Brooklyn Ron

Scoop Journalism's Sound and Fury, Beating up on Paterson and Letting Bruno Slide

There's been much bluff and bluster in the press of late about Gov. David Paterson, so much of it that the uninitiated might expect an indictment to be forthcoming.

But an indictment for what? the naive New Yorker might fairly ask.

Might the crime be using one's public office to enrich himself, pocketing loads of loot from lobbyists?

But wait. That was the crime said to have been committed by former state senator Joe Bruno, wasn't it?

Well, you can be excused for not knowing much about Bruno and his allegedly ill gotten riches.

There's good reason it might have largely escaped you.

The papers and air waves have been over-loaded, you see, with breaking developments about the Paterson dust-up, in which the governor allegedly lied about whether he knew underlings were speaking ill of Caroline Kennedy.

That's the underlying crime, mind you -- that his staffers were spreading gossip about why Kennedy pulled her name out of contention for appointment as U.S. Senator, replacing Hillary Clinton.

Let's not waste many words saying the whispered reasons were, well, reasonable -- that Kennedy was concerned about her suffering Uncle Ted, that she was having marital problems, that she maybe felt Paterson was going to appoint someone else.

And now the press is outraged, just outraged, that Paterson's people would have the gall to say such things, and that Paterson would deny knowing they were saying it.

Of course, there's a bit of hypocrisy here. Some of the very papers that have been beating lately on Paterson were themselves guilty of serious Kennedy abuse, pounding her, in fact, with much greater effect than Paterson's peons ever had.

The press, including very notably The New York Times, continually characterized Kennedy as inarticulate and unprepared, making much of her "you knows" and her testiness with the press -- maybe the most unforgivable crime here of all.

Indeed, it was clear to some, even a couple of weeks back, that Kennedy was not going to clear the biggest hurdle of all, that of the media.

And now here they are, once again, the credentialed scribes, birds on a wire, flying off like winged gang members after some fancied, tasty morsel.

Coming to mind is the one of the funniest books in the English language, "Scoop," by Evelyn Waugh, who went after correspondents and their anxious quirkiness much as they go after their sometimes  feckless prey.

Albany, believe me, could use such a satirist now.

Musings on Melville, Obama, America and The World

By Milverton (Tony) Wallace
Guest Columnist

I was searching my mind recently for that famous quotation from Melville, the one about America belonging to the whole world. I couldn't find it in even in the dusty corners of my memory.

But instinct happily took me to a rereading of C.L.R.James' wonderful book, "Mariners, Renegades and Castaways: The story of Herman Melville and the world we live in" and -- bingo! -- I learned that the quote was from "Redburn," one of his lesser known but very important books, because it is there where he first tried out themes that became central to "Moby Dick."

Up to this point, Melville had been arguing in his writings that the US should disengage from a fractious and backward Europe and from the rest of the world as well. But at this point he changed his thinking,  because his mind was sketching the vast canvass that would become "Moby DIck," in which the Pequod is a floating assembly of all the nations under American leadership.

Here's the quote (slighted contracted) about America and its place in the world:

"Settled  by the people of all nations, all nations may claim her for their own.  You cannot spill a drop of American blood without spilling the blood of the whole world....Our blood is as the flood of the Amazon, made up of a thousand noble currents all pouring into one. We are not a nation, so much as a world...Our ancestry is  lost in the universal pageantry; and Caesar and Alfred, St.Paul and Luther, andHomer and Shakespeare are as much ours as Washington, who is as much the world's as our own. Weare the heirs of all time, and with all nations we divide our inheritance."

Well now, it seems to me that Melville, writing in 1850, had a better understanding of the 21st 
century than most of our politicians and pundits. He also gives the best answer to the question as to
why people in every corner of the globe are deeply interested in America and care passionately about
who will be its next president!

In this context, for sure, Barack Obama's recent visit to the Middle East and Europe, criticized in the
John McCain camp and elsewhere, was not without deep meaning for America.

Tony Wallace [photo, above] is a journalism professor who transplanted some years ago from Jamaica to England, where he writes and teaches a new generation of journalists entering the digital age.

Imam Siraj Wahhaj, Villified by Media, Remains the Hero of Fulton Street

Much is being made today of the fact that Imam Siraj Wahhaj is behind a soon-to-come subway ad of some kind.

In the New York Post and elsewhere in the mainstream media, he is being all but called a terrorist as they noted that Wahhaj is an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.

But believe me, if after 15 years the government had any evidence to indict Wahhaj, it would have.

And I say that as someone who had close family who worked at the World Trade Center and who considered it almost a second home.

