only one of significant historical events.
-- Valerie Plame Wilson, "Why is the U.S. Government Bullying An American Hero?" (Huffington Post).
A note to our readers
Hey --
Another Sunday.
First up, we thank all who participated this edition which includes Dallas and the following:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Trina of Trina's Kitchen,
Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ,
Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends,
Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts,
and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub.
And what did we come up with?
The editorial board of the Guardian gets a truest.
As does Valerie Plame Wilson.
The BBC did an investigative series last week on how gays are persecuted in Iraq. You wouldn't know that to follow the American TV networks.
But what they had time for was what they always have time for -- propping up Barack and attacking others. It really was obvious last week just how much the media was skewing coverage due to their favoritism of Barack.
Which probably also explains why the Health and Human Services Secretary was found to have violated the Hatch Act last week and she hasn't been fired and she hasn't resigned.
But, hey, on Saturday Night Democrat, NBC is again allowing the tired variety show to attack and ridicule the GOP while presenting Barack as uber cool.
Lauren Bacall turned 87 today. May she see many more birthdays.
Garcia had the idea for us to do a "short feature like Dona always wants" on the redesign and he e-mailed to pass the suggestion along. Great suggestion and thank you, Garcia.
A brief discussion to round out Ava and C.I.'s media piece.
The Jill Stein campaign is the campaign for the people and of the people and by the people. She is the Green Party's presidential nominee.
Mumia remains a political prisoner.
Cheri Honkala is Jill Stein's running mate.
Mike and the gang wrote this and we thank them for it.
And that's what we came up with.
See you next week.
Peace.
-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.
Another Sunday.
First up, we thank all who participated this edition which includes Dallas and the following:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Trina of Trina's Kitchen,
Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ,
Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends,
Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts,
and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub.
And what did we come up with?
The editorial board of the Guardian gets a truest.
As does Valerie Plame Wilson.
The BBC did an investigative series last week on how gays are persecuted in Iraq. You wouldn't know that to follow the American TV networks.
But what they had time for was what they always have time for -- propping up Barack and attacking others. It really was obvious last week just how much the media was skewing coverage due to their favoritism of Barack.
Which probably also explains why the Health and Human Services Secretary was found to have violated the Hatch Act last week and she hasn't been fired and she hasn't resigned.
But, hey, on Saturday Night Democrat, NBC is again allowing the tired variety show to attack and ridicule the GOP while presenting Barack as uber cool.
Lauren Bacall turned 87 today. May she see many more birthdays.
Garcia had the idea for us to do a "short feature like Dona always wants" on the redesign and he e-mailed to pass the suggestion along. Great suggestion and thank you, Garcia.
A brief discussion to round out Ava and C.I.'s media piece.
The Jill Stein campaign is the campaign for the people and of the people and by the people. She is the Green Party's presidential nominee.
Mumia remains a political prisoner.
Cheri Honkala is Jill Stein's running mate.
Mike and the gang wrote this and we thank them for it.
And that's what we came up with.
See you next week.
Peace.
-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.
Editorial: The lazy American media
While the US media was using last week to play favorites in the presidential race, BBC was practicing actual journalism, reporting on things that really matter.
That included Natalia Antelava, Peter Murtaugh, Bill McKenna and Daniel Nasaw major investigative report for the BBC on the continued persecution of LGBTs in Iraq. BBC's continued assault which makes it very different from the CBS Evening News, ABC World News and NBC Nightly News which can't be bothered with the story. In addition, the BBC also filed the following reports:
And the reporting on this crisis didn't start last week. The BBC has seriously covered this issue for some time.
[Screen snap above, Ali al-Dagbah, Nouri's spokesperson, being interviewed by Natalia Antelava about the persecution of Iraq's LGBT community.]
And even after the BBC coverage this week, the American networks didn't suddenly gain interest in the topic. They made no effort to broadcast any of the reporting.
The BBC could broadcast that but not the American networks.
