Mud Wrestling: Ann Coulter v. Janeane Garofalo On Fox!

I missed it. Bill O'Reilly was interviewed by Terry Gross on NPR's "Fresh Air" and the Spinster hung up on her before the end of the interview because he didn't like her confrontational (?) questions. The Spinster can dish it out, but he can't take it. Incendiary debate is the style of the early 21^st century. If this be (fair & balanced) flaming, so be it.

[x The New Republic]
Outfoxed
by Michelle Cottle

The new year is upon us. And you know what that means: dozens upon dozens of 2003-in-review lists aimed at reminding us of all the best/worst/most-talked-about people, events, and trends that we just spent the last twelve months surviving. From getting SARS to getting "Punk'd," from Arnold's swearing-in to Jacko's sleepovers, every buzz-generating moment has been summarized and bundled for our reflection, often to deliciously surreal effect: When else could J Lo and Saddam find themselves featured in the same People cover package?

Among the more entertaining political trends noted is the rise of the liberal-hate phenomenon. After a long, wearying stretch of demonization and evisceration by mad-dog conservatives such as Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter, the political left has at last unleashed its own breed of attack pundit. Angry, bile-spewing lefties like Michael Moore and Janeane Garofalo are working furiously to level the playing field, penning books and filling the airwaves with the kind of frothing rants that would make Rush Limbaugh proud.

Predictably, this development has been met with hand wringing by the mainstream media, which fear further debasement of political debate. "[T]he new leftist screeds seem to solidify a rising political culture of incivility and overstatement," sighs The New York Times Magazine. Time concurs: [T]hese broadsides make politics less about issues than tactics. They're long on ad hominem and short on substance. They're less interested in convincing anyone ... than in whipping up their own berserkers." And while admitting personal glee over right-wing bullies getting their comeuppance, Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman bemoans "the rant" as "a driving force in the polarization of politics. We don't do ambivalence anymore. Nuance be damned. The middle ground is mush for wimps."

Poppycock. I for one happen to think this liberal-hate phenomenon is great news. Not, as conservatives would contend, because the mainstream media is awash with liberal bias and itching to see the likes of O'Reilly driven from our exalted ranks. But because what the O'Reillys and Coulters and Sean Hannitys do has never been about journalism or serious political commentary. It's always been about demagoguery and show business. Problem is, the lack of a countervailing pack of wingnut showmen on the left has, until now, allowed the O'Reillys and Hannitys to spend their days posing as the conservative equivalent of left-leaning journalists like Goodman, Margaret Carlson, Clarence Page, etc.--that is, media folk who may have a political bias, but who aren't primarily bomb-lobbers and whose on-air debating technique is constrained by the occasional concern for facts or balance or nuance.

Moreover, in those instances in which the mainstream media has bothered to criticize a conservative raver, the resulting squabble has simply elevated said raver's journalistic stature. O'Reilly is arguably the king of plumping up his rep by painting himself as a scrappy, no-spin Everyman serially attacked by liberal, elitist, envious media giants like CNN or The New York Times or NPR. Most recently, O'Reilly put himself at the center of a mini-scandal that erupted when he hung up in the middle of an interview with Terry Gross. Every time O'Reilly can point to some perceived assault by mainstream journalists, he draws a parallel--at least in the minds of Fox viewers--between what he does and what those journalists do.

More and more, however, O'Reilly is finding himself linked with a new, less exalted arch-nemesis: former "Saturday Night Live" comic Al Franken. Their best-selling books are reviewed together. The media gleefully report on their public squabbles--such as the fracas at this year's Book Expo, when Franken accused O'Reilly of inflating his journalistic credentials, prompting O'Reilly to call Franken an idiot and to tell him to "shut up." O'Reilly slaps at Franken on air and in print. Franken returns the favor. And Fox's recent, pathetic attempt to sue Franken for including the phrase "fair and balanced" in the title of his most recent book--coupled with widespread rumors that O'Reilly was the driving force behind the suit--has further cemented the two men together in the public imagination.

It's not that Franken and Company balance the punditry scales by being as shrill and combative as Hannity or O'Reilly. It's that they help with a basic redefinition of what Hannity and O'Reilly really are. To be seen publicly mud wrestling with an "SNL" alum rather than, say, NPR or the Gray Lady, puts O'Reilly in precisely the proper perspective. Perhaps the only thing more helpful would be an actual mud-wrestling match between Ann Coulter and Janeane Garofalo--televised on Fox, naturally. Sure, it might add to the atmosphere of political incivility in this country. But at least it would be an honest portrayal of the brand of "political debate" that flame-throwing conservative showmen have been engaging in for years now.

Michelle Cottle is a senior editor at TNR.

