Mainstream Media Sat on Weinergate Until Anthony Weiner Admitted Posting Photo

Weinergate is in full thrust and poised to ejaculate a member of Congress. Too "pun on words" for the latest scandal rippling its way out of Washington? I'll say. What, exactly, is Weinergate?

The weiner jokes have been coming fast and furous since Congressman Anthony Weiner tweeted a picture of his underweared nether regions for benefit of his adoring followers. Last Wednesday, Conservative talk show hosts got wind of blogger Andrew Breitbart's take on the picture and have been spanking the story ever since.

At first, in an underreported news conference, Congressman Weiner denied posting the picture, claiming someone must have hacked into his Twitter account to embarrass him. However, when pressed on the issue, he also admitted not reporting the incident to the police. Sort of strange, given that he's a member of Congress and may have been the victim of identity theft. He also refused to admit or deny whether his nether regions were the ones in the picture, saying that when your last name is Weiner, you're the victim of a lot of penis jokes.

And yet, the national news media barely touched the story. As far as I could tell, there was very little mention of it over the weekend, and if mentioned, it was mostly to portray the incident as a non-story. As recently as yesterday, when I mentioned the controversy to one of my dyed-in-the-wool Democrat friends, she had no idea what I was talking about. Therein lies the true controversy.

Forget about Congressman Weiner doing something so incredibly stupid as to make himself vulnerable to possible blackmail, ruining the lives of his incredibly trusting wife and family, and preying on Twitter groupies who think he's someone special because he wears a government identification badge and works in the Capitol. Forget about whether he should resign (he should), or whether his party should clean house by pressuring him to resign (they should), and forget about whether every single American should be up in arms knowing that a member of Congress is using his time to post penis pictures rather than try to resolve the budget crisis or bring down the price of oil (they should).

Right now, each and every American should be furious at the national news media for burying the story until Weiner decided to come clean in a second news conference. Last week, a Politico blogger characterized the story as an "ambiguous online mini-scandal." Well, if not for the pressure of one relentless blogger, independent web sites, and one very out-spoken woman from Texas, Americans might still be in the dark about the incident, or under the mistaken impression that the story isn't news.

Yesterday, to the chagrin of Nancy Pelosi, who vowed to clean up Washington and keep a tight reign on her party, Congressman Weiner, Democrat New York, finally admitted to posting a picture of himself in his underwear for all the world to see. He also apologized ad nauseum to everyone and their brother, sickeningly so, if you ask me. Too little too late and fuel for the fire to run him out of office, but at least now the national news media is reporting the story.

Not that they had a choice. Now, even late night talk show hosts are taking pot shots at Weiner. By the time that happens, you can stick a fork in the story and roast it for breakfast.

Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential People in the World 2011 Misses Mark on Entertainment

Has Time magazine lost its mind? I recently had the misfortune to peruse its "100 Most Influential People in the World" issue and am saddened and dismayed to behold the rag which this one great news weekly has become. Who are they kidding?

For one thing, there's a huge picture of Chris Colfer of "Glee" smack dab on the cover. After winning the Golden Globe for best supporting actor in a TV series, this kid is everywhere -- the late night talk show circuit, day time talk shows, magazine spreads, a plum spot on a Saturday Night Live sketch, and now the cover of Time. Colfer pretty much admitted he didn't deserve the honor, saying in reference to a gathering for the honorees, "I still don't know what I was doing there."

Neither do I.

Okay, I realize the list honors Time's opinion of the most influential people in entertainment, as well as those in communications and politics. But that's precisely the problem. These people are supposed to be the most influential in their field. Certainly there must be more influentual people in the field of entertainment than a 21-year old actor on a hit TV show who just happened to give a stirring acceptance speech at a Hollywood award show.

Don't get me wrong, I am a big fan of "Glee," think Colfer has a lovely singing voice, and highly respect his effort to raise awareness of the "gay predicament." But seriously, if Time wanted to honor an actor for promoting gay tolerance, what about openly gay entertainer and talk show host Ellen DeGeneres? DeGeneres, who wields more influence in her little finger than Colfer has in his whole body, shapes the national dialogue on her popular talk show each and every weekday by choosing her own guests and topics. To my knowledge, Colfer isn't even out of the closet. At least DeGeneres is out there walking the walking and taking a serious stance in matters of concern to the gay community.

What was Time thinking?

Colfer isn't even the worst of the bunch. When it comes to naming lackluster entertainers, some who may spend more time shaping their eyebrows than public opinion, Time really hit the motherload. For goodness sakes, what on earth has Mia Wasikowska done to land on such a supposedly prestigious list? Look waif-like and attractive in a Tim Burton movie? Her write-up by Glenn Close mentions her "signature outfit" -- a combination of wool, black and brogues -- and energetic seductiveness, but not much more. Is Time telling sane people to believe such trifles actually influence world opinion?

I could go on, but you get my drift. There are definitely others who don't belong. Hopefully, you'll take a look at the list yourself to form your own conclusions.

When it comes to the field of entertainment, I can think of half a dozen people off the top of my head who did more than some of the people on this list to influence world opinion in the past year. Roman Polanski, who was arrested by the Swiss government, held for extradition and then freed, continues to make controversial and provocative cinema. Sandra Bullock showed the world how to leave a bad marriage and cheating spouse with grace and dignity. Conan O'Brien also showed tremendous grace under pressure by walking away from his dream job as host of "The Tonight Show" to preserve the legacy of the show. Tom Hanks continues to produce award-winning television. Donald Trump. Steven Spielberg. James Cameron. George Clooney. Lady Gaga. Take your pick. These are just a handful of entertainers who influence the world stage.

Oops, I accidentally named more than a half dozen. Given time and a little effort, I bet you could too.

Save the Cheerleader, Save the World from Hottest Tots and Celebrity Couples

Forbes' Hottest Hollywood Tots is such a crock of publicity horse cocky, I want to steam myself under a hot shower for the next fifteen minutes just to loosen the dibbles.

Joel McHale said exactly what was on my mind - why in the world is Forbes magazine venturing into the world of celebrity fluffaby? Did editors throw the financial sector overboard now that America is knee deep in meltdown economics?