You may remember when ABC pulled their staff out of Iraq -- December 2008 -- they insisted that they would use the BBC, that BBC reports would round out their Iraq coverage. Yet when the BBC provided an investigative report from Iraq, ABC played dumb.
The persecution of Iraq's LGBT community is a real story, it's a tragic story.
Yet last week, the American media was more concerned with attempting to convince Americans that Barack had a strong foreign policy.
Oh.
Suddenly the American media silence on the tragedies in Iraq makes sense.
That included Natalia Antelava, Peter Murtaugh, Bill McKenna and Daniel Nasaw major investigative report for the BBC on the continued persecution of LGBTs in Iraq. BBC's continued assault which makes it very different from the CBS Evening News, ABC World News and NBC Nightly News which can't be bothered with the story. In addition, the BBC also filed the following reports:
And the reporting on this crisis didn't start last week. The BBC has seriously covered this issue for some time.
[Screen snap above, Ali al-Dagbah, Nouri's spokesperson, being interviewed by Natalia Antelava about the persecution of Iraq's LGBT community.]
And even after the BBC coverage this week, the American networks didn't suddenly gain interest in the topic. They made no effort to broadcast any of the reporting.
Natalia Antelava: The situation in Iraq he says is
only getting worse and without the support of international
organizations, they can't find the way out of the country. They appear
regularly without a warning. Each neighborhood gets its own hit list
with names and addresses of local residents who are believed to be
gay. Each time, it drives the already hidden gay community here
further underground and further into panic. Each time, one of the gays
told me, it signals the beginning of a new witch hunt. Radical milita
groups are believed to be behind this hit list. Although officially
they've been disbanded, militias still pose the greatest threat to
homosexuals. But those we spoke to say that they're just as fearful of
countless police and military checkpoints that are supposed to be
making Baghdad safe. This checkpoint is manned by the Interior
Ministry troops. But in Iraq, one's uniform never tells you the full
story. In this country, you can be a police man by day, a militia man
by night. These blurred lines and mixed allegiances have made it easy
for the government to blame militia groups for the killings of gays.
But we've discovered evidence that directly links the police with
attacks on gays in Iraq. Qais is gay and a former police man. He told
me he had been ordered to go after homosexuals. He couldn't refuse and
so he quit his job.
Qais:
In 2006, 2007 and 2008, we were busy fighting terrorsm. We didn't pay
attention to gays. On top of it, the Iraqi government had to respect
the rule of law when the Americans and the British were here. But
now? They have a lot of free time and the police are going after gays.
Natalia Antelava: Have you ever been called to arrest gays or kill gays or go after gays in any way?
Qais:
Yes, twice. We had to arrest this guy. He was having an argument with
someone. Once they arrested him, they accused him of being gay. We
were told to send him to another town where he was wanted for being
gay. We sent him to that town and he disappeared. His family came to
ask about him and we sent them to another town where they could not
find him. Then they got a death certificate from the police but they
never got the body.
Natalia
Antelava: With so much secrecy, fear and loathing, it's difficult to
establish the exact level of the government's involvement in the
persecution. But 17 gay men interviewed for this investigation said
they believed they were being singled out and hunted by the state. All
see the police as a major threat. All have recently had friends or
boyfriends killed. All said arrests were still happening. Until
recently, Ghaith worked a a police station. One day, he came to work
to find his boyfriend in a pre-trial detention cell.
The BBC could broadcast that but not the American networks.
You may remember when ABC pulled their staff out of Iraq -- December 2008 -- they insisted that they would use the BBC, that BBC reports would round out their Iraq coverage. Yet when the BBC provided an investigative report from Iraq, ABC played dumb.
The persecution of Iraq's LGBT community is a real story, it's a tragic story.
Yet last week, the American media was more concerned with attempting to convince Americans that Barack had a strong foreign policy.
Oh.
Suddenly the American media silence on the tragedies in Iraq makes sense.
