A mid-career crisis

It's a well-known fact that at a middle point of life, many people go through changes. Men are more stereotypically represented by the mid-life crisis, as the image of a new sports car and engaging in younger activities is more than common. Apparently, we can rest assured that careers follow a similar arc, as Tucker Carlson has recently announced a mid-career crisis, changing something previously tied strongly into his image.

No, I'm not talking about his image-skewing appearance on Dancing with the Stars. I'm talking about his decision to let loose and get rid of the bowtie that has been so iconic to him.

Obviously, this is a huge step in the evolution of Tucker, as he sees the younger audiences that are so important to television being drawn away by other newscasters, such as Bill O'Reilly, Keith Olbermann, and Samantha Bee. The bow tie was a bit off-putting, and didn't seem to mesh with the rather aggressive style he hosts his show. Now, however, the gloves, or more specifically, the outdated pieces of neckwear, are off.

On a related note, the fact that Tucker Carlson has decided to set down the bowtie drops to an all-time low the number of potential bow-tie wearing Halloween costumes for 2007. While we still may see the bowtie by people dressing as James Bond (or Barney Frank), there aren't many more options. Let's hold out hope that someone else will revive this little-used piece of fashion.

If only to give the kids something else to make fun of.

Cavuto can spot a hidden agenda a mile away

Recently, on the FOXNews program, Your World with Neil Cavuto, there was what some are calling a glaring omission. The business program completely ignored the role played by parent company News Corp.'s decision to not publish or produce anything in relation to OJ Simpson's admitted push to gather together some "blood money" for his children. After all, why would anyone watching a business news program care in the slightest about a major marketing decision by a large multi-tiered organization.

Thankfully, Cavuto did take the time to point out that the new animated movie Happy Feet carried a hidden leftist agenda, even calling the film an "animated Inconvenient Truth". Cavuto even went so far as to say that he felt Hollywood was trying to "sneak one by us", as if the concept that any movie that could teach children about global warming's possibilities would be a bad thing.

Now, I admit, I haven't seen Happy Feet, so all of my information about the film is relegated to what I've gleaned from reviews and the commercials/trailers. Still, the film is purportedly more March of the Penguins than An Inconvenient Truth. Even with that, the main theme of the film seems to be an acceptance of that which is different, instead of simply plowing ahead and assuming that all that is different is wrong. In many ways, the film could be actually aspiring to teach children (and some of the adults watching) lessons of tolerance for things such as race, gender, and sexuality.

Even with that, Cavuto decided that the controversy behind the animated penguins was because of the right-wing insistance that global warming, regardless of all the evidence pointing towards it, simply isn't happening. So congratulations, Mr. Cavuto. Congratulations on finding a controversy where there wasn't one. What's next? Flushed Away was merely a piece of Green Party propaganda about utopian societies? The Fox and the Hound was really just an animated Jungle Fever? Tenacious D and the Pick of Destiny is a disturbing story about two man-children, aspiring for their dreams of rock stardom in a communist manifesto? The Smurfs were a homosexual paradise?

Ok, ignore that last one. It's just too unrealistic, even for Cavuto and the rest of his friends at FOXNews.

They'll make an opera out of anything

Well, not really, but one of the newest operas to gather some buzz doesn't help to dissuade that opinion. We've had operas about barbers, women named Carmen, and uncles from Boston. Now, we're being given an opera about that little-exploited subject, the news pundit. That's right, folks. Igor Keller has penned for us the majesty that is Mackris v. O'Reilly to fill that gap in our opera collection.

For those of you who luckily were able to avoid the tawdry details of the actual court case (which was settled, thankyouverymuch) about which the opera has been written, it's the story of the alleged sexual harassment experienced by Andrea Mackris, former FOXNews producer, at the hands of Bill O'Reilly, current FOXNews talking head. O'Reilly of course denied these allegations heavily, but that's not going to stop Keller. After all, he must be taken some levels of artistic license to be able to stretch anything that Bill O'Reilly may or may not have been involved with into a 31-part opera. Heck, the loofah/falafel incident doesn't even happen until part 27.

