Rock the Vote (RTV) is one of the nation’s most influential youth-targeted non-profits, describing itselfas a non-partisan initiative whose “…mission is to engage and build the political power of young people in order to achieve progressive change in our country.”  While the organization touts its alleged centrism, actions over the past decade have caused many to believe that partisanship does, indeed, play a role in the organization’s operations.

During my tenure at Teen Web Online (a site I created back in 1999 in the wake of the Columbine massacre to help my generation overcome various youth-specific issues), I was extremely supportive of RTV.  I remember being enthralled by the notion that an organization would extend itself to trust and place value in America’s young generation, while working feverishly to make our voices heard.

Ten years later, I, like many others, have begun to wonder just how willing the organization is to remain true to its self-professed “non-partisanship” and whether I mistook indoctrination for trust.  While I am certainly supportive of the notion that a healthy democracy is characterized by a variety of organizations that represent divergent viewpoints, I am increasingly perplexed by the existence of organizations that shield their true intent behind a “non-partisan” status. 

For years, RTV has been accused of touting less than conservative values, while overexerting itself in support of progressive perspectives.  Time after time the organization has denied what appear to be well-founded allegations. From the Iraq War to health care reform, RTV consistently sides with the Left.  Meanwhile, the realities behind the “non-partisan” centrism through which its actions do not appear to flow raise concern, as RTV regularly registers young voters, while assumingly not providing them with the well-rounded and balanced materials they need to make educated decisions.  All this in mind, let’s explore the evidence.

As most Americans know, the Iraq War began on March 20, 2003.  Three days later, RTV announced, through a press release, the availability of a new song from Lenny Kravitz entitled, “We Want Peace.” The statement made it clear that the song was released in response to the commencement of the U.S.-led was; it said, “Rock the Vote and Lenny Kravitz today announced a new song by Kravitz called “We Want Peace,” which is available exclusively at Rock the Vote’s website…”  Here is a glimpse into some of the song’s “non-partisan” lyrics:

“Here is once again in our face
Why haven’t we learn from our past
We’re at the crossroads of our human race
Why are we kicking our own ass

We’re on the eve of destruction my friends
We are about to go to far
Politicians think that war is the way
But we know that love has the power”

While nobody in his or her right mind enjoys war, this RTV/Kravitz partnership was a transparent endorsement of anti-Iraq War sentiment.  Considering the sociopolitical landscape at the time, such a cohesive partnership for the release of a persuasive song showcases a hidden politically-driven agenda.  Of course, this is only one example, though powerful in its own right; there are plenty of others.

In 2004, Little Green Footballs reported on the California College Republicans’ (CCR) assertion that Rock the Vote and MTV were connected to the DNC.  According to the CCR:

“Through just cursory research, CCR discovered numerous connections between MTV, Rock the Vote, and the DNC. Judy McGrath, President of MTV, has maxed out her donation to the Kerry campaign. She donated at least $1,000 to the failed candidacy of the Gore campaign, and she’s donated over $5,000 to other extreme liberal PACs, such as America Coming Together.

Connect the dots to Rock the Vote: In February of 2001, Jeff Ayerhoff, Co-Founder of Rock the Vote, said: “There are 5-6 pillars sustaining the foundation of the Rock the Vote organization — and Judy McGrath is one of those pillars. Without Judy McGrath, there would be no Rock the Vote…” Incidentally, Rock the Vote, including its draft scare tactics and Democrat bias, has been given over $10,000,000 of free air time on the so-called independent-from-Rock the Vote MTV.”

Association is not always indicative of inherent bias.  However, if one researches the individuals who founded and who have led RTV in the past, the dots connect themselves.  Jehmu Greene, the president of RTV from 2000 through 2005, describes herself (via Twitter) as a “progressive activist.”  She served as Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) Director of Women’s Outreach, among other partisan roles. 

Furthermore, public records appear to indicate that Jeff Ayeroff, himself, has invested thousands of dollars in a number of Democratic campaigns and causes.  In a shear fit of pre-Obama irony, he was appointed “Czar” (I kid you not) of Warner Brothers Records Inc. in 2001.  According to a press release, upon launching Virgin Records America, Ayeroff “signed and oversaw” Lenny Kravitz’s career.  Intriguing, considering that Kravitz teamed up with RTV for the release of his anti-war tune.

And, one can easily find another tidbit of “non-partisan” connective tissue.  According to the Future Majority blog (circa Aug. 2008), “…Obama…hired former Rock the Vote political director Hans Reimer.”

…Yet another former RTVer working in the liberal stratosphere.  Where is Hans today, you ask?  In April 2009, a bio published on Hope Street Group states that he is an “advocacy campaign manager” at AARP, where I can only assume he has used his penchant for liberal policy to sway the health care debate in favor of his former employer, President Obama.  According to the same bio, Hans “…has a long track record as a campaigner to protect Social Security, including playing a key role in defeating the Bush Administration’s agenda for privatization of Social Security.”

Ironically, the National Review reported in 2005 that Hans, then in his role at RTV, wanted to see the organization become the “AARP of [America’s young] Generation.”  Scary thought, considering RTV’s alleged leftist activism. 

Concerning Hans’ strong views on Social Security, one wonders where the “non-partisan” Rock the Vote stood on the issue during his tenure there.  According to Ryan Lynch (via YP Nation),

“…[RTV] opposed personal accounts in Social Security even though the Center for American Progress found that 74 percent of our generation (which Rock the Vote supposedly represents) supported that reform measure.”

With Hans serving as political director at the time, it’s no coincidence that an organization that had already opposed the Iraq war and embraced progressive activists would also oppose Bush’s Social Security reforms.  But, the buck doesn’t stop there.

In Nov. 2008, three days after Barack Obama’s victory over Sen. John McCain, a Virginia Tech student wrote about a RTV election insert he found in the school’s newspaper, The Collegiate Times.  According to the student, “I found an insert titled, “You Decide. You Vote…Were I an uninformed new voter, I might have used this as my deciding point.”

The student went on to explain that the leaflet was “the most biased piece of literature [he] had ever encountered in [his] life,” going on to say that it read like an endorsement for Obama, with “…statements designed to make the Republican hopeful appear as callous and stingy as possible.”  He concluded his statement by letting readers know that he had voted for Obama, though he said that his decision was “…thankfully not as a result of [the] insert.”  Even an Obama “enthusiast” can see through the opaqueness.

Anyone else drunk yet on non-partisanship?  If not, consider the fact that RTV held a Jan. 2009 inaugural concert for Barack Obama called, “Hey, America Feels Kinda Cool Again.”  Lynch’s reaction is spot on: “I guess America wasn’t cool under Bush. But presumably that has nothing to do with partisanship.”

