The Art of Telling Part of the Truth

Rick Scott, a man of many controversies, is looking out for personal choice in U.S. healthcare. Then again, to Scott, personal choice is a matter of personal profit -- his own. (Image: YouTube) Scott was a healthcare executive until 2001, when he was forced out during a scandal in which his company looted money from the Medicare system. Recently, Scott released several TV commercials promoting private healthcare -- I was compelled to write about a recent spot aired by his group.

Let's be clear, Rick Scott is very much associated with the Neo-Conservative movement. He owned the Texas Rangers during the early 1990s in partnership with George W. Bush. If that doesn't convince you of his alignment, take a look at this:

There is no choice in public healthcare? The government controls life and death?I guess I missed the memo when the government told me who my doctor was going to be. I don't know about you guys, but I feel safer with the government controlling life and death than an insurance company trying to squeeze a profit.

It's shocking that this type of advertisement will convince some people that the rest of the G8 is wrong and the U.S. is right. I found that some of his other commercials sound like good-old-fashion Red baiting. Someone needs to stand up to this stupidity and put an end to the lies.
Read more...

Fox "Investigations" Strike Again

The last investigation by Fox News that I covered was the stalking of Think Progress reporter Amanda Terkel. O'Reilly summed up that stunt by placing the blame of MSNBC as the heart of evil -- naturally, this investigation went right into the heart of darkness. (Image: YouTube) The network O'Reilly hates with such a passion is a division of NBC, which is owned by General Electric (GE). At the recent GE shareholders' meeting was our good friend and stalker from the last investigation, Jesse Watters.

Here's a video from The O'Reilly Factor in which Bill introduced the work of Watters:

I want to just highlight one part of this clip (at the end):

"This is obviously a major story, when a powerful corporation, which controls a major part of the American media, may be using its power and the airwaves to influence politics in order to make money from government contracts. That kind of corruption would make Watergate look small."

While I disagree with everything said in this segment, I want to highlight those two points to address the larger issue. The first bolded segment speaks to the general hypocrisy of Fox News in this situation. Fox uses its power to influence politics in order to make money from a variety of sources. They draw a huge audience to sell to advertisers, and, of course, they all have a bit fatter of wallets when their guy wins and lowers taxes.

The second point I find more funny than anything else. I think true party-line conservatives associated with the Republican Party are still hung up on Nixon. Why? Because of this:

This graphic comes by way of RealClearPolitics. The die-hard Republicans can't accept that their golden boy was caught in his web of lies. Discussing this "evil" at MSNBC is ridiculous -- especially to compare it to the term synonymous with political corruption. What's this all about? Was it supposed to link Obama to the heart of evil? Is Fox the only news organization allowed to have an open bias? Are the rich shareholders of GE that afraid of a left slant? Do they want another Fox News? Madness.
Read more...

Limbaugh Beat By Caller On Own Show

During a recent radio show, Rush Limbaugh accepted a call from a disgruntled right-of-centre voter. Much to Limbaugh's surprise, however, the caller turned on Limbaugh, blaming him for the Republican Party's woes. (Image: The Raw Feed) The caller makes a strong argument against Limbaugh's antics, calling him a "brainwashed Nazi" for his pro-torture position. Though this quote may seem extreme, the caller justifies his opinion to Rush.

Here's an audio clip of the entire conversation between Rush and the caller who identifies himself as Charles provided by MediaMatters:

You can read a transcript at The Huffington Post.

I think this is a great example of how flat the arguments of Republicans like Rush are in a factual sense. A key moment at the end of the clip, when Limbaugh must have muted the call, was when Rush accused Charles of not being a real Republican. But who is the real Republican?

I would argue that while Rush Limbaugh represents the current state of the Republican party, he doesn't represent the original values of the party. Rush Limbaugh is part of the neo-Conservative movement -- which is responsible for turning the empowering principles of true conservatism into the twisted power-grabbing desire that defines conservatives today.

I think the caller, Charles, really handled himself well and proved his point to any receptive audience. Limbaugh could not argue substantively, so Rush attacked the caller in order to hurt his credibility. Maybe Limbaugh should read the constitution again as well as the founding platform of the Republican party. Those two things he claims to represent are far removed from his antics.
Read more...

What Does Digg Like? A Cultural Study

Digg is a huge social networking site that some claim has created a subcultural of its own. Following the model of participant observation inspired by the venture of a well-known social anthropologist, I decided to read digg and write this post. Digg's culture is certainly not without it quirks. Some would argue that Digg is nothing more than a collection of quirks. What is clear from my research is what Digg likes...

