Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Why Phil Bronstein Hates Al Gore.
Phil takes another jab at Al Gore in this week's column (following up on his gleeful gloating repeating some as-of-yet-unsubstantiated rumor).
ReputationDefender...won't take on clients guilty of provable, violent crimes...[but says the company:] "We don't do a lot of due diligence on marital infidelity." Good news for Al Gore.
It is interesting to understand why Phil Bronstein would try to put down someone who is not running for office and is only in the public eye for trying to save the planet from climate change.
Two reasons I can think of: one is that Al Gore was VP of Bill Clinton, and Phil still obsesses about the 90s.
The other reason is that Al Gore looked at the Phil Bronsteins of the world in 2000, and rightly, decided that if he were to be successful in communicating about climate change, he would have to go around them. There is very telling slide in the Inconvenient Truth which shows on one side, the scientific consensus: 1,000s of peer reviewed publications on the topic, NOT A SINGLE ONE arguing against global warming being man-made. On the other side, the mainstream media, where BOTH SIDES OF THE POSITIONS were equally represented. And the Chronicle, as lead by Bronstein at the time (and still now) is an active proponent of a 'balanced' he-said-she-said view of the world.
So Al Gore understood that newspapers had abdicated on speaking the truth, that they would not do what is right, and that they were gutless. Phil Bronstein saw somebody take the principled stand Phil should have taken if he had any spine, and he hates Al for that, and will heap scorn on him at every occasion.
So the private life of Al Gore (which is it, unless he's proven of sexual assault) becomes fodder for jokes. Bring down the man who took the high road from a bitter, petty, jealous character assassin...
ReputationDefender...won't take on clients guilty of provable, violent crimes...[but says the company:] "We don't do a lot of due diligence on marital infidelity." Good news for Al Gore.
It is interesting to understand why Phil Bronstein would try to put down someone who is not running for office and is only in the public eye for trying to save the planet from climate change.
Two reasons I can think of: one is that Al Gore was VP of Bill Clinton, and Phil still obsesses about the 90s.
The other reason is that Al Gore looked at the Phil Bronsteins of the world in 2000, and rightly, decided that if he were to be successful in communicating about climate change, he would have to go around them. There is very telling slide in the Inconvenient Truth which shows on one side, the scientific consensus: 1,000s of peer reviewed publications on the topic, NOT A SINGLE ONE arguing against global warming being man-made. On the other side, the mainstream media, where BOTH SIDES OF THE POSITIONS were equally represented. And the Chronicle, as lead by Bronstein at the time (and still now) is an active proponent of a 'balanced' he-said-she-said view of the world.
So Al Gore understood that newspapers had abdicated on speaking the truth, that they would not do what is right, and that they were gutless. Phil Bronstein saw somebody take the principled stand Phil should have taken if he had any spine, and he hates Al for that, and will heap scorn on him at every occasion.
So the private life of Al Gore (which is it, unless he's proven of sexual assault) becomes fodder for jokes. Bring down the man who took the high road from a bitter, petty, jealous character assassin...
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Bronstein's Short and Selective Memory.
On Wednesday, Bronstein asks if Al Gore really tried to rape someone, based on no substantiated evidence whatsoever (except Bronstein's belief that the National Enquirer is Pulitzer worthy, blind trust and all).
On Friday, an anti-gay pastor is outed by Lavander magazine, and Bronstein puts out concerns that it might have been unethical, since the journalist abused a 12 step program with an expectation of privacy for the participants to solve his investigation.
So we sum up: journalistic ethics apply only to protect the privacy of Republican bigots.
Also: yesterday, the Post let go liberal commentator Dave Weigel based on semi-private emails. Phil Bronstein does not write a peep, because SCORE!1!!, it's ONE LESS LIBERAL in the media!
On Friday, an anti-gay pastor is outed by Lavander magazine, and Bronstein puts out concerns that it might have been unethical, since the journalist abused a 12 step program with an expectation of privacy for the participants to solve his investigation.
So we sum up: journalistic ethics apply only to protect the privacy of Republican bigots.
