e-chreia

Hats off to the Editorial Board of the Cleveland Plain Dealer for its recent opinion piece on President Obama’s Tuesday evening speech from the Oval Office.

The Plain Dealer has it right when it notes that the President’s remarks were short on detail. Obama’s “customary grace” was certainly intact, but his words rang a bit hollow. The President’s emphasis on getting the troops home overshadowed any specifics about what, exactly, troops are expected to accomplish in Afghanistan.

Apart from specifics, Obama’s remarks did not include any references to “the C-words”: civilians (as in civilian casualties) and contractors (as in private contractors). Take your pick of “theaters of operation” — whether we’re talking about the end of the combat mission in Iraq or the surge in Afghanistan, Obama was reluctant to address these issues head on.

Notwithstanding his gift for platitudes regarding US military personnel, Obama’s reluctance to speak about the civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan is deeply disturbing. What’s more, the absence of any reference to the growing (and ominous) role of private contractors in both countries is chilling. As independent journalist Jeremy Scahil and others have observed, the US is ever more dependent on private contractors who provide security and wage war with little accountability to the administration, let alone the American public.

Waging war for “fun and profit” is a dangerous game. And while it may look good for the folks back home, who are weary of the wars, the reliance on private contractors is a recipe for disaster for it invites abuses of power, corruption, fraud and wholesale murder.

So, no surprises that Obama didn’t drop either of the “C-words.” So much for that other C-word: change.

khowley Media, News media, Politics Afghanistan, Change, civilian casualties, Iraq, News media, Obama, private contractors

This weekend, NPR, like most major news outlets, devoted considerable airtime marking the fifth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina and the flooding of New Orleans.

Despite all the reporting, NPR did not see fit to devote a few minutes of airtime on either of its daily newsmagazines — Morning Edition and All Things Considered – to the release of Harry Shearer’s feature length documentary “The Big Uneasy.”   

NPR’s behavior is suspect on two counts. First, NPR has long realized the importance of cross-promotional opportunities. When one of their own publishes a book, let’s say, or otherwise has an “outside” project due for release, NPR typically puts aside airtime to speak with that person and promote that project.

Harry Shearer has a long (if somewhat fraught) relationship with NPR. His weekly radio broadcast, Le Show, is a staple on NPR affiliates across the country. And yet, the best NPR could do was land him some airtime on Talk of the Nation.

Second, NPR’s decision to turn down Shearer’s offer to purchase some “enhanced underwriting” during its signature daily news magazines, indicates a reluctance to upset corporate sponsors and government agencies. NPR rather cryptically suggested that Shearer’s preferred wording — about the flooding of New Orleans — somehow violated FCC regulations of underwriting notices.

Specifically, NPR objected to the film’s charge that the devastation of New Orleans was not a natural disaster, but rather a man-made calamity. Throughout the film, Shearer speaks with experts who challenge the “official narrative” and instead place the blame for the flooding of New Orleans squarely on the Army Corps of Engineers.

Not surprisingly, this episode hasn’t received very much attention. The New York Post published a short blurb on Sunday’s Page Six. And this morning, Pacifica Radio’s Democracy Now! featured a lengthy interview with Mr. Shearer about the film and the NPR flap.

All of which is to say that NPR seems uneasy with the prospect of challenging the official story surrounding the near-death of a great American city. Instead, NPR clings to the story line that both the Bush and Obama administration have used over the ensuing five years: the catastrophe in New Orleans was a natural disaster.

Harry Shearer has his doubts — and we should too.

khowley Culture, Film, Media, National, News media, Politics, Radio, Resistance Big Uneasy, enhanced underwriting, Harry Shearer, News media

With the primary season coming to a close and the midterm elections looming, now’s as good a time as any to assess the tea party and its impact on electoral politics.

Thus far, the tea party’s impact is less palpable in the arena of electoral politics than on the character and conduct of political discourse. Whether we ‘re talking about last summer’s town hall meetings or the ongoing controversy over the proposed Islamic center in lower Manhattan, the ensuing debates (so-called) have been raw, inflammatory and uncivil.

