Read the first chapter of The Plot to Save Socrates .... FREE!
Sun, 23 March 2008  Welcome to Light On Light Through Episode 53 LOST 4 and 8 ...a special, jumbo compilation episode, in which you'll hear all of my reviews of the first part of Season 4 of Lost ... originally presented on my Levinson news clips podcast on the Friday after each Thursday's broadcast of Lost ... 9 reviews of the first 8 episodes (because I did two reviews of the first episode, I liked it so much), plus some special new commentary, presented here for the first time, with some additional thoughts I had about Episode 8, and the coming attractions at the end ... These eight episodes have been classic ... containing one of the best time travel stories ever on television, as well as some possible answers to the key mysteries of Lost ...Helpful links:
home page: http://paullevinson.info my latest novel: The Plot to Save Socrates and Brian Charles Clarke says The Plot to Save Socrates "resonates with the current political climate . . . heroine Sierra Waters is sexy as hell . . . there's a bite to Levinson's wit" -- in Curled Up With A Good Book
Comments[1] |
Sat, 16 February 2008 Welcome to Episode 52 of Light On Light Through ... "Science Fiction in the New Golden Age of Television" ... It started in the mid-late 1990s with HBO's original series, especially "The Sopranos" in 1999. This revolution in television - frank, gritty, real, intellectually sophisticated - soon spread to other cable and old-fashioned network television. In the past few years, science fiction has taken a leading role. In this podcast - based on a lecture I gave to the Philadelphia Science Fiction Society on 25 January 2008 (at the invitation of Lee Stein and Suzanne Rosin) - I look at the contributions of five science fiction series to this new golden age of television ... Lost, Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, Journeyman, Battlestar Galactica, and Heroes... Plus flashes ... mostly about the continuing Obama revolution, and a little about John "Palpatine" McCain... Helpful links:
home page: http://paullevinson.info my latest novel: The Plot to Save Socrates and Brian Charles Clarke says The Plot to Save Socrates "resonates with the current political climate . . . heroine Sierra Waters is sexy as hell . . . there's a bite to Levinson's wit" -- in Curled Up With A Good Book
Comments[0] |
Sun, 10 February 2008 Welcome to Light On Light Through Episode 51, "Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton," in which I examine the strengths and differences of these two extraordinary candidates ... Obama may be the greatest orator of our time ... his election as the first African-American President would make history, as would Hillary Clinton's as the first woman in the White House President ... how do Obama and Clinton compare to the Republican candidates ... plus ... a critique of MSNBC's shoddy treatment of Hillary Clinton...Helpful blog links ... Obama Sweeps Three Primaries, Gives Magnificent Speech ... MSNBC Needs to Stop Sniping at Hillary ... I'm Voting for Barack Obama in New York Today home page: http://paullevinson.info my latest novel: The Plot to Save Socrates and Brian Charles Clarke says The Plot to Save Socrates "resonates with the current political climate . . . heroine Sierra Waters is sexy as hell . . . there's a bite to Levinson's wit" -- in Curled Up With A Good Book
Comments[0] |
Sat, 1 December 2007 Whoa! Light On Light Through Episode 50 - my interview with Dr. Stanley Schmidt, long-time editor of Analog Magazine of Science Fiction and Fact, the leading science fiction magazine in the universe, as far as we know ... Stan talks candidly about what he looks for in a story submitted for publication ... how quickly he knows that a story works ... what he sees in the futures of science fiction, Analog, and his own work in the field ... Analog published 10 of my stories in the 1990s, and helped establish me as a science fiction writer. This interview was not only a real pleasure for me to conduct, but I suspect will be a source for years to come of invaluable information and insight for anyone who aspires to being a published short-fiction science fiction writer ... Plus flashes ... The Plot to Save Journeyman - that is, three chances to win free copies of The Plot to Save Socrates, just by watching the next episodes of NBC's Journeyman! Helpful links:
home page: http://paullevinson.info my latest novel: The Plot to Save Socrates and Brian Charles Clarke says The Plot to Save Socrates "resonates with the current political climate . . . heroine Sierra Waters is sexy as hell . . . there's a bite to Levinson's wit" -- in Curled Up With A Good Book
Comments[1] |
Fri, 2 November 2007 The networks continue to denigrate the results of their own post-debate polls- Last night, Chris Matthews mentioned on MSNBC's Hardball that Barack Obama won the poll that MSNBC conducted after the Democratic Presidential debate on Tuesday- To which Chuck Todd, MSNBC's "official" pollster replied - that poll was done with cell phones, via which Obama's supporters could keep pounding the call keys... To which Matthews responded - like in the 1936 Literary Digest poll... To which I would respond: No, Chris, not like that 1936 poll at all, which was supposed to be a poll of a randomly selected part of the voting population, but was skewed or biased because it was conducted from lists of automobile owners and people who had telephones in their homes, and only very rich people had those luxuries in those days, so the