The Loudest Voice 1.4: "We Create the News"

Another powerful episode of The Loudest Voice tonight - 1.4 - in which Roger Ailes lays bare the basis of fake news: "we create the news'.  I should say, the basis of real fake news - that is, news that is fake.  We need to make this distinction because Trump now daily bashes our legitimate news media as fake news - which would be fake fake news -  a tactic that comes right out of Hitler's denunciation of the press in 1930s Germany as the Lügenpresse (the lying press).  When you're trying to replace democracy with a totalitarian regime, it's wise to discredit and get rid of the people who can call you out on that and let the rest of the country know - the press.  (See my short book, Fake News in Real Context, for more.)

Speaking of Trump, we also hear on The Loudest Voice tonight that it was Aisles and Fox who gave the Trump the idea that Obama was not really born in America.  I have no idea if Trump got that paranoid right-wing notion from Fox or not.  And here it might be a good idea to mention, as I always do, that there's a big difference between documentaries and docu-dramas.   Even documentaries are not necessarily entirely truthful - they may leave out important facts.  But docu-dramas go even further - they actually make conversations up, conflate events, etc, to tell a more effective narrative.  (The excellent docu-drama Chernobyl, which I reviewed here in May-June, did a lot of that.)

The Loudest Voice certainly focuses only on selected Fox News luminaries - selected for whatever reason.   Tonight we saw a lot of attention to Glenn Beck.  A few weeks ago, it was Sean Hannity.  Both of these Fox News hosts are portrayed in detail by actors.  In contrast, Bill O'Reilly, who had Fox New's leading show for years, is mentioned as such, and shown (the real O'Reilly) briefly on the The Loudest Voice, but no actor portrays him and we see nothing of his back story.  Why not?

I guess all of this adds up to taking The Loudest Voice with a grain of salt, as we should with any docu-drama.  It tells a crucially important story, and is therefore worth watching, even if something less than the complete truth and only the truth shows up on our screens.

See also:  The Loudest Voice 1.1: Fox Launch ... The Loudest Voice 1.2: September 11 and After ... The Loudest Voice 1.3: Prelude to Trump


 

House of Cards 2: Even Better than Season 1, and Why

I saw the second season of House of Cards over the weekend - thanks to Netflix seamless streaming - and loved it.   It's better than the first, which is saying a lot, because the first was outstanding, too. Spoilers galore follow.

Among the highlights 

• Frank's killing of Zoe at the end of the first episode - not only a stunning bolt from the blue, but thoroughly plausible given what we saw of Frank last year.  The killing also had the virtue of getting Zoe off the show - her relationships with Frank last year was the least believable part of the first season.  Later on in the second season, Frank says to Claire that he's not risking any more affairs, which makes good sense for a Vice President
• Frank also establishes his direct commentary to the viewing audience at the end of the first episode - and, in general, this commentary works a little better than it did the first season
• Molly Parker, who's great at anything she does, was exciting and refreshing as the new Whip Jackie Sharp, the best new character in the series, who shined in every scene she was in, including those with Kevin Spacey, who gave another incandescent performance.   Her affair with Remy, who also had an even better season than last year, was also one of the two most interesting affairs on the show.
• The other interesting affair is Rachel's with her lover Lisa, also a compelling new character, albeit with limited screen time.
• Good to see Rachel kill Doug - not only justified for this sicko political henchman, but another character who, although he had his moments, was mostly a drain on the show.
• The Freddie story is not a highlight because, although it was ok, I would have rather seen Freddie and Frank continue as they were last year.  I suppose that couldn't last, though, because you can't have a President going out every morning for ribs.
• Frank's manipulation of events to finally become President of the United States is sheer genius.
• Ashleigh Banfield's interview with Claire, in which she reveals that she was raped, was superbly acted by Banfield.  (I can't say the same for most of the other real anchors who appeared in the second season.  Rachel Maddow and Sean Hannity were ok.   Chris Hayes and Chris Matthews were stiff.  I don't know why real people have so much trouble playing themselves.  I know if I had to play the part of a professor, I'd do just fine :)
• I loved the opening credits and the music last year, and even more so this year.   When the strings come in near the end I grieve and soar.

So see House of Cards, second season, and treat yourself to one of the best pieces of television to come down the pike.

