During my tenure at Teen Web Online (a site I created back in 1999 in the wake of the Columbine massacre to help my generation overcome various youth-specific issues), I was extremely supportive of RTV.  I remember being enthralled by the notion that an organization would extend itself to trust and place value in America’s young generation, while working feverishly to make our voices heard.

Ten years later, I, like many others, have begun to wonder just how willing the organization is to remain true to its self-professed “non-partisanship” and whether I mistook indoctrination for trust.  While I am certainly supportive of the notion that a healthy democracy is characterized by a variety of organizations that represent divergent viewpoints, I am increasingly perplexed by the existence of organizations that shield their true intent behind a “non-partisan” status. 

For years, RTV has been accused of touting less than conservative values, while overexerting itself in support of progressive perspectives.  Time after time the organization has denied what appear to be well-founded allegations. From the Iraq War to health care reform, RTV consistently sides with the Left.  Meanwhile, the realities behind the “non-partisan” centrism through which its actions do not appear to flow raise concern, as RTV regularly registers young voters, while assumingly not providing them with the well-rounded and balanced materials they need to make educated decisions.  All this in mind, let’s explore the evidence.

As most Americans know, the Iraq War began on March 20, 2003.  Three days later, RTV announced, through a press release, the availability of a new song from Lenny Kravitz entitled, “We Want Peace.”  The statement made it clear that the song was released in response to the commencement of the U.S.-led was; it said, “Rock the Vote and Lenny Kravitz today announced a new song by Kravitz called “We Want Peace,” which is available exclusively at Rock the Vote’s website…”  Here is a glimpse into some of the song’s “non-partisan” lyrics:

“Here is once again in our face
Why haven’t we learn from our past
We’re at the crossroads of our human race
Why are we kicking our own ass

We’re on the eve of destruction my friends
We are about to go to far
Politicians think that war is the way
But we know that love has the power”

While nobody in his or her right mind enjoys war, this RTV/Kravitz partnership was a transparent endorsement of anti-Iraq War sentiment.  Considering the sociopolitical landscape at the time, such a cohesive partnership for the release of a persuasive song showcases a hidden politically-driven agenda.  Of course, this is only one example, though powerful in its own right; there are plenty of others.

In 2004, Little Green Footballs reported on the California College Republicans’ (CCR) assertion that Rock the Vote and MTV were connected to the DNC.  According to the CCR:

“Through just cursory research, CCR discovered numerous connections between MTV, Rock the Vote, and the DNC. Judy McGrath, President of MTV, has maxed out her donation to the Kerry campaign. She donated at least $1,000 to the failed candidacy of the Gore campaign, and she’s donated over $5,000 to other extreme liberal PACs, such as America Coming Together.

Connect the dots to Rock the Vote: In February of 2001, Jeff Ayerhoff, Co-Founder of Rock the Vote, said: “There are 5-6 pillars sustaining the foundation of the Rock the Vote organization — and Judy McGrath is one of those pillars. Without Judy McGrath, there would be no Rock the Vote…” Incidentally, Rock the Vote, including its draft scare tactics and Democrat bias, has been given over $10,000,000 of free air time on the so-called independent-from-Rock the Vote MTV.”

Association is not always indicative of inherent bias.  However, if one researches the individuals who founded and who have led RTV in the past, the dots connect themselves.  Jehmu Greene, the president of RTV from 2000 through 2005, describes herself (via Twitter) as a “progressive activist.”  She served as Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) Director of Women’s Outreach, among other partisan roles. 

Furthermore, public records appear to indicate that Jeff Ayeroff, himself, has invested thousands of dollars in a number of Democratic campaigns and causes.  In a shear fit of pre-Obama irony, he was appointed “Czar” (I kid you not) of Warner Brothers Records Inc. in 2001.  According to a press release, upon launching Virgin Records America, Ayeroff “signed and oversaw” Lenny Kravitz’s career.  Intriguing, considering that Kravitz teamed up with RTV for the release of his anti-war tune.

And, one can easily find another tidbit of “non-partisan” connective tissue.  According to the Future Majority blog (circa Aug. 2008), “…Obama…hired former Rock the Vote political director Hans Reimer.”

…Yet another former RTVer working in the liberal stratosphere.  Where is Hans today, you ask?  In April 2009, a bio published on Hope Street Group states that he is an “advocacy campaign manager” at AARP, where I can only assume he has used his penchant for liberal policy to sway the health care debate in favor of his former employer, President Obama.  According to the same bio, Hans “…has a long track record as a campaigner to protect Social Security, including playing a key role in defeating the Bush Administration’s agenda for privatization of Social Security.”

Ironically, the National Review reported in 2005 that Hans, then in his role at RTV, wanted to see the organization become the “AARP of [America’s young] Generation.”  Scary thought, considering RTV’s alleged leftist activism. 

Concerning Hans’ strong views on Social Security, one wonders where the “non-partisan” Rock the Vote stood on the issue during his tenure there.  According to Ryan Lynch (via YP Nation),

“…[RTV] opposed personal accounts in Social Security even though the Center for American Progress found that 74 percent of our generation (which Rock the Vote supposedly represents) supported that reform measure.”

With Hans serving as political director at the time, it’s no coincidence that an organization that had already opposed the Iraq war and embraced progressive activists would also oppose Bush’s Social Security reforms.  But, the buck doesn’t stop there.