Literary Digest poll wrongly showed the Democrat FDR losing... Which has nothing in common with MSNBC's post-election poll - except that it, too, was conducted by phone. But it was never designed as a randomly conducted poll. What Chris should have said to Chuck Todd was: wrong, callers can't cast votes more than once on the same phone... Or, if by some bizarre chance they could, then simply install a program on your vote-reception software which would make it impossible for anyone to cast a vote more than once on the same cell phone. Very easy, really - and certainly preferable to encouraging viewers to vote in your poll, and the undercutting the results. Well, at least Ron Paul now has company - now Obama's supporters, like Ron Paul's, are discounted because they participate in a poll that a network conducts, and then expresses no confidence in because they don't like the results. ============= My 50-minute lecture about network after-debate polls and the media's misreporting of Ron Paul, delivered to my class at Fordham University Category: Politics -- posted at: 1:54 AM Comments[0] |
Sun, 28 October 2007 Welcome to Light On Light Through Episode 48, an Interview with Rich Sommer, who plays Harry Crane on AMC's Mad Men. Among the highlights - the "joys" of wearing real 1960s clothing ... what are they really smoking on the show? ... what does Rich think happened with Harry between episodes 12 and 13 of the show? ... how does Rich explain Harry's uncanny resemblance to Isaac Asimov (see photos below) ... how does Rich account for the rare anachronism on the show ... and much more in this exclusive interview, conducted just two days ago ... We had a grand time in this interview! If you love the show, you'll want to listen to every minute of this ... If you don't know the show, you'll want to watch every minute of it after listening to this interview...   Isaac Asimov (1965) and Harry Crane aka Rich Sommer (1960) Plus flashes ... David Wiltse's Sedition at Fordham University Monday night, 7:30pm, Pope Auditorium, 60th Street & Columbus, free admission ... I'll be on the radio Tues, 7:30 pm, on Bob Mann's Let's Consider the Sources, channel xm133 on XM Radio... Helpful links:
home page: http://paullevinson.info more blogs: http://InfiniteRegress.tv and http://www.myspace.com/twiceuponarhyme videoclips: http://www.youtube.com/user/PLev20062006 my latest novel: The Plot to Save Socrates and Brian Charles Clarke says The Plot to Save Socrates "resonates with the current political climate . . . heroine Sierra Waters is sexy as hell . . . there's a bite to Levinson's wit" -- in Curled Up With A Good Book more about The Plot to Save Socrates... Comments[0] |
Mon, 22 October 2007
Category: Politics -- posted at: 4:44 AM Comments[0] |
Sun, 21 October 2007 Welcome to a very special Episode - #47 - of Light On Light Through ... our first year anniversary party! Lots of surprises, special guests (see guest list, below), a contest in which you can win a copy of my novel, The Plot to Save Socrates ... never-before-revealed facts such as how I came up with the name Light On Light Through - what it means - and much more... Plus flashes ... Mad Men concludes a brilliant first year on AMC ... and maybe a tachyon telephone on NBC's Journeyman ... Making rare guest appearances on this special anniversary podcast:
For more on the origins of Light On Light Through, see the chapter in Digital McLuhan: A Guide to the Information Millennium home page: http://paullevinson.info more blogs: http://InfiniteRegress.tv and http://www.myspace.com/twiceuponarhyme videoclips: http://www.youtube.com/user/PLev20062006 videoclips: http://www.youtube.com/user/PLev20062006 The Plot to Save Socrates - my latest novel
Comments[2] |
Fri, 19 October 2007 As you know, I devoted 50-minutes of my Intro to
Communication and Media Studies class last month at Fordham University
to a lecture about the mass media's mistreatment of Ron Paul. Although
Ron Paul is now getting much more media attention, the mistreatment
continues - as evidenced, to give just one example, of CNBC's taking down of a post-debate poll
which Ron Paul won - and this means that people who value our
democratic system need to continue to keep a wary eye on our media, and
call them out when necessary. 1. Consider Ron Paul’s Presidential campaign the Source of communication. Using the Shannon-Weaver model, explain all the steps that the campaign must go through, in order to reach its Destination, the American people. Make sure you address each step in the process, as well as what can (and did) go wrong in the process, and possible remedies for addressing this. (Option: If you like to do this analysis for another Presidential candidate, that would be acceptable, but make sure you have specific examples to present.) The exam was open book, and the students had a choice of questions. I don't know yet how many chose to answer this one. The crux of the correct answer was that the media misreporting of Ron Paul constitutes noise in the Channel, and the best way of remedying that is providing feedback - meaning, let the media and the world know that such misreporting is unacceptable. I'll keep you posted on how my students do on this question (without, of course, revealing any names.) Category: Politics -- posted at: 6:37 PM Comments[0] |
