Lily Salter's Blog, page 1003
August 28, 2015
The modern news conference is a scripted farce: Why Jorge Ramos’ badgering of Donald Trump was a necessary corrective
When I heard that Donald Trump had booted Univision’s Jorge Ramos from a press conference on Tuesday in Dubuque, Iowa, I couldn’t wait to watch the indignant response of the other journalists in the room. That’s because I was ejected from a press conference many years ago in Louisiana, where I was political writer for the Shreveport Journal. A quirky, minor candidate for the U.S. Senate – Larry “Boogaloo” Cooper – took offense at my questions. He angrily ordered me to leave the room. I got up and left. When I reached the lobby, however, I was pleasantly surprised to find that the other journalists had followed me. In solidarity with a fellow reporter, they had all walked out on the petulant candidate. The press conference was over. As I started the Trump video, I wondered, how would Ramos’ colleagues in the press respond? Having once been on the other side of the podium as a press secretary for several prominent elected officials, I should not have been surprised by what I saw – but I was. As one of Trump’s security guards hustled Ramos from the room, nary a reporter followed him in protest. In fact, no one immediately objected or questioned Trump about the incident. After an awkward pause, the reporters went back to the business of politely raising their hands, waiting like trained seals for Trump to call upon them. They continued asking him questions, dutifully recording his answers and tweeting them to their readers. CNN continued to broadcast the event, no doubt gleeful about the drama and the extra viewers the incident would attract. Sure, the assembled later mentioned that Ramos had been ejected and that Trump had told him to “go back to Univision.” But they stayed in the room. They didn’t protest as Trump tossed one of their colleagues from a press conference. (Finally, one journalist did speak up. MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt valiantly asked Trump to readmit Ramos. He did.) The next day, however, Ramos had few defenders among the news media. MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” co-host Mika Brzezinski observed that Ramos made the room “awkward and uncomfortable with other reporters.” On CNN, Chris Cuomo arrogantly lectured Ramos: “It’s his press conference. He runs the rules. You jumped the queue.” On Fox News, Jesse Watters of “The Five” observed, “Ramos acted like an illegal alien and got treated like one. He cut the line, was disruptive and then was deported and then Trump let him back in.” In a column, Fox’s Howard Kurtz complained, “Ramos broke in without being called on—and I’m sorry, that’s not some polite society rule, that’s basic civility when a presidential candidate is taking questions.” “Sorry” is the right word, but only to describe the collective media behavior during and after the episode. It confirmed what many of us already know: American political journalism is a pitiful, cowardly shell of its former self. Every week, political blowhards appear on the network news shows to spout their very predictable talking points. The hosts rarely subject them to uncomfortable questions. “Ye gads,” I imagine them thinking, “ what if I pissed off John McCain and he refused to come on my show again?” Sometimes I wonder if we are just two steps away from these “news” shows finally morphing into a Barbara Walters interview. (“Senator, if you were a tree, what kind of tree would you be?”) The political press conference was once a high-stakes affair. The president or some other political figure would enter the room, girded for pitched battle with the assembled journalists. There was sometimes true drama as the reporters jumped up, shouted, threw sharp elbows and muscled themselves into position to fire tough questions at the president or a candidate. In most cases, no one knew who would be called upon. As a young journalist, I was always intrigued by the skillful ways some older reporters made sure their questions were answered. In the cacophony of voices, one blustery questioner always prevailed. He or she was the loudest, asked the most concise question or, most often, was the person still shouting when the other journalists had finished their questions. Sam Donaldson, the famously aggressive White House correspondent for ABC News (1977-89, 1998-99) was never awed or cowed by the presidents he covered. “In our business,” he said in a 2002 interview, “it seems to me, when you’re dealing with public officials, your job is to try to make them explain their programs and defend their policies. And, to get them to defend their policies and programs and their future course of action with an answer which is owed to the general public, you have to require them either to answer or to make it clear that they’re not going to do so. I don’t know that such questions are tough, but they should be direct and they should have a point.” Donaldson wasn’t the only tough questioner of his era. Anyone under the age of 40 might be shocked to see how CBS’s Dan Rather questioned Richard Nixon at a 1974 press conference in Houston. In those days, being a White House correspondent or covering a presidential campaign was a plum assignment and an exciting adventure. Working the White House beat was the pinnacle of a political journalist’s career. Gradually, however, the spinmeisters took over. During the Reagan years, press conferences and other official presidential appearances became elaborate staged-managed events. Instead of leaping to their feet and shouting to catch the president’s attention, the Reagan press office began to impose order to the encounters between president and the journalists. Reagan would call upon them, granting them permission to pose their questions. The journalists grumbled but largely acquiesced. Now, 35 years later, the political press conference is a complete farce, little more than a theater production starring the politician. The journalists are often just bit players, sometimes asking tough questions, but mostly just playing along. Even the name of the event has gradually changed. Once, everyone called them “press conferences.” Now, they are often known as “news conferences.” In other words, they are no longer meaningful clashes of the reporters and the politician, during which the politician is expected to answer tough questions. They are, instead, opportunities for the politician to make news with his or her tightly scripted, well-rehearsed statements. They are vehicles for a message, pseudo-events manufactured by the politicians. For this, we can partly blame the candidates who skillfully tamed the journalists who cover them. The campaigns restrict their access, corral them like cattle, feed and water them like horses, provide comfortable rooms where they write their stories and arrange their travel and hotel rooms. In other words, the candidates accommodate and govern almost every movement and moment of their days. If the reporters cause trouble – if they annoy the candidate or her staff with unreasonable demands or overly hostile questions – campaign staffers can make life much less comfortable for them. Their phone calls go unreturned. Their requests for interviews are denied. They receive no invitations to ride along for an hour in the bus or RV with the candidate. So, they do what many of us might do in that situation. They submit. To get ahead, they go along. Like everyone but Ramos, they politely raise their hands like first graders. The candidate decides who may ask questions. The candidate decides who stays and who must leave. And when one of their own is booted from the room for not playing by these well-established rules of political