Ask-Steve.com

Has Bill O'Really? finally committed career suicide?

Don't miss this. Not to downplay the inappropriateness of Don Imus's on-air gaffe, but Bill O'Reilly has, inevitably, topped it by quite a margin. Here's what he had to say about a sitting U.S. Senator's African-American wife (and most likely future First Lady):

I don’t want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there’s evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that’s how she really feels — that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever — then that’s legit. We’ll track it down.

Rachel S. over at Alas, a blog, has an excellent commentary:

Ever since Clarence Thomas and his defenders claimed he was the victim of a “high tech lynching,” the term lynching has been misappropriated by politicians and other public figures. Thomas’s misappropriation of the term was a tremendous insult to the real victims of lynchings, who were tortured, beaten, castrated, burned, hung, and terrorized by huge mobs of whites. These mobs included white men, women, and children. Lynching was murder and torture as a public spectacle.

So let's get this straight, Bill... You "don’t want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there’s evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels." Would those be hard facts like the bald-faced lies put forth by the Swift Boat Hit Squad about John Kerry's heroism in Vietnam? So... once you have the facts, Bill... you're going to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama?

When are loudmouth losers like Bill O'Really?, Ann Coltish and Flush Limburger going to learn? I guess they don't need to so long as their rabid mob of neocon nut jobs keeps tuning in for commentary like this and buying their books.

Link: Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » Bill O’Reilly’s “Lynching Party” Comment.

Christian Science Monitor screws up big time

The Christian Science Monitor is a fine publication - but they got it all wrong in a piece out today entitled, "What YouTube doesn't show." I would have thought CS Monitor above this kind of if-you-can't-beat-em'-smear-em tactic, but I can't say I'm surprised. YouTube is emerging as the remedy to corporate media's complete failure to ask the tough questions and speak for the people - and that is bound to rattle some cages. Especially when it starts putting a dent in the power and pocketbooks of the 800 pound gorillas kicking back in those cages.

The subtitle of the piece reads:

YouTube spread news of Florida's Taser incident fast. But instant media doesn't always tell the whole story.

That's rich. As though Fox, USA Today or any other corporate media outlet always tells the whole story. That's such a laughably flawed statement that I'm surprised it made it past the editor. Instant media (which every news outlet on the planet seems to be trying to emulate in terms of speed these days) doesn't try or intend to tell the whole story. They're video clips for crying out loud! Unlike the mainstream media outlets that often do claim to be telling the whole story - and in an unbiased way at that. It's an absurd comparison.

If a picture is worth a thousand words, how many are conveyed by a video tape? Whatever the number, it is not always enough to understand the situation.

So we're to be prevailed upon to believe that YouTube, with its virtually unlimited capacity for the number of videos it can hold and much less constrained length of those videos - uploaded mostly by average folks like you and me at the scene - are going to provide a less complete picture of things compared to broadcast media? How many amateur videos of that University of Florida incident are there? If only we'd had a Fox News camera crew there we'd know God's own truth of exactly what happened there that fateful day!

That will not stop many people from rushing to judgment based on what they think they know.

Sage words, Mr. Jett. Good thing you're above ever doing anything like that and, say, publishing it in the Christian Science Monitor. If only people would rush to judgment based on what they think they don't know. Or crawl slowly toward judgment based on what they do know, but don't realize they know. Now that would be ideal. At exactly what point did you deem it appropriate to form the opinions you're expressing here? And exactly how much information did you feel you had to accumulate and process before what you thought you knew became what you truly know - in your estimation?

Their views are formed more by the media stampede and their own biases than by what really happened. And that says a lot about how people react and how information is used today.

And this phenomenon of the human race is suddenly unique to YouTube how? This has no doubt been the case since the first prehistoric news hack painted his first big story on a cave wall during the Upper Paleolithic. I don't know how you manage to be a first-hand witness to all events that you form an opinion about, but folks like me are constrained by our physical bodies and things called time and space. Therefore we glean what we can from what we have determined to be reliable sources and then form our opinions based on that.

As the story spread, many people formed a firmly held opinion.

Damn those pesky many people! How dare they form an opinion - let alone a firmly held one! - as the story is still spreading!

I also had an opinion on the event...

You don't say?

...but my perspective was unique.

Well of course it was! Do you really think any of us lowly many people would think that our rushed, firmly-held opinions could possibly have been formed on as solid a basis as your omniscient, omnipresent perspective would allow? Perish the thought!

I was the moderator of Sen. Kerry's talk and the only other person on stage with him.

