This is Journalism that can Save Lives - Tonight.

I never tell anybody what to watch. But anyone with a conscience should consider tuning into this. Call PBS what you want -- I call them courageous for this episode. Click the title link.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comets as Wolf Blitzes through Debates with Dashing Aplomb (I couldn't resist) - No Red Nosed Journalists after this debate

I was unable to watch the debates last night - mainly because I forgot that they were being televised. See what happens when you don't watch the news! So I can't rant and rave about whether the media was fair in its treatment of the Democratic candidates. You'll find lots of comments about the debates on the New York Times website.

My uneducated opinion of the debates are further heightened by my general thoughts about Wolf Blitzer of CNN. Wolf is the quintessential reporter in every sense of the word. He speaks at the same heightened decibel whether asking a question about what time the basketball game airs on another channel (yawn) or whether arms for hostages is a good concept worthy of a second look. At all times, Blitzer forces out his words from his craggy voice. I see him as a grown up Munchkin whose voice adjusted to his new height, but which still gives his beginnings away. Or he's dastardly pirate on a ship on the weekend who hijacks boats in international waters for fun, then puts his suit on during the week. His deadpan eyes give away no sense of feeling whatsoever, and he'd pull off the same seriousness were he to wear diapers and a tight tank top on the show. He is the perfect automaton newscaster whom I have never seen do anything greater than let the sides of his mouth motion upwards into an 1/8th of a smile. I wonder if he isn't a robot from Journalandia, the land where men and women were taught to just give the facts, and disappear behind your words. But, given the purpose of this site, to not denigrate them all, I'd say let him be a moderator. I'm okay with that -- so my ravings are not an indictment of Mr. Blitzer. I do think he handles hard journalism where facts and figures reign, or discussing the chess game of international politics. I will admit, however, that I couldn't bear him during the Hurricane Katrina disaster, as he had no way of relating to the
emotional people that he was interviewing. He didn't need to dab his eyes or get Tammy Faye teary-eyed (I wish her better health, by the way). He's just Wolf. What can I say.

What I did find interesting in trolling the web for others' opinions was a website that allows you to trace the affiliations of newscasters>, ostensibly to prove how they are one big media left-leaning Tower of Pisa monolith. I'm not sure if the same muckracking website exists to ferret out the affiliations of the Right-Wingers (besides looking at whoever graduated from ten degrees of "Halliburton" employment rolls) Take your chances using the site, as it's not very user friendly. It takes literally five minutes to download names and linkages. There should be a better way of linking candidates.

Anyway, the problem I have with this site's premise to show the conspiracies of the Democratic media, is that any group of people with similar interests is going to "cross-breed." To not accept that fact that people move around over the years, and they don't forget each other is like saying that nobody in baseball switches teams. So to put this forth as some kind of left wing conspiracy is rubbish. The right have only had a "public voice" since the Pubs Got Their Groove Back, with Newt Gingrich - their feckless leader, who made it cool to be a Republican (maybe for the first time ever), so I'm not sure the bias against the left wing is justified. Let's face it, Republicans used to be the party of money who was too elevated to dwell amongst the peons. Their policies have failed them, and now they have to wash dishes like the rest of us. We've just been washing them longer. It's not bias -- its acquaintanceships. The trick is making sure that those acquaintanceships do not cause you to lose your individual thought processes.

So, CNN scored, I guess and the pairing with Suzanne Malveaux - the modern day version of , one of my favorite actresses. And even Chris Matthews on Harball, tonight, seemed to have taken a chill pill to do what he does best: ask questions to tease out an answer, short of making you want to scream at him for inserting his opinion. I find it interesting that he contemplating a Senate run in Pennsylvania some time ago. Although I hate the word, that's H-U-B-R-I-S (yes, in caps). Just declare your candidacy, Chris, and then we'll understand why you pontificate so much - you're a frustrated politician in the same way that I'm a frustrated writer whose success would defeat the purpose of the blog so I'm content. Excuse me, Chris? Oh It's YOUR SHOW!! Yeah, I know.