journalism? Well, they just keep their heads down and continue taking dictation.When I heard that Donald Trump had booted Univision’s Jorge Ramos from a press conference on Tuesday in Dubuque, Iowa, I couldn’t wait to watch the indignant response of the other journalists in the room. That’s because I was ejected from a press conference many years ago in Louisiana, where I was political writer for the Shreveport Journal. A quirky, minor candidate for the U.S. Senate – Larry “Boogaloo” Cooper – took offense at my questions. He angrily ordered me to leave the room. I got up and left. When I reached the lobby, however, I was pleasantly surprised to find that the other journalists had followed me. In solidarity with a fellow reporter, they had all walked out on the petulant candidate. The press conference was over. As I started the Trump video, I wondered, how would Ramos’ colleagues in the press respond? Having once been on the other side of the podium as a press secretary for several prominent elected officials, I should not have been surprised by what I saw – but I was. As one of Trump’s security guards hustled Ramos from the room, nary a reporter followed him in protest. In fact, no one immediately objected or questioned Trump about the incident. After an awkward pause, the reporters went back to the business of politely raising their hands, waiting like trained seals for Trump to call upon them. They continued asking him questions, dutifully recording his answers and tweeting them to their readers. CNN continued to broadcast the event, no doubt gleeful about the drama and the extra viewers the incident would attract. Sure, the assembled later mentioned that Ramos had been ejected and that Trump had told him to “go back to Univision.” But they stayed in the room. They didn’t protest as Trump tossed one of their colleagues from a press conference. (Finally, one journalist did speak up. MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt valiantly asked Trump to readmit Ramos. He did.) The next day, however, Ramos had few defenders among the news media. MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” co-host Mika Brzezinski observed that Ramos made the room “awkward and uncomfortable with other reporters.” On CNN, Chris Cuomo arrogantly lectured Ramos: “It’s his press conference. He runs the rules. You jumped the queue.” On Fox News, Jesse Watters of “The Five” observed, “Ramos acted like an illegal alien and got treated like one. He cut the line, was disruptive and then was deported and then Trump let him back in.” In a column, Fox’s Howard Kurtz complained, “Ramos broke in without being called on—and I’m sorry, that’s not some polite society rule, that’s basic civility when a presidential candidate is taking questions.” “Sorry” is the right word, but only to describe the collective media behavior during and after the episode. It confirmed what many of us already know: American political journalism is a pitiful, cowardly shell of its former self. Every week, political blowhards appear on the network news shows to spout their very predictable talking points. The hosts rarely subject them to uncomfortable questions. “Ye gads,” I imagine them thinking, “ what if I pissed off John McCain and he refused to come on my show again?” Sometimes I wonder if we are just two steps away from these “news” shows finally morphing into a Barbara Walters interview. (“Senator, if you were a tree, what kind of tree would you be?”) The political press conference was once a high-stakes affair. The president or some other political figure would enter the room, girded for pitched battle with the assembled journalists. There was sometimes true drama as the reporters jumped up, shouted, threw sharp elbows and muscled themselves into position to fire tough questions at the president or a candidate. In most cases, no one knew who would be called upon. As a young journalist, I was always intrigued by the skillful ways some older reporters made sure their questions were answered. In the cacophony of voices, one blustery questioner always prevailed. He or she was the loudest, asked the most concise question or, most often, was the person still shouting when the other journalists had finished their questions. Sam Donaldson, the famously aggressive White House correspondent for ABC News (1977-89, 1998-99) was never awed or cowed by the presidents he covered. “In our business,” he said in a 2002 interview, “it seems to me, when you’re dealing with public officials, your job is to try to make them explain their programs and defend their policies. And, to get them to defend their policies and programs and their future course of action with an answer which is owed to the general public, you have to require them either to answer or to make it clear that they’re not going to do so. I don’t know that such questions are tough, but they should be direct and they should have a point.” Donaldson wasn’t the only tough questioner of his era. Anyone under the age of 40 might be shocked to see how CBS’s Dan Rather questioned Richard Nixon at a 1974 press conference in Houston. In those days, being a White House correspondent or covering a presidential campaign was a plum assignment and an exciting adventure. Working the White House beat was the pinnacle of a political journalist’s career. Gradually, however, the spinmeisters took over. During the Reagan years, press conferences and other official presidential appearances became elaborate staged-managed events. Instead of leaping to their feet and shouting to catch the president’s attention, the Reagan press office began to impose order to the encounters between president and the journalists. Reagan would call upon them, granting them permission to pose their questions. The journalists grumbled but largely acquiesced. Now, 35 years later, the political press conference is a complete farce, little more than a theater production starring the politician. The journalists are often just bit players, sometimes asking tough questions, but mostly just playing along. Even the name of the event has gradually changed. Once, everyone called them “press conferences.” Now, they are often known as “news conferences.” In other words, they are no longer meaningful clashes of the reporters and the politician, during which the politician is expected to answer tough questions. They are, instead, opportunities for the politician to make news with his or her tightly scripted, well-rehearsed statements. They are vehicles for a message, pseudo-events manufactured by the politicians. For this, we can partly blame the candidates who skillfully tamed the journalists who cover them. The campaigns restrict their access, corral them like cattle, feed and water them like horses, provide comfortable rooms where they write their stories and arrange their travel and hotel rooms. In other words, the candidates accommodate and govern almost every movement and moment of their days. If the reporters cause trouble – if they annoy the candidate or her staff with unreasonable demands or overly hostile questions – campaign staffers can make life much less comfortable for them. Their phone calls go unreturned. Their requests for interviews are denied. They receive no invitations to ride along for an hour in the bus or RV with the candidate. So, they do what many of us might do in that situation. They submit. To get ahead, they go along. Like everyone but Ramos, they politely raise their hands like first graders. The candidate decides who may ask questions. The candidate decides who stays and who must leave. And when one of their own is booted from the room for not playing by these well-established rules of political journalism? Well, they just keep their heads down and continue taking dictation.
