I'm Glad Brian Williams Will Be Back on Television

That's right, I'm glad Brian Williams will be back on MSNBC, where he started, rather than being exiled from news reporting and anchoring forever.

I get that he did something wrong in his braggadocio misremembering of several news events of which he was not a part.  But that wasn't as bad, as, say, the racist comments made by Imus on the radio a decade ago, or even Dan Rather's misreporting of the George W. Bush evasion-of-the-draft story, if indeed that was misreporting.  But Brian Williams' exaggerations were not a misreporting of a news story, just of his own direct involvement in it.  And although people who tell us the news should be held to a higher standard of truth-telling than the average person, it's worth noting that exaggerations of personal experiences are as common as saying you loved a popular movie when you slept through it, as in fact at least one famous movie critic was reported as frequently having done.

As for MSNBC, they can use all the help they can get.  Despite their highly intelligent and articulate anchors - especially in the evening - they've been consistently in last place in the Fox, CNN, MSNBC lineup for a while now.  They were outrightly dumb to get rid of Keith Olbermann, the most energetic, iconoclastic person ever on their air.  And the tick-like constant reference to their "Pulse" statistics - to show what their viewers are thinking - is a drag on more than one of their shows.   But whatever its problem, MSNBC will be well-served with Brian Williams and his sage, incisive, sometimes satirical analysis -- especially with the 2016 Presidential campaign already in gear, and William's astute political sense.

Rachel Maddow, the best person on MSNBC and for that matter on any news network, last night took a point of personal privilege and said how happy she was that Brian Williams was returning and being given a second chance.  I couldn't agree more. Now, if MSNBC got back Olbermann, I'd bet at least even money that they'd overtake at least CNN once again,

NYC Police Disgrace Themselves in Brutal Treatment of Wall Street Protesters

I've lived in New York City all of my life, and have never been a big fan of our police.  As a teenager, I was roughed up by cops in their search for fire crackers. I saw them point blank attack protesters in the Vietnam War era.  I've heard first hand, from friends I believe,  about police double-standard treatment of African-Americans.   And their shooting to death of Amadou Diallo who was unarmed, and their sodomizing of Abner Louima (two separate incidents), were beyond horrendous.

But they've reached a new low in mass, continuing violation of human beings and human rights in their response to the Occupy Wall Street protesters.  These are not isolated cases of cops gone crazy.   The tear-gassing of people behind barricades, the throwing to the ground of protesters who have no weapons and pose no threat, is a systematic, widespread attack on human decency, the First Amendment and its guarantee of peaceful assembly, as well as on the bodies and spirits of protesters expressing their non-violent opinion.  (See videos here.)

Police Commissioner Kelly justifiably takes great pride in how well the NYPD have defended New Yorkers from terrorist attacks.   He should also take pride in, or at very least insist upon, the NYPD defending and protecting the rights of New Yorkers and any one who visits our city to express their opinions.

Based on what has happened so far, Kelly obviously does not.  Mayor Bloomberg should replace him with someone who can grasp the difference between a criminal and a peaceful protester, between throwing a protester violently to the ground versus firmly escorting the protester off unlawfully occupied premises.

Social media - or, what I call new new media - are empowering people not only in the Middle East, but all over the world, including here in America.  We have a right to express our critique of Wall Street and the sad pass in the economy - the financial disaster - Wall Street moguls have brought us to.

Mayors would be wise to respect this and restrain out-of-control police, lest the voters boot them out of office in the next election.  And the Federal government would be wise to do something constructive, and bring any police officer who violates the rights of protesters up on charges.

And mainstream news media - I'm talking to you, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC - what is taking you so long to catch up with the sustained coverage Keith Olbermann has been giving this spectacle of police misconduct on his Countdown show on Current TV?



Occupy Wall Street Chronicles, Part 1

MSNBC Up to Its Old Tricks: Fires Cenk Uygur

The news broke this past week that Cenk Uygur was going the way of Keith Olbermann, at least insofar as being shown the door at MSNBC.   Al Sharpton is now on in Uygur's 6 pm hour, and is said to be Uygur's likely permanent replacement.

I like Sharpton, but am once again dismayed at the short shrift MSNBC gives to its hard-working, passionate anchors.   Uygur, though sharing a strong progressive perspective with Olbermann (which I generally share as well) actually ran a show which had little in common with Countdown on MSNBC.   Uygur happily interrogated Republicans (Olbermann by and large only had guests who agreed with him) and dished out plainspoken logic in contrast to Olbermann's often florid hyperbole.

But what both also had in common was a stubborn, refreshing insistence on calling events and issues as they see them, including criticizing the President, even though he's obviously part of the party the two usually support.   And this, apparently, was too much too much for the frightened, shallow people who call the shots at MSNBC.

But that's ok.  We now have Olbermann on Current TV, and Uygur will no doubt show up there or somewhere else, and if Current TV would only get itself into a few more cable lineups, there would be even less reason to watch MSNBC than there is now.

Keith Olbermann back on Countdown - Now on Current TV

Great to see Keith Olbermann back on Countdown - on Current TV.  Agree or not with his views and stylings, his return proves that a spineless, often brainless network - in this case, MSNBC - does not necessarily get the last word, when it tires for whatever reasons of its vibrant, provocative talent.