As for whether the tea party has moved the GOP, I really don’t see much distinction between the two. For instance, in April the New York Times/CBS News poll indicated that a significant number of people who identified themselves as tea party supporters were Republican, white, and middle aged. Moreover, this poll found tea partiers were better educated and wealthier than the general public. More recently, House Republicans established a tea party caucus that includes the likes of Michele Bachmann (MINN), Joe Wilson (SC) and from here in Indiana, Dan Burton and Mike Pence. Any suggestion that these GOPers are not of the establishment strains credulity.

It seems to me that the tea party coalesced in response to the domestic and foreign policy failures of the Bush administration. More often than not, these failures were unacknowledged — in public — by the Republican faithful. Nevertheless, the tea party emerges in response to the significant losses Republicans suffered in the 2008 election cycle. The tea party provided “cover” for Republicans at a time when the GOP brand was damaged by the Bush administration’s assault on privacy, grinding occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan and the ensuing economic meltdown. Simply put, the tea party is an effort to re-brand the GOP. Not for nothing have Republican operatives, including none other than Karl Rove, been supporting tea party campaigns and candidates.

The success of “insurgent” candidates, like Rand Paul, makes an awful lot of news, but this seems less a rejection of the Republican establishment than a broader anti-incumbency sentiment. On that score, then, the tea party threatens Republicans and Democrats alike. Small wonder we’ve seen so many career politicians throwing in the towel this election season.

What’s next for the tea party?

There are several limitations to the tea party’s influence. First and foremost, the tea party is, at best, a loose affiliation of angry and frustrated voters whose philosophy grows more contradictory by the day. After all, the economic mess and the excesses of Big Government (e.g., illegal wiretapping, Wall Street bailout) are part of the Bush legacy.

And as Kenneth Vogel recently pointed out in Politico, the controversy over the so-called Ground Zero mosque is straining the relationship between establishment Republicans eager to use the controversy for short-term political gain and tea party faithful who are more concerned with economic and constitutional issues.

Second, seasoned Democratic strategist may use the tea party to create a wedge between various constituencies that might otherwise vote Republican. In doing so, Democrats may benefit come election day. Moreover, the fear mongering coming from “star” Republicans like Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin (a tea party favorite) may help motivate Democrats and Independents who might otherwise sit this one out to cast a vote come November.

As for the tea party as story line, I have no doubt this trope will continue to dominate news coverage from here on out. The rise of the tea party adds a new wrinkle to the horse race coverage of electoral politics that is so common these days. What’s more the offensive rhetoric coming from establishment Republicans and so-called insurgent tea party candidates is hard for print, broadcast and (especially) cable news outlets to resist. As usual, this sort of coverage adds more heat than light to political discourse.

khowley Media, National, News media, Politics, Social movements Democrats, GOP, midterm elections, November, Tea Party

In a wide ranging conversation with editors from the Wall Street Journal, Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google, discussed the future of his company, the newspaper industry, and the vexing issue of privacy in an era of digital information gathering, storage and retrieval.

Schmidt was characteristically bullish on Google and its future prospects. The internet entrepreneur spoke confidently of Google’s ability to capitalize on the wave of next generation handheld devices, including its own Android smartphone.

Although Google built its reputation on a corporate motto, “Don’t be evil,” the internet giant has made a few recent moves — including its “agreement” Verizon regarding the management of internet traffic — that belie this sentiment.

The WSJ piece can be downright frightening reading. For instance, Schmidt declared the: “I actually think most people don’t want Google to answer their questions … They want Google to tell them what they should be doing next.” No longer content to be an internet search engine, apparently, Google wants to be your personal assistant, best friend and spiritual advisor as well. Could Google rabbi be far behind?

Explaining this “logic” further, Schmidt observes Google’s unprecedented data collection capabilities this way: “We know roughly who you are, roughly what you care about, roughly who your friends are.” This, in turn, allows Google to “target” individuals with advertisements and information that is tailored to individual users (and to their geographic position).

But Schmidt’s vision is even more ominous — although he frames his discussion in terms of a friendly caution. “I don’t believe society understands what happens when everything is available, knowable and recorded by everyone all the time.” And in light of news reports about Google’s data collection methods, he ought to know!

The WSJ continues, Schmidt “predicts, apparently seriously, that every young person one day will be entitled automatically to change his or her name on reaching adulthood in order to disown youthful hijinks stored on their friends’ social media sites.”

Now that’s something I can share with students and be sure to scare the living sh*t out of them.