Most recently, the organization landed itself in hot water over its support for Democratically-led health care reform.  According to Noel Sheppard of NewsBusters.org, “The political advocacy group “Rock the Vote” has a new video out encouraging young people to abstain from having sex with folks opposed to healthcare reform.”

Even if this is, indeed, intended to be a joke (though Sheppard points out a pledge on the RTV site that corroborates the video’s intent to use sex to change personal policy opinion), the notion that RTV would support Obama’s health care legislation, rather than educate youth about the different reform options that are available, is yet another notch in the belt for an organization that appears to be a staunch Democratic ally.  I could go on for days…

Most truly non-partisan organizations work feverishly to ensure that all options are presented when discussing important policy issues, but not RTV.  Instead of educating young voters by presenting all potential options, the organization’s web site chooses to offer only one solution to America’s health care problems: the public option.  According to RTV’s web site,

“One way to make sure you can get covered is with a “public option”…you buy into this public plan just like you would buy insurance from an insurance company. Your doctor would send the bill to the government instead of you, just like the old folks get with Medicare.  The public option would operate alongside private insurance companies, making the market more competitive and driving quality up and costs down. As President Obama has said: “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.” Now, if you don’t have a doctor or a health care plan, the public option is there for you.)”

Unbelievable – so much so, that I decided to reach out to RTV executive director Heather Smith (seemingly the only person I researched who has a strict, non-partisan background).  She responded quickly and promptly to my questioning.  While we journalists are trained not to ask “yes” or “no” questions, I decided to ask one anyway.  In response to my inquiry as to whether RTV is non-partisan, Smith answered, “Yes.”  She was consistent in claiming that the organization has no partisan slant.  She said,

“We never have and never will endorse a party or candidate.  Our mission is to ensure that the needs and interests of young people are listened to by those we elect.  In an ideal world, candidates from both parties would be fighting over the votes of young people, presenting issues and proposed solutions in a relevant manner, and once elected, govern with the interests of young people top-of-mind.”

This statement appears to fly in the face of RTV’s past-decade of activity.  The latter part of this statement, in particular, struck me.  In its 20-year history, it seems impossible that the Democrats were and continue to be the only party “fighting over the votes of young people.”  Furthermore, endorsing and supporting are two very different ideals.  RTV has been backing policy ideas through the organization’s interactive programming, but one would assume that 501c3 tax laws forbid official endorsements. 

Based on the evidence and the people behind the veil, RTV has teetered to the left on major domestic and international issues.  It’s surprising that the organization has yet to find one Republican policy decision it likes, which leads me to believe there is an inherent one-sidedness that RTV refuses to accept – or divulge.  Perhaps RTV should go with the description furnished by Wikipedia: “Rock the Vote is a 501(c)(3) non-profit, left-wing organization founded in Los Angeles in 1990 by Jeff Ayeroff for the purposes of political advocacy,” as it seems more accurate. 

Young people deserve bias-free information that provides multiple perspectives to best assist them in making electoral choices.  RTV has a responsibility to be open, honest and transparent.  Pretending to provide balanced educational materials, while actually skewing information toward or against a partisan cause is wrong.  It’s time for RTV to quite coddling liberal ideas and to start truly showcasing what a non-partisan organization should look like. 

If RTV wants to continue liberal advocacy, that’s fine.  But, if the organization wants to call itself “non-partisan,” while taking strong standpoints on areas of immense importance and validating these ideals through the power of MTV, it should call itself what it is – progressive.  The past decade’s embrace of liberal inclinations is disingenuous and dangerous to our democracy.  Now is the time for RTV to rock some rationality.

Last week, Air America announced its official closure and intention to file Chapter 7.  For those who had been following news surrounding the weeping willow of talk radio, this was no surprise.  While making a thin-kid splash with pseudo-celebrities back in 2004, the liberal network had a rocky history, replete with scandal, two bankruptcies and acquisitions.

Last week, Big Journalism’s James Hudnall reminded readers that Air America’s problems are not new.  According to Hudnall, “After a scandal involving misappropriated funds from black school children it promptly filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy two years later. Franken, Rhodes and Garofalo abandoned ship.”  (Come to think of it, perhaps that last part wasn’t so bad after all).

While Air America’s demise is surely a sad day for the precious few  who enjoyed leftist radio programming, there’s no need for liberal lamentations.  The left still dominates Hollywood, the university system and mainstream media, where adherents can find ongoing solace and a sympathetic informational stream – a triangular dominance of sorts.

What is most interesting about Air America’s silence is the clamor coming from angry liberals, particularly those at the painstakingly partisan Media Matters for America.  As can be expected, Media Matters’ Jamison Foser issued a statement that attacks conservative critics entitled, “The Right might want to hold off on gloating over Air America’s demise.”

After reading the title, I was sure I would understand exactly why, from Foser’s perspective, conservatives should withhold celebratory commentary; I was sadly mistaken.  In the brief posting, Foser attempts to offer two reasons why conservatives shouldn’t make the case that there is no viable market for “liberal news” – and fails miserably. According to Foser,

You can either claim that ABC/CBS/CNN/MSNBC/NBC/NPR/NYT/WAPO/ETC are “liberal media,” or that there is no market for liberal media — but not both.  Please pick one.  Thanks!

The Washington Times has been losing money for two decades.  In the early days of Fox News, Rupert Murdoch paid cable companies $11 per subscriber to carry FNC (and Rudy Giuliani pressured Time Warner to carry the outlet in New York City.)  Point being: conservative media outlets have succeeded not only because of market forces, as conservatives would have you believe, but because right-wing billionaires like Murdoch and Rev. Moon have been willing to subsidize them.

The simplicity present in this analysis is astounding.  First and foremost, research backs up the notion that outlets like CBS News and the New York Times are biased, but even if there were no scholarship to corroborate this notion, Foser’s argument makes little sense.  Most conservatives aren’t claiming that liberal media outlets can’t succeed (though the left has had a tough time pushing unabashedly liberal outlets to the top); they’re making the case that liberal radio, absent public monies, cannot stand on its own.  Those are two very different ideals.  Air America never picked up the steam needed to forge its way to victorious ratings.  Last week, the L.A. Times said it best:

The New York-based Air America kicked off in March 2004, aiming to be the antithesis of Rush Limbaugh’s and Sean Hannity’s shows. In comparison to the staunch, multimillion followings of those commentators, Air America didn’t quite hit the mark or even come close. An insufficient number of people tuned in.

Additionally, Foser’s statement that The Washington Times has lost money for decades is a silly corroborative comment.  Tell me Mr. Foser, how many newspapers are posting record profits these days?  Also, it’s curious that Foser would rail against Murdoch’s support for FOX News, a network the media mogul, himself, founded.  I suppose use of his own monies to invest in FOX’s future was morally reprehensible in comparison to the $875,000 that was transferred to Air America from the Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Clubs – a publicly-funded, non-profit organization that served children and seniors – back in 2004.  After all, why filter the money to children in need when you can use it for political gain?

