a reader e-mails 'i love your site but damn if it doesn't depress me! i come here with conventional wisdom about the new republic and leave feeling informed but depressed that for so many years the new republic has been able to pass itself off as left.'
cheer up, you're informed. and i linked to other sites. i didn't break that. it's been out there for years. but what i do have is strong sexual desires and a potty mouth and i can pull people in here that do care about the world but want to find something a little lighter.
i love a lot of sites and i learn so much.
iddybud, why are we back in iraq, buzzflash, third estate sunday review, common ills, the daily howler, a winding road, editor's cut, long, thin cock that ari knows how to use and so much more. i learn a great deal from them.
and i think they are all approachable. buzzflash's editorials and reader's contributions walk you through providing you all the information you need. iddybud has common sense and knows how to boil it down each time so that if you're just wandering into the topic, you know what's going on.
but there are a lot of sites that are a little too insider-ish and you go there and it's like turning on passions after my friend terry has been talking it up for over a year and i'm watching it and thinking 'who's that?' or 'wait, what are those two talking about? who slept with who?'
a lot of times it's like you're trying to start a new book but the first page reads like the start of the final chapter and you're left scratching your head, feeling uninformed and stupid and you think, 'i don't need this kind of negativity!' because it makes you feel like you are an idiot.
the news can be depressing. obviously. and i'm not trying to talk any 1 into understanding the details of some complex economic policy. (nor do i pretend i grasp that stuff.)
and i know if things get too heavy, i can wake you back up with sex.
for instance, bush's poll numbers are dipping. in some cases they've dropped down to 43% (cbs poll). now if i were to then explain the poll to you in great detail and lose you or if i was walking you through some basics on al franken like yesterday, i could then insert something to wake every 1 up.
like this. my friend thereza had the morning off and ended up visiting this morning. now thereza is my friend who's just broken up with her longterm girlfriend. i didn't know thereza was coming over. 1 moment, i'm in the kitchen dealing with the coffee maker, doing a neck roll to work out the kinks when thereza steps in through the back door.
she's been taking the breakup pretty hard so it was great to see her in a good mood and she entered talking, as joan rivers might say. telling me how things were turning around, she was done crying, and so on. i'm grabbing her a mug from the cabinet and nodding thinking as soon as she takes a breath, i'll explain that i have overnight company.
i never get the chance because she falls silent and is staring over my shoulder. i look over and there's jeff standing there, face a bright shade of red and completely nude because who dresses for a shower, right?
he's just standing there frozen. finally he backs out with apologies and thereza starts laughing her butt off.
i met jeff last week at the protests.
thereza wants to talk about 1 thing. his bush. he's got a tangle of pubes like you wouldn't believe. and they're so soft you'd think he shampooed and conditioned them. but they are intense which is funny because he's really not hairy anywhere else. but he's got this long tangle of dense, dark pubes and the juxtapositon of that with the smoothness elsewhere excites me.
so after we have a chuckle over that, thereza asks why i stopped writing about my cornhusker.
i still love my cornhusker and my e-mail buddy sherry and i would duel to the end over him.
but he's just not in the news.
thereza starts swapping hot bods with me and i toss out christian parenti and dahr jamail, of course, and she tosses out a few before noting sandra bullock which just shocks me.
i like sandra. she's funny onscreen and seems level headed. but thereza dismisses ashanti as sexy because she thinks ashanti's ankles are too thick. now sandra's pretty, funny and goofy.
but when you're down to examining women's ankles, it just doesn't seem like a woman who has to be near forty or just over is going to hit your list unless she's some sort of work out queen.
but thereza says sandra's 'fluffiness' is exactly what she finds sexy about her.
live and learn, huh? and that's not knocking sandra. she's cute and funny. i just wouldn't have picked her for a dream date meet up with thereza because thereza's standards can be so demanding. she once blew off a dead ringer for foxy brown because she thought the lookalike was wearing avon perfume and didn't see herself rolling around in the sheets with any woman who would use avon products.
and on the subject of live and learn i'll pass on something from ms. magazine. this is an article called 'The Fuck-You 50s: We’re loud, proud and 37 million strong' by suzanne braun levine. and i love the title.
here's a part of the article that i really loved:
Saving the world may not be what most of us have in mind for the next chapter in our lives, yet the journey we are on -- mapping our Second Adulthood -- is taking us from a most intimate inquiry outward to the way we express ourselves in the world, the way we connect with other individuals and generations, and ultimately to the impact we can have on society.
We 37 million women in our late 40s, 50s and 60s are part of a sea of change that can lift a fleet of boats, not just our own. But we are only just beginning to become aware of the tidal wave we represent. Not only are we gaining strength both as individuals and as a group, but our influence is compounded by our attitude.
"Women get more radical with age," Gloria Steinem frequently points out, because for one thing, we have had more years of experience coming up against false assumptions about what we are capable of, and for another, we have the daring that comes with what I call "the fuck-you 50s"
to defy those barriers.
Economists, politicians, corporate executives, sociologists and medical researchers are waking up to the thundering herd of "ponies and donkeys" headed their way. And we should be too.
to me, that's a really positive note. if you think about how we're lied to repeatedly by the mainstream media with the lie that the country has turned more and more conservative,
it's just nice to know that women will keep that from happening. not just now, but always because as we grow older and hit those 'fuck you 50s' (i really do love that term) we're going to worry less and less about so many things that we obsess over right now.
we talked about this, thereza, a now dressed jeff and i, after we had our coffee while watching democracy now. and we talked about democracy now and how amazing it was to be able to turn on the tv and watch actual news.
so for the reader who wrote in that she left informed but depressed, there's two positives: women grow more radical with age and democracy now provides real news you can use.
3/24/2005
it's all over now, baby blue
and so it ends.
don't say i didn't warn you.
unfiltered is no more.
1 pro-choice feminist woman, 1 braniac lesbian (both white) and 1 african-american male with humor and common sense were just too much diversity for the new clear channel carried air america.
how 'too much?'
three times 'too much.'
which is why on april 1st, the fool's day, jerry springer's show will fill the spot and unfiltered willbe no more.
jerry! jerry! jerry!
well ... it's a different audience.
another old white guy with a moon face and a short neck that screams for a buzz cut but, like al franken, no 1's ever had the nerve to point out that longish hair doesn't work with what either al or jerry has got.
the florence henderson flip in the back ain't working either. hey boys, if julia roberts couldn't revive that look, you don't stand a chance.
but there are differences.
for instance jerry is blonde and al is brunette. also jerry is thin-ish and al was screaming 'supersize this!' in his diapers.
class wise, al fancies that he has some while jerry suffers from no such illusion.
jerry's more politically honest than al but how long that will last is anyone's guess.
also any 1's guess is how long the women left will be able to hang on.
for instance, if ed shultz could get randi rhodes' ratings, she would already be gone -- as al is rumored to wish she was.
randi does radio better than al so he'll have to keep dreaming.
what's in store folks? a dick measuring contest between al and springer. nothing funnier than watching 2 nerds try to jock-it-up. laughs will be plentiful, even if not intentional.
on air? laura flanders and janeane garofalo may prove to be too independent for the so-called left network.
janeane and laura share a key feature besides 2 X chromosones - they're independent thinkers.
you think the network that cancels unfiltered really wants independent thought from women?
whose fault is it?
well it's pretty obvious.
but guess what, if you didn't e-mail air america to protest when lizz winstead was 'disappeared,'
or if you didn't call them, or if you didn't sign the petition to bring her back, or if you didn't stop listening online, if you didn't do 1 of those things (just 1) you are at fault too.
when congress wants to push through some objectionable piece of legislation, we have to flood them with calls, e-mails and letters to get them to listen to the people who elected them.
and it was the same thing there. i gave you guarded warnings as did c.i. i said lizz was treated horribly and when i have to stick up for her, you know it was horrible. we knew what was coming. i had e-mailed c.i. tuesday and got an e-mail back that same day saying do not miss unfiltered thursday. then yesterday c.i. e-mailed a breaking story from associated press about how jerry springer was coming to air america.
we knew. my friend elaine knew.
two of my e-mail buds knew too: martha and maria. they knew. they and others took it the unfiltered blog and elsewhere to say 'people get angry.' but you had liars on the unfiltered blog and elsewhere. not just idiots but flat out liars.
the 1s elaine didn't think were real people but ringers sent in by air america to hush the topic of the disappearing of lizz.
and what did they do?
they'd go online and say stupid things. they'd spread rumors that they "heard" or that they "knew" lizz winstead was sick. and that we shouldn't talk about her being gone because she is sick and needs her privacy.
that was a lie. people who repeated it lied to you.
when that lie started being fought back on the unfiltered blog, the liars tried a new tactic:
lizz likes to create a show and then leave. that's what she did with the daily show, they would lie. that is not what happened with the daily show and that is not what happened with unfiltered.
those people lied. they are liars. they are full of shit liars. liars that can kiss my ass.
they manipulated people with false information.
scared them that lizz had cancer.
nothing was off limits as they tried to get people to stop talking about how lizz was gone.
they had no shame.
were they ringers for air america? who knows. but they certainly spread lies to push an agenda of silence.
and people who fell for it, even when others on that blog would say, 'that's a lie!' well it's your fault.
because if the huge uproar that lizz winstead deserved had happened, they would have had to rethink the push to bring another male on because some were worried that 2 (white) women and a black man couldn't reach audiences.
what audiences?
white male audiences.
if you're a female, wake up. air america just spat on you.
they don't want you as a morning listener.
they want males. white males.
and they think they can get them by putting on pudgy, middle-aged men.
so if you're a woman with any self-respect, don't listen to that network when al and jerry are on in the morning. turn on randi when she comes on. stay for janeane. stay for malloy who doesn't do al's sexist jokes but actually respects women. on the weekends, listen to laura. listen to marty and bobby and mike.
but don't listen to this bullshit that's geared for white males.
if you're an african-american male, skip the bullshit of jerry and al. chuck d got served his walking papers. 2 black males on during the day was 2 too many.
if you're a male of any color, show some self-respect.
and if you're a white male who cares about women and people of color, just say no to al and jerry.
martha sent me a wonderful e-mail explaining how offensive this was to her as an african-american and a woman.
she also included a parody of the asshole liars who tried to hush the talk of lizz. this is what she sees as the blog on march 31st, the last day unfiltered airs:
**blue: come on guys, we have to do what air america wants. we have no ideas or thoughts of our own. and you just go with the flow.
swing*****girl: absolutely. look people corporationsneed to do what they think is best! that's what this country is all about so just back off. yes, i loved rachel and i hope i hear her or see her again somewhere. but if this is what air america wants, hey i take my marching orders with a smile.
NOTDANNYGOLDBERG: swing*****girl and **blue, you are both so right! and besides, i hear rachel is really sick and doesn't want to talk about it.
**blue: that's right! what if 1 of you was sick? would you want the whole world to know? quit talking about the end of unfiltered! rachel is sick! you aren't helping her! she wants us to stop talking about this!
swing*****girl: that is so true. in fact i heard from a friend that lizz winstead wanted that too.
NOTDANNYGOLDBERG: i know that's what lizz would want to.
swing*****girl: i am not about the person! i am about the politic! and i will listen to unfiltered without lizz. i will listen to it with just rachel. because it is about the show! and now that the show is no more it is about the hour! so i will listen without questions or complaints to this three hour block of air time no matter who they put on!
**blue: here here swing*****girl!
read that because it's damn funny. and it's also very true.
so if you see conversations like that, if you're at an air america blog and you see that sort of shit,
know you're dealing with liars. know you're dealing with people attempting to strip you of your power.
if the liars hadn't spread (for over a week) the lie that lizz was sick and that's why she wasn't on the show, if they hadn't done that, the outrage would have built fairly quick.
instead they clamped down on the outrage by lying. they lied to you. they made you think lizz had cancer. they made you think if you objected or spoke about lizz being gone, you were making lizz's life harder.
they fucking lied.
and when enough people started calling them on that lie (and some called them right off -- a few brave voices), suddenly they pushed the lie that lizz likes to create something and once it's started, she likes to leave.
that was a lie as well.
you were lied to. you were lied to because they wanted to quiet you.
if you had been enraged and flooding them with complaints, they would have had to have done something. elaine doesn't think it would have brought lizz back. she does think it would have gotten rachel a female co-host and it would have meant that they'd have to figure out a way to keep unfiltered on the schedule.
right now, the liars are out there lying to you again. they're telling you that chuck d and rachel are going to be jerry springer's co-hosts.
they're saying 'just wait guys, you'll see.'
they are playing you for a fool. they did it before. don't fall for this shit again.
what happened to lizz winstead was disgusting.
she helped create that network, not just unfiltered, not just her own show. she was there before the network had even shored up the hosts. she was there figuring out how to make al's program more interesting, for instance. (randi rhodes's program was all randi. she was already doing it and doing it damn well.)
the network wouldn't have lasted a year without lizz winstead's contributions. and the thanks she gets is that on the one year anniversary of unfiltered (april 1st) the show will no longer be on.
now if you scream right now, they might find rachel a slot on the weekend.
that's up to you.
but don't fool yourself that the network's inclusive.
a woman can play mommy and let al be the bad boy. a woman can be the patricia heaton of the network. but that's all they want.
they didn't promote randi who was already on air for years and successful in the markets her show aired in. they shoved al franken down your throat.
that would be the big titty baby who 'stood up' to bill o'reilly on c-span. remember that? when big bad al started whining and his voice was breaking and he was about to cry like a little titty baby.
and i've told you to look at al's guests. i've told you to ask why you have those people from the american enterprise institue on. you know the one, i mean. al's friend norm. what the fuck is he doing on the network?
or what the fuck are all those other 'centrists' doing on al's show.
al has lost his sense of humor. he had 1. it was sexist and could be off putting. but he had 1.
now he just wants to gloat that arafat's dead. and he wants to do that over and over.
he gave ronnie reagan a pass during the week long is-he-still-dead reporting. he got offended when the great greg palast attempted to bring up the reality of reagan. he couldn't even let jeremy glick speak when glick was on.
al's a loser. he's a fat fucking loser. some of you 1st noticed it when he interviewed jesse helms's biracial daughter. an elderly woman whom al thought it was appropriate to make cracks about where her mother had sex - the garden or the kitchen? that wasn't tasteful and it wasn't funny.
but you've seen the hate spewed constantly at arafat. and you've heard him present his view of the peace process as the only view. over and over.
unfiltered is gone. and with it, 3 people who would challenge the democratic party's rush to the right. and you're left with al franken, the self-proclaimed dlc liberal. as though there's anything liberal about the dlc.
After fellow panelist Molly Ivins disabused O'Reilly's claims that she was a "liberal," Franken declared, "Unlike Molly, I am a liberal," adding curiously "I'm a DLC Democrat." Curious, because anyone who knows the centrist, pro-business Democratic Leadership Council knows that it has nothing to do with being "liberal" (in the generally accepted definition of that word; if Franken were to say he was a neoliberal, his identification with the DLC would make perfect sense).
that's from "Al Franken and Al-Shifa: The Age of Sacred Apologies" by tom gorman.
it appeared in counterpunch. and for the record, molly ivins sees herself as a progressive.
one more quote to clue you in on al, from tom gorman's article:
Franken, as well as his fans, need to be extremely careful of falling into the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" mentality that can ally good people with the lesser of two evils. Witness this Fox News-worthy Franken quote from the August 25 edition of CNN's Crossfire: "I think the American armed services did a damned good job in Iraq and a damned good job in Afghanistan, frankly."
that's the hero of the left. that's the man being set up as our savior. the man who turned titty baby when confronting o'reilly. and he's going to lead us to the promised land?
don't say i didn't warn you.
unfiltered is no more.