Then again, maybe in the era of mobilized privatization, to use Raymond Williams’ useful phrase, the kids are alright with that.

And who knows? Perhaps Google can find a way to monetize name changes. They could simply issue “user names.” Soon enough we’ll all be part of Google’s “branding” strategy.

khowley Culture, Internet, Media, National, News media Google, name change, News media, Priacy

Time to break “radio silence.” I’ve been on the road for a spell and otherwise taking care of some pressing business.

That’s not to say I haven’t had some time for “life’s little pleasures” — walking the dog, playing some ball and otherwise enjoying a bit of summer reading.

Of course, none of this keeps the murder and mayhem of the world from intruding on my otherwise peaceful mind. Take your pick, the depths of “The Great Recession,” the saber rattling aimed at Iran, the hypocrisy of Washington pols and pundits who critique WikiLeaks, BP’s endless duplicity and the attendant propaganda spewed by corporate media that the Gulf of Mexico is nearly “oil free,” the ugly bigotry surrounding plans to build an Islamic Center nearby the WTC site…

The list goes on and on.

And when despair sets in lately, I’ve found great wisdom, joy and solace in the words of Henry Miller. This aphorism has particular resonance for me these days:

“A new world is in the making, a new type of man is in the bud. The masses, destined now to suffer more cruelly than ever before, are paralyzed with dread and apprehension. They have withdrawn, like the shell-shocked, into their self-created tombs; they have lost all contact with reality except where their bodily needs are concerned. The body, of course, has long ceased to be the temple of the spirit. It is thus that man dies to the world — and to the Creator.”

A little summer reading goes a long way…

khowley Culture, Politics, Resistance Henry Miller, pleasure, radio silence, summer reading

Pegged to the Federal Communication Commission’s public meeting in Chicago regarding the proposed merger between Comcast and NBC Universal, NPR aired the following report during yesterday’s (July 13, 2010) broadcast of Morning Edition.

As is their habit, NPR framed this critical public policy issue as a business story. This isn’t simply a matter of semantics, either.

By framing a story regarding media consolidation and the attendant issues of net neutrality in “business” terms, NPR aligns itself with corporate interests. A closer look at the story reveals the duplicity behind NPR’s reportage.

Joel Rose’s report begins with a sound bite from NBC’s hit TV show “30 Rock.” The clip features a self-referential turn when Alec Baldwin’s character makes a small joke about the Comcast — NBC merger.

The implicit message here is that none of this should be taken too seriously.

The report goes on to give some background on both NBC and Comcast before getting to the heart of the issue: the threat this deal poses in terms of further media consolidation (and the attendant loss of localism in news and pubic affairs reporting) and the critical question of network neutrality. This principle holds that ISPs, like Comcast, should be prohibited from placing restrictions on online content and traffic.

In a shocking understatement, Rose claims that the merger has “drawn relatively little opposition.” That all depends upon who Rose is talking to. And given the story’s reliance on elite sources, its no surprise he hasn’t heard “much opposition.”

And yet, this statement is contradicted by a sound bite from Professor Susan Crawford at the Cardozo School of Law in New York. Crawford said, “It’s a giant merger that’s going to change the media landscape. I’m not sure that people are paying enough attention to it at this point.” Professor Crawford’s remark about lack of public knowledge of this policy issue is an indictment of NPR and other major news outlets that provide precious little reporting on matters of communication policy.

Later on in the story, Rose mentions the considerable money Comcast has spent lobbying regulators and law makers, but fails to suggest how this might compromise the regulatory process. What’s more, by acknowledging Comcast’s lobbying, the report lends credence to charges that Comcast is not well regarded by consumers or that Comcast fears public opposition to the merger– a point Rose repeatedly out of his way to avoid.

The kicker comes at the end of the report, when Rose notes that the public comment period on the proposed merger is closed. Rose concludes, “but the public will get a chance to vent at the end of today’s FCC workshop.”

This is (business) news as usual at NPR. The public broadcaster does little to promote active and engaged public participation in policy making decisions. Instead, members of the public get to “vent” from time to time.

Pitting federal regulators against free market advocates is a standard template for business news these days, but this approach to journalism effectively shuts the public out of public policy deliberations.