To the content of tonight's Countdown -

• Excellent discussion of the unconstitutionality of our war in Libya, with Michael Moore. I agree completely that the pursuit of this military action - or war - without  Congressional approval (not to mention Declaration of War) is one of the most disheartening, dangerous activities of the Obama administration.
• John Dean talking about the Supreme Court decision - 5-4 - upholding Walmart.  I agree that this was a bad decision.  But, unlike Olbermann and Dean, I don't think everything this court has done regarding corporations is bad.  For example, I agree with the Court that corporations are entitled to all the protections of the First Amendment - speech is speech, and government should steer clear of regulating it.
• "Time Marches On" - replacement segment for "Oddball" on the original Countdown, the title of which was a take-off on Chris Matthews' "Hardball" on MSNBC.   The new version with the new title is as funny as the original - meaning, evoking smiles to occasional chuckles and sometimes more.
• Good expose with Politico's Ken Vogel about conservative radio talkshow hosts promoting political positions for advertising revenue on their shows.  (But Keith, this compares to payola in 1950s radio in no significant way - payola was a classic victimless "crime," and its prosecution by the Feds was motivated by a discomfort with rock 'n' roll.)
• Good "Worst Persons in the World" - my favorite was the runner-up, in which Fox edited out Jon Stewart's mention of Fox exec Bill Sammon giving ideological "marching orders" to news commentators (from Chris Wallace's Sunday show).
• Bombshell closer with Markos Moulitsas - founder and publisher of the Daily Kos - in which he explains his absence from MSNBC for more than a year: he antagonized morning anchor Joe Scarborough, who pressured MSNBC to keep Moulitsas off Olbermann's and every other evening show on MSNBC.  If true, MSNBC is even lamer than I thought, and owes its viewers and Moulitsas an apology.

Hey, I rarely if ever review cable news shows as such, so don't expect many more posts like this, for the new Countdown or any other news shows.  But I expect to keep watching it - as well as, yes, MSNBC - and I'm certainly glad that the progressive voice has a new, additional home.  Our democracy is best served by as many progressive, conservative, and in-between voices on the air as possible.

Looking Forward to Olbermann's Return to Countdown on Al Gore's Current TV

Great interview with Keith Olbermann posted in Rolling Stone a few days ago.

As I've written here often over the years, I was no constant fan of Olbermann on MSNBC.  I often found him abrasive, over the top, even trivial (for example, in his critique of 24 as Bush-driven, and in his incessant lampooning of Bill O'Reilly).  But I also found him refreshing, surprising, original, and, at his best, a most needed passionate voice for the progressive point of view.   As he says in the Rolling Stone interview, Olbermann was responsible for putting MSNBC on the map as the progressive counterpoint to Fox's conservativism.

I was therefore not happy when Olbermann was suddenly shown the door at MSNBC earlier this year, by the same or equivalent tone-deaf corporate execs he had dragged kicking and screaming into relevance and eloquence.   And I'm therefore eagerly awaiting Olbermann's return to Countdown on Al Gore's Current TV on June 20.

As Olbermann makes clear in the interview, he does not see Countdown on Current as a graceful swan song - even though Current TV now has at best no more than 10% of any cable all-news audience - but rather as a no holds-barred challenge to Fox, CNN, and MSNBC.   Olbermann's new Countdown will be on at the same time as the old one - 8pm Eastern - which means he'll not only be competing against Bill O'Reilly on Fox, and but against his incisive, keenly rational replacement on MSNBC, Lawrence O'Donnell.

In many ways, I like O'Donnell more than Olbermann, in particular O'Donnell's targeted logic and real political experience, in place of Olbermann's passionate showmanship.   But if only to punish slow-witted MSNBC for its treatment of Olbermann, and, more, because I think the progressive view can be well served by another powerful voice on another station (Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly still outnumber the progressives on the air), I will be watching and rooting for Olbermann to shake up television, once again, as hold forth from the station run by the man who at very least won the popular vote for President in 2000, and has himself carved out a unique place for himself in our history.

The Event 1.11-12: Hardball in Fiction

The Event just finished its 2-hour return on the East Coast - Episode 1.11-12.   It's been a while since the previous episode was aired at the end of November.   I thought the new two hours were the best so far in this series, which still feels like 24 meets Flashforward, high praise in my book.

One point is definitively settled tonight:  The "aliens" are truly from outer space.   They may have come from Earth at some point, and/or time travelled - their DNA is 99% the same as ours - but as Leila's father Michael (himself an alien) explains, his people come from a planet way out in space (with a star number and everything).  In addition, we also get more confirmation that Thomas's plan is to bring a lot more or maybe even the rest of all of his people to this, our, planet, and make it their own.

As a first step, Thomas launches an attack on Inostranka, with a view towards freeing all of the aliens held there, so they can help him prepare the way for the aliens from outer space.  He's a pretty vicious alien guy, that Thomas, slaughtering the aliens who don't want to join him, and torturing Sterling to get a code to help in their escape.   (A nice twist on 24, with bad guys torturing the good guy - though, come to think of it, Jack Bauer was as often a victim as a practitioner of torture.)