Copyright © 2003, The New Republic

David Broder Makes Sense On Howard Dean

David Broder has been a political pundit forever (or 1955, whichever is earlier). He is dispassionate and—as Thomas Jefferson said of Roger Sherman of Connecticut—I never heard him say a stupid thing. I wonder if Daid Broder was impressed by Howard Dean's defeat of Al Sharpton in the DC primary? Pretty soon, the Rev. Mr. Sharpton will be staying at Motel 6. If this be (fair & balanced) punditry, so be it.

[x Washington Post]
Required Reading On Dean
By David S. Broder

America likes to elect governors and ex-governors to the presidency and, by and large, that is a healthy habit. Of the past five presidents, all but the elder George Bush prepped for the job in statehouses in Georgia, California, Arkansas and Texas. State executives learn valuable lessons about budgeting and about working with legislators. By and large, they are closer to the problems of everyday life -- and more accountable for dealing with them -- than senators or representatives, federal bureaucrats or generals.

One lesson I have learned -- from ignoring it too often in the past -- is the importance of listening to the journalists who have covered these candidates in their state capitols. It is particularly important to heed the critics and to take note of the shortcomings the state executives have displayed at home. Those problems are likely to recur if and when they reach the White House.

Reg Murphy described vividly Jimmy Carter's fractured relationship with the Georgia legislature, an accurate forecast of the difficulties he ran into with a Democratic Congress. My former colleague Lou Cannon portrayed Ronald Reagan's rather offhand way of managing his subordinates in Sacramento -- a clue to the wide powers he delegated in Washington, not always wisely.

A host of Little Rock reporters described Bill Clinton's vivid private life and the evasions that earned him the nickname "Slick Willie." And Molly Ivins, though hardly a dispassionate observer, gave plenty of evidence about the buddy-buddy relationship of George W. Bush and the corporate power structure in Texas.

That is why I strongly recommend a little paperback published by a team of reporters for the Rutland (Vt.) Herald titled Howard Dean: A Citizen's Guide to the Man Who Would Be President. The publisher is Steerforth Press.

The nine contributors have covered Dean during the span of years that he held office in Vermont -- as legislator, lieutenant governor and governor. Their views are balanced -- closer to the Lou Cannon model on Reagan than any of the other examples I have cited -- and I could detect no personal bias in any of their individual chapters.

The Dean who emerges from these pages is a more complex and interesting politician than the man on the stump this past year -- less strident and in many respects more impressive.

The chapter on his environmental record, titled "Green and Not Green," by Hamilton E. Davis, the former managing editor of the Burlington Free Press, is a model of balance. "A clear fault line runs down the center of Howard Dean's stewardship of Vermont's environment," Davis writes. "On one side is his strong support for the purchase of wild land that might otherwise be subject to development; during his 11 years as governor, the state bought more than 470,000 acres of such land. . . .

"On the other side of the fault, however, is Dean's record on the regulation of retail and industrial development. His critics charge that his preference for the interests of large business over environmental protection sapped the vitality from the state's regulatory apparatus, especially Act 250, Vermont's historic development-control law, and from regulations pertaining to storm water runoff and water pollution."

Even more intriguing than the analysis of his record in vital policy areas are the insights into his governing style. Davis's take begins with the observation: "Say this about Howard Dean; he is his own man.

"He tends to think through problems himself, rather than work them out in consultation with others. Dean often spoke on an issue before receiving advice from his staff. . . . Dean would listen politely to opposing points of view when the conversation involved people he cared about, but he could be testy and confrontational when challenged on policy by people he didn't know. He had a reputation for being impulsive and occasionally arrogant.

"His staff and his small cadre of friends, however, saw him differently. They liked him enormously, and they were extremely loyal to him."

Similar contradictions and complexities emerge in almost every chapter, and it helps that editor Dirk Van Susteren has not tried to smooth everything into a single broad perspective. Some of the lessons I draw from it are cautionary, but it does not diminish Dean's stature or make his quest of the presidency seem absurd.

The country has much it needs to learn about this man, and this book is a great place to start.

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

The O'Franken Factor?

Al Franken will launch a radio show opposite Rush Limbaugh this spring. I can hardly wait. Franken dishes it out, but Limbaugh and O'Reilly can't take it. One thing about Al Franken: he is droll, not shrill. Plus, he's smarter than Limbaugh and O'Reilly combined. Perhaps he's too smart. H. L. Menken said that no one ever went broke in the U. S. underestimating the intelligence of the public. (See the success of Limbaugh and O'Reilly.) Al Franken is correct, though: Rush Limbaugh IS a big, fat idiot. If this be (fair & balanced) malignity, so be it.

