Author Archive
So, Now You Tell Us?!
Posted by John Ziegler in Entertainment, Politics on October 7th, 2009
I have always been fascinated and frustrated by the phenomenon in our public dialogue that when we get new information after a “debate” is deemed to be over, that the original dispute is never “reopened.”
For instance, when Barack Obama threw Rev. Jeremiah Wright “under the bus” a month after he was praised lustily by the media for not having done so in his famous “race” speech, the history of that event was never rewritten. Similarly, the dramatic positive impact of the surge in Iraq never came close to altering the media’s premature conclusion that the war there was a “disaster,” and the most recent data on the global temperature drop has done next to nothing to change the notion that the debate of global warming is “over.”
In the past week we have seen two classic examples of this quirk in the unwritten rules of media history.
The Obama/Oprah led flameout for Chicago’s hopes to host the 2016 Olympics certainly fits in this category. Much has already been said about the disastrous nature of this development from the economic and political perspectives. However, not nearly enough has been stated about how this event seems to prove that one of the basic foundations of the argument for Obama’s election was a complete lie.
It was just over a year ago when Obama choose to go to Europe for his grandiose victory lap for having won the Democratic nomination. Hundreds of thousands (allegedly) of enlightened ones flocked to the streets to see and hear the new Messiah promise to bring the now hated United States of George Bush back into the good graces of the “civilized” world.
The message was clear. We elect Obama and the rest of the world will instantly love us again (as if they ever really loved us to begin with). The media hammered this point until even the people who literally couldn’t find Europe on a map (you know, the ones that actually decide elections in this country) understood how vitally important this was.
Well, based on what happened in Copenhagen, how in the world can anyone conclude anything other than that whole concept was just simply made up?
Never before in modern history had a U.S. President needlessly put so much prestige on the line in front of the world community and been so roundly rejected. The fact that Chicago didn’t even get out of the first round eliminates any real ambiguity about what was really happening here and exposed the theory that Obama’s election did anything to elevate our country in the eyes of the world as being completely bogus (keep in mind that all it took for golf to get in 2016 Olympics after a century long absence was for Tiger Woods to appear in front of the IOC via videotape; once again proving that Obama is no Tiger).
And yet, very little has been said that even questions whether we were lied to about this audacious promise. Instead, some have laughably tried to blame the Bush hangover for the embarrassment even though Chicago somehow made it successfully to the final stage while the evil one was still President.
This episode is reminiscent of the Cambridge police flap where Obama’s words and action totally destroyed the obviously phony narrative that our new President was a different kind of black leader and was going to be “post-racial.” The evidence could not be more overwhelming that we were lied to about this as well, and yet (due mostly to rampant media malpractice and conservative wimpiness) in the consciousness of the average American, that slam dunk case is still largely unproven
The other incident which followed this same pattern involved the revelation that David Letterman has apparently had numerous affairs with members of his staff.
This one is particularly personal for me because I somehow found myself at the forefront of the Fire David Letterman “movement” after his inappropriate “jokes” about Sarah Palin and her daughter. At the time, it seemed pretty clear to me that Letterman had “issues” and that the basis of his obsession with Palin and her family was obviously sexual. After all, Letterman had continuously referenced Palin’s attractiveness in a creepy sort of way and had even invited her on his show while urging her husband Todd to stay home.
But when I went on Fox News Channel to discuss this issue and referenced my theory, I was almost mocked by anchorwoman Megyn Kelly.
Now, based on these most recent disclosures, how can you conclude anything other than I was probably right? Heck, even Letterman himself seemed to back up this conclusion when he seemingly bizarrely (though in the context of my supposition perfectly understandable) “apologized” to Sarah Palin in the middle of begging for understanding from his fans and wife for his indiscretions.
This is on top of the numerous previous statements and “jokes” that Letterman had made about Palin just before and after his original “apology” was so eagerly accepted by the news media which cast great doubt about the sincerity of his efforts to make amends.
