Hip Hop Headines - Fear of a (relevant) Black Planet

Underground hip hop doesn't lack people who want to MC, and despite its lack of widespread commercial appeal it has a strong base in young people.
But underground hip hop doesn't have enough new things to talk about.
We've all heard it before, and before that, and before that.
The stereotypical underground hip hop song is a lot like the stereotypical blog post: Both require a literary touch, a healthy ego, and both tend to be autobiographical, which means they can both end up sounding like a narcissistic person blathering about what they did yesterday.

What if hip hop MCs decided to rap about the news?
This has already worked out well for Akrobatic, who does a sports wrap up on the Boston radio station Jam'n 94.5. Listen to one of his more famous and (at the time) timely raps, and decide if the hip hop medium wouldn't work to distribute other forms of information.
Here's Akro on the current Celtic's team, now in the NBA Finals.

Empty threat

Occasionally on my way home from work I tune into WRKO's Michelle McPhee, partly because I like her outrage on behalf of perceived wrongdoing and partly to learn how the moderate right wing is thinking. McPhee's rhetoric is far from the hate mongers (Jay Severin and Michael Savage for instance) who share time slots on the channel, so she is usually bearable to listen to. But other times, she can be willfully blind to all the evidence against her point, and clearly just trying to press her agenda for making John McCain the next president. Sometimes it seems she shills as hard for McCain as other radio hosts shill for a show's sponsored vinyl-siding vendor or window replacement company.

Tonight she dredged up the ghost of Jeremiah Wright, yet again. McPhee's attempt to keep the ex-pastor in Obama's ex-church relevant felt as fresh and newsworthy as last week's potato salad. But I suppose he makes good radio with his years-old over-the-top sermons. And I expect her and other McCain supporters to bring him up again and again as the November election nears. He's a perfect villain for voters who treat any criticism of this country as blasphemy or treason. (And also those who choose their candidate based on a lapel pin.) But what's Wright got to do with Obama now?

Obama left the church. It's over. And by November that Jeremiah Wright potato salad is going to be well past its expiration date. The more the Republicans try to bring back the ghost of Rev. Wright, the more accountable they will have to be for the skeletons in McCain's closet.

Have we met?

After countless hours spent browsing news Web sites, it's become clear that among all the other things the Web does for writers, it allows them to put multiple headlines on the same story. This is great.
I appreciate a good headline, the way I appreciate a good Shoe comic. Good heads are fun, succinct, but leave you wondering where the rest of the story might go. They should be accessible to anyone. For years, I valued the tabloid headlines at the Boston Herald above all others. What the paper lost in the vitriol some of its columnists it made up for in the wittiness of its head lines. I can't recall any now, because like the paper and ink they were forged in, my memories of good headlines have faded and been reduced to pulp.
The same is true for the engaging headlines over at Slate, but I think that news site is on to something bigger in the way it presents its stories. Browse Slate for too long and you will inevitably end up clicking on the same story twice. Why? Because the Web site uses different headlines to link to the same story. While paper editions are forced to choose one headline and run with it, Slate can come up with three or four and appeal to a wider range of readers to click on the story and maybe read through it.
It's a great idea, and other news Web sites should steal it. If I could put multiple heads on this story, they would include "What's in a name?" "A rose by any other name..." "The beast of a thousand heads" or "AKA" - which would probably look great splashed across the front of a tabloid. (I decided to go for the lamest and last example I could think of, "Have we met?")
These multiple entry points will only draw more readers. The head line is the introduction, the come-on to the story. And first impressions count for everything when you're dealing with readers who can turn just about anywhere else for another story.

The Herald is dead. Long live the Herald

Kudos to Joe Keohane for keeping the light on Boston's other daily newspaper, the Boston Herald, in a Boston Magazine article.

Sure the Herald voice sounds shrill at times, but it still covers the fire and crime beat better than the Boston Globe.

And, as Keohane said, the Herald is a scrappier paper, more fervent to knock the big shots off their posts than the Globe.

About a year ago, the Herald lost a libel lawsuit to a judge, and then one of the paper's reporter's followed that judge to a racetrack in New York. (Sorry, this is way out of context and I don't have the links to support it yet)

Also, during a journalism conference, I heard from the Herald's lawyers that reporter had thrown out his notes, which would have been a crucial bit of evidence during the libel trial.

Anywho, here's a transcript of the judge's lawyer talking to Keith Olberman of MSNBC:

OLBERMANN: Tell her to get over it. Six words about a 14 year old rape victim attributed to a superior court judge by a Boston newspaper, then broadcast nationwide with righteous anger and calls of termination by Bill O‘Reilly. The outcry cost the judge his health and his career and put his life in danger, even though he never actually said anything of the sort. Our third story on the COUNTDOWN, the paper has been held responsible for libel.