[x Washington Post]
A Liberal Haven on the Radio Dial
Talk Network Plans to Begin National Broadcast in Spring

By Jennifer Frey

The much-discussed liberal radio network, designed to challenge conservatives' dominance of talk radio, took its first steps toward reality yesterday, when newly formed Progress Media announced it had both signed comedian and author Al Franken to host his own talk show and completed its first distribution deal in a major market.

Franken's show is expected to air weekdays from noon to 3 p.m., in direct competition with the popular "Rush Limbaugh Show." Franken is the author of two best-selling nonfiction books, the first titled "Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot."

Progress Media also announced that it had signed environmental attorney Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to co-host another program for its anticipated lineup of round-the-clock talk radio.

"We're trying to give people an alternative," Franken said in a telephone interview. "We want to provide a change in the political landscape and a beacon of hope for ordinary Americans who work hard and play by the rules."

And of course he also wants another platform to attack his nemeses, including conservative talk show host Bill O'Reilly.

"We're trying to get sued by a right-wing jerk -- hence the name of our program, 'The O'Franken Factor,' " Franken joked.

Though its name has yet to be chosen, the network plans to go on the air by March or April, according to Progress Media CEO Mark Walsh. According to Walsh, the first distribution deal -- a lease for round-the-clock air time at WNTD (950 AM) in Chicago -- will be followed by several others in the next two weeks, likely in the New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco markets. No deal with a Washington area station is imminent, although talks have taken place, Walsh said.

"There's been a lot of heat and light, and now we have some more traction in commitments to infrastructure and distribution," Walsh said in a phone interview.

The announcements came two months after a new leadership team bought the majority interest in the proposed network from Sheldon and Anita Drobny, major Democratic donors who formed AnShell Media early last year. The new owners -- led by Evan Cohen, a New York venture capitalist, and Walsh, a Chevy Chase-based Internet entrepreneur who has served as a technology adviser to the Democratic National Committee -- moved quickly to sign Franken, who from the beginning had been in talks to be the network's flagship talk-show host.

"I wasn't going to agree to get involved in this unless it had a chance to succeed," said Franken, who agreed to a one-year deal but would not disclose the terms. "There's always a risk. But I wanted to make a calculated risk."

Liberal talk radio has largely failed in the past in part because the industry is so heavily dominated by conservatives that liberal shows sandwiched between right-wing programming were all but destined to fail. As Franken put it, "That's like having three hours of country followed by three hours of hip-hop. It's not going to work." As an alternative, Progress Media plans to provide a 24-hour liberal-dominated home base for its talkers, albeit one that works in humor and an openness to debate.

"If all we are perceived as is being the mouthpiece of the Democratic Party, we have failed," Walsh said.

Walsh is tempering his expectations in the early going -- "we expect to have a pretty decent radio product that we hope gets some ratings; our ambition is not blockbusterish," he says -- and Progress Media expects to make a significant financial investment in the network as it attempts to expand its audience.

"Considering the state of politics, I believe that the times might be more fertile in the years ahead for liberals to be able to do what the conservatives have done, and that is to develop a core audience for liberal talk radio," said Michael Harrison, publisher of Talkers, the leading trade magazine on the subject. "However, even with the times being right, it won't be easy, because it took Limbaugh years to develop his following."

©2004 The Washington Post Company

C'mon Washington Post! Bono's Speech Was Obscene, NOT Profane!

Profane language is irreverent; taking the Lord's name in vain is profanity. To damn someone is a profanity. George Carlin's seven words that cannot be said on television triggered the Supreme Court decision in the 1974 George Carlin "Seven Dirty Words" case, FCC v. Pacifica Foundation (the original Carlin monologue that was the subject of the case was actually called "Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television".) This decision established indecency regulation in broadcasting, and for over two decades has established the FCC as the largest censorship body in the world. This case is essentially one of the forebears of the "Communications Decency Act". George Carlin would make this point, too. Bono's f-word was obscene, not profane! If there must be censorship, at least recognize the difference between profanity and obscenity. The words are not interchangeable. Carlin's 7 words were all obscenities. Listen for yourself:

Carlin's 7 Words.

Note, however, that no one is force to follow the link to the audio file from Carlin's monologue. That is WHY there is a power button on all TV sets. No one is forced to listen to George Carlin. No one is forced to listen to Bono. However, Bono's lapse was unintentional. When W used the f-word in his assault on Al Hunt, it was intentional. It was obscene. It was uttered in the hearing of Al Hunt's wife and children. So, if it's good enough for W, it's good enough for Bono. As I recall, an open mike caught W using another obscenity during Campaign 2000. W's running mate laughed at the remark. W would understand every single word uttered by George Carlin. He probably has said many—if not all of them—during his lifetime. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

If this be (fair & balanced) obscenity, so be it.

