TV News, San Diego Radio, Politics and News, Sewing--The Sewing Herald Tribune....we need contributors, Travel.... Agree or Disagree....Please feel free to comment.....all comments appreciated and thank you for your time..... and food,dogs and cats...... let's sit down at this cafe, have a cup of coffee and talk about politics.
Aug 28, 2015
James Blood Ulmer E-Tuning: from 2009 Framat
 |
| English: James Blood Ulmer, Innsbruck 2011, with Charles Burnham and Warren Benbow (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
 |
| Black Rock (James Blood Ulmer album) (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
|
Aug 26, 2015
The Cutest Picture of Liza Minnelli I Have Ever Seen in My Life........
This is absolutely the cutest picture I have ever seen of Liza Minnelli in my life and I want to say thank you to Liza for that beautiful smile and beautiful doggie.
This is taken from a post in iajournal.com where Liza talked about her Italian roots and winning the Jack Valenti Los Angeles Italia Legend award for 2015.
Seriously, I think Liza might likes dogs..........
Thanks, Liza.......cl and the ronnie re.
here's Ronnie. too..........
donald trump: a very scary figure..........
trump--rounding people up by race, deporting them, thugs, shutting down journalists...this is scary.......
The fact that trump is talking about rounding people up by race and deporting them is a very scary picture....that's all I can think about now when he starts talking.
Fortunately, he is handing the election to the very competent Hillary Clinton......that is the ray of shining light in this horrible picture he is painting.
The use of thugs and shutting down journalists...perhaps he should take a tip from our very eloquent President Obama as he answered Major with a thoughtful response when questioned about the Iran reporters in prison.
How will we know, as the public and voters, what is going on if the reporters are not allowed to ask him questions he does not like.....this is terrible and I am glad he will not win.
chloe louise....Hillary girl forever
Glenn Greenwald is a journalist, constitutional lawyer, and author of four New York Times best-selling books on politics and law. His most recent book, No Place to Hide, is about the U.S. surveillance state and his experiences reporting on the Snowden documents around the world. Prior to his collaboration with Pierre Omidyar, Glenn’s column was featured at The Guardian and Salon. He was the debut winner, along with Amy Goodman, of the Park Center I.F. Stone Award for Independent Journalism in 2008, and also received the 2010 Online Journalism Award for his investigative work on the abusive detention conditions of Chelsea Manning. For his 2013 NSA reporting, he received the George Polk award for National Security Reporting; the Gannett Foundation award for investigative journalism and the Gannett Foundation watchdog journalism award; the Esso Premio for Excellence in Investigative Reporting in Brazil (he was the first non-Brazilian to win), and the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Pioneer Award. Along with Laura Poitras, Foreign Policy magazine named him one of the top 100 Global Thinkers for 2013. The NSA reporting he led for The Guardian was awarded the 2014 Pulitzer Prize for public service.
The fact that trump is talking about rounding people up by race and deporting them is a very scary picture....that's all I can think about now when he starts talking.
I am embarrassed for our country that he is running for president and people like him...do people want a police state, or what?
Fortunately, he is handing the election to the very competent Hillary Clinton......that is the ray of shining light in this horrible picture he is painting.
The use of thugs and shutting down journalists...perhaps he should take a tip from our very eloquent President Obama as he answered Major with a thoughtful response when questioned about the Iran reporters in prison.
How will we know, as the public and voters, what is going on if the reporters are not allowed to ask him questions he does not like.....this is terrible and I am glad he will not win.
chloe louise....Hillary girl forever
just want to ask a question......is it the reporter or the editor of the publication or owner of the network who is determining the importance of the story and the direction of the newspaper or show as to what the viewer will see or hear?
.........................................................
copied from firstlook.org
Glenn Greenwald
 |
| Jorge Ramos |
(updated below)
The Republican presidential candidate leading every poll, Donald Trump, recently unveiled his plan to forcibly deport all 11 million human beingsresiding in the U.S. without proper documentation, roughly half of whom have children born in the U.S. (and who are thus American citizens). As George Will noted last week, “Trump’s roundup would be about 94 times larger than the wartime internment of 117,000 persons of Japanese descent.” It would require a massive expansion of the most tyrannical police state powers far beyond their already immense post-9/11 explosion. And that’s to say nothing of the incomparably ugly sentiments which Trump’s advocacy of this plan, far before its implementation, is predictably unleashing.
