Feds Probe NY Post for Screening of 'Passion of Christ'

The NY Post held a private screening of a copy of Mel Gibson's controversial "The Passion of Christ" for a panel made up of a Post movie critic, a rabbi, a priest, a professor of early Christianity, and a randomly selected reader to publish their reactions to the film. With movie studios and the MPAA concerned about rampant piracy, it is not surprising that Paramount Pictures, Gibson and his company, Icon Entertainment, and federal authorities would like to know how the Post got a copy. Adding to the intrigue is the fact that the Post is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., which also owns 20th Century Fox - a competitor of Paramount.

More coverage is available from the Los Angeles Times.

Thank Goodness Something Salacious!

Just when the broadcast media were afraid that sweeps month would go by without any breaking news, media campout, 24-hour, special theme music and logo, technical expert, victim interview, eye-in-the-sky, perp walk story that is juicy enough to bring in an audience (read: advertisers) and fill tons of air time, along comes our own sweeps-tabloid god - Michael Jackson.

Michael Jackson arrived in Santa Barbara today in a private jet, and was booked on suspicion of child molestation. He was released on a $3 million bond. Authorities worked hard to shield Jackson from the press cameras, but it didn't stop 24-hour news outlets from filling the screen with long minutes and hours of ridiculous images such as the tail-end of a private plane poking out of a hangar.

There are tons of links. Here's MSNBC's coverage. (Reuters photos)

London Prepares for Bush Visit

President Bush is off for a three day visit to London. This visit was planned over a year and a half ago before the Iraq invasion, which explains why Bush would be visiting at a time when his popularity there is at an all time low. Security will be tight. Thursday's expected 100,000 protestors will be met by some 14,000 officers in Thursday's national demonstration which will culminate in Trefalger Square with a Bush effigy. (MSNBC article, Times of London article, Reuters article).

Asked about the expected protests, Bush declared that he is happy to go to a country where free speech and opposing views are welcomed. Odd coming from an administration that relegates protestors at his appearances to specially built protest areas far from his view. His minions of spin controllers and assorted sycophants go before him to organize their pro-administration demonstrators and erect their Potemkin Villages to assure his majesty that all is beautiful in his adoring kingdom. In fact, the president is so fearful of criticism that he insulted his British hosts by pulling out of a planned speech to Parliament to avoid heckling from opposition MP's according to the Daily Mirror. (In keeping with his preference for yes-men, Bush will instead deliver a speech to an "invited audience" at the Banqueting House in Whitehall.)

In a related story, Bush granted an interview to the Rupert Murdoch owned Sun, a British tabloid famous for it's topless "Page 3" girls featured in every issue, and its sensational articles similar to those found in our own National Enquirer. It is suggested that Bush gave the interview as a payback to Murdoch for all the pro-administration press from the Sun and his other outlets such as Fox News. See the Washington Post story.

Will Hiding the Body Bags Quell Iraq Casualty Concerns?

Following up our mention of the efforts to put a positive spin on events in Iraq (Oct 26), Gary Younge, writing for the Guardian Unlimited questions the effectiveness of the ban on showing flag-draped coffins returning from Iraq. Banning these images may actually do more to hurt the president's cause as, the public opinion may be more shaped by Bush's attitude and general inaccessibility during this time. When he refers to the casualties at all, he refers to them only in general terms. He has not attended any funeral or memorial to any of the Iraq casualties, and the banning of a display of public grief may actually cast a callous, uncaring pall on the president.

"Bush writes to each family, but his friends say he was offended by what he regarded as Clinton's occasionally gushing public performances, which he felt turned private grief into political gain. The trouble for Bush is that the public liked Clinton for his ability to empathise. Bush's apparent reluctance to publicly identify with the dead is beginning to look like a desire to disassociate himself from the failure of the mission. When news of the downed Chinook came through on Sunday he stayed in his ranch and let defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld meet the press. "

In the meantime, whether we see them or not, dead American soldiers continue to return from Iraq months after the Iraq war was declared "Mission Accomplished".

Loaded Words in the Abortion Debate

In his November 6 column in the Chicago Tribune, Don Wycliff discusses the "labels" traditionally assigned to the two sides of the abortion debate. In the paper's October 29th issue of WomanNews, Trib editors created headlines for an Associated Press story on abortion. In some editions the headline read, "Anti-choice groups celebrate victories." In others it was "Anti-choice victories alarm pro-choice groups." The "anti-choice" label, found typically in letters to the editor, generated a flurry of angry letters when used to describe "pro-life" advocates. The pro-choice camp has complained of bias ever since the media started using the term "pro-life", not wanting the insinuated title "anti-life". The media has been trying to walk a fine line ever since using the more neutral "pro- or anti- abortion". Even the recent "Partial Birth Abortion" term was neutralized. The Tribune stylebook provision on abortion, advises: "Avoid loaded terms, such as partial-birth abortion; use certain late-term abortions or give the medical term when practical."

This is not an issue that will ever be solved to the satisfaction of all parties, and the best the media can do is try to stay as impartial as possible without sacrificing accuracy. This is becoming more and more difficult as media consumers become more sensitive to bias - either actual or perceived.

Brits Caught the Fox Story

In a quick follow-up to the Oct. 24th posting, London's Guardian Unlimited ran an article on the Fox sues self dust-up. Find it here. Where are the American articles from the mainstream press? We now have to go to Britain for our news?