Of course, if this opera turns out to be a success, we might be able to expect that future theatrical endeavors will be undertaken to chronicle storied events from our recent past. For example, we can wait with baited breath to see Ain't No Bribe High Enough chronicling the Jack Abramoff story, or I'm Still Standing, featuring Karl Rove. We may also see new remakes of classic films, such as Never Say Never Again starring "Gin" Rummy, or Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey, with the title characters renamed George and Dick.

Wait a minute. Let's just stop this insanity before it gets out there too far. After all, do any of us really want to be forced to suffer through the new series on VH1's Celebreality, Political Fit Club? I know I don't.

It's no Weekend Update

Truth be told, it's far better than the Saturday Night Live mainstay. It's actually funny, and according to a recent study, it's just as good at getting out substantial news as most other news programs.

All of this is big praise for The Daily Show, the program which saw its host appear on Crossfire and label them "bad for America". When Tucker Carlson fired back, Stewart pointed out that his show is a comedy newscast, and that it's following a show featuring puppets. However, according to the study published by Indiana University, it looks like the joke may finally be on the major news programs.

Admittedly, the study focuses on the Presidential Election of 2004, but it does carry a resounding rebuttal for any news pundit who wants to dismiss the house that Stewart built out of hand because of its place on Comedy Central. After all, if The Daily Show can be as substantial as the nightly newscasts, what could this hold for the future of television news?

Will we see Katie Couric start bantering with a studio audience while she reads about the White House? How about Brian Williams getting one of his reporters to stand in front of a green-screen in place of being on location, replete with jokes about the action purportedly taking place? And can we really be that far from the debut of "The Lauer Hauer", where the Today show co-host plays the part of an Olbermann-like pundit, complete with his take-off on the "Worst Persons in the World"?

The study is rather heartening, by showcasing that not only can the news be funny, but it can also be incredibly informative at the same time. If this particular trend continues, and Stewart can keep the reins of the show firmly in hand, perhaps The Daily Show will assume the title of "The Most Trusted Name in News". Then, in honor of the great comedy newscasters that have come before, Jon will be forced to call the title an "ignorant slut".

Ultimately, this bodes well for the world. Perhaps this means that we're starting to take ourselves less seriously. At the very least, it lets us know that we can.

Fair and aiming

Bill O'Reilly, the favorite talking bobblehead of FOXNews, has a new book out, titled Culture Warrior. O'Reilly claims that the book will, of course, serve to deflate the attacks levied against him and his comrades by utilizing "facts and superior analysis" to prove just how right he is.

Unfortunately, the actual practice used by Mr. O'Reilly seems to be to slanderize and demonize those that he doesn't personally agree with. His attacks are mostly levied at liberals, with only a couple of the most extreme conservatives drawing his ire. And those facts that he talks about? Well, as Stephen Colbert pointed out, "reality has a well-known liberal bias." Bill O'Reilly is not one to let that liberal bias stand in the way of the facts, as he percieves and alters them.

I suppose we should actually be somewhat thankful to Bill O'Reilly for his current book, and not simply because it showcases what kind of person he is, or how abhorrent his beliefs truly are. In light of so many recent authors drawing media attention, we should be thankful that Mr. O'Reilly isn't engaging in that all-too common practice (used at Harvard, by Ann Coulter, and now, possibly, by Nancy Grace) of plagiarizing the works of others.

After all, it's practically impossible to plagiarize someone when you spend the entirety of the book crafting facts out of thin air, and then hanging them on an already weak branch.

At this rate, O'Reilly's next book may very well be titled Catastrophe, and it could detail how the American people's stubborn insistence on not prolonging either the Bush Administration or their "policies" led to future soldiers dying in the Middle East. Unfortunately, as we've already seen a few too many times, the more anger you spew, the more people want to read what you wrote.

Hey, if it works for Michael Moore, why not let it work for Bill O'Reilly?

Quantity over quality

Apparently, when you're a politically-slanted author, writing from an extremist position, and you come under fire for possible plagiarism and/or willful misrepresentation of citations to push your point onto the audience that will already support you, the best defense you can offer is to show just how often you use footnotes and endnotes.

