Recently in Media Category

It's true, as Mariel notes, that there's no conspiracy among MSM types, but that doesn't mean there isn't a bias -- shared attitudes and values among a class that's rather politically and culturally homogenous. That bias has come out in some of the breathless pro-Obama coverage we've seen this year.

While Jonathan's right that some pundits have griped about Obama's shifting positions, that's different from the reporting about him, which has bordered on hagiography.

No, Bridget, McCain won't get fair treatment from the MSM. But then, presidential candidates who whine about the media -- see Clinton, Bill and Hillary -- remind me of sad-sap sports fans who complain about the referees. Life's not fair, get over it.

Presidential campaigns have an army of consultants and millions of dollars to get out their message. If McCain proves unable to do that, it will be nobody's fault but his own.

Bridget raises a valid point about how we tend to focus too much on the wrong things. But I disagree with her diagnosis and prescription.

Most journalists are indeed liberal, as surveys indicate. But the media's tilt in its coverage is not toward liberal orthodoxy, it is toward trivia and titillation. Fixations on Rev. Wright and flag pins hardly signify an unfair tilt to Obama. Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business has proven, 23 years after its publication, to still be the best analysis yet of how politics, religion and education all now worship at the altar of entertainment.

I also doubt that Americans want constant policy comparisons and endless debates. They claim to care rather about testing a candidate's general character and vision -- while actually paying attention only to scandal and gossip. This, not an ideological unfairness, is what fuels the media engine in our day.

I think Bridget brings up a good point about journalistic equity and integrity when covering the 2008 elections. In theory, there would be equal news coverage for both Obama and McCain, but the reality is that the way we get the news today is leaning more toward Obama's direction. And by "we" I'm referring to my generation--the one with the short attention span, and the detrimental ability to feverishly multitask.

But that's not to say it's all good press. Most of my peers and I get our news from campus newspapers or news search engines like Google. And those sources tend to highlight the news with the greatest hits (i.e. the greatest drama). Lately, the buzz about Barack Obama involves his wife, Michelle.

Michelle Obama has become the Jane Fonda of the '08 Elections - she says what she thinks in order to create the greatest shock value. Everything from her comments on American patriotism, her wardrobe choices (gossip websites predict her to be "the next Jackie O"), and her appearance on The View have added to the entire political frenzy surrounding her husband - the biggest draw is that these stories usually have absolutely nothing to do with politics, and are sometimes completely unrelated to Barack Obama.

I see the bias, and hopefully it will calm down now that Obama is the definite Democratic candidate for '08. But, until then, the media frenzy could work to Obama's career advantage, especially among the teenage-to-mid-twenties demographic.

Hey, it worked for Paris Hilton.

For the past few months, the news from the campaign trail has been focused on the photo finish in the Democratic Party. But now that it's just down to Barack Obama and John McCain, will the media coverage even out as it should?

Don't count on it. Obama's every move still grabs enthusiastic top billing. When McCain does make the headlines, it's usually hinged to Obama's latest move, like Obama responding to a McCain policy point or statement that didn't make page one in the first place.

We're past the point of gushing about sunny hope, inspired youths and vague promises of undefined change. We need a stark comparison of the candidates' platforms. Voters might see a clearer picture if Obama had agreed to the nine other town-hall meetings proposed by McCain, but in an ethical world the media should be bringing to the people the equitable coverage and unbiased reporting that would truly aid in making an educated ballot decision.

When did this cranky codger become a barometer of racial harmony in the United States? Everybody is hinging on the next racist word to come out of Don Imus' mouth. And there will probably be more, mind you. But if the guy's offensive, don't listen to him. Don't advertise on his show. Don't buy the products that advertise on his show. Money talks, and bad pundits then walk.

Both times when Imus has incurred the wrath of Al Sharpton, it's reminded me that what Imus thinks passes for humor doesn't do anything to add to the conversation of race in America. I grew up watching the Wayans family's "In Living Color" show, which was not only hilarious but had brilliant and poignant things to say on racial relations and stereotypes, whether it was Homey D. Clown succumbing to The Man at Chez Whitey or the timeless skit of Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan doing their version of "Who's on First?"

Even the man who dethroned Imus from his shock jock throne, Howard Stern, beats Imus by a mile when it comes to talking race: When Stern has as a guest Daniel Carver, an imperial wizard and grand dragon (see, there's room for jokes there already) of the Ku Klux Klan, there is nothing more powerful than hearing the racist banter come directly from Carver's mouth. We're shocked by the reality of what's out there, but we're better for knowing about it. And we laugh at a guy who is so silly, so antiquated in his view of the world as he reviews movies such as "Jungle Fever," etc. And it reminds us that racism has no place in today's world.

Entertainment needn't shy away from race, but can frankly bring these issues to the forefront and make you laugh at the same time. Imus sorely lacks this ability.

More than a decade ago, I used to listen to Imus in New York. He was no Howard Stern, and no racist, either. For the most part, his show featured long, thoughtful conversations with prominent newsmakers of all kinds -- think NPR, but without the monotonic hosts and with a sense of humor.

