I've watched Dan Abrams for a couple of years now on MSNBC and was disappointed when his show went off the air. However, overall, I was happy for him, as he was moving up from the ranks of a lawyer with opinions (actually worthy of a show) to General Manager of the whole cable channel! Way to go, Dan, I thought. I still enjoy his periodic appearances when he subs for other news presenters, but I've taken a big step back to see what he's done to the channel. Well, not knowing his marital status or whether or not he's dating, I'd still wager that he has either imbibed Viagra intravenously, or he's frustrated that it's not doing its job. Where am I going with this?
I think MSNBC is thinking too much about sex. Or is it just me?
All day today, from Contessa Brewer flirting with the elderly "NASA guy" who is probably the only newsman who doesn't have to wear a tie ("did you know you're my favorite newsman; did you know that, "-- she cooed at him yesterday, or something to that effect). Then it was her description of the kissing pandas who do it "with tongue," she giggled. Apparently, two Japanese pandas are obsessively affectionate with each other [close up on animal lust]. The pandas got more than their 15 minutes of fame, and if MSNBC has their way they'll have a series.
Back to Abrams. Where was I? Abrams proceeds to rage about Hillary Clinton's lament that the media were too harsh with her at the debates on Tuesday. But Abrams? He spun himself in his own web by bringing panelists to discuss Hillary's claim at her all girls alma mater (Wellesley) that she could tussle "with the big boys."
And Mr. Abrams took offense. Me thinks he doth protest too much.
Does he expect her to say that notwithstanding her skirts and heels, she's really a male and that's why she's running for President? He had two guests, whose names escape me because they were both plants for opposite female viewpoints (one pro female, the other anti-female). Abrams sat back in his seat, turning his lip up with disgust, as he exclaimed that the press wasn't being hard on her. She was the front runner, and maybe that was the reason why they were giving her a barrage of questions. I agree with Ms. Clinton, however.
I do believe that Tim Russert has lost his objectivity, and seems driven in putting her in her place. She needed the tousle - I mean, gee -- we might have a woman in charge of the USA! Run for your lives! Only men can screw up the country. But Russert wasn't going to hand it to her on a silver platter. Here's where Abrams tripped over his logic: the media was being tough on her, she was playing the "gender card," for people to lay off her. She was being a wimp and wasn't taking it like a man. And how dare she complain.
In my opinion, the debates were an all male tousle equivalent to a hazing for being in the male locker room. But it worked. I felt sympathetic for her. I think she acquitted herself better than most men would do. And that's the point. They want her to be weak -- but as a President, she is not going to be, is she? So the issue of sex is -- just what it is. Senator Clinton is a woman running for President and makes every man have to acknowledge that a woman might actually be on top, as it were. Get over it, Abrams. Not satisfied with bashing just one woman, Abrams then decided to deride Heather Mills McCartney for her emotional break down on television in the United Kingdom. She's gone through hell and back, apparently, as the former Beatles wife-not-to-be-anymore-soon -- is distraught with her treatment by the media. Abrams then proceeded to scorn her "cry me a river" sentiments, practically calling her a fraud. Which way do you want it, Dan? A simpering woman, or a strong one? Abrams basically contends that if a woman fights back about her treatment, she can't take the heat - and should all go back to the kitchen while you men stay on his network!
Yep. Dan has reinvented testosterone TV, for the cable station's intellectual viewers. "Dock Block," rhymes with.....something. Has Abrams renewed his machismo by smoking cigars with the NBC brass (a macho past time that I have yet to understand for my penchant for brown and phallic thinking). Well, however he's found his cojones, now, and wants us to meet America's worst class of people besides politicians -- prisoners who actually get caught for their crimes. MSNBC is obsessed with men in prison. They could have bought "Oz" reruns and called it a night.
I guess I shouldn't complain. They could have reminded us over and over again that 3 [unnamed] soldiers gave their lives to help score a record in Iraq (the lowest month of GI dead in Iraq in a long time -- only 39). No names. Just numbers. But they'll give us the details about sex.
War isn't fun. And this election is the most important in our history. But we mustn't forget. While we're arguing about skirts and shirts and kissing pandas, and hard men in prisons without women - Americans are dying to preserve our -- values? Bless those soldiers, anyway, and may they be protected -- while we watch sex on TV news.
Friday, November 2, 2007
Is there Too Much Testosterone on MSNBC?
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Introducing the "Snap Back" Award
I intend to periodically select individual(s) that I believe are worthy of recognition by bestowing upon them the "Snap Back" award. This dubiously named award recognizes any individual guest on radio or television who puts a radio or TV News host in his or her place.