TV: Media Fail
For most of the media, last week revolved around less than 100 words. It dominated the news cycle. Yet, how very typical of American media, they couldn't even get the words right.
Instead of going with the statement above a number of people would 'quote' it by referring to Twitter. These people, not surprisingly, were ones who usually attacked GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney. And "F**k Romney" was the chorus of the song the media wanted to sing last week -- non-stop as Ruth discovered when she streamed KERA's Think only to discover the host and her two guests sharing the same hymnal as they sang the same tune.
If you missed the media blitz, lucky you, Glenn Kessler (Washington Post) does the best job of explaining the order of events. The basic storyline is a film/video that had been online for months suddenly attracted attention in the Middle East. Protests began taking place. The film was thought to be tied to the United States and this led to the US becoming the source of protest. We haven't seen the film. It is said to mock the Muslim faith. The US Embassy in Cairo issued the above statement on Tuesday. They would go on to Tweet the statement on their Twitter feed several more times during the day, a day that would see that embassy protested as well as the US Embassy in Libya. At the second embassy, four Americans would be killed -- and that may have been a pre-planned attack that used the protest as cover -- Glen A. Doherty, Sean Smith, Chris Stevens and Tyrone S. Woods were the four Americans killed.
Late Tuesday -- almost midnight EST -- the media began reporting on Mitt Romney's criticism of the statement. Tuesday was 9-11 and Romney and US President Barack Obama had agreed not to criticize each other in the press on that day. Romney asked that his statement be held until midnight and it was held to close to midnight. Mike covered the issue and noted the statement Tuesday night:
I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.
And they were off, the feral cats hunched their backs and bared their claws, hissing, screaming and attacking. None more so than the lunatic and child-molester-look-alike Greg Sargent (blogger for The Washington Post). Romney's statements about his statement were "incoherent," Sargent insisted on Wednesday and the rhetoric and rage continued all week possibly culminating when the always conflicted Ruth Marcus took to The NewsHour (PBS) to pronounce Romney "disgraceful."
Words like "lie" were used by journalists and applied to Romney. It was a sign of just how out of control the media has gotten, of just how low the standards have gotten. The official media is supposed to operate within certain guidelines. There were no guidelines at all as The New York Times' David E. Sanger made clear on Washington Week (PBS) when he wrongly declared, "[. . .] and of course by the time Governor Romney spoke that night, or issued a statement a few hours that night, it was just a few hours later that the killings happened in Libya."
What was said?
"I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi." Is that a controversial statement for Americans? We don't think most of the electorate will be outraged by that statement. It may be controversial for David E. Sanger who went on TV and pretended to be familiar with the statement but clearly wasn't or he wouldn't have wrongly stated that "the killings happened" "a few hours later" after Romney issued his statement. "It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."
The US Embassy in Cairo issued a statement (noted at the top) before the attacks. President Harry Truman kept a sign on his desk that read: "The BUCK STOPS here!" As Keith Koffler (White House Dossier) reported in July, Barack declared of presidents, "Harry Truman said the buck stops with you." The president is over the federal government.
The Embassy statement reflects on Barack. That's a given. If the White House had issued their own statement, it wouldn't have been that way. But they didn't. You may not like that Barack's been held accountable for the statement, but Mitt Romney is not off in the weeds when he makes that call.
As it turns out, the White House didn't order the statement to be taken down after they were aware of it. Josh Rogin (Foreign Policy) reports that they were e-mailed a copy and they said not to post it, the Embassy then e-mailed them that it was already up. The appropriate response is, "Take it down."
The order to take it down shouldn't have been a difficult one Tuesday, after all, the Embassy vanished the statement by Friday. But the White House, having just e-mailed the Embassy not to post the statement, should have immediately e-mailed them back, "Take it down."
There are serious leadership issues here.