Sterling - played by the ubiquitous on television Željko Ivanek (but it's always good to see him) - has a great night, almost saving the day in a torrent of fine action scenes.   Badly wounded, Sterling seemed likely to die before he was forced to give up the code.  But neither happens - Sterling neither dies nor divulges the code.  Alas, a soldier who doesn't want to see Sterling die does give up the code, and Maya is killed, as Thomas escapes with a fair number of his people.

While this is going on, Michael tries to convince Leila to go with him, but not take Sean along.  Leila doesn't want this, but honorable Sean leaves early the next morning, while Leila sleeps, after the two sleep together one last time.  I'd have liked to see Sean do something more dynamic, like insist on going along with Michael.

And the third piece of tonight's story takes place in Washington, DC, as Alaska Senator Catherine Lewis (played by Virginia Madsen) in effect blackmails the President to tell her what's really going in that prison in her state.   Part of this features Sen. Lewis on MSNBC's Hardball, with Chris Matthews playing himself.  He does a pretty good job, but he was not quite as nasty as he is when a guest suddenly starts to snow him on the air.  He should have interrupted more, and started wondering if Sen. Lewis was reading from a script, or in "a trance".   But, hey, it's the second time MSNBC has made it on to NBC drama television - just a few weeks ago, it was Mika Brzezinski, Joe Scarborough, and Tamron Hall on Law and Order: SUV (and last night, Lawrence O'Donnell played a lawyer on Big Love).   Who knows what choice guest gigs Keith Olbermann might have had, had MSNBC not foolishly canned him.

There was also one soft spot in the plot - Sen. Lewis should have not gained such easy access to her husband's office (the office of a former Senator, recently deceased, now sealed on orders from the President).  But The Event has returned with some powerful turns, and I'm looking forward to more.



See also The Event Debuts on NBC ... The Event 1.2: Aliens! ... The Event 1.4: 24 Back in Action! ... The Event 1.6: Not Only Aliens, Immortals! ... The Event 1.7: The Portal and its Implications  ... The Event 1.8: The "Republican" VP and the Anti-24 ... The Event 1.9: "Native Populations, Indigenous People" ... The Event 1.10: Satellite

---

                 Special Discount Coupons for Angie's List, Avis, Budget Car, eHarmony, eMusic, Mozy, Zazzle

---

---

The Plot to Save Socrates


"challenging fun" - Entertainment Weekly

"a Da Vinci-esque thriller" - New York Daily News

"Sierra Waters is sexy as hell" - curled up with a good book

Olbermann to Have Nightly Show on Current TV

Glad to see this report in the Huffington Post that Keith Olbermann will soon be on Current TV with a new, nightly news and commentary show.   As I noted to a reporter at Crain's New York yesterday, in an interview about AOL's takeover of the Huffington Post, big corporations are not the best foundations for free press and broadcast media.

Although there is no direct evidence that anyone at GE or Comcast was responsible for Olbermann leaving MSNBC, or that Viacom led to Dan Rather's leaving CBS over Docugate, it certainly is reasonable to suppose that Rather would have been more respected had William Paley still been in charge at CBS, and Olbermann would have done better with a more independent MSNBC.    To be clear, I'm not necessarily against corporate acquisitions, and certainly do not want the FCC or FTC to unconstitutionally interfere with such media business, but nor should we be blind to possible adverse consequences of such mergers.

In Olbermann's case, his no-holds-barred progressive commentary will no doubt find a better home on Current TV, with Al Gore and his uncompromising support of free speech at the helm.  As Gore said to the Huffington Post, "We believe at Current that every citizen has freedom of speech, and that freedom of speech includes the ability to donate to candidates of your choice."

In other words, Olbermann is not likely to be abruptly yanked off the air, as he was a few months back on MSNBC, or leave on almost no notice, as also happened on MSNBC, both of which actions redound to MSNBC's discredit.

In other words, Olbermann on Current TV is good for our democracy.

MSNBC Deprived Us of Olbermann's Voice about Egypt

MSNBC has been doing a fine job covering and responding to the revolution in Egypt - Lawrence O'Donnel and Rachel Maddow in particular, and especially eloquent, as always.  But something has been misisng from MSNBC's nightly commentary - a voice of outrage, verging on inchoate but searingly lucid.  A voice that could take our government to task for not supporting the people of Egypt over the non-democratic President of Egypt more strongly.  That voice would be Keith Olbermann's.

By in effect firing Olbermann last week - I don't care what it's officially called - MSNBC silenced a voice and the insight and passion behind it, at one of the most world-wide revolutionary times in recent history.   The world is watching what Obama does, but there's no insistent voice, sometimes rude, but unafraid to take the unambiguous moral high ground, no progressive voice like to shout the truth to our President.

MSBNC could not have known this would happen in Egypt at the time they let Olbermann go, but this is what happens when petty corporate bureaucrats tell us what we can hear and what we cannot.  Today, in Egypt, pro-Mubarak thugs attacked journalists.   MSNBC used no physical force or threat, but is what they did to Olbermann ultimately any different?

A Few Thoughts about Olbermann's Departure

As I said about Keith Olbermann's suspension from MSNBC in November - which I also deeply regretted - there was a lot about Olbermann's Countdown, most especially his all-too-often histrionic over-the-top style, that I was no fan of.  But his voice was an important, often refreshing, sometimes even crucial and reassuring note in our fast-moving, dangerous world, and I'll therefore miss him and Countdown.

