So It Goes

Listening to the World

THE PUBLIC DIPLOMACY BLOG, produced by the University of Southern California's Center on Public Diplomacy, published a posting the other day about how the cable system of one U.S. city -- Burlington, Vermont -- recently decided to reinstate its airing of the Al-Jazeera English channel.

According to the post's reporting by Shawn Powers, a research associate at the Center for Public Diplomacy, Burlington Telecom (BT), the local cable provider, had pulled Al-Jazeera English from its offerings "in response to what [the general manager of BT] described as 'dozens' of complaints from angry subscribers. Because the broadcaster is publicly owned and financed, Mayor Bob Kiss intervened and called for a broader public discussion regarding the merits of removing Al-Jazeera English from BT."

Subsequently, "two separate forums were organized where citizens and advocacy groups could argue their case for or against keeping Al-Jazeera English on the air," Powers writes. They even invited Al-Jazeera English Managing Director, Tony Burman, and the network's leading American-based correspondent, Josh Rushing, to take questions from Burlington residents.

The result: AJE is back on BT, making it one of only four outlets in the U.S. where one can view the network: Buckeye Cable in Toledo, Ohio; in the Pentagon; and via the Internet on Youtube and JumpTV.

Considering there were 6,635 local cable TV systems in the U.S. in 2007, according to the  National Cable and Telecommunications Association, for practical purposes, almost none have taken the step to adopt AJE as one of its offerings to viewers.

Some systems might rationalize that they don't have the space on their chock-full channels for yet another. But it's hard to understand why, if they can make room for some of the schlocky programming you see as you flip through the 100+ channels most local cable system provide, that they can't find space for something like AJE.

The fact is, it would not exactly be a popular move for a cable system to air a channel that has been branded in this country and others as anti-Western, anti-American, anti-Israel, anti-Semitic and pro al-Qaeda. Closer observers than I of the Al-Jazeera, the Arabic-language precursor to AJE, have raised such concerns, and I'm not in a position to argue with them, as I don't understand Arabic. I know, too.  I have seen enough clips that reinforce similar concerns. Also, many Arab countries have found Al-Jazeera, the Arabic version, to be quite  maddening, too. As a media observer I know from one Arab country described to me, it's sort of like the Fox News Channel of the Middle East. Sensational and sometimes loose with the facts. Okay.

But AJE, which is operated independently from the Arabic channel, is different, at least it is supposed to be. It is populated quite heavily by accomplished Western journalists from outlets such as the BBC and from American and Canadian TV and radio stations and networks. In fact, I know two of them quite well and have met several others. We're talking top-quality journalists, who are bringing Western standards of journalism to the enterprise.

That's not to say that there might not be items on the network that one might find provocative or at odds with our own points of view. I've seen some clips that, for my tastes, seemed to focus disproportionately on images of Israeli soldiers battling with rock-throwing Palestinian kids and young men. They made me wince. And I was troubled when I heard that Dave Marash, the channel's founding North American anchor and one of the most accomplished TV journalists in the land (formerly he was a longtime and brilliant correspondent for ABC's "Nightline"), left AJE this past spring, citing concerns about "an anti-American sensibility creeping into the coverage," as the New York Times paraphrased Marash. “To put it bluntly," Marash told the Times, "the channel that’s on now — while excellent, and I plan to be a lifetime viewer — is not the channel that I signed up to do.” That's a bit cryptic; it could be that he didn't get the support he needed to be anchor, not that he has profound problems with the content.

But, in fairness, I can't evaluate the network completely just yet. I've probably seen more of AJE than most Americans, but I have only seen some small snippets of AJE via the Internet. So I can't say with good authority what's going on there or evaluate what Marash says or whether what I saw is representative. It would not surprise me if much of the coverage is highly critical of the U.S. and Israel, though. So, too, are a lot of established news outlets, such as the BBC, which runs on many cable TV systems and public radio stations across the U.S.

I think, however, that U.S. audiences are missing something -- unlike viewers in most parts of Europe, where AJE runs, and even in Israel, where Powers says Al-Jazeera English is so popular "that it recently replaced the BBC World and CNN International on the two top Israeli cable systems."

