Monday, August 6, 2012

Editorialist Weighs Value Of Open Secrecy

Including
    Sunday’s online New York Times edition ran editorialist BILL KELLER’s essay The Leak Police, which didn’t appear in the print version that some New Yorkers still hold dear enough to give their attention. Writing – In the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, this newspaper famously published a number of stories regurgitating the Bush administration hype about Saddam Hussein’s supposed arsenal of mass destruction. A few journalists elsewhere — notably Jonathan Landay and Warren Strobel, then of the Knight Ridder newspapers — dug deeper, discovered contrary intelligence, and challenged the official line. Later, The Times also published some excellent work on how an administration eager to justify its decision to go to war cherry-picked the intelligence to make its case.
  Mr. Keller’s case is that the journalists who got it right, got it from government officials, with access to classified information, who risked their jobs to confide the truth to journalists. Critics call these “leaks,” although such stories hardly ever spill out unbidden, and they are painstakingly assembled by teasing out bits of information, triangulating, correcting, testing, confirming. I’d call them a public service.
  Then Mr. Keller keeps stepping on toes. He writes – Washington is currently going a little nuts on the subject of leaks. The Obama administration has already surpassed all previous administrations in its prosecution of leakers. Congress has mandated surveillance systems that make it easier to identify leakers and prevent unauthorized downloads of classified material.
  He asks – Is this latest outbreak of leak panic just another mood swing? Or is something else going on? Mr. Keller theorizes more secrets are spilling these days, in part, because so much material is automatically, needlessly classified that officials tend not to take classification as seriously. He suspects another factor is the enthusiasm with which senior officials contribute their notes and self-serving recollections for behind-the-scenes books, setting a permissive example for those farther down the official ladder. Assuring top officials their place in history while the juniors are prosecuted.
  And then Mr. Keller points out how this is the game as usual. “Presidents make ‘secret’ decisions only to reveal them for the purposes of frightening an adversary nation, wooing a friendly electorate, protecting their reputations. Military services conduct ‘secret’ research in weaponry only to reveal it for the purpose of enhancing their budgets, appearing superior or inferior to a foreign army, gaining the vote of a congressman or the favor of a contractor. The Navy uses secret information to run down the weaponry of the Air Force. The Army passes on secret information to prove its superiority to the Marine Corps. High officials of the government reveal secrets in the search for support of their policies, or to help sabotage the plans and policies of rival departments. Middle-rank officials of government reveal secrets so as to attract the attention of their superiors or to lobby against the orders of those superiors.”
  Mr. Keller is quoting Max Frankel, the then Washington bureau chief of The New York Times, in a 1971 deposition defending the paper’s publication of the secret Vietnam War history called the Pentagon Papers. Frankel acknowledged the self-serving nature of these transactions on both sides, but concluded that this “cooperative, competitive, antagonistic and arcane relationship,” as he called it, was essential to the working of democracy. Without this trafficking in secrets, he said, “there could be no adequate diplomatic, military and political reporting of the kind our people take for granted, either abroad or in Washington, and there could be no mature system of communication between the government and the people.”
  Which should leave us wondering about this era’s leaking Internet celebrity(ies), care of that medium that has changed the nature of privacy, secrecy, fame and obscurity. Where anyone becomes a star. Well not quite. Did you know the notorious scourge of government secrecy Julian Assange has his own Julian Assange Show broadcast by Russian government financed English language broadcaster Russia Today? That picked the U.S. apart calling us the America Surveillance Society. And interviewed our own government’s leaker, Thomas Andrews Drake, who went public on 60 MINUTES after spending years defending his American right to speak freely about the covering up of bureaucratic mistakes. Still, it’s hard to not feel the government shouldn’t give up on holding Mr. Assange responsible, while wishing him well avoiding the federation’s clutches. Because government boundaries, by the people for the people, make sense only when the truth comes out.
8/6/2012
---------------------------------------------------------------
George W. Bush Please Simply Help and Apologize Clock
---------------------------------------------------------
September 18 - ..., 2018
Editorialist Weighs Value Of Open Secrecy
8/6/2102 concluded: Which should leave us wondering about this era’s leaking Internet celebrity(ies), care of that medium that has changed the nature of privacy, secrecy, fame and obscurity. Where anyone becomes a star. Well not quite. Did you know the notorious scourge of government secrecy Julian Assange has his own Julian Assange Show broadcast by Russian government financed English language broadcaster Russia Today? That picked the U.S. apart calling us the America Surveillance Society. And interviewed our own government’s leaker, Thomas Andrews Drake, who went public on 60 MINUTES after spending years defending his American right to speak freely about the covering up of bureaucratic mistakes. Still, it’s hard to not feel the government shouldn’t give up on holding Mr. Assange responsible, while wishing him well avoiding the federation’s clutches. Because government boundaries, by the people for the people, make sense only when the truth comes out.
