National drug companies accused of gay-bashing

From 365gay.com

The largest pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies in the country - among them the major makers of HIV/AIDS drugs - are the main sponsors of an attack ad that slams the ARP over Social Security by attempting to link the AARP to same-sex marriage.

The ads were produced for USA Next, a public advocacy group whose members have been linked to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads that challenged the war record of last November's Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry....

"I have no reason to believe that this attempt to scapegoat GLBT individuals reflects the views of PhRMA's member companies," said Rep. Frank. "But since PhRMA has helped pay for this advertising by USA Next, we think it is appropriate to ask them to repudiate this act and to take steps to prevent its repetition."

Among the members of PhRMA are 3M Pharmaceuticals, Abbott Laboratories, Bayer Corporation, Biogen. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, GE Healthcare, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Merck and Procter & Gamble.

"Degrading millions of gay and lesbian families is a sad way for any person or organization to get their message out," said Chuck Wolfe, president & CEO of the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund and Leadership Institute.

Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

Heading towards bedtime. Though for some reporters, this is the hour they only begin to start working. Read the rest of this post...

This is just cool

Spongy tissue found in dinosaur bone. Read the rest of this post...

Because God has a sense of humor

And yes, this is for real:

Read the rest of this post...

If we were to have protests outside the National Press Club, what would the signs say?

Just having some fun ruminating here. Get creative. Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

Have at it Read the rest of this post...

National Press Club refuses to balance GannonGuckert panel discussion

The National Press Club's latest buffoonery? Adding another blogger, who has nothing to do with the GannonGuckert controversy, to panel and someone from USA Today. Uh, ok. That's nice. Maybe they'll add the Easter Bunny too, since it would have about as much relevance to our concerns as the folks they're adding now.

We stated, quite clearly, that a panel with GannonGuckert about GannonGuckert should have someone on it who was a key player and key blogger dealing with GannonGuckert and who has the opposite point of view of GannonGuckert. That could involve someone from DailyKos, Atrios, World O Crap, AMERICAblog, Media Matters, and I'm sure other blogs that now slip my mind who were all heavily involved in the breaking and covering the controversy.

Why do we ask this? Because, quite clearly, either GannonGuckert is on the panel to talk about his case or he shouldn't be there at all. If he's NOT there to talk about his case and how it relates to blogging and the media, then is he there simply because he's an expert on blogging? No, because he's not a blogger.


(This is a photo from his male escort Web site.)

Is he there as a journalist expert on topics not involving his controversy? No, because he's no such expert, and questionably not even a journalist. He's clearly there to represent his point of view on his controversy. And the National Press Club is clearly not interesting in having anybody represent the other side of this controversy, or they'd have invited someone key to the other side.

Imagine a hypothetical scenario in which the National Press Club has a panel about the 2004 presidential election. They invite the Bush folks, a bunch of journalists and bloggers who have nothing to do with the election, and then they refuse to invite the Kerry folks. The Press Club would have us believe this is okay since the Bush folks, or the unrelated bloggers and journalists would represent the Kerry point of view. The Press Club might even tell us "we're not having the panel to debate WHO SHOULD HAVE WON the 2004 election, we're simply doing it to discuss lots of issues surrounding the election, so it doesn't matter if we have both sides." Right, and in discussing the 2004 election you thought the Bush point of view and the middleman's point of view were both relevant, but didn't think it would be relevant to invite someone representing, and having insight on, the other side of the very issue the entire panel is about.

This isn't about me. They could have invited anyone from any of the blogs I mentioned above - all blogs that were key to covering the GannonGuckert story. Instead, they didn't invite a soul. And to add insult to injury, they actually chose today to invite another blogger to the event - showing that they HAD space to invite someone actually relevant to the GannonGuckert story, they had space to rectify the glaring bias of their panel - but they chose not to.

But hey, the mainstream media never was interested in covering the GannonGuckert story as news, so is it any surprise that they're still not willing to give the story a fair shake now? And they wonder why we don't like them.

For more background on this story... Read the rest of this post...

Falwell's on a ventilator

CNN is reporting that Jerry Falwell is in critical condition and on a ventilator suffering from viral pneumonia.

Note to the Falwell people: Don't ask Tom DeLay what to do with someone on a ventilator. You might not like the answer. He only helps with feeding tubes. Read the rest of this post...

Jesse Jackson descends on the Schiavo family!

Just when you thought there was no more room for any more whores, Jesse Jackson steps in. CNN just reported that he's weighing in on behalf of the parents - and get this - they wanted him there because they thought all the religious right reps were skewing the national polls against them. Yeah, so some whore like Jackson is gonna help? Gag me.