At least, that's the case currently being presented by Ann Coulter. In a report by Media Matters, analyzing from themselves the endnotes presented by Coulter in her most recent book, they find numerous examples where Coulter simply twisted a quote to make it apply more to her point (1), where she made up a "fact" to support her views (2), and where she outright omitted information from quotes that would have dispusted her particular angle of attack (3). Of course, this being Ms. Coulter, and this being a day and age where the spewing of hate speech sells books (yes, I'm looking at Michael Moore and Al Franken as well as Coulter and her right-wing cronies), the publishing house is calling all charges levied against the book as being baseless and trivial (4). Why? Because, darnit, she knows when to make citations, and she has literally thousands of citations with her book (5).

I guess if it's good enough for Crown Publishing (6), it's good enough for me. Heck, it's nice to know that, so long as you have a lot of footnotes, you don't even have to verify their truth.

-----
1. Coulter's points are often espoused by the Christian Right, National Socialists, and anyone else who feeds on the souls of infants.
2. "Fact" is merely a twist on reality as perceived by the majority of people. Therefore, anyone can make up a fact, convince people of it's reality, and act as though it's always been that way. See Wikipedia.
3. The angle of attack is approximately 35 degrees.
4. All your trivia are belong to us.
5. Citations make the man. Footnotes make the better man who can better manipulate reality (7).
6. Crown Publishing mainly supports the excessive use of footnotes and endnotes as proof of legitimacy because it lines their corporate coffers. And because they hate trees.
7. Footnotes do not need to have a base in truth to make a better man. Pearl Jam also does not need said base in truth.

Compassionate reporting

Elizabeth Smart, the young woman who was kidnapped from her home in Salt Lake City back in 2002 (and recovered in March of 2003) appeared recently on CNN's "Nancy Grace" show to discuss the new national sex offender bill that she is championing. Host Nancy Grace seemed interested in holding a very different interview.

Basically, what we have here is a complete and utter failure to communicate. Elizabeth, who had already dealt with numerous interviews over the past three years regarding her abduction, has moved on as best as she possibly can. She has decided to use the experience to fuel her desire to push the new national legislation. Nancy Grace, on the other hand, made the determination that she would garner more viewers, and milk sympathy out of those that were watching by once again trying to get answers to inane questions about the abduction. Even when Elizabeth made it clear that she was appearing for a different reason, Nancy nodded, pretended to understand, and pressed ahead with further questions about what the captivity was like.

Mind you, this is coming from the same network that, while Israel and Hezbollah were shooting missles at each other, kept wondering "Middle East: Brink of War?" CNN used to be an official news organization, but with reporters like Grace, and an unwillingness to call a war when they see one, the question has to become whether or not they're still viable in covering the news, or if they've fallen down the same slippery slope that has plagued the other 24-hour news networks since their inceptions.

Looking at the website for the program has me already picturing what the conversation with Yvette Cade (who was horribly burned by her husband) may contain. For example:

NG: So, exactly how did the odor of burning flesh affect your sense of smell.
YC: It was awful. But I really don't want to talk about that.
NG: I understand. I know that it's hard for victims to relive their experiences. So, how exactly did the fire race across your skin.

Let's hope that I'm horribly horribly wrong about that potential conversation. If I'm not, then someone please find a way to GET THIS WOMAN OFF THE TELEVISION. Replace her with something wholesome. Y'know, like have an hour of screeching weasels.

You can call it "FOX on CNN".

Losing touch

First off, let's pretend that you're Israel. Okay? Are you pretending? Good. Now...

STOP BOMBING PEOPLE. Especially when you're already on tenuous footing in global views, and the only guy who's on your side is the Decider reviled the world over.

Moving on. Ann Coulter, sometimes referred to in hushed tones as She Who Makes Satan Look Good, also sometimes referred to as Michael Berryman in a wig, has suffered through her trials and tribulations, especially since the release of Godless. The attacks of her views on national news programs and the outcry and accusations of plagiarism immediately leap to mind. Just because she happens to hold viewpoints that make certain infamous people from history look like kitten-hugging hippies (I'm looking at you, Mengele), and just because she decided that she wanted to lift full sentences and then replace a single word, passing it off as her own (you're not escaping my gaze, Viswanathan) doesn't mean she's a bad person, right? Right?