Commercials control everything on television. So it has to be frustrating for guests on news shows who want to speak, but are limited in doing so because they're cut off by the announcer's need to "go to commercial." One question that I have is -- given that news is 24-hours now, do you mean to tell me that there's not enough time for a speaker to be invited for more than two minutes -- without selling Viagra or toothpaste? Better yet, does anybody feel the anxiety I suffer when the doomsday signature news theme pipes in slowly, waiting to devour the guest in silent mouthing of words? When that happens, I've already stopped listening to the substance of what's being said -- my concern is whether or not the guest will be allowed to finish his or her thought -- before the screen fades to black.
My Snap Back award is for the guest who is compelled to put the news host in his or her place, not because of personal hubris, but because the guest feels compelled to speak his or her mind! Can we not assume that the guest was asked to appear on the show to speak and not sit on the stage as a "potted plant" in backdrop?
Alternatively, I will also give Snap Back awards for any guest who tells his or her truth, without letting the host reinterpret what they've said; or for correcting the media's take on an issue.
I came up with this idea this evening while watching a guest (drum roll) tell David Shuster, a replacement host on Tucker Carlson's MSNBC (news?) show, that the media was not fair to candidate Dennis Kucinich during last night's Democratic Debate (drum roll louder), held in Philadelphia, because NBC's Tim Russert asked Kucinich a moronic question (music is coming on, now) about UFOs during a time (its crescendoing) when there are much more serious topics in need of spirited debate and discussion.
(Drum roll continues) I inaugurate the first inductee, former Congressman Tom Andrew (Maine), who is now the National Director of Win Without War, a non-partisan group that assails misreporting about this country's military debacles in Iraq (click the link to get their mission statement as I am certain to be misrepresenting what they do). I was glad that someone reprimanded the media for making a laughingstock out of the one unique candidate with the guts to speak his mind. I am a Kucinich supporter. Still.
So, kudos Mr. Andrews. I'll be visiting your site. Often. Perhaps you should have a school or classes for Fighting the Media on their own plastic turf, Mr. Andrews?
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Is Chris Matthews a Subversive Hired by the Far Right of the Dems? Hmmmmhh? (upturned baby finger to mouth?)
I just watched the debates and have stayed focused on Chris Matthews' interpretation of the same, which immediately opened to his opinion of Dennis Kucinich. I will admit that I am a Kucinich supporter. I find that I identify with most of his political issues, but I am probably not a die-hard supporter of some of his social positions.
That having been said, what's with Chris Matthews? Was he asleep when the UFO story came out?
By leading into commercial chuckling about the UFO conundrum, he totally skewed the viewers to either agree or disagree. Who wouldn't want to laugh at the end of a tense debate? But Matthews deftly did it at a serious candidate's expense. The candidate who is yelling for impeachment. The candidate who can get us out of the war in Iraq. The candidate who dares to be original. Like the apoplectic bully that he is, Matthews reduced a man with novel political ideas (that are actually quite revolutionary) -- and reshaped him into a small novelty worthy of derision.
What's up with Chris "I am The Man" Matthews? I really think Matthews is flummoxed that someone like Dennis Kucinich might be as smart (and as rapid a speaker) as Matthews thinks he is. Matthews routinely interrupts his own thoughts with references to his faith -- he believes in the Catholic Church and talks as though everyone has his same world view. To some nonbelievers, that's no different than questioning UFOs! Immaculate conceptions and rising from the Dead? Really, Chris. So what's the deal with lampooning Kucinich, Chris?
Why Kucinich?
When you recounted the text messaged votes, on your perch outside of the debate hall, you mentioned Dennis and referenced the terms,"single digits," next to his name, and only listed the other candidates' numbers, without comment. What gives? Who has hired you to debunk this candidate -- in particular?
I wouldn't even watch Hardball were it not that he gets interesting people on his show -- who are bludgeoned with his spit-spat bath of questions that only he can answer -- because he never gets the whole sentence out before he starts answering his own question. I say put Matthews in a room with a mirror and let him ask and answer his own questions while he froths at the mouth.
So what gives, Mr. Holy Cross and Mr. North Carolina? You're with the Big Boys now, huh? Just like you always dreamed. Now you want to ruin someone else's. You're a bully and a bore. And you spit too much. And you talk loud, but like James Brown said, "You Ain't Sayin' Nothin."
So SHUTUP CHRIS -- We're trying to draw our own opinions. And may you eat your words as you get beamed up back to anonymity where you belong.