As for MSNBC, I've by and large supported its progressive view since before there was cable all-news television.  But I find myself progressively less happy, more annoyed, at the way they have chosen to roll it out.  They still lamely repeat Chris Matthews at 5 and 7 pm (have Matthews on once in the evening at 7 pm).   They still ruin their weekends with "doc-block" stale documentary programming rather than live news.  Even their new slogan - "lean forward" - is weak.  Why lean, not move, or go?  Lean is way too passive.

So the firing of Olbermann now - or, to make the best case for MSNBC, letting him leave - is just the latest in a long list of out-for-coffee at the top strategy.  I wish MSNBC well, but I wish Olbermann better, and the progressive point of view (I'm a progressive libertarian) better still.

Some of the talking heads on television are saying Comcast's take-over of MSNBC is the reason for Olbermann's departure.   If so, my advice to Comcast is:  give America the kind of reliable progressive programming we deserve.

Olbermann vs. Koppel: I Mostly Agree with Olbermann

So, we were just treated to one of Olbermann's "Special Comments".  It was advertised as about Ted Koppel, which indeed it was.  I consider Koppel one of the greats of TV news people - successor with his Nightline (which I watched raptly for more than 25 years) to Murrow and Cronkite.   I was prepared to say in this blog post, well, I came to Olbermann's defense over MSNBC's inane suspension of him last week, but now I'm back to disliking his tone and even the content of many of his "Special Comments".  Except - I think Olbermann is mostly right in what he just said about Koppel.

Ted Koppel's op-ed in the Washington Post - Olbermann, O'Reilly, and the death of real news - is what, understandably, attracted Olbermann's attention and ire.   You all know the points that Koppel makes - that Fox and MSNBC are conservative and progressive equivalents,  presenting opinions not news, and their success has destroyed "objective" i. e., "real" news.

I agree completely with Koppel on the first point - the style and partisan equivalence of Fox and MSNBC - and that's in fact the one big point Olbermann made with which I flatly disagree.  I don't know why Olbermann and Rachel Maddow and others on MSNBC insist that they are more factual and less partisan than Fox.  Maddow made this same point to John Stewart, in her superb interview with him last week. 

But otherwise - neither Fox nor MSNBC are newsless.  Indeed, the news reporting of Bret Baier and Shep Smith on Fox is every bit  the factual equivalent of actual news that is reported on MSNBC throughout the day and night.   On that point, then, Koppel is point blank wrong, and Olbermann is wrong in saying that MSNBC has more respect for facts than does Fox.

Were this where Olbermann vs. Koppel ended, I might give the match to Koppel - right where Olbermann was wrong on the first point (Fox and MSNBC are indeed equivalent), then both wrong on second (Koppel that neither Fox and MSNBC present facts, Olbermann that Fox does not but MSNNC does).

But Olbermann showed his mettle and rose to the occasion with as lucid an analysis as ever I've seen about the myth of objectivity in news.  It was never true and therefore, of course, is not today.

I often make the point to my classes that when The New York Times says "all the news that fit to print" - who are they kidding?  What we're really getting is all the news that the Times deems fit to print - i.e., selects for us to read.  And the same for Walter Cronkite, "and that's the way it was".  Not really.   A more truthful tag line might have been "and that's what the editors here at CBS thought you should think it was".  This is called gate keeping, and it's one of the things the Internet, and what I call new new media, have reduced and in some cases eliminated.

Olbermann correctly cited the finest moments of Murrow and Cronkite as not being objective, but partisan - as when Murrow called out Joe McCarthy and Cronkite spoke out against the Vietnam War.   The fact is that the public is best served not just by blind reporting of the facts, but by strong opinions and keen analyses right along with the facts.  That's what op-eds in newspapers - such as Koppel's about the death of news - are all about.  That, as Olbermann correctly noted, is what Koppel and the news media did not do during the build-up to the Iraq War, when all that was reported was the "fact" that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

Olbermann's  point - that the pursuit of the illusion of objectivity in journalism may hurt the democracy that journalism serves - may just be the important point Olbermann ever made.  It's certainly not made clearly or often enough.

MSNBC Wrong and Self-Destructive to Suspend Keith Olbermann

The news just broke that Keith Olbermann has been suspended from MSNBC, indefinitely and without pay, because he contributed money to three Democratic candidates in the election just past.

I don't know all the details - and I've been a critic of some of Olbermann's histrionic rants over the years - but suspending him for the reasons stated strikes me as an outrage.   For some reason, news media of all sorts cling to the myth that everything about them must be objective.   Certainly news itself should be reported accurately.  But aren't commentators like Olbermann supposed to have strong political opinions, and, if so, where is the problem in their putting their money with their mouths are - i.e., making monetary contributions to political campaigns they deem worthy?

MSNBC is already doing miserably in the ratings.  They do not understand the realities and public expectations of a 24/7 news and commentary station -  airing canned documentaries on weekends rather than live news, and, until recently, going for reruns in the 10pm prime time weekday spot.