But it still gets me when he inserts his opinions. A journalist giving an opinion of any topic is the equivalent of a Tennis chair umpire sitting in the middle of a match, and excitedly clapping his hands, gleefully, when his favored player wins a volley. American journalists can learn lessons from watching the refs in a cricket match. Consummate actors, those Brits, from Queen to the grubby Dickens urchins - they are the masters of the poker face. So Chris, subdued and almost somnambulant compared to his usual hyperbole, softly made mention of how everyone put the blame on the media (as if it was incredulous). But he didn't stay on that topic for long. That was a non-starter. He knew it and everyone else did: in the debates of 2 weeks ago, Tim Russert lost the adulation of a small base of people who thought him to be truly biased. And, then there's the wife. Maybe Chris Matthews got a talking to by his wife, a real journalist (and one of my favs when I lived in DC) about how to just get the facts, then tell the facts and stop spewing his apopleptic opinions for no one to care about - because you're not a politician.

Not much to say today. I'm going to lay off of Chris Matthews for now. I'm starting to sound like a Fox supporter (Shepard does wear nicer eye shadow).

Did this bore you reading as much as it did me writing it? Oh, well. I'm just trying to keep my 3 visitors happy! :)

Sphere: Related Content

Less News = Life Fulfilling

Okay actors - the following paragraph is supposed to be read in a fast and curt manner, using a Contralto or Baritone newscasters voice:

BREAKING NEWS: Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee is surging ahead in the polls [you know, the pre-poll polling sampling before the Iowa caucus - the real poll].

And the news outlets are shocked! What? There's gambling going on in this casino! We can't dictate the front runners, after all? All the hours spent ignoring Huckabee and boosting their chosen favorites didn't pan out as expected? Surprise!

I know! Maybe we should all do what Iowa is doing and damn the news, think for yourself instead! [Now... chew your cigar and walk around in a Tuxedo, hunched over].

So why should anyone listen to the media. Period? Why do we watch them? Try though it might - the media can't predict the future. Not one of them. However, I'll put my faith in weather casters - just a tad bit more - at least the Doplar speaks for them. The media is as useful as yesterday's news. All that screaming and yelling and rancor and shouts and insults are about topics they know no more about than the rest of us. They just have a highly visible public forum that puts them on pedestals. The irony is that not all of what they say is written by them -- and it's vetted -- unlike day-time television for the stay-at-home Mom's who learn their news through used-to-be newscasters who still get paid or silenced for their opinions on The View.
And I'm not even a Whoopi Goldberg fan.




But back to our newscasters, who are elevated to rock star status for having an ear piece that feeds them their lines -- or a teleprompter and, just in case, they can show that they can read paper copy on their desk (or so we think). And when they aren't hung up in all of the wiring, they're just like you and me, only sitting on a stage instead of a comfortable living room couch that fits to your body's permanent imprint. [Wait -- those are couches and comfortable chairs they're sitting on]!

While we sit, watching newscasters sit, we can't do what they can: prognosticate, pontificate and exercise our right to brainwash under the guise of performing a public service.

For some of us, our souls have not been sold to rock and roll, but sewed or stitched to the couch and television, the tandem mind and body snatchers. We can sit all day and watch the same newscasts repeat themselves on 3 major cable news channels. And while digesting the bad news, we can add bad food (well, actually good, right) to our stomachs - mixed nuts, half-of a candy-bar, an egg-salad sandwich, cheese puffs, a root beer, and cookies -- I'm not finished, just embarrassed - and then we wonder where the pounds came from I'm going to the gym today, guys. I really will).

Just how did we let the media, which used to take up only one half-hour of our time, thirty years ago become a 24-hour extreme? I'll tell you the day my fixation started - and probably yours, too: September 11, 2001. That tragedy not only changed the lives of the country by the terrible loss of humanity on that day, but the beginning of our loss of control over our lives. And the media came to our rescue - to make sense of it all. They dropped commercials and gave us the news. Hard news. And, sad news. And they've been making money from those tragic days ever since. Whereas the Breaking News bar at the bottom of our screens used to be only for emergencies, on cable, now it rolls every morning, noon and night, telling us, not breaking news, but breakfast news to feed our consciences that there's still a tragedy awaiting to happen. So we better stay tuned, and prepared for the worst.

My question to you is -- with all of the segments, talk shows, panelists, etc., have we learned anything from them? Only what we're told, or as the New York Time boasts, "News that's Fit to Print." The word "fit" has a double entendre, however. What is fit to print is selectively chosen not in the public's interest, but for "the military-industrial-corporate-Congressional complex "that Republican President Eisenhower, a military man, warned us about.



["someone" excised the word congressional from his speech, allegedly].

