Showing posts with label Jann Wenner. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jann Wenner. Show all posts

Friday, September 14, 2012

Liberal Rolling Stone Magazine Desperately Tries (And Fails) To Get Bob Dylan To Profess Love For Obama


Mediaite.com:
Whenever Bob Dylan decides to give an interview, it becomes a monumental event. Despite being one of the most important American social figures of the last 50 years, Dylan has always been reticent with the press and, at times, outright hostile to their ceaseless prodding. Snagging an interview with Dylan is almost as impossible as spotting Sasquatch (although getting him to make a cameo on Pawn Stars apparently isn’t that difficult).

The latest edition of Rolling Stone features one of those rare interviews, timed with the release of Dylan’s 35th studio album Tempest. Interviewer Mikal Gilmore spends most of the time asking decent questions about the legendary musicians’ life, including accusations of plagiarism that arose from Dylan’s 2001 record Love & Theft album (Dylan says: “wussies and pussies” make such claims about him). 

But for another chunk of the interview, Gilmore spends an uncomfortable amount of time prodding Dylan to confirm his support for President Barack Obama and label the president’s critics racist.

The discussion first got political when Dylan expressed his belief that slavery has unfortunately stained this country’s fabric since its founding: “This country is just too fucked up about color,” he said. “People at each other’s throats just because they are of a different color. It’s the height of insanity, and it will hold any nation back – or any neighborhood back,” he continued before explaining that perhaps if slavery had ended in a more peaceful way, we would have progressed faster in terms of race relations.

Gilmore then saw an opportunity to ask whether he believed the Obama presidency would signal an important sea change in American race relations. “I don’t have any opinion on that,” Dylan responded. “You have to change your heart if you want to change.”

The interviewer pressed further, remarking that there has been great backlash since Obama’s election. Dylan’s response: “They did the same thing to Bush, didn’t they? They did the same thing to Clinton, too, and Jimmy Carter before that. [...] Anybody who’s going to take that job is going to be in for a rough time.”
Unsatisfied, Gilmore came right out with what he really meant to ask: Isn’t the backlash against Obama rooted in racism? “I don’t know,” Dylan said.

Gilmore then took a few more swings, mentioning that Obama’s critics call him a socialist and un-American. Dylan responded: “[A]s if you’ve never heard those kind of words before. Eisenhower was accused of being un-American. And wasn’t Nixon a socialist? Look what he did in China. They’ll say bad things about the next guy, too.”

When Gilmore tried for a fourth time to elicit a they-hate-him-because-he’s-black response out of Dylan, the musician said: “Do you want me to repeat what I just said, word for word? What are you talking about? People loved the guy when he was elected. So what are we talking about? People changing their minds? Well, who are these people who changed their minds? Talk to them.”

As the bizarre exchange continued, Gilmore asked whether Dylan votes. Seemingly scoffing at the question, Dylan responds with the generic: “We live in a democracy. What do you want me to say? Voting is a good thing.”

Then Gilmore wanted to know what Dylan thinks of Obama. The musician has met the president several times, most recently when he was honored at the White House (while wearing sunglasses indoors!) with the Presidential Medal of Freedom. At first Dylan remarks that “You should be asking his wife what she thinks of him,” and then he gets understandably cranky with the interviewer: “He loves music. He’s personable. He dresses good. What the fuck do you want me to say?”

Oh, but it doesn’t end there! Gilmore tried again, asking whether Dylan would like to see Obama re-elected. “I’ve live through a lot of presidents! And you have too! Some are re-elected and some aren’t. Being re-elected isn’t the mark of a great president.” 

Gilmore then brought up the time Dylan said, while on-stage the evening of Obama’s inauguration, “It looks like things are gonna change now.” Clearly Gilmore wanted Dylan to profess his love of the president, but instead the musician said: “Did I go down to the middle of town and give a speech?. [...] I don’t know what I could have meant by that. [...] I’m not going to deny what I said, but I would have hoped that things would’ve changed. I certainly hope they have.”

Reason‘s Brian Doherty has likely the most accurate analysis of Gilmore’s prodding:
It all feels peculiarly quasi-totalitarian–you must praise the Great Leader!–as well as sad and childish, like Gilmore can’t get through a meeting with one of the major cultural forces of his time without getting that force to ratify Gilmore’s political beliefs, like Dylan’s his cultural dad whose approval must be sought for a political love that maybe even Gilmore is seeing is based in little concrete.
Dylan’s refusal to join in on political idol worship really shouldn’t surprise anyone. For decades, he has been resistant to political pigeonholing from both sides.