Taking Olbermann out of the line-up will only make MSNBC sink faster.  And this action is evidence of the cloud-nine lack of touch with reality and ethics that apparently afflicts the powers that be at MSNBC.  I'm a Professor, and even I know that.




15-min podcast from me on this subject

The Illogical Defense of Net Neutrality

Just to be clear:  I'm in favor of net neutrality.  I want everything to be easily available on the Web.  I don't want to pay "tolls" for access to anything.  I don't know who, other than a short-sighted greedy business person, who would want otherwise.

But I've just seen two illogical defenses of net neutrality on Keith Olbermann's Countdown.   First, Josh Silver of the Free Press told Olbermann that net neutrality is crucial because, otherwise, the Internet will come under the control of big corporations, and look what big corporations did to banking, and oil (BP oil spill) in America.

Wrong on both counts.   Information is not the same as money (banking).  As every Intro to Comm and Media Studies student should know (mine do, because I teach this), there's a world of difference between between money and information.  If you take my money, I have less money.  If you take my information, I at very least still have that information, and may indeed end up with more information, as I get feedback from your use of my information.   The equation of oil and information is even more absurd.   Although leaks of information can cause damage, just as often they can be valuable in a democracy, as in the case of the Pentagon papers (and draw your own conclusions about the Wiki-leaks).   In contrasts, oil leaks only do damage.

Next, Senator Al Franken opined that, although the First Amendment has thus far attempted to protect us from government control of information, the issue of net neutrality will test the First Amendment on how well it can protect us from corporate control of information.

Really?   The history of the world is filled with tragic examples of what happens when government controls information.   Nazi Germany and The Soviet Union are the big examples in the 20th century.  Thomas Jefferson and James Madison correctly saw that government control of information is antithetical to democracy.   Ability to know about the government was precisely what the First Amendment was designed to protect, or prevent the goverment from blocking.

Appropriately, there is nothing in the First Amendment about corporations - Congress is the entity restricted from abridging freedoms of speech and press.   And that makes sense, given that corporate control of information and news has never led to totalitarian societies, as government control did in Nazi Germany and The Soviet Union.

A little logic, and some knowledge of history, would be helpful when considering these issues.  Empowering the FCC to exercise government control over the Internet is precisely the way we do not want to go in our democracy.   Thus far in the world, freedom of information and therefore freedom itself has been given a lot more to fear from governments than corporations.

24 Forever!

24 ended its 8th and presumably final television season tonight, with a film in the making to follow.  The 2-hour finale was a masterpiece of work, a lesson in how to end a great television series.    While comparisons to finales of other series are like apples and oranges, there's no doubt that the 24 finale was the best series finale on the air this season.

Among the highlights -

• Jack and Chloe have never been better.  Chloe goes all out to help Jack, including shooting him.  When Jack thanks her at the end, that scene was one of the best in the entire series.
• Jack is irrepressible.   When a jackass CTU agent is about to shoot him - and Jack is already wounded with Chloe's shot (which fortunately went clean through) - Jack almost disables the agent with an attack.  Earlier, when Jason is lording over Jack on the stretcher, Jack bites Jason's ear off.  Nothing can stop Jack except death itself, and no one is better than Jack in evading its clutches.
• President Talyor, after watching Jack's message to Kim - recorded in case Jack doesn't make it - at last decides to do the right thing.   She won't sign the peace treaty, and will tell the world about the Russians.   Great acting by Cherry Jones (and great acting by Gregory Itzin as Nixonian President Logan).
• The last we see of Jack is on a big screen looking at us, at CTU, which Chloe orders shut down.  A fine symbolic segue from television to movie screen.

Jack must once again leave the country - with not only the Russians but the Americans looking for him (he wounded a whole bunch of American agents).  Taylor can't protect him, because she'll be resigning in an hour we won't see on television.

But we will see it and/or its aftermath in the movie, and Chloe protecting Jack's family as she promised, and who knows what else as the most exciting, adrenalin-producing show in television history moves to the bigger screens.  The show revolutionized television with its intensity and daring.  24 attracted  the ire of commentators like Keith Olbermann, who mistakenly saw the show as just a jingoistic justification of torture.   24 did have some of that, but it was much more, including many times in which torture didn't work, and Jack was opposed by articulate characters who stopped his most extreme impulses.  This included Renee Walker, last year, and whose murder this year ironically provoked the worst we've seen from Jack.

But 24 was mostly about an indomitable, invincible spirit, struggling full throttle against the forces of terror and depravity that still threaten our country from inside and out.   Born just before September 11, being uncannily in tune with the age that followed, which continues to this day, 24 was the perfect entertainment for people who like their television searing, real, and on the edge.  As Jack Bauer, indelibly played by Kiefer Sutherland, moves into the cinema, we can expect a rollercoaster in theaters, a revolution in storytelling, as gripping as what we've been seeing in our homes for the past decade.