In Nov. 2008, three days after Barack Obama’s victory over Sen. John McCain, a Virginia Tech student wrote about a RTV election insert he found in the school’s newspaper, The Collegiate Times.  According to the student, “I found an insert titled, “You Decide. You Vote…Were I an uninformed new voter, I might have used this as my deciding point.”

The student went on to explain that the leaflet was “the most biased piece of literature [he] had ever encountered in [his] life,” going on to say that it read like an endorsement for Obama, with “…statements designed to make the Republican hopeful appear as callous and stingy as possible.”  He concluded his statement by letting readers know that he had voted for Obama, though he said that his decision was “…thankfully not as a result of [the] insert.”  Even an Obama “enthusiast” can see through the opaqueness.

Anyone else drunk yet on non-partisanship?  If not, consider the fact that RTV held a Jan. 2009 inaugural concert for Barack Obama called, “Hey, America Feels Kinda Cool Again.”  Lynch’s reaction is spot on: “I guess America wasn’t cool under Bush. But presumably that has nothing to do with partisanship.”

Most recently, the organization landed itself in hot water over its support for Democratically-led health care reform.  According to Noel Sheppard of NewsBusters.org, “The political advocacy group “Rock the Vote” has a new video out encouraging young people to abstain from having sex with folks opposed to healthcare reform.”

Even if this is, indeed, intended to be a joke (though Sheppard points out a pledge on the RTV site that corroborates the video’s intent to use sex to change personal policy opinion), the notion that RTV would support Obama’s health care legislation, rather than educate youth about the different reform options that are available, is yet another notch in the belt for an organization that appears to be a staunch Democratic ally.  I could go on for days…

Most truly non-partisan organizations work feverishly to ensure that all options are presented when discussing important policy issues, but not RTV.  Instead of educating young voters by presenting all potential options, the organization’s web site chooses to offer only one solution to America’s health care problems: the public option.  According to RTV’s web site,

“One way to make sure you can get covered is with a “public option”…you buy into this public plan just like you would buy insurance from an insurance company. Your doctor would send the bill to the government instead of you, just like the old folks get with Medicare.  The public option would operate alongside private insurance companies, making the market more competitive and driving quality up and costs down. As President Obama has said: “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.” Now, if you don’t have a doctor or a health care plan, the public option is there for you.)”

Unbelievable – so much so, that I decided to reach out to RTV executive director Heather Smith (seemingly the only person I researched who has a strict, non-partisan background).  She responded quickly and promptly to my questioning.  While we journalists are trained not to ask “yes” or “no” questions, I decided to ask one anyway.  In response to my inquiry as to whether RTV is non-partisan, Smith answered, “Yes.”  She was consistent in claiming that the organization has no partisan slant.  She said,

“We never have and never will endorse a party or candidate.  Our mission is to ensure that the needs and interests of young people are listened to by those we elect.  In an ideal world, candidates from both parties would be fighting over the votes of young people, presenting issues and proposed solutions in a relevant manner, and once elected, govern with the interests of young people top-of-mind.”

This statement appears to fly in the face of RTV’s past-decade of activity.  The latter part of this statement, in particular, struck me.  In its 20-year history, it seems impossible that the Democrats were and continue to be the only party “fighting over the votes of young people.”  Furthermore, endorsing and supporting are two very different ideals.  RTV has been backing policy ideas through the organization’s interactive programming, but one would assume that 501c3 tax laws forbid official endorsements. 

Based on the evidence and the people behind the veil, RTV has teetered to the left on major domestic and international issues.  It’s surprising that the organization has yet to find one Republican policy decision it likes, which leads me to believe there is an inherent one-sidedness that RTV refuses to accept – or divulge.  Perhaps RTV should go with the description furnished by Wikipedia: “Rock the Vote is a 501(c)(3) non-profit, left-wing organization founded in Los Angeles in 1990 by Jeff Ayeroff for the purposes of political advocacy,” as it seems more accurate. 

Young people deserve bias-free information that provides multiple perspectives to best assist them in making electoral choices.  RTV has a responsibility to be open, honest and transparent.  Pretending to provide balanced educational materials, while actually skewing information toward or against a partisan cause is wrong.  It’s time for RTV to quite coddling liberal ideas and to start truly showcasing what a non-partisan organization should look like. 

If RTV wants to continue liberal advocacy, that’s fine.  But, if the organization wants to call itself “non-partisan,” while taking strong standpoints on areas of immense importance and validating these ideals through the power of MTV, it should call itself what it is – progressive.  The past decade’s embrace of liberal inclinations is disingenuous and dangerous to our democracy.  Now is the time for RTV to rock some rationality.

Levi Johnston and reality star Kathy Griffin

Since the end of the 2008 campaign, some of the most glaring examples of the entertainment media’s obsession with anti-Palin coverage have centered on Levi Johnston, the father of Bristol Palin’s baby.  Levi, a guy who would be better suited to appear on Tool Academy than he would on any legitimate hard or entertainment news program, has been reaping the benefits from his connection to Palin.  In addition to his highly-publicized Playgirl shoot, Levi has been circulating entertainment shows in an attempt to pass off his melba-esque persona as something less than bland.

And, surprise!  Since breaking up with Bristol, Levi has had a more-than-warm welcome from entertainment media who are anxious to find dirt on the former Alaska governor.  While there is no contestant shortage for 2009’s “Most Idiotic Entertainment News Outlet” category, CBS’s The Insider takes the cake.  Described as a program that “…reports on the dynamic world of breaking celebrity news and offers viewers opposing views on everything …Hollywood!” The Insider touts coverage that is a half-step above highlighting a covert meeting between President Obama and friendly extraterrestrials. 