Oh, sweet! I'm glad I kept reading! So the key is that simple. I'll just be sure to land a stage role at the heart of every world event so that I don't have to rely on spurious media coverage and eyewitness accounts. Especially accounts caught on video tape. I'd rather have someone interpret for me what happened than be forced to rely on live video footage. Who knows what kind of judgments I might make if I actually saw what happened myself?

Take the case of Andrew Meyer, the University of Florida student who had a Taser used against him by campus police at a speech by Sen. John Kerry (D) of Massachusetts last month. Videotapes of the incident made the evening television news and immediately found their way onto YouTube.

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement was called in to investigate whether the actions of the officers were appropriate. Their 300-page report was recently turned over to university officials. (A summary of it is at www.president.ufl.edu/incident/.) The report concluded the officers acted "well within" their guidelines and also pointed out that the student had provoked an earlier disturbance on campus.

Wow - what complete idiots all we gullible many people have been! Why didn't we wait until the completely unbiased, 300-page report came to us via university officials from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement rather than rush to judgment based on eyewitness accounts and multiple video clips of what happened? So that kid wasn't actually being knocked down, sat on and roughed up by four cops and Tased repeatedly while screaming and pleading for mercy and help. Obviously those video clips and all those eyewitnesses must have gotten it wrong somehow. No seriously! The report says so!

The really great part?

In a letter released October 29, Mr. Meyer publicly apologized for his "failure to act calmly" during the speech and admitted he had "stepped out of line" and was truly sorry for tarnishing the university's image.

That doesn't begin to portray the tone and content of Meyer's letter. It was an abject, groveling plea for mercy. I wasn't halfway through it when I couldn't have been persuaded to believe other than that this kid was blackmailed into writing this letter. Why should the authorities deal with repeat offenders when you can make an example of a kid like this, have your thugs beat the shit out of him, threaten him with who knows what afterward, get him to write a prostrate mea culpa - and then get the Christian Science Monitor to put out a piece like Mr. Jett's here. It's a complete coup for the Cheney/Rove/Bush/Kristol regime and their fear-mongering tactics of frightening U.S. citizens - especially those who might dare to engage their brains, ethics or morals - into self-censorship and trembling complicity in its tyranny.

I almost wonder if John P. Philbin didn't coach Karl Rove on writing this piece with the help of Bill Kristol.

****************

What YouTube doesn't show  |  Christian Science Monitor

Dish Network thinks you're a dumb sucker

And if you live in this house, they're right! They don't have to put their dishes anywhere on the front of your house. They tried this crap at my place years ago (when I watched TV) and I made the guy take it off and move it to the back of the house on the roof, completely out of sight. The only reason they do this is to use your house as a billboard that you pay bloated fees for.

I wrote about this years ago, but I don't understand why people don't question these guys when they come out and -- no doubt as trained to do -- tell you that the only place the ugly gray dish with their logo on it can pick up a signal is -- SURPRISE! -- eye level outside your front door!

In this case, the dish would have a far better line of sight to the satellite if it were placed part way down the back of the roof -- completely out of sight of the street and neighbors! Which of course Dish Network and DIRECTV aren't about to tell you.

Click the photo for a larger view.

Technorati Tags: advertising, media, Oregon, Portland, Portland Hall of Shame, television

Cavity Creeps and the frightening power of advertising

I was just hanging out with a friend and somehow the topic of cavities came up. I said, "The Cavity Creeps are coming!" Then, switching to a deeper, sinister-sounding voice, "We make holes in teeth!" My friend gave me a strange look—as any sane person would. "Huh?"

Google to the rescue! A few seconds later we were watching the below commercial, hosted on iFilm. The commercial came out in 1976!

advertising, Crest, toothpaste, Television

Are you still watching television commercials?

Please, please tell me you're not. If you are still watching TV commercials, lie to me and tell me you're not.

I was at a friend's house over the holiday break. Everyone was in Thanksgiving mode, hanging around the house and grazing at the snack table off and on all day. The sitting room / living room had all furniture aimed at the television and the television was on. The entire time. Including during commercials. Commercials would come blaring on and some people would get up to refill their snack plate or use the restroom and everyone else just sat and stared at the television, taking in the mind-numbing, insulting ads. From what I saw before I managed to dash from the room each time commercials came on, it seemed like a full fifty percent of them were for drugs. The others were terrible ads that tried to get you to go max out your credit cards (or sign up for new credit cards to max out) or sign up for more insurance so your family would have plenty of money to blow on drugs and more insurance if you died suddenly.