10-min podcast review of 24 finale

See also Season 8 reviews: Hours 1 and 2 ... Hours 3 and 4 ... Hour 5 ... Hour 6 ... Hour 7 ... Hour 8 ... Hour 9 ... Hour 10 ... Hour 11 ... Hour 12 ... Hour 13 ... Hour 14 ... Hours 15-16 ... Hour 17 ... Hour 18 ... Hour 19 ... Hour 20 ... Hour 21 ... Hour 22

And see also Season 7 reviews: Hours 1 and 2 ... Hours 3 and 4 ... Hour 5 ... Hour 6 ... Hour 7 ... Hour 8 ... Hour 9 ... Hour 10 ... Hours 11-12 ... Hour 13 ... Hour 14 ... Hour 15 ... Hour 16 ... Hour 17 ... Hour 18 ... Hour 19 ... Hour 20 ... Hour 21 ... Hour 22  ... Hours 23-24 

And see also Season 6 reviews: Hours 1 and 2 ... Hours 3 and 4 ... Hour 5 ... Hour 6 ... Hour 7 ... Hours 8 and 9 ... Hour 10 ... Hour 11 ... Hour 12 ... Hour 13 ... Hour 14 ... Hour 15 ... Hour 16 ... Hour 17 ... Hour 18 ... Hour 19 ... Hour 20 ... Hour 21 ... Hour 22 ... Hours 23-24

---

MSNBC Bleeps Levin and McCaskill on Drek Deal

Chris Matthews just put up his Big Number today - it was the number of times Senators Carl Levin and Claire McCaskill lambasted Goldman Sachs in the Senate today for suckering their clients into "shitty" deals.   The adjective came from a former Goldman Sachs exec, Tom Montag, who in an email to a former Goldman Sachs trader characterized a deal as "one shitty deal," and proceeded to aggressively sell it to their clients.

Except, we viewers weren't allowed to hear the actual quotes in full - they were bleeped.  The words written under the Big Number talked about "sh***y" and Matthews helpfully explained that the word rhymed with "kitty".

I once again fail to see the point of this.   Who doesn't know that sh***y stands for shitty?  Whose sensibilities are spared by not seeing the actual word?  Have a majority of Americans risen up in protest at prospect of seeing and hearing shitty on television? 

The FCC apparently thinks so, because it is fear of their outrageous fines that keeps television producers bleeping and asterisking - whether at the conclusion of the Grammys this year or Senators speaking on a very serious matter today.  

But wait - don't we have a First Amendment in this country, that says "Congress shall make no law ... abridging of speech or of the press"?   Why, yes, we do.   So how is it that the media seeking to cover a major Senate hearing are prevented, under threat of FCC fine, from broadcasting a quote from the hearing in its entirety?

A good question.  And one which I hope the new, evolving Supreme Court will take up some time soon.

In the meantime, here's a YouTube clip with the actual "shitty" quotes from the Senate hearing, courtesy of CSPAN 3, a cable station still not under FCC censorship, though the FCC is chafing at the bit to extend its control to cable .... Come to think of it, MSNBC is cable, so why did it bleep Levin?   (I haven't seen yet how Fox and CNN are covering this story, but I would expect them to knuckle under like MSNBC, and not go the brave CSPAN way.)

Note added at 9:32pm:  But Keith Olbermann did indeed play the unbleeped clips on his MSNBC Countdown show onight - kudos to Olbermann for standing up for the First Amendment!




See also The Flouting of the First Amendment

Why the Supreme Court Decision Allowing Direct Corporate Spending on Elections is Correct

Good for the US Supreme Court for overturning the 20-year ban on direct corporate spending on elections.  Last time I checked, the First Amendment - "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" - contained no language excluding corporations from its protections.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, no great champion of the First Amendment, predictably voted with the minority - that is, to uphold the ban.  President Obama, apparently also no great friend of freedom of speech, said the decision gives a "green light" to special interests.   Predictably, Keith Olbermann just finished ranting about the decision.  Fortunately his guest, constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley, tried to set Olbermann straight.

Contrary to Senator Schumer of New York, the decision has "not just predetermined the winners of next November's elections."   The decision is not political.  It favors neither party.  It favors freedom.  (I'm a lifelong Democrat, who voted for Obama.)

Justice Stevens, who wrote the minority, dissenting opinion, thinks the First Amendment was not intended to apply to corporations, which  "are not human beings. They can't vote and can't run for office."  But  by that reasoning, The New York Times and The Washington Post would have been entitled to no First Amendment protection when Richard Nixon tried to prevent them from publishing the Pentagon Papers.

It's hard, I know, to support the right of people or organizations to speak and write and buy ads when you utterly and vehemently disagree with their positions.  But that is precisely what the First Amendment was designed to support and protect.   Because it protects the expression not just of opinions you may detest, but your own most cherished opinions, when others may find them detestable.

Heroes Season 4 Resumes: Quieter But Deeper

I've been saying for a while that Season 4 of Heroes is its best since that magical first season. The two-hour resumption of Season 4 on NBC tonight did not disappoint, offering a surprisingly effective, contemplative double episode, with interactions and conversations that went a long way towards weaving a powerful story.

Among the highlights -

1. Hiro, whose mind may be addled by his brain tumor, is speaking in riddles ... which ratify the position of Heroes in the science fiction, mystery, and fantasy genres. Among the stories Hiro draws upon in his attempt to characterize the dangers that he sees are Man of La Mancha, Sherlock Holmes, Star Wars, and Caprica. Yes, you have to give Heroes credit for having Hiro speak of Cylons and Caprica, which will debut on the SyFy Channel this January 22. If Fox can devote almost a complete episode of Bones to Avatar, NBC (part of the same corporate conglomerate as the SyFy Channel) can certainly slip in a mention if Caprica. I like those sorts of cross-references - they may be product placement, but they also give the narrative a nice realism.