What they're getting is a different perspective from parts of the world and of parts of the world than nearly all U.S. media provide. AJE broadcasts in four different day parts from four regional hubs: Doha, Qatar (the mother ship), which covers the Middle East and Africa; Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, which is responsible for all of Asia; London, which covers Europe; and Washington, D.C., whose territory is all of the Western Hemisphere (not just the U.S.).

When is the last time we saw U.S. networks provide this broad a range of perspectives (yes, I assume there is a point of view or at least a distinct vantage point, even in the straight news pieces, just as there is in U.S. media) and of locales around the world? Not for a long time, if ever -- though I make an exception for National Public Radio, which is has actually expanded its reach around the globe, as other U.S. media have retrenched internationally.

I have a lot of respect for U.S. broadcasters and lot of trouble with many of them, too (that's for another day). But, let's face it, most of what they focus on is very U.S.-centric and one most days leaves out almost all of the rest of the world. They're just giving the famously parochial audiences what they want (though that's debatable -- also for another day). And they all tend to cover the same two or three big stories about the latest political issues and celebrity scandals. It just seems like one big echo chamber sometimes.

I think it would be refreshing to hear what broadcasters in Kuala Lampur or Doha are saying about the world, even if some of what I hear from them makes me a bit uneasy. Even U.K. media, which is closest to what we have here (for better and worse), is a nice break from typical American fare. Isn't that difference worth something to us, particularly if we, America, fancy ourselves the leaders of the world?

And, if we are truly trying to understand what the rest of the world thinks of us and how we can regain our favorable stranding abroad, can we afford not to listen to what others are saying and doing elsewhere, even if we don't like what we hear from time to time?

One of the complaints many around the world have of Americans is that we don't seem to care about the rest of world or bother to listen to their points of view. Isn't it worth something to us to show that America is capable of listening to the rest of world -- and truly cares what others have to say?

Jeff

Obama: The Digital Campaign Pioneer

A PIECE IN THE NEW YORK TIMES a few days ago pointed out what others have observed recently: that the Obama campaign has used digital (that is internet, etc.) strategies more skillfully than any of the other campaigns. I'm not one to make such pronouncements, but it's probably safe to say that political campaigns will never be the same again. Or will they?

There's little doubt that the campaign has mobilized followers in ways and in numbers that scarcely any movement or political campaign has before. Those huge crowds of tens of thousands of people who attended Obama rallies late in the primary season and the many who organized their own personal outreaches on his behalf didn't just magically show up. It was all part of a process that made it easy for people who resonated to Obama's message and persona to join the bandwagon. Through social networking tools like Facebook and through Obama's official campaign site, there were many ways that people could connect and feel like they were contributing.

That's very empowering,and it clearly made it possible for many supporters to move from passive support online to real-life action on the hustings.

Didn't all of the campaigns do this? Apparently not. The Times article cited Yochai Benkler, author of “The Wealth of Networks,” an influential book about online collaboration, saying that he "points out a crucial difference between Mr. Obama’s approach to attracting supporters and that of his chief rivals. 'On the McCain and Clinton Web sites, there is a transactional screen,' Mr. Benkler said. 'It is just about the money. Donate, then we can build the relationship. In Obama’s it’s inverted: build the relationship and then donate.'”

Shouldn't every campaign operate like this from now on? Yes, and, well, maybe. A few work colleagues of mine, some of whom actual implement such virtual social networking strategies for our clients, and I sat around yesterday talking about this phenomenon. We agreed on a couple of caveats for any politicians to be cautious of should they decided to campaign as Obama did.

First, a social networking strategy such as Obama's requires the campaign to give a lot of control over the messages and directions of the campaign. Sure, all of the online supporters are given talking points and careful directions about how to behave and proceed in their personal activities. But, for the most part, they were on their own.

That sort of structure scares a lot of campaigns, as you never know if one of your far-flung supporters will say or do something that will embarrass the campaign and the candidate. Though, as my colleague Ben Clark, who has run digital operations for campaigns in the past, pointed out, there seems to be more acknowledgment today that the candidate cannot be held responsible for bad behavior of its distant supporters. That wasn't so true a few years ago, Clark said, when opponents of his boss, Howard Dean, tried to nail him for nasty things a Dean supporter wrote on a chat board someplace.

I hope Ben is right about that. I hold my breath though; desperate political opponents may try anything to tar each other with unfair allegations. And there are people out there who will buy. 