From watching the front-page for the past few days, I can tell that Digg likes:

1. Ending monarchies that are complacent in the rise of residential coyote attacks related to cooking with bacon.
2. Doing wheelies near dubai while obsessively staring into the eyes of the tumbling economy
3. Making netbooks based on Disney-cloned vampires that enjoy fast and furious web development tutorials
4. Quantum mathematics related to marijuana users on Wordpress that talk at TED in search of lithium at Microsoft
5. Switching Babies with manatees in 1957 during car crashes in Russia covered by Bush-era torture memos

I wasn't totally satisfied with this conclusion, so I decided to create a plot out of this following the model of the Tom Clancy Plot Generator using frequently appearing terms and ideas:

Under the staring eyes of baby manatees, Monarchs devise a scheme to increase coyotee attacks for ransom. The plot twists when the Monarchs threaten to blow up the Disney-cloned vampire netbooks even after their demands are met. Millions of lives are at stake unless a turncoat quantum pot-head blogging mathematician can gain the courage to do the right thing and stop the Monarchs once and for all. The movie ends with a mildly comical and ironic scene in which the Monarchs blow up or go to Dubai. Another satisfying tale of political intrigue and personal redemption closes, and we all walk away from this movie a little poorer as the market plummets.

Read more...

Media Ban on Return of Fallen Soldiers: Insult or Respect?

In many countries involved in recent wars, some have questioned whether or not the media should have access to the return of fallen soldiers to the mainland. In the United States a media ban was in effect for 18 years until the ban was lifted early this year. (Image: NY TImes blogs) In Canada, there was a short-lived ban imposed by the Conservative government in mid 2006. An outcry by the public and military along with the families of the soldiers forced the government to end the ban a month later.

As a compromise in Canada, the family must agree to allow media coverage. All next-of-kin members must make this decision unanimously. This condition also appears in the Obama decision. Before the ban in the United States was lifted, the media could not record:

• The return of the coffin
• Any ceremonies at the airbase
• And, the transportation of the coffin from the base

I personally agree with the decision to allow consensual coverage of the return. While the notion of media coverage may seem to trivialize the importance of the life of a human who went to war with the best intentions in mind, no one will view these reports as entertainment or any other type of disrespect. People want to respect and honour what the soldiers gave to their countries. They did not die because the wanted to be viewed as heroes, but, if the coverage is done right, they deserve the moment of recognition this will give them.

The first returning soldier to receive media coverage in the United States will be Air Force Staff Sergeant Phillip Myers of Hopewell, Viriginia, who died in Afghanistan on April 4th.
Read more...

Incase You Forgot What TV News Was About....

On a recent episode of the The Late Show with David Letterman, Letterman provided a recap of what was in the news. The video (below) should serve as a reminder about the quality of cable news. (Image: Huffington Post) I think the video speaks for itself, but this is especially amusing given the week of news we've had. As I said in a recent post, we're all a bit tired of it too...

Video at the Huffington Post:

Doesn't that just capture television news perfectly? I think so.
Read more...

D.L. Hughley's Show Cancelled by CNN

Now, I'm not a huge fan of Hughley or of his most antics, but I think his short-lived show on CNN was pretty good. A month ago CNN quietly announced that the show was ending and that this weekend's show would be the last episode. (Image: CNN) The show was a comedic take on daily news that featured some surprisingly frank discussions. I felt Hughley's humour wasn't the best and often didn't laugh at his attempts, but he grew into his role over the last month.

Twice on this blog I referred to D.L. Hughley Breaks the News:

• When Steele called Limbaugh on his antics during an interview
• And, when Frank Schaeffer slapped the entire conservative movement

These shows demonstrated the quality of debate Hughley was able to pull from his guests. Hughley also recently interviewed Ron Paul, a 2008 candidate for President of the United States, and had an entertaining discussion. Here's a clip from the interview that includes Hughley belittling Steele for apologizing to Limbaugh:

Hughley may not have the deepest insight into the political scene, but he provided an honest take on the news. Ultimately, I don't think CNN gave Hughley enough time to get on his feet. Ron Paul isn't my favourite political figure because I believe he's quite narrow-minded in his views, but he is very open. Hughley did a great job with this interview and it is just further evidence that Hughely was getting much better.

