Here come the revisonary tactics

Last week's "Mailbag" resulted in an angry e-mail from Troyz255 who took issue with C.I.'s comments regarding No End In Sight. He begs the rest of us to go on record explaining we oppose C.I.'s opinion. We can't go on record stating something that isn't true.



C.I. explained, in response to an e-mail, " I don't support No End In Sight. It's a bad film that sells illegal war and the Culture Project can exhibit whatever they want but I don't publicize that film and I won't. The film was made by a War Hawk who still supports the illegal war and will not call it out. He wants to offer that it wasn't 'planned.' Naomi Klein has aptly demonstrated that the chaos was planned. I'm not going to endorse any event that features that crappy film." If Troyz225 read on, he would have seen Elaine voicing agreement.



Troyz225 asserts that "impeachment matters more than some movie."



While we support impeachment, we disagree with that statement.



When the US finally pulled out of Vietnam, there was a reality among the American people that the nightmare was over. Those of us who weren't born then were surprised to learn that was the case. (It was the case.) How did that reality turn into the popular myth of "We could have won!"?



Sir! No Sir! explains a great deal of how that happened. The public narrative was purged of reality including the realities that those protesting the illegal war included a large number of service members. It mentions film's roles in rewriting history. It gets closest to another reality when Jane Fonda's explaining how people accuse her of "going back" to the topic all the time.



The left and the 'left' (with few exceptions) made the mistake of assuming that, since the majority of the public, knew that conflict was wrong, that would always be the case. People avoided "going back" to it because reality was reality and let's all be nice and understand other's feelings and a lot of other hog wash.



While the left and 'left' was being nice, the right-wing was determined to launch their revisionary campaign.



If those who lived through that time expected it would be taught to future generations (which includes a number of people writing this feature), they were dead wrong. None of us born after it ever heard a word about in our history classes. It's at the end of the book and no one's in a rush to teach that area.



Into the vacuum came bad movies. With no information provided to younger generations about that time period and a lot of bad movies running constantly on TV, it's really not surprising that the revisionary history succeeded as well as it did.



We can't go back and change that.



We can refuse to take part in the same process again.



Endorsing No End In Sight is endorsing revisionary history. Whether it's Naomi Klein or Greg Palast or Antonia Juhasz or any other number of writers, it has been established that the US government did not 'forget' to plan what to do after they seized control in Iraq. It was planned. It was a tag sale.



No End In Sight lies and says there was no planning. If you watch the film (and pay attention), you'll quickly grasp that there is no argument against the illegal war. Not surprising when the 'director' was for the illegal war and remains for it. He wants to dicker over what should have been done after the US seized control and wants to assert that there should have been solid planning.



That is not a message to end the illegal war. It is a message of: "Let's do it differently next time!"



It does not call out the illegal war. It does not call out illegal wars.



If you needed that lame movie to indicate that the administration was corrupt, you've obviously missed many articles, books and, yes, other documentaries -- real documentaries.



If you're okay with another illegal war but just want it planned better, then No End In Sight is the film for you.



But there is no reason in the world for the peace movement to support a film by a War Hawk who remains a supporter of the Iraq War.



The film is not making a minor point that we can all 'live with.' The film is rewriting reality to argue that the war could have been 'won' if the US government had planned the occupation. The occupation was planned. Pretending that it wasn't is lying.



You start allowing one lie, you start allowing others. Then you've got every bad, B-actor in the world churning out action flicks about how Iraq could have been 'won' if only the military hadn't had their 'hands tied.'



That is what happened before and it will happen again unless those opposed to the illegal war fight. That's not a one day fight. The right-wing has a great deal of interest in rewriting reality. You've got a press that has a lot of interest in doing that as well because so many of them -- not just Judith Miller -- cheerleaded this illegal war.



History can be just factoids and trivia. Or you can actually learn from it. The lesson to take from the post-Vietnam period is that, bit by bit, there will be revisions promoted to destroy the reality of how unpopular this illegal war was, of how illegal it was and of what actually went down.