"Oh, we can't break even publishing financial pontifications. Let's add a celebrity toddlers hot or not contest. That'll bring in people clicking like mad."

You'd better believe I'm mad, uptight and mad's more like it. Mad that I had to click through five crappy millileters each time I wanted more information about the listed tots. Boy, Forbes' stuff must really be in the toilet to milk so much out of celebrity gossip.

So I'm ending the shennanigans right now by printing their ridiculous exercise in self-preservation, saving you, dear reader, the torture of suffering through another gazilllion of pages from hell.

10. Samantha Sheen (Denise Richards and Charlie Sheen)
9. Sean and Preston Federline (Britney and Fed-Ex)
8. David Banda (Madonna)
7. Matilda Rose Ledger (Michelle Williams and Heath Ledger)
6. Cruz Beckham (Posh and Becks)
5. Sam Alexis Woods (Tiger and Elin Woods)
4-2. Pax, Zahara, and Shiloh Jolie-Pitt (in that order)(Brangelina)
1. Suri Cruise (TomKat)

And as long as we're on the subject, I have only this to ask ... WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?

How could anyone in their right mind include tug-of-war toy David Banda but omit Kingston Rossdale? Or Johan Samuel? Or Harlow Winter Kate Madden, for that matter?

And what about the inferiority complexes foisted upon helpless and defenseless celebritots who through no fault of their own are subjected to arbitrary and capricious rejection every time they hear the name "Forbes?" It's not like these children ask to be paraded around like a traveling museum. The least we can do is feign a little respect for their privacy.

Not so when it comes to 2008's Best and Worst Celebrity Couples list. You'll also slog through a ton of advertising, but at the end of the day, won't feel any worse for the wear.

Unlike hot to trot celebritots, there's the trade-off component of choosing a profession that unfolds in the public eye. Celebrities expect and anticipate a certain amount of ogle. It's the American way, for goodness sake!

For those reasons and the fact that only one couple per family posted in the best and worst section, no spoilers about 2008's Best and Worse. Go ahead, get your hands dirty.

I won't tell if you won't.

Sarah Palin Nomination Spawns Bias, Frivolity, and Running for Cover

In the final stretch of Election 2008 media bias has entered the fray, thankfully as comic relief.

Bad enough registered voter polling continues ad nauseum (as previously stated many, many times, The Spewker puts no stock whatsoever in polls), now campaign cry babies scramble to discredit new numbers!

Okay, we get it. Certain news organizations are pushing for Obama/Biden. But biased reporting in any form -- whether influencing an election with subliminal references to positive character, whitewashing wrongdoing for the perceived greater good, or mischaracterizing an event to achieve personal objective -- is misguided, unethical and just plain wrong. The backlash has been swift, unmerciful and to our great delight, hilarious.

Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly going to town on Bradley Jacobs of US Magazine plays like a deer in the headlights. Like a hapless little boy using spindly arms to deflect a pummeling by brutally vicious older sister. Ow. Ouch! She's touching me! Mom!

Who would believe tabloid headlines could spark news wars. Everybody knows that stuff is embellished to sell magazines at the checkout line.

Well... er... apparently not everybody.

As previously impervious realms of celebrity and politics continue to mix and mingle, US Magazine editor Janice Min has taken her share of the beating. Defending charges of purposefully mischaracterizing the cover story about GOP Veep nominee Sarah Palin, Min responded,

This is an election where personality is getting sold, oftentimes far ahead of platform, and that personal interest in the candidates has definitely crossed over into the pop-culture arena. I think that after so many years where people decried the interest in celebrity as a distraction from real issues, I’ve definitely noticed the worlds converging.

Yah, so have we. But let's get real.

Tabloids are widely considered the second tier of journalism because they're known to play fast and loose. Not much investigation and many stories taken at the word of an unverified source. Tabloids manipulate headlines to sell magazines much the same way corporations use Olympic athletes to endorse ordinary consumer goods. Bright and shiny sells. So does outrage.

Truth be told, we're lapping up every steamy detail of the "Sarah Palin Chronicles." Made up or not, this woman's personal life plays like an episode of The Beverly Hillbillies. Estranged brother-in-law fired after ugly custody battle. Alleged affair with husband's ex-business associate. Alleged bigoted leanings. Partisan political firings. Pregnant unmarried 17-year old daughter pressured to marry in advance of Republican National Convention. Mother-in-law may vote for Obama. Former Wasilla church kooky prophecy ties. Busted for fishing without a license.

The list goes on and on.



This just in: Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews replaced as political anchors. Perhaps certain news organizations have gotten the biased media message after all.

Sarah Palin's Family Pain Becomes Media Fodder

Inordinate amounts of incongruous baby sightings during Wednesday's Republican National Convention played like a public relations staging of family values.

First up, Cindy McCain cradling a baby. Then it was Republican V.P. Nominee Sarah Palin's husband holding their infant son. Next, Palin's young daughter in baby holding central. When the little girl licked her fingers to smooth down the baby's hair, I half expected her to spit away smudges too. Luckily the camera pulled away before she could completely gross out the audience.

Whatever public relations coup the Republicans think all that baby holding accomplished, somebody better get a grip on reality.

Hot off the presses comes the glut of celebrity magazine covers featuring Sarah Palin with not so nice news about members of her family. Is there something maniacal about the camera angle? The reversed image of her pinched out a smile with "must hold eyes open" glare reminds me of those America's Next Top Model themed photo shoots, you know, the ones where contestants pose using wacky scenery in the background.

"Give me fierce, Sarah, your most fierce pose as new mother and governator! Oh yeah, that's fearless, yes. Love the 'we're gonna terminate you' look as baby obliviously grips a finger."

The GOP has been criticizing the media's treatment of Palin's unmarried pregnant 17-year old daughter, Bristol. Majority opinion says to lay off because Bristol is not in the public eye and didn't seek publicity for having sex out of wedlock. I couldn't disagree more. At least the media fire storm is understandable.

Prior to Palin's nomination, Obama family bashing was good sport. Conservative pundits claimed Michelle Obama was fair game because she made campaign appearances. They mercilessly played her controversial sound bites over and over until most people didn't care whether she was proud of her country for the first time or "really proud." Then they went to town on Access Hollywood's 4th of July family interview, claiming Obama exploited his young children for the sake of publicity. Don't get me started on the stink they continue to make over his personal associations.

