Thoughts from Purple Land
Right on Wright
Apr/30/2008 12:37 AM | Permalink
Tonight,
Dennise and Maria were watching TV, and some clips of
Rev. Jeremiah Wright came on from his National Press
Club appearance last night. Among other things, these
were clips where he was again blaming the government
for AIDS, and calling American soldiers terrorists.
The following is a mostly verbatim transcription of the conversation that ensued...
"Mom, was Rev. Wright alive when Martin Luther King got shot?"
"Yes, Maria, he was."
"I think he's still angry about that. And I think he's probably also still mad about that gas that makes you cry...."
"You mean 'tear gas?'"
"Yeah, tear gas....from on the marches in Atlanta, Georgia.* And I think he's probably mad about people having to sit at the back of the bus too."
"It could be, sweetie."
"Mom, I think he needs to talk to a counselor. Maybe he could talk to Ms. Wilson."
"Who is that, Maria?"
"She's our counselor at school. She says that before you get angry and say mean things you should try screaming into a pillow, or even screaming into a mirror..."
"Into a mirror?"
"Well," said Maria, "actually I made that last part up."
* (we assume she meant Selma, Alabama...)
The following is a mostly verbatim transcription of the conversation that ensued...
"Mom, was Rev. Wright alive when Martin Luther King got shot?"
"Yes, Maria, he was."
"I think he's still angry about that. And I think he's probably also still mad about that gas that makes you cry...."
"You mean 'tear gas?'"
"Yeah, tear gas....from on the marches in Atlanta, Georgia.* And I think he's probably mad about people having to sit at the back of the bus too."
"It could be, sweetie."
"Mom, I think he needs to talk to a counselor. Maybe he could talk to Ms. Wilson."
"Who is that, Maria?"
"She's our counselor at school. She says that before you get angry and say mean things you should try screaming into a pillow, or even screaming into a mirror..."
"Into a mirror?"
"Well," said Maria, "actually I made that last part up."
* (we assume she meant Selma, Alabama...)
|
David LaMotte Gets Spun
Apr/25/2008 09:39 AM | Permalink
Wanted to blog about this quickly this morning,
because it seems to be breaking on the blogs, and it
involves an actual friend of mine...
David LaMotte is a truly fine songwriter friend from the great city of Asheville, North Carolina. I was overhearing some audio from the Huffington Post this morning, and thought "that voice sounds familiar."
It was. It was David's.
Basically, he got a "push poll" call from the Clinton campaign. I'll let him explain it:
You can read the entire transcript of the encounter --or, better still, listen to all the audio-- here.
And here's David's own thoughts on the whole thing.
David's a truly good guy. Son of a Presbyterian Minister, he's not only a gifted songwriter, but also truly committed to the poor in many parts of the world. I am honored to call him and friend, and humored that he's found himself in the midst of this developing blog story today.
But, wait!! There's more.
Here's where this story becomes surreal and dang funny. For you see, those of us who know David knowthat he has actually written a song about political spin!!
The song is called...yep, you guessed it.... "Spin."
It's on a CD of the same name, and you can get it at David's website.
Here's just a little of lyrics:
The moral I draw from this for the Clinton campaign, or any other:
Never try to "spin" a guy who's already clear on what spin is.
(Or one who happens to have a tape recorder laying around...)
David LaMotte is a truly fine songwriter friend from the great city of Asheville, North Carolina. I was overhearing some audio from the Huffington Post this morning, and thought "that voice sounds familiar."
It was. It was David's.
Basically, he got a "push poll" call from the Clinton campaign. I'll let him explain it:
"A guy named Ed called from Akron, Ohio, and when I asked what polling outfit he works for he said Garin-Hart-Yang, based in DC At first I was delighted to be polled, as I've been interested in the race and following the rest of the nation's polls closely throughout the campaign.
The questions started out normal enough, but got progressively more ridiculous. Early in the conversation Ed asked my preference among the Democratic candidates and I told him I was an Obama supporter.
Then the questions turned to long Hillary-praising and Barack bashing policy statements with the response options being "Do you consider that a very strong, strong or weak or very weak reason to support her candidacy for president?" which is kind of an unanswerable question, and clearly not the point. At the end of the conversation they asked "Now based on everything we've discussed, who would you vote for?"
The questions were often based on statements that I wouldn't agree with in the first place. It's classic push polling as I've read about it, though never experienced it before. The questions are of the "Are you still beating your wife?" variety. No way to answer with any sense of veracity and integrity.
Toward the end of the conversation it occurred to me to record it on my old-school tape-based answering machine..."
You can read the entire transcript of the encounter --or, better still, listen to all the audio-- here.
And here's David's own thoughts on the whole thing.
David's a truly good guy. Son of a Presbyterian Minister, he's not only a gifted songwriter, but also truly committed to the poor in many parts of the world. I am honored to call him and friend, and humored that he's found himself in the midst of this developing blog story today.
But, wait!! There's more.
Here's where this story becomes surreal and dang funny. For you see, those of us who know David knowthat he has actually written a song about political spin!!
The song is called...yep, you guessed it.... "Spin."
It's on a CD of the same name, and you can get it at David's website.
Here's just a little of lyrics:
Six o'clock dinner, the family falls silent
Move over a little I can't see the screen
The man in the box speaks in high definition
Turn it up loud so I won't hear the screams
More about bad things the bad guys are doing
More about how I need what they sell
And right down the road they are building a prison
On the whole the economy's doing quite well
(Chorus)
Give me the update, tell me again
Show me the difference between us and them
Give it a number between one and ten
Give me the headline
Give me the spin
The moral I draw from this for the Clinton campaign, or any other:
Never try to "spin" a guy who's already clear on what spin is.
(Or one who happens to have a tape recorder laying around...)
What I Always Believed About Saddam
Jan/29/2008 11:59 PM | Permalink
In the context of early 2008 --with the "Surge"
apparently reducing violence in Iraq, with the US
Economy in the tank, and with everybody fixated on
the presidential primaries as a way to take our minds
off the past seven years --it may well be that nobody
wants to hear any additional analysis of the war, its
causes, or its justifications.
I understand that. But call me crazy, I still believe in that seemingly trite expression: "those who fail to understand the past are doomed to repeat it." And until we can come to terms with this war in brutal honesty, we risk making the same mistakes somewhere down the line.
One of the "lessons" I fear we are accepting about Sadaam Hussein is this: That he was simply a crazy evil dictator, hell-bent on destroying his country and bringing down the wrath of America.
The conventional wisdom is that absolutely NO ONE --within the government, or without; no pundit or social scientist-- could have predicted that Saddam really didn't have any WMD. No one, they claim, actually believed him when, before the war, his representatives said he had destroyed it all.
If he had destroyed it, then why not let the inspectors in? He must be lying...
That was the conventional wisdom then. And our own poorly edited "intelligence" supported this view. As George Tenet so inelegantly put it, "we were all wrong."
Republicans and Democrats throughout the government were also quick to say: "Everyone say the same intelligence..."
Who could have known? We were just all wrong...right?
Not exactly.
See, I believed Saddam might be telling the truth. I also believed he might be lying. I also believed he might be changing his story intentionally, blowing smoke to throw the whole world off his scent.
Here's something I wrote to that effect back in 2005. It was in answer to the question: Why didn't Saddam just admit he didn't have the WMD and open his country fully to the UN Inspectors?
Here's what I said back then:
"Because he was an "evil dictator." And evil dicators rule by fear and intimidation. Were he to have admitted that he'd actually destroyed much of his weapons of mass destruction, he would not have not only been immediately vulnerable to offensive attacks from neighboring countries, but he would have also risked civil war from within. The Kurds and Shiites would have quite possibly been emboldened to rise up against him.
It is not surprising that he would play the game of chicken with his own people and with the West. What is MOST unfortunate is that our government chose to not see that he could NEVER admit to having destroyed his weapons capacity."
See, I believed this from the very start. Nothing else made logical sense.