We're not just committed to opposing the No End In Sights for the life of this website. We will spend the rest of our days telling the truth about this illegal war and calling out the lies. We're not going to 'play nice' when it's over and take the attitude of, "Well it is over so let them have their say." We won't assume that because we know the reality everyone will always know the reality. We certainly won't assume that it will be taught in schools to the next generations.



It is a battle for the truth and if you slide on No End In Sight, you'll slide on the next revision and then the next. Then, before you know it, we will have the "We could've won if our hands hadn't been tied" myth applied to the Iraq War as well. We don't know that we can stop that from happening but we do know we will do our part to make sure the truth remains alive.

KPFK ballots due by midnight December 11th

Last week, we noted Kimberly Wilder's "Green heroine, Donna Warren runs for KPFK" (On the Wilder Side) on Warren's run for the KPFK's LSB. Voting ends December 11th at midnight. That means your ballot needs to be received by then or turned in at the station by then.


"Peter Camejo & Nativo Lopez Support Donna Warren & John Wegner for KPFK Board" at LA Indymedia is an open letter on the election and we'll note it in full:

Dear KPFK members,
It is regretable that some Greens have attempted to bring internal Green Party conflicts into the KPFK election. It is unfortunate enough that our party has such problems, without having Green Party members bringing our internal disputes into an election as important as the election to the KPFK board.
The charges made in this letter are, of course, completely without foundation.
You may be unaware, but the Green Party of Los Angeles County has been involved in a years-long struggle over internal democracy, democratic accountability, political and financial ethics, and the future of Green Politics.
Donna Warren and John Wenger have been in the forefront of the struggle by the majority of Los Angeles County Greens to preserve and protect grassroots democracy, and high standards of ethical behavior and democratic process in the Green Party both locally and statewide.
Because of the stands they have taken to protect, preserve and promote all that is decent and honorable in the Green Party today, they have angered those Green Party members who feel threatened by any semblance of rank and file democracy or political morality in our party.
The struggle Donna Warren and John Wenger and others have waged in our party to preserve, enhance and protect the values of our party has been nothing short of heroic, and demonstrates precisely the strength of character KPFK needs on its board.
Please vote for Donna and John with an open heart and a clear conscience. You will be voting for the best the Green Party has, and you will never regret it.
Signed,

-Peter Camejo - Green Party Candidate for Governor.
-Nativo. V. Lopez – National President, Mexican-American Political Association (MAPA) and Hermanidad Mexicana Latinoamericana;
-Ceil Sorenson - Female Co-Coordinator (with John Wenger, Male Co-Coordinator) of the County Council of the Green Party of Los Angeles County;
-Ellen Maisen – At-Large Representative to the Coordinating Committee of the Green Party of California; Member, County Council of the Green Party of Los Angeles County
-Jim Odling - County Councilor of the Green Party of Los Angeles County and Green Party of California Regional Representative, Los Angeles County;
-Will Yeager -- Green Party of California Regional Representative, Los Angeles County; Green Party Nominee 38th Congressional District, 1996; Treasurer, Southern California Green Assembly, 1988-1989; Corresponding Secretary, Green Party of Los Angeles County County Council, 1992-1994;
-Matt Leslie -- County Council of the Green Party of Orange County, Former Regional Representative for Orange County, San Bernardino County, and Riverside County, Green Party of California State Coordinating Committee;
-Lynda A. Hernandez -- Chair, Green Party of Orange County 2002 Council member and Treasurer 2003-2004;
-Todd Van Etten -- County Council of the Green Party of Orange County;
-Mike Wyman -- Former Treasurer, Green Party of California; Candidate for Attorney General of California; Second Alternate for North Bay Region, Green Party of California State Coordinating Committee;
-Shane Que Hee -- LA County Green and Co-Coordinator, Green Party of California Platform Committee
- Carole and Andre LaFlamme -- Member and Supporter of Women in Black

Highlights

This piece is written by Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Kat of Kat's Korner, Betty of Thomas Friedman is a Great Man, Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz and Wally of The Daily Jot. Unless otherwise noted, we picked all highlights.