It's a shame Hughley is now gone from CNN's line up, but he will continue with the network as a correspondent from Los Angles. For now, I'm sure CNN is scrambling to put something else together to fill the void, but hopefully they don't give that next show the same treatment.

What's important to note here is that Hughley grew into his role only around the same time the show was cancelled. I'm really disappointed with CNN over this irresponsible decision.
Read more...

Olbermann Angered Over O'Reilly's Antics

Keith Olbermann, host of his own show on MSNBC, interviewed the victim of O'Reilly's latest attack on bloggers. As I mentioned in a recent post, Amanda Terkel of Think Progress was the recipient of a O'Reilly ambush interview while on vacation. (Image: Huffington Post) It turns out that Terkel was likely stalked for over two hours, across state lines, by O'Reilly Factor producer Jesse Watters. Watters' interview with Terkel was heavily edited to imply indifference towards rape victims.

Here is a video of the Olbermann response to O'Reilly, via MSNBC:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

I think they really covered all the bases with this interview. O'Reilly has no real response, only the same tired efforts to discredit instead of disprove. FOX has so little credibility with people outside of it's base, but it's base is so big. I think FOX has more responsibility that it often is required to live up to. Unfortunately it's too late to do anything about it in U.S. media regulation. However, this type of behaviour by O'Reilly is slanderous and should be prosecuted.
Read more...

CBC Mini-Series Blames Death of Old Media on Internet

Well, as big of a role as the Internet may have on the death of traditional media, there’s more to it. Newspaper, Radio, and Television coexisted for nearly a century despite being introduced as replacements. (Image: CBC) So why is it that the Internet is suddenly destroying the traditional media? Why are publishers stopping the presses or radio stations consolidating? It is the promise of the Internet that caused these things, not the medium itself.

The promise of the Internet is interactivity; we have control as users. We’ve made the shift from passive consumers to active creators. Something newspaper, radio, and television cannot provide at the same level as the Internet. Below are responses to each segment in the series:

The End of Radio

Click Here To View This Episode

The focus of this episode is on the ability of a user to pick what they want to hear. User selection is an important shift enabled by the Internet, but it is not a shift in the industry. More content is exposed, but profitability is still key. Podcasts let people share their thoughts to many, listen when and how you want, and reach more people, but it’s still the same model. Satellite or Internet broadcasting is growing, staying, but is not a revolution.

The End of Television

Click Here To View This Episode

Television continuing in a new form is what CBC should hope for as a broadcaster. TV was linear, but is now showing up on more and more devices however and whenever you want. Video blogs do not replace this medium; for them to match the production and content creation levels of television, the same bureaucracy would need to be recreated.

Portable devices can show both professional content and amateur content. The Internet enables this equality and opportunity; it doesn’t mean the end of big media. There's a shift in delivery, not in the inevitability of big players coming into existence.

The End of Print

Click Here To View This Episode

Print is dying, CBC would have us understand, because of blogging growth. Regular people’s blogs are becoming self-sustained small-businesses -- that is definitely a fact. The consensus of the interviews is that the gatekeeper is removed, resulting in a more active democracy. CBC’s failure to focus on this interactivity damages the overall discussion.

Journalists interviewed in the episode reject the power of bloggers; claiming they lack credibility. What they have that these journalists don’t is the collective intelligence. Margaret Atwood claims there is a physical connection to books; they are convenient and real. These are the sentiments of past generations. The Internet may only access 5% of the world’s knowledge, but how much does a book access? How much does a library? The Internet is growing and expanding; it is ahead now and will always be ahead.

Audio, Video, and Text are here to stay. Devices change and evolve. Technological advances consolidate many access methods into few, but that doesn’t change the structure of the system. Big media exists because popularity happens; because there is money to be made. CBC may be right that paper, television sets, and radio receivers are on their way out, but the industry isn’t. Integration and consolidation is the future.
Read more...

Fox Says Obama Administration Worse Than Madoff

Bernie Madoff is the recently convicted man behind the largest ponzi scheme in history. A ponzi scheme, practically a pyramid scheme, claims to be an investment, but pays returns to its investors with the money of other investors. (Image: DailyKos) Basically, what this means is that some scammer pretends to be investing money in the market, but is really just taking the money for their own use. Madoff got away with his scheme for decades -- robbing thousands of investors of billions.

