There must be something in the water of Hope, Ark.
Former President Bill Clinton, we learn today, earned $10.2 million making speeches last year, up from $7.5 million the year before, for a total of $40 million since leaving office.
At the same time, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee has edged up from the Republican pack to 5 percent in the New Hampshire polls as a result of his debate performances and sound-bite skills in interviews.
Cited by ABC as a strong contender for running mate, Huckabee says, “If they think I'm vice president by June, by January they'll think I ought to be president, and that's where I'm headed."
Huckabee, a former Baptist minister, has a way with words, even through he is short so far on campaign funds and media attention.
“One of the frustrations,” he complained the other day, “is that there is more attention on Britney Spears getting out of a car without underwear than there is about who is going to be the next president.”
Huckabee and Clinton were both born in Hope, a city with 10,000 inhabitants, whose other claim to fame is that it produces the world’s largest watermelons. There is one on the city logo, along with the slogan, “A Slice of the Good Life.”
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Michael Moore, Cheap-Shot Messiah
It must be wonderful to be the smartest guy in a world of morons, the only honest person left on earth, the last great truth-teller in the universe.
On Good Morning America yesterday, Michael Moore took time out from promoting The Word on health care in America, to lecture Chris Cuomo on the failure of “the people in this building” and the rest of the media to prevent the war in Iraq. To his credit, Cuomo was having none of it.
Deconstructing Michael Moore is difficult because his heart is usually in the right place, but his judgment and journalistic ethics are off on some other planet. Documentaries are journalism, not audio-visual polemics, and he has erased the line between them.
Jon Stewart, no defender of MSM, was on point as usual when he told Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala on “Crossfire” that they were partisan hacks: “You should be doing debate, which would be great, but you’re doing theater.”
Moore is purporting to enlighten, but despite his pretensions, he is doing theater. He may give audiences vicarious satisfaction in dramatizing the idiocies of our health care system, but he isn't telling them anything new and he certainly isn't making any positive contribution to the debate over improving it. He is, however, making money and getting a lot of attention for himself.
Analyzing the media’s share of the blame for the war in Iraq is important, as Bill Moyers showed in “Buying the War,” but taking smug cheap shots is something else.
When Moore blithely blamed his hosts for the death of 3500 American soldiers and Cuomo challenged him to be careful about such sweeping assertions, Moore’s answer was “I don’t have to be careful.”
That says it all. Moore has made his reputation and millions of dollars by aspiring to be the one-eyed man in the kingdom of the blind. But his visions have been, to put it kindly, cockeyed.
On Good Morning America yesterday, Michael Moore took time out from promoting The Word on health care in America, to lecture Chris Cuomo on the failure of “the people in this building” and the rest of the media to prevent the war in Iraq. To his credit, Cuomo was having none of it.
Deconstructing Michael Moore is difficult because his heart is usually in the right place, but his judgment and journalistic ethics are off on some other planet. Documentaries are journalism, not audio-visual polemics, and he has erased the line between them.
Jon Stewart, no defender of MSM, was on point as usual when he told Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala on “Crossfire” that they were partisan hacks: “You should be doing debate, which would be great, but you’re doing theater.”
Moore is purporting to enlighten, but despite his pretensions, he is doing theater. He may give audiences vicarious satisfaction in dramatizing the idiocies of our health care system, but he isn't telling them anything new and he certainly isn't making any positive contribution to the debate over improving it. He is, however, making money and getting a lot of attention for himself.
Analyzing the media’s share of the blame for the war in Iraq is important, as Bill Moyers showed in “Buying the War,” but taking smug cheap shots is something else.
When Moore blithely blamed his hosts for the death of 3500 American soldiers and Cuomo challenged him to be careful about such sweeping assertions, Moore’s answer was “I don’t have to be careful.”
That says it all. Moore has made his reputation and millions of dollars by aspiring to be the one-eyed man in the kingdom of the blind. But his visions have been, to put it kindly, cockeyed.
Thursday, June 07, 2007
Science for the Singles Bar
Another medical breakthrough: According to a study reported by the New York Times, "Woman Who Drink a Little May Lower Heart-Attack Risk." But getting sloppy drunk can lead to a six-fold increase in the likelihood of an attack.
Sounds like a perfect ice-breaker for singles-bar habitues, but this is serious stuff. “The findings have important implications," according to the lead researcher.
Yet there is reason for caution, the Times adds: "The authors acknowledge that the participation rate was not optimal, that the information was based on self-reports that could be subject to error and that there might be unknown variables affecting the results. Also, few women in the study were heavy drinkers, limiting the ability to draw conclusions about that group."
Other than that, you can bet your life on it. Ain't science grand?
Sounds like a perfect ice-breaker for singles-bar habitues, but this is serious stuff. “The findings have important implications," according to the lead researcher.
Yet there is reason for caution, the Times adds: "The authors acknowledge that the participation rate was not optimal, that the information was based on self-reports that could be subject to error and that there might be unknown variables affecting the results. Also, few women in the study were heavy drinkers, limiting the ability to draw conclusions about that group."
Other than that, you can bet your life on it. Ain't science grand?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)