America Loves Dead People

Caught a fleeting glimpse of the wall-to-wall coverage of the late Senator Edward Kennedy.

Why does his tenure, albeit long, in Senate deserve this coverage?  One news station literally had video of a Kennedy dog (named ‘Splash’, I believe).  I left the room before I presume they began to interview Splash.

Even Michael Jackson’s death coverage may have been more deserving of this circus-level coverage.  At least his death was a bit of a surprise and under dubious circumstances.  Haven’t we all been on Ted Kennedy Deathwatch for about a year now?

I would have preferred if Robert S. McNamara have received this sort of send-off.

Actually, I would prefer if no one ever received this sort of send-off.

… and the cow goes moo

Washington Post has competition in the full-ad-news-organization biz from The Atlantic

I guess I’m a bit late getting to this one after my bitchy/sarcastic post about The Washington Post’s for-pay brainstorming sessions (see said bitchy/sarcastic post here).

Apparently, The Atlantic Monthly (I will never feel comfortable calling it The Atlantic.  I think the body of water had the name first, so should get dibs) has a long history of such influence-peddling sessions of their own, according to Talking Points Memo.  It seems like The Washington Post hasn’t broken a story or even made a meaningful news innovation since Watergate…  Key snippet will follow, but please read the entire article.  It’s not long and touches on some of the broader reasons why these ’salons’ are held and how some journalistic integrity is maintained by The Atlantic Monthly and others:

“These aren’t one-off events, by a long shot. The Atlantic has held approximately 100 of them since 2003, according to Zachary Hooper, a spokesman for the magazine.

And they’re by and large initiated by the corporation that pays for them, according to Hooper. “The corporate sponsor” — with whom the magazine generally has a longstanding business relationship — “comes to us and says, ‘We’re interested in having a discussion on a certain topic.’” The magazine’s business staff, said Hooper, takes things from there.“

TPM was nice enough to link to a copy of the flyer so you can see what those wishing to purchase advertising time within a respected journal’s editorial get to see.  Former Massachusetts governor and one-time Presidential nominee Michael Dukakis is listed among the past attendees.  They make no mention if tank rides were included.

… and the cow goes moo

Jim Cramer’s public trial on The Daily Show

I’m sure I’m not the only one who was shocked by the interview last night (and the uncensored full interview available online for Canadians and for those in the US), but it really was a public humilation.

Jim Cramer of CNBC’s Mad Money is purportedly brought on to address this phony media skirmish between Jon Stewart and himself, but is made to defend the ethos of his network, CNBC (perhaps fairly to an extent, but he’s really seems to be more of a sideshow on the network and not the best-equipped or fairest mascot for the network).  And in that capacity, Cramer is easily cowed (within the first 15 seconds of the interview, if not sooner) and Jon Stewart turns his show into an oratory Saw movie.  The interview (especially the televised/heavily edited interview) was little more than torture porn where Jon Stewart enters into one of his occasional, but extremely effective, public undressings of a major figure who is desperate enough or naive enough to visit his show.

Cramer is nervous and defensive throughout, apologetic even when I would argue he has no need to be, and is basically lectured and berated like a little boy for about 25 minutes in the extended/uncut interview.

Poor, defenseless Cramer, who seems so tough on his own show, literally has no way of coping with Jon Stewart’s enormous homefield advantage.  Stewart injects into the interview incriminating (literally) videos of Cramer espousing techniques to manipulate the market, lectures Cramer for all the people who have lost their life savings in this market in uninterrupted two-minute pontifications, and Cramer is then made to defend himself (but of course, as Stewart repeatedly says, this is not about attacking Cramer personally) in the 30 seconds or so before Stewart cuts to commercials.

Apparently, Jim Cramer is responsible for CNBC providing market hype during our long bull market, and perhaps the first year or two of our ongoing bear market, which convinced people like Jon Stewart’s 70-year-old mother to stake their retirement on market gains.  That makes him, in the words of Jon Stewart, at best an informercial pusher, and at worst “a snake oil salesman”.

I have never been a fan of Jon Stewart, but I do like his show and watch it all the time, and even after watching his show for about eight years, holy fuck was I shocked at what an asshole Jon Stewart is.

