Category Archives: Media

Did They REALLY Say That? Part I

Media, Politics

 

Welcome to a brief recap of the 2016 election based on many of the America Film Institute’s “100 Greatest Movie Quotes of All Time.”  I hope you enjoy reading this as much as I enjoyed writing it.  The format for each quote includes AFI ranking, the quote, movie and year and the situation in which it appeared during the campaign.

#1  Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn. (Gone With The Wind,  1939) Bernie Sanders rejects Hillary Clinton’s private email server as a campaign issue.

#2 I’m gonna make him an offer he can’t refuse. (The Godfather, 1972) Donald Trump, Jr. tells John Kasich aide the Ohio governor will be the de facto president if he joins the ticket.

#3 You don’t understand! I coulda had class.  I coulda been a contender,  I could’ve been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what I am. (On the Waterfront, 1954) Announcing he is withdrawing from the race for the Republican nomination, Mario Rubio regrets having turned negative in an attempt to out-Trump Trump.

#5 Here’s looking at you, kid. (Casablanca, 1942)  Huma Abedin to Hillary Clinton as she leaves the campaign headquarters for the last time.

#9 Fasten your seat belts.  It’s going to be a bumpy night. (All About Eve, 1950)  Rachel Maddow on MSNBC as early returns start coming in from Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.

#10 You talking to me? (Taxi Driver, 1976) Response by any Trump supporter to any pollster.

#11  What we’ve got here is a failure to communicate.(Cool Hand Luke, 1967) Trump explains how he can take both sides of an issue in the same sentence.

#13 Love means never having to say your sorry. (Love Story, 1970)  Preamble in each of the pre-nuptial agreements between Trump and his wives.

#19  I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore. (Network, 1976)  Every Trump and Sanders voter.

#20 Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.  (Casablanca, 1942)  Trump welcomes Breitbart editor Steve Bannon to be part of his campaign, but keeps forgetting his first name is Steve, not Louis.

#23  There’s no place like home. (The Wizard of Oz, 1939) Trump explains why he and Melania may not make the White House there primary residence.

#25 Show me the money! (Jerry Maguire, 1996) Hillary Clinton demands pre-payment before addressing an audience of Wall Street bankers.

#26  Why don’t you come up sometime and see me? (She Done Him Wrong, 1933)  An open invitation to Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell to have lunch at Trump Tower.

#29  You can’t handle the truth.  (A Few Good Men, 1992)  Editor’s Note:  Too easy.  Make your own joke.

#30  I want to be alone. (Grand Hotel, 1932)  Every Democrat on the morning of November 9, 2016.

#31  After all, tomorrow is another day! (Gone With The Wind, 1939)  Entry in Hillary Clinton’s diary following her loss to Barack Obama for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.

#33  I’ll have what she’s having. (When Harry Met Sally, 1989)  Attendees at the Hillary Clinton “victory” celebration.

#35  You’re going to need a bigger boat.  (Jaws, 1975)  Clinton speech writer before they change the text of her September 10 speech from “boat of deplorables” to “basket of deplorables.”

#36  Badges?  We ain’t got no badges! We don’t need no badges! I don’t have to show you any stinking badges! (The Treasure of Sierra Madre, 1948)  MSNBC reporter Katy Tur at Trump rally.

#37  I’ll be back.  (The Terminator, 1984)  See #31.

#38  Today, I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of the earth. (The Pride of the Yankees, 1942)  Every Democrat who turned down an offer to be Clinton’s running mate and hopes to be president some day.

#39  If you build it, he will come.  (Field of Dreams, 1989)  Trump explains how the wall on the Mexican border is just what he needs to increase voter turnout.

#40  My mama always said life was like a box of chocolates.  You never know what you’re gonna get.  (Forrest Gump, 1994)  True, but in this case, the candy must have been made with white chocolate.

#44  I see dead people. (The Sixth Sense, 1999)  Article in Breitbart News documenting all the people the Clintons allegedly murdered.

#48  Well, nobody’s perfect.  (Some Like It Hot, 1959)  Standard Paul Ryan line following each outrageous Trump statement.

#49  It’s alive!  It’s alive!  (Frankenstein, 1931)  Establishment Republicans on the night of July 19 when Trump secures the party’s nomination.

Stay tuned for Part II.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

My Rejected Screenplay

Culture, Media

 

The “butterfly effect” is defined as the scientific theory a single event, regardless of size, can change the course of the universe.  The concept has been used in many contexts.  For example, environmentalist have warned extinction of the most seemingly insignificant species might be the trigger that unleashes a  catastrophic ecological disaster.  And as one might suspect, the butterfly effect is rich fodder for many fictional books, movies and television shows.

