FOX News: Number one in America's heart

I read something today that made me shake my head (taken from www.mediabistro.com)

"For the 77th consecutive month, Fox News Channel [FNC] finished first in total day and prime time ratings during May. FNC was the sixth highest rated cable network on all of basic cable during prime time for the month (CNN and MSNBC finished 19th and 26th) and the seventh rated network in total day (CNN and MSNBC were 19th and 27th).
FNC also had 11 out of the top 13 programs in cable during the month in Total Viewers. The O'Reilly Factor was the #1 program in cable news for the 90th consecutive month, and saw gains in Total Viewers year-to-year (26%).
America's Newsroom (9-11amET) was up 30% year-to-year, with the program averaging more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined during the time period. Meanwhile, On the Record with Greta Van Susteren has been #1 for 73 consecutive months in Total Viewers while Hannity & Colmes has been #1 in its timeslot for 54 consecutive months."

As a news professional, this makes me look at my viewing audience a little differently. If I were to go by these figures, and determine the mindset and makeup of my audience based on their preference for a network that fails to meet its own "Fair and Balanced" declaration. The mindset of this audience is that:
-America is right. 24/7, 365 days a year, including holidays.
-White people aren't to blame for anything; in fact, they are the only ones that matter. Look at the largely Caucasian staff of Fox's talking head staff, and see if you can draw a different conclusion.
-We're out for blood, and we aren't ashamed of it.
-The weapons of mass destruction are still out there. Somewhere.
-'Osama' and 'Obama' are really the same person.

Need more ammunition for that last one? Well, I've got that. During a live interview May 25, FOX contributor Liz Trotta not only "make the mistake" of calling Obama "Osama," she took the job one step further.
Trotta: "And now, we are having what some are reading are a suggestion that somebody knock off Osama, umm, uhh, Obama."
Hemmer (FOX newscaster): "Obama?"
Trotta: "Well, both, if we could." (Laughs gleefully).
Hemmer: (mumbles) "Well, talk about how you really feel."

This is what passes for news on America's top rated "news" channel? This is the sort of "Fair and balanced" coverage that some people actually ingest as their sole source of news nutrition? Rupert Murdoch isn't about improving the quality of journalism; he's about adding to his media empire, already worth billions, and spreading his own Republican views all over it. it's no accident that FOX is this way; judge the rest of the body from the head of the snake. It would be one thing for FOX News to display this sort of blatant partisanship under an admitted conservative banner; newspapers in England and Europe have been doing this for years. But hiding behind "We report, you decide?" Come on! How dumb do you think we are? By the time something has been reported on your channel, it's no issue of deciding - your own internal machinery is quite capable of passing judgment by the time a report hits the viewer's retina.
It's bad enough that such a station even exists; it's worse when it tows the line from a White House that has led the country into two wars with no foreseeable end, a justice department that plays by its own rules, a population seeking relief from high energy prices and finding no support at the top (Come on, George, why should the Saudis help us? We're putting their great-great-great-great-great grandchildren through college), a tarnished image around the world, and an unspoken fear of a future that, before 9/11, seemed bright. I don't know about you, but I'd like to have my country back, please. While all news organizations are guilty of their failures in vetting the White House's spin leading up to the Iraq War, at least some of them (NBC, CNN) have tried to make up for this by having coverage that is more skeptical/critical of what the powers-that-be-are saying. For an example, look at all of the news that came about about government incompetence at all levels when it came to Hurricane Katrina.
If FOX wants to be a Washington mouthpiece for a conservative agenda, that is their business. I just wish they'd be honest about it and not pretend to be anything else.

P.s. - And a final reply to those survey results and bumper stickers that suggest one can live guilt-free as a conservative? That's great - but the reason the rest of us are feeling guilty is because we still have a conscience.