This loan arrangement was allegedly orchestrated by Evan Montvel-Cohen, Air America’s first chairman, while he was still the director of development for the Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Clubs.  Apparently, Foser sees a larger moral problem with using one’s own monies (otherwise known as entrepreneurship) for the betterment of one’s business activities than he does with alleged financial shenanigans.  Interestingly, Cohen was subsequently arrested on unrelated charges. The New York Post has more:

Evan Montvel-Cohen was picked up by border-patrol officers at Guam International Airport on an outstanding warrant from Hawaii. He had been indicted there last month for money laundering and the theft of more than $60,000 from a Honolulu landscaping firm, prosecutors said.

Of course, all of that failed to make its way into Foser’s drivel.  Apparently, Americans are to believe that left-wing billionaires like George Soros do not exist and therefore cannot fund massive liberal think tanks and other related bastions of leftist garble.  According to DiscovertheNetworks.org:

…Soros and his Open Society Institute pour millions of dollars into the coffers of MoveOn, the Center for American Progress, and Democracy Alliance. In turn, these organizations funnel some of that money to Media Matters.

The notion that FOX News has become popular merely because billionaires are behind it is insane at best.  And just to be sure you caught the hypocrisy — did I mention that Media Matters is also alleged to have major investorsbacking its work as well?  Kettle or pot, Mr. Foser?

In recent times, Americans have come to trust FOX to break stories mainstream media simply refuse to touch; this carries over to special events, particularly those with partisanship at their core.  This is exactly why the Huffington Post reported on Massachusetts’ special election coverage constituting the network’s “…biggest night since Election Night 2008, averaging a staggering 6.161 million total viewers in primetime. For comparison, that’s almost double CNN (1.503 million total viewers), MSNBC (1.138 million total viewers), and HLN (668,000 total viewers) combined.”  People trusted FOX News to give adequate and fair information about Scott Brown more than they did the other networks.

The FOX News business model has worked.  Unfortunately, liberal talk radio has proven unsustainable – even in the New York City market.  Air America’s failure should serve as a lesson to the left, not another vapid opportunity to defend tattered pride.  If anything, FOX’s model has helped the left raise MSNBC’s insanely low ratings, as the network has added more leftist ideologues to its roster.  It will certainly be interesting to see where the left goes from here.

The media have an inadequate understanding of religion. This simple fact is corroborated frequently, as mainstream outlets attempt to illustrate stories, explain religious themes and delve deep into faith-based systems.  Unfortunately, most outlets miss the mark entirely, as journalists do not have proper understanding of the constructs through which they are attempting to report.  As a result, the American public suffers a lack of pointed and well-presented information on a subject that stands at the forefront of important global and domestic issues.

Case in point, Christiane Amanpour’s 2007 CNN mini-series entitled, “God’s Warriors.”  The three-part series delved into the world’s three largest religions – Christianity, Judaism and Islam.  As is typical of the secular media, an enhanced level of relativism led the Iranian-bred Amanpour (born in London to a Persian family) to equate “extremism” within and among adherents to the three religions. 

While each belief system has had moral failures, equating the deaths as a result of radical Islamic fascism to those of contemporary Christianity and Judaism is absurd.  Furthermore, as is the case when journalists attempt to cover religion, Amanpour left out essential details that would have provided a more fair-minded picture.

In terms of her opaque coverage of Christianity, MercatorNew.com wrote the following,

“But she missed the obvious. [Christians] were participating in America’s legal and political system exactly as it was intended by the Founders, as a representative republic, with citizen involvement.  She missed the pre-Jerry Falwell political civil rights activism of Dr. Martin Luther King and other Christians, and she totally missed Catholic social justice and the involvement of the roughly 70 million strong Catholic community in the US in the pro-life movement. She did highlight the powerful impact of Roe v. Wade on galvanizing Christians. She just failed to mention the Catholic involvement, which is considerable.”

In its usual ideologically-balanced form, The New York Times wrote the following endorsement: “This three-part series…is a fine primer on the emergence of strains of Judaism, Islam and Christianity that want to fuse politics and religion, and have shown a willingness to blow things up and kill people to do it.”

Again, an unhealthy and unbalanced level of moral equivalence – though I will give the Times credit for writing: “the issues on these Christian warriors’ minds seem positively quaint next to the agendas of the people in Parts 1 and 2.”  Still, the inability to truly distinguish, on the whole, is a detriment to true understanding.  Unfortunately, this sort of coverage is common.

The modern secular newsroom lacks the ideological know-how to truly understand religion.  Perhaps Terry Mattinglybest exlplained the media’s “diversity problem”. According to Mattingly, “While there’s been heavy gender and racial diversity … there’s a lack of cultural diversity in journalism…”  It is this lack of diversity that leads to major misconceptions and the media’s inability to adequately tell stories that are rooted, themselves, in religious themes.

The lack of diversity may lie in the journalists themselves, as personal faith plays a role in the ability to understand and thus illustrate religious themes.  Just how religious are journalists?  According to USA Today, “the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press reported in 2007 that 8% of journalists surveyed at national media outlets said they attended church or synagogue weekly.”  Additionally, 29% reported never attending church services, with an additional 39% stating that they go a few times each year.  In sum: Not very religious – especially when compared to America as a whole.

Pew found that 39% of the public claims that they attend church services weekly.  Additionally, past Gallup pollshave shown as many as eight in ten Americans claim allegiance to Christianity.  Clearly, these numbers show the need for proper journalistic understanding and presentation, especially when covering stories rooted in Christian themes.

Not enough journalists are regular church goers. Faith is not an attribute one can physically observe, thus “affirmative action” – a promotional methodology that is highly controversial to begin with – is an impossibility (also, employment laws generally forbid interview questions of faith).  While general ignorance and inexperience with religious themes is likely a culprit amongst journalists, and consequently mainstream media outlets, complacency is also an impediment.

In a 2003 Los Angeles Times piece, David Shaw wrote the following:  “Absent…scandal — or the death of a pope and the election of his successor — the news media often seem indifferent to, ignorant of and, at times, downright hostile toward religion.”  Shaw is completely correct in his assertion.  If not indifferent altogether, the media approach religion so slothfully that it appears as though the effort to misunderstand is undertaken with a barely concealed level of hostility.

In covering the American Religious Identification Survey that was conducted in March 2009, the Pew Research Center wrote,

“A comment on the blog Matters of Faith declared, “The media’s tendency to give inordinate attention to religious dimwits and crackpots has seriously damaged the credibility of religious leaders. You rarely read or hear of the miraculously generous work of faith communities in caring for the poor and infirm around the globe. But let someone suggest that the Virgin Mary has appeared in a plate of refried beans and the bulletins circle the globe in minutes.”