Now, IF Saddam were are democratic leader --an elected leader, a leader of a representative democracy-- there's NO WAY he would have played this deadly game of "chicken" with his nation.
But he wasn't. I always believed he was what he was: an EVIL DICTATOR.
Our problem? When the Bush Government set ultimatums for him, we actually believed we were dealing with some kind of rational person.
We failed to remember that, unlike leaders in our country, Saddam ruled by fear and made decisions from a fear-based matrix.
And this weekend, I saw a most extraordinary interview on 60 Minutes that finally proved this theory to me. It was an interview with FBI Agent George Piro, who was assigned by our government to gain Saddam's "confidence" after his arrest. Piro's job was to "befriend" Hussein, in an attempt to get inside his head, and get answers to the most pressing questions our government still had.
The interview provides a fascinating insight into the inner workings of an FBI Agent, and the delicate dance of building "confidence" between a prisoner and interrogator. You can watch the whole thing here. I strongly encourage it.
Piro, an American of Lebanese descent who is fluent in Arabic, was picked for this job from the very first day of Hussein's imprisonment. Our government wanted to try to get inside his mind and see if he'd reveal some of the most pressing questions about the war:
Did he really not have any WMD?
If not, why not just come clean to the UN Inspectors?
Why play this game of "chicken" with the US?
After months of gaining Saddam's confidence, he finally opened up to Piro and told him everything. Among the things Saddam admitted was that he never believed that the US would actually invade Iraq. He assumed that the US was just "saber rattling," as much as he was.
Here is the relevant passage from the 60 Minutes transcript, with the essential lines in bold type for emphasis:
"And what did he tell you about how his weapons of mass destruction had been destroyed?" Pelley asks.
"He told me that most of the WMD had been destroyed by the U.N. inspectors in the '90s. And those that hadn't been destroyed by the inspectors were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq," Piro says.
"So why keep the secret? Why put your nation at risk, why put your own life at risk to maintain this charade?" Pelley asks.
"It was very important for him to project that because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq," Piro says.
Before his wars with America, Saddam had fought a ruinous eight year war with Iran and it was Iran he still feared the most.
"He believed that he couldn't survive without the perception that he had weapons of mass destruction?" Pelley asks.
"Absolutely," Piro says.
Think about it for half a second. Really think about it. Saddam WAS an evil dictator. He DID rule by fear. And when you rule by fear, uncertainty is a key part of your arsenal. The element of surprise is a key defensive strategy. For both external and internal security reasons, Saddam needed to portray an aire of invincibility and strength. Show weakness, admit the weapons were gone, and he risked losing power forever.
Did we really believe a brutal dictator would be enlightened enough to choose the security of his own nation above his own skin?
Apparently, we did. At least many in our own government did. We actually negotiated with him and his representatives as if we believed their bluster.
Or, perhaps even more troubling, their bluster reinforced the message of fear that our own leaders wanted and needed to wage the war.
So, a couple of observations....
Rule Number One for Future War Planning:
Take the words and actions of an evil dictator with a grain of salt. Don't assume you can believe, or disbelieve, everything he says. Just believe he's acting like an evil dictator would normally act.
Dictators desire self-preservation at all costs, and if you try to take away a crucial defense, don't be shocked when they don't react logically.
Rule Number Two for Future War Planning:
When the intelligence is mixed, when the opponent IS an evil dictator, think twice...three...even four times...before rushing to the military option. Make no mistake, despite the conventional wisdom, this war was rushed when there WERE other options.
The facts are, as we now know them, sanctions WERE working. Saddam WAS blustering. But that was a part of his front too. (Oh yeah...the story confirms that Saddam hated Al Quaida...)
If there are other logical/plausible rationales for why the other side is acting the way they are, war should not be the immediate option. And to launch despite all this violates a key tenet of "just war theory."
-------------------------
Other nuggets from the interview...
We learn why Saddam originally invaded Kuwait in 1990. Turns out, it was because of an insult against Iraqi women. No kidding.
Also from the transcript of the 60 Minutes interview...
Pelley says:
"Back then, Saddam accused Kuwait of wrecking Iraq’s economy by stealing oil and demanding repayment of loans. But Piro learned, for the first time, that the brutal invasion was triggered by personal insult.
"What really triggered it for him, according to Saddam, was he had sent his foreign minister to Kuwait to meet with the Emir Al Sabah, the former leader of Kuwait, to try to resolve some of these issues. And the Emir told the foreign minister of Iraq that he would not stop doing what he was doing until he turned every Iraqi woman into a $10 prostitute. And that really sealed it for him, to invade Kuwait. He wanted to punish, he told me, Emir Al Sabah, for saying that," Piro explains."
See, we even got that war wrong too. That war wasn't about the oil for Saddam; although there was an economic component to it. That war was about one guy insulting the women of the other guy's country. It was about, to use a term cross-cuturally, a kind of deadly-serious "Machismo."
--------------------------------------------
Whether anyone else is interested in this or not, as the five-year anniversary of the war approaches, I feel these kinds of revelations ARE still important. Because there are other evil dictators out there. Whoever is president, both now and in the future, will have deal with them in some way or another.
I just hope and pray that if we identify them as an evil dictator, we will truly believe that they THINK like one too; and not like we might think, with our Western, logical, and self-preserving, minds.
Otherwise, we may get into yet another war, and come out scratching our heads yet again.
---------------
One more, "Oh by the way..."
Piro denied that any "coercive techniques," such as waterboarding, were used against Hussein.
Why not?
Says Piro: "I think Saddam clearly had demonstrated over his legacy that he would not respond to threats, to any type of fear-based approach."
I understand that. But call me crazy, I still believe in that seemingly trite expression: "those who fail to understand the past are doomed to repeat it." And until we can come to terms with this war in brutal honesty, we risk making the same mistakes somewhere down the line.
One of the "lessons" I fear we are accepting about Sadaam Hussein is this: That he was simply a crazy evil dictator, hell-bent on destroying his country and bringing down the wrath of America.
The conventional wisdom is that absolutely NO ONE --within the government, or without; no pundit or social scientist-- could have predicted that Saddam really didn't have any WMD. No one, they claim, actually believed him when, before the war, his representatives said he had destroyed it all.
If he had destroyed it, then why not let the inspectors in? He must be lying...
That was the conventional wisdom then. And our own poorly edited "intelligence" supported this view. As George Tenet so inelegantly put it, "we were all wrong."
Republicans and Democrats throughout the government were also quick to say: "Everyone say the same intelligence..."
Who could have known? We were just all wrong...right?
Not exactly.
See, I believed Saddam might be telling the truth. I also believed he might be lying. I also believed he might be changing his story intentionally, blowing smoke to throw the whole world off his scent.
Here's something I wrote to that effect back in 2005. It was in answer to the question: Why didn't Saddam just admit he didn't have the WMD and open his country fully to the UN Inspectors?
Here's what I said back then:
"Because he was an "evil dictator." And evil dicators rule by fear and intimidation. Were he to have admitted that he'd actually destroyed much of his weapons of mass destruction, he would not have not only been immediately vulnerable to offensive attacks from neighboring countries, but he would have also risked civil war from within. The Kurds and Shiites would have quite possibly been emboldened to rise up against him.
It is not surprising that he would play the game of chicken with his own people and with the West. What is MOST unfortunate is that our government chose to not see that he could NEVER admit to having destroyed his weapons capacity."
See, I believed this from the very start. Nothing else made logical sense.
Now, IF Saddam were are democratic leader --an elected leader, a leader of a representative democracy-- there's NO WAY he would have played this deadly game of "chicken" with his nation.
But he wasn't. I always believed he was what he was: an EVIL DICTATOR.
Our problem? When the Bush Government set ultimatums for him, we actually believed we were dealing with some kind of rational person.
We failed to remember that, unlike leaders in our country, Saddam ruled by fear and made decisions from a fear-based matrix.
And this weekend, I saw a most extraordinary interview on 60 Minutes that finally proved this theory to me. It was an interview with FBI Agent George Piro, who was assigned by our government to gain Saddam's "confidence" after his arrest. Piro's job was to "befriend" Hussein, in an attempt to get inside his head, and get answers to the most pressing questions our government still had.