Mon, 15 October 2007 To my friends out there across the universe ... Light On Light Through, this more or less weekly podcast on pop culture, politics, outer space, good food, shoes, the works, will be one year old on October 21. I'll be putting out a special edition on that day. Help me celebrate - and promote whatever you're doing - by sending me a 10-second mp3 of congratulations. Feel free to mention & promote whatever is important to you. Mention how you know me (we're Twitter friends, whatever). Send the mp3 to Paul@LightonLightThrough.com You can put in music, just talk, whatever you like. More details in my two recent episodes of Light On Light Through - A Modest Proposal and Celebrating Sputnik... Category: Cosmos -- posted at: 3:22 AM Comments[0] |
Sun, 14 October 2007 Welcome to Episode 46 of Light On Light Through, in which I offer a modest proposal for greatly improving our political process: why not work for the best candidates in each of the two parties, so as to give Americans the best possible choice in the general election. I go over my choices - just Ron Paul for the Republican nomination - Gore, Obama, Edwards, Kucinich, Gravel for the Democratic nomination (a lot more to choose from there) - and give my reasons why. Plus flashes ... Judy Woodruff reclaims the fine art of the civilized, informative interview in her PBS NewsHour interview with Ron Paul ... Michael Clayton is a fine, originally directed movie ... still time to send me your mp3 greetings for the next episode of Light On Light Through - our first anniversary show... Helpful links:
more blogs: http://InfiniteRegress.tv and http://www.myspace.com/twiceuponarhyme videoclips: http://www.youtube.com/user/PLev20062006 videoclips: http://www.youtube.com/user/PLev20062006 The Plot to Save Socrates - my latest novel Comments[0] |
Sat, 13 October 2007 One of the most serious issues of our time - pardon the pun - is the FCC's unconstitutional crackdown on broadcasting for allegedly "indecent" programming. The heavy fines levied by the FCC made it impossible for Howard Stern to continue on traditional radio. He had to watch everything he said. Fortunately, Sirius Satellite Radio provided a great alternative, which has proven to be even better than the original. Howard Stern has finally found his element on Sirius Radio - a free environment, in which his mind can work and express itself at full, incisive, hilarious speed. Sirius also gives you exclusive coverage of the NFL, NBA, and NASCAR, more than 130 channels of programming, 69 music channels with no commercials, and Martha Stewart. You do need a special radio to hear Sirius, and the Sirius Stiletto 10 Satellite Radio is one of many cool models available. The Stiletto doesn't need to be docked in your car or at home - you can take it anywhere - and it gives you live portable reception of Sirius Radio shows, stores up to 10 hours of Sirius Satellite programming, and has lots of other useful features. It's not just satellite radio - it's out of this world. . this is a sponsored post Category: sponsored posts -- posted at: 4:34 PM Comments[0] |
Sat, 13 October 2007  Marshall McLuhan died on the last day of 1980 - not only years before there was micro-blogging and blogging, but a few years before e-mail and commenting on Web pages. In 1986, I wrote a piece for the IEEE Transactions of Professional Communications entitled Marshall McLuhan and Computer Conferencing, in which I said that the pithy, aphoristic bursts which characterized his writing - his great works from the 1960s consisted of chapters often not more than a page or two in length - were actually a form of web writing ("computer conferencing") decades before the Web and online communication emerged. Just the other day, I realized something more about McLuhan's writing. The memorable titles he gave to his short chapters - for example, "The Medium is the Message" in Understanding Media (1964) or "Nobody ever made a grammatical error in a non-literate society" in the Gutenberg Galaxy (1962) (which has 107 of these gems) - were actually micro-blogs. Blogging in his page-or-two chapters, micro-blogging in the titles or "glosses" (his term) he gave them. All of this back in 1962 and 1964. McLuhan was in touch with a mode of expression, a vehicle of the human intellect, which was clear and percolating in his mind, even though the technology of its delivery was still decades away from invention. Category: Technology & Society -- posted at: 4:29 PM Comments[0] |
Sat, 13 October 2007 I wrote the following on another blog back in March. In view of the growing number of Ron Paul supporters - people who believe we should take the Constitution and its restrictions on government seriously - and Al Gore's winning the Nobe Prize yesterday, my modest proposal that we should work to support the best candidates in each of the two major parties seems more viable and relevant than ever... The approach most people take to Presidential elections is, pick a candidate - if you can - one candidate, and support him or her to the hilt. If your candidate fails before getting the nomination, you may or may not switch to another, and go through the same process. If your chosen candidate is a Democrat, you likely will have little real interest in the Republicans, except to hope that they choose the weakest person to run for office. And vice versa - if your favorite candidate is a Republican, all you likely will care about regarding the Democrats is what they can do, presumably unintentionally, to help your Republican candidate win. But does this approach get the best out of our democracy? I'm trying something a little different this time around. I am going to try to pick my favorites in both the Democratic and the Republican fields, and do whatever little I can to help them get nominated. If I'm lucky enough to see both nominated, I'll then decide whom to vote for in the general election. So far, here are my favorites, and why: Democratic Party: Al Gore: pluses: his election would correct the deep injustice of the 2000 election, he was anti-Iraq-war from the beginning, he is genuinely interested in science to improve our human condition; minuses: I'm concerned that he may be in favor of Congress's crackdown on "indecency," given his wife Tipper's history on this issue Barack Obama: pluses: he was anti-Iraq-war from the beginning, he would bring a Kennedy-esque youthful vitality to the White House, it would be healthy for America to have an African-American President; minuses: not enough experience, and untested on many issues *John Edwards: see below for note added on April 21, in which I've including Edwards in my Democratic favorites Republican Party: Ron Paul: pluses: he was anti-Iraq-war from the beginning (and, better than Gore and Obama, was in office at the time, and voted against the war resolutions), he is a vigorous defender of the Constitution and the First Amendment, he is an opponent of government censorship, he's in favor of private enterprise in space (so is Gore); minuses: he's in favor of states (but not the Federal government) banning abortion (I'm in favor of a women's right to choose), an opponent of gun control (I agree that the Second Amendment is consistent with Paul's position - I'm in favor of amending it), urged US neutrality in Israeli-Hezbollah war. *** So, there you have it. I currently consider myself a supporter of all three candidates. Regarding Gore and Obama, I would certainly be happy with a Democratic ticket that had them both (Gore for Pres, Obama for VP), and I would be happy with a ticket that had either for President. Regarding Ron Paul: at this point, there is no other Republican even remotely as good, in my view. Regarding the minuses for all three candidates: I'll keep researching their positions and records, and of course be on the look-out for new developments. And I'll also be open to any new candidates, or to any dramatic shifts in all of the candidates currently in the field, but I'm not holding my breath for either. *** *Added 21 April 2007 - John Edwards' Favorite Book is I. F. Stone's The Trial of Socrates. If find this so impressive - indicative of a love a freedom of expression, and a philosophic depth - that I now include Edwards along with Gore and Obama as Democratic candidates for President that I could enthusiastically support. ================= 25-minute podcast of this Modest Political Proposal Category: Politics -- posted at: 4:08 PM Comments[0] |
Fri, 12 October 2007 To: Allen Wastler Managing Editor, CNBC.com From: Paul Levinson, PhD Professor & Chair, Department of Communication and Media Studies Fordham University, NYC re: your An Open Letter to the Ron Paul Faithful of October 11, in which you explain why you took down your poll, conducted after the Michigan Republican Presidential debate, and featured on your web site 1. You invite comments and response to your Open Letter, and provide an e-mail address. Since your action is, in my view, a matter of great public concern, I am not only e-mailing this response to you, but publishing it in my InfiniteRegress.tv blog and here on LightonLightThrough. 2. I am not one of the "Ron Paul Faithful". Although I greatly admire many of his positions, especially his support of our Constitution, I have not yet endorsed any candidate, and am indeed on record as urging Americans to support the best candidate in each of our two main parties, so as to give us the best choice in the general election. You are welcome to see my How About We Look for the Best Candidate in =Both= Parties for details. 2a. I am writing to you, therefore, as a professor, scholar, and observer of media and politics, with a keen interest in seeing the press serve our democracy as Thomas Jefferson and our Founding Fathers intended - that is, by providing us with the truth wherever possible. 3. Let me now address the issues you raise in your Open Letter: You write that "these Internet polls are admittedly unscientific and subject to hacking". True, but the "scientific" polls - the ones that rely on random sampling - are subject to error, as well. See, for example, the famous poll that predicted that FDR would lose the 1936 Presidential election. Also, while the Internet may indeed be subject to hacking, do you have any proof that hacking took place in this case? You further say that your "poll was either hacked or the target of a campaign". Again, your proof? You further say that "[t]he next day, our email basked was flooded with Ron Paul support messages. And the computer logs showed the poll had been hit with traffic from Ron Paul chat sites. I learned other Internet polls that night had been hit in similar fashion." None of the above actions are "hacking". You owe Ron Paul's supporters and the American people an apology. Indeed, the fact that the polls reflected votes "from Ron Paul chat sites" does not even support your conclusion that your poll was "the target of a campaign" - conceivably some of the votes that came from the sites could have come from people who had come to the sites, impressed by what they saw of Ron Paul in the debate, and then went on to cast their votes in your poll. Does that sound to you like "a campaign"? You further say that Ron Paul's supporters, presumably including anyone who voted for Ron Paul in your poll, "also ruined