1 pro-choice feminist woman, 1 braniac lesbian (both white) and 1 african-american male with humor and common sense were just too much diversity for the new clear channel carried air america.
how 'too much?'
three times 'too much.'
which is why on april 1st, the fool's day, jerry springer's show will fill the spot and unfiltered willbe no more.
jerry! jerry! jerry!
well ... it's a different audience.
another old white guy with a moon face and a short neck that screams for a buzz cut but, like al franken, no 1's ever had the nerve to point out that longish hair doesn't work with what either al or jerry has got.
the florence henderson flip in the back ain't working either. hey boys, if julia roberts couldn't revive that look, you don't stand a chance.
but there are differences.
for instance jerry is blonde and al is brunette. also jerry is thin-ish and al was screaming 'supersize this!' in his diapers.
class wise, al fancies that he has some while jerry suffers from no such illusion.
jerry's more politically honest than al but how long that will last is anyone's guess.
also any 1's guess is how long the women left will be able to hang on.
for instance, if ed shultz could get randi rhodes' ratings, she would already be gone -- as al is rumored to wish she was.
randi does radio better than al so he'll have to keep dreaming.
what's in store folks? a dick measuring contest between al and springer. nothing funnier than watching 2 nerds try to jock-it-up. laughs will be plentiful, even if not intentional.
on air? laura flanders and janeane garofalo may prove to be too independent for the so-called left network.
janeane and laura share a key feature besides 2 X chromosones - they're independent thinkers.
you think the network that cancels unfiltered really wants independent thought from women?
whose fault is it?
well it's pretty obvious.
but guess what, if you didn't e-mail air america to protest when lizz winstead was 'disappeared,'
or if you didn't call them, or if you didn't sign the petition to bring her back, or if you didn't stop listening online, if you didn't do 1 of those things (just 1) you are at fault too.
when congress wants to push through some objectionable piece of legislation, we have to flood them with calls, e-mails and letters to get them to listen to the people who elected them.
and it was the same thing there. i gave you guarded warnings as did c.i. i said lizz was treated horribly and when i have to stick up for her, you know it was horrible. we knew what was coming. i had e-mailed c.i. tuesday and got an e-mail back that same day saying do not miss unfiltered thursday. then yesterday c.i. e-mailed a breaking story from associated press about how jerry springer was coming to air america.
we knew. my friend elaine knew.
two of my e-mail buds knew too: martha and maria. they knew. they and others took it the unfiltered blog and elsewhere to say 'people get angry.' but you had liars on the unfiltered blog and elsewhere. not just idiots but flat out liars.
the 1s elaine didn't think were real people but ringers sent in by air america to hush the topic of the disappearing of lizz.
and what did they do?
they'd go online and say stupid things. they'd spread rumors that they "heard" or that they "knew" lizz winstead was sick. and that we shouldn't talk about her being gone because she is sick and needs her privacy.
that was a lie. people who repeated it lied to you.
when that lie started being fought back on the unfiltered blog, the liars tried a new tactic:
lizz likes to create a show and then leave. that's what she did with the daily show, they would lie. that is not what happened with the daily show and that is not what happened with unfiltered.
those people lied. they are liars. they are full of shit liars. liars that can kiss my ass.
they manipulated people with false information.
scared them that lizz had cancer.
nothing was off limits as they tried to get people to stop talking about how lizz was gone.
they had no shame.
were they ringers for air america? who knows. but they certainly spread lies to push an agenda of silence.
and people who fell for it, even when others on that blog would say, 'that's a lie!' well it's your fault.
because if the huge uproar that lizz winstead deserved had happened, they would have had to rethink the push to bring another male on because some were worried that 2 (white) women and a black man couldn't reach audiences.
what audiences?
white male audiences.
if you're a female, wake up. air america just spat on you.
they don't want you as a morning listener.
they want males. white males.
and they think they can get them by putting on pudgy, middle-aged men.
so if you're a woman with any self-respect, don't listen to that network when al and jerry are on in the morning. turn on randi when she comes on. stay for janeane. stay for malloy who doesn't do al's sexist jokes but actually respects women. on the weekends, listen to laura. listen to marty and bobby and mike.
but don't listen to this bullshit that's geared for white males.
if you're an african-american male, skip the bullshit of jerry and al. chuck d got served his walking papers. 2 black males on during the day was 2 too many.
if you're a male of any color, show some self-respect.
and if you're a white male who cares about women and people of color, just say no to al and jerry.
martha sent me a wonderful e-mail explaining how offensive this was to her as an african-american and a woman.
she also included a parody of the asshole liars who tried to hush the talk of lizz. this is what she sees as the blog on march 31st, the last day unfiltered airs:
**blue: come on guys, we have to do what air america wants. we have no ideas or thoughts of our own. and you just go with the flow.
swing*****girl: absolutely. look people corporationsneed to do what they think is best! that's what this country is all about so just back off. yes, i loved rachel and i hope i hear her or see her again somewhere. but if this is what air america wants, hey i take my marching orders with a smile.
NOTDANNYGOLDBERG: swing*****girl and **blue, you are both so right! and besides, i hear rachel is really sick and doesn't want to talk about it.
**blue: that's right! what if 1 of you was sick? would you want the whole world to know? quit talking about the end of unfiltered! rachel is sick! you aren't helping her! she wants us to stop talking about this!
swing*****girl: that is so true. in fact i heard from a friend that lizz winstead wanted that too.
NOTDANNYGOLDBERG: i know that's what lizz would want to.
swing*****girl: i am not about the person! i am about the politic! and i will listen to unfiltered without lizz. i will listen to it with just rachel. because it is about the show! and now that the show is no more it is about the hour! so i will listen without questions or complaints to this three hour block of air time no matter who they put on!
**blue: here here swing*****girl!
read that because it's damn funny. and it's also very true.
so if you see conversations like that, if you're at an air america blog and you see that sort of shit,
know you're dealing with liars. know you're dealing with people attempting to strip you of your power.
if the liars hadn't spread (for over a week) the lie that lizz was sick and that's why she wasn't on the show, if they hadn't done that, the outrage would have built fairly quick.
instead they clamped down on the outrage by lying. they lied to you. they made you think lizz had cancer. they made you think if you objected or spoke about lizz being gone, you were making lizz's life harder.
they fucking lied.
and when enough people started calling them on that lie (and some called them right off -- a few brave voices), suddenly they pushed the lie that lizz likes to create something and once it's started, she likes to leave.
that was a lie as well.
you were lied to. you were lied to because they wanted to quiet you.
if you had been enraged and flooding them with complaints, they would have had to have done something. elaine doesn't think it would have brought lizz back. she does think it would have gotten rachel a female co-host and it would have meant that they'd have to figure out a way to keep unfiltered on the schedule.
right now, the liars are out there lying to you again. they're telling you that chuck d and rachel are going to be jerry springer's co-hosts.
they're saying 'just wait guys, you'll see.'
they are playing you for a fool. they did it before. don't fall for this shit again.
what happened to lizz winstead was disgusting.
she helped create that network, not just unfiltered, not just her own show. she was there before the network had even shored up the hosts. she was there figuring out how to make al's program more interesting, for instance. (randi rhodes's program was all randi. she was already doing it and doing it damn well.)
the network wouldn't have lasted a year without lizz winstead's contributions. and the thanks she gets is that on the one year anniversary of unfiltered (april 1st) the show will no longer be on.
now if you scream right now, they might find rachel a slot on the weekend.
that's up to you.
but don't fool yourself that the network's inclusive.
a woman can play mommy and let al be the bad boy. a woman can be the patricia heaton of the network. but that's all they want.
they didn't promote randi who was already on air for years and successful in the markets her show aired in. they shoved al franken down your throat.
that would be the big titty baby who 'stood up' to bill o'reilly on c-span. remember that? when big bad al started whining and his voice was breaking and he was about to cry like a little titty baby.
and i've told you to look at al's guests. i've told you to ask why you have those people from the american enterprise institue on. you know the one, i mean. al's friend norm. what the fuck is he doing on the network?
or what the fuck are all those other 'centrists' doing on al's show.
al has lost his sense of humor. he had 1. it was sexist and could be off putting. but he had 1.
now he just wants to gloat that arafat's dead. and he wants to do that over and over.
he gave ronnie reagan a pass during the week long is-he-still-dead reporting. he got offended when the great greg palast attempted to bring up the reality of reagan. he couldn't even let jeremy glick speak when glick was on.
al's a loser. he's a fat fucking loser. some of you 1st noticed it when he interviewed jesse helms's biracial daughter. an elderly woman whom al thought it was appropriate to make cracks about where her mother had sex - the garden or the kitchen? that wasn't tasteful and it wasn't funny.
but you've seen the hate spewed constantly at arafat. and you've heard him present his view of the peace process as the only view. over and over.
unfiltered is gone. and with it, 3 people who would challenge the democratic party's rush to the right. and you're left with al franken, the self-proclaimed dlc liberal. as though there's anything liberal about the dlc.
After fellow panelist Molly Ivins disabused O'Reilly's claims that she was a "liberal," Franken declared, "Unlike Molly, I am a liberal," adding curiously "I'm a DLC Democrat." Curious, because anyone who knows the centrist, pro-business Democratic Leadership Council knows that it has nothing to do with being "liberal" (in the generally accepted definition of that word; if Franken were to say he was a neoliberal, his identification with the DLC would make perfect sense).
that's from "Al Franken and Al-Shifa: The Age of Sacred Apologies" by tom gorman.
it appeared in counterpunch. and for the record, molly ivins sees herself as a progressive.
one more quote to clue you in on al, from tom gorman's article:
Franken, as well as his fans, need to be extremely careful of falling into the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" mentality that can ally good people with the lesser of two evils. Witness this Fox News-worthy Franken quote from the August 25 edition of CNN's Crossfire: "I think the American armed services did a damned good job in Iraq and a damned good job in Afghanistan, frankly."
that's the hero of the left. that's the man being set up as our savior. the man who turned titty baby when confronting o'reilly. and he's going to lead us to the promised land?
3/23/2005
enough on terry schiavo
yes, i took off last night. a friend begged me to go to the movies with her. she's going through a break up and convinced that her girlfriend is correct and she'll never find any 1 else. so we went to the movies because she needed to get out of her place (formerly 'their place' - she kept the condo).
when i got home i thought about doing a post but i look around online while i've got the radio on and all i'm seeing and hearing is schiavo, schiavo, schiavo.
i wasn't in the mood.
the media circus rides continues.
a judge gives a verdict. the media pants. an appeal is filed. the media drools. and always non-stop talk.
talk talk
talk around the clock
as joni mitchell sings in 'tax free.'
did you ever hear such a choir?
oh sure you have some tenor voices. some baritone voices. some sopranos. some altos. a little bass thrown in for the mix.
but it's the same damn song - just different people singing their different parts (melody and counter-melody).
and it all makes this huge din that drowns out everything else.
as ani difranco sings 'and everywhere i go it's the same fucking song.'
correction: c.i. e-mailed asking what version of 'fuel' i was talking about. the 1 on little plastic castles. and i go to listen and ani sings 'and everywhere i go it's the same damn song.' my bad. 3-25-2005
that's the state of american media today.
and i mean all media -- the dinasours as well as the net age that was supposed to give us the brave net world that, more and more, sounds just like the weak old world.
who would've though the internet would obsess to the nth degree over the same topic as cokie roberts?
has cokie roberts suddenly become relevant? hardly.
what you are seeing is a media feeding frenzy (as c.i. noted yesterday at the common ills).
it's like nothing since o.j. simpson. i'm not sure even the laci/scott peterson story reached this level of saturation.
why has it been done to death?
for a number of reasons.
it's an emotional issue. so it gets attention. that means it delivers viewers, readers (for printed papers) and listeners. we always knew the dinasour media was all about the ratings. they'd go into a feeding frenzy on any topic that might pump up the ratings.
but in the not so brave net world, the 1 that was supposed to allow stories to break through that the mainstream was sitting on, we see the new enemy. the new nielsens are "hits." "visits."
every 1 seems to be chasing this easy to do, emotional story to get an increase in the hits.
there's something that needs to be said about the devices used to track visitors and i'll wait to address that another time. but make no mistake, the not so brave, not so new, net world is turning out to be as ratings driven as any 1 else.
a blogger i have never mentioned at this site who is male e-mailed me yesterday saying he was sick of blogging on this topic. (we've been e-mailing from time to time. he thinks i'm 'sassy and funny.') he goes to great lengths to tell me he's exhausted on this topic. then i see he's written about it again today. after sending that e-mail yesterday.
why do you write about something that you say you're exhausted on?
this is the o.j. case, people.
there is reporting. that was done early on. the only thing to discuss after that was the gop memo (which randi discussed friday on her show), that a court had a finding and what the decision was, and that an appeal is filed (because an appeal is always filed).
now if someone wants to go into ethics, that's a story. that's 1 story.
but this thing is being strip-mined repeatedly.
what can i write about?
that seems to be the question.
and the easiest thing to write about (or talk about or show clips of or whatever) is terry schiavo because it pushes buttons and gets attention.
and they keep going there and going there.
and no surprise, there's less and less to go to. which is why you hear bad jokes about terry schiavo on the radio. i heard 4 today. 1 on a left wing show, 1 on a right wing show, 1 on a sports radio show and 1 on morning drive.
there's nothing left. all the talking points (on both sides) have been done, redone, done to death.
and no 1 wants to credit. i heard people repeatedly cite bob somerby's revelation today. the 1 he made yesterday (the common ills highlights it in yesterday's post that i linked to above). every 1 is all over that a doctor is not a nobel nominee. i heard it over and over. and i didn't hear 1 person say, 'as bob somerby pointed out on the daily howler.' no 1 gave him credit. they just ripped him off and maybe they're listeners thought they had come across this thought. it came off like it was their own revelation. over and over, from show to show, web site to web site.
that's what it has come to. people no longer have any thing original to say. they know there's not a lot of work required in this story - you just push buttons -- and to add a factoid or 2, they rip off a bob somerby or some 1 else.
that's wrong.
and when you're going on and on about the ethics involved in this story, how ethical is it to rip off some 1 else's work and not give them credit?
i'd never read the daily howler before my friend elaine put me wise to the common ills. i'd never even heard of it or bob somerby. in the many months since i became a member of the common ills, i've seen his work highlighted. i've usually thought 'that's pretty astute' and sometimes i've been interested enough in what ever pull quote c.i. posted to click on the link and read somerby's writing in full.
if i ever use something he wrote knowingly, i will credit him. i say 'knowingly' because he's made a lot of points and i'm sure at some point (maybe already) i'll forget that he made it 1st. but come on people, there's allowing insight to seep in over time and there's ripping some 1 off less than a day later! no 1 can read yesterday's post and forget where they read it. that's insane.
people know they read it at the daily howler and they could give credit. but instead they pass it off as their own.
again, i ask, how ethical is that?
this isn't me reading his posts from the past that c.i. highlighted on president's day and a month or two from now making a point that i've absorbed so much i've forgotten that it wasn't mine to begin with. in 1 day (or less) how can you forget where you read it?
i don't think you do. i just think that you make a choice not to give credit.
and it's not ethical.
so spare us all the hand wringing and all the gotcha-points on some hypocrisy you're reporting on when you can't even cite where you got your nobel point.
the thing was a private matter. the courts have agreed with that. somehow people have pumped it into the story of the decade.
it bothers me.
and it worries me.
for 1 thing, what will poor michael jackson have to do now to get attention? he's already worn pajamas to court. does he have to show up nude now?
and forget jackson and the other infotainment stories, what about the very real, very serious stories that are going on right now?
we already saw the online community take a pass on the ohio hearing. we saw stephanie tubbs-jone be ignored. after all our talk of how we would support democrats who took a stand, we ignored what stephanie tubbs-jones did.
what else is going on? what other stories are we missing out on? and at what point will we all shut up about this story? people get the point. i was riding the ferry yesterday and every 1 gets the point. at this rate, if you continue to harp on this story, you'll create a fucking backlash.
and that should worry every 1 on the left. because america gets it. they get that this isn't about anything other than the republicans attempting to use a personal tragedy for political gain. but the excess in the left's response may end up creating a backlash.
if there's a development and you need to highlight it by all means do so. and credit whomever you got the point from. but this constant hand wringing needs to stop - especially now that 'jokes' are starting to creep in.
it's an easy story to do. that's why cokie and her ilk can cover it. it pushes emotions, pushes buttons, gets people talking. not because of anything most of the people covering it (in any format) have done. but because it's a natural hot-button issue. so people keep going back to that issue to get more and more. hoping to increase ratings, circulation or web traffic.
it is a personal tragedy and the coverage is starting to cross the line.
and people are starting to get bored. i love the majority report but sam seder is talking about this (again! again! again!) and i can't take it another night. i'll turn on the tv or go visit some friends. i do not need to hear this over and over.
yes, her parents are attempting to get press on this. but the courts have said the issue is decided. they have said that over and over. jebbie's stepping in. or trying to. if you want to cover that, cover that. but quit repeating the same things that we've heard all week over and over.
the left doesn't need an echo chamber. it needs people raising issues and stories that haven't been covered. and if you're contributing to the zone of silence on all other issues you are playing into the bully boy's hands.
i just went to buzzflash. it's a great site. it's the best thing the left has to offer and reaches so many readers each day. but it disturbs me to count 36 stories on terry schiavo in 1 form or another. 36 stories.
are there 36 stories there? no. there's a lot of hot air. there's a lot of repetition. and there's a lot more going on in the world then this personal tragedy.
