Re-Runs... And They Are Not Of I Love Lucy

As a "creature" of the television business, I have sold the same program or movie over and over again in a given market and the "industry" is secure in knowing that most people, young or old are happy to watch program content that they like whenever it is repeated.

I came across something that I wrote well over a year ago, and what follows is a re-run of the piece, and it certainly is not about I love Lucy, but rather about life and death, lies and misleads, torture and destruction, war and fear, and about most of the same perpetrators who keep telling the same "stories" over and over, and over again.

If you noticed, the President and his Vice President were "singing the same old song" to friendly audiences last week. Secretary of State Rice continues to fly back and forth to places while singing the political songs she is told to perform, and this includes the mild criticism of Pervez Musharraf, who is doing what our administration probably wants him to do.

I know that this very important development in Pakistan should not in any way interfere with the GE/NBC "Green Week" presentation. After all, why should Americans be "forced" to watch a documentary about this very boring subject like what is going on in Pakistan that just might put the issue into some sort of perspective on behalf of the people who are citizens of our country. The same hold true for those public service networks owned by Disney, CBS, or Fox.

Or in the words of the NFL Commissioner, "LET THEM WATCH FOOTBALL." (A small joke.)

Pejoratives, Politics, And Prevarications
(August 06)

The latest concerted administration campaign that manages, all at one time, to combine pejoratives, politics, and prevarications in a "free", (it doesn't cost them ANYTHING) television series starring Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice making speeches at comfortable venues, misleading America in new ways in order to stem the politically harmful fallout from our tragic incursion and occupation of Iraq.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was quoted as saying that critics of the war in Iraq and the campaign against terror groups play politics, seem not to have learned history's lessons, and he made reference to those in the 1930's who advocated appeasing Nazi Germany. Dear Donald chose to make his remarks to thousands of veterans at the American Legion's annual convention. He continued with his reply to critics of the Bush administration's Iraq strategy.

Why would it surprise anyone that he had spoken to a veterans group in what would appear to be a politically motivated attempt to blame the Democrats for the dreadful situation in Iraq? Everyone knows that any attempt to suggest that we do anything other then "stay the course" supports the "wimpish" position of an appeaser. If you continue to support the war, great, but if you oppose it, you are "playing politics,"

Vice President Cheney also spoke of appeasement at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska, reciting a passage that was reflective of his standard speeches.

"This is not an enemy that can be ignored, or negotiated with, or appeased,'' he said. "And every retreat by civilized nations is an invitation to further violence against us. Men who despise freedom will attack freedom in any part of the world, and so responsible nations have a duty to stay on the offensive, together, to remove this threat."

Is it reasonable to infer from this, that any nation that has not joined us in this war is not a "civilized nation?"

He also made reference to "... moral or intellectual confusion about who or what is right or wrong." (I wonder if he learned what was moral, or right and wrong while at Haliburton.)

This "gang of four" has managed to once again use pejoratives like "soft on terror", "wanting to cut and run", "we will protect the
American heartland," and lest we forget "they are unwilling to stay the course". By the way, will some broadcast journalist ask any of the four of them what this means exactly?

Is it possible that all of this is not a blatant continuation of "we are winning this war" scenario? For an extra special bonus, quoting from the NY Times today:

"The rash of attacks -- reflecting a spike in violence that has claimed roughly 200 lives since Sunday -- came despite a new security plan for the capital, on a day when the top United States general, George W. Casey Jr., in Iraq said Iraqi forces could take over security as early as next year.

"I don't have a date," General Casey said in Baghdad. "But I can see -- over the next 12 to 18 months -- I can see the Iraqi security forces progressing to a point where they can take on the security responsibilities for the country, with very little coalition support"

General Casey's comments managed to arrive about two months before the mid-term elections. I expect that this is only a coincidence, and no one in the administration asked him to say it.

The "gang of four" can be expected to be out there speaking in front of favorable audiences, and espousing the rhetoric of "you are either with us or against us", and branding opponents to this badly managed post war period as being un-American. Who can blame them; they have tasted the power of their "total incumbency", and are not anxious to surrender it.

I do however blame a different "gang of four" for a lot of this. In case you are wondering, they are The General Electric Company (NBC), CBS, The Walt Disney Company ABC, and of course News Corp (Fox). If they expressed an opinion concerning this stuff from time to time, it would be refreshing. If they gave opposing views more exposure (sort of an unofficial equal time thing), their reporting might approach fair and balanced.

I watched Brian Williams do an extensive walking interview with President Bush, and ask him some relatively tough questions that the president DID NOT ANSWER.

This is my conclusion. We are involved in a horrid war; we have Katrina, an energy crisis, and so much more. "The gang of four" will continue their plan of "photo ops", and the owners of the media will continue to give them television coverage without any of their "journalists" saying "boo", which only encourages more of the three "P'S".

Good grief!

Norman Horowitz
Seller of re-runs

Comments

[Counterglow]

I'm sure you're partly right, but I suspect the problem is simply that television has taken over as the number one news medium. That causes a lot of problems that have little to do with corporate chicanery.

Television reporters make big money, and that makes them unlikely to rock the boat. You might walk away from a $30,000 a year job. A $200,000 a year one? Not bloody likely.

Editors are unlikely to push a story when the corporate law division says it might bring lawsuits down on the parent company. Again, the money involved is a lot higher than it would be for a single newspaper facing a libel suit.

The need for video means all those boring stories about economics, science and the like fall off the table. At its crudest, the formula is, "If it bleeds, it leads".

The cost of maintaining foreign bureaus is high, and media corporations know it's a good place to cut because Americans are generally ignorant and indifferent about the rest of the world.

People who get most of their information from television are conditioned to accept it in sound bites. Having heard 30 seconds on Afghanistan, they think they understand the situation. Worse, they labour under the misconception that their opinion is just as valid as that of someone who's studied the region for decades.

A pretty or "trustworthy" face trumps a keen mind and dedication to reporting almost every time. When people can be relied on to tune in and watch a "personality", who cares if the news star is reporting pure trash?

Since news became a ratings-driven affair, the best way to make money is to cater to the lowest common denominator. Paris Hilton's bare crotch trumps a hundred dead Iraqis every time.

I could go on, but I suspect I'm flogging a dead horse. Goodbye free press. It's been nice knowing you.