So, why should Sarah Palin's personal associations be off limits?

For a woman whose face was supposed to evoke the embodiment of core conservative values, revelation of Bristol's pregnancy is more than just a fly in the ointment. It's shocking confirmation of another politician talking the talk but not walking the walk. For someone preaching abstinence and holier than thou fundamentals, Palin didn't do such a hot job of indoctrinating her own daughter. Worse, she's running on a platform seeking to dictate those values to the American people. Changes in public policy and the composition of the Supreme Court are on the line. The public has a right to know everything about the person advocating such changes.

Granted, the media is having a field day with Palin and the almost daily revelations of shocking surprises, including her husband's association with an independent political party and Pat Buchanan's assertions that she was a fundraising member of his brigade. But isn't that to be expected when the presidential election is less than 100 days away?

Pundits who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Dueling McCain and Obama Ads Knock Out Media

The latest development on the campaign trail is too good to be true. Presumptive Republican nominee John McCain managed to take the meaning of the term "celebrity politics" to a whole new level.

Gentlemen, to your corners. Everybody ready? Okay, then. Let's get ready to rummmmm-bbbbble (are you ready for this).

... doo do da de de doo doo, doo do da de de do do ...

In this corner, weighing in at a svelte 170 pounds, America's favorite former POW, John Mc-Cain!

And in this corner, down to the slim trim fighting weight of 198 pounds," the biggest celebrity in the world," Ba-rack O-ba-ma!

Say hello to our panel of judges, everyone. A media so concerned with making talking points, they've turned on themselves. Talk about lack of substance in a campaign, don't be surprised if our judges go down for the count.

...and the colored girl goes, do dah do dah do dah do de oh, do dah do dah do dah do de oh. Hey girl, come and walk on the wild side...

Not meaning any disrespect, but can't help myself. The McCain ad portraying Obama as a vapid celebutante is hilarious. Who ever thought a serious political candidate would use images of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton in an attack? Are McCain's campaign advisors not aware of Britney's recent comeback makeover? I mean, the girl hasn't run over any paparazzi or crashed her car in months.

Sure hope they cleared the use of her image through proper channels. Ditto for Paris Hilton. I doubt either one would allow use of their images gratis.

FYI, Britney's temporary conservatorship is back in court today. She'd be crazy to cut ties with her father seeing how he's apparently turned her life around. But then Brit isn't known for her keen intellect.

Do you think McCain is trying to make that kind of comparison with Obama? Because if so, it's not going to fly. Harvard Law Review Editor, fellows. Only black man in the U.S. Senate. Best-selling book author. Co-sponsor of important transparency in government legislation. Come on, give the man his due. He's very intelligent. Has to be with that list of accomplishments.

Obama's summary dismissal of McCain's charges also made me chuckle. If his ad runs a month from now, no one will know what he's talking about. Then again, maybe his campaign intended a generic rebuttal. That way he can run the ad at any time to any charges levied against him and look like he's paying attention.

What I like about Obama's rebuttal is that it finally highlights his energy policies, a decisive factor for me in this campaign. Obama is shooting for the moon when it comes to energy. If he can successfully hit the target, it will be Camelot the sequel.

McCain's ad says nothing about the man McCain, nor what he intends to do as president. It's also somewhat deceptive. Obama's energy policies are not reliant upon an increase in foreign oil. At the very least, the McCain camp could get their facts straight.

Ooooo. And there he goes down for the count. The crowd goes wild. Can the war hero recover? I don't know, Sheilah, it looks like there's blood dripping down his chin. But then McCain comes from tougher stock than that, just take a look at the man's mother. There she is in the front row yelling at him to get off the floor. Wait. I see a muscle twitch. He's getting back up. Thank heavens -- ding ding ding -- saved by the bell.

Fox News Bill O'Reilly Battles Big Nas Attack: "Racist Smears Must Stop"

Racial and political polarization grows ever wider in the good old U.S.of A. Why recreate the turbulent 1960's when real political storm clouds gather strength in our midsts?

The latest fracas occurred last Wednesday, July 23, 2008 when popular rapper Nas, MoveOn.org, ColorOfChange.org and a large heterogeneous crowd of people demonstrated with more than 600,000 petition signatures in front of Fox NYC headquarters. Nas called Fox News a "propaganda machine," skewering the network for its "racist attacks on the Obama family and Black America."

Fox News host Bill O'Reilly quickly shot back, insinuating no one reported the demonstration because "the vile rapper" Nas doesn't carry much clout. O'Reilly cited declining album sales and "vulgar lyrics peddled to children" as proof, challenging anyone to characterize his comments as racist. He also bashed MoveOn.org as the "new media Klan," a reference to the KKK and insidious behavior.

Media wars, don't you love it? Rather than clash on the streets with police and billy clubs poised to strike, celebrities battle one another on the air waves where anyone with a video camera can join the fray.

Let's try to ratchet the hatred down a notch, shall we? In the words of our own Moan Quivers, "All we are saying is give peas a chance."

Comparison of Nas album sales proves nothing. Only a week ago, the rapper's new album Untitled soundly trounced the competition, debuting in the #1 Billboard album slot with sales of 186,600. Notable lower ranked competition included the Mamma Mia! soundtrack, Kid Rock's Rock N Roll Jesus and O.A.R.'s All Sides. Lower album numbers are likely a reflection of Dubya's failing economic policies than a decline in Nas' fan base.

On to Fox. O'Reilly did not say a lynching party for Michelle Obama might be "legit" if she has the wrong political opinion. During a "No Spin Zone" back in February, O'Reilly stopped a caller from trashing the potential First Lady without a thorough investigation. The segment showcases O'Reilly using nothing more than a poor choice of words later taken out of context.

Heaping fuel on a concrete brick does not a racist fire make.

But whoever supervises pundit E.D. Hill may want to order some sensitivity training. Despite the whitewash from Baltimore's own Michelle Malkin, racist smears have materialized on Hill's watch.

Obama's baby momma? Woman, puh-leeze! Surely, Hill has the final say over her news story captions. The message of that piece -- unfair censorship of criticism directed at Michelle Obama -- was completely lost because someone in Hill's entourage likened the "baby momma" reference to entertainment.

OMG! Granted, a new term recently entered "white people" vernacular, but making light of this development demonstrates a disconcerting level of ignorance.

For more than a century, African-Americans have had to deal with slavery fallout, including disintegration of family values at the hands of task masters. Slaves were treated as chattel, often with husbands and wives literally ripped apart never to see one another again. Today, a large holdover of African-Americans perpetuate this distorted model of family not because it's necessarily desirable, but because it eventually became acceptable. In any event, the model offered black families something white people usually didn't: survival.

I'm not judging whites and blacks. My sincere hope is that all Americans will unite to change this perversion of family values. All Americans need to understand and appreciate how a two-parent family helps children thrive.

In the meantime, news elite need to sensitize themselves to a pervasive cultural model giving rise to a name for never married mothers of children. The term "baby momma" is an insult to women like Michelle Obama, women who actually marry their children's father before conception in an effort to provide stable homes and model traditional family values.

More so, questioning the Obama victory bump as a terrorist hand gesture is so far over the line of acceptable discourse, even I don't want to go there. Every day I get emails about Barack the Muslim terrorist sympathizer, Barack the politician with anti-Semite political advisors, Barack the socialist who will naively allow the destruction of America. I wish Obama detractors would focus on something other than their worst nightmares. For all the war mongering and economic policies emanating from the Dubya Administration, this country isn't exactly positioned for an era of peace and prosperity.

The proof is in the pudding. 'Nuff said.

I'm going to let Keith Olberman have the last word on perceived racism at Fox. Personally, I can't stand network news left or right, nor political pundits telling me what to think. I digest all of the news with a grain of salt, carefully scrutinizing the source and their respective agendas in an attempt, however misguided, to formulate my own conclusions.

However, if Olberman's charges are accurate -- and many say they are -- something is seriously wrong with this picture. Under our next President, Fox News could very well have a Congressional inquiry breathing down its back.

As good a reason as any to clean up its sorry excuse for journalism as swiftly as possible.

[Source]

Update: The O'Reilly Factor video has disappeared from the Internet for purported copyright violation so many times, we're afraid it may never reappear. In the event the embedded video becomes inoperable, we have taken the time to provide a transcript. Note that we are not employees nor associated with Fox News. However, we have run the embedded video three times and will vouch for the accuracy of our transcript.

Bill O'Reilly appears on screen with the words "Reality Check" under a picture of Nas

O'Reilly: Check number two concerns the vile rapper, Nas. As you may have heard, that guy is accusing Fox News of being a racist organization. This from a person who makes a living peddling the “N” word and violent lyrics to his target audience of children and young adults. He is a real champ. The good news is only a very few media have given him any attention and those who did do not deserve your attention. They are corrupt. That’s because Nas had an obvious agenda in this case. His new album is a bomb, a disaster, a catastrophe, and he desperately wants attention. Two years ago, his last album sold three hundred and fifty-five thousand copies in his first week. This one has sold a hundred and eighty-seven thousand copies. Not good. I hope I’m not a racist for pointing that out. Check number three…

Manufactured Controversy Over Obama Family Interview Smells Fishy

Access Hollywood is getting a lot of mileage out of an interview with the presumptive Democratic nominee and his family. I'm referring, of course, to Barack Obama, his wife Michelle, and daughters Malia and Sasha, ages 10 and 7 respectively.

But before we get into any of the ensuing controversy, isn't Malia's 4th of July birthday worth reflection? I can't remember a time when anyone running for president was either born on or had an immediate family member born on the 4th of July.

Yes, of course, some presidents who served when the nation was still in diapers, and Uncle Sam, whoever his relatives are, but other than those relics, can't think of a 4th of July baby connected to the presidency. Barring a planned C-section, Malia's 4th of July birthday is quite remarkable then, don't you think?

I think it's a message from G-O-D pointing to our next president.

Okay, not really. Kismet thinking like that is just plain weird and generally holds no significance. However, I do think the coincidence is a tad unusual and wonder why the mainstream media hasn't relished this red, white, and blue tidbit, given their massive focus on the family interview.

According to Access Hollywood, Obama regrets his entire family speaking with the press, as seen in this exchange with Matt Lauer on Today:

'If you had the chance to do it over again?' Matt asked.

'We wouldn’t do it again and we won’t be doing it again,' Barack answered.

So, why all the negativity over an almost gaffe free interview giving the public a glimpse of the real Obamas? Certainly, no one is expecting the Senator's children to behave like robotic angels. If they did, I might wonder whether the Obamas were raising trained seals instead of little girls.

Little Sasha is only 7-years old, for crying out loud. The way she squirmed and revealed the "minty gum" secret was slightly adorable. Why some people call that exploitation or inappropriate exposure, I don't know. Is it because we got so used to Bill and Hillary going to extremes to keep Chelsea out of the limelight?

I'm referring to Bill's White House days, not when Senator Clinton ran for president. The Clintons scrupulously guarded Chelsea's privacy like two mother hens keeping an egg away from the weasels. Early on, someone made some crack about her braces and for the rest of Bill's presidency anything Chelsea was off limits.

And try this on for size. Maybe Chelsea Clinton wasn't the kind of kid a president would want exposed to the media. Maybe Billary was afraid Chelsea would reveal a side of their family they didn't want the public to see, a side that might make them look socially awkward, piercing the facade of the larger than life Bill Clinton, who knows? Maybe Chelsea was painfully shy and they didn't want to screw her up psychologically. Conjecture, conjecture, conjecture.

There was, in fact, a reason the Clintons belittled the media into keeping Chelsea out of the press. All I'm saying is the Obamas shouldn't be put to task for Bill and Hillary's parenting decisions. Or for the Bush's attempts to keep their twin out of the press. Er, um, 'nough said.

It's been a long time since any President or presidential candidate offered America a glimpse of his family. Contrary to the way some pundits seem to be interpreting this gesture, it shows a tremendous level of trust and comfort with the children he and Michelle are raising. Plus, I really enjoyed seeing the man interact with his family.