But has there ever been any reevaluation of what was really going on in the Letterman/Palin flap which, at the time, actually was outrageously a net gain for Dave? No. Instead much of the media focus has been on how Letterman is a “victim” of an extortion attempt as well as how strongly his fans appear to be backing him on this.
I realize that what is about to happen or what may occur in the future is far more exciting and ratings friendly than what has already occurred in even our very recent past, but are our collective attention spans and memories really all so short that we can’t at least correct the record on these significant incidents?
Our side needs to understand the incredible importance of the narrative and when the facts allow us to win these skirmishes (even after they have seemingly been previously lost), we need to take advantage of that. Fortunately, based on recent history we will get plenty of similar opportunities in the future.
Why Were the Emmys Not ‘Racist’?
Posted by John Ziegler in Featured Story on September 28th, 2009
I am no fan of awards shows. To me, it is one of the strongest proofs of the weakness of our society that the endeavor to which we give the most prominent and glamorous honors is that of movie and television “acting” (or, to paraphrase Jerry Seinfeld, “Saying what someone else told you to say”).
I also abhor false or frivolous claims of racism. Of course, according to the media, the end of this scourge was supposed to be of the many dividends of making Barack Obama President, but those of us on the right certainly know this has so far turned out to be one of many lies we were told during the 2008 campaign.
Why mention two concepts with apparently nothing in common except my antipathy for them? The reason is that as I found myself watching the Emmy broadcast (I wasn’t that into the football game and Entourage hadn’t started yet) when it suddenly occurred to me that, based on liberal Hollywood’s definition of racism, I was witnessing an event that was barely one notch above a meeting of the Ku Klux Klan.
This offensive truth first hit me when they showed the crowd via a wide shot from the Los Angeles stage. I hit pause on my DVR and a comprehensive scan of the audience revealed that it resembled a film newsreel from the early 60’s (appropriate, I guess, since Mad Men won best drama) with row after row of skin pigmentation-challenged faces. I literally haven’t seen such a Caucasian dominant crowd in LA since I attended the USC/Texas Rose Bowl a couple of years ago.
But it wasn’t just those in attendance who were lacking this century’s greatest virtue: diversity. The host was white. All of the presenters I saw were white. Those who were nominated were almost all white. And Caucasians completely dominated the winner’s circle. Heck, even the guy who used to play the “White Shadow” won one.
But the overt “racism” didn’t stop there. Tracy Morgan, arguably the most prominent black nominee, plays a character on 30 Rock that is easily among the most dangerously stereotyped black roles in modern television (I guess since the show’s two real stars, Tina Fey and Alec Baldwin, are hardcore liberals, this is not relevant). If that wasn’t enough, the black person who got by far the most attention during the telecast was Kayne West, and that was because he was being made fun of all night.
And yet despite the Nokia Theater being transformed into the liberal caricature of the Republican Convention (except with Tina Fey being honored instead of Sarah Palin), absolutely NOTHING has been said about this obvious and, based on what we have constantly been taught, horrifying development. I have Googled all sorts of combinations of the words “racism, black, white, and EMMY awards” and not even one mention of Al Sharpton or Jessie Jackson comes up.
At first glance this all may seem to be cause for celebration. Perhaps we really have turned a racial corner in this country and inequality of outcome is no longer seen as automatic proof of inequality of opportunity. Maybe it is even now okay for whites like me to beam in pride at my race’s ability to finally kick ass again in something “important” now that we have ceded even golf to the Cablinasians.
But I actually think there is something very seriously wrong going on here. What was showcased last night was less Hollywood’s “good old boy” network at work, and more the ramifications of over a decade now of massive fragmentation within the television media.
In the Golden Age of television (the 70’s and 80’s) there were only four or five channels and the networks were forced to broadcast. Now there are hundreds of channels and television has become all about narrowcasting to an economically preferred demographic (which, for the major networks, is apparently mostly made up of white people). So instead of Good Times, Sanford and Son, or The Jeffersons airing on major networks with big budgets and automatic mainstream audiences, the fragmentation has created a self-segregation phenomenon that is only surpassed by the dramatic racial disparity in religious worship. There is still plenty of “black” television programming; it is now just on channels that mostly only other black people watch.