Historical fact-fudging

Today, I caught a slight re-write of history. It was so small most people won’t catch it, but I sure did, which earns me my gold star for the day. Earlier today, President Bush made comments basically inferring that Barack Obama would be an appeaser. I found the quote at www.HuffingtonPost.com.
“Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," said Bush, in what White House aides privately acknowledged was a reference to calls by Obama and other Democrats for the U.S. president to sit down for talks with leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.”
Presidential hopefully John McCain was quick to jump on the bandwagon and support Bush’s remarks – and this is where the red flags go up.
“Yes, there have been appeasers in the past, and the president is exactly right, and one of them is Neville Chamberlain,'' Mr. McCain told reporters on his campaign bus after a speech in Columbus, Ohio. "I believe that it's not an accident that our hostages came home from Iran when President Reagan was president of the United States. He didn't sit down in a negotiation with the religious extremists in Iran, he made it very clear that those hostages were coming home.”
When I did some research on this, I found that Mr. McCain overstated Mr. Reagan’s role. According to my research, the prisoners were released after the U.S. and Iran signed the Algiers Accords Jan. 19. 1981. The chief U.S. negotiator on this was Defense Secretary Warren Christopher – who, as a member of the Carter Administration, served until Jan. 20, 1981 – the day Reagan took office.
I’m sorry Mr. McCain, but what did Ronald Reagan have to do with releasing the hostages? If anything, it would appear that negotiation succeeded here where armed resistance (namely the ill-fated April 1980 Eagle Claw rescue operation) failed. McCain is partially right in one of his statements: Reagan didn’t sit down and negotiate with religious terrorists. He didn’t do this mainly because he was not even president at the time. The 53 U.S. prisoners were returned after 444 days of captivity minutes before Reagan was sworn in as the new president. It doesn’t take a genius to imagine that this was done to make former President Jimmy Carter look bad. I would say that to a large extent, it worked.
I think this is another example of I’ve come to call the “Reagan Halo Effect.” He wasn’t directly responsible for the release of these prisoners, as John McCain said. Nor was he solely responsible for ending the Cold War. He worked towards the aim, true – but it’s unfair to every president since Truman to believe that it was a sole Reagan effort.
I was able to throw all of this together after 10 minutes of research on the Internet. Now, I don’t know anyone who can track everything that a political candidate says and verify it for accuracy, but in this case, the facts plainly speak different than Mr. McCain’s statement. It makes me wonder what else we might be missing.

Moments of glory, made for the big screen

One man’s trash is another man’s genre.
I love movie soundtracks. They are the product between a fine balance of classical music and pop accessibility. Most of the time, the music produced for movies is as forgettable as the previews that sometimes run before the movie itself, but on rare occasions, the music produced for a movie is good enough to take on a life of its own. The “Indiana Jones” theme and the “duuuuu-DUM” motif from “Jaws” come to mind. When properly done, a soundtrack not only scores a movie, but enhances it. There are scenes in movie history that would be less without the music that makes them – like the scene I am about to reference from “Apollo 13.”
When the signal is given that the mission is “Go for launch,” James Horner’s score starts with a horn motif underscored with an insistent-yet-purposeful synthesizer baseline. Horner is an interesting composer in this way, because he can use a synthesizer in a way that does not detract from the classical musicians working on the rest of the piece. His score for “Titanic,” which sold millions of copies, is proof of this. In “Apollo 13,” the music builds until the astronauts step onto the gantry leading to their capsule, and the music bursts forth in a triumphant brass explosion that somehow combines heroics with the tension and adventure of the situation. It sounds, in short, like the kind of music that would play if God were to ascend from a cloud to the Earth. The film perfectly couples this music with little details that underscore the sheer heroics of the situation: the astronauts are embarking on a voyage that could well be the pinnacle of their career (and lives), and are dappled with CG-sunshine as they move their bulky, suited selves from the gantry to the capsule.
This scene and the music in it resonated with me so much that I wanted to become an astronaut in high school. I wanted to taste that pinnacle of success. I wanted to be brave, and have talented composers write stirring music for my adventures. I wanted to be an astronaut not because I wanted to go into space – I wanted to be an astronaut they way they were portrayed in “Apollo 13.” This is the effect that a good soundtrack can have. As I was exercising and listening to the “Apollo 13” music yesterday, I felt emboldened, and full of pride to the point of bursting. I wasn’t merely exercising – I was voyaging bravely into the unknown realms of my own tolerance and discipline. This piece of music moved me to tears (as it sometimes does), as if the heavens were blessing my pursuit of fitness. In short, I wasn’t getting on to a spaceship, but the soundtrack behind my efforts made it seem so.
Soundtracks are often (sometimes rightly) thought of as a throwaway accessory to the movie they are made for. In many cases, this is a true statement: how many times have I seen copies of the “Varsity Blues” and “Last Action Hero” soundtracks at thrift stores? Most of these work belong in the very places they are found, but some composers consistently rise above the pack with works that not only stir the emotions, but stand as works of their own. John Williams, James Horner, Hans Zimmer, Jerry Goldsmith – the list pretty much ends here. It’s a specialized field, and in it, these men have perfected the art of making a good film score. In high school, Williams’ work with the “Star Wars” trilogy was able to open my mind to classical music. Much of his work incorporates classical elements (like using a motif that plays each time a character is on the screen) in a way that is easy and digestible at the same time. In a way, he prepared me for bigger musical adventures.
It’s easy to think of soundtracks as a dorky sort of genre. However, despite this handicap, they can sometimes move the human spirit in ways their creators might never have imagined.

