Media Whores*

Media wars was my first thought for this post. My intended sabbatical, a break from my customary work for other matters, was to be one week. I indicated the difficulty it may be, to not post, and in fact not even work on related stuff, but here is one I noted and saved as a draft:

[* *]
To whom it may concern:(THE FCC?)
Regarding a seemingly meaningless spat between Rosie O’Donnell and Bill O’Reilly:

Bill O’Reilly is of the opinion that she should not be free to give her opinions as a "broadcast professional" and I think that it falls into your auspices to determine that. It seems to me that the term either applies to the broadcasting engineers or the terms of an FCC licensee. If there are any standards, as I would have them, Bill O’Reilly and Fox News should lose their licenses. This is no joking matter. While the O'Donnell and The Donald spat may be about ratings and while Rosie may choose to not renew her contract and let the market determine she has an even greater value, again it is hard to stomach the excuses for the airtime wasted by O’Reilly or Fox News if there are any standards. Further, no joking matter, while Rosie’s opinions may be fringe, and O’Reilly truly unreliable, if there is any such ruling that could shut down Rosie and not O‘Reilly, she has demonstrated that she knows what she is talking about in her claim that he is worse than a character from 1984, and that there is a "big brother".

[The best I can tell the above was written, April 3rd]

Now we have the Don Imus issue. It is too bad that he is the more moderate of a list of disagreeable personalities, who if there were standards may not have the airtime they enjoy. Yet the very idea of standards is also a problem while the idea of the market alone may not be the solution. It is unfortunate that he may end up the scapegoat and a distraction if not a martyr to the cause of those that do not have the guts to face the consequences of their words.

It seems that he has faced his error, yet still seems to be putting it in context. Of course everything is needed to be looked at in context and taking it elsewhere may be unfair, but if Imus is determined to be the problem, broader problems may not be faced.

* whores:
A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.

Considerations are twice removed from personal gain: first by the person, then by the principle.

* * [4-17-07: for clarification I must reitterate that "To whom it may concern" was written and saved on April 3rd, 2007]

[4-18-07: Stereotype Threat the cultural impact ignored. Just look at lawyers and politicians and what you expect from them. Not to mention...

BLANK NETWORK

Dot Tool* to be named later. This is just a list of the Wills and Bills.
[Not Necessarily the News Guru, but divagation or not maybe linked.]

The Anti-Billy Club
The Club of Association
King of Rhetoric?
A Generous dia-Gnosis.
Report from Sabbatical
Sabbatical

This is not necessarily a Newshounds blog, Colbert Report or Daily Show.
I don't read or view things so you don't have to, sometimes you do, and sometimes just scrolling over may provide enough. It is divagation and stochastic at its best, or sometimes worst. But it is not just all about them or us. My Navigation label needs updating, and the Navigation II label is about our course, or a combination or demonstration of it.

While names are not the thing(and they are coming slowly today), there is value in comparing and contrasting, and sometimes associations matter. Leadership and representation matters, and in journalism there is the ledership which sometimes leads back to my point: our headings, navigation and having to follow for oneself. Part of the spirit of this has been diffused in all seriousness, by the focus on the list and the Bills and Wills, but it is more about the network and bringing things to the table. So while the banner or name for the effort is still pending, as well as more on the principles(The club of association) I will begin listing the inspirations for the columns or sides of the table.

* Blank Network (Anti-Billy Club: see links)

RESEARCH (So I am frackin' fudging a bit with the Will, the HasselB, and the Williams.)
Bill O'Reilly
George F. Will
Elizabeth HasselBECK
William Kristol
Walter Williams
William Safire
Willam F. Buckley

DEVELOPMENT
Bill Maher
Will Rogers
Bill Press
William Shakespeare


Similar Wills
Rush Limbaugh
Glenn Beck
Steve King
Sarah Palin
Michele Bachmann

Honorary Anti-Billy Clubs
Noam Chomsky
Thom Hartmann
Rachel Maddow
Jon Stewart
Steven Colbert
Lawrence O'Donnell
Norman Goldman
Ed Schultz



[Under-construction, italics are postumous honors. Apologies for the orders, they are at my whim or some consideration or other. It is not about heirarchy or honors, or just Bill O'Reilly and Bill Maher. And it may be asked, do some really want to be at the table? If they don't work well with others? That may play out as the list and the principles evolve.(Network Theory)]
[2-17-11 Update: Walk Like A Cheesehead. Wrap mine in tinfoil..PU! NOT! But close enough to government work.]

Whatcha gonna do about it?

Worst Person Crowded Senator Ben Nelson (D) Nebraska

"Too many Americans...get their news from entertainers (who) tell them what to be angry about today." "...Jon Stewart, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Keith Olbermann, and Rachel Maddow." "Responding to the talking points of either extreme is not the way to enact good public policy." "There is a lot of inaccurate and incomplete information out there thanks to talk shows from either the left of the right." "Facts often get in the way of a good rant."

The Senator should face the music and correct things right away. Maybe the Fairness Doctrine then? Just kidding. He should start with Steven Colbert. CORRECTION: The Ed Show (Apparently he handled Colbert well enough, and Ed Schultz is who he should fish or cut bait with.)
The Senator makes some very good points even though his list is not fair and balanced on the face of it.

[Senator Byron Dorgan (D) North Dakota: "no solace in being right"]