Continuing -- what is fit to print is in the interests of corporate America's control over the hearts, minds, and bodies of America (which is actually owned by Europe - that's another article about how England and Japan won the Wars, after all] And just what do they really want from us? A feeling of national unity? Of harmony and pride that a nation of different colors and creeds can be one, united for the common good?

Let's cut to the chase, because you knew I was running here [DISCLAIMER: these are hypothetical scenarios unintended to draw any negative attention to any particular commercial brand or product]:

Channel 1: "Coffee is bad for you. Back after this commercial. [Maxwell House].
Channel 2: "No, Coffee is good for you. Find out why, after this commercial. break" [MaxWell House - same commercial simultaneously playing on two different stations]
Channel 3: "Mites are eating you alive while you sleep. We'll be back in a second."[new, Off-mite spray]
Channel 4: "There's a rapist out on the loose, 350 miles from where you live -- we'll have actual footage of the police driving in their cars looking for them. But you have to stay right here to find out what happens. Back in a sec (6 minutes). But be afraid. Be very afraid."[Brinks Safety].
Channel 5: "There's a black MALE rapist out on the loose, twenty-eight hundred miles from where you live (no details of the color - just a Black, or African-American man). Back in two minutes (but lock your doors during the interim. Be afraid. Be very afraid. [On Star].
Channel 6: Cops chased a car: here's the ten minute footage and who knows? We might see someone die on television in a shoot out! Back in a minute (although Shepard Smith will tell you the number of seconds remaining - so you can clock the seconds to see if he's right).[Get your law enforcement degree in three weeks].

Back to

Channel 1: The Iraqi war is showing improvement as the US mounts its Operation Thunderclap (or something of a Herculean, let's think Thor (he's blond), or Wagnerian Gotterdamerung theme suggesting civilization will be destroyed).[The ARMY commercial follows]
Channel 2: The economy is going to tank. [Snickers commercial].
Channel 3: The Dow hit a record, recovering its losses of yesterday. Stay tuned (our [gambling expert] will be with us in a couple of minutes to explain the market -- after another (5 minutes) commercial break. Advertisement for the state lottery next..... keep it here." [E-trade (on the verge of collapse, or so they say]

Channel 4: Seven soldiers were ambushed the next day, after all was peace and quiet, bringing our toll to a (specific, exacting number). [We're in the business of detailing the news, but we can't tell you the names of the fallen, who gave up their lives for you and me to sit on our couch eating popcorn, watching the news not tell us the real news. All we can tell you is that seven anonymous soldiers died. But before we cut to commercial, let's hear from Chuck... Chuck any update on the Britney story? (to camera). We're putting the microphone on our guest, who is coming up after the break - we... are going to chat with Britney's second grade friend who knew her all of one semester before her family moved away. Let's learn from her about our favorite troubled pop star.

"I'm sorry?" Okay (listening to the earphone puppet stringer that turns the announcer into a marionette that speaks - hey, how did they do that?) "Okay, we'll be back in (4 commercials) ten minutes. Stay on our channel where we give you the top news every hour on the hour, on our no-spin, you heard if first news station - CNNFOXSNB - [Acronym? Confusion Broadcasting].

Back to Channel 5: "We're back from commercial speaking with Joe Smith. Mr. Smith -- it was you who saw the child crossing the street, and picked him up and dove to the other side of the pavement, when the car was a block away -- and no one was scratched? Right?" (Microphone in Joe Smith's face): "Yes." Newsman: "Well that's great news. You're a hero to us and all of America. Thanks for being on our show. We'll be back after a brief break (of 5 minutes)."

There's a silver lining in here somewhere. Here's a remedy: There's a prescription that each American should be given to improve his or her health. We need to diet. From television. Like an enema (yuck) or a one-time purge (no offense to any real purgers out there)we need to get the news out of our system. And we'll be healthier as a result. Watching announcer/actors on television is not living a fulfilling life (say the preceding four words -- fast). And if everything we learn from the Great Pontificators in a Box is actually scripted, then it might be better to be illegible and deaf to them -- so we can live and learn about our own lives -- the old fashioned way - by doing.