Jimmy Kimmel lampoons Donald Trump’s plan to make America great again in pitch-perfect campaign ad
Apart from building a wall to "keep the Mexicans out," Donald Trump's plan for running the country (and making it great again) has been entirely shrouded in mystery. That's concerning. On Thursday night's "Jimmy Kimmel Live," the writing staff had some fun crafting an "honest" Trump campaign ad -- one that doesn't bother hiding the fact that Trump has zero vision for the country. Trump's plan for running America is a great plan. The best plan. A plan that will work because it is the best. Any questions? Watch the clip courtesy of Jimmy Kimmel Live below: Apart from building a wall to "keep the Mexicans out," Donald Trump's plan for running the country (and making it great again) has been entirely shrouded in mystery. That's concerning. On Thursday night's "Jimmy Kimmel Live," the writing staff had some fun crafting an "honest" Trump campaign ad -- one that doesn't bother hiding the fact that Trump has zero vision for the country. Trump's plan for running America is a great plan. The best plan. A plan that will work because it is the best. Any questions? Watch the clip courtesy of Jimmy Kimmel Live below:
August 27, 2015
Scott Walker’s hostile waters: The destruction of Wisconsin’s universities damages more than the liberal academic elite
If you’re from Wisconsin, the Friday night fish fry is a big deal, and the fish you want on your plate is a yellow perch you caught yourself. But for years, the population of yellow perch has been in serious decline. Now on the verge of collapse, the future of this iconic fish is looking grim. Kind of like what is happening right now with the faculty at the University of Wisconsin, under siege from a legislative agenda that has been steadily decimating its numbers while pretending that the loss doesn’t matter and hey, maybe it’s even a good thing! Why do you care, anyways? It’s just stupid fish. There are always more of them. Anti-intellectuals may yell “good riddance!” at the exodus of top-tier talent, but it’s the yellow perch paying the ultimate price for Gov. Scott Walker’s political actions. Ever since Walker began gutting the university system—cutting $250 million in funding from the UW system (while mysteriously finding $250 million in state funds to pay for a new stadium for the Milwaukee Bucks); weakening a once-prized system of shared governance; and passing a new law effectively turning tenure into a tool of a Board of Regents consisting almost entirely of political appointees -- the star faculty found itself being poached, starting with senior professors such as the fish guy, Rick Goetz. He was a lead researcher at what is now called the School of Freshwater Sciences at Wisconsin-Milwaukee, where he studied the yellow perch. He left for NOAA, taking his grant money with him. Just like that, the wild fish lost the top guy working on their behalf. Fish night will never be the same. Stop whining. One fish is just as good as another. Who cares about the “ancient mating habits of whatever”? (The words in quotes were actually spoken by an Wisconsin assemblyman dismissively waving away faculty protesting against budget cuts.) The Yellow Perch doesn’t appear on the 2015 Wisconsin fishing calendar from Game and Fish magazine. Try walleye, or smallies! There are loads of other fish to fry! But the Yellow Perch was the “fish of the people” because it was abundant and delicious. It also used to generate annual state revenues in the millions. Its loss isn't just symbolic, it's economic. At the School of Freshwater Sciences, professor and senior scientist Sandra McLellan routinely pulls in half a million dollars annually in outside funding. Despite the constant political framing of professors as bloviating liberal leeches, the reality is far more complex. On the flagship campus at Madison, for example, 30 percent of the total university budget is covered by outside funding brought in by the faculty. In 2009, Madison faculty brought in one billion dollars of external funding, even as the university community contributed billions more to the annual state economy. (In 2015, it was $15.4 billion.) Funding for McLellan’s research on freshwater resources comes from a combination of government and private grants, and she estimates that this money is mostly used to fund students and create jobs. “75 percent manpower, 25 percent supplies,” she says. It’s not just professors whose jobs are being threatened, but administrative assistants, tech support, and a whole host of other necessary staff members. Working class people depend on universities for their livelihoods too. “With our new open border policy, we will welcome all university workers from the beleaguered state of Wisconsin,” the Yes Men (a performance artist collective) declared with big fake smiles on their businesslike faces. In an Orwellian satire of the corporatization of the University of Iowa, the Yes Men’s “Efficiency Review”—a parody of what is happening in reality-- called for “improvements” such as an “Academic Fast Pass” for students willing to pay for access to better grades, and that all teachers and administrators should be renamed “Content Delivery Specialists.” Though satirical, their suggestions aren’t all that far from their current reality at Iowa, “where department chairs are already called “Department Executive Officers,” and a state senator introduced a bill that would automatically fire teachers that students disliked, followed by a Survivor-style vote-off for those hovering too close to the edge. “I’ve never seen morale this bad, and I’ve been here since ’96,” Milwaukee professor Lane Hall told me, pointing to a “profound state of distrust” now permeating every aspect of the institution. Some are staying to swim against the political tide, but the signal word is demoralized. By decimating a budget already so thin that the faculty, Hall says, hasn’t had a cost-of-living raise in ten years, every task is infused with a sense of profound futility. What is happening in Wisconsin is happening everywhere; it is a little parable of working in America. But as far as public university education is concerned, Wisconsin’s demise has shattered any remaining illusions that the destruction of the American university isn’t merely underway--it is nearly complete. Yesterday, professor Chuck Rybak threw down the gauntlet, and called for fellow faculty at Wisconsin to stop going through the motions and ditch the tenure file. He writes:
“Tenure no longer exists in Wisconsin. We have entered the era of pretendure. The only moral thing to do, right now, is abolish the tenure file. If the reward for compiling the file no longer exists, then the file should no longer exist.”By pointing out that tenure has become “pretendure,” Rybak is staking a rhetorical claim to combat political theater. His position is not altogether wrong. Though tenure still formally exists, it has been hollowed out and rendered toothless. Tenure is too often mistaken for a sinecure, i.e. a job in name only, whereas its true function is to protect intellectual freedom for those whose work challenges prevailing power structures. Given that in April 2015, a gag order was placed on the entire staff of the Wisconsin Board of Commissioners of Public Lands, forbidding them from “working on or even talking about climate change on state time,” it is not inconceivable that an atmospheric scientist at Madison could be summarily fired simply for collecting data measuring the earth’s temperature. Already, recruitment is suffering. It so happens that the same term "recruiting" applies both to the nurturing of game fish as well as to coaxing the best and brightest minds to join a university community. Both types of recruits need years to develop, that slowness itself an anachronism in a world that breeds farm animals to reach market maturity in months. To sportsmen, the yellow perch was never known for its fight, but for its exceptional flavor. If it can't mature properly, it's no good to anyone. But as the big fish depart Wisconsin, never to return, there are no new recruits to replace the growing void. Those that are left, floundering in hostile waters, will find it nearly impossible to grow to their full potential, leaving a bad taste in bitter mouths. “This is the way the world ends,” wrote T.S. Eliot, “not with a bang, but with a whimper.” But it won’t matter in Wisconsin, because nobody will be left to teach this useless thing called poetry, and those words are gibberish. Want to go fishing for smallies?
