Deaniacs’ quandry
: Dean blogger Matthew Gross has his former colleague Mark Sundeen blog about the choice on Super Tuesday:
With Super Tuesday a few days out, I’m facing a question I didn’t expect: who should I vote for?…But even now, with Dean out of the race, many will still vote for him…. I think the majority of those voting for Dean know he won
Just me
: I supported the war and people called me a right-winger and refused to accept my liberal credentials. Now I go after the Bush administration over free speech and Howard Stern and also don’t like Gibson’s Passion and the right-wingers call me a left-winger. Those who hated me one week love me the next; those who loved me one week hate me the next; and a few smart people sit back and laugh. Life becomes very confusing when you have only one litmus test by which to judge mankind.
Befuddled about business and blogs
: Are you a big business or brand befuddled about blogs (and sick of this alliteration)? Go high Hugh MacLeod, who just put his shingle out to take his (a) copywriting experience and (b) blog expertise, not to mention (c) his marketing smarts, and (d) his cartoons for good measure and offer his services to companies wanting someone to create a blog for them. Go here.
Let’s hope they have no headlines from which to rip
: George Bush and Tom Ridge have a West Wing to call their own:
In what would be a highly unusual action for a president, George W. Bush is apparently giving the White House seal of approval to a television series, D.H.S.–The Series, a drama about the Department of Home Security being introduced Thursday night to prospective networks at an Industry gathering.President Bush and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge both “endorse and contribute sound bites to the introductions of the series,” according to the show’s producers.
[via IWantMedia]
Nice guys do finish first
: David Weinberger, one of the smartest and nicest people I’ve been in this here ‘sphere, is appointed a Harvard Berkman fellow. Bravo.
More on the meltdown
: There’s ever more comment on the Eli Noam piece in the FT that said we’re in an information-industry meltdown. David Isenberg has weighed in twice. Om Malik has more links.
I sent Noam email with links to all the blog comments on his piece and an invitation to coffee. Never heard a thing.
Irony
: Isn’t it ironic that at the the same time Clear Channel kicks Howard Stern off their air, it sponsors a screening of Mel Gibson’s Passion, a movie that is being condemned in many quarters for stirring up anti-Semitism.
I’ll defend Gibson’s right to make the movie, anyone’s right to show it or see it, and Clear Channel’s right to sponsor a screening.
But let’s note that many of the same people who are flocking to the movie who are complaining about Stern.
I know my pointing that out will drive some of you nuts so consider that stipulated. I just could not resist pointing out the irony. (And thanks to the reader who brought it to my attention.)
: Jay Rosen says in comments below that whether Clear Channel succumbed to government pressure is a “reportable story.”
Not sure I agree. Clear Channel is not going to acknowledge publicly that it acted sheerly for political reasons and to give it lobbying juice. Nor is anyone in government going to brag about censoring media directly.
But we do know that Clear Channel bumped Stern the day after its executives where called to Woodshed, D.C. to testify before Congress.
We do know that executive acknowledged to Congress that Stern has not changed his act at all but that Clear Channel has decided to change its rules.
And we know that Stern says Clear Channel told him they were doing this because of government pressure.
So sometimes, all a journalist — and, more important, a journalist’s readers — can do is put two and two together. Clear Channel pulled Stern the day before the testimony before Congress and the testimony before Congress comes after the Janet Jackson breast flap and that’s the only thing that has changed; Clear Channel acknowledges that Stern hasn’t.
It adds up to government pressure and a government-induced chill on speech to me.
: Glenn Reynolds (who also rocks) says I am over the top on Stern. Well, I think Glenn’s over the top on the Second Amendment. Different things push our buttons.
Glenn seems to think that this just a matter of a media company deciding to kill a show I like. But it’s not. It’s much more than that. A media company can kill shows anytime — but Clear Channel didn’t. Again, the company acknowledges before Congress that Stern hasn’t changed a thing. The company decided to pull the show only after it came under the thumb of government pressure.
I do not want the government deciding what I can say and what I can hear. Period.
Government interference in free speech does put me over the top. You bet it does. This is not about poop jokes. This is about nothing less than protecting the First Amendment.
You have your amendment, Glenn, my friend. And I have mine.
: Howard Kurtz says: “Does anyone detect a pungent whiff of hypocrisy?”
: UPDATE: Motley Fool agrees with my analysis out of the whole Stern et al flap: Buy satellite stock.
Who’s the devil?
:
Mel Gibson’s Passion would make me an atheist. Who would chose to believe in the God he portrays — a God who demands such incredible suffering of his own son to balance the sins of man?
Gibson’s Passion would make me a Jew. For if this is his view of Christianity, then maybe it’s wrong and I’d want to revert to the previous version of religion.
Wouldn’t that be ironic if Gibson’s Passion turned people away from God and Christianity? It would do that for me if for one moment I thought that Gibson had some hold on the truth.
But I went to see a very late show of Passion last night and I was appalled. It was more abhorrent and disturbing and disgusting than I ever would have imagined. It borders on hate speech in its portrayal of the Jews and in its effort to whip up hatred. This is a movie the Nazis would have made or at least endorsed.
Now I’m not calling Gibson a Nazi. I’m not sure about calling him an anti-Semite. In his mind, he thinks he’s telling the truth about the events of Christ’s Passion. But that mind is skewed to make this all about violence and vengeance — the Jews’ and ultimately God’s — and apart from a token moment on the Mount and the postscript at the end, nothing about grace and redemption. The result is a truly frightening portrayal of violence against Jesus and of Jews that, I fear, will lead to hate crimes.
Many other reviewers have dissected the movie better than I can or care to. I went to see it (my wife thought I was nuts) just so I could write this after having seen it.
I left the theater angry — not at Jews or Romans but at Gibson.