Having addressed the "Obama Administration's first response" aspect of that sentence, let's move over to "was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions." 'Ha!' the Greg Sargents want to insist. 'That statement was before the attacks!' That statement was Tweeted even after the attacks. And, pay attention here, if you can Tweet during and after the attacks, you can damn well put up another statement which the Embassy should have immediately done. They should have known that people would check the site and they should have had something up other than the less than 100 word statement.
"To sympathize with those who waged the attacks"? The Embassy stated: "The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims -- as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions." "Sympathize" is a judgment call. It's opinion. You can disagree. But if that's how Romney sees it -- and he's made clear in interviews that it is -- then that is his opinion.
The Embassy statement shouldn't have gone up. According to Rogin's reporting, even the White House objected to it and told the Embassy not to post it. It is now vanished. The White House has publicly disagreed with the statement. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made a point to disagree with it on Tuesday night.
So how Romney's the asshole or idiot in all of this goes to the press itself and its own desire to control the election, not to report on it. That's why issues about the attack on the embassy didn't get the same kind of coverage.
Realizing just how over the top things had gotten, even Joe Scarborough tried to walk it back a little on Morning Joe (MSNBC) insisting that there were important issues to address but . . . it was Mitt Romney's fault that the media wasn't covering them. "[Y]ou should have talked about the warnings with the embassy," Scarborough declared referring to the media as "you," and they would have "if Mitt Romney had kept his mouth shut."
Really?
Ruth Marcus wasn't going to talk about the warnings. If it hadn't been fuming about "disgrace," she would have found something else to talk about. It would have been anti-Romney because that's the song the press has decided to sing. As New York Times columnist David Brooks observed on All Things Considered (NPR) last, week, the press does have a bias and it's one "in favor of Barack Obama and against Mitt Romney." Ruth Marcus is the best example. She is personalizing everything. In her conversation on The NewsHour (with Brooks), even after Judy Woodruff resets by noting, "But that point about apologizing, that has been a major part of the critique of Romney of the Obama administration." And Ruth Marcus will cut David off less than 20 seconds after Judy notes "of the Obama administration," so that Ruth can insist, "But he never apologized!" Ruth seems a little too close to the bone to pass for objective and that's been true of far too many in the press this election cycle.
This election has been a little too close to the bone for a significant number of the press which is why Hillary Is 44 continues to advise that the Romney campaign needs to take on Big Media. It's hard to argue against that when, week after week, day after day, the media works overtime to rip apart Mitt Romney and to build up Barack Obama. As Ann ("NPR's biased to which party") and Elaine ("Terry's fluff and nonsense") noted, last week saw Terry Gross give hack writer Michael Lewis fifty minutes on September 12th to do an advertorial on behalf of Barack Obama.
Michael Lewis made all the stops last week promoting the soft-core political porn of how he played basketball with Barack and trailed him around the White House. He was on Reuters TV, Fresh Air, NBC's Today Show, PBS' The Charlie Rose Show, NPR's Morning Edition . . . Pretty much everything except TLC's I Found The Gown.
And for what reason? A really bad and really long feature article in Vanity Fair? Usually that won't even get you booked on E! on a slow news day. But surely, great insight into governance and policy was gained by putting this man all over the media landscape, right?
"And on that day, he'd had - you know, it hadn't been an especially heavy day. He'd had meetings with his generals. He had meetings with Hillary Clinton. He'd had lunch with Joe Biden. He had spent - had spent some time with a Make-A-Wish child, some child who was going to die very soon, and their last wish was to spend some time with the president." Those sentences only work as humor and really should be delivered in Alyson Hannigan's "This one time at band camp" sing-song manner.
Or maybe you were attracted to the breathless nature of this gush, "One was his insistence that no one treat him like he was the president. He was - you would - just watching the game, you would never guess which one was the president. " He managed to deliver a variation on that statement on every program -- on two he got it word for word.
