Today it doesn't matter anymore if anyone shows it. In fact, the thing that would sap its power most is for it to go onto heavy rotation on MTV. Email inboxes will be full with it tomorrow. Anyone who watches it will feel a bit like they discovered it themselves rather than it being forced on them. And they'll pass it along to their friends.
If I were running the Republican spin control I'd be calling my friends at Viacom and telling them they need to be showing it every hour on the hour so it's old before it's ever cool. Even then it still will have power, but that'd blunt it.
Great video. Too bad the song is weak. And double too bad the content is Zinn-tastic conspiratorial madness.
Quick question for those who may have been Outraged™ by the Sinclair Corp planned hit job on Kerry's war protesting. Is this video better or worse than what Sinclair proposed to do? If better, is this because:
a) Content: The Sinclair movie attacked Kerry unfairly, while Eminem attacks Bush fairly
b) Form: The Sinclair movie masquerades as news whereas a video is obviously entertainment
c) Role: Sinclair, unlike Eminem, actually owns a distribution network.
To rap afficianados: Doesn't this make you miss Public Enemy more than ever? Bring back the S1Ws!
"I got a letter from the government the other day/I opened, and read it: it said they were suckers"
Sinclair tried to use a publicly-owned resource, i.e. the airwaves, in a manner inconsistent with its license to do so. Use of that public resource is conditioned on not using it in so blatantly partisan a matter.
If Sinclair had tried to do the same thing with "Fahrenheit 9/11", I would have felt the same. Probably not as intensely, sure, but I would still admit that their action was wrong.
agreed, and Eminem has artistic license on his side as well. And our TV companies aren't going to decide for us that our regular programs will be pre-empted by eminem. I really don't see how there's any parallel whatsoever with the eminem video and what sinclair attempted.
I agree with you on almost all counts, baa. Terrific video, weak song, slightly nutty (and very earnest!) message. Still, it'll do the job. And yes, we all miss Public Enemy.
As for Sinclair, the answer is "b" and "c." But you knew that.
You're right ogged, I was baiting a little. I do think, however, people are too quick to adopt as default a crude distinction between serious, objective news, where standards apply, and everything else, where so long as it isn't actively libel (and sometimes, when it is), we don't care. This seems willfully naive. We all know that ideas can be effectively banished by being labeled as uncool. The power of "edutainment" on political decision making is enormous. For raw impact, I would rather have one Oliver Stone movie telling my side of history on some key event than ten newsmagazine pieces. That's my meta-objection to "b." (and, I might add to the John Stewart "I'm just a clown" defence). The version of "b" I would unhesisitatingly in the case of the comparison I posed (sinclair to eminem) is more along the lines of "it's eminem, for heaven's sake!"
I am not sure I really buy c, actually. It's just that we in the US the assumption that broadcast media will be non-partisan, or at least, won't do obviously partisan "news analysis." And when that isn't true, it bugs us more than a partisan newspaper or magazine would.
I generally agree with what you're saying about the distinction between news and other stuff, but it was Sinclair that labelled the documentary "news", in order to try to skirt laws that govern what they can do with their license to use a public resource.
Oh, c'mon, right-wing radio has been playing the "entertainment" card for years now, and the mainstream news media has been very effectively cowed by arguments that objectivity means presenting "both" "sides" (the truth, and the propaganda) as if they were equally valid. We're gonna get all purist now b/c of a video? Especially one that, whatever its rhetorical excess, is actually being rhetorically excessive in support of people who usually don't have much in the way of access to the airwaves?
What the video made me wonder--and I don't watch videos any more, because I am old, so I could just be flat-out wrong--is why the hell rap music hasn't been all over the patriot act and the stop-loss since day one?
I am less interested in the "so's your mother" criticism, bitchphd, because I happily concede that anyone who employs the "just a joke" defence, regardless of party, is a loser.