"Ruth's Report" -- for this report, Ruth addresses e-mail and actually had another topic for the second-half of her report. However, Beth returned her call and she had that and so much more to include.

"Katrina's quests" -- Betinna's latest in which Cathy and Katrina come a' calling.

"Green Beans, Onions and Nuts in the Kitchen" -- Trina addresses issues of concerns concering canned foods and notes Kucinich's latest endorsement.

"Law and Disorder, Dennis Kucinich" -- Mike runs down the latest from Law and Disorder and also tosses in some Kucinich news.

"women and 'ladies'" -- Rebecca's commentary on the realities of much of the gas bag set female division today.

"Chris Dodd Impersonator" & "THIS JUST IN! OBAMA TRIES TO PASS FOR CHRIS DODD!" -- It's not enough to claim to be the modern day JFK, Cedric and Wally inform you, Bambi's now stealing from Chris Dodd. Betty says: "Stop the Whiteness! Stop the Whiteness!"

Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "From the kitchen of the Peace Resister" -- one of the most instantly popular of all of Isaiah's comics. Check it out and you'll see why. Check out Elaine's "Isaiah, Marjorie Cohn" for an analysis of the comic.


"And the war drags on . . ." -- reader demanded. It's a bit different than the usual "And the war drags on" (and C.I. rates it as "pathetic") but it's hard hitting and resonated with many.

"Ann Wilson, Carly, Joni and Carole" -- Kat discussing music today as well as clearing up some misinformation.

"Iraqi refugees" -- Ruth on the slowly emerging reality that contradicts the myth of the 'great return.'

"Bi-Racial Boy, meet the Black Woman" & "THIS JUST IN! HE CAN STILL CLAIM TO BE A CROSS DRESSER!" -- Cynthia McKinney declares, leaving the half-Black Bambi with one less novelty card to play.

Note

The edition is done except for two pieces we'd like to rework. It's posting late. Why? The piece everyone's e-mailing about (noted by Mike, Elaine and Kat). It's written. It wasn't hard to write, C.I. had done the bulk of it already (as they noted at their sites).

The way it works is some 'elders' are named including Tom Hayden, Medea Benjamin and Phyllis Bennis. There is a hilarious joke to Bennis (on Bennis?) in the piece currently.

Despite the fact that it's noted the piece only names people worth naming (we were kind and left unnamed the ones doing intentional harm), C.I.'s going back and forth over the joke and it's become a bigger issue than it actually is.

The rest of us love the joke. It is, however, C.I.'s and C.I. can pull it if that's the 'final answer.' But since we've spent two hours debating the pros and cons of it (pros: It's funny as hell and, in my -- Jim -- opinion, that's all that matters), Dona suggested we take a nap and sleep on it.

For those wondering, the joke appears in the context of Bennis' slam of Alexander Cockburn and I also argue that, after writing that piece, she should be willing to live with any jokes that come out of it. I made the mistake of noting the Medea Benjamin section as an example of how we're not worrying about humor there which only led to C.I. wondering, "Is that really hurtful? I thought it was funny and underscored one of the central points."

Dona thinks if we take a nap, we'll come back either rested with the attitude of "It was made into something by ___ so they should expect comments" or else we'll be in such a rush to edit the last two pieces that it will be a case of "Whatever! Just post it!" So that's what we're doing.

Truest statement of the week

I just want to note about the blurring of the line why we’re in such a moment of danger right now. The President has said that he can say, "Amy Goodman, you're an enemy combatant. Naomi Wolf, you're an enemy combatant. This guy behind the camera, you're an enemy combatant. A person walking down the street, enemy combatant. can be anyone. A person walking down the street, enemy combatant." And it doesn’t matter that we're innocent US citizens. I mean, we could be Republicans, we could be evangelicals. It doesn't matter. He can take us, and if he says it's true, that makes it true, because it's a status offense, and he can put us in a ten-by-twelve-foot cell in a Navy brig in solitary confinement for three years, making it difficult for us to see our families, to contact an attorney, to get charges filed.They can't torture us yet, though I was chilled to learn that an adviser to the White House was reported in a British newspaper yesterday as not ruling out waterboarding against US citizens. However, psychologists know that prolonged isolation makes sane people insane. That's what happened to Jose Padilla. So, you know, when I say everyone’s got their moment at which they start to silence themselves, the day I read in the New York Times that someone I identify with has been named an enemy combatant and is sitting in a Navy brig in isolation, that's when I'm going to stop talking in a context like this, because that’s when I will become too afraid.