See also House of Cards Season 1: A Review

Like political fiction?  The Consciousness Plague has a big scene in Washington, DC.

free sample of The Consciousness Plague

#SFWApro

Hannity's Triumph of the Will

Just caught a glimpse of Sean Hannity on Fox tonight - I thought I was watching a remake of Triumph of the Will.

Apocalyptic "Omen" music playing in the background ... Democrats pressing for the stimulus package, proud when it passed ... Republicans heroically standing up against it ... fighting against -

Socialism in America!

Images bathed in red, Hannity raving on about socalism, except -

Socialism is the government nationalizing, owning, taking over industry. No private ownership, no corporations, no private enterprise.

How is the stimulus package anything like that, close to it, even moving towards it? The government is loaning money to the auto companies and the banks. When it makes money available for building of infrastructure, that money will be going to companies such as Caterpillar, which will be hiring more workers, etc.

No government ownership.

Words have meaning. As George Orwell made frighteningly clear in 1984, the path to totalitarian strangling of liberty and decency resides, in significant part, in striping language of its meaning - war is peace, freedom is slavery - with an eye towards confusing the public.

No, this country is not moving towards socialism at all.

But displays such as Hannity's are about as far as I've ever seen anything on American media veer towards Nazi and Communist modes of propaganda.

Olbermann and Matthews No Longer Anchoring Special MSNBC Election Coverage: Pros and Cons

It's being reported all over that Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews will no longer be anchoring special election coverage on MSNBC. In terms of what's ahead in this political season, this means we won't see them anchoring election night or debate coverage. They will both continue in their Countdown and Hardball shows.

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I've criticized Olbermann's tirades on everything from 24 to Hillary Clinton and Bill O'Reilly. Matthews is not as extreme, but he had problems talking about Hillary Clinton, too - and I noticed that as an Obama supporter. In the Democratic and Republican convention coverage, Olbermann dissed Joe Scarborough on the air, and Matthews and Pat Buchanan went at it tooth and nail.

The last two incidents get at why I feel more than one way about MSNBC's change of anchors. I agree politically with everything Olbermann said to Scarborough, and everything Matthews said to Buchanan. Further, a leftist tilt at MSNBC balances the rightest tilt at Fox News, which is certainly not "balanced" on its own.

In the end, I guess MSNBC did the right thing, though. There is a distinction between an anchor and a commentator, one which Fox News respects by not putting its commentators - such O'Reilly, Hannity, and Colmes - in the anchor chair. Our politics is indeed better served when we can get some semblance of objectivity in our anchors and let the commentators have at it.

But if this signals a retreat by MSNBC from the Democratic leanings of its commentators, I'll be sure to complain loudly about that, too.

Spirited Republican Debate on Fox in South Carolina Tonight: Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul Come Out Best

A crisp, spirited Republican debate in South Carolina earlier tonight - one of the best so far, as good the Republican debate on ABC on Saturday - and Fox included Ron Paul, which it didn't do on Sunday.

Fred Thompson was the best he's been so far, responding with a sharp mix of passion, clarity, and humor. He took Mike Huckabee to task for being a Democrat in Republican clothing. Even though I agree with Huckabee's "Democratic" positions about education, etc., I had to admire Thompson's performance.

Huckabee, for his part, however, was also excellent. He came through again as likable and sincere, as well as vivid and saber-rattling in his response to the Iranian gunboat incident - warning Iranians and anyone that if they attack American boats, the next thing they'll be seeing are the gates of hell. (Thompson got in a good line about the Iranians being close to seeing the virgins they think await their heroes in the afterlife.) Again, I don't agree at all with this jingoism, but it was good Republican television.

As for what I do agree with, Ron Paul was incisive and right on target in his comparison of the Iranian gunboat incident with the Gulf on Tonkin incident off the coast of North Vietnam in the 1960s. Lyndon Johnson used it to push the US into an escalated (undeclared) war in Vietnam. But, as Ron Paul correctly alluded to, it turned out later that this incident had been set up and provoked by Johnson precisely for the purpose of increasing US military action in Vietnam - or, starting up a full-fledged (undeclared) war.

Ron Paul was also clear in disassociating himself and his candidacy from the 9/11 "truthers" - those who think that the U.S. brought down the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001.

Likely Ron Paul was so effective tonight because he was finally given some time to speak and make his points.