That said, I don't think it's true that you'd hear Rush Limbaugh defend himself as Stewart does. I am no conoisseur, but as far as I can tell right wing talk radio views itself in deadly earnest. A guy like Limbaugh conceives himself as serious opinion journalist/pundit. That self-conception may not be justified by the standards of accuracy, lucidity, and fairness we expect from, say, David Broder. But when called on for being a partisan, or going easy on one side, I don't think Limbaugh or Jay Severin or whomever will defend himself by jingling his cap and bells. Rather, he'll say "I call it as I see it (you pinko!)"
As my above comment (I hope) makes clear, I'm not arguing for 'purity', but rather that many of the rules of thumb we use to judge purity (for example: "it's ok to make crazy accusation X beacuse it's just entertainment") are inadequate.
I don't think it's true that you'd hear Rush Limbaugh defend himself as Stewart does.
You hear Stewart defend himself? I hear him mockingly belittle himself. Unlike Right-Wing-Radio, the Daily Show is not shilling for a political party. He's less critical of Kerry because there's less to be critical of, of course, but how much positive has he said about the man? I watch almost every day and I can't think of a thing. And while Tucker called him Kerry's buttboy, he's played softball with plenty of RNC playas. Just watch his interview of Ed Gillespie. For what reason(s) should he defend himself?
Badass.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 10-25-04 11:50 PM
Wow. Nobody will have the nerve to show it, though.
I can also hear Bush surrogates denouncing Mr. Mathers as calling for both desertion and an actual physical assault on the President.
Posted by LarryB | Link to this comment | 10-26-04 12:14 AM
its eminem. It'll be on mtv
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 10-26-04 12:28 AM
"it's" you nazis.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 10-26-04 12:28 AM
Today it doesn't matter anymore if anyone shows it. In fact, the thing that would sap its power most is for it to go onto heavy rotation on MTV. Email inboxes will be full with it tomorrow. Anyone who watches it will feel a bit like they discovered it themselves rather than it being forced on them. And they'll pass it along to their friends.
If I were running the Republican spin control I'd be calling my friends at Viacom and telling them they need to be showing it every hour on the hour so it's old before it's ever cool. Even then it still will have power, but that'd blunt it.
Posted by EastDakota | Link to this comment | 10-26-04 4:32 AM
The link is down; does anyone have a direct link to the movie?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 10-26-04 8:02 AM
Great video. Too bad the song is weak. And double too bad the content is Zinn-tastic conspiratorial madness.
Quick question for those who may have been Outraged™ by the Sinclair Corp planned hit job on Kerry's war protesting. Is this video better or worse than what Sinclair proposed to do? If better, is this because:
a) Content: The Sinclair movie attacked Kerry unfairly, while Eminem attacks Bush fairly
b) Form: The Sinclair movie masquerades as news whereas a video is obviously entertainment
c) Role: Sinclair, unlike Eminem, actually owns a distribution network.
To rap afficianados: Doesn't this make you miss Public Enemy more than ever? Bring back the S1Ws!
"I got a letter from the government the other day/I opened, and read it: it said they were suckers"
--Michael Badnarik
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 10-26-04 12:23 PM
Sinclair tried to use a publicly-owned resource, i.e. the airwaves, in a manner inconsistent with its license to do so. Use of that public resource is conditioned on not using it in so blatantly partisan a matter.
If Sinclair had tried to do the same thing with "Fahrenheit 9/11", I would have felt the same. Probably not as intensely, sure, but I would still admit that their action was wrong.
And yes, I do miss Public Enemy.
Posted by Mitch Mills | Link to this comment | 10-26-04 1:14 PM
agreed, and Eminem has artistic license on his side as well. And our TV companies aren't going to decide for us that our regular programs will be pre-empted by eminem. I really don't see how there's any parallel whatsoever with the eminem video and what sinclair attempted.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 10-26-04 1:17 PM
I agree with you on almost all counts, baa. Terrific video, weak song, slightly nutty (and very earnest!) message. Still, it'll do the job. And yes, we all miss Public Enemy.
