| By Sex And Politics and Screeds and Attitude is there a press tag on your ass, are you uninformed or just too tired?
that's my question amy goodman of democracy now.
and it's been my question for some time.
but i was waiting to see what would be the last straw?
the gaza coverage 2 weeks ago almost was the lost straw.
but now it's hit a new low so i'm blogging while on vacation as a result of this crap.
so democracy now sends out this little 'daily digest.' in it, it tells you what was on the show, what shows amy goodman's going to be on (and, as wally noted, tells you to write and say you enjoyed her appearance) and it gives you her upcoming appearances.
i came in late to the show. i had the book (exception to the rulers) as a gift from c.i. and, as it is with a lot of books from c.i., i let it sit and sit without opening it. then c.i. started up the common ills and kept linking to the show, so i started watching.
the quality's gone down hill for some time. but i'd probably keep my mouth shut if the 'daily digest' wasn't linking to a blog that is infamous for being sexist (and had a number of women leave and start their own community last summer), wasn't infamous for not including people of color (cedric wrote about this but i had already heard about it from t when i started blogging - the first thing she did was tell me about her own experience at that hideous blog - i'm white woman and i was out of the loop that this happened at all let alone that it was fairly common), infamous for rumors of play-for-pay ads/endorsements and in the midst of some scandal every other moment.
is it 'indymedia'? no, it's not. it's a partisan democratic site.
so why is democracy now urging you to go there repeatedly in each 'daily digest'?
the most obvious reason is that some 1 wants a little pay to play and thinks she can pay with 'traffic' and hopes that people will comment on the nonsense thread to make the operator realize how important she and her show are and maybe it will actually get some coverage.
now if it had been atrios, i don't think any 1 would have blinked. if it had been any other site (besides the blogfather that apparently birthed him out the ass - oh i said butt baby! i'll get slammed the same way janeane was!) it wouldn't have meant shit to anybody.
but to scrape and bow to that blog?
that's what this is and that's why the question is: is there a price tag on your ass, are you too tired or are you just uninformed?
i avoided speaking to c.i. about this for a number of reasons. mainly because i wasn't in the mood for an 'in fairness' conversation.
i don't care if it's an out of control intern.
i don't care if the cia infiltrated show with an intern.
that 'daily digest' represents the show, therefore it represents her.
now at common dreams, 2 writers wrote a wonderful thing about her a few months back (april) and there was no link provided to that story in the daily digest.
what she's providing a link to isn't anything worth linking to. what is it 2, 3 paragraphs and then a bunch of comments from people who don't follow the show?
every 1 knows about the bill clinton interview in november of 2000. if you know the title 'democracy now' then you know about that interview.
so when you see a thread where people mention that interview and (with few exceptions) only that interview, then you're not dealing with people who follow the show.
you're dealing with people who think 'better weigh in! i don't watch it! what do i know? oh, bill clinton!'
that was 6 years ago. if that's the only thing people can think of (and for most that is all) that's a sign of something. maybe that they don't watch it or maybe that it's just not memorable.
let's explore that thing above. kat didn't delink to the show today. she didn't have to, she never provided a link to on her blog roll. she would link to certain things if she felt they were worth noting (and she didn't feel that most of the time). that's been my approach here as well.
so here's the reason for that, noted with kat's permission. kat has no idea what happened on 9/11 but she has no reason to dismiss people from offering their take - after all that's all the so called public record is.
so amy goodman interviewed david ray griffin. he has a theory about 9/11 and it's a well known theory. his writing sells.
so what's the problem?
the problem is, she only brought him on after people showed up at her book tour and repeatedly put her on the spot asking her way she 'miss indymedia' refused to offer anything that challenged the official version of 9/11?
so under repeated and intense pressure she finally decides to have david ray griffin on the show.
now how does she thank her loyal fans?
does she probe him with an extended interview?
no, not really. because less than 1/2 way it become a 'debate.'