Ceding control is risky, too, because if a candidate disappoints in some way, angry followers can turn on him in a second and in force. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Caveat number two for any candidate who wishes to use digital tools to campaign is this: there's no substitute for a good product. The tools themselves did not win the campaign (so far) for Obama. They were just a medium through which excited followers could express their support. Let's face it, Obama may be one of the best campaigners in a generation (which is saying a lot, as I thought that of Bill Clinton). People want to be a part of his ascension. They are swept away by his spellbinding speeches and star quality.

As a public relations practitioner, I have always laughed when people use the word "spin" to describe what we do. Yes, we can accentuate the positive and try to frame discussions in certain ways. But, at bottom, you can't spin away the truth (without lying, which is not part of the effective p.r. toolbox, as surprising as that may sound to some). When I first started working for a p.r. firm, a friend said of my newly adopted field: "Oh those are the people who make shit taste like ice cream." Well, guess what, no amount of "spin" can make shit taste list ice cream.

Third, as Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, the namesake of the DailyKos political blog, said in the Times article, “The Obama campaign is still very much a top-bottom operation. They’ve made it very easy for people to hop on the bandwagon, but those in the back of that wagon still get no say in where the campaign is going.”
One has to wonder if some disillusioned supporters in the back of wagon get frustrated somewhere down the road (maybe after Obama becomes President) that their views are not being taken into account. That the campaign was coveting their bodies only, not their minds. I suspect that most understand that this is just not reasonable, that millions of followers cannot expect to have that kind of input. But what if some walk away feeling stymied, used?

All those caveats aside, it will be fun to watch how Obama uses these new tools of digital communications, taking the political process to a whole new place.

Jeff

'Just produce better papers.... Stop having people write articles to win Pulitzer Prizes.'

YESTERDAY, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL PUBLISHED an interview with Rupert Murdoch, in which he opined about the business of the media in the age of digital communications.

While he was not bullish on the future of newspapers, the chairman and chief executive of News Corp., obviously values them enough that his company recently purchased Dow Jones, which owns the Journal. But when he was asked near the end of the interview whether there are any solutions to the current demise of American newspapers, Murdoch had this to say:

“Yeah, just produce better papers, papers that people want to read. Stop having people write articles to win Pulitzer Prizes. Give people what they want to read and make it interesting.”

In a way, it’s a rather startling statement from someone who has made his fortune selling newspapers, especially his latest acquisition – the Wall Street Journal – which has made its reputation on the sort of in-depth, thoughtful journalism that gets the attention of Pulitzer committees. It’s all the more striking to see these remarks recorded in black and white in the Journal itself. (The Journal staff must have groaned when they read that one.)

But in another way, isn’t this what we would expect? I don’t mean that in a pejorative or smarmy way. A publisher’s No. 1 job is, of course, to sell newspapers, keeping the business afloat and profitable. If in-depth thoughtful, journalism is not what’s “interesting” and therefore inhibits the sales of papers, what’s a publisher to do?

In most cases, the only thing to do an environment where even the most respected newspapers in the country are hemorrhaging money is to cut staff and, in some cases, cut substance and excellence along with it. I remember a few years ago, for example, that the L.A. Times laid off (or was it bought out?) dozens of journalists only days after it hauled in something like five Pulitzers. It’s still a substantive paper today, to be sure, but something is surely lost when fewer, in many cases less experienced people are putting out the paper than those before them.

Maybe Murdoch simply deserves credit for stating the obvious: that lots of media – print and broadcast alike – have apparently decided to feature more sensational, celebrity-centric and “softer” news than hard-hitting, diligently reported coverage about the big issues of our communities, nation and world. What's more, one can argue that most Americans have become more apathetic about serious public interest issues and that modern media are just following them, giving the people what they want. The media are only dumbing down to stay at the level of the people, they say, not the other way around. I don’t buy that, but two people can argue that one all day and night.

No, nothing new here. Still, to say it out loud, as Murdoch did, and with no apparent self-consciousness that he is dismissing an essential element of our nation’s civil society is rather breathtaking (not to get on my high horse, or anything).

And if that’s Murdoch’s – and others publishers’ – solution to stopping what appears to be an inexorable decline of American journalism, we’re in more trouble than I thought we were.