Jim Cramer, who I do not watch or respect or really care about normally, used to live in his fucking car.  And the stock market made him millions of dollars and brought him to his current state of market eminence.  And by sharing much of his insight into the market that made him rich, he is compared to a shill selling inert or harmful tonics as medicine.

Mr. Stewart:  It’s not snake oil if it actually fucking works, and Jim Cramer is proof that it does.

That following his calls may have dubious efficacy is understandable, but anyone who purports much better than 55% accuracy in calling the markets is a liar anyways.  And anyone who believed otherwise was robbed by Bernie Madoff, not Jim Cramer.

I do not mean to say that Jon Stewart makes no good points.  His criticisms of CNBC as a journalistic entity are valid, for the most part.  They certainly did not do much more than take a CEO’s statement at face value.  And when Cramer himself admits that he took some of his CEO friends’ comments at face value, Jon Stewart responds sarcastically with [and I paraphrase]: “Oh, a CEO lied to you?  Who would have thought?”

Apparently, all the people Jon Stewart implies believed and bet on stocks in response to the CEO’s comments didn’t think CEOs lied.  So his sardonic reply should really be directed as much towards Jim Cramer as, say, his 70-year old mother.

Of course Cramer should be seen as an exception: a respected former journalist, ex-hedge fund manager, and current business entertainer, he should know very well what tricks are commonplace among those who stand to benefit from the market.  In fact, in the most damning segments of the interview (props to the TDS research team), Cramer confesses to illegal market manipulation tactics that he engaged in during his tenure at Cramer, Berkowitz, & Co.

Certainly Cramer should then be better informed than any other of the outright lies and manipulation (Citi’s recent example comes to mind) that take place when billions of dollars in stock value are involved.  But as a member of the mainstream media, whose show truly is a dog & pony show (much more of one than Jon Stewart claims his own show to be), can he be realistically expected to make claims of manipulation?  I am no expert on this matter, but I would imagine manipulation even as bald as Citi’s recent memo release would be nearly impossible to prove as being manipulation.  The only litigation-free case that Cramer could make for manipulation would be the confessions he made in the incriminating video clips.

And he could call shenanigans.  If he wanted to.  And so could the rest of the CNBC staff.  And they could even do so delicately, in a manner that allowed them to escape litigation.  But that’s not their job.  That’s the job of the Financial Times.  Or blogs like Naked Capitalism, Calculated Risk, The Big Picture, and Mish’s Global Economic Trend Analysis.  CNBC’s job is to try to help people make money in the markets.  They’re as much of a news organization as ESPN.  And had they spent the past 11 years decrying the fiction of bank profits, and the unsustainability of 30:1 leverage, they would have been bankrupting those that take their market analysis as prophetic for nine of those years, and benefiting them for the past two.

Just as much as Jon Stewart has shirked the responsibilities of journalism in the past because, as he indicated in last night’s interview, that he is also a snake oil salesman, CNBC has abdicated that responsibility as well and Jon Stewart of all people should understand that, rather than make himself up to be the jokester defender of the fleeced public.  CNBC doesn’t confess to being a faux-journalistic outlet as Jon Stewart does (which keeps them from evoking their not-serious status as a defence for harmful journalistic inaccuracies), but anyone who watches a man run around hitting gongs and noise buttons shouldn’t need to be told that maybe what they’re watching isn’t news.

Whether CNBC is providing an outlet for CEOs to disseminate their lies or not, using their faux news DOES allow someone to play the market’s game more profitably.  And for those casual day traders like myself who treat the market as an occasional, albeit highly unlikely, get-rich-quick lottery ticket, we cannot blame CNBC for not doing more of the work for us in our schemes to line our pockets with money we never deserved.

[Full disclosure:  I work for a Canadian bank in a capacity very distant from market investing.  I do not watch Mad Money or any program on CNBC.  I do watch Jon Stewart's The Daily Show regularly, but I have never, ever, liked Jon Stewart personally or his constant hypocritical evasiveness of his own responsibilities as a quasi-journalist.  And I absolutely think anyone expecting hard-hitting news, market or otherwise, to be read to them on TV by a pretty face really doesn't understand who TV news shows of any stripe are marketed towards.  And that is the problem more than the fact that there isn't a hard-hitting news program out there ready to eviscerate the figures and companies that make our news that would, clearly, not be watched by anyone.  Or it would have to load itself with so much silliness and sarcasm as to be faux news, not responsible for any inaccuracies, and strictly not to be taken seriously.]