2. Heroes also addresses the effectiveness of torture as a way of getting accurate information. Noah Bennet, on the verge of torturing fast-man Edgar for information, is persuaded by Lauren to use a kinder approach - which works, sort of. Noah's better than Jack Bauer (Keith Olbermann is cheering somewhere) - or, depending on your point of view, Noah's no Jack Bauer. Though, Jack has been getting a little gentler in his treatment of suspects in the past season or two of 24. Which will be premiering its new season on Fox next Sunday and Monday, and then will settle into its Monday night slot right opposite Heroes: good thing there's such as thing as TiVo and DVRs.

3. Good stories aborning for Sylar, who ends up menacingly at Claire's window ... for Peter, who wants to get in touch with Claire's flying old boyfriend from Texas, as Peter yearns to get more in touch with Nathan, now that he's gone (presumably) for keeps ... Samuel, who continues to be one of the best villains in the history of Heroes, in part because he manages to seem a decent, caring human being most of the time ... and a brand new character, my favorite heroic addition this season, someone who can literally breath life into the earth ...

A whole lot of good shakin' going on here, and I'm looking forward to more next week.

6-min podcast review of Heroes


See also Heroes Season 4 Premiere: Metaphysics, University, Carnival ... Heroes Meets The L Word in 4.5 ... Heroes 4 Mid-Season Finale

See also reviews of Season 3 Heroes Gets Lost ... Heroes 3 Begins: Best Yet, Riddled with Time Travel and Paradox ... Sylar's Redemption and other Heroes and Villains Mergers ... Costa Nuclear ... Hearts of Gold and the Debased ... Seeing the Future Trumps Time Travel ... Superpowered Chess with Shifting Pieces ... Villains and Backstories ... The Redemption of Sylar ... Thoughts on the Eclipse, Part I ... The Lore of the Comic Book Store ... Hiro's Time Traveling Closure ... Augmented ... Shades of Recalibration ... Baby, Rebel, and Last Fantasy ... All that Shape Changes Remains the Same? ... Season 3 Finale: Hopeful Deceptions

Reviews of Season 2 Heroes: Episode 1 ... 2 ... 3 ... 4 ... 7. Heroes Meets 12 Monkeys ... 9. How Immutable Are Fate and Isaac's Futures? ... 10. Penultimate for the Fall ... Heroes 2 Finale: Heroes Who Didn't Survive

And from Season 1: Heroes in Focus ... Heroes Five Years Gone: Triumph of Time Travel and Comics ... Heroes the Hard Part: Only the Pictures Not the Words ... Heroes Landslide: Winnowing and Convergence ... Heroes Volume One Finale

---

Special Discount Coupons for Angie's List, Avis, Budget Rent-a-Car, eBags, eHarmony, eMusic, Nutrisystem

---

---

The Plot to Save Socrates


"challenging fun" - Entertainment Weekly

"a Da Vinci-esque thriller" - New York Daily News

"Sierra Waters is sexy as hell" - curled up with a good book

more about The Plot to Save Socrates...





Read the first chapter of The Plot to Save Socrates .... FREE!

Shepard Smith Speaks Up and Does the Right Thing - Once Again

I've been saying for years that Shep Smith, who anchors the Fox Report on Fox News, is a class act. He did an heroic job - along Anderson Cooper of CNN, Geraldo Rivera of Fox News, and other reporters on the scene -- in holding the Bush government to account for its disgraceful Katrina response. Smith smacked down Joe the Erstaz Plumber last year, when the "Plumber" was waxing ignorant about Obama and Israel. And last night, Smith did this:



Smith's stubborn integrity - in the above case, apologizing to his viewers for the blatantly unbalanced Fox coverage of the New Jersey gubernatorial campaign, with a beaming Shannon Bream interviewing only the Republican candidate - shows the error of dismissing all of Fox News as worthless or worse. The reality is a lot of that operation is hopelessly right wing, but a professional on camera can still do the right thing.

And, in some ways, that's more valuable than blanket denouncements of Fox from the left and the White House. Given the political attitudes of the audience that Fox has attracted, a few words from Shep Smith can do a lot more to shake up their view of the world, and see it more clearly, than all the ranting of Keith Olbermann (who, coincidentally, wasted yet another few minutes of his show tonight lashing out at a Fox Entertainment television show, 24).

Obama's Powerful Health Care Speech, and the Same Old Republican Answer

Barack Obama gave a powerful, specific, inspiring speech to Congress and the American people tonight. He reached out to Republicans, saying he would pursue medical malpractice insurance reform, something Republicans have long and justifiably sought. He explained that he was not interested in ramming a public option down anyone's throat, only providing it as a choice for those who seek it. And even then, Obama made clear that what he's most interested in was significant reform, which could even be accomplished without a public option. He indicated that he would "call out" and otherwise not tolerate any misrepresentations of the health care reforms. And in Rooseveltian terms, he concluded by saying that he and Congress didn't come to Washington to fear the future, but to help shape it.