So, what has the Obama administration done to be compared to Bernie Madoff's scam? Well, according to Fox the bailouts are equally big schemes aimed at ruining the lives of many. Check out this video posted on DailyKos:

If this isn't yellow journalism, I don't know what is. How do you feel about this? Outraged? Annoyed? Or maybe you're like me and are just getting sick of Fox pretending to be a news organization. If this is how the Conservative movement continues to answer the positive message that Obama carried to victory, they'll be in for a shock the next election.
Read more...

Palin Annoyed With Facts

Sarah Palin, the Governor of Alaska, dispatched her top communication aide to confront ABC News over their factual reporting. What did they report that had Governor Palin feeling "injured" -- as her communication director insisted? (Image: Huffington Post) Well, as I explained in my recent post on the top 5 earmarkers, the earmark debacle is not a purely Democratic or Republican problem. Palin is among the many Republicans who seek earmarks; ABC's report on her earmarking ways left her very concerned.

It's really something how aggressively ABC's Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper was in responding to the concerns of Palin's camp. In his article, Tapper chronicles his communication with the Governor of Alaska's director of communication, Bill McAllister. Tapper's blog-style entry discusses the defense offered by the Palin camp, claiming that the Governor had reduced earmarks between 2008 and 2009 from $256 million to $197 million.

Tapper spares no chance to take jabs at Palin throughout the post, making fun of many of her comments on the campaign trail. He claims that regardless of her supposed fisca conservatism l -- since she's reduced earmarks -- she is not. The fact that she takes any, Tapper insists, opposed to Senator McCain who requests none, makes it clear that she is hardly a real fiscal conservative.

The push-back from a media outlet is nice to see. Check out the entry and let me know what you think.
Read more...

CNN Adopting More Substantive Style?

There has always been a clear difference I noticed when watching partisan interviews on Canadian news in comparison to American news. While American stations like CNN focus on big, loud debates with many personalties, Canadian news often has individual guests on one after another. (Image: CNN) However, this might be changing. When watching CNN over the past few weeks, I noticed a growing trend on its shows to feature more one-on-one interviews compared to panel discussions with four or more people. So what does this change mean?

Simply speaking, I believe that this offers a more bipartisan format (assuming one group doesn't always receive the rebuttal slot). Why is it more bipartisan without a back-and-forth discussion? More often than not, panel discussions become an opportunity to yell talking points in response to a comment rather than develop ideas.

By focusing on panel discussions, CNN has historically gone for the entertainment value they provide. It also allows the network to push many big names onto the screen at once. One-on-one interviews allow the interviewees to say their side of an issue uninterrupted. This style has been a long-standing feature of many CBC broadcasts, especially shows like Politics with Don Newman.

CNN adopting this style means there could very well be less shouting matches and more discussion as a result. If the host of the show plays a fair and balanced role in the interview, the viewer will benefit by seeing constructive discussion and each side of the issue without yelling. Just in case you aren't familiar with the styles, I've included screenshots of each. What do you prefer?

Panel Style (Source):

One-on-One Style (Source):

Read more...

Limbaugh: Popularity Up, Classiness Down

I really didn't want to write about Rush Limbaugh again so soon, but I missed something he did this Friday that is too insulting to not bring up. It seems most of the media missed this, as the first I heard of it was on Huffington Post today. (Image: Wikipedia) On his show, Rush was criticizing the Obama health care plan and got on the topic of the ailing champion of the health care reform movement, Senator Ted Kennedy. Limbaugh made light of the bill, stating that "[by the time it passes], it will be called the Ted Kennedy Memorial Health Care Bill."

Here is an audio clip of the comment via Media Matters:

This comment about Kennedy really is tasteless. Senator Kennedy is among the most respected Democrats in congress and is fighting cancer which caused a nearly fatal brain tumor in the past year. Limbaugh has no respect or regard for anyone but himself -- personifying the Republican brand. If anything this is icing on the cake as to what's wrong with the Republican party. When a man who says things like this is your de-facto leader, that speaks volumes.

In case anyone needs a refresher about Limbaugh, here's an article via the Huffington Post that highlights some of Rush's worst comments including:

• Calling Abu Ghraib abuse an "emotional release"


• Saying America should ship its stupid jobs to Mexico


• Explaining women were "doing quite well in this country before feminism"


• Saying the NFL looks like continuous "game between the Bloods and the Crips"

Go away, Rush.
Read more...