The interview provides a fascinating insight into the inner workings of an FBI Agent, and the delicate dance of building "confidence" between a prisoner and interrogator. You can watch the whole thing here. I strongly encourage it.
Piro, an American of Lebanese descent who is fluent in Arabic, was picked for this job from the very first day of Hussein's imprisonment. Our government wanted to try to get inside his mind and see if he'd reveal some of the most pressing questions about the war:
Did he really not have any WMD?
If not, why not just come clean to the UN Inspectors?
Why play this game of "chicken" with the US?
After months of gaining Saddam's confidence, he finally opened up to Piro and told him everything. Among the things Saddam admitted was that he never believed that the US would actually invade Iraq. He assumed that the US was just "saber rattling," as much as he was.
Here is the relevant passage from the 60 Minutes transcript, with the essential lines in bold type for emphasis:
"And what did he tell you about how his weapons of mass destruction had been destroyed?" Pelley asks.
"He told me that most of the WMD had been destroyed by the U.N. inspectors in the '90s. And those that hadn't been destroyed by the inspectors were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq," Piro says.
"So why keep the secret? Why put your nation at risk, why put your own life at risk to maintain this charade?" Pelley asks.
"It was very important for him to project that because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq," Piro says.
Before his wars with America, Saddam had fought a ruinous eight year war with Iran and it was Iran he still feared the most.
"He believed that he couldn't survive without the perception that he had weapons of mass destruction?" Pelley asks.
"Absolutely," Piro says.
Think about it for half a second. Really think about it. Saddam WAS an evil dictator. He DID rule by fear. And when you rule by fear, uncertainty is a key part of your arsenal. The element of surprise is a key defensive strategy. For both external and internal security reasons, Saddam needed to portray an aire of invincibility and strength. Show weakness, admit the weapons were gone, and he risked losing power forever.
Did we really believe a brutal dictator would be enlightened enough to choose the security of his own nation above his own skin?
Apparently, we did. At least many in our own government did. We actually negotiated with him and his representatives as if we believed their bluster.
Or, perhaps even more troubling, their bluster reinforced the message of fear that our own leaders wanted and needed to wage the war.
So, a couple of observations....
Rule Number One for Future War Planning:
Take the words and actions of an evil dictator with a grain of salt. Don't assume you can believe, or disbelieve, everything he says. Just believe he's acting like an evil dictator would normally act.
Dictators desire self-preservation at all costs, and if you try to take away a crucial defense, don't be shocked when they don't react logically.
Rule Number Two for Future War Planning:
When the intelligence is mixed, when the opponent IS an evil dictator, think twice...three...even four times...before rushing to the military option. Make no mistake, despite the conventional wisdom, this war was rushed when there WERE other options.
The facts are, as we now know them, sanctions WERE working. Saddam WAS blustering. But that was a part of his front too. (Oh yeah...the story confirms that Saddam hated Al Quaida...)
If there are other logical/plausible rationales for why the other side is acting the way they are, war should not be the immediate option. And to launch despite all this violates a key tenet of "just war theory."
-------------------------
Other nuggets from the interview...
We learn why Saddam originally invaded Kuwait in 1990. Turns out, it was because of an insult against Iraqi women. No kidding.
Also from the transcript of the 60 Minutes interview...
Pelley says:
"Back then, Saddam accused Kuwait of wrecking Iraq’s economy by stealing oil and demanding repayment of loans. But Piro learned, for the first time, that the brutal invasion was triggered by personal insult.
"What really triggered it for him, according to Saddam, was he had sent his foreign minister to Kuwait to meet with the Emir Al Sabah, the former leader of Kuwait, to try to resolve some of these issues. And the Emir told the foreign minister of Iraq that he would not stop doing what he was doing until he turned every Iraqi woman into a $10 prostitute. And that really sealed it for him, to invade Kuwait. He wanted to punish, he told me, Emir Al Sabah, for saying that," Piro explains."
See, we even got that war wrong too. That war wasn't about the oil for Saddam; although there was an economic component to it. That war was about one guy insulting the women of the other guy's country. It was about, to use a term cross-cuturally, a kind of deadly-serious "Machismo."
--------------------------------------------
Whether anyone else is interested in this or not, as the five-year anniversary of the war approaches, I feel these kinds of revelations ARE still important. Because there are other evil dictators out there. Whoever is president, both now and in the future, will have deal with them in some way or another.
I just hope and pray that if we identify them as an evil dictator, we will truly believe that they THINK like one too; and not like we might think, with our Western, logical, and self-preserving, minds.
Otherwise, we may get into yet another war, and come out scratching our heads yet again.
---------------
One more, "Oh by the way..."
Piro denied that any "coercive techniques," such as waterboarding, were used against Hussein.
Why not?
Says Piro: "I think Saddam clearly had demonstrated over his legacy that he would not respond to threats, to any type of fear-based approach."
More on Military Deaths
Jan/22/2008 04:47 PM | Permalink
A little more on
this blog
from Sunday...
Kim emailed yesterday to ask a good question:
"What are the leading causes of death for each of these years/eras? Is there any data on this?"
Don't know why I didn't stop to ask that question myself. On Sunday, I was in such a hurry to get the blog posted, so shocked by the blatantly incorrect data, that I didn't delve into this slightly deeper question. But it's a good one.
And, turns out, the same report provides the answers...for those willing to look it up.
Just one page over from the page I cited Sunday (meaning: page 11), you will find a more detailed table called:
"US Active Duty Military Deaths, 1980 Through 2006"
This table provides a chart listing out the deaths each year by different standardized categories.
The categories are:
Accident
Hostile Action
Homicide
Illness
Pending
Self-Inflicted
Terrorist Attack
Undetermined
Turns out, the greatest cause of death of active military personnel in every single year since 1980 was "Accident." The second-greatest cause in most years was "Illness." Sadly, "Self-Inflicted" and "Homicide" are the third and fourth most populous categories.
The statistic that jumped out for me during Clinton's time was "Terrorist Attack." And the total number who died during Clinton's two terms was: 75
This compares to just 55 for the first six years of Bush's term.
By the way, the biggest number of terrorism deaths since 1980 happened in 1983, during Reagan's tenure, and the number of deaths was: 263.
(Was this Beirut? I'm thinking it must have been...)
One of the more interesting stats, then, is a direct, "apples-to-apples" comparison of "Hostile Action" deaths in both the Bush and Clinton years.
Of course, we've been in a war for this past half decade now. It makes sense to assume Bush's total would be higher, despite the insinuation of the email that started all of this.
Sure enough, that's the case.
Total Active Military Deaths due to "Hostile Action:
Six years of George W. Bush (2001-2006): 2,596.
Eight years of Bill Clinton (1993-2000): One.
Kim emailed yesterday to ask a good question:
"What are the leading causes of death for each of these years/eras? Is there any data on this?"
Don't know why I didn't stop to ask that question myself. On Sunday, I was in such a hurry to get the blog posted, so shocked by the blatantly incorrect data, that I didn't delve into this slightly deeper question. But it's a good one.
And, turns out, the same report provides the answers...for those willing to look it up.
Just one page over from the page I cited Sunday (meaning: page 11), you will find a more detailed table called:
"US Active Duty Military Deaths, 1980 Through 2006"
This table provides a chart listing out the deaths each year by different standardized categories.
The categories are:
Accident
Hostile Action
Homicide
Illness
Pending
Self-Inflicted
Terrorist Attack
Undetermined
Turns out, the greatest cause of death of active military personnel in every single year since 1980 was "Accident." The second-greatest cause in most years was "Illness." Sadly, "Self-Inflicted" and "Homicide" are the third and fourth most populous categories.
The statistic that jumped out for me during Clinton's time was "Terrorist Attack." And the total number who died during Clinton's two terms was: 75
This compares to just 55 for the first six years of Bush's term.