The concept plays a prominent role in an episode of the original Star Trek series titled “The City of the Edge of Forever.”  Written by science fiction icon Harlan Ellison, the time travel theme revolves around the eventual outcome of World War II being dependent on the fate of a social welfare worker in depression-era America.  Ellison received the 1968 Hugo Award, science fiction’s most prestigious honor, for Best Dramatic Presentation. This is just one of many Hollywood treatments in which the butterfly effect plays a pivotal part. TasteOfCinema.com has identified at least 10 movies since 1990 which draw on the theory.

Being a political junkie, I was disappointed none of these tales centered on the electoral process and decided the time had come.  I began working on a screenplay in which a small, unrelated event determines the outcome of a contentious presidential contest. Knowing Hollywood loves salacious subplots, I decided the triggering event had to involve sex.

The following is a brief summary of the characters and the plot.

  • One candidate is the first female nominated by a major political party.
  • Her husband has a history of sexual misbehavior which her opposition exploits throughout the campaign.
  • She also has demonstrated some instances of questionable judgment.
  • Two weeks before election day, she appears to have overcome voters’ concern about both these perceived weaknesses and is posed to become the next president.
  • Somewhere in Midtown Manhattan, a divorced, former Congressman is sexting with an underage female.
  • During the investigation of the potential charge of child pornography, the FBI discovers material which turns the trajectory of the election upside down.

The working title for my screenplay  is “The Un-Buttoned Fly Effect.”  I sent the manuscript to several major studios and independent producers.  The response was unanimous, best summed up by the following in a letter from the Weinstein brothers at MiraMax.

While we find your treatment to be highly imaginative, we are afraid it lacks the credibility needed to draw a broad audience.

So much for my career in fiction.  But never give up.  I’m thinking about re-packaging the screenplay as a documentary.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Show Me the Body

Media, Politics

 

Article One, Section 9, clause 2 of the United States Constitution decrees, “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”  This protection against unlawful arrest and detention is derived from English common law first documented in the “Assize of Clarendon,” a re-statement of rights during the reign of Henry II (1154-1189).  Inclusion in the U.S. Constitution is often attributed to similar language in the Magna Carta.

Habeas corpus (literally “produce the body”) was at the center of cases filed by Guantanamo Bay detainees following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.  In Boumediene v. Bush (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the right of foreign combatants to petition for a writ of habeas corpus with some limitations (e.g. the number of petitions allowed).  In the majority opinion for the Court, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that an executive suspension of habeas corpus suggests the political branches of government have the ability to “switch the Constitution on or off and would lead to a regime in which they, not this court, ‘say what the law is’.”

In the United States, the length of time a suspect can be held without being charged is covered under state law.  In most jurisdictions, the time frame for either charging or releasing a prisoner is 72 hours.  In a few states, including California, uncharged suspects can only be held for 48 hours.

My exploration of this topic was triggered by FBI Director James Comey’s letter to the chairmen of several congressional committees, informing them of “the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation [of Secretary Clinton’s personal email server].”  There was no indication of the nature or extent of the discovery.  In a (non-public) follow-up memorandum to FBI employees justifying the letter to Congress, Comey says, “I also think it would be misleading to the American people were we not to supplement the record.”  Yet in the same paragraph, he gives more information for internal consumption than he does in the public correspondence.

At the same time, however, given that we don’t know the significance of this newly discovered collection of emails, I don’t want to create a misleading impression.  In trying to strike that balance, in a brief letter and in the middle of an election season, there is significant risk of being misunderstood, but I wanted you to hear directly from me about it.

What does this have to do with the writ of habeas corpus?  While Secretary Clinton has not been physically detained, her reputation and standing as a presidential candidate has been indefinitely “put on hold” by the FBI.  Late yesterday, the Clinton campaign issued what, in effect, is a writ of habeas corpus. It demanded that, within the next two days, the FBI explain the nature of the evidence which the Director felt warranted the letter to Congress.  For different reasons, the Trump campaign has echoed this sentiment.

I have no idea whether the information discovered during an investigation of former Congressman Anthony Wiener’s alleged sexting with an underage female is the smoking gun that will derail Secretary Clinton’s chances of becoming the next president. However, as of this morning, there are several reports which suggest the FBI Director acted more on speculation than evidence.  Newsweek and the Los Angeles Times report “none of the emails were to or from Clinton.”  And some or all may be duplicates of emails already in the FBI’s possession.  Director Comey is also reported as saying he has not personally looked at any of the emails.