American Freedom Campaign's Naomi Wolf, author of The End of America: Letters of Warning to a Young Patriot, from Democracy Now!'s "'The End of America': Feminist Social Critic Naomi Wolf Warns U.S. in Slow Descent into Fascism" (November 28, 2007).

A Note to Our Readers

Hey --

Another Sunday nightmare. Here's who participated on this edition:

The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim,
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),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz,
and Wally of The Daily Jot

And Dallas who we thank. We also thank Isaiah for his illustration we reposted.

Truest statement of the week -- Naomi Wolf had five contenders and we went with this one. If you want to see which section you would have selected, use the link to watch, listen to or read Amy Goodman's interview with her.

Editorial: Cover the December 11th War Resisters hearings -- Is it going to get coverage? We know it deserves coverage. But considering that Eli Israel is but one of many names who've gone public in 2007 and received zilch from independent media (broadcast and print), we just don't know. (Eli Israel is the first US service member to resist while stationed in Iraq. We feel we have to add that he did not to Canada. We feel we have to add that because there's been no coverage of him.)

TV: Fumble Line -- This was one of the nightmares. It wasn't a problem when Ava and C.I. cautioned us that they weren't sure they had anything this week. It wasn't a problem when we read it (to steal from Ava and C.I., "We'll get back to that"). It was a problem when a PBS friend (the same one who had a problem last spring with one of their commentaries after it posted) called to find out what they were going to say about Frontline? They had written the commentary and shared the basics. "A heated exchange" describes perfectly what we heard. Ava and C.I. were pissed and the person on speaker phone as well. In the end, Ava and C.I. said agreed to pull a name. (And they note, they were correct. A friend who was with Simon & Schuster already called to ask, "Were you talking about ___? Yes, she's quoted in" one of the books released while the person was at the publisher. They'll be naming next week when they can get ahold of that book.) Since they were pulling a woman's name, they then felt it was only fair to pull the names of the two men. This makes the delay seem briefer than it was. Since their feature rarely causes a hold up (and since it wasn't the only delay), no hard feelings. Back to when we read it. As Dona said, "I thought you told us it would be two paragraphs if that?" Exactly. They had a great deal to say. I am not insulting or devaluing the work they do covering entertainment programs -- they make many excellent political points with those. But for those who sometimes wonder why I always urge them ("Urge? Try demand," says Ava) to cover a news program it's for commentaries like these. Here's why they didn't think they had much: they watched a bad program. Here's why they need to do these news programs: they know all the details, all the backstory. You're getting the fact that the program's celebrating an anniversary that has yet to arrive, that leads them into the history of the show, that leads them into the way the 2004 election was covered, which leads to the program from last week, which leads to the critique of the specific episode.

Bilal -- Bilal Hussein needs to be set free. He doesn't need to stand trial and then be freed, he needs to be freed by the US military right now.

Mailbag -- The first feature we worked on. Betty pulled one section where she was speaking when Kat reminded her, "You just gave away Betinna." Betty didn't realize that until she looked over the transcript and saw Kat was correct. Otherwise, nothing got pulled.

Holiday Shopping Suggestions -- Do you still have gifts to buy? If so consider the ones listed.

Laura Flanders speaks with Dennis Kucinich -- We hadn't planned to write this one and it didn't make the print version. But we ended up doing it due to the long delays.

Peter Byrne on The Nation -- During the long delay, Ty remembered we hadn't dealt with the comments by Peter Byrne that a number of you had e-mailed about. There are typos here (probably in everything) but I said, "Post it!" as soon as it was typed because I didn't want C.I. going through and softening it up.