Access Hollywood, a celebrity gossip news program, conducted the interview, not Meet the Press. It was supposed to show the lighter side of this candidate. Goodness sakes alive, can't a man relax with his wife and kids on the 4th of July?

Which brings to mind something more insidious possibly going on behind the scenes in this manufactured brouhaha. Are tongues wagging in an effort to discredit Senator Obama's decision making abilities? He trots the kids out for the cameras, then says on national TV he won't be doing it again, like he regrets the decision. What's next? He drops the nuclear bomb, then says he regrets that decision too?

Can you see where I'm going with this?

Mark my words. The fight for the Democratic nomination is not over. Oh, you may think Obama wrapped up enough delegates to put him over the top, but anything can happen at the convention. This nomination is not set in stone, despite the MSM announcement of Obama as victor.

Hillary is as mad as a hornet's nest over not being offered VP. If the Clinton machinery can stir up enough media negativity, that might persuade enough superdelegates to question the strength of an Obama candidacy, consequently unraveling state delegate support, and then, well, anything is possible. The general public is just a tad bit too complacent thinking Obama's nomination is a lock.

Lately, the MSM has been very careful to refer to Senator Obama as the presumptive nominee. Not as careful with Senator McCain, if you catch my drift.

So, there you have it. A fine young American family celebrating a 4th of July birthday and dishing with Access Hollywood. A media fire storm over pretty much nothing. I don't know about you, but I smell something rotten in Denmark.

CNN Sinks to Toilet Humor for News

Did CNN just run a story about the space station toilet being on the fritz? With guest commentary? And illustrative video? What is wrong with these people, talking about number one and number two on national television. What -- the Sarah Larson and George Clooney breakup not titillating enough for everyone? OMFG.

On Location Correspondent: I'm in the zero gravity chamber, looking at the space station toilet. I am in the toilet. Repeat. In the toilet.

CNN News Anchor (under her breath): So are we.

The state of national news has really deteriorated. Doing my part to spice things up, I'll be spending the day in beautiful downtown Pasadena, California, and then to Studio City for an According to Jim taping. Yes, we found a show that was actually still in production. And the weather? Absolutely fanfreakntabulous.

Nude Underage Model Scandal

First Miley Cyrus went bare bones in Vanity Fair. Now the heat is on RUSSH magazine for titillating nude photos featuring 16-year old New Zealand model, Zippora Seven. In two separate photo shoots the teen is shown topless first on the back of a horse, then cavorting in a bubble bath with a "passed-out" underage male model and some champagne bottles.

The Australian Classification Board is investigating the Sydney, Australia publication for violation of The Classification Act. The law prohibits the depiction of nudity or sexual activity of people under the age of 18.

Fans of the magazine don't seem to mind this type of photography, but I sure do. Underage models are too young and impressionable (sometimes even at age 18) to understand or appreciate how posing in their birthday suits can negatively affect their careers and personal lives.

Models can become type-cast for this type of work, possibly shutting them out of top jobs in the fashion industry. The photos will follow them for the rest of their careers. There's also a certain degree of personal fallout. Parents, relatives, and close friends sometimes lose respect for models who pose in the nude. This type of photography also promotes child pornography. When a model is this young, their bodies may not be fully developed, giving perverts access to otherwise prohibited material.

Plain and simple, photo spreads of nude or partially nude jail bait is exploitation. I'd throw the book at the magazine as well as the lousy modeling agency who cavalierly admitted the photo shoot went too far. In The Daily Telegraph report, agent Priscilla Leighton-Clarke admits,

"It's wrong that our girl has appeared in a magazine exposing her breasts when she's so young."

Damn straight.

[Source and photo]

Self-Parodying Journalist Slobber Features Neil Patrick Harris

So, Neil Patrick Harris triumphs with a pithy turn in the stoner adventure, Harold & Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay. But how can anyone call his no-basis-in-reality debauched former child star portrayal an Oscar worthy self-parody?

"To the delight of fans and critics alike, he reprises his turn as Neil Patrick Harris, a doped-up, egomaniacal, prostitute-loving, unicorn-riding narcissist wielding his own personalized branding iron,"

heralds Donna Freydkin's puff piece in USAToday.

Ohhhhh....I get it....since he's gay in real life (not that there's anything wrong with that) and his partying days are behind him, his film alter-ego does curvaceous hookers and copious amounts of illegal substances. According to the article, Harris has nothing in common with his "overblown movie persona, aside from the...quick wit." Quick-witted doper. Now there's a study in contrasts.

Last time I looked, "self-parody" connoted imitation of one's own characteristics. Much as Harris wink-winks in this video, his turn in last weekend's number two film is no self-parody. I mean, as long as we're at it, let's call Kal Penn's Kumar character a self-parody too. In real life, the guy is educated, politically-minded, and well-spoken.

I can't stand fawning bj slants kissing up to the rich and famous. The slobber on this one has me scrambling for an umbrella. Just get a load of the way Harris makes nice with the Britney Spears guest spot on his precious sitcom, How I Met Your Mother.

"We were so conscious when she arrived to treat her well, but not ridiculously special," Harris says. "We wanted her to feel like a guest on our show. We wanted her to feel comfortable so she could do the work. And she did."

This garbage makes my stomach turn. Harris already complained big time about the guest spot cheapening the show. That's the kind of tarty tidbit I want to read whenever he tries to skim over the brouhaha simmering beneath.

Instead, we get sanitized reporting tied up neat and tidy in a bow. For whose benefit? Readers? Or reporters who self-parody reporters of news?

Evolution of a Gossip Exclusive - Ashlee Simpson and Pete Wentz are Engaged

I may be giving away too much information about my investigative reporting techniques - HA! - but couldn't leave this one languishing on the trail.

The titillating "stop the presses" news about the engagement of Ashlee Simpson and Pete Wentz seems to have started with an exclusive dish at in Touch magazine sometime yesterday.

As of posting time, blondesaresoout had updated all her friends at Friends or Enemies with "breaking news" about the engagement approximately nineteen hours prior. No permalinks here, folks. You'll just have to trust that it came from the horse's mouth.