It's not hard for us to imagine Terry Gross devoting the same amount of time to Mitt Romney. She did just that August 28th. Of course the difference is that last week was 50 minutes of gushing over Barack with a writer whose article was vetted by the White House but August 28th's guests were actual reporters capable of critical thought who weren't doodling "Mrs. Barack Obama" in their spirals. Michael Kranish and Scott Helman had serious issues to discuss about Mitt Romney which, in an election year, is what public affairs programming should be about. But, as last week demonstrated on TV and radio, serious issues is something the media is no longer equipped for.
Instead of going with the statement above a number of people would 'quote' it by referring to Twitter. These people, not surprisingly, were ones who usually attacked GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney. And "F**k Romney" was the chorus of the song the media wanted to sing last week -- non-stop as Ruth discovered when she streamed KERA's Think only to discover the host and her two guests sharing the same hymnal as they sang the same tune.
If you missed the media blitz, lucky you, Glenn Kessler (Washington Post) does the best job of explaining the order of events. The basic storyline is a film/video that had been online for months suddenly attracted attention in the Middle East. Protests began taking place. The film was thought to be tied to the United States and this led to the US becoming the source of protest. We haven't seen the film. It is said to mock the Muslim faith. The US Embassy in Cairo issued the above statement on Tuesday. They would go on to Tweet the statement on their Twitter feed several more times during the day, a day that would see that embassy protested as well as the US Embassy in Libya. At the second embassy, four Americans would be killed -- and that may have been a pre-planned attack that used the protest as cover -- Glen A. Doherty, Sean Smith, Chris Stevens and Tyrone S. Woods were the four Americans killed.
Late Tuesday -- almost midnight EST -- the media began reporting on Mitt Romney's criticism of the statement. Tuesday was 9-11 and Romney and US President Barack Obama had agreed not to criticize each other in the press on that day. Romney asked that his statement be held until midnight and it was held to close to midnight. Mike covered the issue and noted the statement Tuesday night:
I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.
And they were off, the feral cats hunched their backs and bared their claws, hissing, screaming and attacking. None more so than the lunatic and child-molester-look-alike Greg Sargent (blogger for The Washington Post). Romney's statements about his statement were "incoherent," Sargent insisted on Wednesday and the rhetoric and rage continued all week possibly culminating when the always conflicted Ruth Marcus took to The NewsHour (PBS) to pronounce Romney "disgraceful."
Words like "lie" were used by journalists and applied to Romney. It was a sign of just how out of control the media has gotten, of just how low the standards have gotten. The official media is supposed to operate within certain guidelines. There were no guidelines at all as The New York Times' David E. Sanger made clear on Washington Week (PBS) when he wrongly declared, "[. . .] and of course by the time Governor Romney spoke that night, or issued a statement a few hours that night, it was just a few hours later that the killings happened in Libya."
What was said?
"I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi." Is that a controversial statement for Americans? We don't think most of the electorate will be outraged by that statement. It may be controversial for David E. Sanger who went on TV and pretended to be familiar with the statement but clearly wasn't or he wouldn't have wrongly stated that "the killings happened" "a few hours later" after Romney issued his statement. "It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."
The US Embassy in Cairo issued a statement (noted at the top) before the attacks. President Harry Truman kept a sign on his desk that read: "The BUCK STOPS here!" As Keith Koffler (White House Dossier) reported in July, Barack declared of presidents, "Harry Truman said the buck stops with you." The president is over the federal government.
The Embassy statement reflects on Barack. That's a given. If the White House had issued their own statement, it wouldn't have been that way. But they didn't. You may not like that Barack's been held accountable for the statement, but Mitt Romney is not off in the weeds when he makes that call.
As it turns out, the White House didn't order the statement to be taken down after they were aware of it. Josh Rogin (Foreign Policy) reports that they were e-mailed a copy and they said not to post it, the Embassy then e-mailed them that it was already up. The appropriate response is, "Take it down."
The order to take it down shouldn't have been a difficult one Tuesday, after all, the Embassy vanished the statement by Friday. But the White House, having just e-mailed the Embassy not to post the statement, should have immediately e-mailed them back, "Take it down."