But you all know this. It's old news. So... I'm off to the gym... as soon as I finish watching the news.

gin

Sphere: Related Content

CNN's Reliable Sources Lightly Tickles its Usual Suspects - the Oprah Apology Critique

Today my solipsistic vitriol is politely leveled at CNN's Reliable Sources. Howard Kurtz's show is a Sunday news hour that attempts to admonish its news-gathering fraternity (if females are actors, instead of actresses, then female journalists are members of the fraternity, not the sorority) for weak journalism. Kurtz's "news review-lite" exacts temperate revenge upon its selected errant peers by grazing the "bad guys" (as the newscasters refer to the miscreants of the weak) with feathers under the armpits with the purpose of inciting guilty giggles about what they got wrong during the previous week.

Now, were I to be the Punisher, I would probably do something more dastardly, like force Kurtz to brandish a whip and flagellate himself and his peers and make them eat their printed copy to keep from screaming at the blows (but that sounds a bit kinky, so I'll dismiss that thought). Inasmuch as I am not a guest (nor would I ever be), nor am I a journalist (I think, therefore I am not a journalist), I have to settle for CNN's attempt at scolding his fellow men and women. Good concept, but I don't think they understand the gravity of the self-analysis they should really, truly, undertake. I mean, they can make really big mistakes that have dastardly consequences - like not questioning the motives for going to War in Iraq, and speaking out about the true idiocy of the idea. They can ruin lives of the deluded and defamed, thereby assisting in the demise of majority uneducated human beings who want a tad too much publicity for their mediocre talent (but a "shout out" to them for achieving their dream). Journalists can destroy nations, and, especially when they don't make sufficient inquiry -- they can be unwitting assistants to murder by their acquiescence by deciding not to question deeply enough, instead, running with the Bulls and getting swept by the multitudes.

But, of course, like Dan Abrams' MSNBC show "Beat the Press," Reliable Sources takes the soft approach. You know, it's like they give themselves a half-dozen roses instead of a full dozen to reprimand each other. Obviously, the news sources on Reliable Sources can still feel good about themselves, because their shows suggest that the media can truly be objective about something about which they can rarely be objective: themselves. I mean, really, they interview important people, they go to parties with them, and even develop friendships which, would obviously skew their judgment.

Like the police who conduct internal investigations, or the Catholic Church's handling of the scandals in their clerical ranks -- really, what kind of punishment would you give yourself for doing something wrong? One less piece of chocolate? Right.

So this week, among the discussion about the television writers and theater union strikes, afterwards, Kurtz set his sights on Oprah Winfrey and her apology to the world for not doing thorough background checks for her highly publicized charitable school in Africa. Apparently, a woman selected by Oprah to run the school abused her authority and molested some of the kids. I haven't really followed the story, honestly. But, the question asked was something along the lines of how did she do in acquitting herself of the negative publicity.

The guests were Michael Medvev, a rep from one of the Hollywood movie rags, and a a twenty-something-looking guest named Jill Pozner. It is to commend her on her role in elevating the discussion about Oprah's apology that I write today. She gets the Snap Back reward by suggesting that the question raised by Kurtz was, in effect, stupid, and missed the real story.

Ms. Pozner didn't use those words, but she chided Mr. Kurtz that the focus should have been on the very issue which caused Oprah's tears: child abuse. Well done, Ms. Pozner. Fascinated by the identity of this woman who could so feistily chide an elder CNN reporter, I looked up the background of this intrepid fighter for better journalism. Ms. Posner has been a real advocate for fair media and was a part of a same-named national organization, FAIR until she started her own gig, WIMN (took me ten minutes to figure out the double-entendre of the acronym). So let's roll the transcript, peppered by my own inner thoughts about the seriousness of a news show that reduces responses to 20 seconds or less:

KURTZ: All right. I need 20 seconds from each of you. [SEE ME SCREAMING AT THE TV:" AS IF ONE CAN DO ANYTHING IN TWENTY SECONDS, AND TEN MORE STILL, IT WOULD BE A FLOP"]

Michael Medved, how is Oprah Winfrey handling this matter? [SEE ME, COUNTING THE SECONDS - "ONE, TWO... HMMM. SOUNDS LIKE A THUMBS UP, THUMBS DOWN RESPONSE IS IN ORDER - HURRY UP, MICHAEL BEFORE HE FORGETS WHAT HE ASKED YOU"]

MEDVED: She's handling it well. I mean, look, it ought to be acknowledged that this is one star who really has consistently tried to use some of her wealth and power to benefit very unfortunate people. The fact that some of that trust and some of that donation was abused I don't think it's right to blame on her.

KURTZ: Jennifer Pozner?