Kimberly Wilder urges you to vote for Donna Warren -- Kimberly Wilder makes the case for Donna Warren. (Again, C.I.'s the only one of us who could vote in that election. Of those participating in this note, we could vote in KPFA's LSB election.)

Things to watch, things to listen to -- Our guide. A big problem. Due to Laura Flanders' program which we couldn't get an air time for. Prior to the delay, this was to go up before her show aired online via Air America Radio's website. We missed that and had to track down another station. Not easy. We will note that a station on the West coast broadcasts her around midnight.

Highlights -- Mike, Elaine, Betty, Wally, Cedric, Kat and Rebecca wrote this and picked out the highlights unless otherwise noted. We thank them for it.

That's it, see you next week.

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

Editorial: Cover the December 11th War Resisters hearings

In 2003, the Liberal government upheld international law and refused to join the war in Iraq.
Prime Minister Jean Chretien
Iraq war debate -- March 17, 2003

Chretien: If military action proceeds without a new resolution of the [United Nations] Security Council, Canada will not participate.

[Applause. Standing ovation.]

Since 2004, dozens of U.S. soldiers have left the military and come to Canada.

These soldiers have come to Canada because they oppose the war in Iraq.

They need a provision from the Canadian government to let them stay.

US War Resister Justin Colby: My name is Justin Colby. I was a specialist in the United States Army. I served for three years. I spent one year in Ar Ramadi, Iraq. I joined the army after 9-11 and I left the army after my year in Iraq, before my unit was going to go back. And I left because Iraq never attacked the United States and the things that we did there led me to believe that we weren't defending our country.

On November 15th, 2007, the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeals of U.S. war resisters.

As a result, U.S. war resisters living in Canada face deportation back to the U.S.

If deported, they face imprisonment, or even deployment back to Iraq.

US War Resister Kimberly Rivera: I'm Kimbely Rivera. I served three months in Iraq and I'm here with my family.

A 2007 poll found that 64.6% of Ontario voters and 71% of Liberal voters want U.S. war resisters to stay in Canada.

US War Resister Phil McDowell: My name is Phil McDowell. I'm a former sergeant in the United States Army. I joined the army after September the 11th. I served a one-year tour in Iraq from 2004 to 2005. During my tour I realized that the war was unjust and illegal and the reasons for the invasion were lies. After completing my contractual agreement with the army, I was called back into service for another fifteen-month tour. At that time, I refused to deploy, moved to Canada because I believed I'd be able to stay here. We're asking Liberals to support a provision that would allow Iraq War Resisters to remain in Canada.

U.S. war resisters need the support of the Liberal Party to live in Canada.

War Resisters Support Campaign



www.resisters.ca



The above is the transcript to one of many PSA's the War Resisters Support Campaign has put together. Cindy Sheehan (at OpEdNews) urges people to utilize Courage to Resist's easy to mail or e-mail resources to allow the Canadian government to know you are watching and to support organizations supporting war resisters as well as supporting war resisters by donating money to cover expenses for Ryan Johnson, Jen Johnson (his wife) and Brandon Hughey to attend the the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration in Ottawa on December 11th (the address for checks or money orders is Ryan Johnson, 312 Tower Rd. Nelson, BC V1L3K6).



What's going on, you may wonder? In the middle of last month, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear the appeals of US war resisters Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey. With the courts abdicating their responsibilities, energies are now being focused on Parliament and insisting that they do the right thing. As Sheehan points out, it is very important that war resisters such as Ryan Johnson and Brandon Hughey be able to speak, it's important that Jen Johnson is present because the decision to expel war resisters would not only effect individuals, it would also effect family members. Joshua and Brandi Key have made a home for themselves and their children. Patrick and Jill Hart have put down roots with their son as well. Kimberly Rivera and her husband and children aren't visiting, they're attempting to restart their lives.