… and the cow goes moo

Bill Moyers: Big Fucking Hypocrite

Or so it appears, according to this Slate exposé: “The Intolerable Smugness of Bill Moyers”

Very disappointing.  Bill Moyers has been a professional and capable figure of liberal journalism for years and my personal favorite interviewer (he’s not a grilling type, but explores subjects the manner I would want someone to and in a manner that is very affable but not obsequious).

The Slate report makes a number of accusations of Moyers that are difficult for someone my age (I was not alive to see Moyers working in LBJ’s administration) to comprehend.  In the years that I have watched Moyers conducting interviews, and giving interviews, he has been a champion of civil rights, responsible journalism, and a critic of the Bush Jr. administration’s attempts to coerce the press corps.

But the article brings grave doubt to all those claims of Moyers, and makes him out to be a big fucking hypocrite.  Not only had Moyers apparently been a point man involved in rooting out homosexuals within the Johnson administration, a participant in the surveillance of Martin Luther King’s private life, but he appears to have been a political operative of the first order, requesting help from FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to dig up information about 1964 presidential nominee (and rival to Johnson) Barry Goldwater.

And Moyers’ past interactions with journalists in the White House Press corps were fraught with what I would have thought to be a uniquely Bush/Rove investion:

“Moyers pitched the idea of planting questions to Johnson, who embraced it, giving Moyers a couple of questions for [Lyndon B. Johnson's assistant press secretary Joe] Laitin to distribute, which he did.

Johnson so loved this innovation that he was determined to plant every question at his next news conference. About 15 minutes before the session started, Moyers brought Laitin about 10 questions from the president. When Laitin protested that this was too much—”Bill, this isn’t the way it’s done”—Moyers said, “Do it!”"

And these stories seem to be corroborated by multiple sources.  It seems Moyers should be much more reticent in criticizing Bush’s gelding of the press.

Yet, the following is a quote from Moyers in 2003, referring to a joke made by Bush that a press conference was scripted (also from the Slate’s article):

“I think these forces have unbalanced the relationship between this White House and the press. Frankly, even if we had tried it in LBJ’s time, we wouldn’t have gotten away with the kind of press conference President Bush conducted on the eve of the invasion of Iraq—the one that even the President admitted was wholly scripted, with reporters raising their hands and posing so as to appear spontaneous.”

Bill Moyers is a big fucking hypocrite.

[His show is still great though.  Washington Post reporter Robert G. Kaiser's interview in Moyers' most recent episode wasn't shocking in its content, but anothe rexample of Moyers' fairly balanced reporting (for a former Democratic staffer anyways).  They discuss the infection of D.C. with lobbyists, their ability to shape legislation, and their permeating influence on Republicans and Democrats alike.  Tom Daschle, a notably corrupted high-profile Democrat, receives as much attention as the similarly corrupted and high-profile Republican Tom Delay.  And the brightest figure in the Democratic Party's near past, Bill Clinton, is not saved from mention.  Nor the bright figure in the party's future, Hillary Clinton.  I love when Moyers speaks on the subject of compromised principals in politics.  Seems he had first hand knowledge.]

… and the cow goes moo

Crooksandliar’s Cernig reports on continued policy of propaganda over Gitmo

Cernig is a regular contributor to the very, very large Liberal politics blog Crooks and Liars, generally focusing on the War on Terror and other international affairs (which are often highly US-centric, but as I believe he is a European contributor, he generally provides a bit of an outsider’s perspective).  His posts tend to be very comprehensive, but I cannot say I often agree with the passion he has for some of his subjects.  Or some of the scattershot conjecture that I feel weakens his arguments (as they tend to detract from the incisive primary crux of a post, at times).  I find him to be consistently, along with the blog’s founder, the rarely-posting John Amato, to be the strongest contributors to the very popular politics and media site.

Today, on the otherhand, he breaks what may be a minor story in this time of economic hardship and political transition in the US:  Pentagon Pushes Debunked “Returning to Terror” hype.  I would highly recommend reading the post in its entirety if the fairly representative title interests you.