So much for broadcasting that serves the public interest.

khowley Culture, Media, National, News media, Radio Comcast, FCC, merger, News media, NPR

Re-Branding National Public Radio

The Bloomington Alternative

Here’s a news item that caught my eye last week: National Public Radio is changing its name to NPR.

Of course, with economic calamity devastating communities from Maine to California, environmental catastrophe in the Gulf and grinding occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan, public radio’s decision to re-brand itself is strictly small potatoes.

Still, I can’t help thinking that NPR’s re-branding efforts are one more indication that the public is being squeezed out of public radio.

According to Vivian Schiller, NPR’s chief executive, the name change is intended to reflect public radio’s move from traditional broadcasting to the delivery of news, music and entertainment fare across a variety of digital platforms. “NPR is more modern, streamlined,” said Schiller.

While the name change may be an accurate reflection of the evolution of broadcasting, the decision to re-brand public radio is cause for concern for some local NPR stations. A story in the Washington Post notes: “NPR’s affiliates, which contribute about 40 percent of NPR’s $154 million operating budget, are still primarily in the radio business. Some station managers have grumbled that NPR has invested in digital operations at the expense of more and better radio programs.”

Based on NPR’s performance of late, those station managers are onto something. Despite all the bells and whistles NPR has employed in recent years, from podcasts to twitter feeds, public radio’s journalistic standards have declined in the digital era.

Nowhere is this tendency more evident than in NPR’s political coverage. Consider public radio’s reporting on the upcoming mid-term elections. Like their counterparts on network television and the rolling news channels, NPR favors horse-race coverage over substantive discussion of the issues and candidates.

Then there’s NPR’s reliance on pollsters and pundits whose “inside baseball” approach to electoral politics reduces this fundamental aspect of democratic culture to little more than a spectator sport. To make matters worse, the pundits are not all that insightful.

Take All Things Considered host Robert Siegel’s July 7 interview with Stuart Rothenberg. As Rothenberg handicapped the Republicans’ chances for winning a majority in either the House or Senate, he told Siegel, “Right now the Democrats are responsible for everything. The Republicans have such small numbers in both the House and the Senate that they’re largely irrelevant.”

Since this was radio, I can’t be sure, but I bet Rothenberg said this with a straight face. All the same, any suggestion that the Republicans have been “irrelevant” since Obama took office is patently absurd.

The “Party of No” certainly left its mark on the insurance-company-friendly health care legislation that passed earlier this year. Ditto recent financial reform measures that do little to change the “too-big-to-fail” culture that led to our current economic crisis. And let’s not forget that the Republicans’ relish making sport of extending unemployment benefits for workers who can’t find a job in these desperate times.

Rather than question this statement, or much of Rothenberg’s analysis for that matter, Siegel listened earnestly to his empty-headed prognostications and left it at that.

But NPR’s most egregious work of late has been in the realm of “business news.” Consider this item from the July 8 broadcast of Morning Edition. Host Renee Montagne introduced the segment this way: “NPR’s Business News starts with a defense of the Happy Meal.”

This “business story” makes reference to consumer advocates, including the Center for Science in the Public Interest, who have taken McDonald’s to task for its promotional campaigns aimed at children. Montagne continued, “In a letter to a consumer group that have singled out Happy Meals in particular, [McDonald's] CEO, Jim Skinner, said they were ‘a fun treat’ and that it’s ‘appropriate to promote them with free toys.’” Under the guise of news reporting, this item is nothing more than a warmed over public relations piece designed to deflect criticism against McDonald’s.

If this were a one-time offense, it would be one thing. But NPR’s business reporting is full of this sort of corporate propaganda. What’s more, this pro-corporate spin has infiltrated other aspects of NPR’s reporting.

The original story about the Center for Science in the Public Interest’s (CSPI) threat to sue McDonald’s unless it stopped using toys to promote its kids meals is a case in point. Broadcast on June 22, the story begins with a sound bite from a McDonald’s TV commercial: not coincidentally a cross-promotional spot pegged to the release of DreamWorks’ Shrek: The Final Chapter.

In her set up to reporter April Fulton’s story, Renee Montagne says, “a consumer group is trying to take the happy out of the Happy Meal — or at least, the toy.” Framing the story in this way subtly aligns the listener with the interests of fast food companies. But this is just a prelude to the soft-sell that follows.