I have a solution.

I don’t think that making a profit is entirely the enemy of good journalism. (Bad journalistic practices, for one, are an enemy of good journalism – a tautology). But statements like Murdoch’s suggest that it’s a big factor. So why not create media organizations that take the need for profits out of the equation?

The fact is, we have examples of such media organizations. Prime among them: National Public Radio, which generates stunningly good journalism every day. (Note: NPR used to be a client of mine, but I’ve been a fan of it since I started listening in the 1970s.) And, by the way, NPR is flourishing – an ever-growing audience has allowed it to expand bureaus around the world and deepen its roster of reporters on a variety of important topics – at the very time when other (mostly for-profit) news media are retrenching. Who says that good journalism is bad for business?

And there is the BBC, which, like NPR, is publicly funded, yet operated independent of the British government.

Maybe we need to find ways of setting up more (well-funded) non-profit, and perhaps even publicly funded institutions that enable good journalism to do what it should do: hold a mirror up to society, expand our horizons, educate, and, yes, even entertain.

I say this recognizing that there is close to no chance of achieving such a vision, at least not anytime soon. First of all, it’s hard to imagine where the money for such enterprises would come from, as neither Congress nor the giving public seems to be in much a mood to cough it up.

Second, any proposal of this sort will certainly meet with profound suspicion from not only the right, which has long been hostile to public broadcast for it’s alleged “liberal bias”, but possibly also the left. They may assume these endeavors will be ideologically driven in one direction or another.

Admittedly, it’s a fantasy. But reality is looking like a much less attractive alternative.

Jeff

Time for Straight Talk About Fox News

In an article this morning about Hillary Clinton's appearance on Fox News's "The O'Reilly Factor, the Washington Post referred to Fox as "a television network that many liberals say is biased against them."

Now, I understand that a straight news article such as this one has to be careful not to present opinion as fact. But, come on, is there really any doubt that Fox News is biased against liberals? Why can’t a straight news story state this as a fact?

Beating up on liberals is the Fox brand, the keystone of its success, a great source of its institutional pride, right? I know, I know, Fox News coyly claims to be the anti-bias network, remedying the alleged liberal bias of the rest of the news media. That’s the official line.

But don't most people, especially its loyal viewers and defenders, pretty much acknowledge that much of what Fox does (and generates ratings specifically for this reason) is trash so-called liberals?

If the demographics of its audiences are any proxy for its brand, then the Washington Post shouldn’t feel compelled to say merely that “liberals say.” According to a survey by the Pew Center for People in the Press, "[W]hile roughly the same proportion of Republicans and Democrats view Fox News as credible, Fox ranks as the most trusted news source among Republicans but is among the least trusted by Democrats." (That survey admittedly came out four years ago. But, while things can certainly change in four years, I think we can all stipulate that Fox has, if anything, intensified that profile.)

And why would a Republican president and his administration grant so many interviews to Fox if they didn’t think they’d be getting sympathetic treatment?

Here I go again, as Ronald Reagan might say, mouthing the false assumptions of the haughty liberal class. Don’t I see that Fox has a few liberal commentators, and that it committed to "fair and balanced” coverage? Don’t I see that, shucks, the network is just trying to level the playing field for the good of the nation, the regular folks? That's how one defends deception, by accusing its accusers of deception. Hit them, then complain about getting hit.

I say all this not as a liberal, by the way, though I suspect that by most definitions I am, on most issues, "liberal." (I'm not crazy about such labels, which is another thing that bugs me about Fox.) I say it because Fox's positioning seems so deliberately misleading.

The truth is, I've got nothing against "conservative" news media, even if they sometimes make my blood boil and if on occasion I surprise myself and actually agree with what they say. If Fox News would just come out and say, “Hey, we represent conservative values, and that’s the lens through which we’re calling what we see,” I would respect it for standing up for what it claims to be.

Indeed, there’s a great tradition in American journalism of newspapers that took on a particular ideology. But I should qualify that.

The era of Republican and Democratic newspapers  took place when there were many more papers and you could count on getting several different points of view, even in the same small or medium-sized town. Today, with the consolidation of media organizations into the control of all but a handful of owners and with the stark cutbacks taking place in newsrooms everywhere, I'm not sure how much our society can afford that sort of ideological journalism -- at least not among those news outlets that are meant to cut across many different communities and provide a common public square where all points of view and the best ideas converge.