This commentary targets one of the media’s main malfunctions when it comes to covering religion in general and Christianity in particular.  As is the case with most stories covered by the mainstream media, the more outlandish, the more the story is pursued.  In practice, this creates a climate of coverage strewn with the “dimwits and crackpots” mentioned above, as journalists lack the understanding or desire to seek a wide array of theological viewpoints.  Meanwhile, thousands of Christian missionaries risk their lives both domestically and internationally to make lasting spiritual and physical change in the lives of those in need.  Yet their stories go widely unnoticed.

Modern democracy hinges in part on a proper understanding of religion amongst journalists, leaders and the general public.  Matters of faith are some of the most personal aspects of American life.  Furthermore, faith is one of the only cohesive forces that, if properly nurtured, leads to interdependence and personal, spiritual and societal growth.  It is a shared and common experience.

Given the religious turmoil present in the Middle East – conflict that has affected America and Americans for for decades – one might think that the media have a responsibility to offer properly informed coverage.  While efforts to ethnically and sexually balance the newsroom have been underway for quite some time, ideological and theological divides have led to tilted and incomplete coverage in matters of faith.  It is time that the media better serve our democracy in covering a subject that will be increasingly important in the coming decades.

The entertainment media’s treatment of Sarah Palin and her family has been abhorrent.  Like their biased and unjust hard news media brethren, entertainment outlets have gone out of their way to tarnish Palin’s image.  While tabloids, semi-legitimate entertainment programs and celebrities issue incessant praise for President Obama and his leftist policies, Palin is showered with insults and inappropriate slurs. And let’s not forget the ongoing insensitive questioning about the birth of her special needs son, Trig.

Since the end of the 2008 campaign, some of the most glaring examples of the entertainment media’s obsession with anti-Palin coverage have centered on Levi Johnston, the father of Bristol Palin’s baby.  Levi, a guy who would be better suited to appear on Tool Academy than he would on any legitimate hard or entertainment news program, has been reaping the benefits from his connection to Palin.  In addition to his highly-publicized Playgirl shoot, Levi has been circulating entertainment shows in an attempt to pass off his melba-esque persona as something less than bland.

And, surprise!  Since breaking up with Bristol, Levi has had a more-than-warm welcome from entertainment media who are anxious to find dirt on the former Alaska governor.  While there is no contestant shortage for 2009’s “Most Idiotic Entertainment News Outlet” category, CBS’s The Insidertakes the cake.  Described as a program that “…reports on the dynamic world of breaking celebrity news and offers viewers opposing views on everything …Hollywood!” The Insider touts coverage that is a half-step above highlighting a covert meeting between President Obama and friendly extraterrestrials. 

This begs the question: Since when is Sarah Palin “Hollywood?”  One could argue that it all started with Kathy Griffin’s antics. In what commenced as yet another plea for attention, Griffin brought Levi toThe 2009 Teen Choice Awards.  Clearly, this was little more than a publicity stunt for Griffin, who would likely sell her left kidney if it yielded a decent photo-op.  However, in the grander scheme, this was a clear statement to young people: Go ahead and laugh at Sarah Palin.  Hollywood’s doing it, so you should too! 

For what other purposes would it be appropriate to elevate and promote Levi for all of young America to see if not to embarrass a Republican politician?  Of course, Griffin garnered the attention she wanted and Levi was portrayed as a bizarro teen heart throb of sorts.  You know you’re in Hollywood when…[insert moment of inhumanity and/or insanity].  The Huffington Post penned the play-by-play back in August:

“Dressed in a pinstripe suit and pink striped tie, the Alaskan teen and father of Sarah Palin’s grandson Tripp arrived hand-in-hand with Griffin, planted a kiss on her cheek for the cameras and did some solo posing as well.”

Gag me. 

Anyway, let’s move back to 2009 champion of idiocy: The Insider.  This fall, the show decided to reunite Levi and Griffin.  During what host Lara Spencer probably mistook as a very riveting and thought-provoking interview, she asked Levi fair-minded questions in the vein of, “Is Sarah Palin really Trig’s mother?” and “Why do you think Sarah Palin is afraid of you?”  Following the liberally-driven wingnuttery that ensued during the 2008 presidential campaign, the question about Trig’s birth is breathtakingly cruel and sense-retardant.  Spencer’s questioning screamed ratings desperation and showed just how far entertainment media will go to make Palin look idiotic while turning a profit. 

Now, let’s jump to Andrew Sullivan’s recent appearance on Joy Behar’s HLN show.  According to Sullivan,

“I don`t think [Palin] has much relationship with reality…And I think at some point, if journalists do their job and if brave people stand up and tell the truth, we will find out who Sarah Palin really is. And we currently don`t know.”

These would be the same journalists who did such an excellent job researching the man who currently leads the free world.  Insane.  And here, too, the story about Trig’s birth is brought into question.  Detached from reality?  Maybe Sullivan should explore the mental capacity of his interviewer.  After all, who can ignore Behar’s detached-from-reality commentary about people who favor Sarah Palin:

“Well her people are evil and nasty. They are not nice people. They send me nasty mail and everybody else who talks about it. Anything negative about Sarah Palin, they get hit with this stuff. You know.”

Ironic that Behar wouldn’t consider her own nastiness as a potential catalyst for negative feedback. Behar has openly called Palin stupid, among other nasally-delivered complements.  And the list goes on and on.  The entertainment media (which, by my calculation, includes the now theoretically deficient Andrew Sullivan) are intent on making Palin out to be: stupid, evil, incompetent, a mere “Barbie” and insolent, in no particular order.

Get over it, Hollywood.  Sarah Palin doesn’t share your values.  She’s pro-life, pro-capitalism and pro-rationality.  Rather than wasting all of your time lambasting her, promoting Levi and attempting to debunk her very existence, why not divert even a portion of your energy towards examining the man you’ve placed America’s very existence in the hands of.  We’ve all got personal dirt.  Since you’ll never let up, why not shovel a little less of Palin’s and a little more of Obama’s?

A little fair-mindedness is all we’re asking for.  Can you deliver?

As always, I was delighted to put together Facing Up/Public Agenda’s most recent budget blog carnival.  Below, find the republished carnival!  If you want to know the various perspectives on America’s fiscal woes, this is the entry to read!  Enjoy.

Facing Up to the Nation’s Finances is back with a new “Budget Blog Carnival!” If you are unfamiliar, a blog carnival is an online “magazine” (blogo-zine) of sorts that focuses on a specific theme. This issue is all about the U.S. federal budget and the national debt.

As always, the carnival is comprised of a non-partisan collective of blog entries. While specific pieces may have ideological roots, the overall carnival is a testament to the diverse voices present in the ongoing debate that surrounds the budget, deficit and accumulated national debt.

Today, we are releasing an exciting array of entries from The Heritage Foundation, The Committee for a Responsible Budget, Econbrowser blog, ECONLOG blog and the Economist’s View blog, to name a few of the participants! Here is your guide to Facing Up’s Dec. 2009 Budget Blog Carnival:

First and foremost, Scott Bittle, executive vice president of Public Agenda and co-author of“Where Does the Money Go?”, leads the pack with a piece entitled, “The Three Questions for the Public on the Federal Budget.” In the piece, Bittle highlights three key questions for the public (and American leaders) to consider: “Can we afford it?” “Can we keep the status quo?” and “Am I willing to give up something I want because the government can’t afford it?”According to Bittle,

“Most of the people who’ve looked at this issue, whether they’re liberal or conservative, in or out of government, use the same word to describe the federal budget: “unsustainable.”

Next, economist Dr. Arnold Kling of the EconLog blog ponders various scenarios for resolving U.S. debt. From technological advances to hyperinflation, Kling provides valuable insight.

Conn Carroll of The Heritage Foundation penned a piece entitled, “The Definition of Economic Insanity.” In the entry, Carroll stands firmly against deficit spending as a means to stimulate the U.S. economy. In opposition to recent “jobs summit” proposals Carroll states,

“These “new” ideas will fail for the same reason the past two government stimulus plans failed: governments do not create jobs.”

In a separate piece, Carroll presents a series of government actions from the 1930’s through modern times that he considers examples of the “…failure of government to spend its way to prosperity…” and makes his case for the government to step “out of the way.”

And Dan Perry penned an intriguing article about the urgency of the debt. Perry charges both parties with fiscal irresponsibility, as he finds fault in both President Obama’s deficit spending and record-increases in spending during George W. Bush’s presidency. While he sees the “Tea Party” movement as impressive, he writes the following:

“After eight years of a Republican administration, the nation saw record spending and deficit levels without so much as a peep about the financial difficulties it might someday cause. Meanwhile, their solution to these economic woes are a series of tax cuts accompanied by no tangible reductions in spending.”

Next, James Hamilton of the Econbrowser blog responds to Paul Krugman, one of the leading economists to argue that U.S. budget deficits are not that troubling in the current fiscal environment. Hamilton expresses his worriesabout current and future deficits. Please also read Krugman’s writings on this subject here and here.

Also, here’s another piece from Hamilton — an assessment of federal budget commitments and the danger present in continuing on our current budgetary path.

Another exciting partner in the current Facing Up carnival is the bi-partisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. The Committee submitted two pieces — one about theessentials associated with tax reformand another that explores the true costs of health care reform. Both of these entries provide insight into the current debate over the national debt.

And, Mark Thoma from the Economist’s View blog highlights the three ways in which debt can make future generations worse off, while covering some of the “bogus arguments” that are given in the budget debate. Thoma concludes by calling some of the Republican opposition we’ve seen as “unduly alarmist.”

In a more-lighthearted commentary, Bob McCarty writes about the similarities he sees between the movie Friday the Thirteenth and the economic stimulus package.

Finally, in “Musings on America’s Budgetary Challenge,” David D. Kent provides a fun-filled look at federal expenditures and ponders the “what ifs” of potential spending scenarios.

That’s it for this edition of the blog carnival. Stay tuned for more!

Threesomes are Hollywood’s latest obsession.  Within weeks of the release of Britney Spears’ asinine “Ballad” about engaging in a menagerie, CW leaked details about a threesome they were planning on the hit show Gossip Girl.  In what could easily be confused as part of a massive Hollywood-led campaign in support of teen pregnancy and a wide array of sexually transmitted diseases, CW decided that exploiting filth for a heavy cash flow was more important that exercising common sense and decency.  Surprise!

If you’re thinking, “Threesome?! That’s news to me,” be sure to read John P. Hanlon’s article.” Hanlon explains the whole debacle in detail.  However, I’m here to delve further into the insanity surroundingCW’s latest scheme to nab viewer appreciation.

The only thing more grotesque than CW’s exploitation of a threesome for ratings is the media’s coverage of the menage a trois.  In a recent article, Michael Ausiello (Entertainment Weekly) was ecstatic over the impending sex scene – so excited that he taunted readers with his foreknowledgetelling them, “Though my Gossip mole has asked that I not ID the threesome (on the grounds that it would ruin a major upcoming storyline, or some such nonsense), I can confirm that the kinky tryst will involve one of the following combos…”  Ausiello then proceeds to list possible character combos.

Then – no joke – readers (many of whom were not at all phased by the show’s indecency) began commenting about who they thought would be involved!  Insanity.  Are these really the values our society has adopted as “the norm”?  In 2006, alone, teen pregnancy increased significantly in 26 states.  Liberals would blame this on “abstinence-only education,” while I’d blame a sizable portion of it on a society that continues to exploit sex for financial gain.  Can we really expect people, young and old alike, to respect or even understand sex when threesomes and other unrealistic sexual messaging invade our lives at every corner?  Let’s get real.

In the GG case, some media have chosen to downplay the threesome. E! Online’s Joal Ryan had this to say:

“So, was that threesome good for GG? It wasn’t bad, especially considering the event was nothing more explicit than three people (Penn Badgley, Jessica Szhor and Disney grad Hilary Duff) not kissing at the same time.”

Not bad?  This dismissal is disturbing.  The intensity of the footage shouldn’t be the only issue of concern.  CW used a sexually-explicit concept to flavor advertising leading up to the Nov. 9 episode.  Plus, the menage a trois isn’t out of GG’s storyline.  If people were outraged by the Nov. 9 episode, E! Online reports even more nasty content is coming:

“The dirty deed goes down on this Monday’s episode, but will be recounted with flashbacks the following week, Nov. 16, where we will learn–and see–even more about it.”

So, the debauchery hasn’t ended and will continue on a subsequent episode.  Parent’s Television Council president Tim Winter had this to say in response to the Nov. 9 episode:

“Though there was no explicit sex scene on last night’s episode, the CW Network’s behavior was grossly irresponsible by adding a story line where a sexual threesome was to be celebrated as some sort of ‘rite of passage’ for teenagers.  The network inserted this story line into a program that they themselves deem to be appropriate for 14-year-old children based on its content rating,”

Many GG enthusiasts have cited the show’s older target demographic (18 to 34) to stake the claim that viewers are old enough to handle the subject matter.  Let’s be realistic.  Even if women comprise the core viewership, young girls are surely watching the show.  Back in September, a CW press release touted GG’s win in the 9 p.m. timeslot among women 12 to 34.  Yes, 9 p.m. – a time when one would assume that a sizable proportion of teenagers are channel surfing.