There are serious leadership issues here.
Having addressed the "Obama Administration's first response" aspect of that sentence, let's move over to "was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions." 'Ha!' the Greg Sargents want to insist. 'That statement was before the attacks!' That statement was Tweeted even after the attacks. And, pay attention here, if you can Tweet during and after the attacks, you can damn well put up another statement which the Embassy should have immediately done. They should have known that people would check the site and they should have had something up other than the less than 100 word statement.
"To sympathize with those who waged the attacks"? The Embassy stated: "The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims -- as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions." "Sympathize" is a judgment call. It's opinion. You can disagree. But if that's how Romney sees it -- and he's made clear in interviews that it is -- then that is his opinion.
The Embassy statement shouldn't have gone up. According to Rogin's reporting, even the White House objected to it and told the Embassy not to post it. It is now vanished. The White House has publicly disagreed with the statement. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made a point to disagree with it on Tuesday night.
So how Romney's the asshole or idiot in all of this goes to the press itself and its own desire to control the election, not to report on it. That's why issues about the attack on the embassy didn't get the same kind of coverage.
Realizing just how over the top things had gotten, even Joe Scarborough tried to walk it back a little on Morning Joe (MSNBC) insisting that there were important issues to address but . . . it was Mitt Romney's fault that the media wasn't covering them. "[Y]ou should have talked about the warnings with the embassy," Scarborough declared referring to the media as "you," and they would have "if Mitt Romney had kept his mouth shut."
Really?
Ruth Marcus wasn't going to talk about the warnings. If it hadn't been fuming about "disgrace," she would have found something else to talk about. It would have been anti-Romney because that's the song the press has decided to sing. As New York Times columnist David Brooks observed on All Things Considered (NPR) last, week, the press does have a bias and it's one "in favor of Barack Obama and against Mitt Romney." Ruth Marcus is the best example. She is personalizing everything. In her conversation on The NewsHour (with Brooks), even after Judy Woodruff resets by noting, "But that point about apologizing, that has been a major part of the critique of Romney of the Obama administration." And Ruth Marcus will cut David off less than 20 seconds after Judy notes "of the Obama administration," so that Ruth can insist, "But he never apologized!" Ruth seems a little too close to the bone to pass for objective and that's been true of far too many in the press this election cycle.
This election has been a little too close to the bone for a significant number of the press which is why Hillary Is 44 continues to advise that the Romney campaign needs to take on Big Media. It's hard to argue against that when, week after week, day after day, the media works overtime to rip apart Mitt Romney and to build up Barack Obama. As Ann ("NPR's biased to which party") and Elaine ("Terry's fluff and nonsense") noted, last week saw Terry Gross give hack writer Michael Lewis fifty minutes on September 12th to do an advertorial on behalf of Barack Obama.
Michael Lewis made all the stops last week promoting the soft-core political porn of how he played basketball with Barack and trailed him around the White House. He was on Reuters TV, Fresh Air, NBC's Today Show, PBS' The Charlie Rose Show, NPR's Morning Edition . . . Pretty much everything except TLC's I Found The Gown.
And for what reason? A really bad and really long feature article in Vanity Fair? Usually that won't even get you booked on E! on a slow news day. But surely, great insight into governance and policy was gained by putting this man all over the media landscape, right?
"And on that day, he'd had - you know, it hadn't been an especially heavy day. He'd had meetings with his generals. He had meetings with Hillary Clinton. He'd had lunch with Joe Biden. He had spent - had spent some time with a Make-A-Wish child, some child who was going to die very soon, and their last wish was to spend some time with the president." Those sentences only work as humor and really should be delivered in Alyson Hannigan's "This one time at band camp" sing-song manner.
Or maybe you were attracted to the breathless nature of this gush, "One was his insistence that no one treat him like he was the president. He was - you would - just watching the game, you would never guess which one was the president. " He managed to deliver a variation on that statement on every program -- on two he got it word for word.