This morning about 9:00 a.m. their time, Starpulse ran with the item as if it broke the story. No credit to in Touch. Ouch.

About seven hours ago article post time, the story began to rise dramatically in the Wikio entertainment world. It has four votes currently. Wonder how many it will have by the time you visit the link.

From there it became fodder for the gossip masses. At least Blackberry had the decency to credit the original source.

Ashlee and Pete's engagement news is quickly making its way across the blogosphere. At posting, The Hollywood Gossip led the pack, taking credit for the story about eight hours ago ahead of other blogs hoping to make a splash. Maybe it's just my computer, but some content was blocked as spyware, so you may not want to follow this link. I just find it amusing that the "Free Britney" reporter gave credit for the story to US Weekly.

Us magazine buzzed the story as an exclusive today, I guess because they added tacky gossip about Ashlee's possible pregnancy. Can't discount the possibility of a hush-hush pregnancy now can we? Don't ask me how that somehow elevates the story into exclusive territory. But many bloggers probably won't take the time to investigate, and soon the real in Touch exclusive will be just another faded memory.

Does an exclusive remain an exclusive news item if the online community gives the credit to another source?

That was a rhetorical question.

By this evening, the mainstream media will have the story as leading news. It will be interesting to see who gets the credit for the exclusive.

The Marriage of Politics and the Internet is Scary and Creepy

11:08 a.m. I'm missing the first seminar to blog about the morning break-out session. Ubiquitous technology. Its impact on political campaigns. Pervasive politics. Pattern of past purchases becoming politically meaningful. Fascinating stuff.

FYI, my hotel Internet connection died while my computer hibernated. It's taken me all this time to get back online. Sigh. The perils of being a blogger on the road.

Julie Barko Germany, Director of IPDI, takes the stage with Adam Greenfield (critical futurist, author), Jonathan Taplin (University of Southern California Annenberg professor and former employee of Bob Dylan), and Bob Boorstein (Google representative, former Democratic political campaign strategist, and NOT a technocrat as Julie describes). Phil Nobel is missing, probably still sleeping, Julie surmises. But then, he's not on the list of scheduled speakers. Despite being the person who said, and I paraphrase, "Although we have come very far, we're still at 8:00 a.m. on the first day of the Internet revolution," Phil can afford to snooze.

I'm scared. And creeped out. IPV6. RFID. UWB. YMax. Visualization. Location. Layered protocol. What do these technologies mean to the average person?

According to the panelists, Big Brother is here. In the not so distant future, maybe within the next eighteen months, integration of various technologies will create a global inferential memory so strong, so powerful that the average person walking to their polling precinct and passing a Starbucks will receive an advertisement for a double latte as well as a "Vote for" message from the most techno-savvy candidate.

How will this development translate to future political campaigns?

According to John Taplan, the viral nature of the Internet and ability to quickly broadcast a candidate's message will put an end to the "swiftboat tactics" used in the 2004 election. Adam disagrees. "The meme does not lose its force," he proclaims. The tactics will remain, they'll simply adjust to technology.

I'm with Adam. Although he's the first to qualify his conjecture by saying these pontifications may be premature. No one wants to go on the record. At least that's the way I interpret this equivocation.

Well, with the proliferation of new media, it's no longer an option. Statements will go on the record as soon as they're made. Candidates will be scrutinized harder than before. Bloggers are everywhere. Case in point right here. One caveat. Live blogging is especially difficult and should be viewed with a grain of salt. Yes, we're listening, but we're also concerned about feeding our audience. Content gets lost. Shuffled around. Misheard. Word wise to the reader: Blogging is fraught with misinformation and live blogging even more so. Hey, we try. But we may get it wrong due to the nature of the pace. That's the price we all pay for new media. As Adam says, view all new media with a grain of salt.

Most bloggers are biased. We all know that. Which raises another interesting question discussed by the panelists. Personalized media v. privacy. To what degree do our specialized choices of media leave us less informed? The panelists all agreed about this particular danger. That's why John listens to Rush Limbaugh and Bob, who can't bring himself to do even that, reads FoxNews 45 minutes every day. Combining information from different political perspectives is crucial to the person trying to stay politically informed. Too many people refuse to integrate perspectives. This is a huge mistake.

Wrapping this up, John mentions the "political summer vacation." Before the advent of new media, political candidates had time to breathe over the summer months. Is the Internet destroying nappy time?

In a word, yes. And what that means to the political process, they're still not sure. Bob thinks this will lower the level of people who go into politics because high caliber candidates won't have the stamina to withstand the pressure. Perhaps. But I think not. Humans are by nature understanding and forgiving. As Adam said in response to whether there will still be margins to make mistakes, "We will all become French." Which sounds like a nice way of saying, "We will forgive mistakes if there is reason to forgive."

So all of you political wonks, take heed. Your candidates are being scrutinized and there is very little margin for error. The biggest mistake candidates can make as politics and the Internet become more integrated is sitting on their backsides and hoping the message goes away. It will not. If anything, it will multiply.

11:54 a.m. Quick, effective, decisive counter message is the only viable response. Otherwise, risk adverse messages going viral and having an impact. And as any good political strategist knows, the only impact your candidate wants a message to have is a positive one.

12:16 p.m. I lost my connection twice and my computer shut down for lack of battery power. But I'm ending this post. Welcome to the dawning of the new age of media.

Heath Ledger Drug Video A Bright Line for Gossipetiquette

While my family and I were off sunning ourselves in the luxuriously warm Southern Hemisphere, the stunning news of Oscar nominated actor Heath Ledger's death was the one bit of celebrity gossip our snobby intellectual friends failed to greet with a pensive "Who?" Even our normally blase eighteen year old was blown away by the shocking real life ending.

Although I'm so past the expiration date of jumping on this bandwagon, the controversy lingers. Show the drug laden video; no, no, showing it would be reprehensible and disgusting (see comments). I'm inclined to agree with the latter. Then I began thinking (much to the chagrin of nearby family members detesting the smell of gingko biloba in the morning), at what point does tabloid gossip cross the line of anything goes into the netherworld of the verbotten?