Fulton’s report opens with CSPI spokesman, Michael Jacobson, among others, who criticize McDonald’s for its “unethical” marketing aimed at children. But the balance of the story goes to people who defend McDonald’s practices — including comments from Justin Wilson of the Center for Consumer Freedom, “a group that promotes consumer choice and takes some money from the food industry.”

Throughout, Fulton incorporates sly references to McDonald’s products, such as the latest Happy Meal toy — a plastic watch featuring the cartoon character Shrek — and to the smell of McDonald’s French Fries that are “so tempting.” Far from producing a “balanced” story on consumer activism — and the legitimate concerns raised by consumer and health advocates — the report morphs into a promotional piece for McDonald’s products and a defense of the fast food giant’s marketing practices.

NPR’s recent emphasis on business news wouldn’t be quite so troubling if the organization would make it a point to include labor news on a regular basis. Likewise, on those rare occasions when consumer activists do get a mention on NPR, it’s typically framed as a business story. By doing so, NPR puts business interests ahead of the interests of workers, activists, citizens groups and others who, by definition, are members of the public.

Goodbye, then, to National Public Radio. Perhaps the public hasn’t been completed evacuated from NPR. These days, those familiar initials might well stand for Nonstop Public Relations.

khowley Media, National, News media, Radio branding, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Happy Meal, News media, NPR

Threat Assessment

The Bloomington Alternative

For all of our concern with safety and security — in our homes, at the airport, and on the border — our way of life is threatened as never before.

According to national security experts, the threat comes from Islamic extremists, and, to a lesser extent, popular democratic movements in Latin America. For the Tea Party movement, Big Government threatens traditional American values and individual liberties. White supremacist and anti-immigration groups perceive undocumented workers from south of the border as threats to American national identity and culture. Meanwhile, U.S. business interests point to labor and environmental regulations that threaten our competitive advantage in the global marketplace.

And that’s just the short list — the one that plays out on a regular basis in the American news media.

It’s a list that narrowly defines the nature and extent of an existential threat to the United States: a threat posed by corporate power that undermines democratic practices and institutions — most notably the Fourth Estate. For example, despite round-the-clock press coverage of the BP oil disaster, there’s been precious little attention paid to the pernicious effect of corporate lobbying and influence peddling on American political processes, labor and economic standards, and economic well-being.

From Enron to Bernie Madoff, the dominant media narrative typically fixes blame on “a few bad apples.” Doing so studiously avoids any mention of the structural arrangements that lead to corruption and abuses of power in the first place. For instance, these days BP CEO Tony Hayward makes a convenient whipping boy for the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion and the ongoing environmental calamity in the Gulf of Mexico. At the same time, however, BP’s dismal record of worker and environmental safety receives far less press scrutiny.

Similarly, Representative Joe Barton (R-Texas) is singled out for his sycophantic apology to BP executives for the Obama administration’s demand that the oil giant establish a $20 billion escrow account to cover damages in the Gulf. When Barton characterized the plan as a “shakedown” the American press corps milked it for all it was worth.

However, other leading GOP figures, including U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), Mississippi Gov. Haley Barber and talk radio host Rush Limbaugh were just as critical of the fund. For instance, Bachmann referred to the idea as a “redistribution of wealth” scheme; and for his part, Limbaugh called the plan a “slush fund” that would go to ACORN and union activists. Significantly, their comments — standard issue GOP hyperbole — haven’t garnered much press coverage.

Likewise, a statement issued by the Republican Study Committee — a group of conservative House members — was harshly critical of the fund. According to Talking Points Memo, committee chairman, U.S. Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) said, “BP’s reported willingness to go along with the White House’s new fund suggests that the Obama Administration is hard at work exerting its brand of Chicago-style shakedown politics. These actions are emblematic of a politicization of our economy that has been borne out of this Administration’s drive for greater power and control.”

Absurd as they are revealing, this sort of criticism demonstrates the GOP’s willingness to bend over backwards to defend corporate interests. Nevertheless, the U.S. press corps refuses to interrogate these comments — and what they might say about the power and influence of corporate interests in American politics.

In short, while individual gaffes — and the inevitable apologies that follow — generate considerable press coverage, these media spectacles tend to obscure larger truths. In the case of the BP oil disaster, or the Massey coalmine explosion for that matter, the enormous influence that the oil, natural gas and coal industry exert over the U.S. political economy.