Left-wing folkies thought they owned him in the early ’60s, but then he went rogue and seemingly denounced the hierarchical madness of the movement via songs like “Maggie’s Farm” and “My Back Pages.” At one point he became reclusive, shrugging off the left-wing countercultural icon label that had been placed upon him: “Like Abraham destroying his father’s idol shop, only it was my own idol shop,” he said.

He has also confounded the left with a retroactive statement of positive feelings for Barry Goldwater; a bizarre (but somewhat brief) foray into evangelical Christianity; and his 1983 song “Neighborhood Bully,” a not-so-subtle defense of the State of Israel.

But he is no right-winger either. Many of his songs scorn the military-industrial complex (“Masters of War,” “With God on Our Side”), and others rail against a criminal justice system favorable to white people (“Hurricane,” “The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll”). 

His reluctance to play the game should serve as inspiration for those of us who feel disillusioned with a two-party system that has become, at its core, a competition amongst used car salesmen. Platitudes are exchanged, harsh words are spewed, the promise of “reform” is parroted over and over again, but nothing ever really changes. And if it does, it’s not because some politician in a big office made it so.
Dylan understands that. 

“Politics is entertainment,” he once told the UK Telegraph. “Politicians are interchangeable.”
Although political candidates of all stripes have endorsed him, we can be thankful Dylan will likely never endorse them.
RELATED: The Badgering of Bob Dylan, Or, Tell Us You Love Obama, Bob! Please!

Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Rolling Stone Magazine Slimes FOX News, Roger Ailes


Of course, as Bill O'Reilly always notes, it's about next year's presidential election. But it's worth noting how even conservative journalists are still seemingly unable to connect the dots between Rolling Stone's bitter hatred for conservatives and its slimeball owner Jann Wenner:
I know this is like noting that the pope was seen praying, but Rolling Stone magazine just trashed Fox News and its chairman, Roger Ailes. Still, the piece, “The Fox News fear factory,” which was written by Tom Dickinson, is worth examining, if only for what it reveals about its author. It is a textbook example of projection — the phenomenon of a disturbed patient accusing someone of all the things that the patient himself is guilty of.


Reading Dickerson’s piece reminded me of G.K. Chesterton’s observation that “the maniac is not the man who has lost his reason — it is the man who has lost everything except his reason.” Many of the folks in asylums actually have very precise, circular, and reasonable — to them — ideas of how the universe works. Of course they are the reincarnation of the Marquis de Sade, and the CIA is piping messages into their cerebrum through the microwave. It’s what makes everything make sense.


And to the left, Fox News is an all-encompassing toxic cloud over America, a chimera that will destroy the nation, a Grendel. This belief is in fact a religious faith more than anything else. This explains how Tom Dickinson can write such a sloppy piece in Rolling Stone, and how he can be praised for it. Nobody on the left is going to criticize one of their own for attacking the devil.


Dickinson is reciting liberal catechism, not hunting for facts. In the entire 10,000 words, he doesn’t quote a single supporter of Fox News. He claims that Fox leader Roger Ailes “is deeply paranoid,” citing as evidence the fact that Ailes has a security detail and carries a gun. According to Dickinson’s logic, Fox under Ailes is a propaganda machine that stirs fear of Muslims and bangs the drums for war, yet Ailes is paranoid for thinking that Al Qaeda may target him. Then there is this passage:


To watch even a day of Fox News — the anger, the bombast, the virulent paranoid streak, the unending appeals to white resentment, the reporting that’s held to the same standard of evidence as a late October attack ad — is to see a refraction of its founder, one of the most skilled and fearsome operatives in the history of the Republican Party.


I’m sorry, but it is simply not possible to take seriously the “journalist” who wrote that sentence. If you’re going to accuse a network of being angry, bombastic, virulently paranoid and racist, you need to cite some hard examples. For instance, if I was to claim that suspended MSNBC host Ed Schultz is a misogynist and a fat angry bastard, I would offer a few examples: his calling conservative Laura Ingraham a slut, his jowly face, his hysterical meltdowns when taking about conservatives. If I was to call NBC’s Michael Isikoff a shrimp, it would be based on the fact that I am only 5’ 7” and I once stood next to Isikoff and looked down on him. In short, Dickinson needs to define paranoia, racism and white resentment, and give hard examples of exactly when this happened. He needs to give us some facts.


Instead, Dickinson offers a bio of Ailes garnished with the usual liberal paranoia. He accuses Ailes of “blurring the line between journalism and politics,” and astonishingly has nothing to say about how liberals do the same thing — has Dickinson never heard of George Stephanopoulos? Jay Carney and the platoon of journalists who now work for Obama? MSNBC? NBC? Dickinson brings up Willie Horton, never acknowledging that Horton was first the creation of Al Gore.