if she didn't want the man on the show, don't have him on the show.
it's that simple.
but she had him on the show, supposedly to talk about his book and his theories about 9/11.
now there's a whole back story to that interview and how it was supposed to be a joint interview with the woman who was suing bully boy for his alleged complicity in 9/11 (which amy goodman misrepresented on her show - the law suit) but they got split up. instead of being interviewed together, amy goodman split up the woman and griffin.
now that's a problem. she only brought the author on because fans of the show pressed her into doing so and then she practices ambush journalism which is somehow supposed to endear her to the fans she's attempting to please/satisfy by bringing on griffin?
(fyi, bonnie faulkner has interviewed david ray griffin many times on her show guns and butter and she's never felt the need to ambush him or make sure she did some sort of wink to the listeners to let them know she wasn't buying it. gore vidal's written about that nonsense and it is nonsense. if you're bringing them on your show and you're a journalist, you bring them on to hear their story, not to ridicule them or allow them to be ridiculed.)
she says there's a debate and the other guest is brought on in the 2nd segment. he hasn't heard griffing comments. how can be there a debate if he hasn't paid attention and 'rush transcript' doesn't excuse some of the points that don't make it in.
what is the 'okay!' amy goodman suddenly screams in the middle of david ray griffin's talk? who is she talking to? it's not in the transcript. but i remember, when kat told me about this bit of shit interview going online, and listening. i listened and read along (you can google it and do the same) and the 'okay!' reads 'okay' as though she's saying 'yes continue' but that's not what it is. the whole damn thing smacks of that moment in bullworth where warren beatty's telling the corporate newscaster to listen to the voice in her ear piece and save her job.
that being a movie, the woman doesn't.
in reality, on our brave show, amy goodman's screaming 'okay!' what is that about?
she needs to explain why she's so excited and who's she's speaking to in the middle of an interview while a guest is answering a question.
the whole thing played like a call in.
and i'm not aware of guests coming on to discuss their work and having people join the interview in the midst of it to refute the guest. that certainly didn't happen with thomas friedman when not only did no guest challenge him but the host appeared asleep for most of the interview.
and since she screams that 'okay!' some 1 needs to explain why it's 'okay' in the transcript.
that's bad and that's why kat had no interest in ever putting the show on her blogroll. but what's bad is what the hell is happening to the show?
bill richardson, who basically told amy goodman to go to hell at the dnc convention in 2004, gets his ass kissed this year by the same amy goodman. he doesn't want to talk to about wen ho lee, though his finger prints are all over that (and much worse, read greg palast). he wants to be president in 2008 and she's blowing verbal kisses to him. that's a problem.
it gets worse. betty wrote about thomas friedman's appearance on democracy now without having heard it. kat told her what he said while it was going on, they were on the phone, betty listens to it in the car during the evening.
betty hears the interview and can't believe it. she told herself that since betinna (the character in her online novel) would only hear thomas friedman's side (as he spoke into the phone), it was okay for her novel.
but exactly why did amy goodman let friedman trash hugo chavez in explicit terms and never challenge him?
why did she let juan gonzales do the heavy lifting with michael gordon when he (gordon) snapped at her?
i thought this was our brave voice. so why's she doing these softballs?
why is thomas friedman even on to begin with? he's not a brave left voice. so if you're not going to challenge him, why have him on?
i didn't need his spewing. that interview pissed me off.
then came gaza. where an israeli guest who used to be in the israeli government (ben-ami) gripes about the way he's treated on the show and she says she's sorry. on air.
what's up with that?
he's allowed to talk over the other guests, he's allowed to lecture and pick what's he's going to respond to and yet he still has to have his baby temper tantrum and she's saying 'i'm sorry'?
what she should have said was, 'too bad.' what she could have done was ignore his tantrum.
what is this ass kiss now?
that's not democracy now.
and the gaza reporting was flawed and remains so.
maybe she's tired.