It took a lot of courage and strength for all the war resisters (whether they've gone public or simply blended in) to make the decision to go to Canada. They've gotten very little support in the US alternative media. They have gotten attention from the mainstream media (which covers the story but doesn't advocate -- advocating is supposed to be the role of independent media). When the decision on Hinzman and Hughey's appeals was announced, you might have thought independent media in the US would turn the day over to publishing commentaries at magazine websites and broadcast discussions of the impact. You would be wrong. If you waited thinking that they were attempting to figure out what the Court's refusal actually meant . . . Well it's been weeks since the announcement, think about what you've seen and heard. Very little.



When a government is making a decision, media coverage is very important. It sends a message that people are watching. December 11th is the date scheduled for the hearings and we're honestly wondering if anyone's planning to cover it. (We wouldn't be at all surprised to see Truthout cover it -- and we'd be glad and note their coverage -- but we're referring to broadcast and print when we speak of "independent media.") Regardless of the outcome of the hearings, this is important and this is news.



War resisters will be testifying publicly about what led to their decision to resist. All will be noting the illegal nature of the war. Some will be sharing tales of the reasons they enlisted, some will be sharing how they attempted to be granted C.O. status but were refused, some will be sharing what they saw while stationed in Iraq. With the US ambassador to Canada going from granting interviews on the subject in an effort to clamp down on attention to writing letters to the editor, you damn well better believe his bosses hope the hearings don't get US media attention. In the middle of the latest wave of Operation Happy Talk, the White House has largely succeeded in divorcing Iraq from reality. Reality will be presented by those who speak publicly. The question is who will know about and that question goes to who will cover it?



This is an issue and those against the illegal war who are donating to candidates who cannot commit to ending the illegal war if elected should be using their money to end the illegal war by donating to the organizations that honestly attempt to end it. Post-2013 is not ending it. It's not a commitment because it assumes that not only will the candidate be elected to one term, he or she would be elected to two. You need to grasp that the 'front runners' (Barack Obama, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton) are saying, "Vote for me in 2008." Will you end the illegal war if we vote for you? "No. I can't promise that. I can promise you that if I'm voted into office in 2008 and again in 2012, I may end the illegal war in my hypothetical second term."



Everyone should expect that US independent media will be present and providing coverage, it does fit clearly with their stated roles. And if they again fail to live up to their obligations, they should be held accountable.

Illustrain is Isaiah's "Canada in Distress."

TV: Fumble Line

PBS' Frontline, like Mother Superior, frequently jumps the gun. We'd like to say we're referring to a desire to rush timely reports on air; however, we're referring to their tendency to rush towards self-congratulation. Currently they are trumpeting the fact that they've been airing for 'over 25 years' and we'd be happy to offer a non-sincere "Congratulations" were it not for the fact that the program began airing January 1983. Now we may not be math genius but we can add 25 to 1983. We bet you can as well and that you also come to the figure of 2008. In other words, they're like a twenty-year-old desperate to order that first legal drink -- a desperation unbecoming in a young adult and certainly unbecoming in a news program.





They don't, however, consider themselves a news program. They bill themselves as a "public affiars" program which will come as a shock to many journalists who regularly write of it as a news program. Billing itself as a news program would not allow them to use the adjective "longest running" as a preface since The NewsHour beats it out. So they abdicate their genre to grab onto a title. It's perfectly in keeping with the Frontline legacy, one you won't find told in the laughable "about us" section of their website.





Jessica Savitch is a name many may not know today. (Chet Collier and Frank Magid are among the names Docker Boy David Carr fumbled past last week in The New York Times when trying to explain a shift in news which Savitch's era represented.) Up Close and Personal started out as a film about her life; however, drugs, death, sex and more isn't "Disney" enough, even if you could attach a mermaid's tale to it, so what made it to screen was yet another version of A Star Is Born. But once upon a time, Jessica Savitch was a big name in news circles. It was thought she might become the first women to land the (solo) anchor role on the weekday evening news. (Savitch did anchor NBC's weekend news.) She was a news star at NBC. Both Bill Moyers and Charles Kuralt turned down the offer to host Frontline. Jessica Savitch said yes. Though she mainly provided narration, the program and PBS were more than happy to ride her famous name so it's a little disgusting how quick they are to disown her today.