This begs the question: Since when is Sarah Palin “Hollywood?”  One could argue that it all started with Kathy Griffin’s antics. In what commenced as yet another plea for attention, Griffin brought Levi to The 2009 Teen Choice Awards.  Clearly, this was little more than a publicity stunt for Griffin, who would likely sell her left kidney if it yielded a decent photo-op.  However, in the grander scheme, this was a clear statement to young people: Go ahead and laugh at Sarah Palin.  Hollywood’s doing it, so you should too! 

For what other purposes would it be appropriate to elevate and promote Levi for all of young America to see if not to embarrass a Republican politician?  Of course, Griffin garnered the attention she wanted and Levi was portrayed as a bizarro teen heart throb of sorts.  You know you’re in Hollywood when…[insert moment of inhumanity and/or insanity].  The Huffington Post penned the play-by-play back in August:

“Dressed in a pinstripe suit and pink striped tie, the Alaskan teen and father of Sarah Palin’s grandson Tripp arrived hand-in-hand with Griffin, planted a kiss on her cheek for the cameras and did some solo posing as well.”

Gag me. 

Anyway, let’s move back to 2009 champion of idiocy: The Insider.  This fall, the show decided to reunite Levi and Griffin.  During what host Lara Spencer probably mistook as a very riveting and thought-provoking interview, she asked Levi fair-minded questions in the vein of, “Is Sarah Palin really Trig’s mother?” and “Why do you think Sarah Palin is afraid of you?”  Following the liberally-driven wingnuttery that ensued during the 2008 presidential campaign, the question about Trig’s birth is breathtakingly cruel and sense-retardant.  Spencer’s questioning screamed ratings desperation and showed just how far entertainment media will go to make Palin look idiotic while turning a profit. 

Now, let’s jump to Andrew Sullivan’s recent appearance on Joy Behar’s HLN show.  According to Sullivan,

“I don`t think [Palin] has much relationship with reality…And I think at some point, if journalists do their job and if brave people stand up and tell the truth, we will find out who Sarah Palin really is. And we currently don`t know.”

These would be the same journalists who did such an excellent job researching the man who currently leads the free world.  Insane.  And here, too, the story about Trig’s birth is brought into question.  Detached from reality?  Maybe Sullivan should explore the mental capacity of his interviewer.  After all, who can ignore Behar’s detached-from-reality commentary about people who favor Sarah Palin:

“Well her people are evil and nasty. They are not nice people. They send me nasty mail and everybody else who talks about it. Anything negative about Sarah Palin, they get hit with this stuff. You know.”

Ironic that Behar wouldn’t consider her own nastiness as a potential catalyst for negative feedback. Behar has openly called Palin stupid, among other nasally-delivered complements.  And the list goes on and on.  The entertainment media (which, by my calculation, includes the now theoretically deficient Andrew Sullivan) are intent on making Palin out to be: stupid, evil, incompetent, a mere “Barbie” and insolent, in no particular order.

Get over it, Hollywood.  Sarah Palin doesn’t share your values.  She’s pro-life, pro-capitalism and pro-rationality.  Rather than wasting all of your time lambasting her, promoting Levi and attempting to debunk her very existence, why not divert even a portion of your energy towards examining the man you’ve placed America’s very existence in the hands of.  We’ve all got personal dirt.  Since you’ll never let up, why not shovel a little less of Palin’s and a little more of Obama’s?

A little fair-mindedness is all we’re asking for.  Can you deliver?

If you’re thinking, “Threesome?! That’s news to me,” be sure to read John P. Hanlon’s article.” Hanlon explains the whole debacle in detail.  However, I’m here to delve further into the insanity surrounding CW’s latest scheme to nab viewer appreciation.

The only thing more grotesque than CW’s exploitation of a threesome for ratings is the media’s coverage of the menage a trois.  In a recent article, Michael Ausiello (Entertainment Weekly) was ecstatic over the impending sex scene – so excited that he taunted readers with his foreknowledge telling them, “Though my Gossip mole has asked that I not ID the threesome (on the grounds that it would ruin a major upcoming storyline, or some such nonsense), I can confirm that the kinky tryst will involve one of the following combos…”  Ausiello then proceeds to list possible character combos. 

Then – no joke – readers (many of whom were not at all phased by the show’s indecency) began commenting about who they thought would be involved!  Insanity.  Are these really the values our society has adopted as “the norm”?  In 2006, alone, teen pregnancy increased significantly in 26 states.  Liberals would blame this on “abstinence-only education,” while I’d blame a sizable portion of it on a society that continues to exploit sex for financial gain.  Can we really expect people, young and old alike, to respect or even understand sex when threesomes and other unrealistic sexual messaging invade our lives at every corner?  Let’s get real. 

In the GG case, some media have chosen to downplay the threesome. E! Online’s Joal Ryan had this to say:

“So, was that threesome good for GG? It wasn’t bad, especially considering the event was nothing more explicit than three people (Penn Badgley, Jessica Szhor and Disney grad Hilary Duff) not kissing at the same time.”

Not bad?  This dismissal is disturbing.  The intensity of the footage shouldn’t be the only issue of concern.  CW used a sexually-explicit concept to flavor advertising leading up to the Nov. 9 episode.  Plus, the menage a trois isn’t out of GG’s storyline.  If people were outraged by the Nov. 9 episode, E! Online reports even more nasty content is coming:

“The dirty deed goes down on this Monday’s episode, but will be recounted with flashbacks the following week, Nov. 16, where we will learn–and see–even more about it.”