Diving into Web 2.0

Recently I watched a video by anthropologist Michael Wesch, which discusses YouTube as a cultural phenomenon. Is YouTube part of a surge of democratic media or a wasteland of disorder? That is the question. (Image: YouTube) The video by Michael Wesch is a relatively simple capture from a live presentation at the Library of Congress. However, the fact that we can access this video speaks to the power of YouTube as a platform. Before YouTube, finding a video of a specific presentation would have been nearly impossible. Now almost everything is on YouTube or similar services.

The most important point to take from the discussion of YouTube as a cultural item is that it depends on its users to create and (sometimes) filter content. Wesch describes in detail how social sites like Digg and Delicious represent a new level of user control over their portal to the internet. Digg displays user-filtering, while Delicious shows user-organization. Both of these functions work to create a communal browsing experience that depends on users not just for content, like YouTube, but also to define the collective browsing experience.

The Internet user-generated movement has outpaced growth of any other movement; dwarfing the amount of TV content produced by networks over their entire life. In some ways it seems like we isolate ourselves more and more behind screens, but, as Wesch points out, there is a type of networked individualism that emerges. We are creating an individual experience, but we share it and take-in the experiences of others.

The YouTube culture is one of paradoxes. We are isolated, yet part of a community. We are talking to no one, but talking to everyone. We "pirate" content, yet create new things. Our individual experiences turn into collectively embraced internet phenomena. Everyone has an identity, but it might not be rooted in reality. These uncertainties make YouTube a cultural community that serves a different purpose to all of its participants. With either serious or playful motives, everyone seems to enjoy YouTube.

Here's his video for anyone interested:

Read more...

CBC Floats Over Details

It is interesting to me that a public media outlet such as the CBC would downplay a left-wing concern that even Drudge put on his front page. Is the CBC being neutral or being sloppy? (Image: CNN) Hilary Clinton, Obama's Secretary of State, has been visiting Chinese officials this past week. Instead of focusing on a controversial remark that has many bloggers frustrated and concerned, CBC decided to stay positive.

During the trip to China, Clinton made the controversial remark that the economic situation takes precedence over humanitarian concerns. This comment was not in the headline of the CBC article, as it was with many other mainstream versions of the news.

The concerns are being relayed in the mainstream press, except CBC's that report placed the controversy low in the inverted pyramid. The AFP wire story was headlined "Activists 'shocked' at Clinton stance on China rights" in comparison. Why did CBC do this?

To me, this statement by Clinton should raise alarm bells for anyone acting in the public interest. How could it not be a concern, as explained by many responses to the news, that this stance will allow China to feel less pressure in future dealings? CBC did not act in the public interest in this article.

Some may not be surprised by this failure by CBC, but as someone who has had some respect for its work, I am a bit concerned by it. Some might not even see this as a failure, but I can't agree with that stance. The structure of the CBC article downplays the importance of this development. Even if there is significant information and background it is after the proverbial fold.

It baffles me that the CBC would publish such an article. With such an important issue of public interest at stake, the public media failed to act in a way in line with its "not-for-profit" goals.
Read more...

So, is it Really Just a Popularity Contest?

Following up on my wishful thinking on the student government elections at Western and my annoyed rant at partisan thinking, I got to thinking about the system in general. Is it really possible for politics to be anything but a popularity contest? (Image: The Huffington Post) If the answer is yes, how can anything ever get done without trying to win over or trick the public? What would make democracy not merely a popularity contest? Would it be viable? It really does open a can of worms to ask these questions.

I would take the position of many scholars who study the effects of media on democracy regarding the question of how there can be democracy in today's society. Simply put, this argument is that the voting public needs to be educated about the issues. The problem becomes that the educator in society on such issues is the media, which undoubtably has a bias.

Some believe that the Internet is a solution to the issue of bias because balance will result from the combination of many ideas and contributors. The general idea of this theory makes sense. There are problems, as I mentioned in an earlier post, due to an echo-chamber effect forming isolated groups of readers. In my opinion, the onus is on the citizen to break from these groups and educate themselves about all sides of the issue.

In democracy I believe the responsibility is in the hands of the citizen when all the tools exists because it would be undemocratic to force breadth on someone. They need to actively choose to venture onto other sites and seek out other opinions. Whether they do it to reinforce their own view or with a genuinely open mind doesn't matter. What matters is that they pay enough attention to be an informed voter.

If the information isn't available, the citizen is responsible to demand it. In this day of convoluted government and a mediating press, the citizen needs to be made aware that they are who the government answers to. They have a right to know and need to make themselves informed. The viability of a system of informed votes is driven by citizens. If they want their elections to be any more than popularity contests they need to step up.
Read more...