It's not hard for us to imagine Terry Gross devoting the same amount of time to Mitt Romney. She did just that August 28th. Of course the difference is that last week was 50 minutes of gushing over Barack with a writer whose article was vetted by the White House but August 28th's guests were actual reporters capable of critical thought who weren't doodling "Mrs. Barack Obama" in their spirals. Michael Kranish and Scott Helman had serious issues to discuss about Mitt Romney which, in an election year, is what public affairs programming should be about. But, as last week demonstrated on TV and radio, serious issues is something the media is no longer equipped for.
Where's the accountability?
Wednesday, the OSC released a [PDF format warning] a judgment, "The Office of Special Counsel (OSC) sent findings to the President today from its investigation of complaints of prohibited political activity by Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius. OSC concluded that Secretary Sebelius violated the Hatch Act when she made extemporaneous partisan remarks in a speech delivered in her official capacity on February 25, 2012. The Hatch Act prohibits federal employees from using their official authority or influence to affect the outcome of an election."
That should have been "end of story" on the events themselves.
But Jake Tapper (ABC News) reports Sebelius dug her hole even deeper:
In a letter to [OSC head Carolyn] Lerner, Sebelius seemed to take issue with the some of the report, noting that she reimbursed the U.S. Treasury for related expenses. It “seems somewhat unfair to conclude that, as a result of my off-hand statements, I used my official title for political purposes,” she wrote, saying “the violation was technical and minor. These are not the type of violations that the Hatch Act is intended to address.”
Sebelius said she told the USC investigators that while she regretted making the statements that converted my participation in the event from official to political…keeping the roles straight can be a difficult task, particularly on mixed trips that involved both campaign and official stops on the same day."
If Sebelius finds it difficult to keep her "roles straight," the easiest way to fix that problem is to fire her. She broke the law. As Tim Funk (McClatchy Newspapers) reported of the 2007 violation of the Hatch Act, "In that last case, General Services Administrator Lurita Doan was fired by President George W. Bush."
She should be fired. She clearly violated the Hatch Act, she now expresses confusion in her roles, she's not up to the job. CNN quotes from the letter she wrote to Lerner, "I believe that you should have concluded that any violation was corrected when the event was reclassified as political. I believe that you should have concluded that the consequence of my going 'off script' at an official event was to change the nature of my appearance for cost reimbursement purposes only." She didn't pay, she didn't reimburse. After the press raised serious concerns about her remarks, Sebelius got the Democratic National Comittee to pay for her trip retroactively. She didn't even pay her own travel cost when the heat was turned up but instead, in an act of supreme cheapness, got the DNC to pay for her.
She needs to be fired.
2 Adorable Daughters?
Last season's Saturday Night Live demonstrated that at the heart of Jay Pharoah's impressions is nothing. He offers nothing to suggest a character. It's an act of, "Look how much I sound like ___, watch me gesture like ____." But there's nothing there which is why Pharoah did not stand out at all last year and he really needs others to write his skits because he lacks commentary skills and point of view leaving the celebrity impressions to seem like Mad TV rejects.
But possibly, the hollow artist may be just the right person to play the cold and hollow president?
Maybe not. Time will tell.
But someone better start writing better dialogue.
And better grasp that the families of politicians are off limits or they are not.
When Pharoah delivers a line about Barack having "two adorable daughters and not five creepy adult sons," the Saturday Night Live gang has crossed a line yet again.
Repeating, family members are off limits or they're not.
"Adorable" is in the eye of the beholder.
In addition, Weekend Update made a 'joke' about multiple wives, compared Mitt Romney to a special needs child and more. Futhermore, a really bad Mitt Romney impersonation found him talking about his horse at the Olympics -- this after he was raked over the coals by the media for not attending the Olympic event and noting it was his wife's horse. So there's not even the pretense of attempting to use real life as a premise for jokes.
None of it was funny.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