Slow and steady wins the race

I’ve been driving so slow lately that even old people pass me and shake their heads.
I’m not kidding. This actually happened today while I was driving on Interstate 35 through Burnsville. I was puttering along at 55 in a 65 zone and a gold Buick pulled up behind my bumper. I knew the driver was older because he was wearing those huge blocky black sunglasses that senior citizens often seem to sport behind the wheel. They are like welding goggles without any welding to justify them. The Buick sat behind me for about 10 seconds, then flipped on its blinker and took 15 seconds to change lanes. Then, it passed me at a snail’s pace. I caught the driver’s head shaking, and could almost read his mind.
Slower than me? Jesus!
I’m not driving slow to tick people off – I’m driving slowly because I’m trying to conserve the precious gas that makes my job possible. I got the idea while reading a news story last week about an airline saving $13 million a week in fuel costs by slowing down its jets. The five-hour flight was eight minutes longer as a result, but the savings seem to justify that. I’m don’t fly a jet, but my car uses a full tank of gas (14 gallons) a week, and I drive to and from Lakeville a few times a week. Sometimes, it’s twice on the same day (as it will be later today, when I head down there for a City Council meeting). With gas at well over $3 a gallon, my pitiful journalist’s wage doesn’t last very long when I have to put nearly $50 worth of gas in the car a week. So, in the interests of making that fuel last a little while longer, I’ve decided to slow down.
The results have so far been remarkable. My vehicle topped out at 375 miles to the tank this week compared to it’s usual 330. This averages out to 26.7 miles per gallon compared to 23.5 miles per gallon. That will add up over time. Most people don’t seem to take much notice of my stingy rebellion; most are too busy blowing by me going 15 miles faster than I. I content myself by thinking that they are burning up their precious fuel to no end. I’m reminded of one of Robert Shaw’s lines in the movie The Battle of the Bulge: “Petrol is blood!”
He’s right. American life as we know it thrives off of the ability to jump in the car and travel however far or fast one wishes. Our underdeveloped (in comparison to Europe) mass transit system is a testament to this. We’ve known since the early 1970s how unreliable the international fuel market can be; yet we continued on a petrol-based system anyway. I wonder how much farther ahead we’d be if research on alternative energy has begun back then. Now, we’re between a rock and a hard place. Personally, my company pays $0.22 a mile in work-related trips. For a 50-mile trip, that ends up being $11. It sounds like a lot, but factor in the wear and tear on the car along with that, and it’s not going very far. I’ll put it this way: the IRS guideline is for a $0.475 reimbursement rate. With prices going up the way they are, it won’t be long before people like me might be paying more into their tank then they end up getting out of it on payday.
I wonder how much farther it can do. How long will it be before industries (like trucking) start to shudder to a halt due to prohibitive costs? Until then, I’ll keep going as best I can – and as slow as I can. After all, petrol is blood.