It never ceases to amaze me how willing certain factions (perhaps comprising the majority) of the US government is willing to mortgage its credibility to attain short term goals of convincing (and further radicalizing) the already convinced, covering their own asses, and providing talkshow fodder to those who are commited to defending The Cause. 

If the data presented in Cernig’s is accurate, there is little doubt that the Pentagon is doing more than just massaging data to provide a shocking statistical argument in support of Gauntanamo’s existence.  Worse yet, the type of data (and how easily the data seems to fall apart under Seton Hall’s scrutiny) suggest this is meant to be applied judiciously in a non-critical setting, where no claim is likely to be reviewed (think the Sunday morning political talk shows, the roundtable ‘debates’ on many political and news shows, and even many of the print editorial pages). 

That those who believe in Gauntanamo’s efficacy or even torture’s efficacy would wish to support the existence of Guantanamo Bay and related facilities and policies=, I understand.  But doing so by advancing what appears to be a thinly disguised misinformation campaign is shocking.  Of course, no names will be attached to this shame beyond George W. Bush (perhaps) and The Pentagon as a faceless entity, so none will suffer personally from this claim.  But this disregard for fact and this disrespect for the inquisitiveness of those who are fed this information is shockingly cynical.  Albeit the misinformation campaign will likely be effective, it is also doubtlessly dragging discourse down further by obtaining increased support for the current anti-terror methods and policies with smoke-and-mirrors data presentation.

God bless Cernig for catching this one, as I and probably many others who might normally be attentive to these issues are focusing on the innumerable other crises that seem more pressing right now. 

This appears to be yet another case of egregious data manipulation and bald propaganda which has become so commonplace in recent years.

… and the cow goes moo

Mark Ames’ One-Man Mission to Get an Apology from the NYT

Mark Ames of Exiled Online and The Nation, not satisfied with his previous screed (that I posted about here), is continuing his assault upon the New York Times’ reporting on Georgia’s role in the South Ossetian conflict.  He is one of the primary resources I have been utilizing for my own understanding of the Georgian/South Ossetian war.  As a longtime Moscow resident and journalist in Russia, as well as an American citizen, I consider him exceptionally well situated to provide insight on the crisis that American reporting tends to miss.

Though I do not share the degree of his ire for the New York Times (still my morning paper), he correctly lambastes their lack of journalistic inquisitiveness and either docile manipulation by those who wish to continue painting Russia as the boogeyman or capitulation to the storyline easiest for its readership to digest (big bad Russia vs. little innocent Georgia).  I actually believe the New York Times was far quicker (which is still extremely slow) to question the dominant narrative and did so under very little pressure or duress that I noticed.  Very few in America were demanding a correction or review of the ‘facts’ in those early weeks of the war, and by the time questions were raised, the war had fallen off the American news platter to be replaced by the late innings of the US Elections.

His last article, doubly linked to above, chronicles his attacks on the New York Times (seemingly not targeted for the extent of its poor reporting, but for its importance as the paper of record), contrasting it to some far superior reporting from European news sources such as Der Spiegel (I link to that article, among others, in a post providing a situational update three months ago).  More importantly, Ames provides an insider’s look (sadly, with scant real evidence beyond his conjecture and assumptions) into the nuts and bolts of how an incorrect narrative and misrepresentation is created and fostered in the face of contrary evidence.  As a member of the press pool, traveling with other Western journalists who largely report in terms in exact opposition to his own reporting, he provides an insider’s perspective of the top-down content control that he believes trumped actual investigation in the dominant reporting on Georgia-South Ossetia.

Ames makes the valid comparisons — putting the New York Times’ feet to the fire — between their failed coverage in this war to their failed — and recanted — coverage leading up to the Iraq War.  I think he misses one notable point though:  The New York Times authored their mea culpa about the Iraq War long after a firestorm of outrage from those who felt the media failed.  In contrast, the New York Times has began to disseminate articles doubting Georgia’s claims of innocence, and the purity of their ruling government, long before any demands for that reporting came to my notice in America.  And they have continued to issue their subtle correction (not expressed in NYT standards editor Craig Whitney’s reply to Mark Ames, quoted at the end of Ames’ article) long after the crisis has fallen off America’s radar.