Dem Dems Dem Dems -- Dem Dum Dems
Men. Gotta love 'em. They'll find competition in chewing food, spitting, throwing a ball, and in writing on a topic they overheard before the news has even reached their ears. The battle of egos in the Chris Matthews and Howard Fineman columns on MSNBC.com today are very telling about what each writer really wants to do: be the reason why Obama succeeds in tonights Democratic Presidential debate. Like whispering sweet nothings in his ear while msassaging the shoulders of a heavyweight fighter, both men will likely take the credit for watching Obama train -- and if Obama succeeds in winning the debate, each can say they were listened to by the Presidential candidiate.
Last I heard, Matthews and Fineman were journalists, albeit, given free reign in their spheres. Fineman is the Editor of Newsweek, and Chris Matthews is the affable crumudgeon who loves his own voice over that of the people he is purported to be interviewing on his show, "Hardball."
Now, they want to change careers and be Campaign speech writers, and both have failed miserably. Matthews writes a speech that emphasizes the "rut" we are in in Iraq. He says the word "rut" five times. Not only is his speech sophomoric and un-presidential, it is more testimony of the need for Matthews to be heard, beyond his news show that airs at least three times per day. His words are short crisp, trite, and pithy. I would hope speech writers would spend their time writing more eloquently. To increase his credibility, he then lists his credentials as a speech writer, as a Senate staffer for two senators. Yeah, well, I was a cheerleader once. That was then. This is now. Fortunately for America, we're more sophisticated than Matthews believes. My advice to Matthews: who asked you?
Mr. Fineman fares no better. He cites that he came up with a compilation of "wise" suggestions uttered to him while "chatting with staffers and supporters in various Democratic camps." Within several sentences of stating this he mentions the opinions of a "dinner-party companion." And this is worthy of printing? You're talking to us about your friend's views, and purport to give a candidate advice on the topic?
In attacking Hillary, Fineman suggests, Obama must do so, "with sorrow," and that his suggestions are not made with any personal animus. He must then delineate where he and Ms. Clinton diverge on key issues - if there are any. Wow, that's heavy, Mr. Fineman. The condescension of both writers is palpable. Why no advice for Edwards? What about Kucinich or Dodd? They're the ones that could use the advice.
Me thinks England might be asleep while a major upset could be in the offing. But hey, I know nothing and write to say the same. I'm Jane Q Citizen. But Fineman and Matthews, as well-read and influential journalists, have displayed a bias to help Obama, in a condescending, little-helpful writing that gives them thousands of readers.
I say, politely, please SHUTUPMEDIA. We're trying to think. We don't care what you think. We are thinking about what the candidates think. And you have no idea. Get out on the street, not your cocktail parties, and talk to real America.
Cable Unplugged
Okay -- to introduce myself -- I am a cable television news junkie. I don't read news as much as listen to it (which might be the source of my problem). But like most people, I have to make a living. My benefit is that I can do so out of my home.
I make my living as a writer but, not to worry, you've never heard of me. If you have ever needed a business plan, you may have come across my site advertised on the web. I am not making a plug for that business. Instead, I'm making a plug for unplugging your television and not listening to the pundits out there in "punditocracy-land," -- that conventional news media -- the Fourth Estate, borne of a constitutional right to allow anyone to express his or her views.
That constitution had inherent flaws in interpretation, as we well know -- even the drafters of it truly did not believe that all men were equal. The problem, as I see it, is that the Fourth Estate has now turned into a Royal Pundit-ocracy. The media personalities such as Bill O'Reilly, Chris Matthews, Shawn Hannity, Bill Moyers, Keith Olberman, to name only a few -- have graced the television screens for so long now, and for so many hours per day, that each has become a whole behemoth unto themselves, who are the real crowners of the kings and queens. And we the people? Oh, that was just a nice sounding phrase. They're not playing to us. They're talking to each other.
I am here to remind them of for whom they work. And they should be schooled on a daily basis. Just as lawyers must be reminded one hour each year, in taking Continuing Legal Education courses, of their duty to be ethical, so too, must the media be reminded of its obligation - to REPORT. They are not the news themselves. They are supposed to be mouthpieces only for telling us the news. Period. We don't need to know of their political views, their opinions, or their personal backgrounds for that matter They are servants of the people. And we can mow their lawn -- by turning them off.
As time permits, I will visit myself to give examples of how the media has become a monster unto itself -- and although the monster is hanging onto the Empire State Building, like the media, with its satellite antennae mesmerizing us, and making us follow their every word - I caution the reader. STOP. LOOK. LISTEN -- YOU ARE NOT A MORON. They know no more than you know, because we're all reading the same information from the same sources. They have a bullhorn, however, and give us their opinions every minute, every hour, and every day of the year, and so on, and so on, and so on, and so on..... SHUTUP, MEDIA! We're trying to think.