Pastor Wright and 9/11

Barack Obama's pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, has come under recent fire for speaking opinions many find offense. One of these quotes has particularly infuriated commentators around the county. It's about about 9/11, from a speech five days after the event on Sept. 16, 2001: "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."
I can see why, on one hand, people would be offended by this. Sept. 11 has always been a very personal event for my family, as we lost someone we loved in Tower 2. However, I think the moral hand wringing on what he's actually saying is perhaps overblown. It is, after all, one man's opinion. As much as the thought is difficult to accept, the United States has been involved in many other countries affairs since the end of World War II. Installing the Shah in Iran after a CIA backed coup in 1953 is one example. The Bay of Pigs Invasion is another. In short, we've been active on the world stage in one way or another since we've had the power to do so. It is simply what superpowers do; the Soviets did the same thing while they were able. In the process, we've created enemies - enemies who have long memories.
The events of 9/11 weren't the first attack on the United States by terrorists; they weren't even the first on U.S. soil. In February 1993, the World Trade Center was struck by a truck bomb, killing six and injuring hundreds. In 1996, the Khobar Towers apartment complex was bombed in Saudi Arabia, and more than 20 American servicemen and women were killed. In June 1998, two U.S. embassies in Kenya and Nairobi were bombed. In 2000, the USS Cole was bombed in Yemen, killing 17 sailors. Osama bin Laden was around before 9/11, but after that day, he was impossible to miss. My point is this: terrorism has been a gathering storm for years. It's not limited to America, either. Just ask the British about that.
I think Americans sometimes have a short memory when it comes to world affairs. It was easy for many people to think 9/11 was a random attack that had come out of nowhere. I've cried bitter tears over that day - and this column is in no was any sign of affirmation for those horrible attacks or the tremendous amount of pain they caused. However, it would be foolish to think that America hadn't made enemies after 50-plus years of activity on the world stage. It would also be foolish to think there aren't those who wouldn't hesitate to attack us if the opportunity arose. On 9/11, we were reminded that, despite our superpower status, we were vulnerable to those enemies.
The attacks in 1993 on the World Trade Center should have opened our eyes that the landmark was a target. Terrorists can be persistent enemies, and, having failed once, it was perhaps inevitable that another group would try again. It was simply too good a symbolic target to not strike. So, plan they did, and when the second time came, the attack succeeded. Only then did many people seem to grasp that we were indeed hated in some parts of the world. The fear was a reaction that seemed to pass over us in 1993, but in 2001, it changed everything. That sense of fear has ended up changing the world, and history will be the true judge of its outcome.
So, Wright's message may be inflammatory to people, but there is also a kernel of truth in it. That, more than anything else, might be a reason why people have responded so poorly to this particular statement of his.

My guilty pleasure...

I have a secret – (well, for the next second before you read this next sentence): I really, really enjoy reading slutty celebrity tabloids.
I’m not entirely sure how the fixation started. Make no mistake, the fault is mine. No one forced me into my addiction. I went willingly. When I was younger, my favorite part of any grocery store trip was reading the Weekly World News, a publication (now online-only) so impossibly fake that it came back around the curve as absolute truth. Years later, I would wonder which is worse: a newspaper that claims to be true all the time, or a publication that makes no claims to truth or ay standard whatsoever? Which product is more reliably accurate (according to its own (non?) standards of quality?
Eventually, the urge to read WWN changed with my developing (questionable) taste. It wasn’t enough to read about Bat Boy meeting with Clinton after aliens knocked up Hillary. Now, I wanted flesh-and-blood fiction. I wanted celebrity trash – the smuttier, the better.
In a way, magazines like OK! And Star are really nothing more than pornography for the mind. They provide stimulation for release and are just as quickly forgotten once the deed is done. Unlike a regular news magazine, there isn’t any cruciality to the stories contained in a celebrity rag. This is attractive for many people I know, simply because the vast majority comes home at the end of the day too exhausted to care whether or not the Israelis and Palestinians have made any progress, or what Barack is saying about Hillary this week. It’s far easier to flip open a magazine with a three-page photo pictorial about alleged baby bumps in Hollywood, or speculations (from doctors who haven’t treated the people they are talking about) about who has had plastic surgery and where.
Like real pornography, the fascination with these distractions eventually loses its luster. There simply comes a time when you’ve seen one too many stories about celebrity meltdowns, and the information simply fails to register or, at the least, entertain. I’d reached this point with celebrity “journalism.” While I will still gladly read whatever I can get my hands on, I find I don’t look forward to it the way I used to look forward to my other addictions of choice (cigarettes, gummy bears, fill in the blank). Now, my cravings only come around to be temporarily solved before returning a few days later. I’ve found that reading tabloids can be like that old quote from one of the guys from Crosby, Stills and Nash: It’s like checking into a hotel that you can check out of any time but never really leave.
When I was reading about Nazis, dictators, war and general bad human behavior all of the time, tabloids presented an alternative counterweight to the utter seriousness of the kinds of things I was filling my head with (a picture of a severed head in a concentration camp bonfire comes to mind). With my reading levels on the decline after starting in a career field and getting married, the counterweight has swung in the opposite direction. The heavy stuff has gone out the window (mostly) simply because it takes too much effort after working on a newspaper all day. Instead, the tabloids have become the heavy weight on the end of the scale, which is now lopsided due to one side being completely empty.
I am the weary addict; I can check in to TMZ.com and the Daily Mail at any time, but I can never really leave. Despite my relative shame over the fact, completely useless information pushes some button deep within my soul.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to finish reading “Driver fined for playing ‘Riverdance’ too loudly wins four-year legal battle.” Bliss.