So, the debauchery hasn’t ended and will continue on a subsequent episode.  Parent’s Television Council president Tim Winter had this to say in response to the Nov. 9 episode:

“Though there was no explicit sex scene on last night’s episode, the CW Network’s behavior was grossly irresponsible by adding a story line where a sexual threesome was to be celebrated as some sort of ‘rite of passage’ for teenagers.  The network inserted this story line into a program that they themselves deem to be appropriate for 14-year-old children based on its content rating,”

Many GG enthusiasts have cited the show’s older target demographic (18 to 34) to stake the claim that viewers are old enough to handle the subject matter.  Let’s be realistic.  Even if women comprise the core viewership, young girls are surely watching the show.  Back in September, a CW press release touted GG’s win in the 9 p.m. timeslot among women 12 to 34.  Yes, 9 p.m. – a time when one would assume that a sizable proportion of teenagers are channel surfing.

Furthermore, the median age of CW’s viewers is 33; GG’s average viewer age is 27.  While the mean age is relatively high, it still points to the fact that young people are tuning in.  Plus, this doesn’t take into consideration online viewership, which would likely skew younger.

Let’s remember, too, that this tactic was used for the sake of a potential ratings hike.  Last week, Brent Bozell wrote, “There is absolutely no barrier of sexual behavior that TV network executives aren’t willing to cross in a desperate gambit for ratings” and he couldn’t be more on target.  He’s right.  The entire premise of using a threesome to drive ratings came full circle when E! Online reported CW’s reward for exploiting sexual incongruence for the sake of the almighty dollar:

“The series was up 20 percent from last week: 2.4 million viewers versus 1.95 million, per Nielsen stats. The math worked out even better for the CW: It enjoyed its most-watched Monday of the season.”

So, in this case the ratings battle was somewhat won, but at what cost?  This stretches beyond the search for mere ratings hikes.  Bozell points to another factor driving CW’s insatiable lust for GG-centered controversy:

“But the “Gossip Girl” scandal isn’t just about winning the ratings battle. It’s about corporate executives who will try anything to get a rinky-dink network out of the basement, with absolutely no concern for the damage its tawdry story lines will do to the viewer who is 12. The show is rated TV-14, suggesting threesome plots are acceptable for high-schoolers, and that’s an insult by itself.”

And what a disappointment Hilary Duff is.  Joining the cast of one of television’s most trash-ridden shows appears to be a half-witted attempt to shed the “good girl” image she’s yielded over the years.  Unfortunately, as many – like Bozell – have highlighted, Duff is still a role-model to many young people.  It’s an unfortunate effect of Hollywood’s liberal lunacy that even the good girls turn bad – eventually.

The mainstream media did cover the controversy, with CNN holding a discussion of sorts.  However, the overall chatter has been confined mostly to sleazy entertainment blogs and outlets.  This issue should extend far beyond the vapid toilet reads.  Teen sex is a major problem that touches the lives of millions of Americans.  At what point to we stop and say, “Enough is enough?” CW, thanks for your classless moral “racketeering.”  Keep up the good work!

“By the People” is a praise initiative that doesn’t offer much beyond what politicos and Obama enthusiasts already know: Obama was a regular Joe who, through a series of (unfortunate for the American people) events, captured the presidency.

While Hollywood’s insane obsession with anything and anyone left of center is never a surprise, one should ardently question why HBO, after purchasing the film for seven figures, has chosen to ignore other intriguing political stories.  Why not balance the film with another special or documentary that explores the McCain-Palin campaign?  One could argue, as I’m sure HBO would, that the focus of the film is on to the winning candidate.  Fine.  Argue away, but anyone with a pulse knows we’d be hard pressed to see a similar accolade to a Republican victor.  Furthermore, Sarah Palin’s initial book sales prove that she’s a brand worth exploring.  So, why not go for it?

And then there’s the timing of the film’s release.  The network chose to air the documentary at a time when majorities oppose various elements of the president’s agenda and smack dab in the middle of some highly-contested state and local races.  Add the film’s timing to some of the more bizarre, behind-the-scenes connections and you can begin to triangulate relationships and allegiances.

First, let’s consider the film’s producer – famed actor Edward Norton.  While one should never be surprised by a Hollywood celebrity’s urge to support leftist inclinations, in this case there’s a twist.  To bring the film to fruition, Norton worked with Ari Emanuel, the brother of Barack Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel.  Last November, Gawker reported the following:

“… at one point it looked like some of film’s distribution proceeds might be headed back in the general direction of the Obama camp. As of eight months ago, Endeavor Agency’s Ari Emanuel was the agent for the film. Emanuel, of course, is the brother of Rahm Emanuel, just named Obama’s chief of staff. He was also an Obama fundraiser…”

So, Edward Norton shopped the documentary with Ari Emanuel, a man with a vested interest in Barack Obama’s campaign – and, a guy with key access to top government officials.  Unbelievable.  Perhaps most hilarious is Variety’s coverage from early 2008: “Norton said the motivation behind the film was not to glorify its subject.” Anyone out there actually believe that?  According to Rice, “When we shot the final scenes in the Oval Office, [Obama] he asked us, ‘What do you guys need?’  It was incredibly special. I got choked up.”

Is Rice sense-retardant?  She was creating a documentary that was more than favorable to the Obama camp.  Of course he was more than willing to assist!