(If I sound like a civics puritan, well, maybe I am. But don't worry, the realist in me knows that that the obligation of media organizations to make money too often compromises the public service function of journalism.)

But this “fair and balanced,” “We report. You decide.” business that Fox feeds us is maddening for its disingenuousness. It mocks the notion of thoughtful, constructive discourse. It's a classic example of doublespeak

And we all know it, don’t we? Isn’t it time the Washington Post (and other straight news gatherers) acknowledged that as objective fact and not as a something that some people, supposedly with their own ax to grind, allege?

Jeff

What If Ted Baxter Were President?

APPARENTLY, I MISSED THE BIG NEWS, when it came out nearly a month ago that CNN anchor Lou Dobbs had waved off suggestions that he might run for President. That's right, of the United States.

"I'm an advocacy journalist," Dobbs told the Detroit Free Press. "I cannot imagine being a candidate for any office and certainly not president. I would be the candidate of last resort."

Any real, self-effacing "journalist" would have merely laughed at the question. But Dobbs had to give some justification as to why he wouldn't run. "I'm an advocacy journalist!"

(Well, at least Dobbs is honest about one thing: there's nothing objective or dispassionate about his rants on CNN prime business show. It's advocacy! Now it can be told! One has to wonder how the Cable NEWS Network can continue to justify what Dobbs does as news. What it must certainly be is a ratings grabber, which is the only reason I can think CNN would continue to leave him on the air, particularly in such a prominent time slot.)

But the Free Press interview was then. This is now. Like a latter-day Ted Baxter, so giddy that anyone would even suggest he run for President, Dobbs recently told the Wall Street Journal, "I cannot say never."

Reminds me a bit of the time many years ago when Arnold Schwarzenegger, appearing on the David Letterman Show, said with a straight face, "I am the best thing that ever happened to the Kennedy family." Like Dobbs's statement to the Journal, that line got a huge laugh. But the difference is that Schwarzenegger was joking -- spoofing himself, really. 

Dobbs's sense of self-importance also rose its ugly head when he told the Free Press last month: "These two parties are great about discussing wedge issues like gun control, or abortion or gay marriage but have little to offer in dealing with issues and challenges that matter to most people like free trade or illegal immigration."

I'm not sure that free trade or illegal immigration are issues that matter most to most Americans, though they're important. There's no doubt, however, that Dobbs has done a brilliant job of whipping a committed core of Americans who do care about these issues into a frenzy. Many people give him a lot of credit -- along with many of the other disingenuous talk show shouters -- for derailing the comprehensive federal immigration reform bill that was up for consideration on Capitol Hill last year.

And, because the federal government is now doing nothing to address a policy matter that should have been fixed a long time ago, Dobbs and his posse are beating up on the feds and Congress for, what else, doing nothing. If this problem of immigration policy ever got fixed, what would Dobbs have to talk about? Oh, of course, the evils of outsourcing.

What he probably won't acknowledge is that most of those Americans who care about the immigration problem don't really agree with where him and other restrictionists on some core points. As the Pew Research Center found in a survey last June, while many Americans were ambivalent about whether the immigration reform bill was a good one (regardless of political affiliation, only about a third favored it and large percentages -- about one quarter to one third, depending upon affiliation -- were undecided), most favored "a way for people who are in this country illegally to gain legal citizenship under certain conditions," according to the Pew Research Center's findings.

"Overall, 63 percent of the public -- and nearly identical numbers of Republicans, Democrats and independents -- favor such an approach if illegal immigrants 'pass background checks, pay fines and have jobs,'" the Pew Research Center concluded.

What's more, according to the survey, "In general, the public is less supportive of providing 'amnesty' for illegal immigrants than it is of providing a way for illegal immigrants to gain citizenship. Even so, a majority of Americans (54 percent) say they favor amnesty for illegal immigrants already in the country if they pass background checks and meet other conditions."

If that's the case, then why are the presidential candidates -- especially the Republicans -- contorting themselves to avoid saying anything about immigration, let alone utter the word "amnesty?" Maybe they're worried that Dobbs if takes himself so seriously, he'll actually run for President.