The Clinton campaign is rightfully demanding Director Comey “show me the body.”  My question is, “Shouldn’t the head of the FBI be held to the same standard under the Constitution as every other law enforcement officer in the United States?”

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

Assange, Can You See

Media

 

This post addresses the difference between spinning the news and yellow journalism. Spin is defined as “news and information that is manipulated or slanted to affect its interpretation and influence public opinion.” (www.dictionary.com)  For example, presidential campaign surrogates, suggesting a $917 billion business loss in one year qualifies as “genius,” are the poster boys/girls for spin.

In contrast, yellow journalism ” is a type of journalism that presents little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines to sell more newspapers.” (Wikipedia)   The term was first introduced when sensational and unsubstantiated reporting by newspapers such as the New York Journal (William Randolph Hearst, publisher) and the New York World (Joseph Pulitzer, publisher) was used during the Spanish-American War to increase circulation.  Today, yellow journalism is practiced mostly by grocery store tabloids as when the National Enquirer suggested Ted Cruz’s father played a role in John Kennedy’s assassination.

In previous posts, I have focused my frustration about media coverage during this election cycle on CNN and MSNBC and have ignored Fox News.  Why?  Because I expected more from the first two news outlets.  Why get upset when Sean Hannity, the host of one of Fox’s prime-time shows, appears in a Trump campaign ad or is offered as the sole source of the candidate’s otherwise undocumented opposition to the Iraq invasion?  Spin is spin.

However, this morning Fox News and it’s latest partners Wikileaks and True Pundit crossed the line between spin and yellow journalism.  Reporting on Julian Assange’s decision to appear via video at a news conference after claiming he feared assassination, Fox included the following in an article on its website.

Though no recent public revelations directly tie to Assange’s security fears, various U.S. officials and pundits have made threatening statements directed at him in the past. WikiLeaks on Monday tweeted an alleged quote from a 2010 State Department meeting at which then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asked if Assange could be killed in a drone strike. That same year, former Democrat strategist Bob Beckel said on Fox News Channel that “a dead man can’t leak stuff.”

Assange also has hinted that deceased DNC staffer Seth Rich may have been a source for WikiLeaks. Rich, 27, was found with multiple gunshot wounds to the back at a Washington, D.C., intersection in July. He died soon thereafter. Authorities believe Rich was the target of a botched robbery, but his death has inspired conspiracy theories.

These are bold accusations and, if true, might reasonably require voters to re-evaluate their presidential options.  However, with one exception, none of the above is substantiated.  The exception is the Bob Beckel quote.  In 2010, in discussing how Wikileaks might endanger U.S. security, he did suggest Assange might be better off dead.  And to their credit, Fox also identified Beckel as a “former Democrat strategist.”  Other conservative and alt-right websites were not so accurate, labeling Beckel as a former Clinton strategist, something he has never been.  For the record, there was bi-partisan condemnation of Beckel’s remarks.  Moveon.org petitioned CNN, for whom Beckel is now a paid commentator,  to fire him.

Just as one bad apple spoils the whole bunch, one kernel of truth does not justify mostly unsubstantiated reporting.  First, the lead sentence refers to “various public officials and pundits.”  Various implies several, yet Beckel is the only documented case.

Second, the only evidence of the alleged Clinton quote comes from an article in the alt-right on-line publication True Pundit.  Yesterday, Wikileaks, as reported in the Fox News story, directed its followers to the story with the following tweet.

assange

The article implied the threat was consistent with a November 24, 2010 email from the Department of State director of policy planning to Hillary Clinton with the subject line “an SP memo on possible legal and nonlegal strategies re wikileaks.”  Here is the text of the email.

Following this morning’s meetings I activated my four legal eagles on the SP staff — Peter Harrell, Jen Harris, Bill Burke White, and Catherine Powell (that includes two law profs and two Yale law grads who certainly could be law profs). They in turn reached out to people at the Berkmann Center at Harvard and other experts, working together with Alec Ross. Alec has been particularly useful in terms not only of his knowledge but also his sensitivity to how anything we might try to do could impact our own internet freedom agenda. The result is the attached memo, which has one interesting legal approach and I think some very good suggestions about how to handle our public diplomacy. AM

As reported by Snopes.com, “The thrust of True Pundit’s article hinged almost entirely on claiming that the term “nonlegal” essentially means the same thing as “illegal.” Dictionary.com defines “nonlegal” as “not related to, qualified for, or phrased in the manner of the practice of law (distinguished from illegal).” A big difference.  All the email suggests is that there may be legal options (e.g. seeking a cease and desist order) and nonlegal options (e.g. media campaign).  The non-threatening nature of any suggestions for nonlegal efforts is affirmed by the use of the term “public diplomacy.”  Finally, the memo includes a warning the department should do nothing that might negatively affect its own efforts to promote “internet freedom.”  It is quite a stretch to imply this email responded to a Clinton suggestion involving assassination of Assange.