POZNER [MY ITALICS AND CAPS FOR EMPHASIS: WELL, MEDIA COVERAGE -- OUR SHOW AND OTHERS -- SHOULD BE FOCUSING ON THE TRAUMA THAT THESE GIRLS FACED AND THE SYSTEMS THAT WEREN'T IN PLACE TO KEEP THEM SAFE AND THE PREVALENCE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE EDUCATION SYSTEM IN SOUTH AFRICA, NOT ON HOW PAINFUL THIS WAS FOR OPRAH. I'M SURE IT WAS PAINFUL FOR HER. I'M SURE SHE'S VERY SINCERE. BUT SHE SHOULD HAVE DONE THE DUE DILIGENCE TO PREVENT THIS FROM HAPPENING, AND WE SHOULDN'T BE TALKING ABOUT IT AS A CELEBRITY STORY, WE SHOULD BE TALKING ABOUT THE ACTUAL ISSUES OF SEXUAL ASSAULT. [ME: "you go girl," But I digress, so let's continue].

[LET'S SEE - NO RESPONSE EXCEPT TO STICK TO HIS SCRIPT][KURTZ: "Ray Richmond, I give her credit though for not hiding behind spokesmen or putting out official statements. She went to the microphone and she took some responsibility."

RAY RICHMOND [THINKING: Uh-oh.. we have a chick who thinks.. I mustn't let her make me look bad. I'll play it both ways:

RICHMOND: Yes, I give Oprah credit for that, but I agree with Jennifer, that the focus should not be on, ooh, Oprah the celebrity, what's happening. It should more be on the social issue behind this, which would have never seen the light of day if it hadn't been Oprah.

[RICHMOND - BUT LET ME GET MY DIG IN NONETHELESS...]

And I would have been less suspicion just of, you know, her own P.R. ends if she didn't have the same reaction to this that she had to Hermes closing their doors on her.

Note the slide back into "celebridumb*" coverage - All three pundits, besides Ms. Pozner, wanted to engage in a media fest centered on chipping away at the armor of a powerful woman, yet again by referring to a cultural misunderstanding in France with regard to a Hermes shop, and her philanthropic efforts, however, misguided they may be.

KURTZ: All right.

Good job, Ms. Pozner.

* And, by the way, you read the word first here: "celebridumb" - an aka for "The Media" who, as grown men and women, take off their journalism hats and, instead, bask in navel-gazing discussions about inane pop culture subjects or "targets," to a frightening degree.

Sphere: Related Content

Don't Forget to Eat Your O.J: Vengeance is Sweeeeet!

Ya know, life was getting pretty boring here in the good 'ol USA: the war took a back seat to the World Series (although the Pakistan debacle has gotten pretty good press); the fires in California have been contained now (the news only covers the catastrophes, not really the aftermath - just how are those people who fled from their homes doing now? - who cares - no drama). There were a couple of people named Peterson who seemed to make surname almost synonymous with crime, at least this week (a teacher named Kelsey Petersen fled with her 13 year-old paramour; and a young woman, named Stacy Peterson has been missing). My advice to anyone with the last name -- change it until this blows over). Like I said, it was pretty usual, even boring, of late, unless you're an election junkie -- until....

NEWS FLASH: Orange Juice is no longer a beverage. It is an edible human morsel ritually cannibalized by the media, and the nation, as they all vent their anger at a black man who has come to personify a slap in the face at the nation's deferential grant of its noblesse oblige. In other words, he was a cool black dude who done gone bad.

The resurgence of Orenthal James Simpson in the American psyche has come back to haunt us. The televised preliminary hearing of kidnapping-robbery proceedings have elevated the news ratings again. The spite in the delivery of the news almost requires a napkin to the TV screen to wipe off their spit. But this Las Vegas life-imitates-art saga raises other questions. Where I once believed that O.J. could have been an accomplice to a murder of his former wife and her friend Ron Goldman, I now wonder - could he possibly be innocent of both crimes - the murders and the robberies? I say this a bit tongue in cheek, but O.J.'s antics of late make me wonder.

It's not because the media always has a feeding frenzy whenever Sir O.J. disgraces himself (which he does all of the time, so I don't really pity him). It's because if he were truly that hot-headed and nonsensical to make such a ruckus -- just to get some memorabilia worth $100,000 -- surely he isn't smart enough to have pulled off the murders for which the world accuses him. He seems outright dumb, honestly. Or -- Is he that great of a mastermind? If the latter is the answer, he should have been a lawyer, and not a pretty-boy jock spoiled by the excesses of privilege?