And lest we forget:

Jesse Jackson: Gay marriage rights are not civil rights
Christopher Curtis, Gay.com / PlanetOut.com Network
Tuesday, February 17, 2004 / 06:50 PM Read the rest of this post...

Poor private Mary Cheney is now writing a half-million dollar book

Well that was quick. Six months ago she was an innocent private wallflower, now she's hawking her name for half a million bucks.

Gee, mainstream media, didn't we tell you so? Didn't we inform you that in 2002 Mary was selling photo ops at gay Republican fundraisers for $500 a pop (i.e., pay Mary 500 bucks and she'll let you snap a photo with her)? But no, the MSM fell for the "Mary is a private citizen, how DARE you ask any questions about her?" line.

Now we know that what the Cheneys REALLY meant was "how dare you ask any questions about her and not pay half a million bucks first." I guess they always knew what Mary was, they were just haggling over the price.

My favorite line in a second story on the topic is Mary Matalin's incredibly self-loathing comment, so apropros for a book by Mary.

Interviewed in a New York Times article last August about Ms. Cheney, Ms. Matalin was quoted as saying, "There are other reasons to be politically active besides your sexual orientation. That is not her raison d'etre."

Gee, you think?

(PS Next thing you know the GOP will try to make money off of Terri Schiavo. Oh yeah...) Read the rest of this post...

READ THIS: MSM catfight breaks out over National Press Club's "GannonGuckert panel" - Press Club whines, E&P; rips them

The National Press Club is striking back over the growing controversy over their biased GannonGuckert panel they're holding next week. And others are striking back at the Press Club. It's an MSM catfight out there.

As you may recall, the Press Club is holding a panel to talk about the GannonGuckert issue, journalistic credentialing, and the larger issue of blogs vs. mainstream journalism. On that panel, at this point, will be sitting GannonGuckert, sex gossip comedienne Wonkette, DC gossip blogger Garrett Graff (who was the first blogger to get access to the White House briefing room), and John Stanton of Congress Daily.

The left-wing blogosphere is, rightfully, upset that, as usual, the mainstream media wants to hold a panel on political blogging and doesn't invite any political bloggers. Rather, they invite gossip blogs. No that there's anything wrong with gossip blogs - I love Wonkette, and am having breakfast with Garrett next week. But they're gossip blogs. For a panel on gossip journalism, having them represent the entire field would make sense. But...

For a panel discussing the GannonGuckert case and the difference between serious political blogging and serious political mainstream journalism, it might be nice to have some serious political bloggers on the panel - not to mention, a blogger who actually was key to the GannonGuckert expose (be that Media Matters, Kos, Atrios, World O Crap, AMERICAblog, whatever). And what about Editor & Publisher or Salon.com, two of the ONLY mainstream media outlets that fairly and continually covered this story? Why aren't THEY the MSM media rep on this panel?

Anyway, the Press Club folks are getting snippy now. From Poynter:

From JONATHAN D. SALANT, vice president, National Press Club: Regarding Joe Strupp's story about Jeff Gannon: Is Editor and Publisher suggesting that every time the National Press Club gets a newsworthy figure to appear on one of our panels, we consider that person a journalist? Is E&P; suggesting that we should not invite controversial figures to appear at the Club and be questioned by reporters? How else should we read Strupp's story? Funny, I don't recall E&P; questioning whether inviting a politician to an NPC luncheon means we endorse his or her views. People get invited to speak at the Club, whether a luncheon, a newsmaker event or a forum, because they are newsworthy. Also: Considering the event has been on the Press Club home page for weeks, how can some blogger "first report" the event, as Strupp wrote. Or does E&P; now define a scoop as being able to read a publicly available announcement on a journalism organization's home page?

But now it gets good. Editor & Publisher editor Greg Mitchell responds:

Topic: Letters Sent to Romenesko
Date/Time: 3/29/2005 11:40:27 AM
Title: Would female hookers get a press club invite?
Posted By: Jim Romenesko

From GREG MITCHELL, editor, Editor and Publisher: Jonathan Salant asks [below]: "How else to interpret Strupp's article on Gannon?" How's this: Should a non-journalist who has worked as a male escort be invited to speak on a journalism panel at the National Press Club?

Salant would have us believe that Gannon is merely giving a press conference at the club as a "newsworthy" figure, you know, the usual politician or policy maker or author. But actually, he is on a panel discussing journalism and blogging issues. And this "newsworthy" figure has apparently worked as a prostitute, and not just the journalistic variety. Asked on numerous occasions about this, Gannon has refused to confirm or deny. Most mainstream journalists, especially of the conservative variety, continue to treat Gannon as merely an "odd" fellow who posted a few dirty pictures on the Web and asked the president a harmless softball question. I seriously doubt that, if he was a she, Gannon would be treated this way -- or get invited to speak at the Press Club on a journalism panel. Salant should supply any examples of (known) hookers who have previously appeared as speakers at the Press Club, especially as part of journalism panels.