Spike Lee’s dubious honor: Is the Honorary Oscar a way for the Academy to say “this is as close as you’ll ever get?”
Recently, director Spike Lee got some good news: In November, he will receive an Honorary Oscar at the Governors Award thrown by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Previous winners include heavy hitting filmmakers – Fellini, Kurosawa, Orson Welles -- and the Academy’s president, Cheryl Boone Isaacs, praises the work of Lee and two other to be honored that day as driven by “passion, dedication and a desire to make a positive difference” which “will also enrich future generations.” Wow – it doesn’t get any better than that. And Lee will collect his Oscar alongside actresses Gena Rowlands and Debbie Reynolds. (The latter receives a Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award.) But as we squint at this a little bit, this triumph looks a little less unalloyed. There was a time when the Honorary Oscar went to a wide range of figures; Shirley Temple landed one when she was still a child. But lately, the award has been given to figures who’ve been, uh, out of the action for a while. If you’re got new movies coming out, which could win you a best directors or best actor award, why do you need to be in a special “honorary” category? Over the last few years, Honorary Oscars have gone to Eli Wallach (born 1915), Angela Lansbury (1925), Maureen O’Hara (1920), and D.A. Pennebaker (1925.) Serious talents, all, but not folks with terribly busy cinematic schedules by the time of their awards. The relative spring chicken Hayao Miyazaki won a well-deserved honorary Oscar in 2014 – after the Japanese animator announced his retirement. Rowlands, by the way, is 85; Reynolds, 83. Lee is 58 and presumably has a couple of decades at least of output left. So what’s going on here? It would be easy to think that this was a well-meaning but paternalistic way a body that has recently been exposed for its racial homogeneity would recognize a black filmmaker. That’s probably part of the story. But most likely, the incongruity here has as much to do with attitude and taste -- and his status as a defiant New Yorker who refuses to play the Hollywood game -- as with race. Lee has been nominated for an Oscar only twice – for best original screenplay for “Do the Right Thing” and best documentary feature for the church-bombing chronicle, “4 Little Girls.” The second of those nominations came 18 years ago. So the lifetime achievement award may be the Academy’s back-handed way of apologizing: Look, we respect what you do – in theory -- and people tell us you are a talented guy. And we really want someone kinda edgy like you at the table. But this is as close as you’re gonna get. In the Academy’s defense, Lee’s work has been eccentric and unpredictable for a long time, and he doesn’t churn out a steady diet of Oscar bait. But “The Original Kings of Comedy” (a concert film about four black stand-up comedians) and “When the Levee Broke” (a documentary about the New Orleans flood) and “Passing Strange” (the film version of Stew’s rock musical about a young man’s search for his artistic identity) are hardly obscure or inaccessible: The fact that these, and the rest of Lee’s output since 1998, have failed to earn him even a nomination shows that something is wrong with this picture. It’s tempting to compare Lee’s honorary Oscar to the 2011 award given to James Earl Jones (born 1931). But a closer parallel may be to Godard, who was offered an Honorary Oscar in 2010. Godard, for his part, never came to Hollywood to collect his statue, and said at the time that the honor meant “nothing” to him. “If the Academy likes to do it, let them do it,” the French New Wave instigator said. “But I think it’s strange. I asked myself: Which of my films have they seen? Do they actually know my films?” Is Lee as far from the Hollywood mainstream as 21st century Godard? Probably not. But given Lee’s tradition of provocative statements, we’ll be curious to see where this one goes.Recently, director Spike Lee got some good news: In November, he will receive an Honorary Oscar at the Governors Award thrown by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Previous winners include heavy hitting filmmakers – Fellini, Kurosawa, Orson Welles -- and the Academy’s president, Cheryl Boone Isaacs, praises the work of Lee and two other to be honored that day as driven by “passion, dedication and a desire to make a positive difference” which “will also enrich future generations.” Wow – it doesn’t get any better than that. And Lee will collect his Oscar alongside actresses Gena Rowlands and Debbie Reynolds. (The latter receives a Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award.) But as we squint at this a little bit, this triumph looks a little less unalloyed. There was a time when the Honorary Oscar went to a wide range of figures; Shirley Temple landed one when she was still a child. But lately, the award has been given to figures who’ve been, uh, out of the action for a while. If you’re got new movies coming out, which could win you a best directors or best actor award, why do you need to be in a special “honorary” category? Over the last few years, Honorary Oscars have gone to Eli Wallach (born 1915), Angela Lansbury (1925), Maureen O’Hara (1920), and D.A. Pennebaker (1925.) Serious talents, all, but not folks with terribly busy cinematic schedules by the time of their awards. The relative spring chicken Hayao Miyazaki won a well-deserved honorary Oscar in 2014 – after the Japanese animator announced his retirement. Rowlands, by the way, is 85; Reynolds, 83. Lee is 58 and presumably has a couple of decades at least of output left. So what’s going on here? It would be easy to think that this was a well-meaning but paternalistic way a body that has recently been exposed for its racial homogeneity would recognize a black filmmaker. That’s probably part of the story. But most likely, the incongruity here has as much to do with attitude and taste -- and his status as a defiant New Yorker who refuses to play the Hollywood game -- as with race. Lee has been nominated for an Oscar only twice – for best original screenplay for “Do the Right Thing” and best documentary feature for the church-bombing chronicle, “4 Little Girls.” The second of those nominations came 18 years ago. So the lifetime achievement award may be the Academy’s back-handed way of apologizing: Look, we respect what you do – in theory -- and people tell us you are a talented guy. And we really want someone kinda edgy like you at the table. But this is as close as you’re gonna get. In the Academy’s defense, Lee’s work has been eccentric and unpredictable for a long time, and he doesn’t churn out a steady diet of Oscar bait. But “The Original Kings of Comedy” (a concert film about four black stand-up comedians) and “When the Levee Broke” (a documentary about the New Orleans flood) and “Passing Strange” (the film version of Stew’s rock musical about a young man’s search for his artistic identity) are hardly obscure or inaccessible: The fact that these, and the rest of Lee’s output since 1998, have failed to earn him even a nomination shows that something is wrong with this picture. It’s tempting to compare Lee’s honorary Oscar to the 2011 award given to James Earl Jones (born 1931). But a closer parallel may be to Godard, who was offered an Honorary Oscar in 2010. Godard, for his part, never came to Hollywood to collect his statue, and said at the time that the honor meant “nothing” to him. “If the Academy likes to do it, let them do it,” the French New Wave instigator said. “But I think it’s strange. I asked myself: Which of my films have they seen? Do they actually know my films?” Is Lee as far from the Hollywood mainstream as 21st century Godard? Probably not. But given Lee’s tradition of provocative statements, we’ll be curious to see where this one goes.