***

The media frenzy surrounding General Stanley McChrystal’s interview with Rolling Stone — and his subsequent dismissal — is another case in point.

For days, the news cycle was dominated by talking heads debating whether or not McChrystal’s derisive comments regarding senior administration officials amounted to insubordination. Obama’s ensuing decision to sack McChrystal has likewise focused on the need to have discipline within the ranks of the military.

Despite all the press coverage of McChrystal’s comments and his subsequent dismissal, the mainstream media has all but ignored the substantive questions raised by Michael Hastings profile of McChrystal. While not inconsequential, the press corps’ emphasis on the tension between McChrystal and his team and the U.S. civilian leadership overshadows the fundamental problems with America’s military strategy in Afghanistan.

Writing for AlterNet, Josh Holland nailed it when he observed the following: “Ultimately, what the Rolling Stone story tells us is that even those tasked with carrying out Obama’s Afghanistan policy know it’s an exercise in futility. McChrystal and his aides are protecting his legacy against history’s harsh judgment of what will prove an incoherent policy from its inception.”

In essence, by focusing on McChrystal’s insubordination, the press corps has turned a blind eye to the failure of a military solution to the situation in Afghanistan. This is not the first time that American press corps has conveniently avoided indications of a failed Afghan policy.

In March of this year, McChrystal acknowledged the toll his counterinsurgency strategy is having on Afghan civilians. In a videoconference, McChrystal said: “We have shot an amazing number of people, but to my knowledge, none has ever proven to be a threat.” Talk about a sound bite! And yet, this remarkable acknowledgement received little press coverage, let alone criticism or condemnation.

Press reaction to Obama’s decision to fire McChrystal followed a similar pattern. Uncritically following the White House lead, the U.S. press corps dutifully repeated the president’s claim that the problem here was one of personnel, not policy. And so, despite every indication that the surge strategy is an unmitigated disaster, American news outlets refuse to consider any option other than military action.

Put bluntly, the U.S. press corps is doing a lousy job of informing the American people of the consequences of nine years of war and occupation. In doing so, news workers are complicit in legitimating a failed policy: a policy that has this country mired in a protracted conflict that threatens our credibility abroad, saps our resources at home and continues to exact a horrendous toll on the lives of Afghan civilians, American armed forces, and our NATO allies.

Now doesn’t that make you feel safe?

khowley Internet, Media, National, News media, Politics, World Afghanistan, BP, McChrystal, media spectacle, Rolling Stone, threat

INDIANAPOLIS — On Monday, June 21, just a few days shy of his 66th birthday, guitar legend Jeff Beck played a sold-out show at the Egyptian Room of the Murat Theater.

If the rare Indianapolis performance is any indication of how his world tour is going, it’s safe to say that Jeff Beck is having the time of his life. And why not? He’s on a roll.

In January, Beck won a Grammy Award for his instrumental version of the Beatle’s classic “A Day in the Life.” Since that time, he’s toured with fellow Yardbirds alumnus Eric Clapton; released his first studio recording in seven years, Emotion & Commotion (Atco); and performed a tribute to Les Paul at New York City’s intimate Iridium Room, on what would have been the guitar innovator’s 95th birthday.

Beck opened Monday night’s 90-minute set with a cover of the Billy Cobham’s “Stratus.” Propelled by Narada Michael Walden’s explosive percussion, this number put the enthusiastic crowd on notice: “Fasten your seat belts; you’re in for a wild ride.”

Over the course of the evening, Beck and his band, featuring Jason Rebello on keyboards and Rhonda Smith on bass, moved seamlessly between the more subdued work on Emotion & Commotion and the sonic pyrotechnics that Beck is best-known for.

Looking fit, trim and toned, Beck played his signature Fender Stratocaster with apparent ease, sometimes coaxing, other times tapping, slapping or otherwise rough housing with the instrument to generate just the right sound.

Early on, Beck and company dipped into the new release for two numbers: a haunting rendition of Benjamin Britten’s “Corpus Christi Carol,” followed by “Hammerhead,” a showcase of sorts for Beck’s speed, agility and technical virtuosity.

Not much of a chatterbox, Beck prefers to let his guitar do the talking — and the singing as well. His vibrato evoked Judy Garland’s plaintive style on “Over the Rainbow” and his melancholic rendition of the Irish folk tune “Mna na h-Eireann” (”Women of Ireland”) was sheer heartbreak.

On those rare occasions when Jeff Beck addressed the crowd, his comments were sparse, but sincere and, as always, a touch self-effacing. Introducing it as “the best thing that came out of Woodstock,” Beck and company launched into an amped up version of Sly Stone’s “I Want to Take You Higher.” And during the encore, he told the crowd that he’d learned Les Paul’s “How High the Moon” when he was 16, “but could never play it like the master.”

Throughout the evening, Beck dipped into some of his back catalogue and pulled out a few gems including “Cause We’ve Ended as Lovers” — a song he dedicated to Roy Buchanan on the landmark Blow by Blow album — and “Brush with the Blues” a tour de force number that’s been a staple of Mr. Beck’s live performances for years.

Beck also threw in a few cuts from his 2001 release You Had it Coming: the Grammy winning instrumental “Dirty Mind” and a raucous cover of Muddy Water’s “Rollin’ and Tumblin’” featuring Ms. Smith on vocal.

The show stopping encore, “Nessun Dorma” — another orchestral piece from Emotion & Commotion — brought an appreciative crowd to its feet.

For the faithful, Monday night’s performance illustrated that Jeff Beck is at the top of his game. And for the uninitiated, the show confirmed Beck’s status as one of the most dynamic and accomplished guitar players around.

As for Mr. Beck himself, it’s clear he can’t have too much fun doing what he does best.

khowley Culture, Music concert, Emotion & Commotion, Jeff Beck, Murat Theater

Index of Accountability

The Bloomington Alternative

In recent weeks, a handful of seemingly unrelated events — the BP oil disaster in the Gulf, an Israeli commando raid on a Gaza-bound humanitarian flotilla, umpire Jim Joyce’s blown call that cost Detroit Tiger’s pitcher Armando Galarraga a perfect game and reporter Helen Thomas’s abrupt retirement from the White House press corps over her controversial remarks on Israel-Palestine — offer valuable lessons about taking responsibility for one’s actions.

Call it an index of accountability.

Despite conflicting reports over the amount of oil that is gushing into the Gulf of Mexico, there is no doubt this is the worst oil spill in U.S. history. To date, BP’s efforts to control the leak have failed. And while the extent of the environmental damage is difficult to assess at this time, it is clear that the Gulf’s ecosystem is in crisis — and likely will be so for years to come.

As for people who live in and around the Gulf, the economic impact of the spill, and the subsequent clean up efforts, is equally devastating. Well-established regional industries, such as commercial fishing and tourism, are reeling from the disaster. Equally important, for a great many communities along the Gulf, a whole way of life is under siege and may never recover.

Local, state and federal officials promise to hold BP accountable for the spill and its immediate and long-term consequences. But as ProPublica’s reporting on BP reveals, this is not the first time that the oil giant has neglected environmental and worker safety regulations.

BP’s flagrant disregard for federal rules, as well as internal investigations that revealed serious violations of the company’s own safety policies, suggests that BP’s corporate culture is wholly irresponsible.

Add to this the hubris of BP officials who deny the existence of underwater plumes of oil — despite independent and government reports to the contrary — and who otherwise refuse to cooperate with environmental scientists and you get a perfect recipe for unprecedented environmental disaster and unparalleled corporate malfeasance.

Significantly, not a single BP executive has been fired or asked to resign in the wake of the oil spill and the ensuing public outrage. To be blunt, there’s scarcely a hint of accountability in BP’s response to the disaster.

None of this is to suggest that the federal government is any less responsible for the unfolding crisis in the Gulf. Much to the (repeated) consternation of his supporters, President Obama announced his decision to approve new offshore drilling in March of this year.

Within a matter of weeks, the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico. Ever since, the Obama administration has been spinning the story to deflect criticism of the president’s energy policy and otherwise avoid responsibility for the ensuing environmental calamity.

As his poll numbers plummet, Obama has ratcheted up the rhetoric denouncing BP executives for their handling of the spill. Asked what he made of BP CEO Tony Hayward’s callous remark about “wanting his life back” Obama told NBC’s Matt Lauer, “He wouldn’t be working for me after any of those statements.”

