Entering the ‘monolithic, exclusionary, activist liberal media’ lion’s den

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Good Morning Real America
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

“Oooh, [Sarah Palin is] ‘infiltrating’ the Today Show. I think it means [Palin] is cynically exploiting a manufactured notion of herself as a crusader against a monolithic, exclusionary, activist liberal media, whilst actually enjoying a mutually beneficial, symbiotic relationship with them, only to the detriment to the rest of the country.” — Jon Stewart

Important points about patriotism not being exclusively a ‘conservative’ trait — “Patriots who understand the constitution”, in her terms. That’s classic denigration of ‘The Other’. (And we all do that.)

– P

Hitchcock’s ‘Rear Window’ panorama

Following my own recent humble stumblings in time-lapse photography, here

Via Jason Kottke, this stitched together time-lapse panorama of the scene outside the window of Hitchcock’s classic film is, apparently, accurate. Wow.

Follow the link on Jason’s site to the ‘how this was made’ page. Extraordinary.

-P

For the record: Teapot tapes media audit clears ‘pond scum’

Click to read

Herald on Sunday journo Jonathan Milne’s narrative of how the ‘cup of tea’ media stunt got recorded and the actions following is a must-read (if you care).

See: Findings not quite Key’s cup of tea (NZ Herald)
Read it. Seriously. (Ignore the 1 April dateline.)

In the same paper, I noted that broadcaster Mike Hosking was quoted declining comment – about controversy regarding his Sky City Casinos contract and payments – to the Herald on Sunday in these terms:

Hosking is still refusing to discuss his close links to the casino, revealed in last week’s Herald on Sunday.
This week he said it was a “non-story” and he wouldn’t be commenting on it as the newspaper’s staff were “pond scum” and “reprobates“.

I know others, including former colleagues of mine, who hold equally unflattering opinions of the HoS — based on their personal experience of the at times, let’s face it, pretty seedy celebrity-hounding, privacy-stretching culture of the paper. (We discussed that here, in relation to the news media stalking people through Facebook, remember?)

But I recommend you read Jonathan Milne’s (NB: not Jonathan Marshall) article for yourself — and see what you think of their actions.

– P

Richard Nixon’s resignation letter

I had not seen this image before. A little piece of political history.

via Reg Braithwaite (It seems genuine.)

See my quote of Hunter S Thompson’s Nixon obit in this post: Gonzo

– P

Loyalty, engagement and criticism

I've read Andrew Sullivan's blog for a while - mainly by RSS. Click to visit.

Andrew Sullivan is a writer I respect. And that’s for a lot of reasons, whether I agree with everything he says or not.

Elements of his ‘The Daily Dish‘ blog have been widely copied by the less imaginative* (Mental Health Break, Face of the Day, Quote of the Day, Tweet of the Week, blog ‘awards’) along with countless of his posts, videos, links, insights, smack-downs, and wry laffs — with or without acknowledgement, ‘hat tips’, or squiggly unicode curation symbols ᔥ ↬ etc.

Sullivan — a magazine editor and columnist (bio on wikipedia) — is influential. His is an Internet success story based on a background in ‘old media’ (boo hiss [/s]), talent, dedication and focus. I enjoy him a lot. I appreciate him acknowledging his POV, being ‘man enough’ to acknowledge his loud, partisan support for Bush’s invasion of Iraq was a mistake based on fear.

Besides POV, I enjoy Sullivan having an attention span. Does he run crusades? Oh yes, at times. And his contempt for some of his targets is palpable, but he’s not a liar. And that’s a very important distinction in these times of ‘culture war’.

Sullivan is also a classic example of what I mean when I say MEDIA will absorb all ‘new media’ and make it part of the borg … just as Art swallows up the Romantics, the New Romantics, the modern era, the post-modern era etc ad infinitum. (‘Resistance is futile.’)

Sullivan is doing well, apparently, with a regular audience of millions, including my ‘umble self, usually by RSS (and recently Flipboard on my iPad). I think his popularity and RESPECT is partly because unlike some of his spittle-flecked imitators, it seems to me he is open to genuine discussion and criticism, rather than building a partisan echo-chamber and abusively swearing at non-believers. Look:

Home News
It’s now been a year at the Beast and I’m happy to note that our traffic this past year reached 91 million page views, up around 26 percent over our last year at the Atlantic, and our monthly readership of around 1.1 million individual people across the planet is as solid as ever.
Thanks as always for your loyalty, engagement and criticism.

Congratulations to him. Way to go.