Donald Trump loved Miley Cyrus’ #TwerkGate
In one of the creepier-sounding phone calls in recorded history, Donald Trump apparently called Miley Cyrus to congratulate her personally after her scandalous, twerk-filled performance at the 2013 VMAs. As Cyrus explained in a recent Times interview, "I was staying at the Trump Hotel and Donald Trump literally called and said, basically, 'I know everyone’s talking about it, but I loved it.' I had no idea anyone was talking about it yet.” (Good rule of thumb -- if Donald Trump loves your performance, the rest of the world likely finds it problematic). Later in the interview, Cyrus turns to another controversial topic: Nicki Minaj’s recent criticism that the VMAs unduly favors white artists. After trying unsuccessfully to avoid weighing in (even though she clearly really wanted to weigh in), Cyrus chastised Minaj for the way she addressed the issue. As she put it, " If you do things with an open heart and you come at things with love, you would be heard and I would respect your statement. I don’t respect your statement because of the anger that came with it.” Instead of turning to the bigger issues, Cyrus claims, Minaj made it ‘about her.’ Or as she put it: "Not to sound like a bitch, but that’s like, 'Eh, I didn’t get my V.M.A.’” "If you want to make it about race, there’s a way you could do that,” she continued. “But don’t make it just about yourself. Say: 'This is the reason why I think it’s important to be nominated. There’s girls everywhere with this body type.’” When interviewer Joe Coscarelli pointed out that Minaj did in fact say that, Cyrus’ criticisms grew even more pointed:
"What I read sounded very Nicki Minaj, which, if you know Nicki Minaj is not too kind. It’s not very polite. I think there’s a way you speak to people with openness and love. You don’t have to start this pop star against pop star war. It became Nicki Minaj and Taylor in a fight, so now the story isn’t even on what you wanted it to be about. Now you’ve just given E! News 'Catfight! Taylor and Nicki Go at It.’ I know you can make it seem like, Oh I just don’t understand because I’m a white pop star. I know the statistics. I know what’s going on in the world. But to be honest, I don’t think MTV did that on purpose."Read the full interview -- which concludes with Cyrus admitting she has no idea what videos are nominated, because she doesn’t really listen to music or watch TV, cause whatever -- over at the Times.In one of the creepier-sounding phone calls in recorded history, Donald Trump apparently called Miley Cyrus to congratulate her personally after her scandalous, twerk-filled performance at the 2013 VMAs. As Cyrus explained in a recent Times interview, "I was staying at the Trump Hotel and Donald Trump literally called and said, basically, 'I know everyone’s talking about it, but I loved it.' I had no idea anyone was talking about it yet.” (Good rule of thumb -- if Donald Trump loves your performance, the rest of the world likely finds it problematic). Later in the interview, Cyrus turns to another controversial topic: Nicki Minaj’s recent criticism that the VMAs unduly favors white artists. After trying unsuccessfully to avoid weighing in (even though she clearly really wanted to weigh in), Cyrus chastised Minaj for the way she addressed the issue. As she put it, " If you do things with an open heart and you come at things with love, you would be heard and I would respect your statement. I don’t respect your statement because of the anger that came with it.” Instead of turning to the bigger issues, Cyrus claims, Minaj made it ‘about her.’ Or as she put it: "Not to sound like a bitch, but that’s like, 'Eh, I didn’t get my V.M.A.’” "If you want to make it about race, there’s a way you could do that,” she continued. “But don’t make it just about yourself. Say: 'This is the reason why I think it’s important to be nominated. There’s girls everywhere with this body type.’” When interviewer Joe Coscarelli pointed out that Minaj did in fact say that, Cyrus’ criticisms grew even more pointed:
"What I read sounded very Nicki Minaj, which, if you know Nicki Minaj is not too kind. It’s not very polite. I think there’s a way you speak to people with openness and love. You don’t have to start this pop star against pop star war. It became Nicki Minaj and Taylor in a fight, so now the story isn’t even on what you wanted it to be about. Now you’ve just given E! News 'Catfight! Taylor and Nicki Go at It.’ I know you can make it seem like, Oh I just don’t understand because I’m a white pop star. I know the statistics. I know what’s going on in the world. But to be honest, I don’t think MTV did that on purpose."Read the full interview -- which concludes with Cyrus admitting she has no idea what videos are nominated, because she doesn’t really listen to music or watch TV, cause whatever -- over at the Times.In one of the creepier-sounding phone calls in recorded history, Donald Trump apparently called Miley Cyrus to congratulate her personally after her scandalous, twerk-filled performance at the 2013 VMAs. As Cyrus explained in a recent Times interview, "I was staying at the Trump Hotel and Donald Trump literally called and said, basically, 'I know everyone’s talking about it, but I loved it.' I had no idea anyone was talking about it yet.” (Good rule of thumb -- if Donald Trump loves your performance, the rest of the world likely finds it problematic). Later in the interview, Cyrus turns to another controversial topic: Nicki Minaj’s recent criticism that the VMAs unduly favors white artists. After trying unsuccessfully to avoid weighing in (even though she clearly really wanted to weigh in), Cyrus chastised Minaj for the way she addressed the issue. As she put it, " If you do things with an open heart and you come at things with love, you would be heard and I would respect your statement. I don’t respect your statement because of the anger that came with it.” Instead of turning to the bigger issues, Cyrus claims, Minaj made it ‘about her.’ Or as she put it: "Not to sound like a bitch, but that’s like, 'Eh, I didn’t get my V.M.A.’” "If you want to make it about race, there’s a way you could do that,” she continued. “But don’t make it just about yourself. Say: 'This is the reason why I think it’s important to be nominated. There’s girls everywhere with this body type.’” When interviewer Joe Coscarelli pointed out that Minaj did in fact say that, Cyrus’ criticisms grew even more pointed:
"What I read sounded very Nicki Minaj, which, if you know Nicki Minaj is not too kind. It’s not very polite. I think there’s a way you speak to people with openness and love. You don’t have to start this pop star against pop star war. It became Nicki Minaj and Taylor in a fight, so now the story isn’t even on what you wanted it to be about. Now you’ve just given E! News 'Catfight! Taylor and Nicki Go at It.’ I know you can make it seem like, Oh I just don’t understand because I’m a white pop star. I know the statistics. I know what’s going on in the world. But to be honest, I don’t think MTV did that on purpose."Read the full interview -- which concludes with Cyrus admitting she has no idea what videos are nominated, because she doesn’t really listen to music or watch TV, cause whatever -- over at the Times.
