Classical Values :: MBAPBSALLAMERICANGOP Archives

Friday, September 28, 2007

As heard on XM Radio!

I don't know how many readers listen to XM Radio, but last night I was a guest on XM's POTUS '08 radio show. Hosts Tim Farley and Rebecca Roberts couldn't have been nicer (despite my limited radio experience), and I chatted about blogging, the debate, and the candidates.

What's incredibly cool about this is that POTUS '08 is also the home of the new Pajamas Media Radio Show. The show's producer Cameron Gray happens to be an old friend, and it was great to see him again and catch up. Cameron expressed interest in meeting La Shawn Barber (who was featured on CNN the other day) so they could interview her, and I couldn't have been more delighted to make the introduction.

I only wish I could have heard their entire show, but I was buried in my laptop, which wasn't configured to stream XM radio.

But I'm planning to be a regular listener.

Bear in mind that you don't need to run out and buy satellite equipment in order to listen to XM Radio; it is Internet-streamable, and they're running a free trial offer right now.

MORE: Via Media Bloggers Association's Robert Cox, a photo of live radio!

AND MORE: Yow! Glenn Reynolds links this post and says I should have my own show??? (But I always thought I had a voice made for blogging!)

posted by Eric at 11:53 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

The most interesting part of the debate
(And how it might have been improved....)

My liveblogging skills are not what they should be, and that is mainly because my typing skills are not what they should be.

And now for my "blame a bad childhood" defense: I didn't grow up at a keyboard the way a lot of younger people have, and when I was in high school, essays were hand-written save the occasional "project" which required typing -- a special skill often farmed out to others for money. Even as late as 1982 when I took the California bar exam, essays had to be written out by hand, and there were no computer terminals to use. Although there was a "typing room" for old-fashioned typewriters, a minority of test-takers used it. In high school (which is when one normally learns these things) computers were a big deal, reserved for the super nerds only. Remember, this was the late 60s and early 70s; my school had what was called a "computer room" but that wasn't a computer in the modern sense, and I'm not even sure it was a true computer, because in order to use it you had to not only know what you were doing, but reserve "computer time" -- which meant that it called the "real computer" located somewhere else. This was a big deal, and if you didn't know what you were doing, they wouldn't let you use it. I actually did look at it once, it had a telephone dial, and spat out computer tape which looked like a long strip with lots of tiny nonsensical holes. Hardly the sort of thing which would have inspired typing skills. I never learned to type, and when I worked as a lawyer, I had a secretary. I didn't start going online until 1994, and I found myself hunting and pecking, and over the years I got faster at it until I don't need to look at the keys all that much.

I'm therefore self taught, but typing is a second language, and I'm slow. Last night, I was barely able to keep pace with the debate's questions and answers, and I kept noticing and impulsively correcting errors, which gave me no time to think or evaluate. It felt as if I was a scribe, and a semi-literate one at that.

For me the most interesting part of the debate was not the debate at all -- but the opportunity to interact with other bloggers and see old friends.

I met up with a number of old friends. Here I am with La Shawn Barber:

And here are the people most responsible for my being there last night -- Newsbusters' founder Matthew Sheffield and Media Bloggers Association's Robert Cox:

And here's the great blogger and video producer extraordinaire Ian Schwartz with Matthew Sheffield:

OK, now for what would have been a very exciting topic for the debate.

One of the questions (asked by PBS's Ray Suarez) concerned the death penalty.

Suarez: Congressman Paul, support has gradually been slipping for the death penalty among all Americans. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life reports a large minority of whites still support capital punishment, while Blacks and Latinos do not.

Now, I know this is mostly a state function, but the president does appoint appellate judges, and of course, the highest appellate judges in the land, the Supreme Court justices, who often review death penalty cases.

Do you think the death penalty is carried out justly in the United States? And do you want to see it continued during your presidency?

This would have been an excellent opportunity to point out something of which only a few bloggers are aware -- that debate moderator Tavis Smiley had called George W. Bush a "serial killer" for carrying out the death penalty as Texas Governor.

Ian Schwartz posted about it, and Newsbusters links the original Smiley remark, made on the Geraldo Rivera show on October 24, 2000:

Geraldo Rivera found someone more extreme than himself, a star of another cable network's evening interview show, who told Rivera: "As far as I'm concerned, Bush in Texas is nothing more than a serial killer."

That charge came from Tavis Smiley, host of BET Tonight on the Black Entertainment Television channel. MRC analyst Geoffrey Dickens noticed how Smiley opined during the October 24 Rivera Live on CNBC:

"There are, there are some issues on which if you are a voter of color, certainly if you are an African-American, you have a hard time choosing. For example, both of these guys support the death penalty. As far as I'm concerned, Bush in Texas is nothing more than a serial killer. But we, but we cannot expect that much more out of, out of Gore, because this guy supports the death penalty as well."

What a conundrum.

In a later post, Tim Graham notices that this extreme show of bias is being completely ignored by people who ought to know better, like Newt Gingrich:

Does Gingrich think that's "responsible" commentary?

I'm not expecting any more of an answer from Newt than Matt Sheffield got from Smiley last night.

Maybe it's because I'm a pit bull owner, but I admire spunk, and I really enjoyed watching Matt elbow his way past the hordes of fawning reporters to get right up to Tavis Smiley and ask him about the serial killer remark. Smiley's response was pure politics, and zero journalism:

"I never said that."

Not to be so easily outdone, Matt scurried back to his laptop, and came running back with the details of the quote.