So why isn‘t Bill-O likewise liable? Superior Court Judge Earnest Murphy (ph) won a two million dollar libel suit upheld now by the Massachusetts Supreme Court against the “Boston Herald,” and its reporter Dave Wedge, who not only falsely quoted the judge, but then served as stooge for Bill-O‘s on-air crusade.

In the words of the court ruling, quote, “the press is not free to publish false information about anyone, intending that it will cause a public furor, while knowingly, or in reckless disregard of, its falsity.”

A law was not only ignored by Mr. Wedge, but was also ignored and continues to be ignored by Bill O‘Reilly. Hence the reason why Mr. Wedge‘s appearance on The Factor in March 2002 actually became evidence at the trial.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILL O‘REILLY, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: Are you absolutely sure that Judge Murphy said that the rape victim should get over it?

DAVE WEDGE, “BOSTON HERALD”: Yes. He said—he made this comment to three lawyers. He knows he said it. Everybody else that knows this judge knows that he said it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: Such an exchange prompting the Supreme Court to write that, quote, Wedge‘s comments on the O‘Reilly Factor were made with actual malice.

Joining me now, judge Murphy‘s trial counsel, Howard Cooper. Mr.

Cooper, thanks for your time.

HOWARD COOPER, TRIAL COUNSEL FOR JUDGE MURPHY: Good evening.

OLBERMANN: How important was Mr. Wedge‘s appearance on O‘Reilly‘s show to the success of your libel case?

COOPER: I actually think it was critically important and critically important to the jury. The story which was originally published in mid February of 2002 really was a local or at most a regional story about a judge‘s alleged intemperate and indeed, as portrayed, outrageous comments. When Mr. O‘Reilly go ahold of it, about two weeks after the initial publication, it really created not just a national furor, but really an international furor.

The judge received hate mail from overseas, from California. Mr.

O‘Reilly really picked up the ball and ran with it quite a bit.

OLBERMANN: Does Mr. O‘Reilly bear at least as much responsibility as Mr. Wedge, at least for those death threats? And to the degree that he‘s responsible for anything that happened to the judge, why was there no action pursued against him?

COOPER: Well, the original publication was by the “Boston Herald” and David Wedge, and as I‘m sure you‘re aware, the standard for bringing a public figure defamation claim is quite high. I think it‘s fair to say that the jury found Mr. O‘Reilly was responsible for republishing the statement and creating a situation which caused enormous damage to Judge Murphy. But again, that was attributable to the original publication by the “Boston Herald” and David Wedge.

When asked why wasn‘t he named as a party in the lawsuit, a decision really was made on a practical basis. You have someone who we thought would have welcomed the opportunity to continue to use his regular appearances before a national television audience to excoriate the judge and we didn‘t want to give him that opportunity. Yet, his television shows were a major presence in the courtroom.

OLBERMANN: A couple of quick factual questions, did O‘Reilly ever apologize to the judge?

COOPER: He has never apologized. He has never taken his reporting back. There is a very prominent lawyer up here in Boston by the name of Ed Ryan, who runs a committee for the Mass BAR Association designed to help judges protect themselves, because, after all, judges really can‘t respond publicly about pending cases. After the jury came back, Mr. Ryan made a personal demand on the O‘Reilly Factor that they correct the reporting and that he allowed to go on and assist in that effort.

He never heard from them. More recently, in May of this year, when the Supreme judicial court unanimously affirmed the jury verdict, which by that time was about 3.4 million dollars, with interest, Mr. Ryan again reached out to the “O‘Reilly Facto,” in writing, through email, and said I really want you to correct the story and I‘m prepared to go on and help you do that.

I spoke with Mr. Ryan this afternoon. He confirms that he still is waiting to hear from the “O‘Reilly Factor.” And it‘s a shame, because an apology is in order here.

OLBERMANN: With the increasing threats of violence against judges in general, is there not—maybe it‘s not a legal case, maybe it‘s not a private suite, but the crusade against a judge for saying something controversial that he never said, doesn‘t that rise to a more deplorable crime than just libel? Doesn‘t it border on reckless endangerment?

COOPER: Well, let me say this: these stories, these campaigns have real consequences for real people. Judge Murphy experienced having death threats slipped under the door of his judicial chambers, where he was by himself, without protection. Somebody took the front page of the “Boston Herald,” drew a target on his forehead in red ink, and said get over it, you bastard, you‘re dead. And someone really needs to think through the accuracy of their reporting before launching one of these campaigns.

OLBERMANN: Well, you‘re not obviously going to get that from Bill O‘Reilly. So, on behalf of the television industry, you can please send the judge my apologies. I think that‘s not going to do him much good, but it‘s the best we can do under the circumstances?

COOPER: It‘s a good start.

OLBERMANN: Howard Cooper, the trial counsel for Judge Earnest Murphy, thanks for joining us tonight.

COOPER: Thank you.

Mitt catches hardball question, spins, throws it back

Down the tubes

For a look at how bad things can become in a newsroom, before and after a big corporate takeover, read John Hockenberry's piece in Technology Review.

He left NBC and Dateline after parent company GE decided he wasn't best for shareholder value.

Hockenberry compared the GE corporate mantras to Maoism and decided NBC could not keep up with changing technology long before he left the network.

It's a long article, but worth it.

Hockenberry works for the MIT Media Lab now.

Oprah for Obama

The New York Times today reported Oprah Winfrey's appearance for Barack Obama, Sunday, drew more than 29,000 people, "one of the largest (crowds) seen before even a general election."

It was Boston Phoenix columnis Steven Stark, however, who first reported - to my knowledge - Oprah's pending endorsement and the significance it might have for Obama's candidacy.

Wrap music

I just bought two CDs for myself, "The Big Gun Down," by John Zorn and Ennio Morricone, also "Every Day is Saturday," by The Dictators.

Both were new, but neither had the sticky plastic barrier, around it. You know, the thing that people stick to the sides of buildings right after they buy the CD. The thing that makes opening a new CD such a pain. Neither one had it.

I wonder if maybe that's because the CD manufacturers thought if someone really wanted to steal this album, they would do it over the Internet.

Herbert: No Witch Hunts

New York Times columnist Bob Herbert, had a great column in today's paper, where he argues against vigilantes turning in suspected illegal or undocumented immigrants.

Herbert is right that it would turn into a free-for-all, where people are targeted because of personal grudges, or because of their perceived ethnicity.

The drumbeat for vigilante justice has already begun on AM radio.

Herbert quoted right wing jock Michael Savage, inciting bigotry on his radio show and throwing more wood on the fire.

Savage is the guy, who claimed in his lawsuit against Council on American-Islamic Relations that he has no animosity toward that particular religion.

What do you call this then?

Savage, as quoted by Herbert:

“When I see a woman walking around with a burqa, I see a Nazi. That’s what I see. How do you like that? A hateful Nazi who would like to cut your throat and kill your children.”

When a woman wears a burqa, said Mr. Savage, “She’s doing it to spit in your face. She’s saying, ‘You white moron, you, I’m going to kill you if I can.’”

And that is coming from a guy, who according to Herbert has the third-most-listened-to talk show in the country.

That's scary.

Savage v. CAIR

Right-wing radio host Michael Savage has filed a lawsuit against the lobbying group Council on American Islamic Relations, for copyright infringement, because CAIR used material from the show to convince companies to stop advertising.

Read the lawsuit here, on Savage's site.

Apparently, CAIR made a pretty good case, because according to the group's Web site, AT&T and Wal Mart have recently pulled their ads from "The Savage Nation."

Savage has used his lawsuit as a way to smear the organization, alleging tendentious links between the lobbyists and supposed terrorists.

Allegations in a legal complaint or legal hearing are libel-proof, which means, Savage could maliciously lie about CAIR, without exposing himself to a libel lawsuit.

Savage included roughly 35 paragraphs of allegations against CAIR.

In the lawsuit, Savage makes a big deal about how he supports religious faith in general, so how could a group of Muslims accuse him of persecuting their religion.

Savage also quotes from the bible in the suit:

“Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets. The lion hath roared, who will not fear? the Lord God hath spoken, who can but prophesy?” (Amos 3:7 8)

I heard about this, while flipping through the AM dial on my way home from a meeting on Thursday.

Incidentally, that night's show featured a completely tasteless comedy sketch of machine gun fire and screaming played over what was purported to be Barbra Streisand singing "Silent Night" in Jerusalem.

Maybe the advertisers dropped Savage's show because of bits like that.

Shuffle, the DJ

Some radio stations have started using computer programs to select songs, rather than using an employee to do the same job.

The move obviously saves cost, but doesn't that kind of automation strike right at the heart of what entertainment is all about?

After years of carefully crafted mix tapes and DJs drawing crowds at nightclubs, do these radio stations really expect us to believe the shuffle button can do it just as well?

more on this later