To me this is a sad and dangerous development. Television used to be the ultimate uniter and now has become the definitive divider of our culture. The major networks used to create a de facto “team photo” of our nation which (after a slow start) eventually included everyone in the picture. Now, each race, gender, and age group has their own “team” and tends to watch programming that is built to only appeal to them. In short, we end up living in very different realities with almost nothing in common (this same ominous trend can of course be seen in news coverage with the advent of cable news networks with obvious political leanings).
While this modern reality has its advantages (HBO’s non-Bill Maher original programming and The Golf Channel immediately come to mind), there seems to be little doubt that it is a net loss to the strength of the fabric of our country. What is most surprising however is that no one seems to be noticing it, even when the evidence is as black and white as it was Emmy night.
[ed. note: In a scheduling reshuffle this piece accidentally published for a few minutes last week.]
Palin’s Hong Kong Speech: I Can See Insanity From My Newsroom
Posted by John Ziegler in Politics on September 24th, 2009
You would think at this point it would be impossible for anyone (especially me) to be stunned or outraged by anything the news media tries to pull when it comes to Sarah Palin. After all, once you have been exposed to a year-long brutal beating, one tends to become numb to a simple low blow. However, the news coverage of her Hong Kong speech still managed to spark the senses on several levels.
First, it must be noted that it is rather incredible that this speech got as much play as it did. Remember, this is a private citizen from Alaska who was a “failed” vice-presidential candidate, who has given no official indication she is ever going to run for anything ever again. The speech was a private affair in a foreign country and contained no real “news” whatsoever. The news media was barred and were forced to cobble together bits and pieces of what was said from the paying customers who attended. And yet, nearly every major publication gave the event heavy play and links to FOUR of those articles were displayed prominently on the Drudge Report all day long.
This is simply extraordinary, a true testament to Palin’s enduring star power and just how much the media still desperately wants/needs their favorite target to stick around. It is also a vindication of her much maligned post-resignation strategy.
The initial element that shocked me about the coverage of this Hong Kong event (other than its magnitude) was that, at first glance, the reporting left a remarkably positive impression of the speech. The New York Times in its second paragraph reluctantly admitted that those in attendance thought, “she was articulate, well-prepared and even compelling.” You can almost see the Times reporter and editors cringing at having to allow the Old Grey Lady to be soiled by such blasphemy to the modern liberal as the acknowledgement that Palin is not a complete dunce.
The AFP service’s first quote in their article was, “She was brilliant,” though they added the caveat that this assessment came from a delegate who requested their anonymity (presumably to protect the ability to make future dinner reservations in New York or Los Angeles). Meanwhile, Bloomberg, after quoting someone who left the speech early as calling it “boring,” at least allowed the head of the sponsoring group to call it “a great speech.”
But a closer look at the coverage reveals that Palin Derangement Syndrome is still a robust strain within the news media and that the rules for reporting on her are completely different than anyone else in public life.
The most egregious example of this probably came from Time magazine whose account claimed she ducked questions (when she did indeed take them), was laced with only disparaging comments form those in attendance, and which had a top ten list of Palin “spoofs” embedded right in the middle of the web version. But an item in both the New York Times and Associated Press accounts of the address deserves an extra special critique.
In a classic example of the grossly distorted prism through which the Times sees all events (especially those involving Palin), their writer arbitrarily decided, with zero evidence, that the purpose of the speech was to “broaden her foreign policy credentials” for a 2012 presidential run. This then opened the door for the “reporter” to make a pronouncement that should set a new definition for the word gratuitous and a fresh standard for shoddy journalism.