And given that she's obviously not a bad person, is it really fair that newspapers around the country are beginning to wonder if maybe her opinions column is no longer worth printing? Maybe The Gazette of Cedar Rapids, IA was a little hasty in pulling the column ahead of the rest of the nation. Except for the fact that Ms. Coulter has finally started to alienate the only people who were reading her in the first place, the conservatives, and causing the paper to receive complaints, this just seems like a typical knee-jerk reaction from the liberal media.

So does this mean that she's going to finally start keeping herself quiet, or will this harpy take the opportunity to blast everyone yet again with her opinions, and slam the newspapers that once gave her a pedestal from which to spew her vitriol? My bet rests firmly with the second option.

Wide World of Cable News

Before touching on the subject at hand, I've noticed that there have been a number of celebrity incidents over the week that made me shudder. To pass on the pain, I share them here (no, not pictures... I'm not that cruel). Britney Spears naked in Harper's Bazaar. Pam Anderson naked for PETA. Rush Limbaugh with Viagra. Star Jones appearing anywhere. Woody Allen calling Scarlett Johansson "sexually overwhelming."

Okay, that last one was a shudder simply because of Woody Allen. If it had been someone not creepy calling Scarlett "sexually overwhelming", the global response would have been along the lines of, "duh."

And now, on to the subject of this post. Last Sunday, Rep. John Murtha was (mis-)quoted in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel as saying some pretty harsh things about America. They then corrected themselves, letting people know that Murtha was quoting global opinion polls, so it's the global community, and not Murtha himself, that views America as "more dangerous to world peace than nuclear threats from North Korea or Iran." The correction was issued on Wednesday.

Well, in the fast-paced world of cable news, four days is plenty of time to take the incorrect information and blast it all over the airwaves, which talking heads at both FOXNews and MSNBC made a point of doing. In the few days that the world was running with the impression that John Murtha felt that his own nation was the largest threat to global peace, the news networks drilled that information into their viewers heads. Names were called, and Murtha was lumped up with other anti-America activists.

Since the Sun-Sentinel made their correction, one of the two news channels mentioned has issued on-air apologies, from two of their biggest personalities. On recent programs, FOXNews hosts Bill O'Reilly and Brit Hume both made the correction from the Sun-Sentinel known, and let the viewers know the details under which Murtha was actually quoted. In the meantime, Joe Scarborough and Tucker Carlson have been fairly close-mouthed on MSNBC.

This seems a little odd. Perhaps FOXNews, in an attempt to persuade people that they're "fair and balanced", has started offering programming to support that claim. Maybe MSNBC has been too concerned with the firing/cancelling/reorganization as it pertains to host Rita Cosby.

Or maybe the approval ratings for the President and his administration have finally sunk so low that we've entered into an alternate dimension, one where the name FOX becomes synonymous with accurate reporting without an obvious political bias.

Or maybe, just maybe, the events that caused me such disgust earlier this week are causing more than just me consternation, and everyone's a little off their game. We'll see how this one plays out.

Is it support?

Ann Coulter has recently been all over the television, making appearances in support of her newest book. She is someone who has furthered the partisan divide in the country with her rhetoric, and who inspires hate mail and fervent attacks from any that are opposed to her views. Truth be told, Coulter relishes the ability to inspire such hatred, standing firmly in the belief that, well, it's still publicity. And she may have found herself a strange new bedfellow in this endeavor.

NBC.

Coulter is no stranger to channels like FOXNews, networks with a blatant political slant and agenda. But she has recently appeared a few times on NBC programs, and the nature of the appearances seems a little suspect. For example, when she was on the Today Show, Matt Lauer at least called her on the carpet regarding her statements from the book "Godless", specifically her statements about the 9/11 widows who have weighed into the political arena. However, when it became blatantly obvious that Coulter was not going to actually answer his questions, but was merely set to spew more rhetoric and vitriol, it became obvious that the interview could not continue. After that sort of a reaction, and the response it provoked from viewers, that should have been the last time Coulter appeared on NBC, at least until she drastically changed her tune. After all, Michael Moore is held accountable for what he says during interviews, and, if he acts like a petulant child on television, he is treated like a petulant child.