Bobby Jindal pleads with Obama not to mention the climate crisis during Hurricane Katrina commemoration
He is running for president, commemorating the 10th anniversary of his state's worst natural disaster (man-made catastrophe) and hosting screenings of undercover anti-Planned Parenthood sting videos on his front lawn, but Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal still found time in his busy schedule to write a letter to President Obama this week, imploring him not to "politicize" the somber anniversary of Hurricane Katrina by mentioning the "radical agenda" of climate change. Warning that "partisan politics from Washington, D.C. are unwelcome in Louisiana in the best of times," Jindal warned President Obama to "carefully consider" what he says during his upcoming visit to the Crescent City in a letter released Wednesday evening. President Obama is expected to focus on the persistent racial and economic inequities that have dogged the city since before the storm. Nevertheless, Jindal found it appropriate to suggest President Obama ignore the topic of the environment all together. “Although I understand that your emphasis in New Orleans will – rightly – be on economic development, the temptation to stray into climate change politics should be resisted,” Jindal urged President Obama. “I would ask you to respect this important time of remembrance by not inserting the divisive political agenda of liberal environmental activism,” Jindal wrote. That's right. The governor of Louisiana would rather the president not talk about the environment during a tour of the long-term impact of one of the most devastating hurricanes to hit this country. Jindal dismissed any such mention as a "lecture on climate change," claiming it would "distract from the losses we have suffered." Jindal also falsely suggested that President Obama's concern about the impact of climate change amounted to an "opinion that we can legislate away hurricanes with higher taxes, business regulations and EPA power grabs." Bobby Jindal is currently polling in 14th place nationally, with 0.4 percent support from Republican primary voters according to the Huffington Post tracker. (h/t TPM) Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com
30 people Taylor Swift hasn’t performed with (yet)
Taylor Swift has performed with a lot of people on her "1989" tour, including Justin Timberlake, Alanis Morissette, Mariska Hargitay, Fetty Wap, Lena Dunham, and the entire U.S. Women's National Soccer Team. Here are some people she hasn’t performed with: 1. Beyoncé 2. Katy Perry's cat, Kitty Purry 3. Any instrument-playing cat 4. Members of the "Friends" cast who aren't Lisa Kudrow or Matt LeBlanc 5. Taylor Schilling from "Orange is the New Black" 6. '80s pop icon Taylor Dayne 7. An actual tailor 8. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth 9. A Tupac hologram 10. Jim Parsons and the "Big Bang Theory" cast performing "Soft Kitty" 11. The “Chocolate Rain” guy 12. The cast of "I'd Like To Buy the World a Coke" 13. Crosby, Stills and Nash 14. The baby from the TV show "Dinosaurs" 15. Marina Abramovic 16. Maria Bartiromo 17. Marnie from "Girls" 18. Ja Rule 19. Gwar 20. Glenn Danzig 21. Boston Red Sox legend Wade Boggs 22. Boston Celtics legend Bob Cousy 23. Boston Bruins legend Bobby Orr 24. A Boston cream doughnut 25. Marxist political theorist Fredric Jameson 26. Flo the insurance lady 27. Camille Paglia 28. A hobnail shoe 29. A macrame sculpture of her own belly button 30. Bernie SandersTaylor Swift has performed with a lot of people on her "1989" tour, including Justin Timberlake, Alanis Morissette, Mariska Hargitay, Fetty Wap, Lena Dunham, and the entire U.S. Women's National Soccer Team. Here are some people she hasn’t performed with: 1. Beyoncé 2. Katy Perry's cat, Kitty Purry 3. Any instrument-playing cat 4. Members of the "Friends" cast who aren't Lisa Kudrow or Matt LeBlanc 5. Taylor Schilling from "Orange is the New Black" 6. '80s pop icon Taylor Dayne 7. An actual tailor 8. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth 9. A Tupac hologram 10. Jim Parsons and the "Big Bang Theory" cast performing "Soft Kitty" 11. The “Chocolate Rain” guy 12. The cast of "I'd Like To Buy the World a Coke" 13. Crosby, Stills and Nash 14. The baby from the TV show "Dinosaurs" 15. Marina Abramovic 16. Maria Bartiromo 17. Marnie from "Girls" 18. Ja Rule 19. Gwar 20. Glenn Danzig 21. Boston Red Sox legend Wade Boggs 22. Boston Celtics legend Bob Cousy 23. Boston Bruins legend Bobby Orr 24. A Boston cream doughnut 25. Marxist political theorist Fredric Jameson 26. Flo the insurance lady 27. Camille Paglia 28. A hobnail shoe 29. A macrame sculpture of her own belly button 30. Bernie Sanders
“When you lose your land, you lose part of yourself”: Watch this poignant short film about resilience in the aftermath of Katrina
Way out in Yscloskey, a town 30 miles southeast of New Orleans or, in the words of one of its oldest residents, "at the end of the world," a large, unfinished boat in a yard caught the attention of director Zack Godshall. Curious as to who the boat belonged to, Godshall knocked on the door of the house it belonged to, and that's how he met Joseph Gonzales: still very much in love with his wife of 70 years, Selina, still determined, after 30 years and despite his encroaching loss of vision, to get the boat in the water, and with no intention, 10 years after Hurricane Katrina, of living anywhere else. "The thing that they've managed to do is stick with their roots," Godshall told Salon. "Their identity is so bound up with the land, and when you lose your land, you lose your home, you sort of lose part of yourself." Katrina was by far the biggest disaster to hit Yscloskey, but to live on the Louisiana coast is to witness a slower-moving environmental catastrophe. Parts of the coast are eroding so fast, they're losing an area the size of a football field each hour; in the not-too-distant future, there may be no land to return to. "Most of us living in cities don't have that sort of