Certainly, nothing is off limits for besieged Britney. That mixed-up not-a-woman-not-a-girl is so hounded by the press, any day now I half expect Congress to pass a celebrity privacy law forbidding paps to camp within a mile of private residences. Let 'em randomly find their prey on the streets like everyone else. Do we really need another senseless waste of life to do what's right?

If I had to propose any kind of gossipetiquette here, I'd say the beacon of star power is inversely proportionate to the appropriateness of tabloid scandal. Which essentially means, the less talented and/or critically acclaimed they come, the more leeway and/or tolerance for smutty gossip. A tribute of sorts to the respect and admiration Heath Ledger commanded in el Lay.

R.I.P., Heath.

Fifth Season of The Wire Skewers Baltimore Media

Terrific. She Who Must Not Be Named is vowing to fight to the end. The Clintonoms are dancing in the streets. For goodness sakes, it was only a three-point lead.

Here’s the real story. When Mrs. Clinton wins a primary, it’s tooted from the highest media mountaintops. When Mr. Obama ran away with Iowa, it was just another day. The Obama primary victory was historic. Black man wins where traditionally no blacks reside. Last Friday, the local rag ran a small front page column begrudgingly mentioning, “Obama, Huckabee win Iowa Caucuses.’ Today the headlines jump out and scream, “Clinton Rallies, McCain Cruises.”

One would be hard pressed to find a more blatant example of bias in the national news media.

This past Sunday, the heavily anticipated television program, The Wire returned for its fifth and final season on HBO. This time around, the show targets Baltimore media. Not surprisingly, the show’s creator and head writer, David Simon, finds himself the talk of the town.

Finally, a hometown story where celebrities and politics overlap and here I am stuck without a clue. I should be kicking myself while moving on. Instead, I am determined to add my voice to the din.

As a native Baltimorean and long time resident, I consciously resisted The Wire’s siren call. Time is a precious commodity I dole out to television judiciously. Not many shows make the cut. This has nothing to do with product or quality. It’s more about getting sucked in. No need, I rationalized, to start watching a television program with stories lifted from the local rag. Besides, if I have a hankering for murder and mayhem, east Baltimore is a hop, skip, and a jump away. Kinda scary, actually. The last thing I need is a TV program to remind me of the crime lurking next door.

I remember when Simon reported for The Baltimore Sun, that’s how long Charm City has been a one-paper town. Word has it he is using the show to wage his own personal vendetta. Among other gripes, Simon bemoans the paper’s lack of journalistic integrity. One can envision him practically spitting into the receiver during a telephone interview with another reporter. Simon's low regard for Baltimore media translated into new fictional characters for the show. Some say the characters are not all that fictional. If I actually watched the show, I might be inclined to agree.

To its credit, The Baltimore Sun is slowly undergoing a transformation. Since Simon’s departure in 1995, the local rag is on its third editor. In the wake of a takeover of its parent company and the rise of a rival paper, The Examiner, the local rag is running a tighter ship. Its columns, stories, and designs are much better. I no longer peruse the headlines for five minutes, then throw it in the trash in disgust. From my perspective, that’s progress. It’s probably much different than the story lines in Simon’s show.

Media bias is no longer a daily blatant occurrence, although just last week, I became incensed by a photograph depicting an Israeli soldier and unarmed Palestinian youth. The Israeli Army executed a mission to stop missile fire from neighboring Palestinian border towns into Israel. The soldier could have been directing the boy out of the area. Instead, the photo depicts the soldier as an oppressor of a defenseless young boy. Someone made the decision to run that photo without an accompanying story. One or two lines of description did not fairly put the photograph into context.

Such blatant bias has no place in a newspaper aspiring to journalistic integrity. Apparently, some things at the local rag haven’t changed enough. Perhaps by The Wire series finale, it will have the guts to get it right.

Holiday Photo Oportunity?

PEACE ON EARTH, GOODWILL TO TIME'S MAN OF THE YEAR.

Demi Moore Baby Bump is Old and Tired

After what the pregnancies of J.Lo and Xtina did to the media, no one wants to be the last to break baby bump news. That may explain why Famecrawler is running with a blind item from E! about a possible new baby bump. Problem is, the rose fell off this bump years ago.

The preggers police were eavesdropping at a party over the weekend where they just happened to overhear Demi Moore bragging about her “belly and buds.” This was just enough fodder for E! to get blasted and run.

Pnk’ed is more like it.

The press recently snapped Demi’s husband, Ashton Kutcher, notorious punkster and practical joke manufacturer extraordinaire, filming his latest movie in a chicken outfit. Between that and the gobs of attention slathered over daughter Rumer, a/k/a the next Miss Golden Globes, might Ms. D, the St. Elmo’s Fire babe, be feeling a wee bit slighted?

Mah-aaannnn, what some people won’t do for publicity. Star in a new movie. Go to Darfur. Endorse a presidential candidate. But more baby bump rumors? Puh-leeze!

How many times are “prognastycators” going to tout this horn? Either Demi is setting a new world record for the longest gestation of a fetus that has yet to pop, or somebody’s getting their jollies from juicing the wheels of entertainment.

For the record, sightings of this miracle baby began as far back as March 14, 2005. Not trying to be mean and hoping miscarriages are not to blame, but if this latest rumor is one in a long line of some sick running gag on the press, the yolk is up and it’s all over Demi’s face.

A smattering of pregnancy press reports for the happy couple include:
July 25, 2005
March 13, 2007
June 24, 2007
October 12, 2007
October 25, 2007

Media Gave Omaha Mall Shooter Incentive to Commit Senseless Rampage

Yesterday’s Omaha mall rampage, ending in the senseless deaths of eight random holiday shoppers, proves once again that secluded suicide cannot compete with the lure of mass murder notoriety for some crazy depressed people.

In case you don’t own a television or radio and never scan newspaper headlines, a troubled 19-year old man who had recently lost both his job and his girlfriend opened fire with what appeared to be an SKS assault rifle at the Westroads Mall in Omaha, Nebraska. Eight innocent victims and the gunmen, who later committed suicide, are now dead.

The gunman, who was living with friends after his family kicked him out, left a fateful note predicting he would become famous for his heinous crime. He made certain a parent of his host family, Debora Maruca-Kovac, knew about the note and its location, but told her nothing more. Maruca-Kovac called the man’s family, reported the situation to local authorities, then left for her job at a local hospital.