Also: yesterday, the Post let go liberal commentator Dave Weigel based on semi-private emails. Phil Bronstein does not write a peep, because SCORE!1!!, it's ONE LESS LIBERAL in the media!
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Phil Bronstein: Stilll as Clueless.
Always the first one to jump to hasty conclusions (if it involves a Democrat), Phil Bronstein delights in a potential Al Gore sex story.
Did Al Gore really sexually attack a masseuse?
Note the question mark, as in: Phil has no clue, but let's rush to smear first, and we'll check later.
Phil post mentions: Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Elliott Spitzer, John Edwards, and NO REPUBLICAN. Because it's well known that it's Democrat who want to rule YOUR sex lives and who preach family values and who are sanctimonious about sanctity of marriage.
In real life, Phil ignores Republican sex scandal, because they expose them as phony hypocrites, and Phil can't let that happen. Ever.
Quote: Am I aiding and abetting tabloid fiction by blogging about this?
Yes, of course.
...Or giving a heads up about another actual scoop by the often ridiculed rag that some people thought should have won a Pulitzer for the Edwards story?
They give Pulitzer for sex stories from retired politicians not running for anything? No they don't, Phil, sorry, the only reward for those sex stories is your drooling (Phil never got a Pulitzer, so not a surprise he's unclear on the concept).
Writes Phil: The Clinton presidency seems doomed to swim around in a swamp of stains and DNA testing.
Clinton delivered peace and prosperity.
There is an oil spill in the gulf, worst environmental disaster ever arguably, enabled by the gutting of MMS and the mismanagement of Bush's administration by and for Big Oil. Does Phil write: The Bush presidency seems doomed to swim around in a swamp of oil stains and corruption?
No, Phil does not care. But reliving the 90s through the Monica Lewinsky prism, oh yeah, that's what matters.
Please shut down the Chron.
Did Al Gore really sexually attack a masseuse?
Note the question mark, as in: Phil has no clue, but let's rush to smear first, and we'll check later.
Phil post mentions: Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Elliott Spitzer, John Edwards, and NO REPUBLICAN. Because it's well known that it's Democrat who want to rule YOUR sex lives and who preach family values and who are sanctimonious about sanctity of marriage.
In real life, Phil ignores Republican sex scandal, because they expose them as phony hypocrites, and Phil can't let that happen. Ever.
Quote: Am I aiding and abetting tabloid fiction by blogging about this?
Yes, of course.
...Or giving a heads up about another actual scoop by the often ridiculed rag that some people thought should have won a Pulitzer for the Edwards story?
They give Pulitzer for sex stories from retired politicians not running for anything? No they don't, Phil, sorry, the only reward for those sex stories is your drooling (Phil never got a Pulitzer, so not a surprise he's unclear on the concept).
Writes Phil: The Clinton presidency seems doomed to swim around in a swamp of stains and DNA testing.
Clinton delivered peace and prosperity.
There is an oil spill in the gulf, worst environmental disaster ever arguably, enabled by the gutting of MMS and the mismanagement of Bush's administration by and for Big Oil. Does Phil write: The Bush presidency seems doomed to swim around in a swamp of oil stains and corruption?
No, Phil does not care. But reliving the 90s through the Monica Lewinsky prism, oh yeah, that's what matters.
Please shut down the Chron.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Phil Bronstein is so dense!
Phil Bronstein is so beyond irony.
Let's recap: Jon Stewart pokes fun at the media who, regarding l'affaire Helen Thomas, focus on who's going to get her seat rather on a more significant/relevant/important topic. I paraphrase Jon, but he was like: "who cares if fox or bloomberg gets the seat, if they don't they'll still be in the 2nd row, inches away from the president. Do they think they're rushing a sorority?"
In steps Phil, with a piece on who would get Helen's seat! And not only that, but in which he links to the Jon Stewart rant. Well, Phil, you watched it, but did you understand it?
Phil, ahem, Jon thinks it's a waste of media to spend it on such minute and silly topic.
It's a darn shame since Phil actually is a Hearst colleague of Helen Thomas, he's met her, he's read his autobiography, he's interviewed her and he's Jewish. So he could present a different perspective, informed from his experience with her, on her statement, on the controversy, on Israel and Palestine.