As a professor, one of the main listening skills I work to instill in my students is the ability to determine what a speaker isn’t telling an audience.  Often times, some of the most intriguing information is embedded in omitted material.

At the beginning of the film, in footage circa 2006, Barack Obama is asked if he plans to run for the presidency.  In response, Obama says he is unsure and explains that he plans to look into how he would best serve the country.  Considering the foreknowledge that he might run, it was odd that the filmmakers chose to lead with this.  In fact, it was two years earlier, in 2004, when Obama said that he would not run in 2008, citing his inexperience.  Call it poor research on the filmmakers’ part or purposeful exclusion, but the words “Obama” and “American presidency” were uttered well before the 2006 midterm elections.

Here is Obama’s 2004 response to the question, “So, why have you ruled that out – running nationally?”:

“I am a believer in…knowing what you’re doing…when you apply for a job…”

“If I were to seriously consider running on a national ticket…I would essentially have to start now…before having served a day in the Senate. Now there might be some people who would have no problem doing that, but ah…I’m not one of them.”

We all know how good Obama is at keeping promises.

Now, let’s talk about the film’s contents.  Of particular interest and concern is the control Obama has over America’s young generation.  In the film, David Axlerod explained that one of Obama’s main motivations for running stemmed from his urge to show children that “anything is possible.”  In political terms that means, “We’ve found our voting bloc!”

When speaking about the Iowa caucus, Axlerod said, “These kids are going to win it for us…they think they’re changing the world…we need more of that.”  Robert Gibbs awkwardly intervened, saying, “The good news is, I think they are.”  The latter statement was an attempt to bridge the divide between Axlerod’s campaign analytics and the need for more audience-friendly interaction.  In the end, it’s evident that Obama and Co. were intent on exploiting young Americans, a tactic that worked wonderfully in their favor.

Race was another theme that appeared periodically throughout the film.  Interviews with citizens positioned Obama as the most unlikely of all candidates to win, with respondents stating that the nation wasn’t ready for an African-American president.  Ironically, liberals are the main culprits who railed on and on about how ill-prepared the nation was for this advancement.  As a conservative, I was more than ready, pending the individual capturing the top spot had the qualifications to perform the job.  Barack Obama did not have those needed elements.  Needless to say, the filmmakers didn’t speak with many people who thought it was, indeed, possible for a black man to win the presidency.

The entire film centered around the “emotional” impact Obama has had on America’s young generation.  As a 26-year-old young guy, I’m not feeling it.  Throughout the film, campaign workers cried fervently, chanted Obama praises and gave their all for “change they could believe in.”  While this is their right, the film itself was less than objective.  And I’m fine with that as well, but it would be an extraordinarily overdue kudos to democracy to see HBO (Honoring Barack Obama) air a similarly fair-minded film that centers on Palin’s historic run or McCain’s heroic life story.

Watching Hollywood and the Democratic elite pat each other on the back is getting old.  HBO and other media companies should consider being more fair minded and delving into the other side on a more frequent basis.  In the case of “By the People,” though, the media and entertainment cronyism will take your breath away.  No wonder Obama picks fights with the media who disagree with him.  He’s become accustomed to lapdog media and liberal Hollywood.  Let’s hope these institutions challenge him a bit more here on in.

Fortunately for Moore, we live in a free society. Despite the fact that his films are comprised of antics and obnoxious absurdities that only small-minded Americans would believe in their totality, he has every right to continue his idiocy. It is the coverage of Moore and his half-witted films that cause one to question the media’s promotional motives.

Mainstream outlets can’t seem to get enough of Moore, as they offer him positive coverage galore and provide him with valuable air time to push his insidious projects. Meanwhile, conservative film projects receive little to no praise – or even attention, for that matter.

A few weeks back, LA Times blogger Patrick Goldstein wrote a snarky post about conservative reaction to Moore’s film. Aside from dismissive commentary about why conservatives are overreacting, Goldstein offered up what he saw as proof that not all media outlets give Moore a free pass. He wrote,

…Variety has the first authoritative review up of Moore’s film — and it hardly reads like a liberal valentine, with just as many caveats as kudos. It calls “Capitalism” one of Moore’s best films but goes on to say: “There’s still plenty here to annoy right-wingers, as well as those who, however much they agree with Moore’s politics, just can’t stomach his oversimplification, on-the-nose sentimentality and goofball japery.”

If calling the film one of Moore’s best ever qualifies as “authoritative,” I suppose journalists asking then-candidate Barack Obama how his parents would feel about his accomplishments if they were still alive qualifies as “hard-hitting investigative journalism.” And don’t even get me started on the semantic inequality present in the penning of “right-wingers” versus “those who…agree with Moore’s politics.”

How about a fact check, Goldstein? Even one? You can’t tell me there isn’t someone refuting at least one of the “facts” present in Moore’s film. It’s not just “oversimplification” that liberals and conservatives, alike, should be concerned about. Moore manipulates events and happenings and creates an aura of understanding that has the foundational value of quicksand. And that brings me to a Reuters piece (carried by none other than The New York Times) entitled, “Michael Moore’s “Capitalism” Economical With Facts.” According to the article,

…the film launches a call for socialism via a popular uprising against the evils of capitalism and free enterprise. Although it’s less focused than “Sicko” or “Fahrenheit 9/11,” this competition entry is a typical Moore oeuvre: funny, often over the top and of dubious documentation, but with strongly made points that leave viewers much to ponder and debate after they walk out of the theater.