Maybe it's not the reports of her drug use but that she's considered too 'fluffy' for their tastes? We're talking about a program that debuted with a look at the NFL and organized crime. A shade or two of difference and it could have been a Geraldo special. Instead with Savitch's name, her skill and her interview with Pete Rozelle, over eight million viewers tuned in for the show's debut. It's equally true that the show was happy to use Savitch when it was time to raise money -- even after the program began airing. An argument could be made that it wouldn't be around today were it not for signing Savitch (and whether or not that would be a god thing is also open to debate), so it's a little pathetic to watch them distance themselves so from the name that made them.





Almost as pathetic as alleged journalists with the program telling -- after Savitch died -- tidbits that supposedly embarrassed Savitch (who was as temperamental as Dan Rather and assorted others are) but really just demonstrated how pathetic the people she had to work with were. One only demonstrated how stupid she herself was when she began dining out on tales of how Jessica Savitch -- in the pre-cell phone days -- demanded to leave a location (during a taping break) to go to a pay phone in order to make a call. Savitch's contract with NBC was being re-negotiated and she feared NBC had brought in Connie Chung as a replacement. When the call was made, she would learn Chung was replacing her as weekend anchor. Wanting to make the call was not a sign of 'diva' behavior or a sign of paranoia. It was what any anchor would have been doing during a break. As shocking and pathetic as repeating that supposedly 'illuminating' story (after Savitch died) was, the men working on the show were no better as they offered comparisons (after Savitch died) to Marilyn Monroe and Alex in Fatal Attraction (Glenn Close's psycho character). They kissed her ass while she was alive because they needed her. The minute she died, they preyed on her like vultures.





Jessica Savitch did cocaine. Sorry to shock anyone but she's not the only news personality (or anchor) to do it. Her image has been repeatedly trashed and sullied by those who needed her to get their program on the air. The fact that Moyers and Kuralt turned them down should have clued everyone involved with the program that they didn't have the jewel they thought they did and they should have considered themselves damn lucky to have landed a name like Jessica Savitch.





The lack of appreciation goes a long way towards explaining Frontline which veers from rare insights to That's Incredible! from week to week. A program that devalues what put them on the map also disrespects their audience.








Which is how you get the con game they pulled on viewers in 2004, after the party conventions, when they decided to offer a two-hour broadcast about that year's presidential election. It was entitled "The Choice" but viewers even only semi-awake should have grasped that the choosing had been made before the program ever aired.





Did it lean to Bully Boy? PBS always tilts right. But we're not even talking about that. We are talking about the fact that public television -- created with a mandate for diversity -- told viewers they had two choices: Bully Boy or John Kerry. Who knew public television had signed the "Ralph, Don't Run!" petition? Frontline certainly acted as if it had.





It acts like a number of things while billing itself as a "thought provoking journalism." Wait, it just called itself a public affairs program! Twenty-four years later (not twenty-five) and it still can't figure out what it is. Conveying that confusion seemed to be the entire point of last week's episode.





"Spying on the Home Front" featured an attempt at open 'cute' programming. Viewers were treated to a wedding in Las Vegas and, look, there's an Elvis impersonator. Home movies turned Americans into voyeurs when they should have been appalled that everyone in Vegas was being watched (forget New Year's Eve, those cameras run constantly). Having wasted a valuable amount of time, it was then off to the land of catch-up: How we got here?





As the episode continued, you might have found yourself longing for the couple's return since you were now smack dab in PBS-country, national capital: Official Land!





Did you learn anything? Well, it's good to know torture boy John Yoo is packing on the pounds and his bags under the eyes film worse than Oprah's. But anything of real value? It may have been established that NSA letters and not court orders were used in some cases of spying on Americans (specifically, eavesdropping on their electronic communications) -- then again, it may not have been established. The viewers were left to draw their own conclusions.