maybe she's trying to make sure that all the npr stations that won't carry the show will carry it if she goes for 'balance.'
people shouting at each other is what we got on crossfire so why she thinks we benefit from listening to that is beyond me.
the interview with david ray griffin has to be heard to be believed.
personally, i believe the planes brought down the towers. i'm a recovering mainstream media junkie. but i'm not opposed to hearing some 1 present an alternative case. certainly the bully boy has lied about everything else and the mainstream press has given him plenty of cover.
i think that david ray griffin's theory is more valid than the laughable 'shit' (to use bob kerrey's term) that the official 911 commission churned out.
if you pay attention, you'll note that joan mellen's never been a guest, that the brave indy program won't go there or address jfk.
now it can mention on malcolm x's assassination, a line or 2 here and there. but they have no interest in the jfk assassination.
but to get back to 9/11, a guest presenting an argument and a caller (i use that for a reason and most are aware of another interview in which some 1 was invited on another program but decided not to appear only to show up on the phone in the midst of an interview to dismiss the claims) who trashes every 1 as a conspiracist (christic institue most famously), what was she thinking?
was she thinking there would be a dialogue?
no. she had to know it would be 'this is what i think' by 1 guest and another snorting (as he does during the interview) and going 'wrong!'
that's not a dicussion, it's not even a debate. that's bullshit debate. that's the sort of debate you see in middle school. it's not a real debate. it's a dog and pony show. and she didn't even know her facts accusing david ray griffin of saying that a reporter didn't exist when that was another author.
so i'm not a big fan of the so-called debates and discussions on that show.
but what about when they get facts wrong?
c.i. was very kind last week and waited until edward wong repeated a falsehood twice in print. only the 2nd time did c.i. call wong out. ('NYT: 'Facts is hard' Edward Wong demonstrates'). thing is, democracy now repeated that falsehood and they continue to do so. steven green wasn't arrested last week.
do your fucking research. good god, c.i. provided more details on that online than anyone except sandra lupien (i'm assuming that because c.i.'s given all credit in personal conversations to lupien's broadcast). last week, on monday, c.i. linked to the government press release and wrote about how steven green was arrested on june 30th.
the new york times ran a correction on wong's articles so why can't amy goodman get it right?
c.i. didn't call out that show on it (but did correct them in the highlight). they continue to get it wrong. even after the new york times corrected their own mistake.
democracy now, which mike pointed out 2 sundays ago wasn't interested in covering nancy a. youssef's explosive story that the us government was keeping a body count on iraqis, despite the lies and denials they issued, can't get their facts right.
now you can pin it on a new intern or new staff member, but really, get your fucking facts straight or just go off the air.
i'm not in the mood for crappy journalism.
we need real journalism and if the show provide some, fine and dandy. but this nonsense of not even knowing the right day for when someone was arrested when it's in a government press release? i mean come on.
worry a little less about kissing ass online to a big blogger and worry a little more about doing your damn job. get your shit together or pack it in.
i'm sick of the bullshit, i'm sick of the nonsense.
and when they want to promote a blog that's run women off, that's not friendly to african-americans and that's surrounded with rumors of how they drop endorsements of candidates for money (and forget the rumors, the fact that they're playing kid gloves with the likes of war hawk mark warner is disgusting enough).
now maybe, like when steven green was arrested, goodman doesn't know this.
well she needs to. and she needs to be providing a lot more supervision to that show because the quality has sunk. little less word of mouth, little more work.
this community is furious about the repeated blog link (which is an endorsement). cedric wondered how much that had to do with the fact that the common ills and mike promote the hell out of that show? i'm sure that's part of it, but it's a small part. the larger issue is that they do so much damage these days.
what was that coverage of the mexican elections?
it was encouraging advocacy. and let me tell you how that's playing out at the resort i'm in (not in mexico), welathy, old right-wingers are laughing at reports that, from america, mexicans or mexican-americans are going to stream into mexico for protests.