The Times actually deemed it appropriate to publish: “Mrs. Palin was faulted during the campaign last year for her lack of foreign policy experience and expertise. As the governor of Alaska, she said in her own defense, she had a unique insight because ‘you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska’ — a remark that was widely lampooned.”
This is simply a stunning statement coming from the newspaper of “record.” Palin “was faulted for her lack of foreign policy experience and expertise”? By whom? For what reason? The reality is that Palin’s foreign policy experience, while meager, was still greater than our current President whose nonexistent credentials (little more than a mysterious college trip to Pakistan) were never remotely questioned by the media, and a rudimentary examination of the Vice-Presidential debate reveals that it was Joe Biden who made all the significant foreign policy blunders.
But even that pales in comparison with to the “see Russia” gem.
First, the now infamous “Russia” statement was clearly made as an aside in Palin’s interview with Charlie Gibson. Palin knew that the vast majority of American’s had no idea of the geographical proximity of Russia to Alaska (which, until after the Civil War, was actually part of Russia) and said it in a “gee, isn’t this an interesting fact?” sort of way.
Second, what she said was 100% factually accurate and relevant. As for the “lampooning” of the remark, that was done inaccurately by a comedy show with an obvious agenda. The Times should be embarrassed (if that’s still possible) even mentioning the episode in this context and to not at least point out the full context, as I just did, is flat out Media Malpractice.
As pathetic as the Times reporting was, the Associated Press was downright juvenile in taking the exact same page out of the anti-Palin playbook. They wrote, “she was ridiculed during the campaign after contending her state’s proximity to Russia gave her foreign policy experience. “You can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska,” she said.
However, amazingly, the AP hardly stopped there. They ended their piece of trash with this beauty: “Hari Sevugan, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, said Tuesday the group knew little about Palin’s speech. ‘We’re curious as to what she’s willing to say in private but not in public,’ Sevugan said. ‘Are there other countries that she can see from her window that she doesn’t want us to know about?’”
This is truly astonishing. Forgetting that the DNC feels like it needs to use old, factually empty, Saturday Night Live skits to ridicule a private citizen, how absurd is it that the Associated Press has no problem ending their “report” on Palin’s speech with a blatantly inaccurate quote from a highly partisan source without even at least a mention that Palin never came close to saying anything about seeing other countries from her “window.”
This issue is a particular pet peeve of mine. After the election I paid a lot of money for a controversial Zogby poll which exposed that 87% of Obama voters wrongly thought that Sarah Palin had said she could she Russia from her “house” when it was actually Tina Fey who had said that on SNL. Then, after I appeared on The View, I was interviewed on Barbara Walters’ radio show and, incredibly, she revealed that even she was under the delusion that Sarah Palin had actually said that. Unfortunately, even some “conservative” commentators have bought at least partially into this myth.
In the coverage of Palin’s speech we see some of the many spoiled fruits of both the insidious nature of the news media and of conservatives being either unwilling or simply unable to win even the easiest of battles. If a year later we still can’t correct the record about a simple factual statement Sarah Palin made about the geographic location of her home state, how the hell can the truth win any argument?!
While it’s obviously the media’s fault that this lie has become such a large part of the Palin mythology, I have been disappointed with the timid response of conservatives on this issue and others like it. My guess is that it is because we can’t believe that people really believe this crap (trust me, the evidence is overwhelming that they do) and that , with only occasional access to talk radio and Fox News, it is just too hard to correct so we move on to other more pressing matters.
While this view is understandable, it is also remarkably shortsighted. Much like Obama was elected largely because Republicanism was killed by a series of unreputed legends over the previous ten years (Clinton was impeached for sex, Bush stole Florida, Bush lied about WMD in Iraq, Bush caused Katrina, Republicans caused the economic meltdown, etc.), the same death by a thousand lies could befall Palin.
Regardless of your view of her, our side just doesn’t have nearly enough talent to allow anyone like her to be needlessly taken out. On the bright side, the outrageous coverage of Palin’s first major post resignation speech proves that the news media is convinced that they haven’t yet finished the job.