But the Southern weather agreed with all of the candidates. Guiliani was forceful in his defense of his immigration policy in NYC - how can you question the immigration status, he asked, of someone who is giving the police information a rape or a murder? You don't need a green card to commit those crimes, he added.

Romney sparred well, but once again came up with a science fictional, computational metaphor - making some point about three-dimensional chess (the first I ever saw of three-dimensional chess was when Spock was playing it on Star Trek). I don't know, it's a different series, but I'm still thinking Cylon...

And McCain was pretty good, too - though, in general, he seemed to assume the position as the most tired candidate, held until tonight by Fred Thompson.

***
After the debate: Ron Paul won the telephone poll, and of course Hannity didn't believe it. At least, this time, he knew better than to come up some story about Ron Paul's supporters voting multiple times.

A lot more debates in both parties coming up this month. It's good to see that they're getting sharper and more focused as the campaigns progress.

Newspapers Continue to Excel, and Broadcast Media Fail, in Fair Coverage of Ron Paul

Superb video of mainstream media pundits smirking and disinforming the public about Ron Paul and his supporters...



For some reason, I find the George Stephanopoulos smug comment on ABC News at the end that Ron Paul can't possibly win - made directly to Ron Paul - the most irritating. If for no reason other than to see Stephanopolous's reaction, it would be great for Ron Paul to win at least the Republican nomination. There would be many good and profound results from that, and among them - no place close to the top of the benefits but still among them - would be once and for all exposing the damage the mass media do to our democracy, and the power of voters to overcome it.

Thanks to Lee on MySpace for bringing this video to my attention.

Meanwhile, my student Mike Plugh e-mailed me about the following New York Times article about Ron Paul today, written by Katharine Q. Seelye and Leslie Wayne. It's a fair, factual, intelligent essay on where the Ron Paul candidacy stands now, and how it got there.

As I've noted before, it's interesting that the print press by and large has been doing a much better job of reporting this election campaign, and in particular Ron Paul's candidacy, than the mainstream broadcast and cable media. Certainly, some of the television coverage of Ron Paul - Alan Colmes on Fox, Tucker Carlson and sometimes Chris Matthews on Fox - has been objective, but more often than not we get Stephanopoulos, Hannity, and their snide misrepresentations.

Possibly there is something about text - whether online or on paper - the encourages fairness and accuracy of reporting.

Whatever the reason, the election of 2008 is so far shaping up as the traditional paper press, and the Internet's, finest hour.

Hannity & Colmes Split Over Ron Paul's 1st Place in FOX 's Latest Post-Debate Poll

Well, the universe is finally a lot more as it should be. You may recall that after the last Republican Presidential debate on Fox, Hannity and Colmes - who disagree about just about everything - were as one in their certainty that Ron Paul's first place finish in Fox's after-debate phone-in text poll was some kind of fix - multiple dialing by the same people, to be exact, even though Fox had wisely made that option not possible.

Hannity was up to his same tricks tonight - braying that Ron Paul's first place finish was "stacked". Whereas Colmes, to his credit, calmly said he was reporting the results. As was the case last time, Hannity didn't bother to offer any evidence.

You can see this all in the YouTube clip that follows. Also sweet about this is the way Hannity has the gall to complain to Ron Paul that Hannity gets booed by Ron Paul supporters when Hannity gives speeches.

Booed? Hannity should count his lucky stars that he continues to have a microphone. I certainly would never hire anyone with such a poor standard of truth and evidence to teach courses in a department in which I was Chair...

My Sept 28 2007 Lecture at Fordham University about the Media Misreporting of Ron Paul

This is the lecture I delivered to my "Introduction to Communication and Media Studies" class at Fordham University on September 28, 2007 about the media misreporting of Ron Paul.

The lecture, with student questions at the end, was about 50 minutes. It's divided in five parts on the YouTube video, as follows: 1. history of polling ... ABC May 2007 misreporting of Ron Paul ... 2. ABC continues misreporting Ron Paul (early August 2007).... 3. Mark Levin urges disinformation against Ron Paul on ABC radio ... Kucinich gets cropped ... the First Amendment ... 4. Hannity & Colmes misreport Ron Paul on Fox News ... reasons behind all of this ... 5. I answer student questions ...

Note that the above is, of course, current only as of September 28, 2007, and contains no mention of ABC affiliate WMUR TV in New Hampshire failing to cover the Ron Paul "Family Day" rally on September 30...

