Where Have Olbermann and Maddow Disappeared To? Facebook to the Rescue

David Shuster's been doing Countdown for the past two nights, and first Arianna Huffington and then Allison Stewart have filled in for Rachel Maddow on MSNBC... I actually really like all of these people/anchors/commentators - but what happened to Keith and Rachel?

There was no announcement on MSNBC, and I couldn't find much on the Web, other than someone else who also was wondering what had happened to the two. I'd assumed there were on some sort of vacations, but ...

I posted a question in my Status on Facebook, and sure enough, Mike Plugh, one of my most brilliant and knowledgeable former students, came back with an answer:

Vacation. They ran straight through the election without a break and I think Rachel is on the Air America Cruise with some lucky listeners. Olbermann may be in his basement at his mom's house hitting rewind and play on the Ben Affleck impression at SNL.

Ok, vacation, like I thought. And Mike "thinks" that Rachel is on an Air America Cruise.

Assuming he's right - which I do - why couldn't MSNBC, and indeed Keith and Rachel, have told us?

He's a little advice for everyone with a regular news commentary show on television: Viewers get accustomed to seeing you. We miss you when you're not on.

You're in the news business. Keep us a little better posted...

Secret Service Owes America an Explanation for Violation of Librarian's 1st Amendment Rights at McCain Townhall Meeting

You've all likely read about this, and/or seen the video below (my student, Mike Plugh, first brought this to my attention):

A 60-year old librarian in Denver was carrying a sign with the message, McCain=Bush, as she waited to attend a McCain town hall meeting at the Denver Center for the Performing Arts (a public venue). Some guy in a beige jacket asks her to remove the sign. She refuses. An onlooker asks him why she's been asked to remove the sign. The beige jacket responds that he was "asked" to do this, "by representatives of the Secret Service." Soon after, a Denver policeman starts talking, and informs the librarian that she has two choices: keep the sign, and be issued a ticket for "trespass," or get rid of the sign, in which case she can continue to stand in line to attend the McCain town hall event. Carol Kreck, the brave librarian, takes the ticket. She's escorted off the public premises, and tells the camera that she's been told that, if she returns, she'll be arrested.

This is one of the most outrageous violations of the First Amendment I've seen in a long time. Not a case of allegedly indecent broadcasting, in which there is at least a confused (and unconstitutional) Federal Communications Act to back it up. Not a shield law issue, which, although profound in its threat to the First Amendment, is not a direct assault upon it.

No, this is about as straight-up an attack on the First Amendment as you can get - an attack on exactly what Jefferson and our Founding Fathers were protecting in the very First Amendment to our Constitution: the right of every citizen to express her or his political views, unobstructed by the government.

What's to be done?

1. The Secret Service owes America an explanation. If they indeed put the beige jacket and the Denver police up to harassing and preventing Ms. Kreck from exercising her First Amendment rights, then those in the Secret Service who did this should be fired and brought up on criminal charges.

2. If the beige jacket was lying, and was not told to do this by the Secret Service, then he should be brought up on harassment and other criminal charges.

3. The Denver police in either case were pathetic. If the Secret Service ordered them to harass Ms. Kreck, they should have refused to follow the order, and should be reprimanded for such ignorance of the First Amendment. If the Secret Service gave no such order, and they harassed Ms. Kreck on the basis of what the beige suit told them, then they should be fired.

It's time we started standing up for our rights.

Obama Wins Wyoming: Small State, Big Lesson; Plus: Online Petition to the Super Delegates

Wyoming is the least populated state in the nation, but Obama's sweep of Hillary Clinton there - 61% to 38% - carries a big lesson:

Obama continues to lead in the delegate count by a nearly unbeatable margin. He actually won more delegates in Texas, and Hillary's victories in Ohio and Rhode Island resulted in a negligible increase in her delegates.

So, if we're thinking a dream ticket - who should be in first and who in second place? Shouldn't first place go to the candidate with the largest number of delegates?

By what anti-democratic logic would or could the super delegates be induced to support Hillary Clinton instead of Barack Obama? Why support someone who came in second?

=============
Plus: One of my best students at Fordham, Mike Plugh, has put up an online petition to the super delegates - do the right, democratic thing, and suppport Obama. Read it, sign it, right here.

Obama's Very Success Disproves His Critique of Television and Video Games

I'm an Obama supporter, but, as I indicated here last night, that doesn't mean I agree with everything he says. One thing I disagreed with in his excellent speech last night after the Wisconsin primary was his swipe at television and video games, as activities we need to get our children away from - I said I thought television actually made a positive contribution to our lives, by giving more of us more useful information, and video games certainly don't do anyone any harm.

One of my best students, Mike Plugh, wondered how I could say this, given the claims of critics such as Robert Putnam that watching television engenders civic apathy and lack of participation, and Neil Postman that watching television makes us rude, illiterate, uncivilized.

There is no convincing statistical evidence that television has caused any of this - there was plenty of public apathy in Victorian times, it just wasn't surveyed - but there is a far better way of refuting Obama's point:

Just look at the enormous success of Obama's campaign so far. One of its spearheads are high school and college students, and recent grads, who are for the first time in recent history being drawn into the active political process by Obama's revolutionizing message.

In other words, at a time when television viewing - if you add in cable and YouTube - is burgeoning, as is the playing of video games, we find people in their teens and twenties more politically involved than ever before.

That's by far the most persuasive refutation of Obama's concerns about TV and video games. Did they create a generation of under-achievers? Just look at the results in the primaries thus far...

===============================
For more of my refutation of Postman's claims about television (he was my doctoral dissertation mentor at New York University), and other critiques, see my The Soft Edge: A Natural History and Future of the Information Revolution. And here's a clip of my oft-cited "debate" with Jack Thompson about violence and video games.

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

Judy Woodruff and the Fine Art of the Interview, with Ron Paul

My student Mike Plugh called this gem to my attention late yesterday - Judy Woodruff interviewing Ron Paul on the PBS NewsHour.



What's so commendable about it?

It's an interview. A real interview, not a slugfest, or worse, an interviewee as punching bag.

An interview. An intelligent conversation between two people. An opportunity for viewers and listeners to really learn something of what and how the interviewee thinks.

Once upon a time, not all that long ago, this was the way most interviews on television were conducted. But that civilized approach somehow was replaced by interviewers who somehow saw their job as interrupting their guests as often as possible with bellicose jabs and nasty cracks.

This is not really a question of politics or liberal vs. conservative. Chris Matthews is almost as offensive in his style as is Bill O'Reilly. I'm much more in tune with Matthews' politics than I am with O'Reilly's, but neither of their interview styles - the self-righteous interruption - does much to enlighten me.

I'll even admit to often enjoying these barkers, especially when the object of their attack is someone I don't agree with. But I can't say I ever felt truly educated or really informed or even just good after seeing their shows. At best, the result is a coarse thrill (same as when I've been a guest on O'Reilly's show). The crooked joy of seeing someone you dislike get bashed, or someone you admire somehow manage to get a word in edgewise.

Not so Woodruff's interview with Ron Paul. Watch it, and see for yourself.

Wouldn't it be nice if, among the other revolutionary developments in this political season, we are beginning to see the recovery of the almost lost art of the interview, the revival of the fine art of intelligent talk on television.