– P

* ‘There is nothing new under the sun’ (Ecclesiastes 1:9) and ‘Great artists steal’ (Picasso? Steve Jobs) apply, natch.

PS I cop criticism here and elsewhere from time to time (even in the last few days) from commenters who (quite rightly) dispute my POV or raise an argument against something I’ve said, or how I said it, or my selective focus. That’s fair enough. Have at it. Let’s discuss it.
As I said with respect to my experience at PropertyTalk:

A discussion forum is a democracy. Posters stand or fall on the quality of their information and their expression of ideas. No-one is ‘owed’ respect. I have my detractors. So does anyone who posts.

If I publish or say something ridiculous or patently false, I should anticipate ridicule and my false information to be pointed out.

Go ahead, criticise. Make a case, be as ‘negative’ as you like — best leave character attacks and hallucinations about ‘motivations’ out of it — just the facts, as strongly as you like and present the evidence to illustrate or support your point of view.

Obama skates

Ha! I know I pointed, affectionately, to our PM skiting about his recent ‘pull aside’ with President Obama (see: ‘Regular bloke’ John Key … skites).

Look what some clever dick has put together.
It must be true, I saw it on the interwebs… Obama skating:

Awesome!

– P

(via Tim Carmody)

Warnings of militancy. Not just an ultra-right thaang.

Yeah, I know these ‘White Pride’ types have been around for awhile, and will always be with us, but it still strikes me when I’m reminded about them, and sample their thinking … in today’s Sunday Star Times at the stuff.co.nz website…

Joining Right Wing Resistance on the streets were also stalwarts to the white nationalist movement – Blood and Honour, National Front, Southland Skinheads and Independent Skinheads.
“We have seen it in other countries,” said former Christchurch Central MP Brendon Burns. “Fanned in the right direction, with the right economic and social circumstances, it can take hold. Obviously Christchurch is going through its most difficult time yet.” …

[Kyle] Chapman said Right Wing Resistance was about creating a place where people could be taken care of. It was about “fighting that politically-correct crap“. It was about fighting dodgy politicians lying to New Zealanders. It was about a warning.
“As long as the politicians keep going like that, groups like us are going to keep growing, and they are going to grow more militant.”

That “fighting that politically-correct crap” complaint and justification for militancy isn’t just a neo-Nazi/skinhead thing — it’s echoed in right wing propaganda on a ‘milder’ end of the scale too. Look at firebrand Andrew Breitbart’s sad tale of persecution, misery and woe which he (rather gleefully, it seems to me) used as a basis for declaring “War!” on … well, on who exactly, really? The left wing liberal elite old media? The left? Who?

While emoting outrage about a homogenous ‘the left’ which [allegedly] uses ‘divide and conquer’ tactics and demeaning people, Andrew Breitbart seems to me to do exactly what he accuses them of. (Doesn’t he?) Then promises ‘War!’ with such a delighted twinkle in his eye. Take a look: (contains swearing)

Could Andrew Breitbart be said to be pugnacious for its own sake, perhaps? Maybe. See how he angrily abused protesters just a few weeks before he died of a heart attack. Who is demeaning whom?

I said earlier, as part of another conversation:

The term ‘politically correct’ comes in for a lot of stick and self-described ‘firebrands’ like Andrew Breitbart (or ‘haters’ some might call them) have tried to make ‘tolerance’ a bad thing. Screaming about ‘liberal media’ trying to ‘silence them’, they set out to destroy people’s lives by holding up the very same ‘politically correct’ banner and protesting others’ right to hold an opinion that doesn’t match theirs.

In the warm glow of debate I’ve seen right wingers chastising left wingers for uttering supposedly politically incorrect sentiments. I remember a conversation I was on the edge of with ACT’s Cathy Odgers and others where she objected to a comment about the colonial-era confiscation of Maori land (viz: ‘raping and pillaging land is historical fact’). Cathy countered with ‘depends entirely on ur perspective doesn’t it? And U can’t “rape” land. Demeans the word rape…’
Sigh.
Isn’t that ‘demeans the word rape’ a precious example of PC? I think so. Or it could just be a smokescreen to duck behind when the argument isn’t going your way. I’ve observed the same sensitivity pops up, in Cathy’s case, with mentions of suicide and depression (and rightly so).

My point is: it ain’t just left wingers who reach for the ‘You can’t say that!’ button of political correctness, despite the claims of cultural strangulation by ‘PC’.

It’s worth reading the whole article on Christchurch’s ‘white power’ scene.

– P

PS: Andrew Breitbart doesn’t need my assistance to publicize his hate-filled rants against whatever it was that he perceived as “the left”. From the self-serving hogwash like this:

“We didn’t declare war on the Left. They declared war on us.”