i'm not trying for a buzzflash link here, in case any 1's wondering. if any 1 doubts that, watch this:
fuck, fuck, fuck.
christian parenti's cock is probably perfection. it is my dreams.
i bet dahr jamail really knows how to use the cock he's packing.
okay?
buzzflash link officially denied. so don't think i'm going for that or was attempting that.
i would prefer not to contribute in any way to the chorus that keeps signing the same tune with the right singing the melody and the left singing the counter melody.
and i promise i will not post on this subject again. but my point here is not schiavo, my point here is that there are other stories and that the attention being paid to this 1 story is overwhelming many other stories that are important and should be getting traction but won't as long as we keep hand wringing over this 1 story.
i don't know that karl rove is a genius. maybe we're just fucking idiots?
because this was designed as a ploy to feed the extreme evangical base and to take attention off other stories (tom delay, osama, etc.). if kar had a stroke of genius, it's because we were too fucking stupid to attempt moderation. we felt the need to flood the zone with this story and to go to it over and over to the point that we're hearing people say they're sick of the story.
oversaturated.
and the net was supposed to be our brave net world of freedom? seems to me like we all better think about shopping for pearls this weekend because a lot of us are turning into cokie roberts whether we intended or not. (i think most people shirk from the notion that they might some day turn into insta-expert cokie.)
you want some real news that you're not hearing about? get your ass over to ron's site. go to why are we back in iraq and learn about what he's covering. here's a hint, it doesn't involve a topic that the whole blog world is talking about. maybe that's why it's so goddamn important?
think about what you're learning from the news and commentaries lately and ask yourself how much longer this chorus needs to keep singing the same fucking song?
i've said my peace on this. and addressed it only because i agree with the common ills community members including wally who wrote me an e-mail this morning saying that his high school class was sick of it and was hoping some 1 else would say so besides c.i. wally lives in florida and if it's bad for me up north, i can only imagine how much worse it is for wally and the kids in his class.
so for wally and his class, i'll end with this item (put it with ron's and anything you find at the common ills and you've got a lively classroom discussion tomorrow):
Senate Foreign Relations Chair Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) scheduled hearings for April 7 on the confirmation of John Bolton as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.
that's from ian williams' "bolton vs. united nations" which you can find online at in these times magazine. april 7th isn't that far way. so wally, read ian williams' article and bring that up in class. that's news and it's 1 of the many topics that we've lost sight of now that the choir only wants to sing 1 tune.
when i got home i thought about doing a post but i look around online while i've got the radio on and all i'm seeing and hearing is schiavo, schiavo, schiavo.
i wasn't in the mood.
the media circus rides continues.
a judge gives a verdict. the media pants. an appeal is filed. the media drools. and always non-stop talk.
talk talk
talk around the clock
as joni mitchell sings in 'tax free.'
did you ever hear such a choir?
oh sure you have some tenor voices. some baritone voices. some sopranos. some altos. a little bass thrown in for the mix.
but it's the same damn song - just different people singing their different parts (melody and counter-melody).
and it all makes this huge din that drowns out everything else.
as ani difranco sings 'and everywhere i go it's the same fucking song.'
correction: c.i. e-mailed asking what version of 'fuel' i was talking about. the 1 on little plastic castles. and i go to listen and ani sings 'and everywhere i go it's the same damn song.' my bad. 3-25-2005
that's the state of american media today.
and i mean all media -- the dinasours as well as the net age that was supposed to give us the brave net world that, more and more, sounds just like the weak old world.
who would've though the internet would obsess to the nth degree over the same topic as cokie roberts?
has cokie roberts suddenly become relevant? hardly.
what you are seeing is a media feeding frenzy (as c.i. noted yesterday at the common ills).
it's like nothing since o.j. simpson. i'm not sure even the laci/scott peterson story reached this level of saturation.
why has it been done to death?
for a number of reasons.
it's an emotional issue. so it gets attention. that means it delivers viewers, readers (for printed papers) and listeners. we always knew the dinasour media was all about the ratings. they'd go into a feeding frenzy on any topic that might pump up the ratings.
but in the not so brave net world, the 1 that was supposed to allow stories to break through that the mainstream was sitting on, we see the new enemy. the new nielsens are "hits." "visits."
every 1 seems to be chasing this easy to do, emotional story to get an increase in the hits.
there's something that needs to be said about the devices used to track visitors and i'll wait to address that another time. but make no mistake, the not so brave, not so new, net world is turning out to be as ratings driven as any 1 else.
a blogger i have never mentioned at this site who is male e-mailed me yesterday saying he was sick of blogging on this topic. (we've been e-mailing from time to time. he thinks i'm 'sassy and funny.') he goes to great lengths to tell me he's exhausted on this topic. then i see he's written about it again today. after sending that e-mail yesterday.
why do you write about something that you say you're exhausted on?
this is the o.j. case, people.
there is reporting. that was done early on. the only thing to discuss after that was the gop memo (which randi discussed friday on her show), that a court had a finding and what the decision was, and that an appeal is filed (because an appeal is always filed).
now if someone wants to go into ethics, that's a story. that's 1 story.
but this thing is being strip-mined repeatedly.
what can i write about?
that seems to be the question.
and the easiest thing to write about (or talk about or show clips of or whatever) is terry schiavo because it pushes buttons and gets attention.
and they keep going there and going there.
and no surprise, there's less and less to go to. which is why you hear bad jokes about terry schiavo on the radio. i heard 4 today. 1 on a left wing show, 1 on a right wing show, 1 on a sports radio show and 1 on morning drive.
there's nothing left. all the talking points (on both sides) have been done, redone, done to death.
and no 1 wants to credit. i heard people repeatedly cite bob somerby's revelation today. the 1 he made yesterday (the common ills highlights it in yesterday's post that i linked to above). every 1 is all over that a doctor is not a nobel nominee. i heard it over and over. and i didn't hear 1 person say, 'as bob somerby pointed out on the daily howler.' no 1 gave him credit. they just ripped him off and maybe they're listeners thought they had come across this thought. it came off like it was their own revelation. over and over, from show to show, web site to web site.
that's what it has come to. people no longer have any thing original to say. they know there's not a lot of work required in this story - you just push buttons -- and to add a factoid or 2, they rip off a bob somerby or some 1 else.
that's wrong.
and when you're going on and on about the ethics involved in this story, how ethical is it to rip off some 1 else's work and not give them credit?
i'd never read the daily howler before my friend elaine put me wise to the common ills. i'd never even heard of it or bob somerby. in the many months since i became a member of the common ills, i've seen his work highlighted. i've usually thought 'that's pretty astute' and sometimes i've been interested enough in what ever pull quote c.i. posted to click on the link and read somerby's writing in full.
if i ever use something he wrote knowingly, i will credit him. i say 'knowingly' because he's made a lot of points and i'm sure at some point (maybe already) i'll forget that he made it 1st. but come on people, there's allowing insight to seep in over time and there's ripping some 1 off less than a day later! no 1 can read yesterday's post and forget where they read it. that's insane.
people know they read it at the daily howler and they could give credit. but instead they pass it off as their own.
again, i ask, how ethical is that?
this isn't me reading his posts from the past that c.i. highlighted on president's day and a month or two from now making a point that i've absorbed so much i've forgotten that it wasn't mine to begin with. in 1 day (or less) how can you forget where you read it?
i don't think you do. i just think that you make a choice not to give credit.
and it's not ethical.
so spare us all the hand wringing and all the gotcha-points on some hypocrisy you're reporting on when you can't even cite where you got your nobel point.
the thing was a private matter. the courts have agreed with that. somehow people have pumped it into the story of the decade.
it bothers me.
and it worries me.
for 1 thing, what will poor michael jackson have to do now to get attention? he's already worn pajamas to court. does he have to show up nude now?
and forget jackson and the other infotainment stories, what about the very real, very serious stories that are going on right now?
we already saw the online community take a pass on the ohio hearing. we saw stephanie tubbs-jone be ignored. after all our talk of how we would support democrats who took a stand, we ignored what stephanie tubbs-jones did.
what else is going on? what other stories are we missing out on? and at what point will we all shut up about this story? people get the point. i was riding the ferry yesterday and every 1 gets the point. at this rate, if you continue to harp on this story, you'll create a fucking backlash.
and that should worry every 1 on the left. because america gets it. they get that this isn't about anything other than the republicans attempting to use a personal tragedy for political gain. but the excess in the left's response may end up creating a backlash.
if there's a development and you need to highlight it by all means do so. and credit whomever you got the point from. but this constant hand wringing needs to stop - especially now that 'jokes' are starting to creep in.
it's an easy story to do. that's why cokie and her ilk can cover it. it pushes emotions, pushes buttons, gets people talking. not because of anything most of the people covering it (in any format) have done. but because it's a natural hot-button issue. so people keep going back to that issue to get more and more. hoping to increase ratings, circulation or web traffic.
it is a personal tragedy and the coverage is starting to cross the line.
and people are starting to get bored. i love the majority report but sam seder is talking about this (again! again! again!) and i can't take it another night. i'll turn on the tv or go visit some friends. i do not need to hear this over and over.
yes, her parents are attempting to get press on this. but the courts have said the issue is decided. they have said that over and over. jebbie's stepping in. or trying to. if you want to cover that, cover that. but quit repeating the same things that we've heard all week over and over.
the left doesn't need an echo chamber. it needs people raising issues and stories that haven't been covered. and if you're contributing to the zone of silence on all other issues you are playing into the bully boy's hands.
i just went to buzzflash. it's a great site. it's the best thing the left has to offer and reaches so many readers each day. but it disturbs me to count 36 stories on terry schiavo in 1 form or another. 36 stories.
are there 36 stories there? no. there's a lot of hot air. there's a lot of repetition. and there's a lot more going on in the world then this personal tragedy.
i'm not trying for a buzzflash link here, in case any 1's wondering. if any 1 doubts that, watch this:
fuck, fuck, fuck.
christian parenti's cock is probably perfection. it is my dreams.
i bet dahr jamail really knows how to use the cock he's packing.
okay?
buzzflash link officially denied. so don't think i'm going for that or was attempting that.
i would prefer not to contribute in any way to the chorus that keeps signing the same tune with the right singing the melody and the left singing the counter melody.
and i promise i will not post on this subject again. but my point here is not schiavo, my point here is that there are other stories and that the attention being paid to this 1 story is overwhelming many other stories that are important and should be getting traction but won't as long as we keep hand wringing over this 1 story.
i don't know that karl rove is a genius. maybe we're just fucking idiots?
because this was designed as a ploy to feed the extreme evangical base and to take attention off other stories (tom delay, osama, etc.). if kar had a stroke of genius, it's because we were too fucking stupid to attempt moderation. we felt the need to flood the zone with this story and to go to it over and over to the point that we're hearing people say they're sick of the story.
oversaturated.
and the net was supposed to be our brave net world of freedom? seems to me like we all better think about shopping for pearls this weekend because a lot of us are turning into cokie roberts whether we intended or not. (i think most people shirk from the notion that they might some day turn into insta-expert cokie.)
you want some real news that you're not hearing about? get your ass over to ron's site. go to why are we back in iraq and learn about what he's covering. here's a hint, it doesn't involve a topic that the whole blog world is talking about. maybe that's why it's so goddamn important?
think about what you're learning from the news and commentaries lately and ask yourself how much longer this chorus needs to keep singing the same fucking song?
i've said my peace on this. and addressed it only because i agree with the common ills community members including wally who wrote me an e-mail this morning saying that his high school class was sick of it and was hoping some 1 else would say so besides c.i. wally lives in florida and if it's bad for me up north, i can only imagine how much worse it is for wally and the kids in his class.
so for wally and his class, i'll end with this item (put it with ron's and anything you find at the common ills and you've got a lively classroom discussion tomorrow):
Senate Foreign Relations Chair Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) scheduled hearings for April 7 on the confirmation of John Bolton as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.
that's from ian williams' "bolton vs. united nations" which you can find online at in these times magazine. april 7th isn't that far way. so wally, read ian williams' article and bring that up in class. that's news and it's 1 of the many topics that we've lost sight of now that the choir only wants to sing 1 tune.
3/21/2005
no kara, the new republic isn't a magazine of, for or by the left
if this posts thank c.i. and the uk computer gurus who are members of the common ills community.
it's interesting what happened and all the patches that i had to download and install. i won't bore you with it but since i only posted on ohio (and that was sunday) i'm curious as to what it was that drew 'pranksters' (as c.i. calls them) to my site.
if it were my potty mouth, i would've been 'pranked' long ago.
since the last entry i did was on sunday and it was on ohio i can't help but wonder if there's a desire to keep that story out of view.
and before some jerk for the new york times (little tommy zeller?) screams 'tin foil hats!' - i don't own a tin foil hat. the only time tin foil comes near my head is when i'm getting my hair streaked. (5 days ago to touch up the roots.)
so if you wondered where rebecca was, i was trying to log in repeatedly. and couldn't get in.
if i'd e-mailed c.i. hours ago, i probably could've posted sooner. (thank you again to c.i. and the common ills community members known as the uk computer gurus.)
c.i. had a post this morning that disappeared for a while and then reappeared (under a different day). kara had e-mailed me that post early this morning. when i clicked on the link i couldn't get the post. but kara wrote in her message, 'rebecca, please comment on this.'
while i was talking with c.i. i asked about it.
the post is back up, in it's correct place, and i'll quote from it here.
Kara urges us to all take note of Sara Ivry's "Bush's Re-election Lifts Circulation at Liberal Magazines." From the article:
"We had a huge spike in orders beginning the day after the election," said Art Stupar, vice president for circulation at The Nation, which comes out weekly. "In fact, our Web site, in the week following the election, generated 2,600 subscriptions." Typically, The Nation gets no more than 500 subscriptions a week through its Web site, he said.Overall subscriptions to The Nation reached 184,000 at the end of December, up 24,000 from the previous year; they have doubled since 2000, with a spurt in 2003, when the war in Iraq got under way. "You could say that all the way through, for four years, we've benefited from the follies of the Bush administration," Mr. Stupar said. Similarly, at The Progressive, a monthly, paid subscriptions grew 12 percent, to 64,000, over 2004, and have risen 72 percent since President Bush first took office. The American Prospect, another monthly, experienced a 27 percent increase in paid subscriptions last year, from 45,568 to 60,189.
Kara: Note that The Weekly Standard which too many love to note in 'blog reports' has a circulation of 73,710 by contrast. And apparently, so thrilled were National Review readers with Willian F. Buckley Jr.'s leaving, that monthly rag had a 20% bump and is now up to 173,815subscriptions. That The Nation trumps the right-wing makes me very happy. But I especially loved the last paragraph. Please quote it and I hope Rebecca [Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude] sees it and writes about this news:
One exception to the overall trend is The New Republic, a weekly whose liberal reputation has been tempered in the past by its muscular approach to foreign policy, where subscriptions held at 60,000 last year. "We tend to look at issues from more than one side," said the president and publisher of the magazine, Stephanie Sandberg. "We aren't the kind of place that everybody ran to out of anger."