Jorge Ramos, the influential anchor of Univision and an American immigrant from Mexico, has been denouncing Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric. Yesterday at a Trump press conference in Iowa, Ramos stood and questioned Trump on his immigration views. Trump at first ignored him, then scolded him for speaking without being called on and repeatedly ordered him to “sit down,” then told him: “Go back to Univision.” When Ramos refused to sit down and shut up as ordered, a Trump bodyguard physically removed him from the room. After the press conference concluded, Ramos returned and again questioned Trump about immigration, with the two mostly talking over each other as Ramos asked Trump about the fundamental flaws in his policy. Afterward, Ramos said: “This is personal . . . he’s talking about our parents, our friends, our kids and our babies.”
One might think that in a conflict between a journalist removed from a press conference for asking questions and the politician who had him removed, journalists would side with their fellow journalist. Some are. But many American journalists have seized on the incident to denounce Ramos for the crime of having opinions and even suggesting that he’s not really acting as a journalist at all.
Politico‘s political reporter Marc Caputo unleashed a Twitter rant this morning against Ramos. “This is bias: taking the news personally, explicitly advocating an agenda,” he began. Then: “Trump can and should be pressed on this. Reporters can do this without being activists” and “some reporters still try to approach their stories fairly & decently. & doing so does not prevent good reporting.” Not only didn’t Ramos do journalism, Caputo argued, but he actually ruins journalism: “My issue is his reporting is imbued with take-it-personally bias. . . . we fend off phony bias allegations & Ramos only helps to wrongly justify them. . . .One can ask and report without the bias. I’ve done it for years & will continue 2 do so.”
A Washington Post article about the incident actually equated the two figures, beginning with the headline: “Jorge Ramos is a conflict junkie, just like his latest target: Donald Trump.” The article twice suggested that Ramos’ behavior was something other than journalism, claiming that his advocacy of immigration reform “blurred the line between journalist and activist” and that “by owning the issue of immigration, Ramos has also blurred the line between journalist and activist.” That Ramos was acting more as an “activist” than a “journalist” was a commonly expressed criticism among media elites this morning.
Here we find, yet again, the enforcement of unwritten, very recent, distinctively corporatized rules of supposed “neutrality” and faux objectivity which all Real Journalists must obey, upon pain of being expelled from the profession. A Good Journalist must pretend they have no opinions, feign utter indifference to the outcome of political debates, never take any sides, be utterly devoid of any human connection to or passion for the issues they cover, and most of all, have no role to play whatsoever in opposing even the most extreme injustices.
Thus: you do not call torture “torture” if the U.S. Government falsely denies that it is; you do not say that the chronic shooting of unarmed black citizens by the police is a major problem since not everyone agrees that it is; and you do not object when a major presidential candidate stokes dangerous nativist resentments while demanding mass deportation of millions of people. These are the strictures that have utterly neutered American journalism, drained it of its vitality and core purpose, and ensured that it does little other than serve those who wield the greatest power and have the highest interest in preserving the status quo.
What is more noble for a journalist to do: confront a dangerous, powerful billionaire-demagogue spouting hatemongering nonsense about mass deportation, or sitting by quietly and pretending to have no opinions on any of it and that “both sides” are equally deserving of respect and have equal claims to validity? As Ramos put it simply, in what should not even need to be said: “I’m a reporter. My job is to ask questions. What’s ‘totally out of line’ is to eject a reporter from a press conference for asking questions.”
Indeed, some of the most important and valuable moments in American journalism have come from the nation’s most influential journalists rejecting this cowardly demand that they take no position, from Edward R. Murrow’s brave 1954 denunciation of McCarthyism to Walter Cronkite’s 1968 refusal to treat the U.S. Government’s lies about the Vietnam War as anything other than what they were. Does anyone doubt that today’s neutrality-über-alles journalists would denounce them as “activists” for inappropriately “taking a side”?