Jeff

Enabling Bigotry

ON ONE LEVEL, I've never understood what everyone sees in Don Imus. His speech is often incoherent (how did a guy with such bad articulation make it in radio?). He just sort of introduces segments, tries to crack lame jokes, plays some a few songs now and then goes to commercials.

Still, he apparently has a huge following. I don't have any Arbitron ratings in front of me, but there's a reason that big-time politicians and other media notables flock to his show. He offers them a megaphone to a vast audience. And it's not just any audience but a Middle American demographic that most of those pols and gliterati can't reach through C-SPAN, NPR and PBS. That's power.

Which is obviously why so many rather shrugged off Imus's remarks last week about Rutgers University athletes being “nappy-headed ho’s.”

Al Sharpton, naturally shot back, and this time he was right, telling the Associated Press, “I accept his apology, just as I want his bosses to accept his resignation.”

Today, Imus's bosses -- NBC and CBS, both of which carry his show on TV and radio -- took a pretty big step in that direction and suspended him for two weeks. That's a strong and appropriate signal, I think. Probably long overdue, as it's not the first time Imus has spouted off with such racial invective.

If only regular Imus guests like Tom Oliphant of the Boston Globe and Evan Thomas of Newsweek saw it the same way. As David Carr reported in today's New York Times: “'Whatever problem there was, I think that he [Imus] took care of with his statement of Friday,' said Mr. Oliphant, one of the guests scheduled for this morning. 'It was classic Imus. He said he screwed up and he was sorry. Bang. Bang. It was very much to the point, and did not offer any excuses.'...'He should not have said what he said, obviously,' said Mr. Thomas of Newsweek. “I am going on the show, though. I think if I didn’t, it would be posturing. I have been going on the show for quite some time and he occasionally goes over the line.'”

Oh, don't mind him, they're saying, he's harmless. Besides, his audience is so huge, we can't afford to turn our backs on them. What would it mean for our careers? Why else would these guys, truly accomplished, thoughtful and respectful journalists, be wasting their time with an incoherent, racist guy?

It reminds me of all the equivocating we heard from equally thoughtful and respectful guys like them (such as Michael Kinsley, who I otherwise think the world of) when everyone suddenly began to realize that Patrick Buchanan's had, shall we say, some problems with Jews and non-Anglo immigrants and tried his best to fuel a nasty "culture war" along religious, racial and ethnic lines. He's a nice guy, a little feisty, maybe, but we need him for balance, said those who defended his prominent positions on CNN, not to mention his widely syndicated columns.

The truth was he was way beyond the pale of acceptable civil discourse, and the only reason he wasn't drummed out of his powerful media perches by voices of reason sooner was because he was good TV, good copy, and that means good ratings, good sales.

And that's how a guy of like Imus, who offers so little in the way of substance and even, forgive my snootiness, entertainment value, can be enabled for so long. People look the other way. They take what they can get from him and laugh off his "eccentricities." It's good for once that his bosses have not looked the other way, though I suspect they did it this time only because the pain was too severe.

I wonder if Evan Thomas thinks they're just "posturing."

Jeff

Good TV

WASHINGTON POST MEDIA WRITER Howard Kurtz properly wonders in print this morning whether it is  "time for the media to stop lavishing attention on Ann Coulter?"

Coulter, of course, has taken some heat recently for writing in her new book (about why liberals are "godless") these words about the widows of those killed in the 9/11 terrorist attacks: "These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation, and acted as if the terrorist attack only happened to them. . . . These broads are millionaires lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities. . . . I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much. . . . And by the way, how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy."

Coulter has sojourned unselfconsciously and frequently beyond the pale of decency long before this terrible episode. But, as in the past, it still doesn't matter that her opinions are so far out of the mainstream and polluting public discourse. In spite of the attacks on the 9/11 widows, she got to plug her book on a lot of highly rated TV shows, including the "Today Show." When Kurtz asked about this, the show's executive producer Jim Bell said, "She made news. I think our audience is smart enough to figure it out and reach their own opinions. It's not our job to censor people. Besides, she's good television." Oh, now you tell us.

At least Bell's being candid. Intellectual honesty and civility are no longer prerequisites to participation in American public discourse. In fact, they may actually disqualify you. You'd be better off if you were a photogenic blonde who talks trash.

Jeff