Furthermore, the median age of CW’s viewers is 33; GG’s average viewer age is 27.  While the mean age is relatively high, it still points to the fact that young people are tuning in.  Plus, this doesn’t take into consideration online viewership, which would likely skew younger.

Let’s remember, too, that this tactic was used for the sake of a potential ratings hike.  Last week, Brent Bozell wrote, “There is absolutely no barrier of sexual behavior that TV network executives aren’t willing to cross in a desperate gambit for ratings” and he couldn’t be more on target.  He’s right.  The entire premise of using a threesome to drive ratings came full circle when E! Online reported CW’s reward for exploiting sexual incongruence for the sake of the almighty dollar:

“The series was up 20 percent from last week: 2.4 million viewers versus 1.95 million, per Nielsen stats. The math worked out even better for the CW: It enjoyed its most-watched Monday of the season.”

So, in this case the ratings battle was somewhat won, but at what cost?  This stretches beyond the search for mere ratings hikes.  Bozell points to another factor driving CW’s insatiable lust for GG-centered controversy:

“But the “Gossip Girl” scandal isn’t just about winning the ratings battle. It’s about corporate executives who will try anything to get a rinky-dink network out of the basement, with absolutely no concern for the damage its tawdry story lines will do to the viewer who is 12. The show is rated TV-14, suggesting threesome plots are acceptable for high-schoolers, and that’s an insult by itself.”

And what a disappointment Hilary Duff is.  Joining the cast of one of television’s most trash-ridden shows appears to be a half-witted attempt to shed the “good girl” image she’s yielded over the years.  Unfortunately, as many – like Bozell – have highlighted, Duff is still a role-model to many young people.  It’s an unfortunate effect of Hollywood’s liberal lunacy that even the good girls turn bad – eventually.

The mainstream media did cover the controversy, with CNN holding a discussion of sorts.  However, the overall chatter has been confined mostly to sleazy entertainment blogs and outlets.  This issue should extend far beyond the vapid toilet reads.  Teen sex is a major problem that touches the lives of millions of Americans.  At what point do we stop and say, “Enough is enough?” CW, thanks for your classless moral “racketeering.”  Keep up the good work!

Amy Rice and Alicia Sams’ documentary, “By the People,” provides a lens into Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign.  A guided tour of sorts, the film delves into the Obama’s biggest milestones, while ignoring glaring contradictions and blemishes.  Perhaps two words can best describe it: snooze fest.  Teamed with the films vapidity and its lack of new, unexplored material, there are some intriguing conflicts of interest surrounding its production.

“By the People” is a praise initiative that doesn’t offer much beyond what politicos and Obama enthusiasts already know: Obama was a regular Joe who, through a series of (unfortunate for the American people) events, captured the presidency.

While Hollywood’s insane obsession with anything and anyone left of center is never a surprise, one should ardently question why HBO, after purchasing the film for seven figures, has chosen to ignore other intriguing political stories.  Why not balance the film with another special or documentary that explores the McCain-Palin campaign?  One could argue, as I’m sure HBO would, that the focus of the film is on to the winning candidate.  Fine.  Argue away, but anyone with a pulse knows we’d be hard pressed to see a similar accolade to a Republican victor.  Furthermore, Sarah Palin’s initial book sales prove that she’s a brand worth exploring.  So, why not go for it?

And then there’s the timing of the film’s release.  The network chose to air the documentary at a time when majorities oppose various elements of the president’s agenda and smack dab in the middle of some highly-contested state and local races.  Add the film’s timing to some of the more bizarre, behind-the-scenes connections and you can begin to triangulate relationships and allegiances.

First, let’s consider the film’s producer – famed actor Edward Norton.  While one should never be surprised by a Hollywood celebrity’s urge to support leftist inclinations, in this case there’s a twist.  To bring the film to fruition, Norton worked with Ari Emanuel, the brother of Barack Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel.  Last November, Gawker reported the following:

“… at one point it looked like some of film’s distribution proceeds might be headed back in the general direction of the Obama camp. As of eight months ago, Endeavor Agency’s Ari Emanuel was the agent for the film. Emanuel, of course, is the brother of Rahm Emanuel, just named Obama’s chief of staff. He was also an Obama fundraiser…”

So, Edward Norton shopped the documentary with Ari Emanuel, a man with a vested interest in Barack Obama’s campaign – and, a guy with key access to top government officials.  Unbelievable.  Perhaps most hilarious is Variety’s coverage from early 2008: “Norton said the motivation behind the film was not to glorify its subject.” Anyone out there actually believe that?  According to Rice, “When we shot the final scenes in the Oval Office, [Obama] he asked us, ‘What do you guys need?’  It was incredibly special. I got choked up.”

Is Rice sense-retardant?  She was creating a documentary that was more than favorable to the Obama camp.  Of course he was more than willing to assist!

As a professor, one of the main listening skills I work to instill in my students is the ability to determine what a speaker isn’t telling an audience.  Often times, some of the most intriguing information is embedded in omitted material.

At the beginning of the film, in footage circa 2006, Barack Obama is asked if he plans to run for the presidency.  In response, Obama says he is unsure and explains that he plans to look into how he would best serve the country.  Considering the foreknowledge that he might run, it was odd that the filmmakers chose to lead with this.  In fact, it was two years earlier, in 2004, when Obama said that he would not run in 2008, citing his inexperience.  Call it poor research on the filmmakers’ part or purposeful exclusion, but the words “Obama” and “American presidency” were uttered well before the 2006 midterm elections.

Here is Obama’s 2004 response to the question, “So, why have you ruled that out – running nationally?”:

“I am a believer in…knowing what you’re doing…when you apply for a job…”

“If I were to seriously consider running on a national ticket…I would essentially have to start now…before having served a day in the Senate. Now there might be some people who would have no problem doing that, but ah…I’m not one of them.”

We all know how good Obama is at keeping promises.

Now, let’s talk about the film’s contents.  Of particular interest and concern is the control Obama has over America’s young generation.  In the film, David Axlerod explained that one of Obama’s main motivations for running stemmed from his urge to show children that “anything is possible.”  In political terms that means, “We’ve found our voting bloc!”

When speaking about the Iowa caucus, Axlerod said, “These kids are going to win it for us…they thinkthey’re changing the world…we need more of that.”  Robert Gibbs awkwardly intervened, saying, “The good news is, I think they are.”  The latter statement was an attempt to bridge the divide between Axlerod’s campaign analytics and the need for more audience-friendly interaction.  In the end, it’s evident that Obama and Co. were intent on exploiting young Americans, a tactic that worked wonderfully in their favor.