connection to the environment," Godshall mused. "If you do, moving away from it is just unfathomable." Katrina swept away every house in the area but the Gonzales', and rather than move away, they built up: their home now rests on 15-foot high stilts. "The Boatman" is one of six mini-documentaries featured in New Orleans, Here & Now, a series that premiered today in commemoration of the tenth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. You can watch the film below, and check out the entire series here. Way out in Yscloskey, a town 30 miles southeast of New Orleans or, in the words of one of its oldest residents, "at the end of the world," a large, unfinished boat in a yard caught the attention of director Zack Godshall. Curious as to who the boat belonged to, Godshall knocked on the door of the house it belonged to, and that's how he met Joseph Gonzales: still very much in love with his wife of 70 years, Selina, still determined, after 30 years and despite his encroaching loss of vision, to get the boat in the water, and with no intention, 10 years after Hurricane Katrina, of living anywhere else. "The thing that they've managed to do is stick with their roots," Godshall told Salon. "Their identity is so bound up with the land, and when you lose your land, you lose your home, you sort of lose part of yourself." Katrina was by far the biggest disaster to hit Yscloskey, but to live on the Louisiana coast is to witness a slower-moving environmental catastrophe. Parts of the coast are eroding so fast, they're losing an area the size of a football field each hour; in the not-too-distant future, there may be no land to return to. "Most of us living in cities don't have that sort of connection to the environment," Godshall mused. "If you do, moving away from it is just unfathomable." Katrina swept away every house in the area but the Gonzales', and rather than move away, they built up: their home now rests on 15-foot high stilts. "The Boatman" is one of six mini-documentaries featured in New Orleans, Here & Now, a series that premiered today in commemoration of the tenth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. You can watch the film below, and check out the entire series here.
Are these really the best songs of the ’80s?: Picking apart Pitchfork’s fascinating, frustrating list
Best-of lists are both impossible and irresistible, and the longer and broader the span they try to include, the more imperfect and full of holes they’re likely to be. The music site Pitchfork has just demonstrated that with its list of the 200 best songs from the 1980s. It’s a stylistically wide-ranging list, with sharply written descriptions of each song, which manages to be equal parts fascinating and frustrating. Here’s how Pitchfork tees it up:
A great deal of today's music looks to the '80s for inspiration, but there are so many different ideas of what "'80s" as a descriptor can mean. Here we return to the source material. As we did for the 1960s, the 1990s, and the 2000s, as well as our 2010-2014 list, we polled our staff and contributing writers for their favorite songs of the era and tabulated the results. Every time we do one of these lists we learn something about how perceptions of decades change over time, and how the musical ideas from a given era filter through to later generations.Fair enough. Its top five selections are Prince and the Revolution’s “Purple Rain,” Michael Jackson’s “Wanna Be Startin’ Somethin’,” N.W.A’s “Straight Outta Compton,” New Order’s “Blue Monday,” and Public Enemy’s “Fight the Power.” All great, stuff (though when it comes to Jackson, “Billie Jean” seems more inventive in just about every way.) The Pitchfork staff seems split between making a best-of list (what are our favorite songs, the most enduring music) and a list of the songs that influence what we heard today. Considering the current dominance of hip hop, R&B, and electronic dance music, this is as comprehensive a list as you’re likely to see. The list excels at documenting of the years when hip hop evolved from Grandmaster Flash’s “The Message” to pop pastiche like De La Soul and word-drunk one-offs like the Beastie Boys’ “Paul’s Boutique.” The descriptions of how various kinds of ‘80s production shaped what we hear from music today – or the way the music and vocals of Yoko Ono’s “Walking on Thin Ice” echoes through contemporary bands -- shows some very good ears among the site’s staff. The nods to music outside the Anglo-American axis (a bit of Brazilian and West African) are well chosen. The shaping up of Prince as the artist of the decade makes sense, whether you look at today’s musical landscape or just look at the ‘80s in isolation. But if you reject the list’s contrarian/ Poptimist subtext – if you think that music played mostly on guitars, that comes out of country and folk and acoustic blues still matters and had a pretty good run in the ‘80s – the list is less satisfying and full of holes. Among the 200 are a few songs – usually one each – by Hüsker Dü, the Pixies, Beat Happening, Dead Kennedys, and some others. Bands from Manchester, England, are well represented, perhaps because music of that city’s scene drew from soul and funk and opened the door to the future, so New Order and Joy Division chart quite high. But among the musicians who don’t show up or barely at all are The Jam, Elvis Costello, Lucinda Williams, The Go-Betweens, Richard and Linda Thompson, Billy Bragg, Uncle Tupelo and Public Image Ltd. Stylistically, these groups are all over the map, but overall, shoegaze, singer-songwriters, alt-country, and the American alternative movement are pretty hard to find. Where are Lucinda’s "Passionate Kisses" (or “Queen of Hearts,”), Elvis Costello’s “King of America” (or “Man Out of Time” or “Five Gears in Reverse” or “I Hope You’re Happy Now”), The Jam’s “Start!” (or “Town Called Malice” or “Going Underground”), The Go-Go’s “We Got the Beat” ( or “Vacation”or "Our Lips Are Sealed") or R.E.M.’s “So. Central Rain” (or “Maps and Legends” or “Driver 8” or “Fall