Here's the truth about Wahhaj. Back in the mid 1980s the crack epidemic was ravishing Bedford-Stuyvesant, where Wahhaj's mosque, called At-Taqwa, was and still is located.

Merchants, many of them frightening immigrant Muslims, were being held up. Complaints were made to the 79th precint but nothing happened.

Then Wahhaj went out on his own with members of his mosque, including at least one who was a Uniformed Court Officer, and began knocking on the doors of those known to be thugs and drug dealers.

The dealers complained to the police and Wahhaj and his Muslim companions were themselves arrested. While at the 79th precinct, a white police officer slapped Wahhaj.

Fortunately at the time, the police commissioner was Ben Ward, who was a hardliner but carried certain sensibilities because he happened to be black. The officer who slapped Wahhaj was demoted, and after this correspondent wrote an article about the whole affair (which article, we promise, we will locate and post), community support grew for Wahhaj and his band of citizen cops.

Suddenly there were civilian patrols on Fulton Street and the busy intersection of Fulton and Bedford Avenue became a safer place. To this day, merchants in that area owe much to Wahhaj and the members of his mosque.

Please remember this and put the screaming headlines that ignorantly defame Wahhaj into perspective.

We need not say more for now, other than to suggest that Wahhaj's message, from our perspective, seems like that of Catholic priests and others who argue that their people should be respected and that there is a world beyond this world that is a spiritual world, where good and righteousness prevail.

Wahhaj, who is African American and speaks fluent Arabic, once led members of the United States Congress in prayer. In one video he says:

"Allah lets you know that nothing is permanent but him…All your life you learn to love things and as soon as you get real close Allah snatches it away from you . . . to let y ou know to be humble and that you should always put your trust in allah. Not in money, not in material things, but in Allah."

Here's the video:

Fears Grow That Verizon, Comcast and Others Will Restrict Web Access

                          SUPPORT 'NET NEUTRALITY'

Fears are growing that Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Time Warner and other Internet Service Providers are going to limit Web access of their smaller, less powerful customers or -- in a potentially grave threat to the First Amendment -- restrict downloading capabilities of sites they find (for reasons political or otherwise) offensive.

This is leading to enough concern that members of Congress are becoming involved and, in fact, a bill recently was introduced addressing the matter.

Congressman John Conyers of Michigan said:

"Americans have come to expect the Internet to be open to everyone. The Internet was designed without centralized control, without gatekeepers for content and services. If we allow companies with monopoly or duopoly power to control how the Internet operates, network providers could have the power to choose what content is available."

The legislation introduced on May 8th by Democrats requires Internet Service Providers "to operate their network in a reasonable and nondiscriminatory manner so that all content, applications and services are treated the same and have an equal opportunity to reach consumers."

Republicans and ISP's have opposed the measure, saying it is a "solution in search of a problem."

But some believe that Comcast in particular has already been found to limit access of smaller customers, especially during times of heavy Net traffic.

The movement against this perceived ISP threat is being called "Net Neutrality," which is defined as "the fundamental principle that prevents service providers from discriminating against websites or services based on their source, ownership or destination."

And the group that is pushing the issue, and trying recruit Netizens into its cause, is SaveTheInternet. [Click the opening image or the link to the left of here to find out more about them and/or how to join the movement.]

Bill Moyers, for one, has been expressing serious worries about this threat to the free nature of the Internet.

The Democracy of the Net is at stake, and it's extremely meaningful that figures of Moyers' stature are becoming so involved.

Jeremiah Wright and Clinton Ally Kiss After Delivering Obama to Angry Crowd, Report Suggests

Where is James Carville now that we need him?

Carville is after all the nation's premier Judas judge. He's, of course, the husband of Dick Cheney adviser Mary Matalin (not to be confused with Mary Magdalene, biblical contemporary of said Judas). He's also the Hillary Clinton hatchet-man who some time back called Bill Richardson a "Judas" after Richardson endorsed Barack Obama.

But now here comes the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, once the pastor of Barack Obama, who is accused of aligning himself with a Hillary Clinton supporter to deliver a fatal political blow to Obama.

If allegations are true, some might call him a Judas.

As Errol Louis of The New York Daily News reported earlier this week, it was one Barbara Reynolds [photo, left, sitting with Wright] who was the point person at the National Press Club, where Rev. Wright on Monday delivered his inflaming (and some say disjointed) discourse that many believe was contrived to seriously embarrass Obama.

Louis raised the possibility that Reynolds and Wright conspired to bring a hammer down on Obama. (read)

And now the Daily News gossip columnists Rush and Molloy, citing their "spy," report that Wright and Reynolds seem to be enjoying the attention.