But "Imus in the Morning" always had its edgy moments, too. What mass entertainment these days doesn't? This is the era of dehumanizing reality TV, of gangsta rap, of public "Scarface" swear-alongs; an age in which an insulting, God-trashing scold like George Carlin gets heralded as a comedic prophet.

Imus plays to his times, knowing that pushing the limits of good taste makes for boffo ratings. It's a dangerous game, because sometimes you get burned -- especially, as Mariel notes, if you pick on the wrong groups.

Compared to the offenses of countless others, I'm not sure Imus is getting treated fairly, with demands that he make an offering, once again, at the altar of Al Sharpton. But I don't weep for him. America's love of "shock" has grown wearisome -- and shock's purveyors make their millions at their own peril.

Well, another year has flown by. They do get faster all the time. This being a political year, there has been a great deal to blog about. Surely there will be no let up through the first week in November (and possibly a few more weeks for counting, recounting, Mugabeing the results and then litigating).

In this year we have posted 1,765 blogs (not counting this!) That's better than 147 per month and more than 5 per day. So much wisdom in so little time. And we're only one-year old.

Way to go!

Anybody who believes Rush Limbaugh's idiotic gas bag boast that he tilted elections in Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania and now Indiana to Hillary Clinton deserves the word that Al Franken used a few years ago in the title to his best selling book to describe Limbaugh.
Limbaugh's Operation Chaos is the latest in the endless stream of dime store promotional gimmicks Limbaugh has used to hype his up and down show ratings, maintain his spot as king of the yak radio circuit, and puff up his Grand Canyon size ego.

The facts in the Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania primaries, of course, refute Limbaugh's hogwash claim. The polls consistently showed that Clinton would likely score a single to double digit win over Obama in these three states. Her core base of supporters, Latinos, rural and blue collar whites, and Reagan Democrats were solidly behind her. In Ohio she got an eleventh hour boost from an alleged memo that painted Obama as waffling on his opposition to NAFTA. That's a red flag issue to economically strapped Ohio workers.

In Pennsylvania nearly 2 million registered Democrats voted. Exit polls showed that out of that number roughly 100,000 voters or 5 percent of the overall number claimed that they changed their registration from Republican to Democrat. An equally small percentage of the Democratic voters said they were new voters or had no party affiliation before the primary. In any case, exit polls showed that the new voters, suspect Democrats or not, backed Obama, not Clinton, by a wide margin, and those that were openly admitted Republicans and that voted as Democrats split evenly down the middle between Obama and Clinton.

The number of new, and unaffiliated voters, and those that claimed to be ex-Republicans at least for the primary was simply too small to seriously say that they made a difference in Clinton's win, escpecially given the gaping margin that she beat Obama by in the state.

Now there's Indiana. Few paid much attention to Limbaugh's absurd blather about Operation Chaos before Obama lost the state by a narrow 14,000 votes. And even then Limbaugh's stunt might have been laughed off as another of the gas bag's ratings grab, that is until Obama backer, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, and some Team Obama staffers bought into his taunt and cried foul. And since Indiana is an open primary state, Limbaugh's boast seemed plausible.

But as always, facts have an irritating way of spoiling a good yarn, or in this case, a hokey claim. Even if we take the word of the roughly ten percent of the Democratic voters in Indiana who claimed they were Republicans, the percentage that went for Clinton was less than ten percent.

That hardly represents a Republican stampede to Clinton. If there was any rush to a Democrat by Republicans anywhere it was to Obama. He got the greater percentage of alleged cross over Republicans in seven of eight states he won according to exit polls. And he got them before Limbaugh allegedly sat out to make mischief by propping up Clinton.

Clinton eked out her win over Obama in the state not with cross over Republican voters but by beating him with the Democrats that she beat him with in Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, and even North Carolina and that's blue collar white voters who are Democrats and vote Democratic. In Indiana Obama's anchor voter demographic, blacks and college educated younger voters, made up a smaller percentage of the vote than in North Carolina.

By dignifying anything that comes out of the mouth of talk radio's champion huckster, Kerry and Team Obama do a disservice to the success that Obama's retooled stump tactics had in making the Indiana race closer than it could have been. He barnstormed the state through small towns and rural areas and touted a quasi populist working fellow's pitch and softened his image as a regular guy in photo-op stops. This helped take the spotlight off of the Wright fiasco, and bury for the moment his verbal gaffes about guns and religion that Clinton and the GOP giddily waved in the face of Pennsylvania voters.

Limbaugh declared and says that he's shutting down Operation Chaos. Why not? He worked this latest con job to masterful perfection. He got a legion of talking heads actually giving serious credence to his screwy boast. He got a ratings bump up. He got some Democrats who should know better to pay perverse homage to his supposed political prowess. And he further bolstered his stock as the GOP's main man of the airwaves.

Not bad for the guy that Franken branded a big fat idiot. Kind of makes you wonder just who the idiot really was in all of this.

My column from a few weeks' back about Ben Stein's "Expelled" -- which posited that the movie should be taken as satire -- has been affirmed by none other than its screenwriter, Kevin Miller, who calls my review "brilliant."