Perhaps my expectations for the New York Times and the American news media in general is too low, but I am frankly surprised that the New York Times has, in my view, voluntarily issued a correction on their reporting, albeit rather quietly.

… and the cow goes moo

Further damage to result from automaker contraction

I had posted about the effect on dealerships here.  I posted shortly on how the loss of dealerships would effect already troubled local and state government balance sheets here.

Yet another area is likely to suffer dramatically with the closing of a large percentage (20%?) of auto dealerships in the coming 13 months (Bloomberg article, found at Naked Capitalism):

“Local television stations get 25 percent or more of their advertising from automakers, dealers, and dealer associations…”

And how about the already-in-decline print media (Sam Zell’s recently-bankrupted Tribune Co. would be one good example of an early casualty perhaps, though Tribune owns local other media outlets beyond print)?  Can we expect smaller papers and even some larger ones, like Tribune’s LA Times, to survive with a major decline in automotive industry advertising?

Will tomorrow’s auto bailout announcement attempt to reconcile the impossible demands of making the Detroit Three self-sufficient as well as saving their employees and affiliated businesses…  and their contribution to the economy?

Regardless, the consequences of this bailout will shape out over the coming year and things will not be anything like the way they are now.  Those in the automotive industry (and I know and have worked with some of you):  You might want to consider taking time to prepare yourself for a painful occupational transition.

… and the cow goes moo

The Lieberman Absolution: What, you were surprised?

I’ve been meaning to comment on this subject for a while, but it seemed like I was always reading articles and posts about it on my Windows Mobile phone at the gym.  It was never convenient for me to pen a response.

My most recent impetus to comment on the subject comes from Bob Morris at Polizeros, who seems to share my opinion of Barack Obama and said this in response to the furor over Obama’s support of Lieberman (for more on the subject, see the second half of this New York Times article. For a delicious appetizer, the first half of the article reports on Ted Stevens’ loss of his Senate seat):

“Many in the liberal blogosphere seem appalled that Obama might not be a liberal. Well, he never said he was. Like I said here many times before the election, Obama is a pragmatic, centrist moderate. So don’t be surprised when he acts like one.”

EXACTLY!

And beyond that, he has made bipartisanship the center of his campaign beyond any of the topics that likely won most of his support among Democrats (such as green power and the environment, getting out of Iraq, universal or expanded health care, or reversing Bush’s tax cuts).

To ostracize Lieberman, a man he campaigned for in the 2006 Connecticut Democratic primary, simply because Lieberman has not been the good soldier of the Democratic party and has refused to return the favour by supporting Obama in his presidential run, could only be interpreted as partisan at the highest order.

Did Joe Lieberman become a different man in between running against Ned Lamont and McCain and Obama’s contest for the Presidency?

I have not heard any arguments from those who support the stripping of Lieberman’s chairmanship of the Senate Commitee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs or expulsion entirely from the Democratic caucus that list crimes other than betrayal to the party and Barack Obama and, of course, vociferously supporting the President on the War in Iraq.

The issue of ‘betrayal’ is partisan beyond argument.  Though I agree with Lieberman on very little — and like him even less — I am glad to see members break rank and make stands for what they believe in.  I’m certain many Democrats feel the same about Republicans who have chosen to break ranks with the President in the past few years, whether due to political expediency or genuine belief.

If Joseph Lieberman’s instrumentality and continued support of the Iraq War is grounds for expulsion, I wonder why there exists such silence over Hillary Clinton’s initial support for the Iraq War now that she seems to be a likely candidate for Secretary of State?  As important as Lieberman’s committee chairmanship may be, I doubt it could far exceed that of Obama’s Secretary of State.  Granted there are major differences between Hillary Clinton and Joseph Lieberman on the subject of Iraq, should there not be a mild reaction to the idea that a Senator who so easily succumbed to President Bush’s annexation of Congressional authority to declare war being made our nation’s top diplomat? (I wonder how many of those against Lieberman, or who support Clinton, wish Colin Powell played more of an oppositional role against President Bush during the run-up to the Iraq War?)

