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

Is An Impeachment Resolution Newsworthy?

I had work to do today but had Fox TV on all day, as promised. I listened to at least two hours of news. During that time, I heard multiple repeats of Breaking News: a manhunt for an escaped convict in Florida, the landing of the Space Shuttle, and again, the Heather Mills' diatribe against her ex-husband and Beatle, Paul McCartney - oh, and Pat Robertson's endorsement of Giuliani for President.

As my post mentioned yesterday, the fact that Dennis Kucinich made a first step toward seeking to impeach a sitting Vice-President was not mentioned as it was happening on C-Span yesterday. Nor was it addressed today, during the two hours that I listened to the Fox Cable News Channel. I was intrigued that the only time that the resolution was announced, apparently, was when the Republicans strategized [very deftly] not to table the resolution, but to vote on it instead with the goal of putting Democrats on the hot seat to debate the resolution. Apparently, the Fox media did speak to Representative Conyers, chair of the Judiciary Committee, who would be reviewing the motion, and who voiced his initial thoughts that it was not a good idea. How is it that the resolution wasn't newsworthy but "what happened" to the resolution was newsworthy?

Again, whether it was a ploy by Kucinich to bring attention to his campaign or not, his maneuver on the floor as a member of the House was historical and groundbreaking - but the television news media didn't address it until hours later. What was the delay? Cop chases are instantaneous and even the term, "Breaking News" has actually lost its significance, they interrupt broadcasts so much. I'm sure C-Span doesn't have a monopoly on airing Congressional sessions.

The parliamentary debate was intriguing, as it appeared that the Acting House Speaker or President, as he/she is named --was a mustachioed gentleman with a hearing problem when it comes to registering voice votes from his podium (somebody check the acoustics of that room) -- didn't know what to do. The vote was on the floor of the House. In my opinion, this was as important as the quandary that the country was in after the elections in 2000: procedural and parliamentary mayhem. I mean, how many impeachments have been brought against the highest office-holders of the Executive Branch? Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. And how was it that the very Democratic party to which Dennis Kucinich belongs was voting against him and the Republicans for the motion?

Not newsworthy. Nyet. Niente. Nada. No mention today while I was tuned in, and barely any yesterday. Today's Wall Street journal's first page had short paragraphs on what we could find inside--there was mention of the Mukasey nomination for Attorney General; House and Senate negotiations on weapons systems; and the House override of President Bush's veto of a water bill. I was skimming, but nothing jumped out at me. Impeachment. No big deal. Allegations of lies that have killed thousands of American citizens and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens. Human beings now dead because of the alleged mastermind machinations of a demonic Vice-President? Whether real or not, despite the vilification -- once a matter goes to the House, it should be considered a serious matter. If the impeachment issues came up on the talk shows, which is probable, because then its "opinion news," I didn't see it. But it could have aired and will stand corrected if they did air it, tucked away during a time period when no one would be watching.

I grew up when TASS (the central news agency of the Soviet Union when it was the USSR ) was government-controlled and the acronym was synonymous with government propaganda. Are we there now? Or is it as Spiro Agnew named it, the "the unelected elite" have deigned to dictate what the American public should and should not know? Marital breakups, yes; but deception of the American people - no. Far be it from me to have anything in common with Richard M. Nixon, but was his estimation of the television media, "the Silent Majority," prescient, and something about which we need to be more vigilant?

But my question would still remain -- where is the media when you need them? Sitting in their trailers, getting their make-up reapplied? Or asleep at the switch? Or intentionally absent because they were told to be otherwise occupied, under order by the powers that be to say nothing?

ShutUpMedia? Hmmm. This is one time when I wish they hadn't. I may have to think of a new Blog Name...

Sphere: Related Content

Media Talks Babies and Petty Crime While Dennis Kucinich Offers Impeachment Resolution

Again, the media is asleep at the switch. Congressman Dennis Kucinich is on C-Span offering HR Resolution 333 seeking the impeachment of Vice-President Dick Cheney. He lists the facts that prove that the VP deceived the country about the links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and alleges that he lied on national television that Iraq was developing nuclear capabilities. He listed Cheney's different visits to the media, namely Meet the Press, the venues used by the VP to distort the truth.

I switched to the other news channels -- which no doubt have feeds -- to see whether they saw this resolution as breaking news. Let's see, I'll switch channels now: Headline News is airing the life of a quadriplegic; CNN covered the writers' strike, MSNBC is talking about the environment; and Fox News is covering commercials and football. Let's see who considers this breaking news. I'm waiting.... waiting.... waiting..... nothing yet. Dennis is still speaking on the floor.

Fox is talking about Heather McCartney's plight against her former-Beatle husband.

No breaking news. Which is why they are useless in giving the news. This is newsworthy -- but not popular. Even mentioning the issue without seeking a live feed shows their bias. Or their writers are on strike so they can't write that fast. Journalism 101, anyone?

This is one time where their ShuttingUp--really worked - to not reveal breaking news.

Sphere: Related Content

I have not watched the news -- and I'm getting work done.

Interestingly enough, my commitment to watch Fox News has had a different effect than I would have anticipated. I didn't watch it at all yesterday. I just couldn't. I've been brainwashed by the punditocracy that it's all rubbish and right-leaning. Well, I have been afraid of watching Fox. But for about one hour yesterday, I did turn it on, and I thought it was actually okay. They had a round-table discussion where people weren't yelling at one another, and you could actually follow the dialogue. I'm shocked. I did find that the local Fox News Channel (Channel 25) is pretty good, but I'm not one for local news, actually.

So, I'm going to step out of the shadows and try watching it later today. But it's been blessedly quiet and I've accomplished a lot, not listening to the news. This blog might disappear any day now, as I've figured out the solution. Don't watch the news. At all!!

Sphere: Related Content