My comment (opinion, I could be wrong), The New Republic does not "tend to look at issues from more than one side." Marty wouldn't allow it. And when the so-called liberal rag wants to get honest about Marty's involvement with PNAC, we'll know he's not calling the shots on what's in print. Rebecca, as Kara notes, has long been dealing with the fact that The New Republic is not a liberal magazine and it is not a left magazine. She has shared her opinion, she has cited others as well (including FAIR and Makethemaccountable.com). [Note, those links go to Rebecca's citations of those sources. Within her posts, she has links to Fair and Makethemaccountable.com.] Pretending that this rag is left (it's not, even Marty refrains from making that claim publicly) serves to narrow the discussion as you bring on a right winger from The Weekly Standard and then a mouth piece from The New Republic which you present as "left." It's not left and it's not owned up to the reasons why they supported the war on Iraq.
well let me say thank you to kara and c.i. for the kind words.
yes, i will talk about it and kara thanks for bringing it to everyone's attention.
the new republic has no audience to grow. they've got the diehards who pray the rag will get better. those people e-mail me here at this site. with statements about how the rag is trying to change. well has it gone left since marty bought it in the mid-70s? uh, no. it's continued to push right and more right.
when the owner of the new republic signs on with pnac, the rag's given up the right to be called left. (check the makethemaccountable post mentioned above.)
it's not going to change unless and until it changes owners.
look, stephanie's got a great voice in the air america commercials. she sounds sweet. but she doesn't control the magazine regardless of her title. this is the magazine that gave us andrew sullivan, people! it gave us fred barnes!
buy a clue already because vanna white and i are both getting tired.
most of the left knows about fair and makethemaccountable (wonderful sites, both of them). and the word got out long ago that the new republic was not left, would not ever be left.
that's why they can do all the commercials they want but no 1's rushing to subscribe.
that's why the nation, which is also a weekly, boasts a circulation of 184,000 and the new republic continues to dwindle at 60,000. people let me put you wise? no. many others have put people wise long before i came along to the blog world.
but i've stayed on this because the people who come here, a lot of them, hadn't heard about the realities of the new republic.
the mag is a dog with tick and fleas. it can't increase circulation because the right has their own rags that admit to being right. and the left knows better than to trust the new republic. (don't even get me started on their middle east coverage!)
i told you what got me attracted to the new republic to begin with, full page ads (often in color) of antonio sabato junior in his CK bvds. those were hot photos! really hot! (he may have been the first guy i ever saw and thought about doing anything besides holding hands. i'm not sure i thought about having sex with him but i know i thought about touching that fine body all over.)
so i was interested in the rag. and when i'd read the stories, i would think, 'this is a left mag?'
i'm talking years later about reading the rag. i kept my copies in various places while i entertained myself with the antonio photos (use your imagination on 'entertained myself!').
i could leave it out in the open because it was a political mag and i doubted my parents would notice the ck ads. but i usually would slip them into a drawer near the bed to be pulled out quickly, or under my bed (ditto) or even under the mattress.
i have no idea why i finally started reading. i'm pretty sure it's around the time marky mark replaced antonio as the ck underwear model. (and if you wanted hot photos of marky in his y-fronts, interview magazine and vanity fair gave them to you. the new republic didn't give shit to those of us lusting after the male form after antonio was no longer the ck underwear
model.)
but i was probably bored and i started reading and it was such a shock because it wasn't a left mag.
i'm glad their subscriptions are flat and stay flat. i don't think that will change because of the hard work by people like fair and makethemaccountable and the daily howler.
but i know i'm reaching the kids now and i want to be sure that you guys know what's what.
and that you don't waste your money.
i also know that i reach people who don't go to other sites. (they don't discuss cocks and dicks at those other sites!)
so i make it a point to repeatedly inform you that the new republic is pro-war and has been under marty. it won't change while marty's there and may not change after he's gone. yes, stephanie has a lovely voice. maybe she's even a centerist. (she might be a liberal but i doubt it.) but rat poison comes in a pretty package too and i wouldn't open it with the intent of putting it in my hands.
a lot of people e-mailed about the ohio issue and i'm going to repeat what i told the people who e-mailed, i didn't make it happen. 3rd estate sunday review didn't make it happen. even the common ills didn't make it happen. you made it happen. you got out there and talked about it and e-mailed it to your friends and woke people up to something that the mainstream media was not discussing. you made it happen. so pat yourselves on the back because it was all thanks to you.
i'm wiped out from the 'pranking' earlier and what it took to fix it time wise. so i'll call it a night and promise to try for a longer entry tomorrow. buzzflash and iddybud and why are we back in iraq have been noted at the common ills for getting the word out so i will note them here. (and isn't jude a groovy blogger? she's a woman and we're supposedly wondering where the female bloggers are so why doesn't she get more attention for all her hard work? or is that all 'so last week' already?) ron is a great guy as well and i like his don't take any shit attitude.
i'm too lazy to do anymore links tonight, so i'll just pull from the common ills entry that has links in it to all three already:
Jude of Iddybud has written an incredible entry on what's going on in Ohio today. It's entitled"Your Vote: Worthless in the Eyes of MediaJudging from the lack of news media coverage, you probably haven't heard about today's House Committee hearing." This puts the entire thing into perspective (no relying on implications or allusions I did). Again, please read the entire thing. (Though judging by the e-mails a lot of members already have Maria gets credit for being the first one to e-mail on it.)
there's your iddybud link.
Jude took on the issue, BuzzFlash is noting it and Ron of Why Are We Back In Iraq? is also addressing it providing background on why Kenneth Blackwell was 'too busy' to testify last time. (No, Ron's not justifying Blackwell's thumbing his nose at the Congress and the people.) From his entry entitled "Did Anyone Hear About The Hearing In Ohio?"
there's your links for buzzflash and why are we back in iraq.
it's interesting what happened and all the patches that i had to download and install. i won't bore you with it but since i only posted on ohio (and that was sunday) i'm curious as to what it was that drew 'pranksters' (as c.i. calls them) to my site.
if it were my potty mouth, i would've been 'pranked' long ago.
since the last entry i did was on sunday and it was on ohio i can't help but wonder if there's a desire to keep that story out of view.
and before some jerk for the new york times (little tommy zeller?) screams 'tin foil hats!' - i don't own a tin foil hat. the only time tin foil comes near my head is when i'm getting my hair streaked. (5 days ago to touch up the roots.)
so if you wondered where rebecca was, i was trying to log in repeatedly. and couldn't get in.
if i'd e-mailed c.i. hours ago, i probably could've posted sooner. (thank you again to c.i. and the common ills community members known as the uk computer gurus.)
c.i. had a post this morning that disappeared for a while and then reappeared (under a different day). kara had e-mailed me that post early this morning. when i clicked on the link i couldn't get the post. but kara wrote in her message, 'rebecca, please comment on this.'
while i was talking with c.i. i asked about it.
the post is back up, in it's correct place, and i'll quote from it here.
Kara urges us to all take note of Sara Ivry's "Bush's Re-election Lifts Circulation at Liberal Magazines." From the article:
"We had a huge spike in orders beginning the day after the election," said Art Stupar, vice president for circulation at The Nation, which comes out weekly. "In fact, our Web site, in the week following the election, generated 2,600 subscriptions." Typically, The Nation gets no more than 500 subscriptions a week through its Web site, he said.Overall subscriptions to The Nation reached 184,000 at the end of December, up 24,000 from the previous year; they have doubled since 2000, with a spurt in 2003, when the war in Iraq got under way. "You could say that all the way through, for four years, we've benefited from the follies of the Bush administration," Mr. Stupar said. Similarly, at The Progressive, a monthly, paid subscriptions grew 12 percent, to 64,000, over 2004, and have risen 72 percent since President Bush first took office. The American Prospect, another monthly, experienced a 27 percent increase in paid subscriptions last year, from 45,568 to 60,189.
Kara: Note that The Weekly Standard which too many love to note in 'blog reports' has a circulation of 73,710 by contrast. And apparently, so thrilled were National Review readers with Willian F. Buckley Jr.'s leaving, that monthly rag had a 20% bump and is now up to 173,815subscriptions. That The Nation trumps the right-wing makes me very happy. But I especially loved the last paragraph. Please quote it and I hope Rebecca [Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude] sees it and writes about this news:
One exception to the overall trend is The New Republic, a weekly whose liberal reputation has been tempered in the past by its muscular approach to foreign policy, where subscriptions held at 60,000 last year. "We tend to look at issues from more than one side," said the president and publisher of the magazine, Stephanie Sandberg. "We aren't the kind of place that everybody ran to out of anger."
My comment (opinion, I could be wrong), The New Republic does not "tend to look at issues from more than one side." Marty wouldn't allow it. And when the so-called liberal rag wants to get honest about Marty's involvement with PNAC, we'll know he's not calling the shots on what's in print. Rebecca, as Kara notes, has long been dealing with the fact that The New Republic is not a liberal magazine and it is not a left magazine. She has shared her opinion, she has cited others as well (including FAIR and Makethemaccountable.com). [Note, those links go to Rebecca's citations of those sources. Within her posts, she has links to Fair and Makethemaccountable.com.] Pretending that this rag is left (it's not, even Marty refrains from making that claim publicly) serves to narrow the discussion as you bring on a right winger from The Weekly Standard and then a mouth piece from The New Republic which you present as "left." It's not left and it's not owned up to the reasons why they supported the war on Iraq.
well let me say thank you to kara and c.i. for the kind words.
yes, i will talk about it and kara thanks for bringing it to everyone's attention.
the new republic has no audience to grow. they've got the diehards who pray the rag will get better. those people e-mail me here at this site. with statements about how the rag is trying to change. well has it gone left since marty bought it in the mid-70s? uh, no. it's continued to push right and more right.
when the owner of the new republic signs on with pnac, the rag's given up the right to be called left. (check the makethemaccountable post mentioned above.)
it's not going to change unless and until it changes owners.
look, stephanie's got a great voice in the air america commercials. she sounds sweet. but she doesn't control the magazine regardless of her title. this is the magazine that gave us andrew sullivan, people! it gave us fred barnes!
buy a clue already because vanna white and i are both getting tired.
most of the left knows about fair and makethemaccountable (wonderful sites, both of them). and the word got out long ago that the new republic was not left, would not ever be left.
that's why they can do all the commercials they want but no 1's rushing to subscribe.
that's why the nation, which is also a weekly, boasts a circulation of 184,000 and the new republic continues to dwindle at 60,000. people let me put you wise? no. many others have put people wise long before i came along to the blog world.
but i've stayed on this because the people who come here, a lot of them, hadn't heard about the realities of the new republic.
the mag is a dog with tick and fleas. it can't increase circulation because the right has their own rags that admit to being right. and the left knows better than to trust the new republic. (don't even get me started on their middle east coverage!)
i told you what got me attracted to the new republic to begin with, full page ads (often in color) of antonio sabato junior in his CK bvds. those were hot photos! really hot! (he may have been the first guy i ever saw and thought about doing anything besides holding hands. i'm not sure i thought about having sex with him but i know i thought about touching that fine body all over.)
so i was interested in the rag. and when i'd read the stories, i would think, 'this is a left mag?'
i'm talking years later about reading the rag. i kept my copies in various places while i entertained myself with the antonio photos (use your imagination on 'entertained myself!').
i could leave it out in the open because it was a political mag and i doubted my parents would notice the ck ads. but i usually would slip them into a drawer near the bed to be pulled out quickly, or under my bed (ditto) or even under the mattress.
i have no idea why i finally started reading. i'm pretty sure it's around the time marky mark replaced antonio as the ck underwear model. (and if you wanted hot photos of marky in his y-fronts, interview magazine and vanity fair gave them to you. the new republic didn't give shit to those of us lusting after the male form after antonio was no longer the ck underwear
model.)
but i was probably bored and i started reading and it was such a shock because it wasn't a left mag.
i'm glad their subscriptions are flat and stay flat. i don't think that will change because of the hard work by people like fair and makethemaccountable and the daily howler.
but i know i'm reaching the kids now and i want to be sure that you guys know what's what.
and that you don't waste your money.
i also know that i reach people who don't go to other sites. (they don't discuss cocks and dicks at those other sites!)
so i make it a point to repeatedly inform you that the new republic is pro-war and has been under marty. it won't change while marty's there and may not change after he's gone. yes, stephanie has a lovely voice. maybe she's even a centerist. (she might be a liberal but i doubt it.) but rat poison comes in a pretty package too and i wouldn't open it with the intent of putting it in my hands.
a lot of people e-mailed about the ohio issue and i'm going to repeat what i told the people who e-mailed, i didn't make it happen. 3rd estate sunday review didn't make it happen. even the common ills didn't make it happen. you made it happen. you got out there and talked about it and e-mailed it to your friends and woke people up to something that the mainstream media was not discussing. you made it happen. so pat yourselves on the back because it was all thanks to you.
i'm wiped out from the 'pranking' earlier and what it took to fix it time wise. so i'll call it a night and promise to try for a longer entry tomorrow. buzzflash and iddybud and why are we back in iraq have been noted at the common ills for getting the word out so i will note them here. (and isn't jude a groovy blogger? she's a woman and we're supposedly wondering where the female bloggers are so why doesn't she get more attention for all her hard work? or is that all 'so last week' already?) ron is a great guy as well and i like his don't take any shit attitude.
i'm too lazy to do anymore links tonight, so i'll just pull from the common ills entry that has links in it to all three already:
Jude of Iddybud has written an incredible entry on what's going on in Ohio today. It's entitled"Your Vote: Worthless in the Eyes of MediaJudging from the lack of news media coverage, you probably haven't heard about today's House Committee hearing." This puts the entire thing into perspective (no relying on implications or allusions I did). Again, please read the entire thing. (Though judging by the e-mails a lot of members already have Maria gets credit for being the first one to e-mail on it.)
there's your iddybud link.
Jude took on the issue, BuzzFlash is noting it and Ron of Why Are We Back In Iraq? is also addressing it providing background on why Kenneth Blackwell was 'too busy' to testify last time. (No, Ron's not justifying Blackwell's thumbing his nose at the Congress and the people.) From his entry entitled "Did Anyone Hear About The Hearing In Ohio?"
there's your links for buzzflash and why are we back in iraq.
3/20/2005
get your asses over to the common ills and 3rd estate for ohio election news
get your asses over to the common ills and 3rd estate sunday review for ohio news.
we just finished working on the editorial (c.i. and i assisted) and usually that means a few minutes of chatter. i said 'no time to talk, i'm hanging up because we have to make sure people know that something is happening in ohio tomorrow.'
what?
a congressional committee is holding a hearing and among those supposed to testify are kenneth blackwell (boo, hiss) and the wonderful congress woman stephanie tubbs-jones (the crowd goes wild with cheering and applause).
the issue?
the 2004 vote.
why might you care?
well maybe you'd like to attend if you're in the area.
or maybe you'd like to know about something that the mainstream media hasn't given you a heads up to. (the beacon journal out of ohio ran an associated press item on it last wednesday.)
or maybe you want to know so you can pick up your tuesday paper or watch your monday evening news to see if the mainstream media does or does not cover it.
this is news, people.
so get on over to the common ills and the 3rd estate and make sure you get the word out.
i'll be posting later today but right now i intend to crawl into bed. sadly, i'll be crawling into an empty bed but as tired as i am that might just be for the best. christian parenti awaits me in my dreams at least.
we just finished working on the editorial (c.i. and i assisted) and usually that means a few minutes of chatter. i said 'no time to talk, i'm hanging up because we have to make sure people know that something is happening in ohio tomorrow.'
what?
a congressional committee is holding a hearing and among those supposed to testify are kenneth blackwell (boo, hiss) and the wonderful congress woman stephanie tubbs-jones (the crowd goes wild with cheering and applause).
the issue?
the 2004 vote.
why might you care?
well maybe you'd like to attend if you're in the area.
or maybe you'd like to know about something that the mainstream media hasn't given you a heads up to. (the beacon journal out of ohio ran an associated press item on it last wednesday.)
or maybe you want to know so you can pick up your tuesday paper or watch your monday evening news to see if the mainstream media does or does not cover it.
this is news, people.
so get on over to the common ills and the 3rd estate and make sure you get the word out.
i'll be posting later today but right now i intend to crawl into bed. sadly, i'll be crawling into an empty bed but as tired as i am that might just be for the best. christian parenti awaits me in my dreams at least.
3/19/2005
yes, i am alive
'rebecca, where are you?' is a question a number of you are asking.
well there were rallies to attend and hot men.
looking around i thought, 'good god! you buried the lead!'
i should have been stressing the pick up factor to those who were on the fence.
and since i had to work tonight with third estate sunday review, i knew i'd have to score big friday night. tell pat benetar to put another notch in the old lipstick case.
i'm really glad to read 1 e-mail. it was from the woman who e-mailed before who wanted to attend a rally in her area but was nervous about going. she went to a candle light vigil last night
and had a great time. she was planning to go to a rally today.
tara e-mailed 'if you are taking time off for the protests, couldn't you have prepared entries in advance like c.i. did?'
tara, i'm not c.i. my name is rebecca. (to paraphrase a really bad country song of 70s.)
seriously, do you think i do a great deal of planning from 1 day to the next about what i'm going to write here? c'mon, tara, you know the answer to that.
the third estate gang and c.i. were also all at protests and to hear every 1 talk, it was great, it was rewarding but every 1's exhausted. there will be a third estate sundy review edition but right now they're tossing around options like not meeting the usual deadline they have set for themselves.
i'm committed to assisting them and i think you'll find something of interest tomorrow if you check.
but in the meantime, let me highlight two things you may have missed from last sunday's edition.
ava and c.i. wrote a hilarious and true review of smallville:
Remember how Lex Luther's father ended up in Clark's body and how we're not going into details. Just know it happened. This gives Tom Welling the opportunity to strut around shirtless for a bit (which seems to be the main purpose of the show). He's wearing pants and nothing else. And he primps in the mirror. Then he pulls out his waistband and sneaks a peak inside the pants to see what's Clark's packing (remember Lex Luther's father is now in Clark's body). (Has been for hours and hours but apparently Clark didn't need to piss at any point so it's news to Lex Daddy what Clark's packing.)