So there we have it, another insanely depressed person in need of psychiatric care who literally decided to check out with a bang. Ironically, the national news media cavalierly publicizes the name of the perpetrator, yet withholds the names of his victims out of respect for their families. What is wrong with this picture?

Truth be told, I am more interested in the identity and background of the eight innocent victims than information about the loony tune who gunned them down in cold blood. No purpose whatsoever is served by reporting the gunman’s name or anything about him. What does this information matter to a person outside of Omaha? The gunman’s suicide is sad, yes, especially this time of year, but let’s face it, the guy was a psychopathic serial killer who wanted to die. Other than some sick fascination with the senseless nature of his crime, why do we care?

I don’t buy the rationale about the information being news. The media, and even bloggers, need to wake up and realize their role in perpetuating this type of crime. As I have said before, giving psychologically deranged people the notoriety they crave for committing mass murder serves to ensure crimes of this nature are committed in the future. That’s right, I’m pointing a fat finger at the media for inspiring this hideous insanity. Where does it end? Another Columbine? Virginia Tech? Enough!

If the public thinks they need to know about the gunman, make the public take an extra step to learn this information themselves. The media should be sensitive to the incentive created by broadcasting the gunman's name and background. Find an alternative manner to report information about the gunman. Whatever happened to the media's commitment to responsible journalism?

Hey, here’s an idea. Set up an 800-number. Put everything anyone would need to know about the gunman in a recording. Let people call the number for the information. Refer to the gunman as a "mass murderer" in all news reports. Include a tagline with flashcard information for the 800-number as follows:

“Anyone wanting to know the identity or background of the mass murderer should call 1-800 blah blah blah for more information. That’s 1, 800, blah blah blah if you want to know anything about the murderer who killed blah blah blah number of people.”

I’ll bet hardly anyone would be interested after a few days. Actually, the proof will be in the pudding. Just measure the amount of calls over time. No need to change the recording until the next senseless rampage occurs. Sadly, that is the reality of this type of situation. Mark my words, the next senseless rampage is just around the corner. Because everyone, even psychologically deranged loony tunes, wants their 15 minutes of fame.



The media can continue to foster the insanity, or it can try to move the country in a different direction. By removing the notoriety component from the equation, the media can help move America one step closer to an end of these crimes. I’m not saying the madness will stop completely, but in just a few years, if the media implements and sticks with a policy banning mass broadcast of perpetrator information, this type of senseless crime could decrease significantly.

Why not, for the sake of argument, give it a try?

Jennifer Aniston Photographed Sunbathing in the Nude

Sex sells. Ask anyone. Given the choice between the purity of content and the almighty dollar, what is a blogger to do?

In a perfect world, my answer would be, "Why, purity of content, certainly." This is, after all, a world we want our children to inherit, right? On the other hand, a person has to eat. Alas, we do not live in a perfect world. These are real choices each of us must grapple with every day.

Lately, Jennifer Aniston has been stirring up the paps, but for all the wrong reasons. Gossip is undulating everywhere about her fall-out with BFFs Courtney Cox and David Arquette. If you must know, the problem supposedly started with some immature flap. The Arquettes were unable to visit Jen on her current movie location, so she became angry and now they hate each other. To really soap up this spew, someone threw in a rumor about an overly concerned Brad Pitt. As if. Angelina Jolie has a tight leash on that dog. But, honestly, I can't imagine the Friends hotties having a row about something so petty. Must be more to the story.

Looks like there is. Jennifer Aniston, of all people, has become a pap victim. That much is true. Caught sunbathing topless. Unless the photos are doctored, and they don't appear to be, the ladies are out in all their glory for the whole world to view, comment, and whatever else over-sexed humans do behind closed doors. Oh, and make no mistake about it, people will comment. Jen is one of the few ladies in Hollywood who decided to stay au naturale. Here, for what it's worth, is my own conjecture about her tiff with the Arquettes:

Jen became distressed when she could not stop the nudie photos from being plastered all over the Internet. Publication in the dirty tabloids is likely to follow, meaning, the photos will be on every news stand, unless she can get an injunction. Not sure if she knows how, Jen immediately contacts her BFFs for support, telling them to drop everything and fly out to her current movie location. No can do, replies the Arquettes. They have their own commercial commitments. Besides, it's the holidays. They don't want to miss all the good parties and family get togethers. So, Jen is left to fend for herself, miserably alone and devastated. She won't be able to face the media scrutiny alone. She lashes out at her two true friends. Someone on the set gets wind of it and spills.

Okay. Someone who cares needs to drop everything to be with this girl. Rachel Green is no longer the mysterious fantasy of every young boy's dreams.

Eh? What's the big deal? All the big stars eventually do Playboy, right? Not.

I had to think long and hard about whether The Spewker should link to this papanazzi garbage. On the one hand, this is a family oriented blog. On the other hand, sex sells. Just imagine the spike in traffic ... why ... for a tiny new blog like this, the outcome could be huge!

Oh, okay, enough with the double entendres. It's easy enough to find your own links if you want to see what Jennifer Aniston looks like topless. Just stop and ask yourself one simple question. Will you take the time and trouble to do so? Your honest answer may surprise you.

Especially if you want to leave the world a better place for our children.

Man With Bomb Threatens Clinton New Hampshire Headquarters

Hillary knows she's got trouble in the latest polls. That's why she's in Vienna, Virginia today for a Democratic pow-wow rather than her campaign headquarters in Rochester, New Hamphire.

This story is still breaking, so not much to report. Some crazy person with a bomb strapped around his torso burst into Clinton's Rochester campaign headquarters demanding a face to face. Some hostages were released, but according to reports, some innocent campaign workers are still being held inside. Oh wait, now they're saying all the hostages have been released. I certainly hope so.

The rise in these type of incidents for the sake of publicity is despicable. I hope the media doesn't waiver from a description of this looney toon as the "nutjob with salt and pepper hair." Giving this low-life an identity is far too good for him.

Disagree with Clinton's politics, sure, but incidents like this give me the willies.