The Media Conspiracy Against Hillary Clinton
Rolling Stone’s Jann Wenner on Conversations With Michael Eisner:
“I put (Obama) on the cover because I am just
May 20, 2024
The Hot Blog
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
Quote Unquotesee all »
It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
Yeah, some conspiracy. I like RS as much as the next person, but it wasn’t like they could have read the tea leaves wrong. It was Obama’s to lose by the time he made the cover. Not much has changed since then.
“They didn’t need to speak to the Rolling Stone readers, you know?”
Bullshit, just because Hillary didn’t want to share the cover with other candidates, doesn’t mean she was shunning the RS crowd.
Of course there’s a media bias. The way they talk about Hillary as if she’s automatically guilty because she was married to someone powerful. And in RS’s case as if she’s part of the old guard and Obama is this spotless rescuer. The fact that they end up crowning him in the process (watch for that everpresent shameless smirk on his face everytime he’s on TV) and make him even more powerful in the process is what’s making me want to throw up.
The only reason they put Obama on the cover is because they tried to be hip and progressive. I mean, where’s (the “agreeable”)Edwards?
And they didn’t just put him on the cover – they endorsed him (an ever so slight difference)
This is such obvious crap and I don’t buy any second of it. David, I know you take any excuse to post something negative about Hillary (and positive about Obama) but this is just embarrassing.
Basically, what I’m saying is, Media is to Clinton as what Critics were to Speed Racer ;).
I’m not gonna bother to argue this point since Marie Cocco pretty much nailed it earlier. I don’t see how anyone can argue that Obama, Rev. Wright or no Rev. Wright, has ever had to deal with anything this bad:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/14/AR2008051403090.html?nav=hcmodule
Or this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/15/AR2008051504058.html?hpid=topnews
that cocco piece in particular really bummed me out. but thanks for posting those, rob and roman.
You know, Roman… this stuff about “poor Hillary” is just revisionist, poor loser bullshit.
Do you really want to argue that Hillary was not behaving as the inevitable, undeniable winner of the nomination before the primaries started?
The only reason Clinton was not treated like Huckabee back in March – when her Ohio lead shrunk to under 10% and her 1 point Texas win still scored more delegates for Obama – is because of how much respect they show to The Clintons… or is it fear?
She is facing these terrible “smears” by everyone in the press and the party because… taa dah… SHE LOST!!!! And finally, she has stopped trying to destroy Obama after doing her best to kneecap the close-to-inevitable winner of the nomination with race for six straight weeks going into Pennsylvania.
Every time Clinton falls behind, they attack the media, as though the media didn’t hype up Rev. Wright like he was the coming of The Devil from the seas! But why was Wright, a subject that was covered in depth a year earlier, ressurected? Because the Clinton needed an edge.
And still, they couldn’t win.
Can you turn on a news network discussing the general election that doesn’t bring up “Obama winning with white people” over and over and over again? Is that REALLY easier for him than for the person who already lost the race being expected to be gracious in defeat?
It’s like Clinton supporters have had their brains literally washed of all memories of last year and the start of this year.
Was this Time cover, in summer 2006, an attack on Hillary?
How about this Time cover, that echoed the Clinton message, all of two months ago, when she lost half her lead in Ohio and lost the delegate race in Texas?
You wanna talk about the GQ Magazine piece that The Clintons killed last year?
I would say that you should consider looking more closely at who is to blame for Clinton’s inevitibility turning into a loss, but I am always a little irritated when there is so little credit given to Obama’s success and not just to Clinton’s team’s failure.
I am sorry that your candidate lost. I am sorry that there is still misogyny in the world. But the game of it all being The Victimization Of Hillary – a candidate that I would disqualify simply on the basis of her running a campaign that has built up a $20 million-plus deficit in less than a year after raising huge amounts of money, second highest ever – is as silly as the idea that Obama couldn’t get the nom because he was black or that he won’t win for the same reason.
Do you think that Hillary has ever been as patronized as Obama supporters who are endlessly being told that we are either being fooled or just starry eyed or misogynists or anything other than people who just happen to prefer one candidate to another because we have a opinion?
After a while, I feel like I am kicking people when they are down, but damn, even as Ms Clinton has basically given up and stopped attacking with the most vile attacks, her supporters are even worse losers than she is.
I watched those women on O’reilly last night saying they would vote for McCain ahead of Obama. If they mean that then they never had any real belief in anything their candidate stood for, because no one who did could vote for McCain, who was a lot more interesting as a candidate before he won the nomination and started rolling over on his belly to have it rubbed by the Republican regulars.
“Poor Hillary” lost. She wasn’t screwed. She wasn’t buried by the press. She wasn’t hosed by misogynists. She lost the race on Super Tuesday and has been fighting uphill in a way she’s never had to since then. And she ran a nasty race. And it didn’t work.
Get over it.
P.S. And where will you stand on man-hating, sore loser crap like this?
Does anyone really think that Obama was trying to tell a professional journalist to “shut up” and to demean her? Really?
Has anyone noted that the only reason this became a story is because Obama called to apologize, that someone who heard him thought that he might have been misunderstood, and not because the reporter complained or reported the incident in any way?
I think the media bias is pretty apparent, but its really just a matter of protecting the frontrunner. When Hillary was perceived as an inevitability, the press didn’t attack her (or any Democrat nominee, for that matter). When the illusion of inevitability was exposed, and Obama became a distinct possibility, the media had to choose. They chose Obama. When the ferocity of the campaign started to hurt both candidates, the Hillary dog-pile began.
But DP’s right. Hillary is ultimately most responsible for the circumstance she finds herself in. When the race became a personality contest, her road to the White House became treacherously steep.
I haven’t read a Rolling Stone since high school and I’m well in my 30s. Is it still safe to just lump them into the MTV “Vote or Die” crowd that gets all in your face, then doesn’t bother to show up to vote on election day?
Goodness no! Penn Jillette and a T-Shirt? Rev. Wright being played non-stop for weeks on end simply cannot compare! Nevermind that Copeland’s & Cocco’s pieces run in direct opposition to each other. Ugh.
Hillary has had it easy since just before Ohio. The media needed a horse race, and she is still giving it to them, despite no chance of winning since, well, before Ohio.
The Five Stages of Grief is hitting her supporters I know personally. It is uncanny how easily each step can be pointed out.
Fair and unangry, mystery.
Obama has been hit with plenty of nasty stuff, but I think the Citizens United Not Timid thing was about as hateful and insulting (and devoid of content beyond the slur) as politics can get.
What is that, J-Mc… never heard of it.
Another 527 along the lines of the Swiftboaters but purely designed to trash Hillary for, apparently, having two X chromosomes. They’ve renamed themselves after people realized how shameless the original acronym was.
It’s not fair! WAAAAAAH!
You know, I’ve been feeling that way since 2000. I can’t watch Fahrenheit 9/11 too often because I want to punch the TV.
Obama is the better candidate. GET OVER IT.
As long as people keep telling me to bow before Zod — I mean, Obama, then I will also bow to petulant bullies like those from the Daily Kos. And sure, those racist rubes in California, New York and West Virginia voted for Clinton, but it’s all over, baby blue.
As for ROLLING STONE, has Jann Wenner ever publicly apologized for PERFECT? That would be a great first step. I particularly loved him in the film. “You gotta get this story out! America must know what’s happening in gyms across the nation!”