As Jack Shafer documented two years ago, crusading and “activist” journalism is centuries old and has a very noble heritage. The notion that journalists must be beacons of opinion-free, passion-devoid, staid, impotent neutrality is an extremely new one, the by-product of the increasing corporatization of American journalism. That’s not hard to understand: one of the supreme values of large corporations is fear of offending anyone, particularly those in power, since that’s bad for business. The way that conflict-avoiding value is infused into the media outlets which these corporations own is to inculcate their journalists that their primary duty is to avoid offending anyone, especially those who wield power, which above all means never taking a clear position about anything, instead just serving as a mindless, uncritical vessel for “both sides,” what NYU Journalism Professor Jay Rosen has dubbed “the view from nowhere.” Whatever else that is, it is most certainly not a universal or long-standing principle of how journalism should be conducted.
The worst aspect of these journalists’ demands for “neutrality” is the conceit that they are actually neutral, that they are themselves not activists. To be lectured about the need for journalistic neutrality by Politico of all places – the ultimate and most loyal servant of the DC political and corporate class – by itself illustrates what a rotten sham this claim is. I set out my argument about this at length in my 2013 exchange with Bill Keller and won’t repeat it all here; suffice to say, all journalism is deeply subjective and serves some group’s interests. All journalists constantly express opinions and present the world in accordance with their deeply subjective biases – and thus constantly serve one agenda or another – whether they honestly admit doing so or dishonestly pretend they don’t.
Ultimately, demands for “neutrality” and “objectivity” are little more than rules designed to shield those with the greatest power from meaningful challenge. As BuzzFeed’s Adam Serwer insightfully put it this morning “‘Objective’ reporters were openly mocking Trump not that long ago, but Ramos has not reacted to Trump’s poll numbers with appropriate deference . . . . Just a reminder that what is considered objective reporting is intimately tied to power or the perception of power.” Expressing opinions that are in accord with, and which serve the interests of, those who wield the greatest political and economic power is always acceptable for the journalists who most tightly embrace the pretense of “neutrality”; it’s only when an opinion constitutes dissent or when it’s expressed with too little reverence for the most powerful does it cross the line into “activism” and “bias.”
(Ramos’ supposed sin of being what the Post called a “conflict junkie” – something that sounds to be nothing more than a derogatory way of characterizing “adversary journalism” – is even more ridiculous. Please spare me the tripe about how Ramos’ real sin was one of rudeness, that he failed to wait for explicit permission from the Trumpian Strongman to speak. Aside from the absurdity of viewing Victorian-era etiquette as some sort of journalistic virtue, Trump’s vindictive war with Univision made it unlikely he’d call on Ramos, and journalists don’t always need to be “polite” to do their jobs.
Beyond that, whether a reporter must be deferential to a politicians is one of those questions on which people shamelessly switch sides based on which politician is being treated rudely at the moment, as the past liberal protests over the “rudeness” displayed to Obama by conservative journalistsdemonstrate. That Ramos is not One of Them – Joe Scarborough appeared not even to know who Ramos is and suggested he was just seeking “15 minutes of fame,” despite Ramos’ having far greater influence and fame than Scarborough could dream of having – clearly fueled the journalistic resentment that Ramos’ behavior was out of line).
What Ramos did here was pure journalism in its classic and most noble expression: he aggressively confronted a politician wielding a significant amount of power over some pretty horrible things that the politician is doing and saying. As usual when someone commits a real act of journalism aimed at the most powerful in the U.S., those leading the charge against him are other journalists, who so tellingly regard actual journalism as a gauche and irreverent crime against those who wield the greatest power and thus merit the greatest deference.
UPDATE: Caputo, while noting that he disagrees with many of the views in this article, objects to one phrase in particular and sets forth his objectionhere. I quoted and/or linked to all of his referenced statements and am happy to allow readers to decide if that one phrase was accurate. I am quite convinced it was and stand by it.
Aug 23, 2015
Johnny Carson Returns To Latenight On Antenna TV
 |
| Johnny Carson Returns To Latenight On Antenna TV |
Written by: iFreePress
23 years after retiring from The Tonight Show – and a decade after his death – Johnny Carson remains TV’s most popular late-night talk show host, according to a 2015 Quinnipiac University Poll, 2015.