Looking up, Welling does a self-satisified smirk. And we're left thinking, "We are watching a show about Clark Kent, right?" Size queens and shirtless scenes, oh my.
Then it's time to make a phone call to allow for more shirtless time. Lot of flexing of the arms. Then Annette O'Toole enters as Martha.
And the writers apparently didn't think that mother Martha would notice that it wasn't Clark.
Oh sure, he seems a little different. Martha even asks if he's going out since he's all dressed up.
At that point we fell to ground laughing, folks. Why? Well other than the slacks, Clark's not wearing anything. All dressed to go out? What is he, Super Stripper?
and i'll draw your attention to an interview with the lovely, the talented, the sexy, the brilliant kat of kat's korner:
And blame it on radio which is totally corporate and a lot happier playing "songs" that are actually plugs for products. The whole listening hour can be turned into one long commercial.
And that's what we're seeing more and more. You date or fuck as a side story in the song, but you make your purchases first and foremost and then sport them because you're apparently only as good as your brands. The days of introspection are postponed when your Air Jordans or whatever instantly tell the world you've got it.
I can remember when there were actual songs about actual real life events on the radio. I don't hear them on the radio that continues to push the Disney Kids at the expense of real artists.
well there were rallies to attend and hot men.
looking around i thought, 'good god! you buried the lead!'
i should have been stressing the pick up factor to those who were on the fence.
and since i had to work tonight with third estate sunday review, i knew i'd have to score big friday night. tell pat benetar to put another notch in the old lipstick case.
i'm really glad to read 1 e-mail. it was from the woman who e-mailed before who wanted to attend a rally in her area but was nervous about going. she went to a candle light vigil last night
and had a great time. she was planning to go to a rally today.
tara e-mailed 'if you are taking time off for the protests, couldn't you have prepared entries in advance like c.i. did?'
tara, i'm not c.i. my name is rebecca. (to paraphrase a really bad country song of 70s.)
seriously, do you think i do a great deal of planning from 1 day to the next about what i'm going to write here? c'mon, tara, you know the answer to that.
the third estate gang and c.i. were also all at protests and to hear every 1 talk, it was great, it was rewarding but every 1's exhausted. there will be a third estate sundy review edition but right now they're tossing around options like not meeting the usual deadline they have set for themselves.
i'm committed to assisting them and i think you'll find something of interest tomorrow if you check.
but in the meantime, let me highlight two things you may have missed from last sunday's edition.
ava and c.i. wrote a hilarious and true review of smallville:
Remember how Lex Luther's father ended up in Clark's body and how we're not going into details. Just know it happened. This gives Tom Welling the opportunity to strut around shirtless for a bit (which seems to be the main purpose of the show). He's wearing pants and nothing else. And he primps in the mirror. Then he pulls out his waistband and sneaks a peak inside the pants to see what's Clark's packing (remember Lex Luther's father is now in Clark's body). (Has been for hours and hours but apparently Clark didn't need to piss at any point so it's news to Lex Daddy what Clark's packing.)
Looking up, Welling does a self-satisified smirk. And we're left thinking, "We are watching a show about Clark Kent, right?" Size queens and shirtless scenes, oh my.
Then it's time to make a phone call to allow for more shirtless time. Lot of flexing of the arms. Then Annette O'Toole enters as Martha.
And the writers apparently didn't think that mother Martha would notice that it wasn't Clark.
Oh sure, he seems a little different. Martha even asks if he's going out since he's all dressed up.
At that point we fell to ground laughing, folks. Why? Well other than the slacks, Clark's not wearing anything. All dressed to go out? What is he, Super Stripper?
and i'll draw your attention to an interview with the lovely, the talented, the sexy, the brilliant kat of kat's korner:
And blame it on radio which is totally corporate and a lot happier playing "songs" that are actually plugs for products. The whole listening hour can be turned into one long commercial.
And that's what we're seeing more and more. You date or fuck as a side story in the song, but you make your purchases first and foremost and then sport them because you're apparently only as good as your brands. The days of introspection are postponed when your Air Jordans or whatever instantly tell the world you've got it.
I can remember when there were actual songs about actual real life events on the radio. I don't hear them on the radio that continues to push the Disney Kids at the expense of real artists.
3/18/2005
still think the new republic is a "liberal" magazine?
my apologies to any 1 who waited for a post. thursday's already gone and it's friday morning.
i was out on a date last night and hadn't been online once thursday. if i had, i'd have known from e-mails and the common ills site that c.i. had problems with posting. i got back after ten, okay after eleven and thought i'd have enough time to post a last minute entry. but i had nothing but headaches and lost posts.
wednesday, c.i. sent me something from fair and i'm going to quote from that in a minute but while i was installing various software, i was reading the daily howler c.i. e-mailed me about and i want to start there.
i get a number of e-mails each week saying, 'come on rebecca, the new republic isn't that bad. it has a long history of liberalism. aren't you being a little harsh?'
am i?
i have e-mailed each person who's written that to ask them, 'when is the last time you picked up the new republic?' no suprise here, it's been years. (no 1 reads that rag anymore.)
so i'm reading the daily howler that c.i. sent and the topic is about psuedo-liberals who refuse to speak the truth they know. and it is dealing with a number of people but i am going to pull some examples from the new republic staff. and what you need to know when you read the quotes
is that it's dealing with the press slaughter of al gore in 2000 and the people who kept their mouths shut or else lied and pretended no attacks were going on.
So why weren't your interests defended back then -- by, let's say, The New Republic? Chuck Lane was then the journal's editor -- why didn't Lane commission reports? Scarborough knows what he would have done. Why did Lane seem to do different?
Could it be that Lane put his own interests first -- and sold your interests down the river? (Immediate, obvious answer: We don't know.) After all, it was the Washington Post and the New York Times who were leading the "brutal" wilding of Gore (no, it wasn't the Washington Times, a point we'll discuss in more detail tomorrow). And the Post and the Times are big mainstream organs, where young journalists go to build their careers and pocket those nice, fancy pay-checks. Indeed, when Lane left TNR in the fall of 1999, where did he land? Where else? At the Post! At the paper where Ceci Connolly had been trashing Gore ever since March of that year! So here’s our question: If TNR had written about Connolly's work, would Lane would have landed that job at the Post? We'd have to guess the answer is no. No, we don't know why Lane's TNR kept quiet about the War Against Gore. But almost surely, the pattern established in Lane's career move helps explain why so many scribes kept silent while colleagues savaged Gore and eventually put Bush in the White House.
Another example? Dana Milbank wrote about Campaign 2000 for TNR right through December 1999. He also skipped the trashing of Gore. And yes, he also went straight to the Post -- the place where the trashing was occurring.
[...]
When Peter Beinart replaced Lane at TNR, for example, the "liberal" journal kept ignoring the press corps' devolving treatment of Gore. Beinart remains at TNR to this day, but he'll be at the heart of the mainstream press corps for decades (indeed, he's a very bright writer). By the way -- in 2001, Beinart began a lengthy run as a panelist on CNN's weekly show, Late Edition.
Would Beinart have landed that career-building chair if TNR had reported the trashing of Gore? We don't have the slightest idea -- and Beinart never had to find out.
still think i'm too hard on the new republic? bob somerby is telling you that the great "liberal" magazine never found time to tell its readers about the trashing of al gore.
still not convinced?
then let's take a look at something from fair called 'not even the new republic,' okay? this article is written by steve rendall and anna kosseff.
Once TNR , along with The Nation , was indeed a leading journal of left opinion. But when Martin Peretz, a Harvard instructor best known for his outspoken pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian views, purchased it in 1974 with money from his wife's inheritance, the magazine's politics swung unmistakably rightward (Extra! , 8/90).
TNR 's decisive departure from the left is old news, perhaps best illustrated by its editorial support for every major U.S. military intervention in the last two decades: the 1983 Grenada invasion, the 1986 bombing of Libya and the 1989 Panama invasion, as well as both wars against Iraq. The magazine also repeatedly editorialized in support of the Nicaraguan Contra rebels, who deliberately killed thousands of civilians.
A survey of the magazine's weekly unsigned editorials reveals a commitment to middle-of-the-road domestic and trade politics. In 1995, conservative TNR editor Andrew Sullivan (Washington Post , 4/8/95) asserted that his magazine could not be faulted for hypocrisy over its lack of diversity because "we've taken an editorial position against affirmative action." The magazine also supported the roll-back of welfare in 1996 and continues to judge policy-makers based on their record of support or opposition to it (11/24/03).
More recently, TNR (1/19/04) endorsed the presidential candidacy of Sen. Joseph Lieberman
-- the most conservative of the 2004 Democratic presidential hopefuls -- saying that "for over a decade, few Democrats have better embodied the principles we hoped would one day define the party as a whole." TNR has championed Lieberman's centrism throughout much of his career, faltering in its support of him only rarely, as when he changed his position to support affirmative action in 2000 (TNR , 11/13/00).
After the 2002 mid-term elections, the magazine had this advice for the defeated Democrats (11/18/02): "The party needs centrist leaders willing to give the country not merely a Democratic alternative but an attractive one." Consistent with that recommendation, over the past four years TNR has endorsed fast-track trade authorization (12/24/01), criticized Bush's Israel policy from the right (4/5/04) and urged the Democrats to endorse drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as part of a deal with congressional Republicans (5/6/02). Soon after the September 11 attacks, owner Martin Peretz (10/15/01) opined in favor of racial profiling.
want to tell me again how it's a "liberal" magazine?
i know some of you may feel i need to add 'harp' to my blog title. but if you listen to air america, you hear those ads for the new republic. you hear stephanie of the new republic telling you it's a great magazine. you hear al franken schilling for the rag and claiming it's "liberal" and that it's the best in the land. there's no truth in advertising there. (if al franken believes the new republic is liberal, that tells you a whole lot more about al then he may want you to know.)
it's this whole propaganda campaign on a small scale. and it's past time for people to be honest and start saying 'no, the new republic is not a liberal magazine!' until we do that, people will continue to hear that the new republic says whatever and think 'oh it's a liberal magazine, so maybe i'm wrong.' it's the great silencer.
as long as the myth that the new republic is liberal continues to be believed, you will see the discussion on the left pushed to the right over and over. this is not a liberal magazine. and it needs to get honest about what it is and who its audience is. and if you're reading the rag, it's really past time that you stopped.
i was out on a date last night and hadn't been online once thursday. if i had, i'd have known from e-mails and the common ills site that c.i. had problems with posting. i got back after ten, okay after eleven and thought i'd have enough time to post a last minute entry. but i had nothing but headaches and lost posts.
wednesday, c.i. sent me something from fair and i'm going to quote from that in a minute but while i was installing various software, i was reading the daily howler c.i. e-mailed me about and i want to start there.
i get a number of e-mails each week saying, 'come on rebecca, the new republic isn't that bad. it has a long history of liberalism. aren't you being a little harsh?'
am i?
i have e-mailed each person who's written that to ask them, 'when is the last time you picked up the new republic?' no suprise here, it's been years. (no 1 reads that rag anymore.)
so i'm reading the daily howler that c.i. sent and the topic is about psuedo-liberals who refuse to speak the truth they know. and it is dealing with a number of people but i am going to pull some examples from the new republic staff. and what you need to know when you read the quotes
is that it's dealing with the press slaughter of al gore in 2000 and the people who kept their mouths shut or else lied and pretended no attacks were going on.
So why weren't your interests defended back then -- by, let's say, The New Republic? Chuck Lane was then the journal's editor -- why didn't Lane commission reports? Scarborough knows what he would have done. Why did Lane seem to do different?
Could it be that Lane put his own interests first -- and sold your interests down the river? (Immediate, obvious answer: We don't know.) After all, it was the Washington Post and the New York Times who were leading the "brutal" wilding of Gore (no, it wasn't the Washington Times, a point we'll discuss in more detail tomorrow). And the Post and the Times are big mainstream organs, where young journalists go to build their careers and pocket those nice, fancy pay-checks. Indeed, when Lane left TNR in the fall of 1999, where did he land? Where else? At the Post! At the paper where Ceci Connolly had been trashing Gore ever since March of that year! So here’s our question: If TNR had written about Connolly's work, would Lane would have landed that job at the Post? We'd have to guess the answer is no. No, we don't know why Lane's TNR kept quiet about the War Against Gore. But almost surely, the pattern established in Lane's career move helps explain why so many scribes kept silent while colleagues savaged Gore and eventually put Bush in the White House.
Another example? Dana Milbank wrote about Campaign 2000 for TNR right through December 1999. He also skipped the trashing of Gore. And yes, he also went straight to the Post -- the place where the trashing was occurring.
[...]
When Peter Beinart replaced Lane at TNR, for example, the "liberal" journal kept ignoring the press corps' devolving treatment of Gore. Beinart remains at TNR to this day, but he'll be at the heart of the mainstream press corps for decades (indeed, he's a very bright writer). By the way -- in 2001, Beinart began a lengthy run as a panelist on CNN's weekly show, Late Edition.
Would Beinart have landed that career-building chair if TNR had reported the trashing of Gore? We don't have the slightest idea -- and Beinart never had to find out.
still think i'm too hard on the new republic? bob somerby is telling you that the great "liberal" magazine never found time to tell its readers about the trashing of al gore.
still not convinced?
then let's take a look at something from fair called 'not even the new republic,' okay? this article is written by steve rendall and anna kosseff.
Once TNR , along with The Nation , was indeed a leading journal of left opinion. But when Martin Peretz, a Harvard instructor best known for his outspoken pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian views, purchased it in 1974 with money from his wife's inheritance, the magazine's politics swung unmistakably rightward (Extra! , 8/90).
TNR 's decisive departure from the left is old news, perhaps best illustrated by its editorial support for every major U.S. military intervention in the last two decades: the 1983 Grenada invasion, the 1986 bombing of Libya and the 1989 Panama invasion, as well as both wars against Iraq. The magazine also repeatedly editorialized in support of the Nicaraguan Contra rebels, who deliberately killed thousands of civilians.
A survey of the magazine's weekly unsigned editorials reveals a commitment to middle-of-the-road domestic and trade politics. In 1995, conservative TNR editor Andrew Sullivan (Washington Post , 4/8/95) asserted that his magazine could not be faulted for hypocrisy over its lack of diversity because "we've taken an editorial position against affirmative action." The magazine also supported the roll-back of welfare in 1996 and continues to judge policy-makers based on their record of support or opposition to it (11/24/03).
More recently, TNR (1/19/04) endorsed the presidential candidacy of Sen. Joseph Lieberman
-- the most conservative of the 2004 Democratic presidential hopefuls -- saying that "for over a decade, few Democrats have better embodied the principles we hoped would one day define the party as a whole." TNR has championed Lieberman's centrism throughout much of his career, faltering in its support of him only rarely, as when he changed his position to support affirmative action in 2000 (TNR , 11/13/00).
After the 2002 mid-term elections, the magazine had this advice for the defeated Democrats (11/18/02): "The party needs centrist leaders willing to give the country not merely a Democratic alternative but an attractive one." Consistent with that recommendation, over the past four years TNR has endorsed fast-track trade authorization (12/24/01), criticized Bush's Israel policy from the right (4/5/04) and urged the Democrats to endorse drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as part of a deal with congressional Republicans (5/6/02). Soon after the September 11 attacks, owner Martin Peretz (10/15/01) opined in favor of racial profiling.
want to tell me again how it's a "liberal" magazine?
i know some of you may feel i need to add 'harp' to my blog title. but if you listen to air america, you hear those ads for the new republic. you hear stephanie of the new republic telling you it's a great magazine. you hear al franken schilling for the rag and claiming it's "liberal" and that it's the best in the land. there's no truth in advertising there. (if al franken believes the new republic is liberal, that tells you a whole lot more about al then he may want you to know.)
it's this whole propaganda campaign on a small scale. and it's past time for people to be honest and start saying 'no, the new republic is not a liberal magazine!' until we do that, people will continue to hear that the new republic says whatever and think 'oh it's a liberal magazine, so maybe i'm wrong.' it's the great silencer.
as long as the myth that the new republic is liberal continues to be believed, you will see the discussion on the left pushed to the right over and over. this is not a liberal magazine. and it needs to get honest about what it is and who its audience is. and if you're reading the rag, it's really past time that you stopped.