(Yeah, right.) To:

The new media is taking over where the old media failed. Yes, they failed, my friends. Yes, they failed.

This type of psycho-babble is pure nonsense. It is frequently trotted out by haters to justify all sorts of nasty aggression against those in their ‘out-groups’.

Fear can play tricks on our minds … and justify hate.

It’s as I discussed when we looked at the science of fear: political operators can – and do – use their hallucinations about how ‘corrupt’ their opponents are imagined to be to justify their own oh-so-real corrupt actions and tactics.

I don’t mean to harp on about Richard Nixon, but he’s a good example of someone creating an ‘enemies list’ then doing despicable things to people on that list …. because they were on the list.

Obama’s birth certificate ‘lemonade’

Funny!

From the Barack Obama campaign store

Made in the USA. (I wonder if the mug is?)

– P

Killer whale submarine

From Mashable, number 1 on their list of things you could buy if you won the lottery … Made me chuckle.

20120331-210252.jpg

1. Personal Killer Whale Submarine

Price: $100,000
What does it do?: If you won the lottery, why not jump into a 17-foot watercraft that resembles a killer whale? The submarine can travel underwater at 25 miles per hour or hydroplane on the water’s surface at 50 mph. The watercraft fits two people who can enjoy the watery view through the glass top or by watching an LCD screen that captures the rear view.

Full list here: 8 Crazy Gadgets to Buy If You Win Mega Millions by Brian Anthony Hernandez Mashable.com

– P

So, who is Simon Lusk?

Scratch this one down to idle curiosity:

I’m seeing Simon Lusk‘s name bandied about in Parliament, in the media and on the interwebs. He’s a fairly low-key chap, apparently, who works as some sort of campaign manager/political careers advisor/ninja for various ‘players’ (or wannabe players) on the right of politics in New Zealand.

A blogger at The Standard James Henderson, in a post titled Beached as bro accuses Simon Lusk of being the brains behind right-wing attack poodle/volunteer PR organ Cameron Slater’s um, … behind his, er, … behind Cameron’s … um, gee, … his recent attention-grabbing (is that the right term?) even suggesting the two are co-writers of Cameron’s blog, but I’m not so sure about that.

Here’s his (Simon Lusk’s) home page (text quoted below):

‘This site has been established as Simon {Lusk} wishes to remove any chance that his anonymity becomes the focus of a campaign.’ Hmm, but the whole website is PASSWORD PROTECTED at present. Why?

I must say, I heartily approve of Simon Lusk’s marketing posture: “Hello, I’m simply selective Simon, I act for candidates on the political right, I’m proud of my work but very discreet about it. Oh, and I’m in demand and may just be too busy huntin’ & fishin’ to be bothered.” Noice. In other words: ‘You want me? You may not be able to have me!’ Playing hard to get is an old ploy, but still great marketing.

“PROTECTED: This post is password protected. Enter the password to view any comments.”
Click to try for yourself.

This web site outlines Simon Lusk’s approach to political campaigning, the services he offers and why he is selective about which aspiring politicians he chooses to take on as clients.
Simon acts for centre right candidates in both general and local body elections, for lobby groups and for referenda campaign organisations.
This site has been established as Simon wishes to remove any chance that his anonymity becomes the focus of a campaign. He is proud of the campaigns he has been involved in, and the professionalism he brings to campaigning. He chooses to remain out of the public eye because he believes campaign managers should be behind the scenes and that being in the media does not win votes for clients.
Simon has limited time to campaign due to commercial engagements, and his fishing and shooting commitments.

Now, the only trouble is, you need a PASSWORD to visit any pages on Simon Lusk’s information website (including the ‘Contact’ page). So, let me see if I follow the strategy: (1) Set up a website to ‘remove any chance that […] anonymity becomes the focus of a campaign’ … and (2) Make the whole site password protected? Hmm.

According to the NZ Herald, Nicky Hager’s book The Hollow Men points to Simon Lusk so: Continue reading →

Debunking science with ideology

Following up on our conversation about differing measures of openness to ideas, depending on self-identification as ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’ …

Study tracks how conservatives lost their faith in science

How do liberals and conservatives differ in their attitudes toward science? Statistics indicate that conservatives’ confidence in science as an institution has declined dramatically since 1974.