And maybe some did. Maybe some people who have managed to make it through the last years without ever hearing of the Bully Boy's illegal, warrantless spying, actually learned something? If so, good for them. We have no idea why that crowd would be watching Frontline -- maybe the remote busted? -- in the first place but anything's possible.




For those who've been paying even a tiny amount of attention, they were most likely frustrated as the program offered, at best, bullet points and nothing in depth. Had Robert Parry (Consortium News) been on, for example, he could have addressed the way Bully Boy's actions fit into the larger push for 'unitary executive power.' He could have provided the context that John Yoo (who had a serious problem looking at the camera -- a common trait among those who lie on camera) was fumbling around. Parry could have explained it and could have critiqued it. Instead viewers were left with Yoo trying to make like the last one standing at the fort as 'marauders' rode in. A Michael Ratner (Center for Constitutional Rights) or Marjorie Cohn (National Lawyers Guild) could have explained the legal basics involved and really gotten to the heart of the Constitutional objections -- instead, the talking head officials they went with provided about the same level of enlightenment as the ghastly Liberty Kids. Without Parry, Ratner or Cohn -- or anyone else qualified to speak on the subject -- it was all a series of similar events whose relationship to one another, if any, could be boiled down as "Say what?"

In her new book The End of America: Letters of Warning to a Young Patriot, Naomi Wolf explains how spying works in a country, in a closing society. It's used to track (which Frontline managed to grasp) and it's used to silence (which they really didn't). Whether it was the couple who married in Vegas or any 'official' paraded, illegal spying on American citizens was presented as basically something annoying, like living next door to Bewitched's Gladys Kravitz.

That's not really the point of spying. The point is to silence, to intimidate. When it's known that a government is spying on its citizens -- any government -- that doesn't just 'irritate' or 'tick off' citizens, it silences them. They begin restricting their activities based on what they know about the targets of surveillance and what they fear. So when an attorney like Brandon Mayfield is targeted, the fact that he's committed no crime (he committed no crime) doesn't really matter. What matters is that he spoke out against the government and the government, publicly, made it clear that those who challenge the official line coming out of the White House will be spied upon, will be targeted. That is the point of spying, that is the point of torture. It reaches far beyond the people who are actually spied upon or tortured to create a fear running through an entire society that anyone and everyone could be next so no one better question, no one better buck the system, fall in line quickly. It sends a message.

It's a message Frontline viewers never received because none of the 'officials' on the program seemed well versed in the topic. Any news or public affairs program exploring the topic of spying needs to address fully the effects it repeatedly has on any society that allows its government to spy on the citizens. Not to do so is a failure. Frontline failed for an hour.

After a viewer digests sixty minutes of PBS on one topic, they should never have to wonder "Say what?" When a PBS program can't get across the basics and their relationship to one another in an hour something is seriously wrong. But, hey, you got to see an Elvis impersonator sing, right? That should count for . . . nothing.

We had a made a point to ask friends at PBS which episode to watch and this is the one they advised us was the best. We'll assume that is the case and they weren't trying to trick us by unloading a 1978 Ford Pinto. That said, we felt like we were test driving a Hyundai and cursing the salesperson who swore to us it handled just like a Honda.





If Frontline can utilize (waste) an hour by only hinting around at some of the realities, what really is the point of the show?



---

Note: We named the people trashing Savitch in the print version. Part of the long delay in this week's online edition (only part) resulted from a PBS friend calling this morning to ask what we were saying about Frontline? We outlined the key points and were told, "You can't mention her by name!" We don't see why we can't name a woman who's trashed Jessica Savitch. We're told those statements may have been made over the years publicly (they have been, repeatedly) but they were never made to the press "or at least not on the record." After a heated exchange, we agreed to pull the woman in question's name (and, since she wasn't being named, we made the decision to pull the names of the men). That was because we don't have the time to hunt down printed versions of the statements but we believe they do exist. If this really pisses us off after we've had some sleep (it does now), we may go looking for those statements in published accounts and, if we do, we will note the three people by name either in a note added to this commentary or in next week's commentary.