Wednesday, February 09, 2011

Liberal Idiot Jann Wenner Uses "US Weekly" Magazine To Publish Story On Sarah Palin Using Fake Quotes


It's not enough that Jann Wenner uses his Rolling Stones mag as a propaganda outfit to smear conservatives, but he's also got his gossip rag, US Weekly, equipped with the same marching orders, facts be damned:
Score one more for Sarah Palin in her fight against the “Lamestream Media”: Celebrity gossip source Us Weekly published a story about the former Alaska governor that included quotations originally fabricated for a satirical news piece.


According to Gossip Cop, SuperTuesdayNews.com came up with some Palin quotes for a post about her “reaction” to Christina Aguilera’s mangling of the national anthem during last weekend’s Super Bowl. In quoting the article, Us Weekly failed to note that these quotes were 1) not actually ever uttered by Palin and were 2) a joke. In fact, Us Weekly’s site attributes the quote to an interview Palin gave to Sean Hannity.


Gossip Cop reports:


Therefore, according to the outlet, Palin calls Aguilera a “demanding beauty queen who’s clearly in over her head.”


The fake “Palin” also talks about wanting to “deport” Aguilera, because “spicy Latin princesses” shouldn’t be allowed to sing at the Super Bowl.


“Unemployment is at nine percent, yet we have to suffer through a performance by a foreigner with a poor grasp of the English language,” the fake “Palin” supposedly tells “Hannity” in the phony interview.


So. How’s that Palin-free month going for y’all?

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Hypocrite Barack Obama Tells Radically Leftist Magazine Rolling Stone That FOX News Is "Destructive"


CBSNews.com:
In this month's cover story for Rolling Stone magazine, President Obama weighs in on the cable network Fox News, saying that while he can't object to the network carrying out its constitutional right to freedom of the press, he thinks it promotes a perspective that is "ultimately destructive for the long-term growth" of America.


"Look, as president, I swore to uphold the Constitution, and part of that Constitution is a free press," Obama laughed, in response to a question from Rolling Stone publisher Jann Wenner about whether or not Fox News was "a good institution for America and for democracy."


"We've got a tradition in this country of a press that oftentimes is opinionated. The golden age of an objective press was a pretty narrow span of time in our history. Before that, you had folks like Hearst who used their newspapers very intentionally to promote their viewpoints," Mr. Obama said. "I think Fox is part of that tradition -- it is part of the tradition that has a very clear, undeniable point of view."


Mr. Obama, whose relationship with the cable network has in the past been rocky -- former White House communications director Anita Dunn at one point called it "the communications arm of the Republican party" -- made no concessions in regard to his dissatisfaction for the content of the network's coverage.


"It's a point of view that I disagree with," Mr. Obama said in the interview. "It's a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world."
Put aside the fact of how lame it looks for a sitting President to continue whining about a cable news channel (really Barry, are you so removed from your poor upbringing to realize that there are more pressing concerns on Americans minds than FOX News). Or that recent polls show that while FOX certainly leans Right, other networks like say MSNBC lean further Left. Or that a President with a low approval rating. who has quadrupled our debt, polarized our country like no other (just ask any member of the Tea Party) and has an upcoming midterm election in less than two months (that has Democrat Congress members panicking to the point that they don't even want to be associated with the guy), is worried about what FOX News thinks.

What's most troubling here is that Barry chose Rolling Stone magazine, a music rag that fronts for the radically-leftist views of its publisher Jann Wenner (I should know as I subscribe to RS). Wenner, who also publishes the Sarah Palin-bashing Us Weekly, has long used his rags to bash conservatives and promote a radically-Leftist agenda. For years Wenner (a man who left his wife and kids to have an affair with a man after "discovering" that he was really gay in his late-30s) has used Rolling Stone as a propaganda tool to bash former President George W. Bush. And this is the guy that Barry chooses to go to for a war of words with FOX? Barack Obama is a big, f-cking hypocrite.

Monday, July 09, 2007

Politiks As Usual: In The News 7/9/07


Cindy Sheehan Mulls Run Versus Nancy Pelosi

Al Gore's Useless, Wasteful, Hypocritical Concerts Take Center Stage

Liberal Magazine Owner Doesn't Heed Creeds On Global Warming

The Democrats Own Brand Of Racism

White House Fears GOP Support For Iraq Surge Is Collapsing

Democrat Blogger Wants To Shoot Rush Limbaugh

Could Herpes Be The Cure To Cancer?