And yet, a little over a week later, Coulter makes her triumphant return to NBC, this time on The Tonight Show, in a show that also featured George Carlin as a guest. However, instead of seeing the verbal fisticuffs one could expect from such a pairing (possibly resulting in the loss of some jaw tissue from Jay Leno), the overall confrontation was, by all accounts, incredibly bland. Bland enough that there is wonder if, perhaps, NBC told Carlin that he needed to be above and beyond his best behavior, and that he had to play nice. Given that, even with Leno at the helm, The Tonight Show can have a huge impact on what happens in someone's career, Carlin may have felt obliged to play it safe. Either that, or he was remembering the seven words you can't say on television, coupled with the increase in cost for indecency fines, and decided to simply bite his tongue for the betterment of his wallet.

As stated above, Coulter's return to NBC was triumphant, and for a couple of reasons. The first being the response she received upon being announced. This woman who inspires such hatred, and who claims to wear the "liberal's contempt like a badge of honor" is greated with typical Tonight Show exuberance, and then is set across from Leno, who is well-known for throwing nothing but Nerf balls for questions, all the while allowing the guest to talk about whatever they actually want to put before a national audience.

And this is where the question of support has to come in. Is it enough to simply state a disapproval for the words and views of someone, be it a regular network personality or a guest? Or is the simple fact of a continued access to a media outlet a silent acceptance and approval of what they say?

I'm not going to claim that Coulter doesn't have a right to say whatever she believes. After all, if she believes that angels are going to descend from heaven and save the US soccer team from World Cup elimination, she can say that all she wants. It's part of free speech, something I very adamantly support. But just because she has a right to say what she wants, that does not mean that she has the right to say it wherever she wants, or that any organization where she chooses to make her statements heard is not silently accepting and agreeing with her. Yes, I believe that Ann Coulter is a vile, hate-filled woman, who spews rhetoric and vitriol in an attempt to divide classes, political philosphies, and anything else she can get her hands on, in a simple attempt to gather more money for herself through her book sales. I also believe that, through allowing her to appear, NBC is just as subject to the hate mail that Coulter has inspired, so long as she continues to appear on their programs.

Ultimately, we can only wait until Conan takes over the Tonight Show. "In the year 2000..."

This just in...

A FOXNews correspondent connects with the rest of the world, and takes a stance that can't be immediately viewed as pro-convervativism and pro-right agendas.

In an interview being conducted by Shirley Phelps-Rogers, one of the zealots behind the Westboro Baptist Church and their crusade to protest as many funerals for soldiers as possible, under the despicable banner of "God Hates Fags", Julie Banderas of FOXNews got into a yelling argument. Ms. Banderas decided that any group that is thankful for events such as the roadside bombings of our troops in Iraq, or the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 is a group that needs people to stand up against it.

For anyone that's miraculously avoided reference to this church since it's inception, just want to throw a little out there to bring everyone up to speed. They view each and every death of an American soldier as a little blessing from God, as punishment for American's "cozying up to and protecting homosexuals". Funny, as a country that is currently pretty dead-set against allowing gays to have equal rights, it doesn't really look like we're being all that friendly. But reality and the WBC quite obviously have never met. And, while Phelps-Rogers was expounding about how the military will be "always faithful to the fags", Banderas started pointing out exactly how disgusting and depraved the message actually was. In fact, Banderas went so far as to state that the WBC was "not a real church" and that the only thing the group preaches is hatred.

It's odd to think that the network which has brought us Bill O'Reilly could also bring us someone just as willing to stand up quite so readily against groups like this. Of course, by even giving them airtime, FOXNews ran the risk of validating their message. Thank goodness that Julie Banderas threw her professionalism aside for a moment to speak her true feelings, and attack this establishment which does nothing but spread hatred and intolerance.

Maybe she's working on getting a job with MSNBC.

Missing the ball

It seems that, at least once a week, we're gift-wrapped yet another instance of lying, or at least hypocricy, from our administration. The most recent one of course revolves around recently departed Treasury Sec'y John Snow, and whether or not "curious" George knew that he was going to be leaving in advance. Now, on May 25, GDub was part of a joint press conference with PM Blair, wherein he said the following words;

No, he has not talked to me about resignation. I think he's doing a fine job. After all, our economy is -- it's strong. We grew at 3.5 percent last year; a good, strong first quarter this year. We added five -- 2.5 million new jobs, we've got 4.7 percent unemployment rate nationwide. Productivity is up, home ownership is high, small businesses are doing well. He's done a fine job.