Third, the second paragraph undercuts everything Wikileaks and Assange espouse as the justification for the organization’s existence.  They boast they have created a place where individuals can share sensitive information without fear of retribution.  Even hinting who a source might be is a gross violation of that principle.  When Assange raised the possibility Seth Rich might be responsibility for leaking the DNC emails, there was no evidence to substantiate his claim and it made for sensation headlines, the definition of yellow journalism.  Wikileaks is now offering a $20,000 reward for information about Rich’s death. (NBC News, August 10, 2016) I am confident some of the same conspiracy theorists who believe Rafael Cruz assisted Lee Harvey Oswald are claiming the prize based on equally baseless assertions.

Why do I refer to Fox, Wikileaks and True Pundit as partners?  As demonstrated in this case, these three entities use each others reporting to substantiate a story which otherwise lacks evidence.  Why is that dangerous?  Consider the “partnership” between the New York Times and the Bush administration leading up the Iraq invasion.  On September 8, 2002, the Times published a story by Judith Miller and Michael Gordon about the existence in Iraq of aluminum tubes, whose use would be part of Iraqi programs to build nuclear and biological weapons.  That same morning Cheney appeared on Meet the Press and quoted the story to support the justification for a possible invasion of Iraq.  As we learned later, sources for the Times story where the very people who were citing it as evidence of Sadam Hussein’s nuclear ambitions.  Simply put, representatives of the Bush administration planted a story in the Times which they later quote as third-party verification of their concerns about Hussein.

And exactly how did that work out?

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

When Money Facilitates Non-Speech

Media, Politics

 

The issue of whether money equals speech came to the forefront in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) in which the Supreme Court ruled government could not restrict independent political expenditures.  The ruling applied to for-profit corporations, labor unions, non-profit corporations and other associations.

While many people believe Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion contained the phrase “money is speech,” this is not the case.  In fact, no Supreme Court justice has uttered those exact words.  The closest any member of the Court has come to this statement appears in the following exchange between the late Antonin Scalia and Piers Morgan on the July 18, 2012 edition of the latter’s CNN program.

SCALIA: You can’t separate speech from — from — from the money that — that facilitates the speech.

MORGAN: Can’t you?

SCALIA: It’s — it’s — it’s utterly impossible

There was a moment in last night’s debate in which I found myself agreeing with Justice Scalia (something that I must admit does not happen very often). During an exchange about Donald Trump’s promotion of the birther conspiracy and whether it was racist in nature, Hillary Clinton referred to law suits against Trump for housing discrimination.

But, remember, Donald started his career back in 1973 being sued by the Justice Department for racial discrimination because he would not rent apartments in one of his developments to African-Americans, and he made sure that the people who worked for him understood that was the policy. He actually was sued twice by the Justice Department

Trump responded as follows.

Now, as far as the lawsuit, yes, when I was very young, I went into my father’s company, had a real estate company in Brooklyn and Queens, and we, along with many, many other companies throughout the country — it was a federal lawsuit — were sued. We settled the suit with zero — with no admission of guilt. It was very easy to do.

His explanation bothered me for several reasons.  First, he brings his father into the discussion implying he was just being a dutiful employee.  Second, he uses the excuse everyone was doing it.  Third, it was a “federal lawsuit” as though only state and local discrimination cases are valid.  But it is the last two sentences which made me think about Justice Scalia and Citizens United.  Even if you buy Scalia’s argument money facilitates speech, it does not relieve you of exceptions to the first amendment’s guarantee of free speech.  You cannot pay the theater manager to give you the right to yell “fire.”  You cannot buy media time and commit libel.

Settling a discrimination case out of court may relieve you of certain legal responsibilities, e.g. producing documents, depositions, testifying in court and publicly admitting culpability.  It does not, however, imply innocence.  Just the opposite.  The settlement represents compensation for damages.  If there were no damages, why settle?  Isn’t that the argument Trump now makes for NOT settling law suits involving Trump University?

On that basis, the Scalia/Morgan exchange could be paraphrased as follows.

SCALIA: You can’t separate a non-verbal admission of culpability from — from — from the money that — that is used to settle a law suit.

MORGAN: Can’t you?

SCALIA: It’s — it’s — it’s utterly impossible.

I rest my case.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP