Jews Rush to Distance Themselves from Michael Richards, Who’s Not Jewish

Not a Jewish bigot: Okay, we’re all sick to death of Michael Richards‘ serial apologies for his bigoted “meltdown” at a comedy club last week. But this takes the cake.

The Jewish Telegraphic Association, which goes by the acronym JTA on its Web site, has issued the following blurb, which says as much about the JTA as it does about Richards’ lackluster and largely ineffectual PR attempt to rehabilitate himself in the eyes of the MSM. I suppose he should at least be commended for not hiding in rehab while the whole mess is going on.

Meanwhile, the JTA is quick to note that Richards is NOT A JEW:

Michael Richards was not born Jewish but “adheres” to Jewish philosophy, according to his publicist.

Michael Richards was not born Jewish but “adheres” to Jewish philosophy, according to his publicist.

Richards’ racist remarks at a Los Angeles comedy club last week created a maelstrom as well as a media frenzy.

Amid all the hoopla, bloggers and others labeled the former “Seinfeld” star Jewish but others reported he was not.

Howard Rubenstein, who was hired as Richards’ publicist, told JTA that Richards has not formally converted to Judaism but that some of his mentors were Jewish and he “adheres to Jewish philosophy.”

He said he could not give more details.

Olbermann Will Attack Dems Too

I’ve been a fan of Keith Olbermann since the early 1990s when he was a sportscaster on local news here in Los Angeles. I am the opposite of a sports fan and yet he somehow made football, baseball and the rest seem almost interesting.

This year, Mr. Olbermann did as much as anyone in the media to soften up the Republicans in advance of the midterm elections.

But Mr. Olbermann’s “special comments” about Bush Administration’s malfeasance gave the cover of mainstream legitimacy for criticism of the president and his party to spine-challenged liberal pols. The editorials also helped make his “Countdown” show the top-rated live news program at last-place MSNBC.

But Democrats should not count on Olbermann to look the other way if they whiff their opportunity to lead:

“If the Democrats don’t undo a lot of the things that have been done, like the Military Commissions Act and many of the other infringements on freedom, as I see it, there will be a special comment with their name on it,” Olbermann vowed.

I believe him. And the Dems had better believe it, too. Democratic leaders should consider Mr. Olbermann to be the proverbial canary in the coal mine. If he starts to squawk, I hope they’ll listen.

New Producer of Fox News’ Troubled Comedy Show Is Limbaugh’s Viagra Party Pal

Earlier Attempt Starring Laura Ingraham Apparently Failed

Rush Limbaugh is America’s funniest conservative, hands down. So when the Fox News Channel needed someone to produce a rightwing version of Jon Stewart’s “The Daily Show,” who else would they turn to but a friend of Rush Limbaugh.

Fox has hired Joel Surnow who, besides being an FORL, is a co-creator and producer of “24.” If his name sounds familiar, it’s because he was one of three guests at Rush Limbaugh’s viagra stag party on a Caribbean island last July.

Development on the show apparently stalled earlier this year after a misbegotten attempt hosted by Laura Ingraham apparently didn’t fly. Turns out sneering at liberals isn’t funny.

For the moment, the show is titled “This Just In” (but that will change because AOL has a show with the same name). It has two hosts who are both unknowns, Susan Yeagley and Kurt Long. (Dennis Miller was busy.) She has some impressive comedy credits, including bits on “Reno 911,” and his resume includes hosting a game show and a few sitcom appearances.

Seriously though, dying is easy, comedy is hard. Mr. Surnow’s “24” is a successful, suspenseful weekly drama. But producing a daily comedy show about current events uses a different set of creative muscles.

Even with Mr. Surnow onboard, this show will never work. Conservatives can’t do satire because truth-speaking to power is abrasive to their authoritarian worldview. Conservatives can’t tell the difference between satire and sarcasm. Satire can certainly get laughs but scarcasm — as anyone who’s ever spent time around thirteen-year-olds will tell you — just ain’t funny.

Murdoch Apologizes, Pulls Idiotic O.J. Project

Score one for the good guys.

The chairman of News Corporation issued a statement today announcing that it will not broadcast an interview with O.J. Simpson or publish the book he wrote about the murders of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend, Ronald Goldman.

“I and senior management agree that this was an ill-considered project,” News Corporation chairman Rupert Murdoch said in a statement released today. “We are sorry for any pain that it has caused the Goldman and Brown families.”

In an announcement on Fox News, an anchor said that the decision to cancel the TV special to air the interview and to shelve the book was prompted by viewer outrage.

News Corporation owns ReganBooks, which was to publish Simpson’s book.

Cable Newsers’ Coverage of Midterm Election Night Was a New Low

Keith Olbermann, the only professional newscaster on the set, successfully kept the coverage on track when he was on camera alone — and did his best not to wince when he was forced to engage in colloquies with Matthews, whose analysis grew increasingly off the wall as the evening progressed.

Flipping back and forth between the two legitimate cable news outlets, MSNBC and CNN, last night, I saw what I hope will be the low point in election night coverage on television.

The coverage on MSNBC was nothing less than a train wreck. The source of the problem was Chris Matthews, the disgruntled former Democrat who hosts the network’s Hardball program.

His co-anchor was Keith Olbermann, host of MSNBC’s Countdown, and the only professional newscaster on the set. Olbermann succeeded in keeping the coverage on track when he was on camera alone — and did his best not to wince when he was forced to engage in colloquies with Matthews, whose analysis grew increasingly off the wall as the evening progressed.

The lowest point in the evening started just prior to Matthews’ interview with Democratic Party chair Howard Dean in an exchange between Matthews and Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman from Florida, who hosts MSNBC’s Faux Fox News shout show, Scarborough Country.

The topic was Hillary Clinton — a subject that never fails to make Matthew spew spittle. But this time it was Scarborough who said, almost off-handedly, that Sen. Clinton, a conservative Democrat, represented the “far left” of the Democratic Party.

Matthews let the comment go as went immediately into his interview with Chairman Dean, but Dean, who was not in the studio and could not see a monitor so did not know Scarborough had made the statement, stopped the interview to say, “I don’t know who said [Clinton represented the “far left”] but whoever he is is not being objective.”

Matthews agreed, “No, he’s not.”

After the Dean interview, Scarborough took the floor and did what seemed like a five minute rebuttal. He went on at length about his own purported newfound fairness when looking at politics — how he has spent months trashing his own party and praising Democrats. To prove he point, he wrapped up — finally — by admitting that what he’d said about Sen. Clinton was inaccurate, that her voting record as been moderate and that she is a very fine senator. Matthews apologized to Scarborough for characterizing him as less than a down-the-middle newscaster, which just added to the absurdity and wasted more air.

That outburst, coupled with the fact that Matthews has had a half dozen instances over the past few months in which he can’t remember the names of the politicians he’s discussing — counterposed by the polished neutrality of Olbermann’s presentation last night — make it clear that MSNBC needs to replace Chris Matthews with a professional broadcaster to pair with Olbermann, who was criminally under-utilized last night.

My nomination would be Phil Donahue, who was fired by MSNBC one month before the U.S. invasion of Iraq because of his vocal opposition to the war.

Things were a bit better at CNN where there were more professional newscaster on the set, including emcee Wolf Blizter, commentator Jeff Greenfield and poll expert Bill Schneider. (Later, Anderson Cooper took over, who performed with his usual polish. There was also a segment with Larry King that literally put me to sleep.)

The panel of partisan experts on the set is getting very tired. I am biased, admittedly, but I do like Paul Begala and admire James Carville but the rightwing pundits, Bill Bennett and J.C. Watt, usually simply spout talking points faxed to them by Karl Rove’s office but apparently had not gotten their marching orders last night.

The worst idea of the evening, however, was CNN’s “blog party” at the restaurant Tryst in D.C. They invited big name bloggers from both the left and the right to Washington but then apparently did not have a plan for what to do them when the broadcast began.

As anyone who has tried it will tell you, live blogging at a party is practically useless and the coverage last night on the blogs of the folks who were at the CNN party generally suffered because they were distracted.

My recommendation is to ditch both the old partisan pundits and the blogger party idea and instead bring a handful of bloggers from both sides onto the set where they can cover the news on their sites, argue with each other and discuss their coverage with Blitzer, Greenfield, Schneider and the rest.

NBC to Dixie Chicks: Shut Up and Go Away

Does it never end? Now NBC is reportedly refusing to run ads for the documentary about the Dixie Chicks, “Shut Up and Sing.” Before we go on, view the trailer.

Looks good, right? I wish it were released a couple of weeks ago and in wide release instead of only heading to New York and L.A. theaters this weekend, but still.

The company distributing a new documentary about the Dixie Chicks has blasted the NBC and CW networks for allegedly refusing to accept a commercial spot for the film, which opens in four theaters Friday.

In a press release issued late Thursday, the Weinstein Co. said NBC rejected a spot for “Dixie Chicks: Shut Up and Sing,” because the spot included material that “disparages President Bush.”

So who doesn’t? The point is, why is NBC refusing to comment on this?

The Weinstein Co. distributed a document from CW that referred to “concerns (that) we do not have appropriate programming in which to schedule this spot.”

…According to a source, the spot has been cleared for broadcast on CBS, MTV and on local NBC, CW, ABC and Fox affiliates in New York and Los Angeles, as well as on local cable systems, including local spots on Fox News and CNN.

Yeah, no appropriate programming. The network that gave us Must See TV, Saturday Night Live, and The West Wing finds an ad for a documentary about censorship and blacklisting “inappropriate” for its viewers.

There is also a blog associated with the film, called Shut Up and Post. PR readers need to go there and participate because it looks like it’s getting overrun with trolls. Check it out, and leave a note for our side.

Fox News: North Korea Nukes Are ‘Good News’

Only in the mindset of a Fox News anchor and his viewers could North Korea’s purported test of nuclear bombs be considered “good news” that could counterpoint the “bad news” of the Foley scandal:

[JOHN] GIBSON: Does the fact that the North Koreans actually tested a nuclear weapon balance out the bad news from this Foley scandal?

[TONY] BLANKLEY: It doesn’t balance it out. It’s not a big enough story. As big as it should be, I don’t think it will take the oxygen out of the news cycle. I think it will take some of the breathlessness out of the reporting of the Foley story, but there will be some room, as we’re seeing today, both stories are getting coverage.

Study: Daily Show has More Humor, Less Hype and About the Same Amount of Substance as Network News Shows

But one’s funny: According to a study set to be released next summer by Indiana University, John Stewart’s Daily Show has more humor content, less hype, about the same amount of substantive news and is a hell of a lot funnier than, say, CBS Evening News with Katie Couric. Though I would suppose Couric would score higher on the cuteness factor.

“We’ve been wringing our hands for decades that the networks aren’t doing enough substance in the political coverage, so is it any real surprise that it’s just as substantive?,” Julia R. Fox, assistant professor of telecommunications at Indiana University, said of The Daily Show. “Our findings should allay at least some of the concerns about the growing reliance on this non-traditional source of political information, as it is just as substantive as the source that Americans have relied upon for decades.

“In an absolute sense, we should probably be concerned about both of those sources, because neither one is particularly substantive. It’s a bottom-line industry and ratings-driven. We live in an ‘infotainment’ society, and there certainly are a number of other sources available.”

Olbermann: Pres. Clinton’s Counter-Assault on Fox News Should Inspire New Aggressiveness toward Rightwing Lies

“To hear [Pres. Bush] bleat and whine and bully at nearly every opportunity, one would think someone else had been president on September 11, 2001 or the nearly eight months that preceded it.”
— Keith Olbermann

Starting with the 9/11 commemorations, Keith Olbermann has been giving Democrats considerable cover to start speaking out against the GOP White House spin and smear operation. Pres. Clinton took the opening and went with it in a stunning counter-offensive on Fox News last week. On Monday night, Olbermann responded with this on-air editorial about the Fox News “sandbag” attempt and Mr. Clinton’s aggressive response:

OLBERMANN: Finally tonight, a special comment about President Clinton‘s interview. The headlines about it are, of course, entirely wrong. It is not essential that a past present bullied and sandbagged by a monkey posing as a newscaster finally lashed back. It is not important that the current president‘s portable public chorus has described his predecessor‘s tone as crazed. Our tone should be crazed. The nation‘s freedoms are under assault by an administration‘s policies can do us as much damage as al Qaeda. The nation‘s marketplace of ideas is being poisoned by a propaganda company so blatant that Tokyo Rose would have quit.

Nonetheless, the headline is this: Bill Clinton did what almost none of us have done in five years—he has spoken the truth about 9/11 and the current presidential administration. “At least I tried,” he said, of his own efforts, “to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. That‘s the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They had eight months to try, they did not try, I tried.”

Thus in his supposed emeritus years, has Mr. Clinton taken forceful and triumphant action for honesty and for us. Action as vital and courageous as any of his presidency. Action as startling and as liberating as any, by anyone, in these last five long years.

The Bush administration did not try to get Osama bin Laden before 9/11. The Bush administration ignored all the evidence gathered by its predecessors. The Bush administration did not understand the daily briefing entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” The Bush administration did not try.

Moreover, for the five years, one month, and two weeks, the current administration and in particular the president has been given the greatest pass for incompetence and malfeasance in American history.

President Roosevelt was rightly blamed for ignoring the warning signs, some of them 17 years old before Pearl Harbor. President Hoover was correctly blamed for, if not the Great Depression itself, then the disastrous economic steps he took in the immediate aftermath of the stock market crash. Even President Lincoln assumed some measure of responsibility for the Civil War, though talk of Southern secession had begun as early as 1832.

But for this president. To hear him bleat and whine and bully at nearly every opportunity, one would think someone else had been president on September 11, 2001 or the nearly eight months that preceded it.

[…]