I haven't watched an entire television commercial in years (except for the rare ones worth watching that I seek out online) and just kind of assumed no one else was watching them either. And judging from the apparent budget and quality of the commercials I saw, the networks and advertisers must not think many people are watching them either. There's just no reason to. Even if you still don't have a digital video recorder (DVR—like TiVo), there's always the mute button. If you are going to watch television, though, get a digital video recorder. Would you meet a friend for lunch and post a sign asking anyone and everyone who had anything to sell to come up and interrupt your lunch chat with a five minute sales pitch, no matter what they were selling? Well, if you watch TV without a DVR, that's what you're doing. Don't do it.

Jon Stewart's book wins Book of the Year award

Thanks for the heads up on this one, Will.  Another sign of intelligence out there -- at least on the part of the good folks at Publishers Weekly, the trade publication of the book industry.

Political satirist Jon Stewart's mock look at a political science college textbook "America (the Book), a Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction," was named on Sunday the book of the year by Publishers Weekly, the trade publication of the book industry.

My favorite part of the article reporting the award is this:

"'America (The Book)' offers more than just humor, however. Beneath the eye-catching and at times goofy graphics, the dirty jokes and the playful ingenuousness shines a serious critique of the two-party system, the corporations that finance it and the 'spineless cowards in the press' who 'aggressively print allegation and rumor independent of accuracy or fairness."'

If you haven't bought the book yet, do so immediately.  It's the Book of the Year, for crying out loud!

America (the Book): A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction

Boycott Sinclair Stations, Sleep Better at Night

Thanks, Matthew, for bringing this story to my attention.

---

Who is Sinclair?

In their own words:

Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. is one of the largest and most diversified television broadcasting companies in the country today. Sinclair owns and operates, programs, or provides sales services to 62 television stations in 39 markets.

Sinclair's television group includes 20 FOX, 19 WB, 6 UPN, 8 ABC, 3 CBS, 4 NBC affiliates and 2 independent stations and reaches approximately 24% of all U.S. television households.

Sinclair's news franchise includes 37 of its stations which air local news in 31 markets.

Sinclair, either directly or through its Ventures subsidiary, makes equity investments in strategic companies.

Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. was founded in 1986, went public in 1995 and is traded on the Nasdaq Exchange under the ticker symbol SBGI.

Why are we boycotting them?

Because Sinclair "plans to preempt regular programming two weeks before the Nov. 2 election to air a documentary that accuses Sen. John F. Kerry of betraying American prisoners during the Vietnam War.

Sinclair has ordered its 62 stations, some of which are in the critical swing states of Ohio, Florida, Iowa and Wisconsin, to air "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal" during prime-time hours next week."

To their credit, the major broadcast networks rejected the film. Sinclair vice president Mark Hyman explained their decision to force their stations to air the propaganda film just two weeks before a closely-contested election:

"This is a powerful story," Hyman said. "The networks are acting like Holocaust deniers and pretending [the POWs] don't exist. It would be irresponsible to ignore them."

Even if that statement made any sense at all, it makes them look extremely stupid in view of the fact that they have chosen to ignore - even hide - from their viewers the cumulative and ongoing deaths of our soldiers in Iraq.

The company made news in April when it ordered seven of its ABC-affiliated stations not to air a "Nightline" segment that featured a reading of the names of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq; a Sinclair executive called that broadcast "contrary to the public interest."

Not at all surprising is the fact that "Sinclair's top executives, including members of the controlling Smith family, have been strong financial supporters of Bush's campaign."

From the CNN article: "Sinclair executives have given nearly $68,000 in political contributions, 97 percent of it going to Republicans, since the beginning of the year, according to the Los Angeles Times."

"Sinclair also is one of the few station-group owners that puts corporate opinion on its local newscasts. Hyman delivers conservative commentaries called "The Point."

Sinclair clearly thinks they are too large and too powerful to bother worrying about ethics, fairness -- and perhaps even the law. In George W. Bush's America, I can understand how these companies have come to feel that way. A media watchdog group has written a letter to them, however, letting them know otherwise:

"Sinclair's plan to air anti-Kerry propaganda before the election is an abuse of the public airwaves for what appears to be partisan political purposes," Media Matters CEO David Brock said in the letter.

The letter warned Sinclair that its plan could constitute a violation of broadcast regulations requiring equal time for political candidates, as well as the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, the group said.

For a complete list of stations to avoid, please click here:
www.sbgi.net/business/television.shtml

NOTE: Please see Jim's excellent comment posted here to learn about which companies support sinclair with their advertising dollars, how to contact them, who their major stakeholders are, etc.

Sinclair plans to air anti-Kerry film without commercials (CNN Money)

Sinclair stations to air anti-Kerry film (MSNBC)