on Me”)? Unless I missed something, there’s only one song by the chiming quartet from Athens, GA, which ended up shaping much of the college- and alternative- and indie-rock of the ‘80s and after. The list describes “Radio Free Europe,” down there at 128, as sounding like “the invention of indie rock.” Well said – then we do we not see anything else by this band for the rest of the list? The lack of anything from the Clash’s “London Calling” LP -- a two-LP masterpiece released in 1980 in the U.S. and typically considered too retro by Poptimists -- is almost as head scratching (unless Pitchfork is disqualifying it because of its December '79 UK release.) Okay, I know -- there’s only so much room, even on a list of 200 songs. But was it really so urgent to put George Benson’s “Give Me the Night” (just about all of his jazz guitar songs are better and less overplayed), Michael McDonald’s “I Keep Forgettin (Every Time You’re Near),” Tears for Fears’ “Head Over Heels,” Hall and Oates “I Can’t Go For That,” or Phil Collins’ drum machine nightmare “In the Air Tonight”? Okay, part of this list is really great. But I just can’t forgive them the Phil Collins.Best-of lists are both impossible and irresistible, and the longer and broader the span they try to include, the more imperfect and full of holes they’re likely to be. The music site Pitchfork has just demonstrated that with its list of the 200 best songs from the 1980s. It’s a stylistically wide-ranging list, with sharply written descriptions of each song, which manages to be equal parts fascinating and frustrating. Here’s how Pitchfork tees it up:
A great deal of today's music looks to the '80s for inspiration, but there are so many different ideas of what "'80s" as a descriptor can mean. Here we return to the source material. As we did for the 1960s, the 1990s, and the 2000s, as well as our 2010-2014 list, we polled our staff and contributing writers for their favorite songs of the era and tabulated the results. Every time we do one of these lists we learn something about how perceptions of decades change over time, and how the musical ideas from a given era filter through to later generations.Fair enough. Its top five selections are Prince and the Revolution’s “Purple Rain,” Michael Jackson’s “Wanna Be Startin’ Somethin’,” N.W.A’s “Straight Outta Compton,” New Order’s “Blue Monday,” and Public Enemy’s “Fight the Power.” All great, stuff (though when it comes to Jackson, “Billie Jean” seems more inventive in just about every way.) The Pitchfork staff seems split between making a best-of list (what are our favorite songs, the most enduring music) and a list of the songs that influence what we heard today. Considering the current dominance of hip hop, R&B, and electronic dance music, this is as comprehensive a list as you’re likely to see. The list excels at documenting of the years when hip hop evolved from Grandmaster Flash’s “The Message” to pop pastiche like De La Soul and word-drunk one-offs like the Beastie Boys’ “Paul’s Boutique.” The descriptions of how various kinds of ‘80s production shaped what we hear from music today – or the way the music and vocals of Yoko Ono’s “Walking on Thin Ice” echoes through contemporary bands -- shows some very good ears among the site’s staff. The nods to music outside the Anglo-American axis (a bit of Brazilian and West African) are well chosen. The shaping up of Prince as the artist of the decade makes sense, whether you look at today’s musical landscape or just look at the ‘80s in isolation. But if you reject the list’s contrarian/ Poptimist subtext – if you think that music played mostly on guitars, that comes out of country and folk and acoustic blues still matters and had a pretty good run in the ‘80s – the list is less satisfying and full of holes. Among the 200 are a few songs – usually one each – by Hüsker Dü, the Pixies, Beat Happening, Dead Kennedys, and some others. Bands from Manchester, England, are well represented, perhaps because music of that city’s scene drew from soul and funk and opened the door to the future, so New Order and Joy Division chart quite high. But among the musicians who don’t show up or barely at all are The Jam, Elvis Costello, Lucinda Williams, The Go-Betweens, Richard and Linda Thompson, Billy Bragg, Uncle Tupelo and Public Image Ltd. Stylistically, these groups are all over the map, but overall, shoegaze, singer-songwriters, alt-country, and the American alternative movement are pretty hard to find. Where are Lucinda’s "Passionate Kisses" (or “Queen of Hearts,”), Elvis Costello’s “King of America” (or “Man Out of Time” or “Five Gears in Reverse” or “I Hope You’re Happy Now”), The Jam’s “Start!” (or “Town Called Malice” or “Going Underground”), The Go-Go’s “We Got the Beat” ( or “Vacation”or "Our Lips Are Sealed") or R.E.M.’s “So. Central Rain” (or “Maps and Legends” or “Driver 8” or “Fall on Me”)? Unless I missed something, there’s only one song by the chiming quartet from Athens, GA, which ended up shaping much of the college- and alternative- and indie-rock of the ‘80s and after. The list describes “Radio Free Europe,” down there at 128, as sounding like “the invention of indie rock.” Well said – then we do we not see anything else by this band for the rest of the list? The lack of anything from the Clash’s “London Calling” LP -- a two-LP masterpiece released in 1980 in the U.S. and typically considered too retro by Poptimists -- is almost as head scratching (unless Pitchfork is disqualifying it because of its December '79 UK release.) Okay, I know -- there’s only so much room, even on a list of 200 songs. But was it really so urgent to put George Benson’s “Give Me the Night” (just about all of his jazz guitar songs are better and less overplayed), Michael McDonald’s “I Keep Forgettin (Every Time You’re Near),” Tears for Fears’ “Head Over Heels,” Hall and Oates “I Can’t Go For That,” or Phil Collins’ drum machine nightmare “In the Air Tonight”? Okay, part of this list is really great. But I just can’t forgive them the Phil Collins.