Former Homicide Detective Rod Wheeler on Hannity & Colmes Tonight: "Anyone Listening to John Kerry Should be Tasered"

"Anyone listening to John Kerry should be tasered" - that "joke" from a former homicide detective, one Rod Wheeler, who Fox News chose to have as a guest on Hannity and Colmes tonight.



Wheeler said a lot more - that Andrew Meyer clearly deserved to be tasered, that he was clearly threatening the police who were escorting him away from the microphone - even though the videos of the event clearly show otherwise.

But Wheeler is entitled to his erroneous opinion of what happened.

He's of course also entitled to his misguided sense of humor. I guess we should at least be happy that someone with his values is a former rather than a current homicide detective.

But where was Sean Hannity's outrage or even disagreement with his guest for taking such a tasteless shot at John Kerry's supporters, at a time in which tasering and politics and freedom of speech have become sadly intertwined?

Now, more than ever, we need candidates like Ron Paul who respect both the First Amendment and the necessary limits of police authority.

Hannity & Colmes Denigrate Ron Paul's First Place in FOX News Post-Debate Poll

So now Fox News' - via Hannity and Colmes - joins ABC News in denigrating the results of its own post-debate polls. As of about 30 minutes ago, Ron Paul was in first place with 33% percent of respondents who said he won tonight's Republican Presidential debate in New Hampshire, broadcast on Fox News, with Rudy Giuliani in second place with 16% (in the final results, Mike Huckabee moved into second place, with 18% of respondents who said he won).

Commented Hannity and Colmes on Ron Paul's victory in the Fox News poll: Ron Paul supporters were busy dialing in multiple times.

Interestingly, Ron Paul's exchange with Mike Hucbabee was the most replayed segment of the debate, was indeed its high point. Ron Paul went after Huckabee's - and all the other Republicans' - position that everyone should get behind the US war effort in Iraq. We have no valid business being there, Ron Paul emphasized, fighting in a war that was started on the basis on false information, and in defiance of our Constitution.

How is it that Hannity and Colmes, who agree on so little else, can be so quick to discount the possibility that maybe Ron Paul's first-place showing is an expression of how tired Americans are of this wrong war? And trot out the tired "multiple" dialing herring, with no cited evidence whatsoever?

The answer, I think, is that whatever Hannity and Colmes' differences of opinion, that are representatives of the same arrogant, old-line media thinking that afflicts ABC News. Hannity and Colmes owe America an apology.

Just this afternoon, I distributed my syllabus to my Intro to Communication and Media Studies class at Fordham University. September 28 will be the day I'll deliver my special lecture on the mainstream media's misreporting of Ron Paul.

ABC Mark Levin's Campaign of Disinformation Against Ron Paul

The latest in the mainstream media's bizarre and destructive campaign against Ron Paul and his supporters - actually, more ABC's than any other medium - comes from the WABC New York and nationally syndicated ABC radio talk host, Mark Levin.

As you can see on his web page, he's urging his listeners and web-page readers to "Call Ron Paul's office and tell him he can't win."

What kind of ham-handed campaign of disinformation is that?

Levin describes himself as "one of America's preeminent conservative commentators and constitutional lawyers."

I would describe Levin as a Nixonian dirty trickster, in the Donald Segretti and Watergate scandal tradition.

Ron Paul and his supporters should actually wear Levin's sleazy tactics as a badge of honor. They should be proud that someone who lists Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity among his favorite links, and who supports the Bush administration as if it were Abraham Lincoln's, has seen fit to try to undermine Ron Paul's campaign in this underhanded way. It means that Hannity and his ilk see Ron Paul as a threat, which indeed they should.

Ron Paul deeply believes in the First Amendment and freedom of speech, as do I, and therefore I would never call for Levin and his mouth to be taken off the air. Levin is entitled to urge all the despicable things in politics his mind can conjure.

But he can count on me to keep calling him out for what he is - a person, like Nixon's henchmen, with no respect for the democratic process. His continued presence on ABC's airwaves is yet another black mark against that benighted network, and another case study that I and no doubt other professors will be teaching their students about for many years to come.



See also - ABC's Abuse of American Electorate to Be Included in my Curriculum This Fall

and More ABC News Distortion to be Included in My Curriculum

and The Media Disenfranchising of Ron Paul

and Newspaper Coverage of Ron Paul in Iowa: B+