[x Washington Post]
FCC Chairman Seeks Reversal on Profanity
By Frank Ahrens

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael K. Powell asked his four fellow commissioners yesterday to overturn a heavily criticized agency ruling that found a profanity uttered on network television by rock-and-roller Bono was not indecent.

If passed by the five-member FCC commission, Powell's proposal would outlaw Bono's profanity in almost all instances, singling it out as the one word that would nearly guarantee an FCC fine if uttered between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. on radio and broadcast television. Exceptions would include if the profanity is used in a political situation; the FCC's indecency rules include no mandates that might chill political speech.

During the January Golden Globes Awards broadcast on NBC, Bono -- frontman for the Irish rock group U2 -- received an award and exclaimed, "This is really, really [expletive] brilliant!" using the profanity frequently used to describe sexual intercourse.

In an October decision, the FCC's enforcement bureau -- charged with judging whether television and radio broadcast content is indecent -- ruled that Bono's exultation was not indecent because it did not describe a sexual function. In other words, it did not violate the rules because he used the profanity as an adjective.

A firestorm of public and lawmaker criticism followed, with bills and resolutions introduced in Congress blasting the ruling and spelling out which words, in law, should be considered indecent. The FCC was pelted with e-mails from outraged viewers and was lampooned on television shows for its hair-splitting logic.

In Powell's request, he does not seek fines against NBC, its 12 stations or dozens of affiliate stations, saying that the profanity was uttered before the latest proposed policy was developed, an FCC source said.

The FCC's two Democratic commissioners, Michael J. Copps and Jonathan S. Adelstein, have railed against broadcast indecency and, with Powell, would give the chairman the majority he needs to overturn the ruling. The other two Republican commissioners, Kevin J. Martin and Kathleen Q. Abernathy, have been less vocal on the subject, but they likely would follow the Republican chairman's lead.

Powell's action likely will be regarded by some, chiefly Democrats, as a reversal of field from his long-held and widely stated opinion that the FCC should generally not be in the business of policing content. Though he insists his own teenage sons not listen to profanity-laced rap albums, Powell has said the best response to indecent language on television is to "turn it off," which will result in lower ratings for shows airing such content and ultimately drive them from the market.

Powell, however, telegraphed his desire to overturn the enforcement bureau's decision in October when he wrote to the Parents Television Council: "Personally, I find the use of the 'f-word' on programming accessible to children reprehensible."

Copps hopes the agency gets even tougher on future indecency.

"I have been pushing for strong action on indecency since I got here," Copps said yesterday. "I'll know this commission is serious when it starts assessing meaningful fines and having truly filthy broadcasts lead to license-revocation hearings."

During a live December awards show broadcast on Fox, Nicole Richie, one of the stars of the Fox show "The Simple Life," uttered two profanities that were heard by viewers across most of the country. The FCC's enforcement bureau sent a letter of inquiry to Fox last week about the incident, which is the first stage of an investigation.

Some lawmakers predicted that broadcast indecency would be a prominent topic in the upcoming Congress. Reps. Doug Ose (R-Calif.) and Lamar S. Smith (R-Tex.) introduced a bill in December that lists eight words and phrases that would not be spoken on broadcast television without punishment.


© 2004 The Washington Post Company

Iraq Be Gone Under Any Pretext!

I did not vote for Clinton in 1992 (Perot got my vote.) nor in 1996 (Dole got my vote.), but thanks to a dear friend, here is the evidence of Kenneth Pollack's influence on U. S. policy towards Iraq. And the perpetrators of 9/11 are still at large. If this is (fair & balanced) misplaced aggression, so be it.

[x Carter Kelly]
TEXT: CLINTON ON SIGNING THE "IRAQ LIBERATION ACT OF 1998"
(Backing elements advocating different future for Iraq) (920)

Washington -- President Clinton October 31 signed into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998."

"This Act," the President said, "makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

"Let me be clear," Clinton said, "what the U.S. objectives are:

"The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

"The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else.

The President said that the United States "looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life."

Clnton noted that his Administration "has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership."

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, he said, "provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq's prohibited weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well."

Following is the White House text:

(begin text)

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
October 31, 1998

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are:

The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else.

The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.

In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.

On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify, work together more effectively, and articulate the aspirations of the Iraqi people for a pluralistic, participa--tory political system that will include all of Iraq's diverse ethnic and religious groups. As required by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law 105-174), the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. My Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq's current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts.

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq's prohibited weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well.

Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

THE WHITE HOUSE,

October 31, 1998.