Show me some consistency.  Either poop on Hillary’s candidacy for Secretary of State (which is a fantastic political move by Barack Obama to offer her up for the 2016 Presidency, as opposed to the 2012 Presidency) or admit that the expulsion of Joseph Lieberman is purely partisan (and that you would willingly see Barack Obama abandon his exulted speech on bipartisanship to castigate a naughty Senator).  Or prove my thinking wrong entirely.

ADD:

Oops.  Man, I’m slow.  Hillary Clinton has already accepted the Secretary of State position, according to the New York Times, via MarketWatch, via Naked Capitalism.

… and the cow goes moo

Has the media turned on Georgia’s role in the South Ossetian conflict?

According to Naked Capitalism, this is a fairly recent development that may coincide with Barack Obama’s electoral landslide.  Yves cites this recent New York Times article questioning Georgia’s lily-white innocence as evidence, but I strongly disagree.

Not only has Barack Obama (the President-elect’s statement from August) and many Democrats been equally supportive of Georgia as McCain (though far less succint: “Today we are all Georgians”), but the New York Times and others in the mainstream print media have been vociferously questioning Georgia’s claim to innocence for some time.  Granted the embrace of Georgia’s side was absolute and disgusting in the early hours and days of the conflict, especially from what little I saw on televised news, but the tide turned long ago when the facts (and logic) overwhelmingly pointed against Georgia.  As international attention grew on the nation, it’s innocence (as well as the democratic bona fides of its leader, Mikheil Sakaashvili) have been subject to rightful scrutiny.

In particular, Mark Ames of The Nation and Exiled Online (same article) had already made this claim two weeks prior to Barack Obama’s election, which I disagreed with at the time as well and posted about here.  Certainly the wind was blowing strongly in the direction of Obama’s election at the time, but I think claiming Democratic victory as cause for a sudden turnaround (that isn’t really sudden) is quite a reach.

As far as I know, Barack Obama has not amended his position on Georgia/South Ossetia (please correct me if I’m wrong) but it is certainly less of a mindless throwing-in than John McCain’s.  Better than nothing.

… and the cow goes moo

Mark Ames on the New York Times flip on South Ossetia

Mark Ames, of Exiled Online and The Nation, provides his unique American-Russian perspective on the Georgian-South Ossetian conflict and the press coverage in the US.

He cites a few of the articles I’ve referenced in the past (in a post directly related to the ‘he started it!’ contest here, and a quick update I posted about the NYT’s reporting on the state of Georgia’s media here) but with a fairly different take that I don’t altogether agree with.

Ames singles out the New York Times as having made an about-face on the issue of Georgia’s culpability in starting the war as well as the nature of Georgia’s democracy, which I feel is unfair.

Perhaps my exposure to other forms of American media have inoculated me from the NYT’s shift in focus, but they certainly are far from the worst offenders.  Had Ames been watching CNN at that time, I believe he would have seen the NYT’s relatively even-handed treatment of the conflict as a Godsend.  However to compare any newspaper to CNN would be using a very low criterion.

What he does point out that I think is very important is that while Georgia and South Ossetia were headlining the news, in print and on television, the embrace of Georgia and the opposition to anything Russian was complete and vehement.  Now that the moment is long past, and the issue is no longer even being discussed (due to the suitable shift in focus to the economic crisis), the public memory will contain both Democratic and Republican presidential candidates (seems strange calling John McCain a Presidential candidate at this point.  I have trouble even looking at him as a Senator any longer) voicing strong support (some stronger than others) for Georgia and the memory of an aggressor Russia that attempted to annex South Ossetia.  All the mea culpas and belated even-handed treatment in the world won’t matter when 99% of Americans have dropped the subject.

Because the New York Times, CNN, and most every other major American news organization opted to cheerlead an anti-Russian kneejerk response to Georgia-South Ossetia, the nation’s memory will always contain the mistaken impression that Russia invaded South Ossetia and bullied a pliant democracy into surrender.  I do not think the New YorkTimes deserves to be singled out as Mark Ames apparently does, but they certainly were guilty along with their competitors of running a free misinformation campaign for Georgia and Mikheil Saakashvili.  And any real democratic sentiment in Georgia, or peaceful sentiment in Russia, suffers due to the press’ eagerness to resort to the tired old prejudices against Russia.

… and the cow goes moo