In what other venue would a documentary, book or professional record earn the distinction of being of “dubious documentation,” while making strong points that will inspire debate and dialogue? Usually, if the basis is not founded on fact, the argument can – or should, rather – go no further.

The piece goes on to admit that Moore is not known for objectivity or “impeccable” research, and that he favors Obama as a symbol of hope in the film. Now, for the article’s a-bomb. According to Reuters,

Moore has assembled a collection of nearly unbelievable horror stories to illustrate why capitalism and democracy do not go hand in hand, like a privately owned juvenile correctional facility, which paid the local judge to jail teens for misdemeanors.

Wow.

And then there’s the Washington Post piece entitled, “For ‘Capitalism,’ Moore Sells Short Politicians of all Denominations.” The lead says it all: “Just when it looked as if conservatives might be cornering the market on angry populism, along comes Michael Moore.”

I suppose those liberals who threw bleach on delegates at the Republican National Convention were lovable Furby-like creatures – not angry populists. After all, the Republicans have apparently already dominated that market.

I could go on and on. While most American outlets covered the film’s synopsis, scope, theme, etc., many in the mainstream media failed to point out Moore’s glaring hypocrisy. How can a man who has makes millions off of his anti-American rhetoric have the audacity to make a film about the evils of capitalism? It took the gusto of a British journalist to really delve into the insanity. The Telegraph’s Will Heaven wrote the following:

Don’t be fooled by the scruffy cap and trampish demeanour. Moore is as well-to-do as the “stupid white men” which he has made millions of dollars from criticising…

Sadly for Michael Moore, many of the people that should be watching his films don’t get the joke either. He is supposed to be the champion of the oppressed, who spends his career holding the rich and famous to account. Now he’s one of them, and lapping up the lifestyle like a banker in boom time, it makes no sense.

Kudos to Heaven and The Telegraph for writing the most honest piece I’ve seen on Michael Moore’s deafening hypocrisy. While American media outlets seem encapsulated in wonder by Moore’s outlandish work, it seems the Europeans – who are typically quite receptive of his films – are onto his antics. Now, if we could only get the rest of America and the media on board the “reality express,” we’d be golden.

Irony is what happens when a Hollywood director (Oliver Stone) goes to Latin America, produces a film favorable to one of the most maniacal and politically obnoxious figures in the region (Hugo Chavez), and then returns to the States to tout what he sees as his own astounding “research” skills. In what world would legitimate research on Chavez result in any favorable representation in film or any other venue, for that matter?

Even more concerning than Stone’s own tweaked coverage and perception of the dictator is the L.A. Times’ representation of the film – and shall I say, meager, questioning of its tenants. In an article by Times journalist Reed Johnson, the paper, in all of its glory, referred to Chavez as a “…former military officer turned democratically elected socialist leader.” Talk about niceties.

While admitting that the film does not provide diverse views on Chavez, the article only mentions “dust-ups” with media outlets opposed to the regime and Chavez’s role in assisting radicals in rallying against Columbia’s government (but these mentions come only in the context of what the film, itself, does not cover).

Sadly, the piece serves as a bullhorn for Stone’s own views on the evils of America and his infatuation with the Venezuelan dictator’s charm. Instead of raising facts and figures from those who would disagree with anti-American rhetoric, the piece does little to provide well-rounded perspective. Johnson writes:

In his new documentary “South of the Border,” Oliver Stone is shown warmly embracing Hugo Chavez, nibbling coca leaves with Evo Morales and gently teasing Cristina Elizabeth Fernández de Kirchner about how many pairs of shoes she owns.

These amiable, off-the-cuff snapshots of the presidents of Venezuela, Bolivia and Argentina, respectively, contrast with the way these left-leaning leaders often are depicted in U.S.”

The article makes no real effort to delve into the human rights violations that Chavez champions in Venezuela. And while one can argue that this wasn’t the purpose of the article, Stone is minimally pressed to answer further about why he’s avoided these issues. If the L.A. Times felt it so necessary to provide a platform for Stone’s work, why not also provide a framework through which readers could better understand why many Americans dislike Chavez’s restrictive regime? The U.S. retains a negative view of Chavez with good reason.

Take the following statement from Human Rights Watch (coincidently, not a right-leaning group by any stretch of the imagination):

On September 18, we released a report in Caracas that shows how President Hugo Chavez has undermined human rights guarantees in Venezuela. That night, we returned to our hotel and found around twenty Venezuelan security agents, some armed and in military uniform, awaiting us outside our rooms. They were accompanied by a man who announced—with no apparent sense of irony—that he was a government “human rights” official and that we were being expelled from the country.

The official reason for their expulsion? “[Violating] the constitution by criticizing the government while on tourist visas.” Ironically, they weren’t even on tourist visas. But this is only one example. One wonders what happens to Venezuelan citizens who dare question Chavez’s authority. Note: The L.A. Times may not be the place to go to collect this information.

And, while the Times would apparently seek to focus, as does Mr. Stone, on the fact that Chavez is “democratically elected,” let’s review the radicalization we’ve seen coming from his administration – violations that the L.A. Times confirms Stone left out of his leftist propaganda.

According to The New York Times, following re-election in 2006…

“[Chavez] nationalized electrical companies, asserted government control over oil projects in the Orinoco forests and withdrew from the International Monetary Fund. He also cracked down on television stations that had been critical of him, and proposed a referendum on constitutional changes that would centralize power in the presidency and remove term limits for the post.”

Ahh, a whiff of democracy!