3/16/2005
if there's a peace rally in your area, please consider attending
i want to share a story from democracy now today:
Officer Jailed 45 Days For Tossing Iraqis In River
Meanwhile a U.S. army platoon leader was sentenced Tuesday to 45 days in military prison. Lieutenant Jack Saville pleaded guilty that he ordered his troops to throw two Iraqi prisoners into the Tigris River. One of the prisoners has never been found and is believed to have drowned. Saville is one of the first officers to be tried for abusing prisoners in Iraq. His sentence was kept to just 45 days because he had agreed to testify in another military trial. In that trial, Saville revealed that his captain had once given him a hit list of five Iraqis who were to be executed on the spot if they were captured in a raid.
look at that last sentence: in that trial, saville revealed that his captain had once given him a hit list of five iraqis who were to be executed on the spot if they were captured in a raid.
who were the 5?
does it matter to you?
does it bother you that we have shoot on sight orders?
like me, are you wondering where the captain got his orders?
so we target people in our 'bringing freedom mission?'
does it matter.
it matters if we see ourselves a certain way. it matters if we're still believing the lie that we're doing anything over there except running an occupation.
maybe you do care.
maybe you cared before the war broke out? you were against it and said so in whatever way you were comfortable with.
but the war started, the propoganda got louder, when truth finally started coming out people on both sides were too busy chanting 'support the troops' to deal with reality and you started thinking what difference does it make?
not that you didn't care about the people dying, but you just thought 'i was against it before and it didn't matter, no 1 listens anyway.'
if you're thinking that or feeling that, i want to direct you to the common ills which has an entry today:
While we're noting MoveOn and Sojourners upcoming peace events, let's take a moment to note CodePink's as well:
March 19-20 marks the two-year anniversary of the U.S. bombing and invasion of Iraq. After all of the death and destruction and with the Bush administration claiming a mandate to continue their war, there's a new urgency and a stronger determination within the global antiwar movement to bring the troops home now.
CODEPINK will organize vigils, rallies, marches and nonviolent civil disobedience throughout the country to call an end to the needless suffering, devastation, and loss of life. Help us let the Bush administration know loud and clear the world’s mandate has been and continues to be one of peace. Read the renewed Iraq Pledge of Resistance.
Actions:
LOCAL ACTIONS NATIONWIDE
Organize vigils, rallies, marches, or nonviolent civil disobedience in your community and let us know by emailing info@codepinkalert.org and publishing it on the United For Peace and Justice calendar - or join an event near you.
MAJOR REGIONAL PROTEST IN FAYETTEVILLE, N.C.
There will also be a major regional demonstration in Fayetteville, North Carolina. Fayetteville is home to Fort Bragg - ground zero for the 82nd Airborne Division and many of the Army's elite units. Beyond Fort Bragg, North Carolina hosts four other of the nation's largest military bases, making the state one of the friendliest to the military-industrial complex. For more information about CodePink, visit their homepage as well as the CodePink alert notice.
So we've covered the peace events for Code Pink and MoveOn & Sojourners (see previous entry). If you know of an event that we haven't covered, please e-mail this site (common_ills@yahoo.com).
[For those in a hurry: "To participate in a peace vigil they provide a link to Sojourners that will let you know if there's one in your area." Clicking the link will provide you with information on the peace events Sojourners & MoveOn will be holding.]
The Green Party's Green Party Peace Action Committee offers this announcement and information:
March 18-20 marks the two-year anniversary of the U.S. bombing and invasion of Iraq.
Greens all over the country are participating in local actions that call for the end of the war and to bring our troops home.
Check back frequently for updated information, Green Party literature and other resources for your local actions.
If you are organizing a local action, please send the information to peace@gp.org, so we can post it on the national online calendar.
For more information: http://www.unitedforpeace.org/
Local Peace Calendars:
New York (Capitol area): http://www.social-capital.org/calendar/
Maryland: http://www.mupj.org/pdfdocs/calendar2005january.pdf
Baltimore area: http://www.baltnvctr.org
Pittsburgh/Western Penn: http://www.thomasmertoncenter.org
Seattle are: http://www.scn.org/activism/calendar
Sacramento area: http://www.sacpeace.org/index.cfm
Colorado: http://www.rmpjc.org/
so read that list and find other resources. and ask yourself if there's some way you can participate because you can make your voice heard.
no, i don't expect that the media, outside of democracy now, will do a good job of covering the protests. but you'll see others concerned about peace. and you'll feel glad that you participated.
i know some of you might want to go but have never been to a rally. i don't just mean high school students like wally because according to common ills community member maria, the students are actually more active and involved than other generations.
but maybe you come here and you nod and you think 'i should do something.' but you're thinking that you've never been to a rally and maybe you're trying to find some 1 to go with you so that you won't be there alone. if that's the case, i've been to many rallies so let me clue you in.
you don't need a buddy to go with you. great if you have one, two or whatever. but the people at a rally are going to be concerned about the same thing you are and there will be people there who will make you feel welcome.
i got an e-mail this morning about the common ills post and the woman wrote 'rebecca, i really want to go but i'm really, really nervous in crowds.'
if you're nervous because of a medical condition, consult your doctor. if you're nervous because you're thinking you will be there and every 1 will know each other and no 1's going to talk to you, it's not like that. i was reading the e-mail this morning and it reminded me of the 1st time i went to a concert when i was 13. and i had friends who were going so i wasn't alone.
and i started thinking that maybe there was some 1 else that was feeling like this woman.
i've been there. when i was 13, 3 of us were going to a concert. i don't even remember now who it was. probably it was some guy i thought was hot. but what i remember most was feeling really nervous. i had gotten 'top heavy' very quickly. like over a 3 month period it seemed like i went from a 'training bra' with nothing to train to intense cleaveage.
and believe me, as every girl i knew seemed to be sporting breasts, i really, really wanted some boobs. but to sprout them like that and suddenly have guys staring at them made me nervous.
so here was a night thing with a crowd of people. my parents were out of town and my older sister really wanted me out to throw a party but she also, i think, really wanted me to go to my 1st concert.
i put on a bra, i put a shirt, i put on a plaid shirt over that, a vest and over that a coat.
and still i was thinking that maybe i'd bail. maybe hang out mickey dees for the duration of the concert, come back to the house, pass my sister in the hall (in the crowded hall) and swear it was unbelievable.
i really wanted to go to that concert. but i was so sure that i would stick out and that every 1 would stare and no 1 would talk to me but my friends who would probably get embarrassed at some point themselves and i'd just be sitting there or standing there feeling like the girl who really wants to be out on the floor dancing but no 1 asks.
that didn't happen. my friends were there. we met others there who were nice and friendly.
i had a great time.
but i almost didn't go.
and if some 1's never been in a situation with a lot of people around, maybe they're feeling something like i was then. it's okay to feel that way.
it's okay to be nervous about doing something you want to do.
with the concert, i probably told myself that i had to go because of whichever guy was going to be on stage. so if you're thinking about going and your anxiety is not from a medical condition, i encourage you to think about something else. such as?
coming together with others to show your support for peace. to show people in your area that you believe in peace. focus on that bigger purpose and just go.
i bet you have a great time. if you don't, you can gripe my ass out in an e-mail. you can cuss me out and rip me a new one. sexandpoliticsandscreeds@yahoo.com is the address. make a note of it. tell yourself, 'oh i'll go, but you better believe i will hold you responsible.' hold me responsible. but i don't think you'll have a bad time.
i think you'll find a lot of really cool people who will make a point to speak to you. and you'll be glad that you stood up for peace but you'll also be really proud of yourself for confronting a fear head on.
i know there's no sex in this entry and there's no attitude and no screed. but i think this is a really important issue so i just want to take a moment to speak to any 1 out there that really would like to go to a peace rally in their area but is nervous.
if we don't do our part to make a difference, then who will? not the bully boy. not the corporate press. so please find out about something in your area. figure out where it is if you don't know and then go.
the occupation will continue as long as we say 'well some 1 else will speak out' or 'some 1 else will march,' or 'some 1 else will attend the peace rally.' this is about free speech and it is about making your voice heard.
Officer Jailed 45 Days For Tossing Iraqis In River
Meanwhile a U.S. army platoon leader was sentenced Tuesday to 45 days in military prison. Lieutenant Jack Saville pleaded guilty that he ordered his troops to throw two Iraqi prisoners into the Tigris River. One of the prisoners has never been found and is believed to have drowned. Saville is one of the first officers to be tried for abusing prisoners in Iraq. His sentence was kept to just 45 days because he had agreed to testify in another military trial. In that trial, Saville revealed that his captain had once given him a hit list of five Iraqis who were to be executed on the spot if they were captured in a raid.
look at that last sentence: in that trial, saville revealed that his captain had once given him a hit list of five iraqis who were to be executed on the spot if they were captured in a raid.
who were the 5?
does it matter to you?
does it bother you that we have shoot on sight orders?
like me, are you wondering where the captain got his orders?
so we target people in our 'bringing freedom mission?'
does it matter.
it matters if we see ourselves a certain way. it matters if we're still believing the lie that we're doing anything over there except running an occupation.
maybe you do care.
maybe you cared before the war broke out? you were against it and said so in whatever way you were comfortable with.
but the war started, the propoganda got louder, when truth finally started coming out people on both sides were too busy chanting 'support the troops' to deal with reality and you started thinking what difference does it make?
not that you didn't care about the people dying, but you just thought 'i was against it before and it didn't matter, no 1 listens anyway.'
if you're thinking that or feeling that, i want to direct you to the common ills which has an entry today:
While we're noting MoveOn and Sojourners upcoming peace events, let's take a moment to note CodePink's as well:
March 19-20 marks the two-year anniversary of the U.S. bombing and invasion of Iraq. After all of the death and destruction and with the Bush administration claiming a mandate to continue their war, there's a new urgency and a stronger determination within the global antiwar movement to bring the troops home now.
CODEPINK will organize vigils, rallies, marches and nonviolent civil disobedience throughout the country to call an end to the needless suffering, devastation, and loss of life. Help us let the Bush administration know loud and clear the world’s mandate has been and continues to be one of peace. Read the renewed Iraq Pledge of Resistance.
Actions:
LOCAL ACTIONS NATIONWIDE
Organize vigils, rallies, marches, or nonviolent civil disobedience in your community and let us know by emailing info@codepinkalert.org and publishing it on the United For Peace and Justice calendar - or join an event near you.
MAJOR REGIONAL PROTEST IN FAYETTEVILLE, N.C.
There will also be a major regional demonstration in Fayetteville, North Carolina. Fayetteville is home to Fort Bragg - ground zero for the 82nd Airborne Division and many of the Army's elite units. Beyond Fort Bragg, North Carolina hosts four other of the nation's largest military bases, making the state one of the friendliest to the military-industrial complex. For more information about CodePink, visit their homepage as well as the CodePink alert notice.
So we've covered the peace events for Code Pink and MoveOn & Sojourners (see previous entry). If you know of an event that we haven't covered, please e-mail this site (common_ills@yahoo.com).
[For those in a hurry: "To participate in a peace vigil they provide a link to Sojourners that will let you know if there's one in your area." Clicking the link will provide you with information on the peace events Sojourners & MoveOn will be holding.]
The Green Party's Green Party Peace Action Committee offers this announcement and information:
March 18-20 marks the two-year anniversary of the U.S. bombing and invasion of Iraq.
Greens all over the country are participating in local actions that call for the end of the war and to bring our troops home.
Check back frequently for updated information, Green Party literature and other resources for your local actions.
If you are organizing a local action, please send the information to peace@gp.org, so we can post it on the national online calendar.
For more information: http://www.unitedforpeace.org/
Local Peace Calendars:
New York (Capitol area): http://www.social-capital.org/calendar/
Maryland: http://www.mupj.org/pdfdocs/calendar2005january.pdf
Baltimore area: http://www.baltnvctr.org
Pittsburgh/Western Penn: http://www.thomasmertoncenter.org
Seattle are: http://www.scn.org/activism/calendar
Sacramento area: http://www.sacpeace.org/index.cfm
Colorado: http://www.rmpjc.org/
so read that list and find other resources. and ask yourself if there's some way you can participate because you can make your voice heard.
no, i don't expect that the media, outside of democracy now, will do a good job of covering the protests. but you'll see others concerned about peace. and you'll feel glad that you participated.
i know some of you might want to go but have never been to a rally. i don't just mean high school students like wally because according to common ills community member maria, the students are actually more active and involved than other generations.
but maybe you come here and you nod and you think 'i should do something.' but you're thinking that you've never been to a rally and maybe you're trying to find some 1 to go with you so that you won't be there alone. if that's the case, i've been to many rallies so let me clue you in.
you don't need a buddy to go with you. great if you have one, two or whatever. but the people at a rally are going to be concerned about the same thing you are and there will be people there who will make you feel welcome.
i got an e-mail this morning about the common ills post and the woman wrote 'rebecca, i really want to go but i'm really, really nervous in crowds.'
if you're nervous because of a medical condition, consult your doctor. if you're nervous because you're thinking you will be there and every 1 will know each other and no 1's going to talk to you, it's not like that. i was reading the e-mail this morning and it reminded me of the 1st time i went to a concert when i was 13. and i had friends who were going so i wasn't alone.
and i started thinking that maybe there was some 1 else that was feeling like this woman.
i've been there. when i was 13, 3 of us were going to a concert. i don't even remember now who it was. probably it was some guy i thought was hot. but what i remember most was feeling really nervous. i had gotten 'top heavy' very quickly. like over a 3 month period it seemed like i went from a 'training bra' with nothing to train to intense cleaveage.
and believe me, as every girl i knew seemed to be sporting breasts, i really, really wanted some boobs. but to sprout them like that and suddenly have guys staring at them made me nervous.
so here was a night thing with a crowd of people. my parents were out of town and my older sister really wanted me out to throw a party but she also, i think, really wanted me to go to my 1st concert.
i put on a bra, i put a shirt, i put on a plaid shirt over that, a vest and over that a coat.
and still i was thinking that maybe i'd bail. maybe hang out mickey dees for the duration of the concert, come back to the house, pass my sister in the hall (in the crowded hall) and swear it was unbelievable.
i really wanted to go to that concert. but i was so sure that i would stick out and that every 1 would stare and no 1 would talk to me but my friends who would probably get embarrassed at some point themselves and i'd just be sitting there or standing there feeling like the girl who really wants to be out on the floor dancing but no 1 asks.
that didn't happen. my friends were there. we met others there who were nice and friendly.
i had a great time.
but i almost didn't go.
and if some 1's never been in a situation with a lot of people around, maybe they're feeling something like i was then. it's okay to feel that way.
it's okay to be nervous about doing something you want to do.
with the concert, i probably told myself that i had to go because of whichever guy was going to be on stage. so if you're thinking about going and your anxiety is not from a medical condition, i encourage you to think about something else. such as?
coming together with others to show your support for peace. to show people in your area that you believe in peace. focus on that bigger purpose and just go.
i bet you have a great time. if you don't, you can gripe my ass out in an e-mail. you can cuss me out and rip me a new one. sexandpoliticsandscreeds@yahoo.com is the address. make a note of it. tell yourself, 'oh i'll go, but you better believe i will hold you responsible.' hold me responsible. but i don't think you'll have a bad time.
i think you'll find a lot of really cool people who will make a point to speak to you. and you'll be glad that you stood up for peace but you'll also be really proud of yourself for confronting a fear head on.
i know there's no sex in this entry and there's no attitude and no screed. but i think this is a really important issue so i just want to take a moment to speak to any 1 out there that really would like to go to a peace rally in their area but is nervous.
if we don't do our part to make a difference, then who will? not the bully boy. not the corporate press. so please find out about something in your area. figure out where it is if you don't know and then go.
the occupation will continue as long as we say 'well some 1 else will speak out' or 'some 1 else will march,' or 'some 1 else will attend the peace rally.' this is about free speech and it is about making your voice heard.