the purpose of the poll. It was no longer an honest 'show of hands' -- it suddenly was a platform for beating the Ron Paul drum." What do you suppose influences public opinion in any election campaign? What is your definition of an "honest show of hands"? Is a potential voter who expresses support for a candidate, because that potential voter already liked that candidate prior to a given debate, somehow not "honest"? If what you wanted to measure in your poll was how previously undecided people felt about the performance of candidates in the debate, why did you not say so in your poll, and devise some way of measuring this? (For example, trying to identify a sample of undecided voters beforehand, and then asking them for their preferences after the debate?) Instead, you conclude your Open Letter with the following: "When a well-organized and committed 'few' can throw the results of a system meant to reflect the sentiments of 'the many,' I get a little worried. I'd take it down again." Again, you offer no evidence whatsoever that anything in the poll was "thrown," and you similarly offer no evidence about how "few" of the "many" were composed of Ron Paul supporters. Indeed, you offer no evidence of anything, really - just supposition and innuendo - and that gets me more than a little worried, about your competence and capacity to be Managing Editor of CNBC.com's website. If something needs to be "taken down," it may well be your position as Managing Editor. I call upon you to either apologize to the American people, or step down. Category: Politics -- posted at: 12:55 PM Comments[4] |
Tue, 9 October 2007 Here are some of the highlights and lowlights in the Republican Presidential debate which concluded a fw hours ago in Michigan. It was on CNBC, and will repeated tonight at 9pm on MSNBC: Fred Thompson: started out nearly comatose, and then settled in. But he's fuzzy on most of the issues, and looks like Dwight David Eisenhower on a bad day. His best moment was responding to a pretty good crack by Romney, about the Republican debates being like Law and Order - a big cast, and Fred Thompson comes in at the end. Thompson smiled and said, pretty good, and I thought I was going to be the best actor up here. Mitt Romney: his response to whether the President needs to consult Congress before going to war - Romney said he'd leave that to the attorneys - was one of the lowest points, not only in this debate, but in American history, period. (See Ron Paul's response to this, below.) Rudy Giuliani: his response about whether the Internet required FCC-like cultural policing was troubling, to say the last. He's not in favor of creating new government agencies, but he might look into it, if the problem doesn't subside. But, what's the problem? No one disputes the need of police to go after predators, on and off line. The question was about the "cultural" problems of the Internet (porn?) and what should be done about that. A better answer would have been: "The FCC is unconstitutional even as a regulator of broadcasters. The last thing I would do is extend its violation of the First Amendment to the Internet." Too bad Ron Paul didn't get a chance to answer that question. Fortunately, Ron Paul did get a chance to respond about the President going to war... Ron Paul: his finest moment was his outrage over Romney's gibberish about consulting attorneys. Read the Constitution, Ron Paul said - it clearly says that Congress, not the President, has the power to declare war. You don't need to be a lawyer to understand that. You need to be just minimally literate. Also admirable was Ron Paul's unwillingness to blindly support whoever gets the Republican nomination - that nominee would need to stop following Bush's disastrous and unconstitutional foreign policy. It's rare indeed to hear a political candidate in either party speak such plain truth to the American people, and to the world. Category: Politics -- posted at: 9:31 PM Comments[2] |
Sat, 6 October 2007 Welcome to Episode 45 of Light On Light Through in which we celebrate the 50th anniversary of Sputnik - the first artificial satellite to circle the Earth. We look and the triumphs and the tragedies, and in particular, why we have moved so little and so slowly into space since then... RealSpace: The Fate of Physical Presence in the Digital Age, On and Off Planet  Also in this podcast: an invitation to podcasters and anyone who can make an MP3 recording: October 21, 2007 will be the first-year anniversary of Light On Light Through - send me your 10-second greetings, and I'll play them all in a special anniversary episode. Feel free to mention and plug your own podcast, and whatever else you're doing. Plus flashes ... Heroes is back ... so is Dexter and Brotherhood ... and Journeyman - a great new time travel series - debuts ... all of this, and more... hear and read more of what I think about them in Levinson news clips and InfiniteRegress.tv ... Helpful links:
more blogs: http://InfiniteRegress.tv and http://www.myspace.com/twiceuponarhyme videoclips: http://www.youtube.com/user/PLev20062006 videoclips: http://www.youtube.com/user/PLev20062006 The Plot to Save Socrates - my latest novel Comments[0] |
Thu, 4 October 2007 This is the lecture I delivered to my "Introduction to Communication and Media Studies" class at Fordham University last Friday, September 28, 2007, about the media misreporting of Ron Paul. The lecture, with student questions at the end, was about 50 minutes. It's divided into five parts on the YouTube video: 1. history of polling ... ABC May 2007 misreporting of Ron Paul ... 2. ABC continues misreporting Ron Paul (early August 2007).... 3. Mark Levin urges disinformation against Ron Paul on ABC radio ... Kucinich gets cropped ... the First Amendment ... 4. Hannity & Colmes misreport Ron Paul on Fox News ... reasons behind all of this ... 5. I answer student questions ... Note that the above is, of course, current only as of September 28, 2007, and contains no mention of ABC affiliate WMUR TV in New Hampshire failing to cover the Ron Paul "Family Day" rally on September 30... Category: Politics -- posted at: 12:13 PM Comments[0] |
Tue, 2 October 2007 Sputnik celebrates its 50th anniversary this Thursday, October 4 - the first artificial satellite to circle the planet. It was soon followed by Sputnik 2 (dogs in space, 1958), first human in space (Yuri Gagarin, 1961), Telstar (first telecom satellite, 1962), and then we walked on the Moon (Armstrong and Aldrin, 1969). Notice that I didn't say
Soviet or US above, because it doesn't really matter. Humans in space
is what counts. But everyone of course knows that Sputnik - Russian for
"fellow traveler" - set off the space race which we in the US
eventually "won" in 1969. Prior to then, Telstar was our only first
accomplishment. Category: Cosmos -- posted at: 11:34 PM Comments[0] |
Mon, 1 October 2007 The Free Market News Network reports that WMUR neglected to cover Ron Paul at his "Family Day" rally in Manchester, New Hampshire this past weekend. WMUR is a state-wide television operation, with headquarters in Manchester. What struck me most about this was not the lack of coverage itself - infuriating and undemocratic, as it is - but the fact that WMUR is an ABC affiliate! Just this past Friday, at the lecture I delivered to my "Intro to Communication and Media Studies" class at Fordham University (we'll have the video up on YouTube soon), I detailed a series of outrageous ABC misreportings of Ron Paul since May - ranging from leaving him out of poll results to publishing misleading photographs that made his supporters seem far fewer at a rally in Iowa than they actually were. But I concluded, in an effort to be fair, that ABC seems to have been improving in the accuracy of its reporting lately, with Fox guilty of the worst recent transgressions. But here we are, once again, with a national ABC television affiliate apparently up to the same old business. If the Free Market News story is correct - and it's been up online more than a day with no opposing comments offered - then ABC is continuing to dig itself into a hole it may never get out of. Because, whatever happens in this election, the shameful performance of ABC News at so many junctures - regarding mostly Ron Paul, but also, at least once, Dennis Kucinich - will not be forgotten. Indeed, I expect it will be a section in many textbooks about media and politics. I know I certainly will be putting something about this in my next edition of The Soft Edge: A Natural History and Future of the Information Revolution. See reviews of the most recent edition of The Soft Edge. Category: Politics -- posted at: 11:50 AM Comments[2] |
Fri, 28 September 2007 I was delighted to hear Ron Paul say at the Republican Presidential debate on PBS that he is opposed to the Federal death penalty. He indicated that this was one of the few positions he changed his views about over the years - at one time, he supported the Federal death penalty - and his reason was that DNA evidence has shown too many innocent people found guilty. Category: Politics -- posted at: 2:52 PM Comments[1] |
Thu, 27 September 2007
Category: Politics -- posted at: 4:05 AM Comments[7] |
Sun, 23 September 2007 An Example of How Pro-War Republicans Are Trying to Mislead Us about MoveOn.org and General Petraeus
I heard your comments this AM on the radio concerning the Moveon.org ad in the NY Times. I was stunned by your take on it, but I suppose I shouldn’t be. You were simply reflecting your liberal bias and confirmed exactly what most know about academics in the liberal arts. Your views are so tainted by your liberal leanings, it’s impossible for you to present an evenhanded report on anything. And my reply ... You're the one who should have trouble looking at yourself in the mirror: you're obviously intelligent, and therefore must know that there's a big difference between saying someone's advice or assessment betrays the best interests of this country (which is what the MoveOn ad is saying about the General), and saying someone is betraying us on the battlefield or in dealings with foreign powers (which is what the Republicans are claiming). Category: Politics -- posted at: 7:56 PM Comments[0] |
Fri, 21 September 2007 With the Fall at our doorstep, and the lecture I'm giving to my class at Fordham University about the media mistreatment of Ron Paul just a week away, I thought I'd share with you a little list I put together, which ranks the five major TV news networks on their coverage of Ron Paul as well as other presidential candidates these past six months. Since I'm not omniscient, I may have missed some network errors and abuses. All corrections and additions are welcome in the comment section. 1. CNN: in first place. They've done nothing wrong that I know of, and get kudos for the YouTube CNN debate a few months ago, in which questions came from people who submitted videos to YouTube, rather than so-called experts in the media. CNN decided which questions to air, but this is still a real breakthrough in the democratization of media. 2. MSNBC has in general done a fine job in its reporting of Ron Paul and the other campaigns. MSNBC commentators Tucker Carlson and Pat Buchanan have been public and explicit in their support of Ron Paul. But MSNBC got off to a bit off a rough start. Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, discussing the candidates' positions on the war after the debate of May 4, neglected to mention that Ron Paul has been systematically against the war. They both improved their reporting considerably, shortly thereafter. 3. CBS has done nothing wrong in its coverage of the current campaigns, either, as far as I know. But I put CBS in third place because of its continuing graceless treatment of Dan Rather, who was forced out of CBS after courageously reporting about George Bush's military past, in the election campaign of 2004. 4. Now we take a sharp turn downward with Fox News. Hannity and Colmes denigrated Ron Paul's first place finish in the Fox phone-in poll conducted after the last Republican Presidential debate on Fox - the two claimed that Ron Paul's supporters were multiple-dialing. Not only was there no evidence for this, it turns out a second call from the same phone resulted in a text reply that the vote wouldn't count. O'Reilly, to his credit, did have Ron Paul on his show. But to O'Reilly's discredit, he barely gave Ron Paul a chance to get a word in edgewise. 5. ABC is in the cellar. Worse than Fox, ABC failed to mention on at least one occasion that Ron Paul came in first in its post-debate poll. It removed comments from Ron Paul supporters on its online board, and then proceeded to shut it down. ABC also showed a lone Ron Paul supporter before the Iowa caucus, in contrast to big crowds for Romney, when in fact Ron Paul had big crowds of supporters, too. Then there was Mark Levin, in ABC's radio line-up, who called upon his listeners to call up Ron Paul headquarters with advice that Ron Paul couldn't win. And, just for good measure, ABC spread some its abuse around, and cropped Dennis Kucinich out of a photo Democratic contenders. The good news for Fox and ABC is that the election campaigns are continuing, and they can change their ways. Actually, Fox has been worse than ABC in the past month, and that may be a sign that ABC is finally seeing the error of its ways. I'd like to see all five major news networks report the election campaigns truthfully. The American people require no less. I'll keep you posted.  Category: Politics -- posted at: 10:40 PM Comments[4] |
Fri, 21 September 2007 "Anyone listening to John Kerry should be tasered" - that "joke" came from a
former homicide detective, Rod Wheeler, who Fox News chose to have
as a guest on Hannity and Colmes last night. Wheeler said a lot more - that Andrew Meyer clearly deserved to be tasered, that he was clearly threatening the police who were escorting him away from the microphone - even though the videos of the event clearly show otherwise. But Wheeler is entitled to his erroneous opinion of what happened. And he's of course also entitled to his deeply misguided sense of humor. I guess we should at least be happy that someone with his values is a former rather than a current homicide detective. But where was Sean Hannity's outrage or even disagreement with his guest for taking such a tasteless shot at John Kerry's supporters, at a time in which tasering and politics and freedom of speech have become sadly intertwined? Now, more than ever, we need candidates like Ron Paul who respect both the First Amendment and the necessary limits of police authority. Category: Politics -- posted at: 1:11 AM Comments[0] |
Thu, 20 September 2007 I'm just watching Keith Olbermann, back on MSNBC's Countdown, after several days of being down and out with appendicitis ... It's good to see him back on his show. I by no means agree with all of Keith's positions and remarks. I especially didn't like his caustic attack on 24 last year, his shots at Bill O'Reilly sometimes are over the top. (But see my blog post about O'Reilly's site giving away "Please Don't Taze Me, Bro" bumper stickers - a new low, even for O'Reilly.) But whatever Keith's flaws, he offers a unique and much-needed commentary. Not only because it generally comes from the left (which I don't always agree with, either), but because it is sharp, outrageous, fresh and funny. Alison Stewart does a good job as Keith's regular substitute, but you can see Keith's special contribution right there. Alison's content is the same as Keith's, her delivery is fine, but I laugh, gasp, or get angry maybe one out every ten times I do when watching Keith Olbermann. Welcome back, Keith, and keep up the good, infuriating work. Category: Television -- posted at: 11:07 PM Comments[0] |
Thu, 20 September 2007 I was in an elevator yesterday afternoon. It almost got stuck. You know what I mean? It stopped for a split second in between floors, shuddered, and then resumed its upward journey. But it got me to thinking (always a dangerous development). How little portable media have made every place more useful than it used to be. A stalled elevator, a car stuck in a traffic jam, a seat in a doctor’s office when you’re waiting endlessly for an appointment - a wireless device, whether cell phone, Blackberry, or iPhone, makes all of those formerly useless places useful. The result is that we are enjoying increasing discretion and control over our lives and our activities. Increasingly, we do nothing when we want to do nothing, not when circumstances dictate that we do nothing. That's a good step forward.