_________________________________________________________
Freedom of the Press, Yes
  This view greeted my arrival for work the last few weeks before Murphy Brown's Premier.
  Replaced by a beer ad October 1st. 
  I even succumbed to photographing the front of one of those many MTA buses staring New Yorkers down in the streets. That Stephen Colbert brought up in Ms. Bergen's interview (3:59) the Wednesday before Thursday's premier. 
  And no simple humongous bus-length broadside the stars' celebrants are drawn into trailing. Just Candice Bergen, as Murphy Brown, baronially styled, staring at your watching her channelling the male association with an imagining of Walter Cronkite's reincarnation in a woman's suit? Diane Sawyer, Barbara Walters, Connie Chung, Sue Simmons, all wore versions of women's male business attire to blend with the patriarchical standard of forthright respectability. Long overduedashikis on The News? 
The New Murphy Brown's PRESS EXPOSURE included the Washington Post headline, 
'Murphy Brown' once sparked a feud with Dan Quayle. 
Now the reboot is courting one with President Trump
CBS Sunday Morning
"activism in a sitcom" - "expecting backlash"
Huh. Seems this is happening in LA.
  American politics taken seriously in a comedy will either be seen, or enough of us will hold perceptions dear enough that the point's not worth wanting realized. Another commercial enterprise bites the dust happens all the time. Why it's a luxury to spread daily press coverage out so as to always be a major conveyor of -, ..., "fake news." How real's the fabrication is all too often what's gone on and explanations become just talk. And endless talk breeds embellishment. Chanting to a president? Where could humility possibly lie in today's politically charged public atmosphere? 
  My 1998 essay, The Unsinkable Murphy Brown, concluded by paraphrasing the character Jim Dial's - "You'll" still "get em, Slugger," without knowledge there'd be others. Point being, Murphy Brown's independent women's voice was worth carrying on and CBS, premier week, advertised that role of the original show. 
  Advertising "now's the time," as the Established Press echoed, this Murphy Brown's not just a remake. By embarking on that fortuitous, but tortuous, goal courting public relevance, a brand new bold statement's being made. Betting the franchise's legacy? You betcha. Murphy even mentions that in Episode 1. Promising to not just be another Murphy Brown 2, the time-lapse was just an hiatus and the country had the long vacation? 
  So now, in this one programming instance, in this vastness that's all media. The ever more distracted and told how to think public canvas will convey much about American obsessions with imagery however narrowly twisted. Again Murphy'll highlight what the country senses is worth knowing. Maybe become more acutely aware of where unreasonableness lies? And hopefully, finally, despite any disappointments, the answer that Eldin painted an Industrial Revolution theme, on the ceiling, develops as more than just nostalgic in meaning, and, remembering Marion Seldes' character, Murphy's Aunt Brooke, a window is visualized through which our critical mass of entertained discrepancies are analyzed political sport? 
  Because possibly, in response, something derogatory could have been said about liberal icons to flippantly toss around in that arrogantly self-righteous archaic tone of indifference to this country's complete economic and political evolution? Roy Cohn dart repellent's not a bargain at any price? Too cryptic a description of the manipulation of an aspect public sentiment?
  The Washington Post article's thrust was that the president wouldn't appreciate the gist of the new Murphy Brown show. Possibly just whitewash some anti-religious fervor across her brow while, of course, shrugging off the rest as if insight were worthless without marketing punch directed at a punch drunk American Electorate? Hooray? Because by not facing all that's reality, because the word treason's been so loosely thrown around, is sitting on our hands. Disloyal Americans in the eyes of  some people consumed by their self-righteousness? The Soapbox View as well's been reduced to abandoning a middle  ground and openly taking offense at all the willy-nilly liberties taken in disregarding upright morality's perversion in the face of common sense. Embellishment's abuse is a real question. Serial Waffling
  I wrote May 1998's The Unsinkable Murphy Brown after seeing an Entertainment Tonight announcement that the original Murphy Brown was concluding alongside the mobile throne enthusiast, and closeted biker, Seinfeld. And though the production studio's nearby, all the necessary extra insight for this page was had hearing Ms. English at NYC's Museum of Television History in 1993.
 
---------------------------------------------------------
The
September 27, 2018 Premier
  Pursuit of truth's often muddled. Thursday, 9:30 PM EST, Murphy Brown premiered. While that same day a woman testified, before the US Senate Judiciary Committee, symbolizing the country's partisan divide more than the country's waking to an improved civility.  As per usual weighing logic's difficult. But the game of toying with public perception's fairly clear when Senators Ted Cruz and Graham are incensed. Colbert on Kavanaugh Hearing
  Republicans For Merrick Garland! 
  So I watched at 9:30, without verbatimly recalling back when Diane English personally reprimanded me online for my accusation one of her shows used a laugh track. My brief experience before on-line's being split open by the Internet's World Wide Web, led me to want out because of the unencumbered nature of participants' dialogues that clearly pushed boundaries less easily crossed face-to-face. However hooked up is what's happening. And Murphy Brown's back because of her obligation to never give up on the hopes and dreams of all women for everyone.
What's New
  The show started, as advertised, direct and, throughout, wasn't wishy-washy about its' political sympathies. But however received, that first episode, "Fake News," spoke volumes of the value of a writer's vision. Not just another TV show, Murphy Brown put her foot down.    
  It was fun to again watch the writer's covered bases. Corky "totally wore the wrong shoes" to a demonstration. Times march shows a daughter answering her mother's awed delight with, "Who's Murphy Brown?" And Murphy used that, not yet forgotten, expressionist noun, saying, "I'm going back on the air." Maybe not fascinating, but there must be people who don't know air meant medium, except in reference to hot air?
The show's best lines were Frank's, answering Murphy's referring to disheveled producer Miles' bundle of nerves, making uncomfortable sense. "A facility. What like public storage?"
  Sounding dear to the heart Murphy In The Morning is supposed to be, as Frank expressed, "talk about politics without treating it like a sporting event." 
  (... arrogantly flippant ... deliriously self-promotional ... hazard-ly boisterous ... self-reverential ... Free news is the best advertising's been proven time, after time, and time again. ...) 
  The over-the-top plot's sentimental conclusion almost covers up the confrontational highlighted word - lies. Shadowing probably not as effective as the tawdriness covering the newest Supreme Court Justice's political partisan role. If only figures of supreme leadership, raking in adulation, solved anything. Off point, but relevant plea. Bear the rough parts, and the episode's a tickler. And, after all, it seems time for more antidotes to sycophantism? 
  I need to think a little more. The schlocky sitcom manner didn't knock me for a loop, but has me wondering what I do want to say. Unlike the first two, I'll have to watch again. I want to say what I should and not go on and on just soaking a celebrity topic. Not a fan of that. The show emphasized the reality of the male privilege that power abusers relish as their justification for shrugging off responsibility. The show's plot delved deeper and while it's taken so much time, thank God/Allah we continue growing up. Please.
  Best yet, and nearly as important as the 3rd. The show's showing traction. Though there's the sense the little snippets of dramatized points of dialogue come sitcomishly quick rendering them frivolous for a portion of the country. The Jeff Sessions joke, for example, being a low blow. While not exposing his lowest position, which is the Attorney General's pedestal of devotion to the immoral Criminal Enterprise System. Regarding the fracturing of truth, "Don't you Giuliani me" was not just thrown out but insightfully spot on. And Miles should ride a bike to work. I've eaten at the Anchor Bar in Buffalo
  Don't have to pinch myself to be reminded I'm watching a sitcom as they are banter as far as the eye can see.
The Second Scene's character assassination, and Brown joke, in the bar is - priceless. Because as much as a party faithful want to believe the conservative's depiction isn't accurate, then look again as that's all the show or anyone can even ask. 
Technically I'm not one of the "three Republicans" watching Murphy In The Morning as a whole show's not been shown. Just the mannerisms of commercial lead-ins and the signing-off tidbits enticing viewers back. Perhaps highlighting the public forum's actually being a competition of lights, bells and whistles and, all too often, why we've fallen short tethered to that. Simplified fascinations are a nationalism we shouldn't prefer. 
  Now everyone's using Trump Hotels? Of all places to choose a rendezvous. Ah. Playing with racy prose. ... If only tolerating adversaries' prejudices were the path to a happy family. Could our simplistically contrived political conundrum end or even have happy notes? ... As commonplace as its become the notes of confusion, ending this episode, encapsulated the era and clarified reality's confused inevitability. No matter how trustworthy the machines.       
  Timely pre-midterm election theme. How'd the competition fare polishing the intimidating manner of the self-righteous culture war? Glistening, I'd speculate.
  The Murphy Brown show's straight parody of the media-esque-ishy/presidential relationship, while uncomfortably accurate, at least confronts what's bent for home audiences. The soap opera-iness of it all. If only the reality show description weren't just the tip of the iceberg. The satire's boldness is commendable. 
  "and, by the way, no collusion" from The Greatest Comedic President of All Time? Bold enough to describe the naked leader. America's truly great when proving we'll not fall victim to misdescription. Please?  
  Knives vs. Spatulas is uncomfortably accurately, revealingly so. For the choir? Yes of course the exploitation of God's image deserves facing too. Shallow's an offensive human trait and that arrogance applied to everything's why we face authoritarian mis-mash. Discombobulating shoulder shrugs over ruthlessness' rule.
  The Avery Brown character verges on fantasy. No one's competitively threatening, from within, Fox's flagship's domain. 
  "sea to shining she" Brilliant.
Elections Have Consequences
  An over the top expressive Bette Midler. An underlying symbolism to the romantic threads, palpably modulating our harder edges in comedic expression. An we can get through this uncomfortable facing the truth about distorted social norms exploitably enforced. People don't go to jail for adultery scored one for not superseding God's judgment. And personal life facing for Ms. Brown. 
  "In that outfit. Right." Whether or not people can absorb this, a tolerant culture is what God/Allah wants. Judge-mental ones have proven tragic. Just because wars are in the Holy Books doesn't mean we're encouraged to always carry them out. An obvious flaw still left about "modern life."  
  Jim Dial's acceptance speech is touchingly sentimental as the other characters appreciated. But why completely cut his prepared First Amendment lecture? Sitcom shorthand's tight dialogue demand. 
  Bette, Ms. Midler, closes callously self-reverential per the added ownership's character's design. And bear with Miles America. Well. Provocative and light-heartedly sophisticated.  
  The slightly unexpected romantic developments lend another where's this going layer of curiosity so necessary to episodic commercial television. Despite, or perhaps because of, the show ignored The Me Me Me Movement and didn't bother mentioning the president once. The quality of ambition leaves me ecstatic filming's done in my fairly huge neighborhood. Though I'd normally not ever express ecstatic, preferring un-embellishment, contrary to abnormal norms.  
  "An aging white Angela Bassett," inclusions more than a wonderful beautiful thing, but also better than an exaggerated claim of greatness ingrained in the belief in superiority based on winning at violence that's never an end in itself?
  America chose coma too, Ms. Shields? Harsh yes. Perhaps there should be more assessing the show's appealing qualities or calculate the number of social ideologies being pandered to? 
  So the sentimental hospital reunion's fractured by Murphy's hard-nosed realism and made a splash by commercial spectaculars' inevitabilities. While, I thought misdirection, during the commercials, after Ms. Shields revealed her first controversial remembrance.
  Wondering if the President's and Vice-President's, and our culture's conversational protagonists, ignoring of whether Murphy's working this time is a sound strategy? After all, in MURPHY BROWN's case, it is not just another remake as the trend has been strategically demeaned. So what. Nothing's new.   
  She's wearing heels I'm not a fan of seeing After the "Renew your gym memberships people" was delivered in the show's particular trademarkedly traditional sound bite par excellence way. Staging, the hallmark of sitcom television. While Murphy's obliviousness to catering's extremely over-the-top when feeding each other is capitalism's socialism at its' best. 
  "Hope they like pizza"'s delivered sitcom speak suave. American Football. 
  "Parade of cars towed away" is some line. But the over-done kitchen incompetence streamlined the storyline's setup. Yet the ditziness was quite a bit much. Squeezing content's the game. However the campiness was mere prelude to deeper representations of understanding how compassion's sabotaged. The show certainly represented this era's particular oblivious theme. For decades businesses afforded something and can't any longer so we'll rescind portions of their lives they'd no right to live. Only be victims, again, and again, and again.