why?
it damages the cause of the immigration issue here.
forget the flags of mexico at the protests, that's a totem, that's honoring your ancestors.
but when you're leaving this country to go protest the elections in mexico, you're putting a 'trash me, trash my issue' sign on your back for every right winger and you damn well better believe the right wing press will pick up on it and the centrist press (the big press) will play it that way as well.
how? 'they say they want to be a part of this country but look what they're doing!'
do i think there's anything wrong with it? no.
but i know image. i know p.r. and that's going to hurt the immigration cause in this country.
every hater and every on the fencer is going to hear about people leaving america to go participate and they're attitude is going to be, 'well, i guess we know where there loyalties are.'
it's the last damn thing the immigration cause in this country needs. but at the bar, this prick had printed up some newsletter he was e-mailed and was laughing about it, a prediction that millions were going to stream across the border into mexico to protest the elections.
this isn't 'joe 6 pack.' this is a filthy rich prick.
i've said before the left needs to do some reality wake ups and i'll say it again.
this resort isn't the sort of place i'd go to on my own. (and elaine was full of complaints about it.)
(she was correct on every 1.) i have my own money, i earned it. but with fly boy, i am exposed to those wealthy base that funds those publications, organizations, et al because that's the sort of the crowd that goes to these places.
in fact, let me talk about that and 2 other things. (mike's not posting until i get this up.)
1st off, this word of mouth scheme (playing cozy with a 'big blog') that's pissing people off. let me share with you some research from a few years back. i worked with a company that did business with the public. they had a really bad image and they were suffering.
they wanted to creat a new image.
we did research on that. here's what we found out. it's eaier to keep your customers than to go after new 1s. 'easier' means cheaper.
why do you lose customers?
think about some where you used to go. you may have left because something new opened up. you may have left because you lost interest. those were answers from our polling. but it was slightly over 50% that stated they left because they felt they were ignored, dismissed or in some way treated rudely.
that's what's going on with this ass-kiss link in the 'daily digest' - it's going to hurt them. they'll lose listeners or readers who will never come back.
and it's not even an article on amy goodman. it's not an interview. it's just 2 or 3 lousy paragraphs and she's risking her credibility and the show's promoting that blog hoping that traffic and additional posts that her loyal faithful will give to that post will lead to more coverage at that site that's ignored her for the most part.
that may happen. i doubt it. unless she's going to give air kisses to every dem the way she did with bill richardson. but what it is doing is pisisng people off. and those people, they won't come back. she's losing them. she's sending them packing.
elaine's going to tackle another angle, by the way. she should be home or on the way home as i'm typing this (from the airport).
now because i was plugging the show people in fly boy's crowd knew about it. i stopped plugging it a long time ago and only linked when mike would beg to me. but my mother-in-law didn't know that. she knows every 1 ('that matters') and was working on some funding as a favor to me. i called her up yesterday and told her to stop it.
she has. why? because i asked her to but also because big blog is run by 'squeak.' i didn't realize c.i. didn't come up with that name. (c.i. never presented it as though it was original.) that's what big blogger's called by the big families in the united states. 'squeak.'
(c.i. is part of the big families as most members know.)
my mother-in-law mentioned the 'social climber' post that c.i. did on squeak. and i didn't even know she followed the common ills? she doesn't. that was some thing that got bandied around because it was funny and because it represented that class's way of thinking.
he is an obvious social climber.
he won't get far. obvious social climber's don't.
i'm not of that class. having money doesn't make you part of it. (i'd argue marriage doesn't - based on when fly boy, who is part of it, and i were married.) you're born into it. wherever in the world, you're born into it.
c.i. and ava were born into it. they can navigate it beautifully. jim will tell me some social story about ava and i will think, 'i know just what you mean, i remember college days with c.i.'
that class has their own code. you can't break into it, you can't 'crash the gates.' and when you reveal your ambition, you're seen as a social climber and that's about the worst thing you can be in their eyes.