Judging by this hotel fiasco, O.J. apparently does nothing by himself, as he always has a hanger-on, usually a low-life looking overly tanned grease-head to bask in his twice-(or thrice-) faded Golden Glory. Today, O.J.'s chiseled looks are softer and more plump, but he still turns heads. He is the equivalent of a Greek God brought down to earth by his inhumanity to his fellow man (or woman, in the case of Nicole Simpson who kept her married name despite their marital woes).

Double jeopardy removed, now the Media has a reason to keep their ratings high, feasting on O.J., again, as the nation has desired all along. Over the past two days, the media has followed the comings and goings of O.J. more than they've covered our President's walk from a car to the White House front door. And in apposition to the universally-acknowledged criminal, our esteemed leader is looking quite Presidential by comparison. The camera gleefully points its lens at O.J., taunting him like a child's toy gun that, at a pull of the trigger, unfurls a pendant, saying "Gotcha this time!" Oh, happy days are here again, yes Lordy! We got him!

In French, the word feast is pronounced "fetes." In English we use the term "fete" in the context of a religious feast or festival. As if anticipating my blog, yesterday evening Greta Van Susteren asked one of O.J.'s greasy friends if O.J. was "consumed" by the trial. An interesting choice of words. Greta. Respectfully -- you got your pound of flesh over 13 years ago, which is how you got your face-lift -- yet, you're still picking at O.J.'s bones off of your plate. I'd say you, Ms. Susteren, and your brethren, are consumed with consuming him.

I guess where I see media bias is because, let's see.... nobody is denouncing Mark Furman for trying so hard to set the "killer" up, and for his taped rant of America's favorite word expletive when discussing people of the Black race. You know: starts with an "N and ends with an "R, and isn't "nutter." In fact he's gone from bad cop to seasoned detective-expert-where.else, but FOX Cable News. Kinda like the Ollie North Syndrome - he lied and climbs to loftier heights, another employee of Fox TV News. Apparently, Fox hiring personnel have only one question to ask of its employees: Have you committed a crime worthy of imprisonment or infamy, at least? Hey, join our family. You're hired.

C'mon, America. Really.

It's the media who are nutter for spending so much time on a man whose heyday passed so long ago. Bring back Good Times, when people felt good. or the Jeffersons. Let's follow Robert Blake, or my favorite criminal, http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/family/bulow/1.html Claus von Bulow (of "Reversal of Fortune" biopic film renown) acquittal. All murders are evil, I believe, but ones that are plotted every day, and executed in a slow calculated fashion are absolutely the worst. But who cares about a rich man who gets away with only attempting to poison his wife, merely putting her in a irreversible coma?

Am I defending O.J? I guess I am. But it's not for the reasons that many might think. In the past, when asked, I gave my opinion that I accepted the verdict, because the jury acquitted them. I really wasn't sure that he could do the deed, although the look of remorse on his face at his first arraignment over a decade ago gave me a chill. When told that he was a suspect in the murder was either a poor acting job; or 2) the look of a man who was too drugged up to truly understand what was going on. Well, if you take my position that he had something to do with the murders.

When a defendant is acquitted of a crime, we must accept that fact, no matter how opprobrious it might be to bear. Imagine what Black Americans have had to endure for centuries, even to this day -- acquittals of gang beating-fests caught on video-tape (Rodney King). Why aren't we talking about that injustice? Black Americans keep their opinions to themselves in this "free" country of ours. But the white majority cannot seem to let go. Which is why the media is trailing this case as if it were the first flight to Mars (it has eclipsed Kucinich's UFO sighting, by far). The media will cover more of O.J., than they did the landing of the Challenger this week, after a dangerous space-walk mission. The only other thing that the media is bemoaning is the economy, but O.J. has something to do with that too: we're losing our productivity as a nation, instead transfixed on the wrestling match of America versus the Most Hated Man in the U.S.

So, get your forks and knives out, everybody. We're going to have one big humongous month-long Thanksgiving feast. Celebrate. But no need to buy a turkey. We have one we can feast on already. Just swallow your O.J. to get it all out of your system. Now that's gonna be quite a meal.

But, hey, given the way the media is following Britney Spears, we might have a new Public Enemy to consume - for dessert. I have to let my food digest first before tackling that one. Stay tuned.

Sphere: Related Content