  "It's hard to believe he grew up at all" was delivered sweetly authentic. Then as slowly as televisionly possible, what evolved was a real slap in-the-face tearjerker. Reminding us who you know is all we have. And moral outrage can't be meant to be the problem it's been covering for the sins of exploitation that have done us in. Cleaning up corruption is a war that can only be solved by dissolving the Criminal Enterprise Systems' roots. 
  What's not good for business any longer is shallow. Where's the announced plan in place to reculturize the criminal classes where the illegal immigrants had to originally flea from? Sure, there are programs. But, oh yeah, we can't solve that. Sure as the world's missing the picture on harmonious use of the Earth's resources, responsibility for the ruthless nonsense is the result of a ruthlessly applied morality of a game riddled farce of corruptions as unnecessary as never taking a walk. 
  America should be doing a lot better than blaming the symptoms. A shame. 
  In fact I'm one of the few Republican viewers the show hasn't lost. Having spoken in The Great Hall of Cooper Union and am unwilling to shirk my symbolic responsibility. But can admit to daily discomfort resulting from the daily sycophantic adoration of a charlatanism that was President Washington's nightmare
  So my concern isn't about attacking, but shaking the mental lethargy The Murphy Brown show's undertaken in using the literary license to portray the president in a manner he's molded and would outright deny if forced to face. Notice he makes a point of being see reading speeches now, as evidently the stories of his level of understanding has reached the the level of cover-up.
  Right the show I'm not necessarily wanted to criticize either as I'm not particularly of the bandwagon persuasion. But definitely, obviously I don't appreciate the bandwagoneer-in-chief. And find the entire family's crafting an above it all image - reprehensible. Entitlements? It's downright creepy what's been gotten away with. 
  Now about the irreverent cannoli. At least Ms.English's writers work to not portray themselves with Jesus on their chests covering up pride and prejudice. Besides holier than thou agnosticism's covered by Free Speech. 
  Has the show gone too far in its' portrayal of some Americans as having falling down a sycophantic pit of desperation born of ignorance is bliss. Not when the president's over-the-top juxtaposition of all his faults being the vocabulary by which he accuses before accused. Saw a Trump sicker in a car window last night. It is a shame Americans find refuge in the most self-centered opportunist since Stalin. Putin? Naw. he's the creation of an entire bureaucracy dedicated to rule. Basically the game as it's always played. Proof's how despite the claim the same can be said of the American president's advocates. Don't wonder why I look forward to God's judgement. Wonder why it's really not a more profound fear, despite the redundant pontificating from the pulpits. A game? In Buenos Aires this morning the president began the event with, "We are gathered here." The language of the ministry. The code? Use and abuse everything. What a guy. And Murphy Brown's at fault for criticizing? When ... never mind. On and on hypnotizing listeners is a despicable game. 
  Wonder what'll be left when this reaches a future draft?   
Episode XI,
Episode XII,
Episode XIII, 
Episode ?,  
  ... .
To Conclude
  To the consternation of many observers, people aren't realizing the hazards facing our country. Of course that rhetoric can come from any direction. But, despite known reality, an alarm wasn't sounded. No Walter Cronkite, with a definable mass of Americans watching, removed his glasses and, once and for all, said, "good grief" for the American Public. Or at least enough of us so the worst aspects became apparent to enough of everyone. No Edward R. Murrow nodding at the hysterical hypnotization and relaxing the choking grip. From even Big Brother's television even. But, learning from history aside, this era's broadening of the public sphere's voices has to be a good thing or complete hypocrisy survives. 
  So we have the situation a fictional Murphy Brown faces of an un-skeptically manipulated public of pure imagination. Thought bubbling in comics are good things. But not necessarily advisable when judging calculations objectively. Such that the noble dream of broadened understanding isn't the enemy, that twisting its become.  
  Was Ms. Brown's, first episode, Twitter altercation with President Trump's Twitter Feed a questionable tactic? Fictionalizing the real President of the United States? Still, facing the issues symbolism's priceless. Though literary license probably cut off celebritized oxygen the president could have supplied. Once the real-time dialogue's idea occurred, it obviously had to be thought out and applied. However, as we're easily reminded, literary license doesn't necessarily open the jar's can of worms. And so it goes. Your return's so very welcome, Slugger. 
  How difficult is it perceiving a Stalinesque aura's cult of personality sycophantism's considered politically loyal? Aaaaaaagh! 
And downright nowhere near skeptical enough.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thank you for your participation.