The Carson reruns, which will start January 1, 2016, mark the first time the shows will air in a strip since Carson went off the air in 1992. “We cannot wait to bring this show to fans who remember Carson and to a new generation of viewers who have never had the chance to see Johnny in his prime”.
Antenna TV has struck a multi-year deal with Carson Entertainment Group to license hundreds of hours of the NBC late-night institution. (And really, everybody back in the day just called it Carson anyway.)
Antenna TV plans on creating theme weeks, with episodes based around anniversaries and other milestones.
New episodes of the series air Sundays at 11:30pm ET/PT.
The series’ season two premiere on Sunday, July 26, ranked #1 in its time period among all key adults and men and charted triple-digit delivery gains over its prior season premiere (P18-24 +154%, P18-34 +117%, P18-49 +121%).
Antenna TV plans on creating theme weeks, with episodes based around anniversaries and other milestones.
New episodes of the series air Sundays at 11:30pm ET/PT.
The series’ season two premiere on Sunday, July 26, ranked #1 in its time period among all key adults and men and charted triple-digit delivery gains over its prior season premiere (P18-24 +154%, P18-34 +117%, P18-49 +121%).
Tribune Media president, strategic programming and acquisitions, Sean Compton added: “During his Nebraskan boyhood, Johnny Carson dreamed of becoming a world-famous magician, and few would disagree that his three decade dominance of late-night television was anything short of magical”.
The idea of running the show at the same time every night on Antenna TV will provide viewers with a feel for how the show was viewed originally.
The idea of running the show at the same time every night on Antenna TV will provide viewers with a feel for how the show was viewed originally.
Carson Entertainment has marketed home video releases of full-length “Tonight Show” episodes in the past. There is certainly plenty of material to cull from: The Tonight Show featured the debut of numerous biggest stand-ups out there, such as Jerry Seinfeld, Tim Allen, and Ellen DeGeneres. From then on, Carson Entertainment invested in state-of-the-art archival technology to preserve his legacy – a focus that continues today.
The hope is that a combination of nostalgia and interest in the legend of Carson will drive broader sampling of the channel.
The hope is that a combination of nostalgia and interest in the legend of Carson will drive broader sampling of the channel.
copied from ifreepress.com
Aug 22, 2015
Seriously, Everyone is always talking about Mick Taylor
Music review: The Rolling Stones, Sticky Fingers
By Tony Nielsen
6:00 AM Sunday Aug 23, 2015Add a comment
1971. Keith Holyoake is Prime Minister. Richard Nixon, US President. The Beatles have disbanded. Brian Jones is dead and been replaced by Mick Taylor as the Stones release their 11th studio album. Sticky Fingers will be rated one of their best.
The newly released, repackaged version is a revelation. A tour de force of blistering rock like Brown Sugar, Bitch, and Can't You Hear Me Knocking, counterbalanced by ballads like Wild Horses and their truly mesmerising rendition of Mississippi Fred McDowell's You Gotta Move. But wait, there's more.
Andy Warhol's provocative zipper and crotch shot on the cover garnered almost as much attention as the music. Included is a second disc, which is a treasure trove in its own right. Brown Sugar with Eric Clapton alongside Keith Richards and Mick Taylor, an acoustic version of Wild Horses, and alternate versions of Can't you hear me Knocking, Bitch and Dead Flowers.
Extra gems include a rousing set of live Stones songs, Stray Cat Blues, Love in Vain, Midnight Rambler and Honky Tonk Women.
Special mention must be made of Taylor's coming of age at these sessions and also the "unofficial" members of the Stones. Bobby Keyes on sax, Jim Price trumpet, Ian Stewart and Nicky Hopkins on piano, and magic touches on some tracks by Billy Preston on organ. Sticky Fingers, especially with the extra material included, made 1971 a remarkable year.
The Rolling Stones
Sticky Fingers (Re-issue)
Rating: 5/5
Sticky Fingers (Re-issue)
Rating: 5/5
By Tony Nielsen
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)