Instead, he's suggesting a teenage shipwrecked sailor to occupy Helen Thomas' seat, and it does not even begin to make sense. And he suggests Jon Stewart too, because people get their news from him. And why do they get their news from him, Phil? Because they can't get it from you, dummy, you just used your SF Chronicle forum to discuss a teenage sailor in Helen Thomas' seat, where else would they go?
Jon Stewart don't want to be a news person, as he says himself every so often, but Phil the news person doesn't give him any choice.
Let's recap: Jon Stewart pokes fun at the media who, regarding l'affaire Helen Thomas, focus on who's going to get her seat rather on a more significant/relevant/important topic. I paraphrase Jon, but he was like: "who cares if fox or bloomberg gets the seat, if they don't they'll still be in the 2nd row, inches away from the president. Do they think they're rushing a sorority?"
In steps Phil, with a piece on who would get Helen's seat! And not only that, but in which he links to the Jon Stewart rant. Well, Phil, you watched it, but did you understand it?
Phil, ahem, Jon thinks it's a waste of media to spend it on such minute and silly topic.
It's a darn shame since Phil actually is a Hearst colleague of Helen Thomas, he's met her, he's read his autobiography, he's interviewed her and he's Jewish. So he could present a different perspective, informed from his experience with her, on her statement, on the controversy, on Israel and Palestine.
Instead, he's suggesting a teenage shipwrecked sailor to occupy Helen Thomas' seat, and it does not even begin to make sense. And he suggests Jon Stewart too, because people get their news from him. And why do they get their news from him, Phil? Because they can't get it from you, dummy, you just used your SF Chronicle forum to discuss a teenage sailor in Helen Thomas' seat, where else would they go?
Jon Stewart don't want to be a news person, as he says himself every so often, but Phil the news person doesn't give him any choice.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
What will Phil do if a Republican makes a really stupid comment?
He will try to legitimize it of course.
Some Republican said that ended Don't Ask, Don't Tell and allowing gay to serve in the military is a bad thing because "What do mommies and daddies say to their 7-year-old child?"
Well, seven year old don't give a rat's ass about DADT and the gay and the military (they do think soldiers are cool, though). And that should be the END of the line of reasoning.
But Phil's job is not to have common sense, it's to make Republican look good, so he's asking his readers to react to the question. Says Phil:
What do you think? Will families have to have the birds-and-the-birds talk if gays serve openly? Should families be "forced" to explain what homosexuality is to their kids? Do you think kids know what DADT is? Do seven-year-olds already know what "gay" is? When is the right time to discuss this? If you've already dealt with questions from your kids on this, how did you handle it?
This is the modern media for you, no matter how insane the Republicans become, they have to be treated legitimately, and their insane opinions discussed with respect.
[update: and he FAILS! In his summary of the readers' opinion, Phil has to (implicitly) admit the premise of the question is stupid (or put it differently, kids are smarter than he is).
Almost all of you agree that repealing DADT would hardly force families to teach their kids about homosexuality.
This makes actually for a decent blog post to read.]
Some Republican said that ended Don't Ask, Don't Tell and allowing gay to serve in the military is a bad thing because "What do mommies and daddies say to their 7-year-old child?"
Well, seven year old don't give a rat's ass about DADT and the gay and the military (they do think soldiers are cool, though). And that should be the END of the line of reasoning.
But Phil's job is not to have common sense, it's to make Republican look good, so he's asking his readers to react to the question. Says Phil:
What do you think? Will families have to have the birds-and-the-birds talk if gays serve openly? Should families be "forced" to explain what homosexuality is to their kids? Do you think kids know what DADT is? Do seven-year-olds already know what "gay" is? When is the right time to discuss this? If you've already dealt with questions from your kids on this, how did you handle it?
This is the modern media for you, no matter how insane the Republicans become, they have to be treated legitimately, and their insane opinions discussed with respect.
[update: and he FAILS! In his summary of the readers' opinion, Phil has to (implicitly) admit the premise of the question is stupid (or put it differently, kids are smarter than he is).
Almost all of you agree that repealing DADT would hardly force families to teach their kids about homosexuality.
This makes actually for a decent blog post to read.]