"Despite the controversy, Reynolds and Wright couldn't have looked chummier on Tuesday night when they met at D.C.'s Mayflower Hotel. 'They shared a hug and a kiss and then huddled in a corner,' says our spy. 'Then they went off to dinner.'" (read)

Meanwhile, the sensitive National Press Club has issued a statement denying there was any plan to hurt Obama or benefit Clinton, saying that Reynolds (a black author, journalist and minister) was merely a member who happened to have ties with Wright and was therefore called upon to be the liaison to him.

Oh yes, as Louis pointed out, she's also a seriously committed backer of Hillary Clinton.

Wright's motive in all this is said to be a combination of factors, the chief one being anger that Obama denounced Wright's allegedly anti-American remarks, and the secondary one being a strong streak of narcissism that is drawing the reverend gleefully to microphones being thrust at him of late by the media.

(Regarding the narcissism, see New York Times article by Alessandra Stanley, "Not Speaking for Obama, Pastor Speaks for Himself, at Length.")

If James Carville were on Obama's side, he would definitely be calling Wright a Judas seeking thirty pieces of silver.

In the form, perhaps, of a huge book contract.

(Half) Black Writer on Jeremiah Wright: This is How Low the Black Church Has Sunk

Writer Kevin McBride, who like Barack Obama is the son of a white mother and black father, offers a stinging commentary on black preaching as reflected in the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy.

In a letter to the editor of The New York Times, McBride (author of "The Color of Water") says the perhaps (politically) fatal reality of Obama's past was that he came to the black church late in life. He therefore did not fully understand the kind of person-clothed-as-preacher that he was dealing with, McBride says.

Obama "was betrayed by a smooth-talking preacher whose recent behavior is a clear example of how low the black church has sunk in the days after the death of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.," McBride wrote in the May 1 issue of The Times."

(For the full five-paragraph letter, click here.)

McBride says that he has an advantage over Obama in that he was raised in the black church. McBride seems to be suggesting that he, unlike Obama, has had a clearer comprehension of the strength and potential fury of the ego that was wrapped in Wright's pastoral robe.

Regarding Wright's ego (much commented upon these past two days for its narcissism), the very last quote today's long front page article about the Obama-Wright affair (by Michael Powell and Jodi Kantor) is especially relevant.

It quotes a deacon of Chicago's Trinity Church, from which Wright recently retired as pastor, as saying about Wright: "It's easy to hurt his feelings . . . He's extremely sensitive."

Not the best attribute for someone preaching the traits of Christianity, understood by many if not most Christians to be based on a certain selflessness. (read that Times article.)

[photo: This is of Jeremiah Wright, taken at the National Press Club for Getty Images by Bill Pugliano.]

From Brooklyn's Marcy Housing Projects, Sound Advice to Obama

Quiet as it's kept, Barack Obama's affection for the music of Jay-Z, hip hop artist extraordinaire, serves him well not so much with droopy-drawer young brothers from the 'hood but rather with hip young whites who are the major fans of the music genre.

Jay-Z, once a resident of the rough Marcy housing projects on the edges of Bed-Stuy, is in fact the featured artist at the upcoming , world-renowned Glastonbury music festival in South West England.

In some ways it could be said that Jay-Z, in the minds of some young devotees of Obama, has come to represent the cultural roots of the presidential candidate's vaunted cool-ness.

Some might remember, a couple of months back, after a debate in which the ABC questioners seemed to gang up on Barack and toss softies at Hillary Clinton, Obama met with a gathering of supporters (no, fans) and told them that the thing to do when under such pressure is simple:

Just brush the dirt off your shoulders.

And in a memorable gesture, he did just that, rubbing the symbolic dust off one shoulder and then the other.

[To see and hear Obama following the advice of Brooklyn's Jay-Z, click the side-pointing triangle in the image below.]

The phrase in question comes from a Jay-Z hit, "Dirt off Your Shoulder," that in some ways is as raunchy as any rap piece, but that carries a special significance, in the way of telling how to attain coolness without hurting others.

Ah, who would have guessed that wise counsel from a Brooklyn public housing project would be fuel for a candidate's journey to the White House?

[read about Jay-Z's upcoming appearance in England, itself a topic of some controversy ignited by guitar, rock-loving purists. click here.]

[read a Gawker piece about how conservatives are turning Barack's hip-hop connections into Fox fodder to be used against him. click here.]

[lastly, to see and hear Jay-Z performing "Dirt off Your Shoulder, click the side-pointing triangle in the image below.]

Saturday Night Live's B-Word Brouhaha is Defining This Campaign

Saturday Night Live has been running a little wild with skits that end up giving great political capital to Hillary Clinton.

Perhaps the one that, until recently, drew the most attention was Tina Fey's b-word filled diatribe against Barack Obama, though I suppose it might also reasonably be called a b-word laced peon to Hillary Clinton.