Then the E&P; reporter who wrote the story responds as well:

From JOE STRUPP, Editor and Publisher: I'm a bit surprised at Mr. Salant's angry reaction to my article about the National Press Club inviting Jeff Gannon to speak on a panel about journalism and blogging.

I don't know how much fairer or more accurate the story could have been. It included comment from several press club officials, including the organizer of the panel, and Gannon himself, with just one quote from a critic of the decision.

Among the e-mails I have received are several from people who believed we were not tough enough on the club. Perhaps Salant is getting as much negative feedback as we are?

Then there's this FABULOUS response from Paul Lukasiak:

Guckert is not being invited (as are Ed Gramlich, Jane Fonda, and Alice Roosevelt) to answer questions from the press about themselves. Guckert is being presented as an either a journalist or a blogger (and perhaps Mr. Salant could enlighten us as to which category he feels Guckert belongs) who will discuss "whether there is a difference between" bloggers and journalists.

Guckert is not an expert on either blogging or journalism, or the interaction between the two. Guckert is, however, a sex worker who has consistently lied to the journalistic community in the past.

Read the rest of this post...

New edition of DemsTV.com is live

This week's edition is live. I'm hosting. Take a look. Also, PLEASE give us feedback. My friend Dan, who is running things, really really really wants your feedback. You guys gave some great advice that first week, and I think, personally, the show looks a whole lot better today than it did 3 weeks ago. But it's still new, and will needs lots of tweaks, and time, to find its groove. So please, watch it and post your comments, criticism, etc.

Read the rest of this post...

Schiavo isn't dead yet, and they're already making money off of her

And religious right leader Lou Sheldon's son is involved.

Call it Schindler's list. From the NYT:

The parents of Terri Schiavo have authorized a conservative direct-mailing firm to sell a list of their financial supporters, making it likely that thousands of strangers moved by her plight will receive a steady stream of solicitations from anti-abortion and conservative groups....

Pamela Hennessy, an unpaid spokeswoman for the Schindlers, said she was initially appalled when she learned of the list's existence.

"It is possibly the most distasteful thing I have ever seen," Ms. Hennessy said. "Everybody is making a buck off of her."

Ms. Hennessy, who operates the Schindlers' Web site, www.terrisfight.org, said the family had not released any of the names or e-mail addresses gathered there. "Obviously these people are enterprising, and they are taking advantage of this very desperate father," she said.

Then you get this great quote from the father of direct mail, GOP fundraising guru Richard Viguerie:

"I think it sounds a little unusual right now because of the situation where she is in the process of dying," said Richard Viguerie, another major conservative direct-mail operator. "If you came across this information six months or a year from now, I don't think you would give it too much thought."

Well no shit Shirlock. That's the point. If you did it six months, it's politics. If you do it right now while she's dying it suggests to some that you're an opportunistic money-hungry jerk. Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

Rob is back! :-) Read the rest of this post...

Question: How much is the Internet REALLY changing politics?

I've been a little AWOL, busy with work of late, but I think this might be a place with some similarity. So I'm in Chicago for the Word of Mouth Marketing Association conference. As a blogger in the political space (as well as an advertising executive), what we do here on AMERICAblog is in essence Word of Mouth Politics. The first speaker presented two visions of how marketing can mature away from disruptive, one way ads to a more two way conversation like we do here discussing politics. We went through the last election to a disappointing defeat. I think that we can all agree that the Left was far more organized than the Right when it came to blogging and word of mouth politics.

But we didn't win.

Despite how much we hate it, paid advertising works. Direct mail works. Telemarketing works. If you buy enough ads, you can move the polling meter. If you call enough people, you can increase turnout. So I pose a question to you all - will this always be so? Will we come to a day when paid advertising in politics diminishes in favor of Internet enabled two-way politicking (like Dean), or are we always going to be stuck watching the same ad over and over again and hanging up on telemarketers each political season? (Though I still get a kick out of the new AARP ad with the house being torn down around the owner!) Read the rest of this post...

Read Krugman's Column today

This is a must read. Paul Krugman's column in the NY Times today delves in to the impact the far religious right is having on our day-to-day lives. Krugman's column uses the current Schiavo case, invokes DeLay, brings in education and medicine. It's all on target, but this is the quote that struck me:

And the future seems all too likely to bring more intimidation in the name of God and more political intervention that undermines the rule of law.

You might expect to see that kind of language describing an acknowledged theocracy like Iran, but Krugman is talking about the United States. Now, that is very scary. Read the rest of this post...