Once again, Smiley the pure:

"I don't remember saying that."

Moments later, the questions were over! Smiley's security assistant put one arm behind his back, opened the door and Smiley was hustled out of there the way I've seen many a politician being hustled out by his "handlers."

I'm sure that Smiley thinks no one will ever notice, but I did. A lowly blogger (or, a "citizen journalist" as the big guys sometimes grudgingly allow) dared to ask the reigning media figure of the evening about what he said which goes to the heart of his political bias (and which was clearly relevant to an important question in the debate), and he first issued a flat out denial, then backtracked to not remembering, and then he was out of there.

A seemingly insignificant matter? I don't think so. I see it as a classic example of what blogging is all about. Tavis Smiley would have everyone believe that he is the guy who talks truth to power, yet here he can't even acknowledge the truth of what came out of his own very powerful mouth.

Who are the politicians? Who are the journalists? Here a guy who presents himself as a "man of the people" style journalist behaved as a classic prevaricating politician, and the real journalist was Matt Sheffield.

Once again, I think it was very disappointing that the leading GOP candidates failed to show up. While it's not much of an excuse, the fact is that they did behave in the way politicians often behave.

So what is Tavis Smiley's excuse? Should I just consider him another politician? He certainly walked, talked, and acted like one. (Sure, he's not elected but he behaves as if he's a member of the ruling class.)

It must be galling for someone like that to have real journalism appear -- especially when it takes the form of a blogger asking uncomfortable questions.

UPDATE: Via Matt Sheffield, Ian Schwartz got the video of Smiley being asked the question by Matt, and his haughty reply -- the exact words of which are quite specific:

"I have never called President Bush a serial killer," Smiley asserted. "I don't know what you're talking about."

Here it is:

Adds Matt,

When confronted with an exact citation (October 24, 2000 on CNBC's "Rivera Live," Smiley became far less definitive. "I don't ever remember saying that," he said. Smiley left immediately thereafter.

And also via Matt, the video of Smiley's orginal remarks.

Calling a future president a "serial killer" on national television shortly before an election is not the sort of thing most people would forget saying.

(Not that I much blame Tavis Smiley for wanting to forget.....)

MORE: I'm glad Ian Schwartz got this on video, because now that I've watched it, I think Smiley is the kind of guy who might actually try to deny that he ever gave the above answer.

And now there's no denying the denial!

My thanks to Ian Schwartz and Matt Sheffield for the links!

posted by Eric at 10:50 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Thursday, September 27, 2007

Waiting for the debate

Well, here I am at Morgan State University, more than four hours before the start of tonight's Republican debate, but I thought I'd get set up and test this thing.

There's almost no one here to block my view of the live feed screen. Here's how it looks:

Nothing to report at all, and there won't be for quite a while.

(Now that I've said that, maybe there wlll...)

MORE: This and the rest of the posts I'm writing tonight will automatically be fed to the Media Bloggers Association Republican Presidential Forum.

Here's a view from above:

posted by Eric at 04:23 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Freddy Krueger factor and X rated candidates

Writing in today's Philadelphia Inquirer, Tavis Smiley (host of tonight's Republican debate) likens the no-show candidates to cautious children who are told never to talk to strangers:

We all remember the words of parents or guardians who warned us never to talk to strangers. While that might be an important warning for small children who face danger and harm from lurking criminals, I'm not sure it's the best tactic for the people who want to lead the country.

Unfortunately, some members of the GOP leadership are still heeding that advice. In fact, several of the leading Republican presidential contenders (all white males) have strategically avoided talking to some of the nation's leading groups of color. Not the NAACP, not the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO), not Univision, and not any major groups representing Asians or American Indians.

I agree it's not a good tactic. Parenthetically (at least, it's irrelevant to tonight's debate), this explains something that has long bothered me: kids who refuse to speak and who clam up when asked simple questions like "Where's Main Street?" It's as if their parents have taught them that every adult is a potential Freddy Krueger.

I think the implicit assumption is being made that the GOP considers minorities to be potential Freddy Kruegers. While I see the point (as I said yesterday I think the candidates should all attend), an argument can also be made that the Republican right wing has been demonized so consistently as a group of evil white men that they, too, might be seen as potential Freddy Kruegers.

Tavis Smiley doesn't buy the "schedule conflict" excuse, and neither do I:

I'm sure the candidates all have pretty grueling schedules, and there have been quite a few public debates already - but isn't that part of the process of earning America's vote? In the most multicultural, most multiracial, most multiethnic America ever, should the president of the United States be elected without addressing issues of concern to communities of color - soon to make up the majority of Americans? I think not.

So what's to be gained by talking to strangers - especially if you're running for the highest office in the land? For starters, when you meet someone face to face, you're no longer a stranger. You have a chance to learn more about your common ground rather than your differences, a chance to chip away at what separates you. No, you can't achieve all that in one meeting - but no meeting doesn't cover much ground either.

To which I'd add that even if the audience is hostile, there's really not much of a downside. Assume that the Republicans face hostile questions and get booed for their answers. Some of the people sitting there will have more respect for them, whether they dare to display it or not. It takes a little spine to face a hostile crowd, though. And even more to do it and not get ruffled. But there's no indication at all that the crowd or host Tavis Smiley will be hostile. Obviously, he's not voting Republican, so there's probably a built-in political bias. But can't that be said of most mainstream media moderators?

According to the web site linked by Tavis Smiley, here's what the lineup looks like right now: