Hard hitting journalism at the LA Times

Times are tough, the economy is on the rocks, companies are lining up at the Federal trough to feed off the backs of working Americans, the entirety of the America auto industry is about to collapse. There are two wars going on and a substantial portion of Southern California has been reduced to ash. It is in this atmosphere that the Los Angeles Times continues it's tradition of hard-hitting, Pulitzer Prize winning journalism with a front-page, above-the-fold photo of President Elect, Barack Obama...buying a sandwich.

Creative Conservative

Now that the election is over I'm going to try to stop snarking a current events and get back to the real purpose of this blog which is a discussion of policy from a creative point of view. This is particularly interesting given a commentary yesterday in Forbes on "The Triumph of the Creative Class" which has some good points, yet seems to miss the point.

Kotkin, the author of the piece attributes great importance to the creative class, which apparently includes us Hollywood types (primarily, but does also include hedge fund managers and silicon valley types).

Anyway, it's an interesting read but I think it misses the mark. Certainly the "creative class" he talks about will have great influence over or in or certainly a lot of invitations from an Obama administration but he seems to lay on them a kind of world shaping philosohers mantle, which I just don't see. I mean, spend a little time hanging out with agents.

There's also the sense that this so called creative class moves with a purpose and while I think that's true, I also think he's wrong. The purpose isn't philosophical, it's monetary.

But there is a certain philosophical bent that comes across in films and television and I think there's a reason for it. It comes from the way Hollywood is, from the essence of how Hollywood culture is formed. It's an interesting story and I hope to tell it. I hope someone will read it. Onward and upward. Hope and change, baby!

The LA Times - Stranger than Fiction - or is it?

There's been a lot of chatter around and about the blogosphere concerning the LA Times and it's suppression this Obama video. It's even gone (having now received a link to the story from my mother) viral and people are, rightly so, suspicious as all hell. There are quite a few excuses and theories being postulated as to the Tinsel Town Fishwrap's motivations and it does seem strange. Protecting their source? From what? Has the man/woman committed a crime? Are they likely to suffer harm through release of this video? When you're dealing with a mob witness or government whistle blower - sure - I get it. Woodwar, Bernstein - I'm right there with you. But how does this rise to that level? Someone with a home camcorder in the audience - maybe they won't get invited to any other parties. A corporate or event video company hired to film it? Maybe in danger of losing a gig? Seems like small change to me.

But what about something that's so obvious it's being entirely overlooked. (And I'm not talking about the Obamaniac one-upsmanship that's likely to happen at the next newshawk convention.)

What if they (or the writer) made the whole thing up? Could this be another Jayson Blair?

OK, you say, in that case why cover for him? The paper's actions and lack of convincing reasons are making them seem wholly biased. Their credibility, already weak in many corners, is taking a hit of major proportions. Why not just throw him to the wolves and attempt to salvage whatever reputation they may have left?

It may be an easy answer. The LA Times, like most newspapers is losing readers like crazy. They just endured another round of layoffs and as one who subscribes (one of the few), I can tell you it's approaching the thickness of a well round pamphlet. Maybe the conversation wasn't something like, "how can we protect our sources," but maybe it was something like, "we can still run a paper if only 50% the population (the half we don't really care about) doesn't believe what we write, but if 100% of the population doesn't believe it..."


NOTE: I've noticed that among all the Obama signs in my neighborhood very few actually have print editions of the LA Times sitting under them in the morning.

A few tough questions and a big F.U.

wow. This is just incredible. I guess this Joe isn't used to having tough questions asked. Boy he does try to keep that smile plastered on though.




and double wow: here.

My Dog is depressed

Apparently a couple of guys from ACORN registered him to vote and he was all excited. I feel bad breaking his heart.

Cool Hand Barack

While this article in the NY Post is not part of the hagiographic meme circulating through the rest of the media, it does make reference to Barack's so-called, "cool" in the face of economic crisis. Am I dreaming? Of course Barack is cool. The worse the crisis gets the better it is for him and it's not like anyone's exactly pressing him (pun intended) on the details of how he's going to fix it once he's in office.

Columnist Asserts that "Black" is a Code Word for "Black"

Following things to the logical extreme, Joe Schlobotnik, a columnist for the San Francisco People's Daily Dog Trainer and Coupon Circular has determined that right-wing fascists of any and all stripes who refer to Obama as Black are actually engaging in double-speak.

"What they're trying to do," Schlobotnik writes, "is to infer that Obama is actually black. It's a scare tactic that harkens back to the days of Jim Crow, Amos and Andy and Daffy Duck when black was not only black but also not white. It's subtle, yet right in your face at the same time. When a Democrat calls Obama black there's a warm, glowing feeling of Martin Luther King and sitting around in a circle singing "Kum Bay Ya" because Democrats are sensitive people, with good hearts and high IQs who know instictively that black is not actually black but something more subtle, something spiritual that says, yes - we can! But there's no question that when a Republican calls someone black, what they're really saying is, hey, I'm a neo-nazi-racist thug."

LA Times flexes its psychic powers

The Los Angeles Times runs a front page, above the fold ANALYSIS (read: opinion piece) on last night's debate and in a blast of psychic superpower declares that it "appears to do little to shift the dynamics."

Now this could be true today, but remember that paper was lying in my driveway at 6am this morning which meant that it went to the presses overnight which meant that the "analysis" of how the debate shifted or did not shift any dynamics was written LAST NIGHT well before anyone had any IDEA of what dynamics might have shifted.

Of course it might not be psychic powers, it might just be wishful thinking.

Photo Editing Shopping at the LA Times

As a director/filmmaker I'm keenly attuned to how images appear onscreen and how the framing, lighting and other aspects of an image can inform a viewer's perception of the subject.

There are two images on the front page of the LA Times this morning:







I've posted them in the order they appear on the paper with Obama on top and McCain below (in fact below the fold)- itself a choice that expresses a point of view. Now the article that accompanies them is about how even Republicans are abandoning McCain in this time of economic crisis. There's also a graph that makes Obama's victory look inevitable. But my concern is the pictures. Remember - the LA Times probably has thousands of images to choose from in illustrating a story, so the choice of any two images expresses the opinions of the editors in an incredibly subtle way that even they may not be able to fully understand. Let's take a look.

The top one of Obama makes him look strong - glancing off firmly into the future - the American Flag is bright, strong and crisply in focus behind him. He is lit from above so his chin is solid - ready to take one on the jaw for America (his eyes are in shadow - which if I were lighting it myself I would have fixed, but it doesn't detract from the image). His expression is confident, serene. Slap a cowboy hat on him and a cigarette (not a stretch) and you've got the Marlboro man. There is no ambiguity in this picture. It's the photo of a hero.

Let's take a look at McCain. It's a profile and is lit from below so that he looks old - this is never a flattering point of view and if you were photographing a middle-aged woman (say Barbara Streisand this way, you might have your head lopped off). We can see the sagging skin under his chin and the shadows that play across the rest of his face make him look dramatic and accent his wrinkles. His expression looks slightly - uncertain. We're not sure at all where he's looking or what he's thinking. The America flag behind him is dark and out of focus. This is an ominous picture. But there's something else about this picture that concerns me greatly. What the hell happened to the star field? Aren't the stars on the American flag supposed to be white? In this case they're dark - in fact they appear darker than the blue. Trick of the light, you say? Just the way it's been lit. Then why do the stripes only inches away appear white? It looks to me as if someone has inverted the contrast on the star field. I have photoshop on my other computer so I haven't had time to take a crack at how this might work, but at first glance it looks a little fishy.

Why? Why indeed would someone want to portray the symbol of our country as altered right behind the face of a man running for president - on the front page of a major newspaper no less. Why place him photographically in a situation that appears ominous?

Maybe they're referring to the Monty Python "Holy Grail" version of the little fluffy bunny

Drudge linked to this but it's a great example of something that I've been annoyed with for years; that is an editorial masquerading as news. There's absolutely no question that this story is OPINION and not fact. Also, it's hard to imagine someone referring to Sarah Palin as a "fluffy bunny" as anything but sexist. Then again, they could be referring to that fluffy bunny in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

Sarah needs to learn some sleight of hand

I have to admit I'm a little disappointed with Sarah Palin's interview with Couric. I'm not down on Sarah entirely and still think she's a great choice, but my take on the interview (and I haven't seen all of it yet) is that she's a little green. Doing interviews like that takes experience.

No one ever actually answers questions in situations like that. I'm almost sure that Barack Obama has never answered a question straight in his life, but there are tricks and techniques you learn after a while. Redirection is the key - sleight of hand. Some people call it dodging but people like Hillary are masters at it. You get asked one question and you answer another. The trick is the link. You have to link it. You have to make the audience watch one hand while your other is hiding the coin.

It's like this.
"What other Supreme Court cases are you concerned about?"
"It isn't a specific case, it's all cases. You can't look back, you have to look forward and you have to select justices not based on specific cases, but on principals because that's what the American people want and right now the American people, our people are hurting and they're hurting because the elitists in Washington are more worried about what pet project they get into this rescue bill than in helping out main street. "

You have to answer with a non-answer, but it takes a few years in the saddle to get that. The real pros can finish with a hot button issue that the interviewer will be compelled to follow up - thus getting them entirely off topic and the trick is complete.

Blocking the Path to 9/11

I saw a documentary last night (and no, I was not the one there who actually had pink hair) called, Blocking the Path to 9/11 that was extremely pertinent to what's going on in the media today. It was about the docudrama, The Path to 9/11 that appeared on ABC and portrayed events leading up to the attacks of September 11 and the Clintons' attempts to have the film pulled/ censored. It was also about the Democrats (at large) apparent willingness/ eagerness to have the film stopped including, incredibly, Harry Reid and others (who admit on camera that they have not seen the film) threatening ABC with having their broadcast license revoked and the Main Stream Media's eagerness to buy into and accept unconditionally whatever it was that the Clintonistas were telling them.

It was a fascinating and blood boiling film and really should be seen by a wider audience, especially given the current climate.

What struck me as particularly relevant to what's going on right now was a section in the film that detailed a series of what were essentially fabrications on the part of Clinton "operatives" (a word with bad connotations which the LA Times (at least) loves to ascribe to anyone having to do with the Bush Administration or Republicans in general) who really made up an amazing series of lies to outline a perceived Right Wing Conspiracy ™ which 0they blamed for instigating the film. (There's a hilarious section of the doc (well, hilarious to any of us working in Hollywood) where the lunacy of that was explained.) It also details the amazing way those lies worked their way into the Main Stream Media as fact and it bore a striking resemblance to what's happening with Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin (read here for an amazing piece of work on this.) As with most of my conservative friends (who also remain hidden in underground bunkers of Laurel Canyon and wear paper bags over their heads when venturing out for their iced-chai, decaf lattes) I've been stunned and appalled at the lies strewn about by anyone with a keyboard and internet access that get taken up and just blathered out. What is more amazing, is there seems to be a concerted effort to do this. Eyeball this, for instance.

Wow

I have a degree in journalism and I have to admit, this is not something I ever learned:

ABC News Edited Out Key Parts of Sarah Palin Interview