By the way, the biggest number of terrorism deaths since 1980 happened in 1983, during Reagan's tenure, and the number of deaths was: 263.
(Was this Beirut? I'm thinking it must have been...)
One of the more interesting stats, then, is a direct, "apples-to-apples" comparison of "Hostile Action" deaths in both the Bush and Clinton years.
Of course, we've been in a war for this past half decade now. It makes sense to assume Bush's total would be higher, despite the insinuation of the email that started all of this.
Sure enough, that's the case.
Total Active Military Deaths due to "Hostile Action:
Six years of George W. Bush (2001-2006): 2,596.
Eight years of Bill Clinton (1993-2000): One.
Military Losses for 20 Years....I play at being
Snopes.com
Jan/20/2008 07:43 PM | Permalink
I've written about chain/spam emails before. I've
written about Snopes.com before.
These days I assume everyone knows about both, and that anybody who really wants to be well informed will check stuff out on their own.
But every now and then, an email comes my way that is so wrong, and so un-refuted, that I feel compelled to respond. That happened today, and this blog my reaction. Consider this entry your own personal Snopes.com for the day.
The "issue" is an email I got this morning titled:
"Military Losses for 20 Years"
It was forwarded to me by a cousin of mine who I respect a great deal. No beef with him, in other words. Just a beef with whoever started this insidious chain message.
So that you can truly be informed, I have included the entire email at the end of this blog entry, so you can see the original context for yourself.
The gist of the email is an astounding claim that more military personnel died during the Clinton years than during the George W. Bush presidency.
It cites a government report as the source of information for this claim.
The claim in the email is that during Clinton's presidency, a whopping 13,417 service men and women died. During Bush's tenure, the email claims only 9,016 members of the Armed Forces have died. The clear insinuation is that while everyone thinks the current war has been terrible, things were much worse when Clinton was in the White House.
The email goes on to make the claim that huge numbers of military personnel died during the "reign" of President Jimmy Carter. (BTW, since they aren't royalty, I wasn't aware that our presidents had "reigns.")
The email claims the data it cites is substantiated by a congressional study. And, it even gives a url to the study itself. (Something that gives an air of legitimacy to these kinds of emails...)
Here is the link to the report the email cites.
This email then goes on to editorialize about all of these so-called shocking discoveries:
"These figures indicate that many of our Media & Politicians will pick and choose. They present only those 'facts' which support their agenda-driven reporting. Why do so many of them march in lock-step to twist the truth. Where do so many of them get their marching-orders for their agenda?"
The "muckraking" email ends with two ominous questions, thrown out to the innocent and fearful patrons of cyberspace:
"Now ask yourself these two questions:
'Why does the mainstream Print and TV Media never print statistics like these?'
and
'Why do the mainstream media hate the web as much as they do?'"
Well, first...I don't know that it ever includes "marching," but I do know whatever "agenda" journalist have starts with editors who are sticklers for...gosh darn it...accurate statistics.
Secondly...they don't print these kinds of claims because these claims are just flat out lies and mistruths.
And, finally....I don't personally believe that the mainstream media "hates" the web, because the web itself gives guys like me the chance to refute this kind of garbage.
The facts are: almost every "fact" in this email is a lie not supported by the documentation the email cites!!!!
I will now unpack this....
First, let's assume the report the email cites is a genuine government report, and is genuinely accurate. I have no idea whether it is or not. But for the sake of argument --for the sake of "fact checking" it's own inner consistency-- assume the backing documents are true.
When you open the .pdf file at the above link, and then go to page ten, you'll find a helpful chart titled:
"Table 4: US Active Military Deaths, 1980 to 2006"
Using a calculator, and amazingly dexterous fingers, I managed to do my own counting. And here are the TRUE numbers:
For the years 1993-2000 (the eight full years of Bill Clinton's presidency)
There were a total of: 7,500 military deaths for those in active duty
(remember: the email claims: 13, 417)
Yes, it's a strangely round number. But it appears to be correct. As Casey Stengel once said, "You could look it up..."
For the years of George W. Bush's presidency 2001-2006
There were a total of: 8,792 military deaths for those in active duty.
(the email claims: 9,016)
Note! The Bush statistic only includes data through 2006, and a footnote admits that the 2006 data is "preliminary." This number does not include any combat deaths for 2007.
As mentioned above, the email goes on to claim that there were 2,392 deaths in 1980, when Jimmy Carter was president. The email makes this sound shocking, since Carter won a "Nobel Peace Prize." And, actually, this one number appears to be correct.
However! Even though this is correct, it fails to account for the truth that the largest single year for military deaths since 1980 was during the presidency of Ronald Reagan. The year was 1983, and the total deaths were: 2,465. (Go ahead. "Casey Stengel" it)
Also! Note this unusual factoid: the spam email incorrectly claims this exact same number of deaths (2.465) during 1995 (a Clinton year...surprise, surprise...). This does not appear to be correct. The actual number for 1995 was: 1,040.
----------------------------------------------------
So, why did I write this "correction"?
Well, because we're entering the high-season for politics and dirty tricks. Love or hate her, there is again a "Clinton" the ballot this year. Many people (including many Republicans) are still very concerned about the war.
What makes this kind of email especially insidious is that it provides you a link to check the facts yourself.
It just assumes you won't.
To that end, it's really propaganda. It's a smear campaign, and it's the worst kind of dirty trick.
And even if you later read MY email --where I also exhort you to "check the facts"-- the dissonance between two competing fact claims will cause lot of folks to just shrug their shoulders, complain of "tired brain," and walk away...often with their initial preconceptions still intact.
The facts are these: Many more service men and women have died during six years of GW. Bush's presidency than during eight years of Bill Clinton's.
But for people are naturally inclined to disbelieve these "true" facts, propagandistic email like this allow them to keep their incorrect preconceptions in full force. They then pass those lies on to unwitting friends and family. And the lies take on a life and "truth" all their own, regardless of the "facts".
It's a sinister, and sickly effective, form of "disinformation."
There is a lot at stake here. American men and women are giving their live each day. That is nothing to gloss over or make light of. I am not attempting to do that here, nor am I attempting to make their deaths into a political football. The death of any military person, in any historical age, is tragic. But if we are to honor their memory, the best way to do that is through being truthful about the history of our modern republic.
Once upon a time, Hillary Clinton claimed that a "vast right wing conspiracy" was out to get both her and President Clinton. I've always been skeptical about just how "vast" it really was.
At the same time, these kinds of emails remind us that there are people who do play fast and loose with the facts, and assume most folks are just too stupid to check things out themselves.
The morale of the story for this political season:
Trust, but verify.
The truth is out there.
Just maybe not in an email some guy forwards to you.
Below is the original text of an email sent to Eric on January 20, 2008:
"Subject: Military losses for 20 yrs
Interesting numbers. you can check this by clicking on to the suggested website. Snopes has nothing on this. These figures don't bring back anyone, but the person sending these does make a point about the perception of our military losses and activity. Comments after this were a part of the email sent to me.
Military losses for 20 years
These are some rather eye-opening facts: Since the start of the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan, the sacrifice has been enormous. In the time period from the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 through now, we have lost over 3000 military personnel to enemy action and accidents. As tragic as the loss of any member of the US Armed Forces is, consider the following statistics: The annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2006:
>>1980 .......... 2,392
>>1981 ......... 2,380
>>1984 .......... 1,999
>>1988 .......... 1,819
>>1989 .......... 1,636
>>1990 ......... 1,508
>>1991 .......... 1,787
>>1992 .......... 1,293----------------------------------------------------
>>1993 .......... 1,213
>>1994 .......... 1,075
>>1995 ...........2,465
>>1996 ......... 2,318 Clinton years @13,417 deaths
>>1997 .......... 817
>>1998 ......... 2,252
>>1999 .......... 1,984 -------------------------------------------------
>>2000 .......... 1,983
>>2001 .......... 890
>>2002 .......... 1,007 7 BUSH years @ 9,016 deaths
>>2003 .......... 1,410
>>2004 .......... 1,887
>>2005 ......... 919
>>2006.......... 920 ------------------------------------------------------------
If you are confused when you look at these figures...so was I.