Race was another theme that appeared periodically throughout the film.  Interviews with citizens positioned Obama as the most unlikely of all candidates to win, with respondents stating that the nation wasn’t ready for an African-American president.  Ironically, liberals are the main culprits who railed on and on about how ill-prepared the nation was for this advancement.  As a conservative, I was more than ready, pending the individual capturing the top spot had the qualifications to perform the job.  Barack Obama did not have those needed elements.  Needless to say, the filmmakers didn’t speak with many people who thought it was, indeed, possible for a black man to win the presidency.

The entire film centered around the “emotional” impact Obama has had on America’s young generation.  As a 26-year-old young guy, I’m not feeling it.  Throughout the film, campaign workers cried fervently, chanted Obama praises and gave their all for “change they could believe in.”  While this is their right, the film itself was less than objective.  And I’m fine with that as well, but it would be an extraordinarily overdue kudos to democracy to see HBO (Honoring Barack Obama) air a similarly fair-minded film that centers on Palin’s historic run or McCain’s heroic life story.

Watching Hollywood and the Democratic elite pat each other on the back is getting old.  HBO and other media companies should consider being more fair minded and delving into the other side on a more frequent basis.  In the case of “By the People,” though, the media and entertainment cronyism will take your breath away.  No wonder Obama picks fights with the media who disagree with him.  He’s become accustomed to lapdog media and liberal Hollywood.  Let’s hope these institutions challenge him a bit more here on in.

(BigGovernment.com) The mainstream media were complicit in their coverage of the ACORN scandal. Their behavior was and continues to be an insult to democracy and journalistic responsibility as the Fourth Estate has ignored facts, engaged in one-sided sourcing, and avoided basic and inherently important journalistic questioning.
 

 
First, there was avoidance. Some media outlets simply ignored the story. On Sept. 15, five days after the Maryland tape was released, ABC’s Charlie Gibson said, “I don’t even know about it… so you’ve got me at a loss” and said that the story might be “just one you leave to the cables.” But, Gibson was not alone in his lack of knowledge. The New York Times did not cover the story for nearly a week. On Sept. 26, Clark Hoyt, The Times’ Public Editor, acknowledged the paper’s tardiness, but insinuated that the story was lacking in facts:

But for days, as more videos were posted and government authorities rushed to distance themselves from Acorn, The Times stood still.  Some stories, lacking facts, never catch fire…But others do, and a newspaper like The Times needs to be alert to them or wind up looking clueless or, worse, partisan itself. 

Then, there were cases of gratuitously sloppy journalism.  Some of the outlets that did cover the story simply skipped over basic interview questions. In several instances, Bertha Lewis made the false claim that the filmmakers were turned away in “dozens of cities.” In a CNN interview with Rick Sanchez, Lewis said, “…the filmmakers went to dozens of offices. They were turned away.” In a more flagrant example of corroborating untruths, Lewis reiterated her “dozens” on MSNBC, stating, “…They were thrown out of dozens of offices. And, in fact, in Philadelphia, we called the police, filed a police report.”

Similarly, Wolf Blitzer, failed to adequately question Lewis. While on his show, Lewis made the following statement: “This sort of notorious crew went around to dozens of our offices. What you don’t see are the offices that threw them out… offices that filed police complaints.”

The lack of depth of these interviews with Lewis has been egregious. Upon hearing of the “dozens,” even the most unseasoned journalist would know to ask, “What were the cities where filmmakers were thrown out?” And, what about the police reports (plural) that were filed by multiple “offices”? Like Sanchez’s treatment of the “dozens,” Blitzer failed to ask for a list of cities that took such action. Lewis was granted a free pass, as no probing questions were asked about the issues in question.

On Sept. 12, just two days after the Maryland tape was made public, Lewis released a statement on ACORN’s Web site, writing, “This recent scam, which was attempted in San Diego, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Philadelphia to name a few places, had failed for months before the results we’ve all recently seen.”

Following subsequent video releases, New York and San Diego were dropped from ACORN’s list of cities where the filmmakers were allegedly “turned away” and the aforementioned statement was removed from ACORN’s Web site, thus erasing evidence of inconsistency.  Big Government copied her statement and posted it in it’s entirety at the time of it’s release (notice the broken link to the ACORN website in the Big Government post). This change can also be viewed in a story published on Sept. 17 byThe Washington Post. According to the Post, “An ACORN spokesman said they were turned away in Miami, Los Angeles and Philadelphia, where workers called police and filed a report.”  Notice the missing cities.

Where were the media to catch this glaring glitch in ACORN’s own reporting? The answer: Nowhere to be found. And, it was on the same day (Sept. 17), that Lewis appeared on MSNBC to discuss the fact that “dozens” of cities turned the filmmakers away.

And who could forget the glaring corrections that were issued by The Associated Press and The Washington Post. Both the AP and the Post published stories that attributed an incorrect, racially-driven motive for O’Keefe’s decision to conduct the ACORN investigation . Fortunately, the outlets were forced to correct their journalistic faux pas. Here is the Post’s correction:

A Sept. 18 Page One article about the community organizing group ACORN incorrectly said that a conservative journalist targeted the organization for hidden-camera videos partly because its voter-registration drives bring Latinos and African Americans to the polls. Although ACORN registers people mostly from those groups, the maker of the videos, James E. O’Keefe, did not specifically mention them.

Despite the fact that Bertha Lewis’ credibility had been completely compromised on September 14th with with the release of the New York ACORN investigation (not to mention the San Diego videos released on Sept. 17), she was granted a forum with The National Press Club on Oct. 6; the conference was broadcast on C-SPAN. In that presser, Lewis used the debunked information from the Associated Pressand Washington Post articles that had since been corrected. Yes, the NPC gave her a platform to continue touting untruths that were previously purveyed by the supine media. She said, “O’Keefe, himself, told The Washington Post, ‘They’re registering too many minorities. They usually vote Democratic. Somebody’s got to stop them’…”

Perhaps the most perplexing media coverage – or lack thereof – surrounds a video that ACORN Housing’s Philadelphia office released back in September. On Sept. 16, a YouTube account was created and on Sept. 17, a video featuring Philadelphia Office Director Katherine Conway Russell was released.The video, which is intended to respond to O’Keefe and Giles while defending the Philadelphia office’s handling of the filmmakers went largely unnoticed by the mainstream media.

In the video, Russell describes a July meeting with O’Keefe and Giles and uses a police report filed after the filmmakers left the office as evidence that the Philadelphia office was taken aback by the prostitution story line. Aside from the fact that the series of events that lead up to the police filing described in the video lead to more questions, the police report itself does not mention anything about discussion content; the report merely claims that O’Keefe was responsible for a verbal “disturbance.”