The Republican response? Rep. Boustany insisted that Republicans would stand firm against a government takeover of health care in the United States.

It would have been nice had the Republicans responded to the speech Obama delivered, rather than one they imagined. (Keith Olbermann made much the same point about Republicans responding to a non-existent speech.)

So where do we stand?

Obama has spelled out specific health care reforms. If Republicans don't want to seriously negotiate about this, Obama and the Democrats should move ahead without them. Tonight was an important step forward, with or without Republicans.

Lessons and Inspirations from Ted Kennedy's Funeral

I just heard Mark Leibovich of The New York Times tell Andrea Mitchell on MSNNC that Ted Kennedy enjoyed watching 24 on DVDs ... take that, Keith Olbermann :)

Ted Kennedy, Jr's speech at the funeral earlier today was powerful indeed. I hadn't heard him speak ever before, and was moved and mightily impressed by his delivery and his words. The clarity of vision in this family is remarkable.

Barack Obama's eulogy was excellent, but I wish he'd picked up what Ted Kennedy, III (11 years old, and a real winner) said earlier in the funeral about health care, quoting his grandfather's words that health care is a right not a privilege. The Republicans in the audience need to hear that, as often as possible.

Ted Kennedy's journey will end in a few hours at Arlington Cemetery, next to his two brothers. But as Ted Kennedy, Jr. said at the end of his oration, quoting again from his father, "the work goes on".

Joan Walsh, Bill O'Reilly, and Keith Olbermann about The Media and The Assassination of George Tiller

I wanted to say a few words about the media and the murder of Dr. George Tiller - in particular, Salon editor Joan Walsh's heated discussion with Bill O'Reilly on his show last week, and Keith Olbermann's denunciation of O'Reilly as being complicit in Tiller's murder because O'Reilly repeatedly attacked Tiller as a "baby killer" for his performance of late-term abortions.

First, in the interest of full disclosure, let me mention that I consider Joan Walsh a friend, and one of the heroes of the new media age (my forthcoming New New Media book has a blurb on the back from Joan). At the same time, I have been on O'Reilly's television and radio shows a bunch of times - and the last time, on his radio show, was even told to "shut up" - but I enjoy the rough and tumble discussions I have had with him, and like to think they make a contribution to the public discourse. I have never been on Keith Olbermann's show, though he did quote me several years ago about who might best succeed Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News (I mentioned Chris Matthews, Paula Zahn, and Shepard Smith - Olbermann left out Smith when he quoted me).

So bearing all of that in mind, here is how I see what happened with Joan Walsh, Bill O'Reilly, and Keith Olbermann regarding the murder of Dr. George Tiller:

1. Joan was right to want to go on O'Reilly's show with the goal of cooling down some of the heated rhetoric. Calling people "killers" in an already volatile situation - as O'Reilly had been doing for years about George Tiller - does little to help reach a rational conclusion or course of action.

2. But, just to be clear, Olbermann's view that O'Reilly was an accomplice to Tiller's murder, and bears some direct responsibility for it, is not supported by what we know about how media influence our actions. Olbermann repeatedly cited advertising, and the big dollars that are spent on it, as proof that what we see on TV can guide our behavior. But advertising works because it appeals to already existing human needs. An ad for McDonalds can get us to buy a hamburger because we already are hungry. And if McDonald's wasn't around, we'd sooner or later get something else to eat. These needs are profound and deep-seated, as psychologist Abraham Maslow realized more than 50 years ago. Tiller's assassin, who had a record of violence and mental instability, clearly had a need to act violently which predated O'Reilly's condemnations of Tiller. O'Reilly's words may or may not have been a trigger - but, sooner or later, someone else's words would have had the same consequence. But what then can we do to prevent madmen from acting on their needs?

3. Joan Walsh was also right to bring up the question of gun control, and O'Reilly missed a valuable opportunity to bring this into central focus. Because, a gun in the hand of a madman is what killed George Tiller. The question that everyone who was horrified by Tiller's murder (O'Reilly has condemned Tiller's assassination) should be asking is: how does someone with a record of violence and mental illness get in possession of a gun? At very least, our laws on gun control don't seem to be working. At worst, what if there was an organized group that put the gun in the assassin's hand?

4. Seeking to use concern about violence committed by guns as analogy, Joan asked O'Reilly if it would be right to denounce stores that sell guns as having blood on their hands. O'Reilly found the analogy not relevant, but seized the language and threw it back at Joan, saying she had blood on her hands. And this is precisely why such rhetoric, coming from O'Reilly or anyone else, does no good. O'Reilly started by using it about Tiller. Joan Walsh tried to show its inappropriateness by asking if it made sense to use it about gun dealers. O'Reilly responds by using it against Joan Walsh - not someone who either performed an abortion or sold a gun, but who was only defending George Tiller.

Still and all, I think Joan Walsh's confrontation will Bill O'Reilly was valuable to watch, and contributed to the public dialogue. At least O'Reilly - unlike Olbermann - has people on his show with whom he vehemently disagrees. Sure, the nine minutes that Joan had on O'Reilly did little to cool the rhetoric. But in the end, they allowed two people passionately committed to their views to exchange them in public view.