Do these figures mean that the loss from the two latest conflicts in the Middle East are LESS than the loss of military personnel during Mr. Clinton 's presidency; when America wasn't even involved in a war? And, I was even more confused; when I read that in 1980, during the reign of President (Nobel Peace Prize) Jimmy Carter, there were 2,392 US military fatalities!
These figures indicate that many of our Media & Politicians will pick and choose. They present only those 'facts' which support their agenda-driven reporting. Why do so many of them march in lock-step to twist the truth. Where do so many of them get their marching-orders for their agenda?
Our Mainstream Print and TV media, and many Politicians like to slant; that these brave men and women, who are losing their lives in Iraq, are mostly minorities! Wrong AGAIN--- just one more media lie! The latest census, of Americans, shows the following distribution of American citizens, by Race:
European descent (White) ....... 69.12%
Hispanic ................................ 12.5%
Black..................................... 12.3%
Asian ...................................... 3.7%
Native American ..................... . 1.0%
Other ...................................... 2.6%
Now... here are the fatalities by Race; over the past three years in Iraqi Freedom:
European descent (white) ..... 74.31%
Hispanic ............................. 10.74%
Black ................................... 9.67%
Asian ................................. . 1.81%
Native American .................... 1.09%
Other .................................... . 33%
You do the Math! These figures don't lie... but, Media-liars figure...and they sway public opinion! (These statistics are published by Congressional Research Service, and they may be confirmed by anyone at:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf )
Now ask yourself these two questions:
'Why does the mainstream Print and TV Media never print statistics like these?'
and
'Why do the mainstream media hate the web as much as they do?'"
These days I assume everyone knows about both, and that anybody who really wants to be well informed will check stuff out on their own.
But every now and then, an email comes my way that is so wrong, and so un-refuted, that I feel compelled to respond. That happened today, and this blog my reaction. Consider this entry your own personal Snopes.com for the day.
The "issue" is an email I got this morning titled:
"Military Losses for 20 Years"
It was forwarded to me by a cousin of mine who I respect a great deal. No beef with him, in other words. Just a beef with whoever started this insidious chain message.
So that you can truly be informed, I have included the entire email at the end of this blog entry, so you can see the original context for yourself.
The gist of the email is an astounding claim that more military personnel died during the Clinton years than during the George W. Bush presidency.
It cites a government report as the source of information for this claim.
The claim in the email is that during Clinton's presidency, a whopping 13,417 service men and women died. During Bush's tenure, the email claims only 9,016 members of the Armed Forces have died. The clear insinuation is that while everyone thinks the current war has been terrible, things were much worse when Clinton was in the White House.
The email goes on to make the claim that huge numbers of military personnel died during the "reign" of President Jimmy Carter. (BTW, since they aren't royalty, I wasn't aware that our presidents had "reigns.")
The email claims the data it cites is substantiated by a congressional study. And, it even gives a url to the study itself. (Something that gives an air of legitimacy to these kinds of emails...)
Here is the link to the report the email cites.
This email then goes on to editorialize about all of these so-called shocking discoveries:
"These figures indicate that many of our Media & Politicians will pick and choose. They present only those 'facts' which support their agenda-driven reporting. Why do so many of them march in lock-step to twist the truth. Where do so many of them get their marching-orders for their agenda?"
The "muckraking" email ends with two ominous questions, thrown out to the innocent and fearful patrons of cyberspace:
"Now ask yourself these two questions:
'Why does the mainstream Print and TV Media never print statistics like these?'
and
'Why do the mainstream media hate the web as much as they do?'"
Well, first...I don't know that it ever includes "marching," but I do know whatever "agenda" journalist have starts with editors who are sticklers for...gosh darn it...accurate statistics.
Secondly...they don't print these kinds of claims because these claims are just flat out lies and mistruths.
And, finally....I don't personally believe that the mainstream media "hates" the web, because the web itself gives guys like me the chance to refute this kind of garbage.
The facts are: almost every "fact" in this email is a lie not supported by the documentation the email cites!!!!
I will now unpack this....
First, let's assume the report the email cites is a genuine government report, and is genuinely accurate. I have no idea whether it is or not. But for the sake of argument --for the sake of "fact checking" it's own inner consistency-- assume the backing documents are true.
When you open the .pdf file at the above link, and then go to page ten, you'll find a helpful chart titled:
"Table 4: US Active Military Deaths, 1980 to 2006"
Using a calculator, and amazingly dexterous fingers, I managed to do my own counting. And here are the TRUE numbers:
For the years 1993-2000 (the eight full years of Bill Clinton's presidency)
There were a total of: 7,500 military deaths for those in active duty
(remember: the email claims: 13, 417)
Yes, it's a strangely round number. But it appears to be correct. As Casey Stengel once said, "You could look it up..."
For the years of George W. Bush's presidency 2001-2006
There were a total of: 8,792 military deaths for those in active duty.
(the email claims: 9,016)
Note! The Bush statistic only includes data through 2006, and a footnote admits that the 2006 data is "preliminary." This number does not include any combat deaths for 2007.
As mentioned above, the email goes on to claim that there were 2,392 deaths in 1980, when Jimmy Carter was president. The email makes this sound shocking, since Carter won a "Nobel Peace Prize." And, actually, this one number appears to be correct.
However! Even though this is correct, it fails to account for the truth that the largest single year for military deaths since 1980 was during the presidency of Ronald Reagan. The year was 1983, and the total deaths were: 2,465. (Go ahead. "Casey Stengel" it)
Also! Note this unusual factoid: the spam email incorrectly claims this exact same number of deaths (2.465) during 1995 (a Clinton year...surprise, surprise...). This does not appear to be correct. The actual number for 1995 was: 1,040.
----------------------------------------------------
So, why did I write this "correction"?
Well, because we're entering the high-season for politics and dirty tricks. Love or hate her, there is again a "Clinton" the ballot this year. Many people (including many Republicans) are still very concerned about the war.
What makes this kind of email especially insidious is that it provides you a link to check the facts yourself.
It just assumes you won't.
To that end, it's really propaganda. It's a smear campaign, and it's the worst kind of dirty trick.
And even if you later read MY email --where I also exhort you to "check the facts"-- the dissonance between two competing fact claims will cause lot of folks to just shrug their shoulders, complain of "tired brain," and walk away...often with their initial preconceptions still intact.
The facts are these: Many more service men and women have died during six years of GW. Bush's presidency than during eight years of Bill Clinton's.
But for people are naturally inclined to disbelieve these "true" facts, propagandistic email like this allow them to keep their incorrect preconceptions in full force. They then pass those lies on to unwitting friends and family. And the lies take on a life and "truth" all their own, regardless of the "facts".
It's a sinister, and sickly effective, form of "disinformation."
There is a lot at stake here. American men and women are giving their live each day. That is nothing to gloss over or make light of. I am not attempting to do that here, nor am I attempting to make their deaths into a political football. The death of any military person, in any historical age, is tragic. But if we are to honor their memory, the best way to do that is through being truthful about the history of our modern republic.
Once upon a time, Hillary Clinton claimed that a "vast right wing conspiracy" was out to get both her and President Clinton. I've always been skeptical about just how "vast" it really was.
At the same time, these kinds of emails remind us that there are people who do play fast and loose with the facts, and assume most folks are just too stupid to check things out themselves.
The morale of the story for this political season:
Trust, but verify.
The truth is out there.
Just maybe not in an email some guy forwards to you.
Below is the original text of an email sent to Eric on January 20, 2008:
"Subject: Military losses for 20 yrs
Interesting numbers. you can check this by clicking on to the suggested website. Snopes has nothing on this. These figures don't bring back anyone, but the person sending these does make a point about the perception of our military losses and activity. Comments after this were a part of the email sent to me.