3/15/2005
cjr daily can kiss my ass (and they can apologize to kathleen hall jameison while they are at it)
i was so thrilled to read the common ills and see wally's kind words. as most of my readers know c.i. & the common ills have the college campuses sewn up so i'll happily take the high school 1s.
wally, i promise not to disappoint the high school readers i just learned i have by toning down the language or the topics. you have my word that my site won't take a turn to pg-13. we're an r-rating here, a hard r. possibly drifting towards nc-17 from time to time.
so let's get going. i'm reading cjr daily today because a reader copied and pasted it into an e-mail. (smart move dolly, i don't visit that site.) and looks who's back, montopoli's back, bri-bri's
back on the blog report.
struck me kind of sad. sad that the great watchdog cjr who calls every 1 else out on their conflicts of interests and plays watchdog doesn't appear to patrol their own backyard.
yes, folks, little bri-bri took a big dump in the dog dish and the great cjr just let the turd float around in the bowl.
at a time when people are finally starting to notice that the mainstream has shut out female bloggers, perhaps it's time to scream, 'bri-bri, get your hands out of your drawers and tear down your gender apartheid wall!'
regardless, bri-bri's back on the blog blog, who put 'em back on the blog, oooh ah, back on the blog report? (as the newly inducted rock and roll hall of famers pretenders might sing.)
let's review.
cjr daily is part of cjr the way touchstone's part of disney. yeah, it can be a little more wicked than cjr the way touchstone can sneak in a topless shot but that's about all.
so cjr's a watchdog but they're so busy watchdogging every 1 else that they can't keep an eye on their own pup bri-bri need a watchful eye.
see bri-bri does some blog reports for pretty much a year and writes about blogs that he's supposed to be noting for some reason like the writing is notable, the topic is noteable, something along those lines. and we get the same blogs over and over in the blog reports done by bri-bri.
you start to wonder, 'gee does bri-bri know these bloggers personally? there are other bloggers after all!'
well it turns out he did know the bloggers he was citing. they are all cluster fuck buddies.
(i wrote about this yesterday.) but they never disclose that.
not only that, they still haven't disclosed it.
they've done no "perhaps we should have informed readers of this site" type note.
there's been no expose all mea culpa. hell, there's not even been a tea leoni! (a pretty excuse that seems to say something but doesn't really.)
and it's ugly. it's really ugly. and it's not living up to the ethics of cjr.
let me put you straight if you're late to out of the gate on this.
blogger a is reported on by cbs news. a reporter feels that blogger a has conducted himself in an unethical manner. cbs does a story on that.
cjr daily doesn't. when they get around to covering it, they reduce ethics expert kathleen hall jameison to kathleen jamieson. which c.i. said, when we were working on a 3rd estate sunday review editorial with the gang from 3rd estate was like a constitutional law class c.i. took where c.i. was supposed to research, another was supposed to type and write and a 3rd was supposed to argue. long story short, c.i. researched, c.i. ended up writing and in the end arguing in moot court -- and won. but this was despite the fact that the team members on c.i.'s team did 1 and only 1 thing and that was to type the brief. and the typist turned in the brief as he dropped the class without letting the team read over it first. the typist reduced j. edgar hoover to 'edgar hoover.' the mock justices reading the brief had no reason to care about any section on edgar hoover -- who is edgar hoover?
it's the same problem when you take the 'hall' out of kathleen hall jamieson. hearing that kathleen jamieson said something doesn't carry the weight that a remark from kathleen hall jameison would.
let's quote from bri-bri because i feel i'm losing you:
We'd like to join the litany of bloggers wondering what, exactly, CBSNews.com senior political writer David Paul Kuhn was thinking when he put together a piece lamenting the fact that there are no government regulations keeping bloggers honest -- a piece that itself was inaccurate.
. . .
What did Kuhn do wrong? It's not so easy to tell now, because CBS has corrected the story since it was first posted -- without noting as much. But we've got a screen grab of the original piece, which includes this passage:
In the case of Duncan Black, this is what happened. The author of the popular liberal blog Atrios, Black wrote under a pseudonym. All the while, he was a senior fellow at a liberal media watchdog group, Media Matters for America.
"People are pretty smart in assuming that if a blog is making a case on one side that it's partisan," [Kathleen] Jamieson [dean of the Annenberg School for Communications] said. "The problem is when a blog pretends to hold neutrality but is actually partisan."
. . .
As Black notes, the name of his blog is "Eschaton," not "Atrios" -- but that's just the start of the problems. "I began writing this weblog in April, 2002," he writes. "MMFA only came into existence in May, 2004. I began working with them in June, 2004." Kuhn's piece -- with its accusatory "all the while" -- not only gets the facts wrong, it suggests an "ethical" problem that simply isn't there.
And what of the quote? "Jamieson's quote has nothing to do with the situation, either as it exists or as CBS seems to lay out," says Pandagon's Jesse Taylor. "You might as well have had someone from the Southern Poverty Law Center talking about the proliferation of racist hate groups on the internet . . .
[then they let atrios speak.]
Ultimately, it's too bad Kuhn's piece contained the flaws, because it's built on a solid hook -- documents that show that the two leading South Dakota blogs, which readers believed to be objective, were run by paid advisors to Republican Senator John Thune . . .
But the inaccuracies are inexcusable, especially coming from "a senior political writer" for a network website. And even more inexcusable is that the corrections took place without the editors of CBS.com informing their readers of the revisions. If either Kuhn or CBS.com wants to try to make the case that the government needs to regulate unprofessional behavior . . .
is bri-bri in a place to lecture any 1?
is bri-bri telling readers that he's clusterfucking with atrios?
no.
is he telling them that jess of pandagon is part of the clusterfuck?
no.
is he telling them that kathleen hall jamieson is the person speaking?
no.
cjr hasn't corrected this item so allow me.
bri-bri should reveal that he's not just writing about an issue that has some blogs upset, cbs commenting on atrios.
bri-bri is writing about 1 of his buds. notice how at the end, bri-bri's all over 2 republican bloggers as though that's the issue. the issue is bri-bri rushes in to defend his bud atrios without telling readers that atrios is his bud.
and if he had, they might wonder why all the sudden bri-bri's bringing up a new issue at the end (2 republican bloggers).
bri-bri goes to another cluster fuck bud, by accident apparently, to back up his first bud atrios.
we never learn that jess is a cluster fuck bud. and i guess it's an accident that kathleen hall jamieson is stripped of 'hall' and any import she might hold with a reader as a result. 'who is this kathleen jameison?' you can hear some readers asking.
he quotes his bud atrios defending himself and bri-bri, again, never says 'we're all part of the same cluster fuck.'
he then goes on to lecture cbs about ethics.
and yet cjr daily has never corrected this entry let alone done an apology for it.
and they damn well should have.
this is not up to journalistic standards.
so tell me why today bri-bri's back on the blog report.
was atrios wrong? i don't know. i don't go to the blog and i'm not given enough information to know. i don't really care.
was jess wrong? if she were (i'm assuming she's a she), i'd be the last to slam another female blogger. (though wonkette may or may not qualify. e-mail me at sexandpoliticsandscreeds@yahoo.com and let me know what you think there.)
what i do know is that bri-bri's wrong. what i do know is that this along the lines of jayson blair for cjr. see they are a watchdog. and bri-bri wrote a piece on a bud without disclosing the bud-ness. he wrote a defense of a bud where, at the end, he shifted the attention to 2 republican bloggers that he hadn't mentioned previously. (and atrios' excuse -- if he needs 1 -- is that he's never claimed to be non-partisan. by the excuse atrios offers, why is bri-bri attacking 2 bloggers for doing partisan work? only reason i can see is to shift the spotlight away from his bud.)
and on top of that, he goes to another cluster fuck bud to offer a defense of atrios.
look, c.i., 3rd estate gang, folding star and i all know each other. we've e-mailed. we've never hidden that. and when c.i. and i work with the 3rd estate in any way, it's noted right there in the front note to the readers.
so why doesn't bri-bri have to note that he's writing about a friend and quoting another friend?
why is he allowed to attack cbs and question their ethics when his own are in question?
better question, why does he still have a job at cjr daily?
he didn't just fail to disclose pertinent information though that alone should have been enough consider cjr's ethics policy. he went on to attack the ethics of cbs for doing a correction and not informing readers. if cbs did that, they were wrong. but if you haven't disclosed that you were writing about your buds then maybe you aren't in the position to attack cbs?
that's be like me attacking sherry for writing up a sex fantasy and e-mailing it. sherry, how dare you! in other words, it's total and complete crap.
and cjr daily has not done a correction to his entry nor offered any explanation of this.
and this goes to yesterday's entry because i was talking about how the problem is not so much that no women exist, it's that the mainstream media ignores us. and when they do cover us, they slight us. they slighted kathleen hall jameison and that's a name that cjr (mag, daily, whatever) should never get wrong. and if some 1 at cjr doesn't know who she is, then my gut says they shouldn't have been hired in the first place.
i told you yesterday that it's about who you know and it is. and apparently kathleen hall jameison has to much self-respect to be hot-tubbin in a cluster fuck. (cluster fuck is bri-bri's word. he used it on his own personal blog to describe the fun with the buds in an entry.)
for readers who don't know kathleen hall jameison, every link where her name appears takes you to something that will give you an idea of who she is and why her work is important.
but for those who don't click on links, i'll note this from the last link above (The Institute for Research on Women & Gender presents):
Kathleen Hall Jamieson is director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania where she is the Elizabeth Ware Packard Professor of Communication. The author or co-author of twelve books including Beyond the Double Bind: Women and Leadership, Jamieson is a fellow of the American Philosophical Society, The American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the International Communication Association. She has won university-wide teaching awards at each of the universities at which she has taught, The University of Maryland, The University of Texas, and the University of Pennsylvania. She is a past board member of the Ms Foundation and was one of the founders of its White House Project, a project designed to increase the likelihood that the country will elect a woman president. In the 2003-4 academic year, Jamieson has been a fellow at the Center for Advanced Studies at Stanford University.
are you starting to get how important she is to the field of journalism? i hope so.
cjr daily, under bri-bri, couldn't even get her name right. that's shameful. they've never done a correction to that or anything else in the entry i quoted above, that's unbelievable.
i got a really nice e-mail from luke today and he advised me to not go so hard on cjr daily. he thinks 'they're useless with their two to three items a day - from a paid staff! and they appear not to get to work until late since their first-of-the-morning posts pop up at noon. but if you keep this up, they probably won't link to you.'
luke i loved your e-mail all the way through. and i appreciate your concern at the end. but let me be really plain as i wind down here, cjr daily will never link to me. they will never link to the 3rd estate and they will never link to folding star and they will never link to the common ills. we all know that. we all knew going in when we worked on the 3rd estate editorial (folding star did not work on the editorial) that doing it would mean risking that. we were fine with it because somebody needs to speak up when something wrong has been done. we spoke up and i don't think any of us regrets it. i also don't think a lot of people read cjr daily anymore.
when they insulted their readers by acting like they had just heard a criticism that there the blog reports were too closed, they lost a lot of respect. why? the most read posts on their site were the readers commenting on the fact that they always highlighted the same blogs. and those posts go back to december.
trust me, bri-bri knows about 3rd estate. he could have highlighted the editorial and noted that yes, he should have disclosed the truth earlier but since he hadn't, he would do so now. he didn't do that. you will not see 3rd estate covered at cjr daily, you will not see the common ills covered there, you will not see folding star covered there, and you will not see me covered there. we can all live with that.
don't even bother sending items in to that e-mail address they offered their readers when they said they'd be more inclusive. i know things were sent in and i know that cjr daily ignored them.
but so fucking what? we've all got our readers. (c.i. would say 'members! common ills is a community. every 1 there is a member!') and look at the common ills. it was built up from the ground with very little help from the blog community.
yes, fair mentioned it, yes ms. musing's mentioned it, yes, buzzflash usually links to it once a month, yes, offshoring digest has. but it didn't get sung up on the big blogs.
and the fact of the matter is, the post on jeffery dvorkin from november should have been all over the place. that was something that no 1 was talking about. even when they did talk about it, they spoke of it without telling you the real conflict of interest (not that the speaker npr brought on to criticize john kerry was a neocon who supported the war, but that the speaker was married to a woman who works for dick cheney). nobody told you about that. nobody blogged on it and said 'look at this conflict of interest!'
the common ills did so. i saw that article via buzzflash. i didn't hear about it on a blog report or from bloggers who went on air america or any thing like that.
that was a big issue. approaching the election, npr brought on the husband of a woman who worked for dick cheney to criticize john kerry and npr never told you that the man was married to someone who worked for dick cheney. he was presented as a disinterested observer. and when listeners complained to npr ombudsman jeffrey dvorkin, dvorkin's reply never noted this conflict of interest.
this is pretty huge. this was during an election and it was a blatant conflict of interest that was left undisclosed and a lot of people still don't know about it.
so if it's a case of playing nice or telling the truth, i think we'll all go for telling the truth.
c.i. did and that's why the common ills is so huge. you get people in the u.k., for instance, posting it in reviews for dvds and cds. it'll be up for a day or 2 before the companies catch on and pull it. but that's why they have the international audience. and the fact that c.i. told you the truth about simon rosenberg when almost every 1 else was saying 'he's great!' is 1 of the big reasons the common ills is so huge with college kids.
i was in boston the other day talking to a friend who's a college professor and all she wanted to know was 'what's c.i. like?' because her students follow the common ills.
that wasn't the result of a cluster fuck bestowing their approval.
so it's nice of you to be concerned, luke, but trust me, i get enough e-mail and i have enough readers that i don't need to sell out with the hope that i might get a link from cjr daily or a cluster fuck.
and if i did sell out, i'd be no different than cokie roberts and believe me, when i hear her prattling on while she clutches her pearls, i am assured i never want that personal hell so i'll keep telling my truth.
wally and some of the students in his class know this site. reporters i mention know it. and i have so many wonderful readers like sherry who i will always stand by and support until john turek decides he has to choose between us. sherry knows i love her but that when it comes down to the final round for our cornhusker's decision, all bets are off. (though sherry has offered that we could share joint-custody of christian parenti.) (sherry offers that agreement only if she can have dahr jamail all for herself, so at present we have yet to reach a truce.)
and our community isn't a cluster fuck or a circle jerk (to use bill keller's term). we have always disclosed our bond. and there will soon be 1 more of us.
and i think you'll like her. if you visit the common ills regularly, you know that a member asked to have it posted that she was going to start her own blog. i got an e-mail asking me 'where is it?'
she and c.i. are working on it. she wants a portrait of sorts up in her profile. and she's been trying to figure out what she can add that will be different. she's e-mailed me two test columns and they were hilarious. but she wants to find her 'voice' and that's not easy, i know.
i had no desire to blog myself. but then when my friend elaine was slapped down (read my first entry), i had to step up to the plate. i e-mailed c.i. and asked for help. and c.i. talked me through setting up this blog and has been there to try to help with any problem i had with it. in the early days i would e-mail all the time asking 'is this funny?' or 'what's another way i could reference this?' talk to the 3rd estate gang and they'll tell you similar stories.
for me, i really didn't comment to the community that often. i was a member happy to read what others were saying. and though elaine would tell me over margaritas, 'becks, you need to do a blog!' i'd always say no.
i had to have a strong voice to write so i thought about all the anger i felt as my marriage was ending and tapped into that. by the divorce itself, we were fine and i am friends with my ex-husband. a lot of you e-mail asking why i don't spill on him and it may or may not pop up here from time to time but i really have no desire to trash him. if you'd caught me when the marriage was falling apart, that would be another story.
but i was angry about how elaine was treated and i wanted to write about that and really felt 'but what do i do on day 2?' so c.i. and i talked and talked and it came down to the fact that women don't often get to be angry so what if that was my way in, my voice.
and then i thought about what else don't women often write about? sex. in a nonclinical manner. in a way where they talk about men the way we (if we're straight women or gay men) talk about men. so there was the sex to add to the politics and i knew i wanted to keep my attitude. then i said to c.i. 'people are going to read me and say that i just screech' and c.i. said note it in the title. that's how i ended up with sex and politics and screeds and attitude.
and with that title, you should know what you're getting into when you come to this blog.
i'm laying it all out real clear. and people are responding to it.
so let me to try to have 1 of those moments c.i. has that gina labels 'oprah moments' and find the larger lesson not just because i have some younger readers i wasn't aware of until wally's comments but also because this is important.
you will never get any where in this world by being a copy. if you get riches or fame and you've done it by being untrue to yourself it will not mean anything. (and i'm sure my ex would agree with me on this, our marriage probably failed because we both kept trying to be what the other thought was wanted and it just made us both miserable.)
but if you are true to yourself and speak your truth you will be heard. some might not like you. but the 1s who do will appreciate that you are you. and isn't it better to have people like that in your life then people who may only be around because you're acting like who you think they'll like?
so if any 1 reading this is thinking of starting a blog, start it. get out there and get your truth out there. we do need more voices and that does not mean an echo chamber. we need to know your truth as much as we need to hear mine. that's the only way we'll ever be able to see one another as individuals as opposed to stereotypes. that's the lesson for today and don't worry wally, we won't start doing life lessons every day.
wally, i promise not to disappoint the high school readers i just learned i have by toning down the language or the topics. you have my word that my site won't take a turn to pg-13. we're an r-rating here, a hard r. possibly drifting towards nc-17 from time to time.
so let's get going. i'm reading cjr daily today because a reader copied and pasted it into an e-mail. (smart move dolly, i don't visit that site.) and looks who's back, montopoli's back, bri-bri's
back on the blog report.
struck me kind of sad. sad that the great watchdog cjr who calls every 1 else out on their conflicts of interests and plays watchdog doesn't appear to patrol their own backyard.
yes, folks, little bri-bri took a big dump in the dog dish and the great cjr just let the turd float around in the bowl.
at a time when people are finally starting to notice that the mainstream has shut out female bloggers, perhaps it's time to scream, 'bri-bri, get your hands out of your drawers and tear down your gender apartheid wall!'
regardless, bri-bri's back on the blog blog, who put 'em back on the blog, oooh ah, back on the blog report? (as the newly inducted rock and roll hall of famers pretenders might sing.)
let's review.
cjr daily is part of cjr the way touchstone's part of disney. yeah, it can be a little more wicked than cjr the way touchstone can sneak in a topless shot but that's about all.
so cjr's a watchdog but they're so busy watchdogging every 1 else that they can't keep an eye on their own pup bri-bri need a watchful eye.
see bri-bri does some blog reports for pretty much a year and writes about blogs that he's supposed to be noting for some reason like the writing is notable, the topic is noteable, something along those lines. and we get the same blogs over and over in the blog reports done by bri-bri.
you start to wonder, 'gee does bri-bri know these bloggers personally? there are other bloggers after all!'
well it turns out he did know the bloggers he was citing. they are all cluster fuck buddies.