Oh, and did I mention that Venezuelan voters democratically turned down his insane referendum? Would it have killed Johnson to merely mention of the constrictive actions that pose concern not only to conservative groups in America, but also to the leftist Human Rights Watch? Probably not. To those completely unfamiliar with Venezuelan politics, this article did little more than promote Stone’s film.

Ironically, Stone – an artist – doesn’t address Chavez’s media restrictions and state-run outlets (apparently love for a dictator of sorts trumps his love for the arts). And the Times, a supposed-democratic tool, also declines to delve into this important detail. Both would have us to believe that the heinousness Chavez inflicts on the citizens of his nation – and on the arts and media – is good old democracy at work. Insane.

Last week, Gerald Marzorati, editor of The New York Times Magazine (a lifestyle magazine insert published by none other than the infamously left-leaning New York Times Co.) publicly answered a wide array of questions about the economy’s affect on the magazine, “the future of long-form journalism,” the magazine’s music coverage and ideological perspective, among other related subjects. 

While the Q&A was nothing spectacular, a question about ideological perspective stands out from the rest.  A reader identified as “Ron Mwangaguhunga” wrote:

 “The New York Times Magazine, I’ve been told by a former editor, considers itself “centrist” — playing stories straight down the center. Any comment?”

Before I go any further, let it be stated that there is nothing centrist about The New York Times, so to expect that one of its Sunday supplements would be produced in journalism’s traditional middle-of-the-road sentiment is practically nonsensical.  But, I digress.

While I do need to give props to Marzorati for publicly addressing the question, rather than tucking it away and ignoring its tenants, it’s important to pay attention to his response:

“Interesting. What you’re asking is: Does the Magazine have an ideology? At the risk of giving some of my colleagues hives, I think it does.”

Upon first reading this, I was jubilant!  Finally, someone at The New York Times Co. admits that there is some form of inherent bias present in its reporting.  But, my joy was quickly impeded by the Times’ own irrationality as I read on. Marzorati continued,

“Call it Urban Modern. That is, I think it reflects not a left-or-right POLITICAL ideology but a geographical one, the mentality of the place it is created: 21st Century Manhattan.”

Wait, what?  Can anyone identify what “Urban Modern” means? I’m pretty sure most rational Americans would associate this ideological umbrella term with “liberalism.”  Furthermore, if there wasn’t some sort of socio-political attachment inherently present in the term itself, why would Marzorati risk giving his colleagues “hives”?  Ask anyone living in 21st Century Manhattan (or anyone with a base idea of what it’s like to be a conservative living in the greater-New York area) and they’ll tell you that the social and political spheres (i.e. “the basic mentality”) are dominated by liberalism. 

While Marzorati’s willingness to share perspective with America is surely delightful, his inability to recognize his outlets overt ideological vice and his refusal to acknowledge disparity in the outlet’s overall coverage is less than appealing.  This is reflective of the fact that those journalists, whether they cover entertainment or politics, living in the New York area don’t even recognize the political and social slant under and through which they live – and subsequently write.

If The Times Magazine wants to cover lifestyle through a liberal lens, that’s fine.  But, the editor should at least understand and properly convey the magazine’s bias.  It’s time for entertainment and lifestyle outlets to acknowledge their slant.  Whether they choose to include the nation’s majority political perspective (conservatism) in editorial discussions is up to them.  Either way, admitting that they have a problem is the first step toward recovery.

In the weeks following Jackson’s death, the level and scope of coverage was and continues to be mind-numbing. Sure, MJ’s death was tragic, but tragedy doesn’t warrant the widespread disengagement of American media outlets, nor does it permit the dumbing down of pertinent information. To borrow from John Ziegler, the obsessive coverage of Michael Jackson’s death is yet another glaring symptom of the malpractice that is all too common amongst today’s media elite.

It’s no surprise that CNN and others are jumping on the bandwagon. Jackson’s collapse and subsequent death fueled increased viewership and network interest. According to CNN co-founder Reese Schonfeld:

“Jackson’s death brought all sorts of new viewers to the cable news networks, and it’s obvious that most of them turned to CNN. CNN is still seen, by most people who are not news junkies, as the place to turn to for news they really care about.”

Schonfeld went on to say the following:

“It’s unfortunate that the news they seem to care about is the death of an entertainer, no matter how great, when there are things happening in the world that will affect them and their children much more significantly.”

So, Schonfeld is hypocritically rejoicing over increased ratings while his network abandons world events to cover the life of a man who has had and will continue to have little viable impact on society. He’s basically saying, “How tragic that people care about such irrelevant information, but hey – our ratings are through the roof!”

Railing against citizen love for the unimportant, while praising the effect such coverage has over CNN’s bankroll is nonsensical (from a journalistic perspective, at least). And this is only one example. CNN surely isn’t the only network at fault, as plenty of others have joined in and reneged on their responsibility to the American people.

In their classic spirit when dollar signs come into focus, the media abandon reporting the news that actually affects Americans in order to capitalize on the revenues they can expect from their self-perpetuated campaigns, with “All Michael Jackson, All the Time” being the most recent narcissistic example.  Frankly, it’s embarrassing and fraudulent. The Fourth Estate has become the court gesture – and that’s being kind.

But, it’s not only the media who are at fault. U.S. citizens – led by members of my own generation – have continued to fuel the fire. Eric Holder was way off base when he called Americans a “nation of cowards.” What he should have called us was a nation of idiots (please note the sarcasm here, as I’d rather watch MSNBC than give Holder’s comment credence — and that’s saying something).