The rub here is that Obama, like so many of his predecessors, is the one who works for BP — and Exxon, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, ATT, Time Warner, Citibank, Goldman Sachs and other corporations that have a stranglehold on our political system.

In a different register, the state of Israel likewise has undue influence over U.S. domestic and foreign policy. Case in point: the tepid “official response” to the deadly Israeli raid on a humanitarian flotilla bound for the Gaza strip.

Whereas the international community condemned Israel’s May 31 assault that claimed the lives of nine activists, the United States refused to support a Security Council statement critical of Israel’s military action.

Instead, the U.S. government — along with the American press corps — has bought Israel’s specious claim that the raid was a defensive measure. The Obama administration has yet to issue an outright condemnation of the flotilla assault.

More recently, Israel has rejected calls from around the world for an independent, multinational investigation into the flotilla raid. In the meantime, the three-year blockade continues, despite charges by human rights groups that Israel is imposing collective punishment on the people of Gaza.

With U.S. backing, then, Israel uses military force with impunity. In doing so, Israel is charting a course that parallels the worst aspects of American neo-imperialism.

Although the United States and Israel refuse to be held accountable for policies and practices that make a mockery of international law and deny people basic human rights, it is heartening to know that there are people in public life who acknowledge mistakes and attempt to make amends for their words and deeds.

Take the example of Jim Joyce, the first-base umpire whose blown call spoiled Armando Galarraga’s June 2 bid for a perfect game. Upon realizing his error, Joyce had enough respect for himself, for Galarraga, and for the game of baseball, to admit his mistake — and to own it.

Following the game, a remorseful Joyce appeared at a press conference to express his regret and apologize to Galarraga for missing the call. Joyce didn’t offer any excuses. He didn’t try to deflect the criticism. He simply took responsibility for a regrettable error: “I did not get the call correct. I kicked the sh*t out of it.”

For his part, Galarraga was a good sport about the entire episode. The next day, Galarraga presented Joyce, who was working behind the plate, with the lineup card. The two men shook hands and then, a tearful Joyce patted Galarraga on the shoulder in an admirable display of good sportsmanship and mutual respect.

The incident reveals the value and palliative effects of accountability — an increasingly rare commodity in public life. Detroit Free Press columnist Brian Dickerson summed it up well when he wrote: “Armando Galarraga is an artist. But my fondest hope for my children is that they grow up to be like Jim Joyce.”

As for me, my fondest hope is that up and coming reporters look past the unfortunate circumstances that proved to be the undoing of long-time White House correspondent Helen Thomas and emulate her passion, intelligence and journalistic integrity.

Thomas, often referred to as the dean of the White House press corps, resigned early last week in the wake of a firestorm of criticism surrounding remarks she made about Israel-Palestine.

Responding to a question about Israel, Thomas said, “Tell them to get the get the hell out of Palestine. Remember, these people [the Palestinians] are occupied and it’s their land.” Thomas continued, “They should go home, to Poland, Germany and America”.

Posted on YouTube, the video quickly went viral and set off a controversy that ultimately cost Thomas her job and tarnished her reputation.

To be sure, Thomas’s comments were troubling as they were controversial. Nevertheless, the reaction within the White House press corps and official Washington was self-serving and decidedly overblown.

Don’t get me wrong; I view public apologies with a great deal of skepticism. Still, given Helen Thomas’s history and reputation for vigorous, watchdog journalism, it is something of a tragedy that her statement of regret did little to stem the criticism and condemnation directed at her.

Indeed, as a number of commentators have noted, the outrage directed at Helen Thomas within official Washington and among the White House press corps stands in sharp contrast to the silence among news workers for their complicity in allowing politicians, military planners and corporate executives from avoiding any measure of accountability.

For instance, Grit-TV’s Laura Flanders observed, “The White House Correspondents Association showed more fury in 24 hours towards Thomas than they’ve ever shown towards the journalists who, unlike Thomas, softballed Bush for eight straight years and passed on government lies that led us into the Iraq invasion.”

Whatever we might make of Helen Thomas’s remarks, one thing is clear: she has taken responsibility for her words. Would that this, along with her 50 years of keeping U.S. presidents accountable to the American people, becomes part of her legacy.

khowley Internet, Media, National, News media, Politics accountability, BP, Gaza flotilla, Helen Thomas, Jim Joyce, News media