By Alan Boyle msnbc

An analysis of 36 years’ worth of polling data indicates that confidence in science as an institution has steadily declined among Americans who consider themselves conservatives, while confidence levels have been at steadier levels for other ideological groups.
The study, published in the April issue of the American Sociological Review, provides fresh ammunition for those who complain that conservative views on issues such as climate change are at odds with the scientific consensus.
“You can see this distrust in science among conservatives reflected in the current Republican primary campaign,” Gordon Gauchat, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s Sheps Center for Health Services Research, said in a news release from the American Sociological Association.
“When people want to define themselves as conservatives relative to moderates and liberals, you often hear them raising questions about the validity of global warming and evolution, and talking about how ‘intellectual elites’ and scientists don’t necessarily have the whole truth.” … > continued at msnbc

Yeah, I hear quite bright people who pugnaciously claim ‘the jury is still out on climate change’ not from any scientific standpoint but from the standpoint of that scientists are corrupt/cowed/idiots/gullible/godless.

Ideology, in other words.

– P

via John Gruber Daring Fireball

Inside joke: Pete says creepy things

From the Business Herald this morning, good ol’ Scott Adams. [chuckle]

Yeah, it’s a private joke. But funny at a number of levels.

– P

‘Regular bloke’ John Key … skites

Every now and then John Key does something to remind us that he’s a regular(ish) kiwi bloke.

Feeding the masses, Kinleith 25 Nov 2011 Pic: Patrick Gower via Twitter (click to enlarge)

I remember TV3’s Patrick Gower tweeted a pic of the National Party leader on the campaign trail — offering pizza to members of the media stuck on his campaign bus the day before last year’s general election.

Waiting for my coffee at our local café this afternoon, I idly flicked through the NZ Herald and read that the prime minister had tweeted a photo of himself with US President Obama. (See Key Tweet home pal Obama [sic].) Oh, neh, I thought. Surely not!

Well, shucks, folks. It appears to be trueBwhahahaha. (Blush.)

Now, to be fair, I don’t know that the PM actually tweets himself or whether he has one of his helpers like the effervescent Sarah Boyle do the donkey work … but to quote McPhail and Gadsby: ‘Jeez, Wayne!’

Q: Do you think Obama tweeted a picture of the two of them? It seems unlikely.

How adorable.

– P

What you see depends on where you stand

Some respectful discussion today here about open-mindedness and degrees of perception.

And so, this — flicked into my tweetstream this afternoon — seems appropriate …

We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are. — The Talmud

Questions about the teapot investigation

Police explained the delay in reaching a conclusion saying "it took time to talk to those involved, particularly members of public who were in the cafe" But no investigator has spoken to me ... and I was standing right there. (pic: stuff.co.nz)

So, it’s been announced the cameraman who recorded the pre-election ‘cup of tea’ between John Key and John Banks in November last year won’t be prosecuted. Stuff.co.nz reported:

Police will not lay charges over the “teapot tape” saga and say freelance cameraman Bradley Ambrose has received a warning. Assistant Police Commissioner Malcolm Burgess held a press conference this afternoon and said police had resolved the case. While he only received a warning, Ambrose’s actions were illegal, Burgess said.

Illegal? Oh really? That’s an opinion, surely? Perhaps a qualified one, but an opinion not tested in court, I’d say. Unlike the ‘organised criminal group’ charges which fell over last week.

“We were satisfied on this occasion that there was [prima facie evidence]. But police decided there was not sufficient public interest in the matter going to court, he said. “I reached the view that a prosecution was not required in this instance.”

Not sufficient public interest? Oh. I see.

In the view of police investigators, the recording was “most likely” on purpose, but at the least “reckless”. Burgess said he would still advise media organisations not to play the tape

Oh, so the police ‘advise’ media organisations not to play the tape? Why? Is that another ‘shot across the bows’ of the news media? So, there’s insufficient ‘public interest’ in prosecuting the guy who recorded it! Why would there be more ‘public interest’ in prosecuting media outlets who distribute it?

Asked why the inquiry took so long, Burgess said it took time to talk to those involved, particularly members of public who were in the cafe.

That’s intriguing. They spoke to the public? Funny thing: I was there, in the cafe (see blue circle in the frame from Fairfax video) … and, although I think I can credibly be called an eye witness, I haven’t been approached by anyone investigating the case to discuss what I observed happen that afternoon — and I was standing right at the table.

Is it possible a sense of constitutional decorum seeped into the police investigation? Such that they decided not to interview the journos there? Or, having issued ‘advice’ and search warrants to news media organizations in the lead-up to the general election (and creating headlines around the world thereby) did the police perhaps think better of inviting the qualified witnesses available in for a quiet chat … over a cup of tea?

– P

Update: Good thinking on the issues from Andrew Geddis and Russell Brown.