i'm not insulting ava or c.i. (or fly boy). they can't help what they were born into. they're the wacky 1s that are embraced for that. (my mother-in-law calls c.i. a socialist in a fond way and c.i.'s not socialist - nothing wrong with being 1, but c.i.'s not 1 - but that's the sort of way they're seen, as the do gooders. and it's seen as their quirk, their lark.)
there are rules and c.i. knows them very well and always has. c.i. can tell you the exact standing at any given moment of any 1. when a press reported wealthy heir embarrassed herself, c.i. explained that the wealth was gone long ago and only the 'idiot press' still thinks the heir has wealth.
amy goodman's hurting herself with her viewers and listeners by trying to play ass kiss with squeak. but the more damaging thing is what her efforts have done to her image among the 'people who matter'. goodman's not low on the social scale. if she was, she wouldn't have gotten so far. (that's the truth, sorry to pop any bubbles. if it helps, i did quite well but i did better after i married fly boy. clients that wouldn't have returned my calls suddenly wanted to do business.) she has a pedigree. she could become 1 of the big success stories (by the way, i had new appreciation for eddie muphy's trading places after i married fly boy). attaching herself to a social climber in any form hurts her. to quote my mother-in-law 'that's just not done.'
i heard that over and over when fly boy and i were married. and yes, we are getting remarried which is why i started calling her my mother-in-law awhile back (instead of my ex-mother-in-law). we plan a small ceremony of just friends and his parents.
but there are guidelines and there are rules. can you break them? ava and c.i. do. they get away with it. (fly boy's not quite the rebel they are but for that crowd, he's a rebel.) but they were born in. and they're not going to do anything that embarrasses themselves or any of their crowd.
that's why c.i. really doesn't approach journalism criticism from the point of view of an editor or a reporter. c.i.'s coming at it from the higher level. that's the way it was growing up, the talk.
but let's drop back to some things are not done.
1 thing is those out of the set should never think they're in or that they're getting in. if you must think it, for god's sake don't say it. to do so is to be labeled a social climber. that's akin to being labeled a pedophile in the general population. there's nothing worse.
the minute that happens, you are a joke and you will remain a joke.
the best advice c.i. gave me when i married fly boy was, 'don't need anyone. the only power you will have is the fact that people think you don't care about them. if they think that, they'll find you interesting. if they know you want to be liked, you won't be.'
(2nd best advice? 'nolan miller doesn't costume this set. there is a very limited number of deisgners that are accepted, they aren't the 1s that pop up on tv or in the fashion pages. don't wear something new to impress unless it's a gala.' which really is true. i've never seen so many worn clothes outside this set. you don't want anything looking to new because it indicates that you've just 'arrived.')
so the point here is she's associating herself with a social climber and that's going to hurt her. my mother in law is probably black balling her as i type (fly boy nods yes).
as for squeak, he's going to get some press play (note the working press, earning pay checks, unless they come from the established moneyed set, are just the servants. that's how they see them.) and then he's going to realize, after the 2008 election, how unimportant he is. that's happened repeatedly to social climbers. maybe he can parlay it in a celeb set but he's got no power because he's revealed that he wants power.
the few that do manage to rise up, do it understanding the code and the biggest part is that you don't show ambition to rise. you keep your head down, focus on the work and keep your nose clean.
i want to talk about the trashing c.i. had from some 1 recently and i'll just note that in that 'lovely' retold story, the jerk forgot to explain that, years ago, he made a very clumsy, very drunken pass at c.i. and was turned down. not because he was seen as the hired help (c.i. doesn't look at it that way) but because he had really bad breath. he had some dental work done shortly after and possibly the odor resulted from a rotting tooth but he had really bad breath. (and was very drunk and basically attempted to maul c.i. and even friends know you don't just grab c.i. ava's the same way and she came from a much more physically demonstrative family. i told dona to say: 'i'm going to give you a hug' when she explained that she'd hugged ava and ava had just stiffened up. that's what i did for years with c.i. because it wasn't a touchy-feely background and that really is awkward to them when that kind of physical contact comes out of the blue.)