While the media vastly ignored this important video, many outlets did delve into the police report. According to The Washington Post, “ACORN emailed a copy of a Philadelphia police report dated July 24 to The Post to verify its account that police were called and the couple was shown the door.” And concerning the Philadelphia office’s involvement, WPVI Philadelphia wrote, “…by every account, the Philadelphia office is not part of the problem.” And, WBUR-FM wrote, “…in ACORN Housing’s North Philadelphia office, the scene is far from the one seen in the videos, which were made by a conservative activist”

Here, the media takes sides without interviewing or speaking with O’Keefe and Giles. Aside from the issue of ignoring ACORN’s own video, such selective sourcing is disturbing. Nowhere in the police report is ACORN’s rejection of any subject matter mentioned, therefore the report, in itself, does not prove wholeheartedly what ACORN’s officials in that city have said.

And finally: The insinuation that the videos were creatively edited was repeated in a plethora of mainstream news media. In an opinion piece for True/Slant, Allison Kilkenny wrote,

The videos are edited very creatively — if I’m being generous — to show only the ACORN employees who engaged in shady behavior, and not the dozens of other ACORN offices from which O’Keefe and Company were ejected, and in a few cases, ACORN employees called the police on the duo.

Aside from the fact that the videos weren’t edited in any way to deceive the viewers, that dozens of offices did not dispel O’Keefe and Giles, and only one office has come forward with a report, entire audio and transcript versions of the investigations are available on BigGovernment.com, right at the top of the homepage. This falsehood (that full versions are not available) has been repeated by Lewis herself on CNN and in other mainstream outlets (and, surprise, virtually no journalist has corrected her).

The ACORN story has, once again, shown the media’s inability to fulfill its duties. The media should adequately inform the public while asking the questions needed to provide a full and robust picture of what is occurring. ACORN coverage has been biased, incomplete, and sloppily mishandled. Let’s hope the aforementioned examples help to set the record straight.

Janeane Garofalo is insane. The sad part? Some Americans actually believe her insidiously heinous, garbage-laden verbal diarrhea.  Americans who oppose ObamaCare aren’t racist; they’re simply worried about the nation’s fiscal stability.  Click, above, to watch Garofalo unleash her inner nut.

Somewhat fresh off the trail from despicable attempts to distort the events and facts surrounding Columbine, 9/11 and the American health care system, filmmaker Michael Moore is back to perpetuate new mis-truths and to face off with a new “villain” – capitalism. In case of shear irony, in his new film entitled, “Capitalism: A Love Story,” Moore sets out to unravel the very system that gives him notoriety, fame and, no doubt, opulence.

Fortunately for Moore, we live in a free society. Despite the fact that his films are comprised of antics and obnoxious absurdities that only small-minded Americans would believe in their totality, he has every right to continue his idiocy. It is the coverage of Moore and his half-witted films that cause one to question the media’s promotional motives.

Mainstream outlets can’t seem to get enough of Moore, as they offer him positive coverage galore and provide him with valuable air time to push his insidious projects. Meanwhile, conservative film projects receive little to no praise – or even attention, for that matter.

A few weeks back, LA Times blogger Patrick Goldstein wrote a snarky post about conservative reaction to Moore’s film. Aside from dismissive commentary about why conservatives are overreacting, Goldstein offered up what he saw as proof that not all media outlets give Moore a free pass. He wrote,

…Variety has the first authoritative review up of Moore’s film — and it hardly reads like a liberal valentine, with just as many caveats as kudos. It calls “Capitalism” one of Moore’s best films but goes on to say: “There’s still plenty here to annoy right-wingers, as well as those who, however much they agree with Moore’s politics, just can’t stomach his oversimplification, on-the-nose sentimentality and goofball japery.”

If calling the film one of Moore’s best ever qualifies as “authoritative,” I suppose journalists asking then-candidate Barack Obama how his parents would feel about his accomplishments if they were still alive qualifies as “hard-hitting investigative journalism.” And don’t even get me started on the semantic inequality present in the penning of “right-wingers” versus “those who…agree with Moore’s politics.”

How about a fact check, Goldstein? Even one? You can’t tell me there isn’t someone refuting at least one of the “facts” present in Moore’s film. It’s not just “oversimplification” that liberals and conservatives, alike, should be concerned about. Moore manipulates events and happenings and creates an aura of understanding that has the foundational value of quicksand. And that brings me to aReuters piece (carried by none other than The New York Times) entitled, “Michael Moore’s “Capitalism” Economical With Facts.” According to the article,

…the film launches a call for socialism via a popular uprising against the evils of capitalism and free enterprise. Although it’s less focused than “Sicko” or “Fahrenheit 9/11,” this competition entry is a typical Moore oeuvre: funny, often over the top and ofdubious documentation, but with strongly made points that leave viewers much to ponder and debate after they walk out of the theater.

In what other venue would a documentary, book or professional record earn the distinction of being of “dubious documentation,” while making strong points that will inspire debate and dialogue? Usually, if the basis is not founded on fact, the argument can – or should, rather – go no further.

The piece goes on to admit that Moore is not known for objectivity or “impeccable” research, and that he favors Obama as a symbol of hope in the film. Now, for the article’s a-bomb. According to Reuters,

Moore has assembled a collection of nearly unbelievable horror stories to illustrate why capitalism and democracy do not go hand in hand, like a privately owned juvenile correctional facility, which paid the local judge to jail teens for misdemeanors.

Wow.

And then there’s the Washington Post piece entitled, “For ‘Capitalism,’ Moore Sells Short Politicians of all Denominations.” The lead says it all: “Just when it looked as if conservatives might be cornering the market on angry populism, along comes Michael Moore.”

I suppose those liberals who threw bleach on delegates at the Republican National Convention were lovable Furby-like creatures – not angry populists. After all, the Republicans have apparently already dominated that market.

I could go on and on. While most American outlets covered the film’s synopsis, scope, theme, etc., many in the mainstream media failed to point out Moore’s glaring hypocrisy. How can a man who has makes millions off of his anti-American rhetoric have the audacity to make a film about the evils of capitalism? It took the gusto of a British journalist to really delve into the insanity. The Telegraph’s Will Heaven wrote the following:

Don’t be fooled by the scruffy cap and trampish demeanour. Moore is as well-to-do as the “stupid white men” which he has made millions of dollars from criticising…

Sadly for Michael Moore, many of the people that should be watching his films don’t get the joke either. He is supposed to be the champion of the oppressed, who spends his career holding the rich and famous to account. Now he’s one of them, and lapping up the lifestyle like a banker in boom time, it makes no sense.

Kudos to Heaven and The Telegraph for writing the most honest piece I’ve seen on Michael Moore’s deafening hypocrisy. While American media outlets seem encapsulated in wonder by Moore’s outlandish work, it seems the Europeans – who are typically quite receptive of his films – are onto his antics. Now, if we could only get the rest of America and the media on board the “reality express,” we’d be golden.