This is, I think, a remarkable endorsement, considering that I called the movie's tactics "nasty" and "unfair," and described some of its main arguments "a stretch" and "a cheap shot."

That Miller doesn't take offense to these descriptions suggest that I was right in my understanding of the movie:

Stein's film is part parody of, part rebuttal to, the crusading atheists who have risen to prominence in recent years - such as Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. And it employs the same nasty tactics they have perfected.

By the way, some have asked where they can find the video I wrote about in my column's lead. Here ya go:

Yesterday, the DN linked to an NPR story that was billed as a profile of Officer Jennifer Grasso, the first woman to enter the LAPD's SWAT school. Interestingly, the only thing it said about Grasso was that she refused to be interviewed. Some profile.

That may be the only thing the report got right. Top to bottom, the story is riddled with factual errors, blatantly stereo-typed prejudice and gross omissions (for instance, trumpeting an officers $2 million jury verdict, while failing to mention said verdict was overturned on appeal).

Here, then, is the commentary in response that I have prepared for NPR. They've not seen fit to get back to me. I'm shocked.

The Politically Incorrect Truth About LAPD's First Female SWAT Officer:

NPR's recent profile of Los Angeles Police Officer Jennifre Grasso, the first female selectee for the renown LAPD SWAT team, left out numerous key facts and advanced patently false misperceptions and liberal stereo-types.

Let's stipulate now that Jennifer Grasso is an outstanding cop. Those who have worked with her say she's far better than most male officers. SWAT officers I know were disappointed when she failed their stringent 2006 selection.

This doesn't change a simple fact: If Grasso is passes SWAT school, it will only be because she's a woman, and Police Chief Bratton wants a woman on SWAT, capable or not.

NPR failed to mention that Grasso recently committed a violation of weapons' safety so egregious that most present SWAT officers would have been removed from the team for the same. She accidentally fired an MP-5 submachine gun, without even having the weapon in a firing position.

Before now, SWAT officers were expected to arrive with the finest weapons handling traits. Just as diamonds can be cut and polished only to standards their chemical traits permit, so too are weapons skills limited. By choosing only officers with the finest innate traits - those with skills that need to be honed, not learned - SWAT has amassed a remarkable record - killing less than 1% of the extremely dangerous suspects they confront and only one hostage ever - and arguably not even her.

In past years, dozens of male and female candidates have been disqualified for even placing a finger on the trigger at the wrong time. Every professional weapons handling standard starts with "never put a finger on the trigger unless you are ready to fire." Grasso went one better, spraying rounds into the dirt in front of her.

She literally could have killed someone, yet is still in school.

Does anyone really believe no SWAT standards have been lowered, as CPT Jeff Greer asserted?

This is no minor matter to current SWAT cops. Would you want to confront an armed suspect knowing the officer behind you had accidentally fired the same machine gun that is now inches from your back? If you're a hostage, is that officer your first choice of rescuer?

NPR also failed to tell you that the selection procedure that picked Grasso used only five of the 18 standards that were previously used to evaluate candidates. Among the eliminated tests, was a simulated hostage rescue that very closely mirrored the 2005 incident in which SWAT is believed to have accidentally killed a little girl - the Suzie Pena case which supposedly led to this change. It is that same test that former officer Nina Acosta barely passed in the early 1990s before suing the City for discrimination. Contrary NPR's report that she wasn't selected because of her gender, officers who testified in the trial say Acosta hesitated for three or four seconds inside that room while fumbling with her weapon. Most police gun battles are over in half that time.

That is why Acosta's $2 million verdict was thrown out by an appeals court, another fact NPR left out.

NPR also was quick to quote LAPD observer Joe Domanick, a journalist who's never carried a gun, much less served as an LAPD officer. According to him, blacks and Latinos were only admitted to SWAT following a consent decree, and the unit is still largely a bastion of whites.

In fact, this is false. Among the very first SWAT officers were several highly regarded officers of a variety of ethnicities. One black sergeant is regarded by old timers as a key to the team's early growth. A large number of the team was Hispanic. Today, African American officers make up a greater percentage of SWAT than the LAPD as a whole - something that was true before Randal Simmons was murdered in Winnetka earlier this year.

But, to Domanick and NPR (who apparrently didn't bother going to look at SWAT), this is a white male bastion.

The fact is, contrary to NPR's assertions, SWAT is a bastion of excellence of all colors, and diverse in its expertise. Its record proves it rarely uses force, and its ranks include some of the world's best-trained - and most successful - hostage negotiators.

How could NPR get so many facts wrong and omit so many important points? I'd venture to say NPR is far more prejudiced against folks in blue, than SWAT cops are anyone of any color. Or any gender.

The loser in all of this is Grasso. Frankly, lots of folks can make mistakes with a weapon. Officers who have done so in the past have retested the selection process and made the team, without doubts. Grasso will not be so fortunate. Regardless of the selection standards used, she will now always be known as the woman who had the standards changed for her, and who got away with something no man ever would.

Sometimes when you shatter a non-existent glass ceiling, you still get cut be falling shards.

And, remember, the standards have not been lowered.