Military losses for 20 years
These are some rather eye-opening facts: Since the start of the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan, the sacrifice has been enormous. In the time period from the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 through now, we have lost over 3000 military personnel to enemy action and accidents. As tragic as the loss of any member of the US Armed Forces is, consider the following statistics: The annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2006:
>>1980 .......... 2,392
>>1981 ......... 2,380
>>1984 .......... 1,999
>>1988 .......... 1,819
>>1989 .......... 1,636
>>1990 ......... 1,508
>>1991 .......... 1,787
>>1992 .......... 1,293----------------------------------------------------
>>1993 .......... 1,213
>>1994 .......... 1,075
>>1995 ...........2,465
>>1996 ......... 2,318 Clinton years @13,417 deaths
>>1997 .......... 817
>>1998 ......... 2,252
>>1999 .......... 1,984 -------------------------------------------------
>>2000 .......... 1,983
>>2001 .......... 890
>>2002 .......... 1,007 7 BUSH years @ 9,016 deaths
>>2003 .......... 1,410
>>2004 .......... 1,887
>>2005 ......... 919
>>2006.......... 920 ------------------------------------------------------------
If you are confused when you look at these figures...so was I.
Do these figures mean that the loss from the two latest conflicts in the Middle East are LESS than the loss of military personnel during Mr. Clinton 's presidency; when America wasn't even involved in a war? And, I was even more confused; when I read that in 1980, during the reign of President (Nobel Peace Prize) Jimmy Carter, there were 2,392 US military fatalities!
These figures indicate that many of our Media & Politicians will pick and choose. They present only those 'facts' which support their agenda-driven reporting. Why do so many of them march in lock-step to twist the truth. Where do so many of them get their marching-orders for their agenda?
Our Mainstream Print and TV media, and many Politicians like to slant; that these brave men and women, who are losing their lives in Iraq, are mostly minorities! Wrong AGAIN--- just one more media lie! The latest census, of Americans, shows the following distribution of American citizens, by Race:
European descent (White) ....... 69.12%
Hispanic ................................ 12.5%
Black..................................... 12.3%
Asian ...................................... 3.7%
Native American ..................... . 1.0%
Other ...................................... 2.6%
Now... here are the fatalities by Race; over the past three years in Iraqi Freedom:
European descent (white) ..... 74.31%
Hispanic ............................. 10.74%
Black ................................... 9.67%
Asian ................................. . 1.81%
Native American .................... 1.09%
Other .................................... . 33%
You do the Math! These figures don't lie... but, Media-liars figure...and they sway public opinion! (These statistics are published by Congressional Research Service, and they may be confirmed by anyone at:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf )
Now ask yourself these two questions:
'Why does the mainstream Print and TV Media never print statistics like these?'
and
'Why do the mainstream media hate the web as much as they do?'"
American People's Poll on Iraq
Sep/01/2007 12:04 AM | Permalink
Later today, I will be a part of a large peace rally
planned for downtown Fort Worth. It's called "The
American People's Poll on Iraq," and is set to be an
all day festival featuring music and speakers. I just
looked on their website, and it seems Cindy Sheehan
may be there, along with other Camp Casey alumns.
So, I'll probably pull out "Prairie Chapel Road, and "Purple Land."
As I understand it, this is visioned as a peace rally for folks who have never been to a peace rally.
If you're free, stop by.
So, I'll probably pull out "Prairie Chapel Road, and "Purple Land."
As I understand it, this is visioned as a peace rally for folks who have never been to a peace rally.
If you're free, stop by.
Style vs. Substance
Jul/13/2007 11:38 AM | Permalink
For years, we Americans have enjoyed a love-hate
relationship with our television news anchors. We
trust them to frame the issues of the day and present
us with a snapshot of the world as it is. (Or, at
least, the world as they see it...)
We turn to them again and again in moments of crisis, for information, comfort, and a communal connection with others. In fact, in times of crisis you could argue that TV news anchors draw millions of us together in a way that no other media source --no one else anywhere, really-- can.
But the unspoken underbelly of TV news anchors is that they not only have to be sharp and professional journalists, but they also have to be easy on the eye. I am not saying I believe this to be fair. I am saying that if you asked 100 journalists about it, the vast majority would give you Walter Cronkite's answer: It's just "the way it is."
The movie "Broadcast News" famously brought this truth to the big screen. It pitted the characters of William Hurt and Albert Brooks against each other. In the film, Hurt plays a "pretty boy" who knows virtually nothing of journalism, but somehow manages to ascend to "the chair," as the lead anchor of a network news show. Brooks plays an intelligent, well trained, but far-too-self-aware, journeyman reporter who knows the world, knows his profession, and knows that none that matters in a world where style so often trumps substance.
At the end of the movie, Brooks walks away from the insanely-manic pace of the network newsroom, content to live out his days as a local reporter for a Seattle affiliate. Hurt, the pretty boy, becomes a broadcast news institution.
Of course, there is an even deeper, and crasser, level to this "style vs substance" dynamic. The deeper level is the unfair double standard concerning women and men on TV news.
Yes, men are mostly expected to be "pretty boys." But some of them aren't. Cronkite was a lovable grandfather. Koppel looked vaguely like Alfred E. Newman. Guys can get away that, so long as we believe them to be consummate journalistic professionals.
Women cannot. They are not only expected to be consummate professionals, but they are also expected to be...well..."Babes."
Even with his grandfatherly countenance, Cronkite might still be able to chair the CBS News today. He knows the world, he knows the news. It doesn't matter how he looks. Katie Couric not only has to know the world and know the news, but she has to look "pretty" doing it too.
Again, I'm not saying this is fair or right. In fact, it's more than a little sick, and really quite sexist.
But leave it to FOX to push this envelope as far as it will go. FOX --the network that gave a whole new meaning to "style over substance"-- is in the process of editing a new reality show called "Anchorwoman."
The premise of the show places a woman, whose only credentials appear to be that she is a "babe," in the anchor chair of a Tyler Texas newsroom. The woman, Lauren Jones, is a former swimsuit model and pro-wrestling...ahem..."personality." She has ZERO training as a journalist. She has ZERO experience as a journalist.
But for reasons still unclear to me, a Tyler TV station allowed FOX to insert her into their staff, and even gave her the "chair" as coanchor of their local evening news. Then, they allowed FOX to follow her --and the rest of their staff- around with cameras, to see just what kind of wacky, oddball, hilarity might ensue.
Here is a Good Morning America clip that talks about Ms. Jones, the Tyler station, and the ethical issues involved:
Let me say --and I hope you all noted-- that the brief GMA clip of the "average" Tyler "woman on the street" indicates that she's really embarrassed by this whole episode. Many of us here in Texas are. This is FOX thing, not a Texas thing. Please keep that in mind. (Please?)
And the thing that gets me about all this is not that FOX came up with this idea. I expect that from them. They're FOX. What really gets me is the choice of this TV station to play along.
Why in the heck did the editors at this station (A CBS affiliate, btw...) allow this?! Do they really see their newsroom as nothing more than a playground for some crass cultural experiment? Isn't it still a real newsroom? Aren't there some standards of journalistic professionalism that need to be embraced and held sacred?
Or, have we really come to a place where style does trump substance, and such things just don't matter anymore?
After all, since all the customer sees is the image of a body in a chair, maybe looking good really is all that matters. Maybe any old good-looking body can do it.
Since most of the TV news appears to be about Paris Hilton, maybe it's just the natural evolution of things to have the news read by Paris Hilton.
Hey....speaking Paris Hilton...
No...really....
You see, into this sorry state of affairs comes a real TV anchorwoman who gives me the hope that substance isn't quite dead yet.
Mika Brzezinski --daughter of former Carter cabinet member, Zbigniew-- is a respectable journalist with MSNBC. Several weeks ago now, she did something on MSNBC's new morning show, "Morning Joe," that caused quite a stir in the journalistic world.
Brzezinski's task was to provide short, top-of-the-hour, news breaks on the show hosted by Joe Scarborough. But on this day, she decided she would not "lead" with a yet another story about Paris Hilton.