The line from that long screed that lived longest was "Bitch is the new black."

But then, in SNL's feeble attempt, perhaps, to seem fair and balance, came a come-back by none other the New York's own alcohol consuming Tracy Morgan, who like Fey is a SNL alum and, as she was doing weeks before, was doing a guest appearance. [listen to both via video links below.]

His effort was actually quite a bit funnier than hers and in some way even ingenious, much as we here think b- and n-word usage is offensive, on national television or in private.

Still, hers seemed more from the heart and, in the end, more a reflection of a sincere wish for the ultimate victory of her professed candidate.

[Regarding above photos: Fey, of course, is on left, Morgan, on right. To see videos, click links below.]

via videosift.com

Saturday Night Dead: Should the FCC Investigate TV's Dullest Comedy Show?

Here they go again, beating up on Barack Obama to an extent that is so egregious it ought to invite federal examination.

Saturday Night Live, the show that is misnamed because it's sometimes so dull that it's deadly, and because it's so often not even live, but a re-run, has been shamelessly plugging Hillary Clinton in the still hot and heavy contest between her and Obama.

Just this past Saturday they again showed a stupid and stumbling Barack trying to answer a 3 a.m. call as he more or less humbly took advice from the powder-faced Hillary [done by Amy Poehler, photo, left].

As we all know, these are essentially free and very valuable ads; and the best of these were handed out by SNL to the Clinton campaign back when it ran the mock piece of TV journalists fawning and falling all over Barack. That skit played well into the argument  Clinton was making at the time, that the media was on the side of her opponent.

Clinton whined endlessly, as she effectively re-ran that skit over and again.

Now comes the ABC (Abominably Bad Correspondents) Debate from last week, the one that has caused fair-minded journalists to complain about the remarkably trite and unfair questions posed by ABC's Charles Gibson and (former Clinton administration flak) George Stephanapoulos, and how does SNL deal with it?

It ignored it, as it ignored Hillary Clinton's almost unbelievably arrogant assertions that Obama's people have been whining about the debate. (Or it was ignored in the first 45 minutes or so that I watched. I fell asleep.)

The low-class boldness of it all is astounding.

And so, by the way, regarding this free advertising that Clinton has been receiving, will it (and any other violations having to do with use of the commercial airways for blatant political purposes) be investigated by the feds?

Was the ABC Debate the Death Knell of American Journalism?

The evidence has been building for quite some time that journalism, as this country has known it for half a century, has been marching feebly toward the Garden of Gethsemane.

For years now, major newspapers have been closing bureaus, trimming editorial staffs to the bone and otherwise turning the once proud craft of news gathering into a happy hunt for the easiest-to-shoot prey.

But Wednesday night's performance by Charlie Gibson [photo, right] and George Stephanopoulos [photo left] was like the final walk to the cross; and agony-soaked screams of many heart-broken journalists could be heard in the background.

ABC, the sponsor of that debate between between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, became the XYZ of American journalism.

Over the past 24 hours, the chorus of embarrassment and outrage has been building, with many in the media declaring themselves to be shamed at the pandering, cheap, gotcha questions hurled at the candidates, especially Barack Obama, by questioners Gibson and Stephanopoulos.

Adding to the outrage was the fact that Stephanopoulos was a communications director for ex President Bill Clinton, and thus owes his rise to fame to the husband of the candidate he is supposed to be covering with a veneer of impartiality.

Under the rules of journalism as it was practiced in the days when the "appearance of objectivity" was taken seriously, Stephanopoulos would have either graciously recused himself from this assignment, or would have been pulled from it by a higher-up.

But those days are gone, and so is American journalism as we once knew it.

Writing for Editor and Publisher, Greg Mitchell put it this way:

"In perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years, ABC News hosts Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous focused mainly on trivial issues as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama faced off in Philadelphia."

What made the performance especially pitiful was that the ABC duo seemed intent on sticking it to Obama, hitting him with the hardest, most embarrassing questions (particularly the effort to link him to  leftist radical bombers).

This is something (one would think) that Stephanopoulos in particular would have avoided if he had any interest in trying to invite a bit of journalistic credibility.

It has to be said also that the coverage of the debate by the Times seemed also slanted toward Clinton.

One of the most striking moments of the debate - when Clinton tried to explain how, a number of times, she had spoken of dodging sniper fire on a trip to Bosnia, when in fact there was footage showing her walking calmly from the aircraft to her destination - was strangely downplayed in the main Times article.

The reporters who wrote the main Times article on the debate, Adam Nagourney and Jeff Zeleny, chose to focus instead on Obama's string of uncomfortable moments. (read)