Many young Americans are so blind to the domestic and international issues that will surely impact their world, that they’d rather fawn over a pop legend they never knew, than confront the important issues that directly impact their lives.  Why expend the energy needed to understand the difference between a deficit and the national debt when you can watch the mainstream media slobber over the advertising revenues they receive from exploiting the death of a former super star? It’s shameful.

CNN and other related outlets should have the nerve to report real news, as should the American people crave the information that will lead to greater transparency and personal betterment. Here are some events we missed out on during the MJ hooplah:

• Vice-president Joe “Gaffetastic” Biden said, “”We misread how bad the economy was,” a statement that should have sent the globe spinning. Instead, it quickly faded as the media contemplated which doctor should be blamed for MJ’s death.
• Calls for a second stimulus began to surface (although anyone who was paying attention to Obama’s budget would have noticed billions budgeted for another potential “stimulus” back in April).
• After the unprecedented connection that was established between Americans and Iranians, the media essentially abandoned the Iranian election story as Iranians continued to fight and protest in the streets of Tehran.
• The media showed wreathes and memorials set for MJ, while American soldiers sacrificing their lives overseas went unnoticed. After all, how would the American people know of their sacrifices without a media body committed to relaying such pertinent information? Lt. Brian Bradshaw died the same day as MJ and his aunt had this to say in response to the media’s outlandish coverage: “Mr. Jackson received days of wall-to-wall coverage in the media. Where was the coverage of my nephew or the other soldiers who died that week?” Good question.

Beyond my complaining, it is important to note that the media have a responsibility to serve as a check on our government. Each outlet is intended to add value and context to the democratic process. Whether it be inherent political bias or the abandoning of real news for elevated ratings, the media are continuously abandoning the American people. The only question that remains: Is there any turning back?

Fortunately, the liberal seasoning that flavors Hollywood’s narcissistic lunacy has yet to permeate mainstream American society. While the ideologues that control Hollywood (not to mention the media and university classrooms) make it seem as though ultra-leftism trumped conservatism in a battle lost long ago, a surprising new poll shows that the plurality of Americans still see themselves as politically conservative.

According to research from Gallup, when asked how they would classify their political views, 40% of Americans call themselves conservative. This compares to a mere 21% who claim to be politically liberal. An additional 35% – the second largest ideological subset – are self-proclaimed moderates.

In a nation comprised of such a diverse set of ideologies – not to mention the presence of a clear right-minded majority – one wonders why Hollywood banishes projects that promote family values or right-minded ideals, for that matter. This lack of diversity is a symptom of a greater problem: A one-mindedness and intolerance that permeates the industry at every level.

Hollywood types are so removed from the mainstream American sentiment that they refuse to fathom the possibility that opposing ideals exist. Just look at what occurred in the aftermath of this year’s Miss USA Pageant.

The now infamous Carrie Prejean was asked a politically-charged question by none other than gossip blogger and perpetual-big-baby Perez Hilton. When Hilton didn’t like Prejean’s answer (that she does not, indeed, support gay marriage) he went nuclear. Within hours, he released a video rant, calling Prejean a “stupid b*tch” among other sentiments. Then, he took to his blog, insulting her intelligence and continuing to fuel a controversy that did little to help either side of the gay marriage debate.

This is the same Perez Hilton who recently called Black Eyed Peas member Will.i.am a “faggot.” Aside from the hypocrisy present in this infuriating example (imagine what would have happened if some foolish conservative used that language), it can safely be stated that Hilton symbolizes all that is wrong with Hollywood (assuming you consider an obnoxious blogger with fuchsia hair a member of the Hollywood elite).

Somehow, it’s not okay for Carrie Prejean to answer a question with honesty, but it is okay for Hilton to use a word that many people in his own community would find extremely damaging. Of course, this is only one anecdotal example.  But, rest assured: There are plenty more.  Let’s not forget Janeane Garofalo’s opinion of the Tea Party protesters.  Here’s what the gem had to say:

It’s not about bashing Democrats, it’s not about taxes, they have no idea what the Boston tea party was about, they don’t know their history at all. This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. That is nothing but a bunch of tea-bagging rednecks. And there is no way around that.

Someone get Garofalo a newspaper. Stat. Tea Party protesters are railing against unprecedented government spending that will surely endanger America’s future. If she took a moment to put down the granola and adjust her bifocals, maybe she’d understand that being against the president, for most, has nothing to do with his race and everything to do with his idiotic fiscal policy.

And then there’s Cher, who recently said:

…I just don’t understand how anyone would want to be a Republican. I just can’t figure it. I don’t understand.  If you’re poor, if you’re any kind of minority – gay, black, Latino, anything…If you’re not a rich, born-again Christian, I don’t get it.

Last but not least comes Madonna (who just screams “family values”). During the 2008 campaign, she used a photo montage during one of her performances to compare John McCain to Hitler. In Madonna’s world, she’s the hero, while McCain – a man who suffered years of brutal torture for his nation’s sanctity – is the villain. Go figure.

Why can’t people like Hilton, Garofalo, Cher and Madonna simply be good liberals and accept – as their self-professed doctrine would ask them to – that Americans have unique perspectives and life experiences? Surely, they don’t have to agree with we “rednecks,” but shouldn’t they, at the least, have the common decency to respect ideological diversity?

The answer is, yes. The reality is, until they experience what it means to be an everyday, hardworking American, it’ll never happen.