Apparently, she actually believed there were others stories more deserving of the lead position that morning. You know, like maybe the war? Maybe...I don't know...the Attorney General scandal? Maybe the key Republican Senator who, that very morning, had announced his break with the President on the issue of the war, and his newly found support for bringing the troops home now?
Gee, maybe, she thought, one of those is the real lead story of the day.
But no. Her editors gave her yet another in the endless cycle of trivial and vacuous Paris Hilton stories. That was to be her lead.
But on this particular morning, something in Mika Brzezinski snapped. For three successive "news breaks" that morning, she refused to follow the instructions of her bosses. She wouldn't do the story on Paris Hilton. She and the other on-air personalities treat it with a sense of humor. They joke about it. But you can also sense a very real frustration simmering in her, just below the surface.
Take a look:
People seem to be captured by, and enamored with, this small "protest" by Brzezinski. In fact, 2.8 million people have watched the above clip on YouTube. That is HUGE.
And, she has become something of a celebrity among her fellow journalists, and folks like me, who are cheered by her actions. In an AP story after-the-fact, Brzezinski says this:
"I could not get through the first three words without crumbling. My skin was crawling. This was our lead? On a day like this?"
And as for the positive reaction to her little on-air-protest, she offers up this thought:
"Among journalists it touched a nerve because I think we’re tired of pretending this is important. We also know that, deep down inside, our viewers know that we don’t believe this is news. They can’t. They can’t think we’re that dumb."
Indeed!
Happily, her MSNBC bosses have actually seen fit to give her the "chair" on a new hour-long morning news show. And I will point out that, in the past few weeks, the rest of the media seems to finally have gotten the hint that nobody's all that concerned about Paris Hilton.
Thank God.
-----------------------------------
On his show, Keith Olbermann used to introduce Paris-Hilton-like stories with the tag line "another story my producers are making me cover." He would say it in jest. But you also always hoped he really believed it too.
Mika Brzezinski reminded us that he's not alone. She reminded us that perhaps it does matter who sits in "the chair." A bimbo is probably never going to "get" that a story about a bimbo is not a lead story. A swimsuit model is probably never going to grasp that it's really not even news at all. And a wrestling "personality" is probably never going to have the guts to stand up to her editors on live national television.
Hopefully, now and then, a journalist will.
And hopefully, now and then, we'll continue to be reminded that, in the end, substance still does matter.
We turn to them again and again in moments of crisis, for information, comfort, and a communal connection with others. In fact, in times of crisis you could argue that TV news anchors draw millions of us together in a way that no other media source --no one else anywhere, really-- can.
But the unspoken underbelly of TV news anchors is that they not only have to be sharp and professional journalists, but they also have to be easy on the eye. I am not saying I believe this to be fair. I am saying that if you asked 100 journalists about it, the vast majority would give you Walter Cronkite's answer: It's just "the way it is."
The movie "Broadcast News" famously brought this truth to the big screen. It pitted the characters of William Hurt and Albert Brooks against each other. In the film, Hurt plays a "pretty boy" who knows virtually nothing of journalism, but somehow manages to ascend to "the chair," as the lead anchor of a network news show. Brooks plays an intelligent, well trained, but far-too-self-aware, journeyman reporter who knows the world, knows his profession, and knows that none that matters in a world where style so often trumps substance.
At the end of the movie, Brooks walks away from the insanely-manic pace of the network newsroom, content to live out his days as a local reporter for a Seattle affiliate. Hurt, the pretty boy, becomes a broadcast news institution.
Of course, there is an even deeper, and crasser, level to this "style vs substance" dynamic. The deeper level is the unfair double standard concerning women and men on TV news.
Yes, men are mostly expected to be "pretty boys." But some of them aren't. Cronkite was a lovable grandfather. Koppel looked vaguely like Alfred E. Newman. Guys can get away that, so long as we believe them to be consummate journalistic professionals.
Women cannot. They are not only expected to be consummate professionals, but they are also expected to be...well..."Babes."
Even with his grandfatherly countenance, Cronkite might still be able to chair the CBS News today. He knows the world, he knows the news. It doesn't matter how he looks. Katie Couric not only has to know the world and know the news, but she has to look "pretty" doing it too.
Again, I'm not saying this is fair or right. In fact, it's more than a little sick, and really quite sexist.
But leave it to FOX to push this envelope as far as it will go. FOX --the network that gave a whole new meaning to "style over substance"-- is in the process of editing a new reality show called "Anchorwoman."
The premise of the show places a woman, whose only credentials appear to be that she is a "babe," in the anchor chair of a Tyler Texas newsroom. The woman, Lauren Jones, is a former swimsuit model and pro-wrestling...ahem..."personality." She has ZERO training as a journalist. She has ZERO experience as a journalist.
But for reasons still unclear to me, a Tyler TV station allowed FOX to insert her into their staff, and even gave her the "chair" as coanchor of their local evening news. Then, they allowed FOX to follow her --and the rest of their staff- around with cameras, to see just what kind of wacky, oddball, hilarity might ensue.
Here is a Good Morning America clip that talks about Ms. Jones, the Tyler station, and the ethical issues involved:
Let me say --and I hope you all noted-- that the brief GMA clip of the "average" Tyler "woman on the street" indicates that she's really embarrassed by this whole episode. Many of us here in Texas are. This is FOX thing, not a Texas thing. Please keep that in mind. (Please?)
And the thing that gets me about all this is not that FOX came up with this idea. I expect that from them. They're FOX. What really gets me is the choice of this TV station to play along.
Why in the heck did the editors at this station (A CBS affiliate, btw...) allow this?! Do they really see their newsroom as nothing more than a playground for some crass cultural experiment? Isn't it still a real newsroom? Aren't there some standards of journalistic professionalism that need to be embraced and held sacred?
Or, have we really come to a place where style does trump substance, and such things just don't matter anymore?
After all, since all the customer sees is the image of a body in a chair, maybe looking good really is all that matters. Maybe any old good-looking body can do it.
Since most of the TV news appears to be about Paris Hilton, maybe it's just the natural evolution of things to have the news read by Paris Hilton.
Hey....speaking Paris Hilton...
No...really....
You see, into this sorry state of affairs comes a real TV anchorwoman who gives me the hope that substance isn't quite dead yet.
Mika Brzezinski --daughter of former Carter cabinet member, Zbigniew-- is a respectable journalist with MSNBC. Several weeks ago now, she did something on MSNBC's new morning show, "Morning Joe," that caused quite a stir in the journalistic world.
Brzezinski's task was to provide short, top-of-the-hour, news breaks on the show hosted by Joe Scarborough. But on this day, she decided she would not "lead" with a yet another story about Paris Hilton.
Apparently, she actually believed there were others stories more deserving of the lead position that morning. You know, like maybe the war? Maybe...I don't know...the Attorney General scandal? Maybe the key Republican Senator who, that very morning, had announced his break with the President on the issue of the war, and his newly found support for bringing the troops home now?
Gee, maybe, she thought, one of those is the real lead story of the day.
But no. Her editors gave her yet another in the endless cycle of trivial and vacuous Paris Hilton stories. That was to be her lead.
But on this particular morning, something in Mika Brzezinski snapped. For three successive "news breaks" that morning, she refused to follow the instructions of her bosses. She wouldn't do the story on Paris Hilton. She and the other on-air personalities treat it with a sense of humor. They joke about it. But you can also sense a very real frustration simmering in her, just below the surface.
Take a look:
People seem to be captured by, and enamored with, this small "protest" by Brzezinski. In fact, 2.8 million people have watched the above clip on YouTube. That is HUGE.
And, she has become something of a celebrity among her fellow journalists, and folks like me, who are cheered by her actions. In an AP story after-the-fact, Brzezinski says this:
"I could not get through the first three words without crumbling. My skin was crawling. This was our lead? On a day like this?"
And as for the positive reaction to her little on-air-protest, she offers up this thought:
"Among journalists it touched a nerve because I think we’re tired of pretending this is important. We also know that, deep down inside, our viewers know that we don’t believe this is news. They can’t. They can’t think we’re that dumb."