(i wrote about this yesterday.) but they never disclose that.
not only that, they still haven't disclosed it.
they've done no "perhaps we should have informed readers of this site" type note.
there's been no expose all mea culpa. hell, there's not even been a tea leoni! (a pretty excuse that seems to say something but doesn't really.)
and it's ugly. it's really ugly. and it's not living up to the ethics of cjr.
let me put you straight if you're late to out of the gate on this.
blogger a is reported on by cbs news. a reporter feels that blogger a has conducted himself in an unethical manner. cbs does a story on that.
cjr daily doesn't. when they get around to covering it, they reduce ethics expert kathleen hall jameison to kathleen jamieson. which c.i. said, when we were working on a 3rd estate sunday review editorial with the gang from 3rd estate was like a constitutional law class c.i. took where c.i. was supposed to research, another was supposed to type and write and a 3rd was supposed to argue. long story short, c.i. researched, c.i. ended up writing and in the end arguing in moot court -- and won. but this was despite the fact that the team members on c.i.'s team did 1 and only 1 thing and that was to type the brief. and the typist turned in the brief as he dropped the class without letting the team read over it first. the typist reduced j. edgar hoover to 'edgar hoover.' the mock justices reading the brief had no reason to care about any section on edgar hoover -- who is edgar hoover?
it's the same problem when you take the 'hall' out of kathleen hall jamieson. hearing that kathleen jamieson said something doesn't carry the weight that a remark from kathleen hall jameison would.
let's quote from bri-bri because i feel i'm losing you:
We'd like to join the litany of bloggers wondering what, exactly, CBSNews.com senior political writer David Paul Kuhn was thinking when he put together a piece lamenting the fact that there are no government regulations keeping bloggers honest -- a piece that itself was inaccurate.
. . .
What did Kuhn do wrong? It's not so easy to tell now, because CBS has corrected the story since it was first posted -- without noting as much. But we've got a screen grab of the original piece, which includes this passage:
In the case of Duncan Black, this is what happened. The author of the popular liberal blog Atrios, Black wrote under a pseudonym. All the while, he was a senior fellow at a liberal media watchdog group, Media Matters for America.
"People are pretty smart in assuming that if a blog is making a case on one side that it's partisan," [Kathleen] Jamieson [dean of the Annenberg School for Communications] said. "The problem is when a blog pretends to hold neutrality but is actually partisan."
. . .
As Black notes, the name of his blog is "Eschaton," not "Atrios" -- but that's just the start of the problems. "I began writing this weblog in April, 2002," he writes. "MMFA only came into existence in May, 2004. I began working with them in June, 2004." Kuhn's piece -- with its accusatory "all the while" -- not only gets the facts wrong, it suggests an "ethical" problem that simply isn't there.
And what of the quote? "Jamieson's quote has nothing to do with the situation, either as it exists or as CBS seems to lay out," says Pandagon's Jesse Taylor. "You might as well have had someone from the Southern Poverty Law Center talking about the proliferation of racist hate groups on the internet . . .
[then they let atrios speak.]
Ultimately, it's too bad Kuhn's piece contained the flaws, because it's built on a solid hook -- documents that show that the two leading South Dakota blogs, which readers believed to be objective, were run by paid advisors to Republican Senator John Thune . . .
But the inaccuracies are inexcusable, especially coming from "a senior political writer" for a network website. And even more inexcusable is that the corrections took place without the editors of CBS.com informing their readers of the revisions. If either Kuhn or CBS.com wants to try to make the case that the government needs to regulate unprofessional behavior . . .
is bri-bri in a place to lecture any 1?
is bri-bri telling readers that he's clusterfucking with atrios?
no.
is he telling them that jess of pandagon is part of the clusterfuck?
no.
is he telling them that kathleen hall jamieson is the person speaking?
no.
cjr hasn't corrected this item so allow me.
bri-bri should reveal that he's not just writing about an issue that has some blogs upset, cbs commenting on atrios.
bri-bri is writing about 1 of his buds. notice how at the end, bri-bri's all over 2 republican bloggers as though that's the issue. the issue is bri-bri rushes in to defend his bud atrios without telling readers that atrios is his bud.
and if he had, they might wonder why all the sudden bri-bri's bringing up a new issue at the end (2 republican bloggers).
bri-bri goes to another cluster fuck bud, by accident apparently, to back up his first bud atrios.
we never learn that jess is a cluster fuck bud. and i guess it's an accident that kathleen hall jamieson is stripped of 'hall' and any import she might hold with a reader as a result. 'who is this kathleen jameison?' you can hear some readers asking.
he quotes his bud atrios defending himself and bri-bri, again, never says 'we're all part of the same cluster fuck.'
he then goes on to lecture cbs about ethics.
and yet cjr daily has never corrected this entry let alone done an apology for it.
and they damn well should have.
this is not up to journalistic standards.
so tell me why today bri-bri's back on the blog report.
was atrios wrong? i don't know. i don't go to the blog and i'm not given enough information to know. i don't really care.
was jess wrong? if she were (i'm assuming she's a she), i'd be the last to slam another female blogger. (though wonkette may or may not qualify. e-mail me at sexandpoliticsandscreeds@yahoo.com and let me know what you think there.)
what i do know is that bri-bri's wrong. what i do know is that this along the lines of jayson blair for cjr. see they are a watchdog. and bri-bri wrote a piece on a bud without disclosing the bud-ness. he wrote a defense of a bud where, at the end, he shifted the attention to 2 republican bloggers that he hadn't mentioned previously. (and atrios' excuse -- if he needs 1 -- is that he's never claimed to be non-partisan. by the excuse atrios offers, why is bri-bri attacking 2 bloggers for doing partisan work? only reason i can see is to shift the spotlight away from his bud.)
and on top of that, he goes to another cluster fuck bud to offer a defense of atrios.
look, c.i., 3rd estate gang, folding star and i all know each other. we've e-mailed. we've never hidden that. and when c.i. and i work with the 3rd estate in any way, it's noted right there in the front note to the readers.
so why doesn't bri-bri have to note that he's writing about a friend and quoting another friend?
why is he allowed to attack cbs and question their ethics when his own are in question?
better question, why does he still have a job at cjr daily?
he didn't just fail to disclose pertinent information though that alone should have been enough consider cjr's ethics policy. he went on to attack the ethics of cbs for doing a correction and not informing readers. if cbs did that, they were wrong. but if you haven't disclosed that you were writing about your buds then maybe you aren't in the position to attack cbs?
that's be like me attacking sherry for writing up a sex fantasy and e-mailing it. sherry, how dare you! in other words, it's total and complete crap.
and cjr daily has not done a correction to his entry nor offered any explanation of this.
and this goes to yesterday's entry because i was talking about how the problem is not so much that no women exist, it's that the mainstream media ignores us. and when they do cover us, they slight us. they slighted kathleen hall jameison and that's a name that cjr (mag, daily, whatever) should never get wrong. and if some 1 at cjr doesn't know who she is, then my gut says they shouldn't have been hired in the first place.
i told you yesterday that it's about who you know and it is. and apparently kathleen hall jameison has to much self-respect to be hot-tubbin in a cluster fuck. (cluster fuck is bri-bri's word. he used it on his own personal blog to describe the fun with the buds in an entry.)
for readers who don't know kathleen hall jameison, every link where her name appears takes you to something that will give you an idea of who she is and why her work is important.
but for those who don't click on links, i'll note this from the last link above (The Institute for Research on Women & Gender presents):
Kathleen Hall Jamieson is director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania where she is the Elizabeth Ware Packard Professor of Communication. The author or co-author of twelve books including Beyond the Double Bind: Women and Leadership, Jamieson is a fellow of the American Philosophical Society, The American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the International Communication Association. She has won university-wide teaching awards at each of the universities at which she has taught, The University of Maryland, The University of Texas, and the University of Pennsylvania. She is a past board member of the Ms Foundation and was one of the founders of its White House Project, a project designed to increase the likelihood that the country will elect a woman president. In the 2003-4 academic year, Jamieson has been a fellow at the Center for Advanced Studies at Stanford University.
are you starting to get how important she is to the field of journalism? i hope so.
cjr daily, under bri-bri, couldn't even get her name right. that's shameful. they've never done a correction to that or anything else in the entry i quoted above, that's unbelievable.
i got a really nice e-mail from luke today and he advised me to not go so hard on cjr daily. he thinks 'they're useless with their two to three items a day - from a paid staff! and they appear not to get to work until late since their first-of-the-morning posts pop up at noon. but if you keep this up, they probably won't link to you.'
luke i loved your e-mail all the way through. and i appreciate your concern at the end. but let me be really plain as i wind down here, cjr daily will never link to me. they will never link to the 3rd estate and they will never link to folding star and they will never link to the common ills. we all know that. we all knew going in when we worked on the 3rd estate editorial (folding star did not work on the editorial) that doing it would mean risking that. we were fine with it because somebody needs to speak up when something wrong has been done. we spoke up and i don't think any of us regrets it. i also don't think a lot of people read cjr daily anymore.
when they insulted their readers by acting like they had just heard a criticism that there the blog reports were too closed, they lost a lot of respect. why? the most read posts on their site were the readers commenting on the fact that they always highlighted the same blogs. and those posts go back to december.
trust me, bri-bri knows about 3rd estate. he could have highlighted the editorial and noted that yes, he should have disclosed the truth earlier but since he hadn't, he would do so now. he didn't do that. you will not see 3rd estate covered at cjr daily, you will not see the common ills covered there, you will not see folding star covered there, and you will not see me covered there. we can all live with that.
don't even bother sending items in to that e-mail address they offered their readers when they said they'd be more inclusive. i know things were sent in and i know that cjr daily ignored them.
but so fucking what? we've all got our readers. (c.i. would say 'members! common ills is a community. every 1 there is a member!') and look at the common ills. it was built up from the ground with very little help from the blog community.
yes, fair mentioned it, yes ms. musing's mentioned it, yes, buzzflash usually links to it once a month, yes, offshoring digest has. but it didn't get sung up on the big blogs.
and the fact of the matter is, the post on jeffery dvorkin from november should have been all over the place. that was something that no 1 was talking about. even when they did talk about it, they spoke of it without telling you the real conflict of interest (not that the speaker npr brought on to criticize john kerry was a neocon who supported the war, but that the speaker was married to a woman who works for dick cheney). nobody told you about that. nobody blogged on it and said 'look at this conflict of interest!'
the common ills did so. i saw that article via buzzflash. i didn't hear about it on a blog report or from bloggers who went on air america or any thing like that.
that was a big issue. approaching the election, npr brought on the husband of a woman who worked for dick cheney to criticize john kerry and npr never told you that the man was married to someone who worked for dick cheney. he was presented as a disinterested observer. and when listeners complained to npr ombudsman jeffrey dvorkin, dvorkin's reply never noted this conflict of interest.
this is pretty huge. this was during an election and it was a blatant conflict of interest that was left undisclosed and a lot of people still don't know about it.
so if it's a case of playing nice or telling the truth, i think we'll all go for telling the truth.
c.i. did and that's why the common ills is so huge. you get people in the u.k., for instance, posting it in reviews for dvds and cds. it'll be up for a day or 2 before the companies catch on and pull it. but that's why they have the international audience. and the fact that c.i. told you the truth about simon rosenberg when almost every 1 else was saying 'he's great!' is 1 of the big reasons the common ills is so huge with college kids.
i was in boston the other day talking to a friend who's a college professor and all she wanted to know was 'what's c.i. like?' because her students follow the common ills.
that wasn't the result of a cluster fuck bestowing their approval.
so it's nice of you to be concerned, luke, but trust me, i get enough e-mail and i have enough readers that i don't need to sell out with the hope that i might get a link from cjr daily or a cluster fuck.
and if i did sell out, i'd be no different than cokie roberts and believe me, when i hear her prattling on while she clutches her pearls, i am assured i never want that personal hell so i'll keep telling my truth.
wally and some of the students in his class know this site. reporters i mention know it. and i have so many wonderful readers like sherry who i will always stand by and support until john turek decides he has to choose between us. sherry knows i love her but that when it comes down to the final round for our cornhusker's decision, all bets are off. (though sherry has offered that we could share joint-custody of christian parenti.) (sherry offers that agreement only if she can have dahr jamail all for herself, so at present we have yet to reach a truce.)
and our community isn't a cluster fuck or a circle jerk (to use bill keller's term). we have always disclosed our bond. and there will soon be 1 more of us.
and i think you'll like her. if you visit the common ills regularly, you know that a member asked to have it posted that she was going to start her own blog. i got an e-mail asking me 'where is it?'
she and c.i. are working on it. she wants a portrait of sorts up in her profile. and she's been trying to figure out what she can add that will be different. she's e-mailed me two test columns and they were hilarious. but she wants to find her 'voice' and that's not easy, i know.
i had no desire to blog myself. but then when my friend elaine was slapped down (read my first entry), i had to step up to the plate. i e-mailed c.i. and asked for help. and c.i. talked me through setting up this blog and has been there to try to help with any problem i had with it. in the early days i would e-mail all the time asking 'is this funny?' or 'what's another way i could reference this?' talk to the 3rd estate gang and they'll tell you similar stories.
for me, i really didn't comment to the community that often. i was a member happy to read what others were saying. and though elaine would tell me over margaritas, 'becks, you need to do a blog!' i'd always say no.
i had to have a strong voice to write so i thought about all the anger i felt as my marriage was ending and tapped into that. by the divorce itself, we were fine and i am friends with my ex-husband. a lot of you e-mail asking why i don't spill on him and it may or may not pop up here from time to time but i really have no desire to trash him. if you'd caught me when the marriage was falling apart, that would be another story.
but i was angry about how elaine was treated and i wanted to write about that and really felt 'but what do i do on day 2?' so c.i. and i talked and talked and it came down to the fact that women don't often get to be angry so what if that was my way in, my voice.
and then i thought about what else don't women often write about? sex. in a nonclinical manner. in a way where they talk about men the way we (if we're straight women or gay men) talk about men. so there was the sex to add to the politics and i knew i wanted to keep my attitude. then i said to c.i. 'people are going to read me and say that i just screech' and c.i. said note it in the title. that's how i ended up with sex and politics and screeds and attitude.
and with that title, you should know what you're getting into when you come to this blog.
i'm laying it all out real clear. and people are responding to it.
so let me to try to have 1 of those moments c.i. has that gina labels 'oprah moments' and find the larger lesson not just because i have some younger readers i wasn't aware of until wally's comments but also because this is important.
you will never get any where in this world by being a copy. if you get riches or fame and you've done it by being untrue to yourself it will not mean anything. (and i'm sure my ex would agree with me on this, our marriage probably failed because we both kept trying to be what the other thought was wanted and it just made us both miserable.)
but if you are true to yourself and speak your truth you will be heard. some might not like you. but the 1s who do will appreciate that you are you. and isn't it better to have people like that in your life then people who may only be around because you're acting like who you think they'll like?
so if any 1 reading this is thinking of starting a blog, start it. get out there and get your truth out there. we do need more voices and that does not mean an echo chamber. we need to know your truth as much as we need to hear mine. that's the only way we'll ever be able to see one another as individuals as opposed to stereotypes. that's the lesson for today and don't worry wally, we won't start doing life lessons every day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)