Well, now, from that we can see that GDub knew nothing about John Snow stepping down. But let's, for just a second, look at what Press Sec'y Tony Snow(job) said during a press briefing on the 30th of May;

Yes. The tick tock is the two of them met on the 20th of May and there was a conversation. And Hank Paulson accepted the job a day later.

Um, wait a minute. Isn't it supposed to be the Press Secretary's job to cover the collective ass of the administration when they're choking on their own loafers? And didn't Tony just, instead of throwing more lies and deceit on top of the issue, inadvertently out the President as a liar? But, as it turns out, it's all okay. The only reason that GDub "misled" the public in the first place was because he was concerned how the announcement would affect the markets.

Maybe they should've looked into how yet another piece of deceit would affect the market, since there's generally at least a little reflection of public sentiment involved in how the market fares.

Fair, balanced, and soft

Just this past weekend, FOXNews had an interview between Chris Wallace and Sec'y of State Condeleeza Rice. And, in traditional fashion, the network decided to end the interview with some very hard-hitting questions. Well, not questions, so much as asking Sec'y Rice to play "Name That Tune", apparently using her own iPod to draw the source material from. To make matters worse, she was then grilled about who the members of Cream were.

Now, don't get me wrong. It's nice to see our talking heads out there reduced to the status of mere mortals. But there is a time and a place for that. While it certainly appears that the place for the current administration is in the FOXNews hotseat, the time is definitely not in the middle of some serious scandals, an unpopular war, and trying to find that one little country out in the world that won't instinctively pack up their house and move without giving us a forwarding address. Journalists are supposed to get answers to serious questions in serious time, not play a round of verbal patty-cake with them. And yet this is exactly what FOXNews and Chris Wallace did.

What's next? Are we going to see VeeP Cheney asked about his favorite films? Will Rick Santorum discuss which magazines he reads? How about getting Karl Rove to discuss the fall television line-up? While we're at it, we can get GDub to describe his favorite cartoons.

Whoa. That last one might be a little too hard hitting. Maybe GDub should just describe his favorite coloring book. If that's still too much, he can always just break it down to which crayon he thinks is the prettiest.

While we're at it, let's get entertainers to talk about foreign policy, and legislative issues. The trend is already going that direction... let's just tilt it completely over the edge. Who doesn't want to see a Campbell/Raimi '08 bumpersticker?

A is for Apple

In a world where Ann Coulter may be facing prison time (please please please), where monkeys have been found to enjoy a little alcohol after a hard day (nature vs nurture?), and where Oprah Winfrey is being lumped together with Mother Teresa (I don't remember M.T. giving away cars, although she probably would have had as much patience with Cruise-azy), do we really need a 24-hour cable channel targeted directly at babies?

This is, of course, coming hot on the heels of spirited debates as to whether or not DVDs such as the Baby Einstein series are more positive than negative during those first couple of years out of the womb. DirectTV will be carrying BabyFirstTV as of Thursday, and cable providers will be getting it down the road. While proponents of BFTV are pointing out that infants are already watching television, opponents are just as quick to point out that the television set has become a surrogate parent in far too many households as is, and that having a channel devoted to newborns is merely going to intensify this.

Let's face it. We're a nation that has been suckled on the teats of NBC, ABC, and the rest of their cronies. Given that numerous parents are being forced to work extra hours to be able to simply provide for their families, the number of children that are latch-key at best is going to keep increasing. If BFTV can actually achieve it's aim of being educational, and not just tripe like some of the other children's programming of the last decade, then it could actually have a positive impact. We are a visual society, and we learn things by watching. While television may not be the best for teaching infants when compared to quality time with their parents, it may prove to be a decent substitute.

And, with the news stories mentioned above, and the fact that millions still tune in to shows like "Survivor", "America's Next Top Model", and "American Idol", maybe we could all benefit from a little educational programming. Let's just hope that FOXNews Jr. is still a long way off.