Indeed!
Happily, her MSNBC bosses have actually seen fit to give her the "chair" on a new hour-long morning news show. And I will point out that, in the past few weeks, the rest of the media seems to finally have gotten the hint that nobody's all that concerned about Paris Hilton.
Thank God.
-----------------------------------
On his show, Keith Olbermann used to introduce Paris-Hilton-like stories with the tag line "another story my producers are making me cover." He would say it in jest. But you also always hoped he really believed it too.
Mika Brzezinski reminded us that he's not alone. She reminded us that perhaps it does matter who sits in "the chair." A bimbo is probably never going to "get" that a story about a bimbo is not a lead story. A swimsuit model is probably never going to grasp that it's really not even news at all. And a wrestling "personality" is probably never going to have the guts to stand up to her editors on live national television.
Hopefully, now and then, a journalist will.
And hopefully, now and then, we'll continue to be reminded that, in the end, substance still does matter.
The First Mother's Day
May/13/2007 02:37 PM | Permalink
Hope you're having a good Mother's Day today.
Did you know, however, that the very first Mother's Day in America was not a day for flowers or Hallmark Cards? It was not a day of champagne brunches and long distance phone calls.
The very first Mother's Day in America was visioned as a day for Mother's to call for an end to war. The first Mother's Day was an anti-war protest.
It's true. And it's a story I've been telling in Mother's Day sermons for many years now. I first learned this story though the Rev. Forrester Church's great book, "God, and Other Famous Liberals." But it's also a story that's now been chronicled in this wonderful website, called "Mother's Day for Peace."
The Mother's Day we celebrate was codified as a national holiday in 1914 by President Woodrow Wilson. Wilson was urged to create Mother's Day by activists like Anna Jarvis. (Some of the proponents of the Mother's Day we celebrate, btw, were good Methodist women...)
But that's not the very first Mother's Day. The first Mother's Day was the invention of a remarkable woman: Julia Ward Howe.
Julia Ward Howe and her husband were among the "whos who" of Boston society in the mid-1800s. But Julia was not content to rest comfortably in a high strata of society. She was a free-thinker and a passionate supporter of women's rights. She was an abolitionist.
Interestingly, Julia Ward Howe is actually best known as the writer of the famous "Battle Hymn of the Republic." A song that eventually became the anthem of the Union Army, it remains one of our national treasures to this day.
Howe was initially honored that a song she'd written became such a crucial part of the war effort. However, as the Civil War grew longer and the casualties mounted, she became increasingly uneasy that her song was being used to justify aggression and killing. Although she never seems renounced the song completely, it is clear that in later years she became concerned about the nationalistic pride that some took from it.
After the long horror of the Civil War ended, Julia Ward Howe became hopeful that perhaps humankind would put an end to war once and for all. Surely, she reasoned, humanity would find other ways to resolve disputes. Surely everyone could see how bloody and senseless war was as a tool of diplomacy and change. Surely, the horrid lesson of the American Civil War would be that war would "never again" be waged.
However, even as America was still healing its own war wounds, Howe began to hear the rumors of war a new war in Europe. The Franko-Prussian War soon broke out. Julia Ward Howe was devastated.
How could humanity be so mindless?
Could anyone out there actually stop war?
Finally, she hit on an idea. She reasoned that politicians and generals were usually men, and that men were usually the drivers of war. So, she reasoned, perhaps the one group who would have an undeniable voice in the struggle to end war were mothers.
Who gave up more in war?
Who suffered more from the premature and senseless deaths of their sons?
So, in 1870 Julia Ward Howe wrote the first official "Mother's Day Proclamation." In subsequent years, Mother's Day gatherings were organized around this proclamation in towns like Boston, New York, and Paris.
Here's a part of that first proclamation:
"We will not have great questions decided by irrelevant agencies, Our husbands will not come to us, reeking with carnage, for caresses and applause. Our sons shall not be taken from us to unlearn All that we have been able to teach them of charity, mercy and patience. We, the women of one country, will be too tender of those of another country To allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs."
From the bosom of the devastated Earth a voice goes up with our own.
It says: "Disarm! Disarm! The sword of murder is not the balance of justice."
Blood does not wipe out dishonor, nor violence indicate possession."
Like many visionaries and dreamers, Julia Ward Howe's vision of Mother's Day faded. Some fifty-years after her original proclamation, a new generation took up the cause and Mother's Day became the sweet, sentimental, and relatively benign holiday we've come to know.
But it can never be denied that the very first Mother's Day was organized by a mother opposed to war.
Recently, a friend sent me a link to
Did you know, however, that the very first Mother's Day in America was not a day for flowers or Hallmark Cards? It was not a day of champagne brunches and long distance phone calls.
The very first Mother's Day in America was visioned as a day for Mother's to call for an end to war. The first Mother's Day was an anti-war protest.
It's true. And it's a story I've been telling in Mother's Day sermons for many years now. I first learned this story though the Rev. Forrester Church's great book, "God, and Other Famous Liberals." But it's also a story that's now been chronicled in this wonderful website, called "Mother's Day for Peace."
The Mother's Day we celebrate was codified as a national holiday in 1914 by President Woodrow Wilson. Wilson was urged to create Mother's Day by activists like Anna Jarvis. (Some of the proponents of the Mother's Day we celebrate, btw, were good Methodist women...)
But that's not the very first Mother's Day. The first Mother's Day was the invention of a remarkable woman: Julia Ward Howe.
Julia Ward Howe and her husband were among the "whos who" of Boston society in the mid-1800s. But Julia was not content to rest comfortably in a high strata of society. She was a free-thinker and a passionate supporter of women's rights. She was an abolitionist.
Interestingly, Julia Ward Howe is actually best known as the writer of the famous "Battle Hymn of the Republic." A song that eventually became the anthem of the Union Army, it remains one of our national treasures to this day.
Howe was initially honored that a song she'd written became such a crucial part of the war effort. However, as the Civil War grew longer and the casualties mounted, she became increasingly uneasy that her song was being used to justify aggression and killing. Although she never seems renounced the song completely, it is clear that in later years she became concerned about the nationalistic pride that some took from it.
After the long horror of the Civil War ended, Julia Ward Howe became hopeful that perhaps humankind would put an end to war once and for all. Surely, she reasoned, humanity would find other ways to resolve disputes. Surely everyone could see how bloody and senseless war was as a tool of diplomacy and change. Surely, the horrid lesson of the American Civil War would be that war would "never again" be waged.
However, even as America was still healing its own war wounds, Howe began to hear the rumors of war a new war in Europe. The Franko-Prussian War soon broke out. Julia Ward Howe was devastated.
How could humanity be so mindless?
Could anyone out there actually stop war?
Finally, she hit on an idea. She reasoned that politicians and generals were usually men, and that men were usually the drivers of war. So, she reasoned, perhaps the one group who would have an undeniable voice in the struggle to end war were mothers.
Who gave up more in war?
Who suffered more from the premature and senseless deaths of their sons?
So, in 1870 Julia Ward Howe wrote the first official "Mother's Day Proclamation." In subsequent years, Mother's Day gatherings were organized around this proclamation in towns like Boston, New York, and Paris.
Here's a part of that first proclamation:
"We will not have great questions decided by irrelevant agencies, Our husbands will not come to us, reeking with carnage, for caresses and applause. Our sons shall not be taken from us to unlearn All that we have been able to teach them of charity, mercy and patience. We, the women of one country, will be too tender of those of another country To allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs."
From the bosom of the devastated Earth a voice goes up with our own.
It says: "Disarm! Disarm! The sword of murder is not the balance of justice."
Blood does not wipe out dishonor, nor violence indicate possession."
Like many visionaries and dreamers, Julia Ward Howe's vision of Mother's Day faded. Some fifty-years after her original proclamation, a new generation took up the cause and Mother's Day became the sweet, sentimental, and relatively benign holiday we've come to know.
But it can never be denied that the very first Mother's Day was organized by a mother opposed to war.
Recently, a friend sent me a link to