(for the first 2 years of college, anytime i hugged c.i. out of the blue, and i'm a hugger, c.i. would go stiff as a board. it was just a totally new experience.)
now maybe she's completely unaware of the links to squeak (repeated links) but that's too bad. she's been tarred and feathered by them. she's a social climber by association. she may as well have gone the home shopping network with joan rivers to sell some gaudy jewelry.
(a woman c.i. knows, who is a name, is smart enough to keep a distance from squeak. she was raised in money, she knows the rules too. amy goodman would have been smart to have sought out advice from that woman - whom she knows.)
so every 1 who's bothered can take comfort in that. as my mother-in-law said repeatedly on the phone, 'some things just aren't done.' (and amy goodman should have known that.)
shit this thing is long and i'm on vacation. i'm not doing links. i've got a blank space for a c.i. entry that i will put in but other than that, i'm not doing links.
squeak blackballed himself the 2nd he said he was crashing the gates. it didn't help that he's not attractive and that his voice is in the female range. but he's hurt his own cause with his naked desire to be part of a big set. (i'm not of that set. please. after my divorce, a lot of people stopped talking to me. that was fine with me in most cases - 2 women did shock me because i had thought that we were real friends. i'm sure that once news leaks out that fly boy and i are remarrying, they'll call me up and say, 'where have you been?' this time i won't make the mistake of assuming that they're friends. there was also a cold shoulder from most of the neighbors who didn't take well to the idea that i got the house in the divorce settlement - the only thing i asked for. but it was 'family property' and so i got and get sneers from many neighbors.)
amy goodman made her name by keeping her head down and focusing on the work. that's pretty much all destroyed (the image) by associating herself with squeak. that's how it works.
i've delinked. every 1 has but c.i. who probably won't delink. if the community says 'no more,' the show won't be noted any more but c.i. was raised to believe that you tolerate imperfections in others and there won't be any delinking there. there also won't be any trashing of the show there. (again, that's how it's done. if c.i. were to trash it, it would be done with a whisper. if you want to understand this set, read edith wharton. nothing's really changed. and, not surprisingly, wharton was c.i.'s favorite dead author. i could not get how that stuff would work when we were reading her in college and c.i. would give me that 'i'm going to be patient here' look and explain and explain.)
it's a different world. i'm not a part of it. i have been an observer by friendship and by marriage. for instance, an example, as most people who come here know, i have a name on this site. it was my legal name at 1 time. it's not my business name and it's not my maiden name. it's not what's on my driver's lic. now. c.i. said, 'oh rebecca, don't use your real name. what if you and fly boy get back together.' people in that set don't look for press. (so when you see some 1 popping up in the press, it's a sure sign that some 1's got money problems.)
many moths ago, sherry told me that c.i. and i both got an online link from the new york times. c.i. was embarrassed by that ('people know me'), my attitude was 'they didn't put my name in!' i'm rebecca winters here (winters is from my 1st marriage, the 1 that was annulled). it says so on the site. they name all these people and then they say something like 'sex and politics and screeds and attitude writes' and i was like, 'where is my name!' i was raised differently and getting your name mentioned was some thing big.
fly boy's making a point in my ear, reading over my shoulder, and i don't understand it. if i do, i may add it later or in a few days. thanks so much to betty who has been subbing for me. she's done a wonderful job. thanks to mike and wally for their phone calls. (hint, hint, c.i. i haven't heard 1 word from you!) (i'm joking, i knew c.i. wasn't going to phone while elaine was here. that was our time to bond and c.i. wasn't going to 'butt in'.) fly boy says hi to sherry & marlene.
i'll say the vacation's lasting at least 1 more week. take care everybody. |
No comments:
Post a Comment