Category: Technology & Society -- posted at: 12:06 AM Comments[0] |
Wed, 19 September 2007 Dan Rather is suing CBS for $70 million and he is 100% justified. Instead of standing by its reporter, after its own two-member panel could not say that the report Rather went on the air with was false, CBS hung Rather out to dry. In so doing, CBS damaged Rather's reputation and his potential for future employment. And it damaged its own reputation and its legacy even more. CBS just celebrated its 80th anniversary the other day. William Paley must be turning over in his grave about CBS did to Dan Rather. His law suit is a small way of rectifying that. Meanwhile, the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric draws fewer viewers than it did with Rather. Category: Television -- posted at: 11:24 PM Comments[1] |
Tue, 18 September 2007 Bravo to YouTube for making videos of police brutality, such as occurred with Andrew Meyer in Florida, more accessible than ever to the general public. In 1991, video allowed the public to see the Rodney King beating - nothing the police said in its aftermath could contradict what the public was able to see with its own eyes. YouTube has taken this once step further - allowing us to see such videos without having to wait for television to show them to us. The iPhone is helping as well, by allowing people to see such videos when they are away from their desktops and laptops. All of this is by no means stopping police from trampling on First Amendment rights - but it is making it harder than ever for them to get away with it. On the one side, we have retrograde forces like the commissioners of the FCC, and incompetent out-of-control police, who each in their ways imperil our freedom. On the other hand, we have miracles of technology, which speed us news of the FCC's misdoings, which provide immediate, irrefutable images of policy brutality and misconduct. These technologies have made freedom-loving people more equal to the task of combating these threats to our democracy. They are, in effect, media-philosophic partners of Ron Paul's run for the White House, and the respect he urges for the First Amendment. Category: Politics -- posted at: 10:55 AM Comments[0] |
Mon, 17 September 2007 I'm not talking about Fox News. It is the Fox Broadcasting Company - the entertainment part of the company, which has far more viewers and rakes in far more advertising revenue than its little brother, Fox News - that might need some massive boycotting. It was the Fox Broadcasting Company which censored Sally Field's anti-war statement in its broadcast of the Emmys last night. Sally Field was on stage to accept her Emmy Award for best actress in a drama series - Brothers and Sisters. She was talking about the pain of war, and said that, "if mothers ruled the world, maybe there would be no more godda-" And Fox cut her off in mid-sentence. We're not allowed to hear the phrase "goddamned war," even though war is just that. We, in our democracy, supposedly protected by a First Amendment that says Congress shall make law no abridging freedom of speech or press, are not allowed to hear a critique of war. Fox was no doubt afraid of the Federal Communications Commission, and what it might do to a broadcast network that allowed the word "goddamned" to go out to the world. This is what we've come to. Fear of an unconstitutional agency leading a network to bleep a profound, heartfelt observation about war. Here are some responses we might consider: 1. The Fox Broadcasting Company could lose more money if it loses viewers than it might have been fined by the FCC for broadcasting goddamned. Maybe Americans who want to see this wrong war over should stop watching Fox for a couple of weeks. A good time to start would be right now, when Fox is unveiling its Fall lineup. 2. The Academy of Television Arts and Sciences should think about moving the Emmys telecast to cable, currently not under the FCC's thumb. 3. We need to elect a President who understands the unconstitutionality of the FCC, and the damage it does. Ron Paul of the Republicans already gets this, and perhaps a few of the Democrats, such as Obama or Edwards, could make this part of their platform. On the May 8th page of the 2007 First Amendment Calendar, I'm quoted as saying "What begins as a seemingly innocent campaign against indecency … always segues in short order into political censorship." That's just what happened last night. Category: Television -- posted at: 2:49 PM Comments[0] |
Sun, 16 September 2007 Hey, I don't smoke ... but my interview in the current issue of The Smoking Poet sure does ... here's a snapshot of the e-zine's front page ...  THE SMOKING POET: FALL 2007 – ONLINE NOW! Life is growth. To stop growing is to stop living. The same principle applies to a literary ezine. It, too, is a living being, breathing new life with each and every submission that is chosen to appear in these pages. And surely this issue – our fourth – is breathing deeply! The voices here are many and diverse. Each one has given a breath of life to these pages, and we invite you to witness that life, allow it to move you, make you think and feel and perhaps do a bit of growing, too. Author Interview with Paul Levinson ============================ Enjoy ... here's one of my favorite lines ... "I’d like to see the FCC abolished, and everyone in Congress who supports it voted out or thrown out of office" Category: Cosmos -- posted at: 5:13 PM Comments[0] |
Sat, 15 September 2007 Translations ... in some ways, they are the most exciting, profound thing that can happen to an author. Your words translated into another language, read by people halfway or even completely around the world. I've been pretty fortunate with translations of my books. I was just looking them over. Here are some (to me, at least) interesting stats: . My work, at present, has been translated into Chinese, Japanese, Korean, French, Italian, Portuguese, Czech, Polish, Romanian, Macedonian, Croatian, and Turkish. . Chinese holds the record, at this point, |