As for Sinclair, the answer is "b" and "c." But you knew that.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 10-26-04 2:27 PM
You're right ogged, I was baiting a little. I do think, however, people are too quick to adopt as default a crude distinction between serious, objective news, where standards apply, and everything else, where so long as it isn't actively libel (and sometimes, when it is), we don't care. This seems willfully naive. We all know that ideas can be effectively banished by being labeled as uncool. The power of "edutainment" on political decision making is enormous. For raw impact, I would rather have one Oliver Stone movie telling my side of history on some key event than ten newsmagazine pieces. That's my meta-objection to "b." (and, I might add to the John Stewart "I'm just a clown" defence). The version of "b" I would unhesisitatingly in the case of the comparison I posed (sinclair to eminem) is more along the lines of "it's eminem, for heaven's sake!"
I am not sure I really buy c, actually. It's just that we in the US the assumption that broadcast media will be non-partisan, or at least, won't do obviously partisan "news analysis." And when that isn't true, it bugs us more than a partisan newspaper or magazine would.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 10-26-04 2:50 PM
I'm not watching the video, but do you think Joshua Micah Marshall Mathers has a future?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 10-26-04 2:53 PM
baa:
I generally agree with what you're saying about the distinction between news and other stuff, but it was Sinclair that labelled the documentary "news", in order to try to skirt laws that govern what they can do with their license to use a public resource.
Posted by Mitch Mills | Link to this comment | 10-26-04 4:12 PM
Oh, c'mon, right-wing radio has been playing the "entertainment" card for years now, and the mainstream news media has been very effectively cowed by arguments that objectivity means presenting "both" "sides" (the truth, and the propaganda) as if they were equally valid. We're gonna get all purist now b/c of a video? Especially one that, whatever its rhetorical excess, is actually being rhetorically excessive in support of people who usually don't have much in the way of access to the airwaves?
What the video made me wonder--and I don't watch videos any more, because I am old, so I could just be flat-out wrong--is why the hell rap music hasn't been all over the patriot act and the stop-loss since day one?
And yeah, we all miss Public Enemy.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 10-26-04 5:19 PM
I am less interested in the "so's your mother" criticism, bitchphd, because I happily concede that anyone who employs the "just a joke" defence, regardless of party, is a loser.
That said, I don't think it's true that you'd hear Rush Limbaugh defend himself as Stewart does. I am no conoisseur, but as far as I can tell right wing talk radio views itself in deadly earnest. A guy like Limbaugh conceives himself as serious opinion journalist/pundit. That self-conception may not be justified by the standards of accuracy, lucidity, and fairness we expect from, say, David Broder. But when called on for being a partisan, or going easy on one side, I don't think Limbaugh or Jay Severin or whomever will defend himself by jingling his cap and bells. Rather, he'll say "I call it as I see it (you pinko!)"
As my above comment (I hope) makes clear, I'm not arguing for 'purity', but rather that many of the rules of thumb we use to judge purity (for example: "it's ok to make crazy accusation X beacuse it's just entertainment") are inadequate.
Mitch:
I didn't know that. It's a good point.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 10-26-04 6:05 PM
Of course, if Eminem ain't shrill enough fo' ya cracka ass, there's always Supadubya.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 10-26-04 10:23 PM
I don't think it's true that you'd hear Rush Limbaugh defend himself as Stewart does.
You hear Stewart defend himself? I hear him mockingly belittle himself. Unlike Right-Wing-Radio, the Daily Show is not shilling for a political party. He's less critical of Kerry because there's less to be critical of, of course, but how much positive has he said about the man? I watch almost every day and I can't think of a thing. And while Tucker called him Kerry's buttboy, he's played softball with plenty of RNC playas. Just watch his interview of Ed Gillespie. For what reason(s) should he defend himself?
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 10-27-04 12:16 AM
btw, seen this?
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 10-27-04 12:17 AM