SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Right Wing Extremist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: sandintoes who wrote (39808)1/5/2004 8:53:03 PM
From: calgal  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 59480
 
Unforgettable 2003
Dubious media moments.

By Catherine Seipp

Ever since Esquire killed its Dubious Achievement Awards a couple of years ago — probably just as well; the awards had become only dubiously amusing — I've been rounding up Dubious Media Moments. Here are my favorites from 2003.











JANUARY: A new slate of schlock reality shows is unleashed during the midseason winter doldrums. Even ABC Family Channel gets in on the fun with My Life Is a Sitcom, in which eight aspiring funny families compete to star in an actual sitcom based on their lives, scripted by actual sitcom writers. And boy, does this diverse group ("three menopausal sisters" sharing living quarters; a family of "hipsters" in ultra-boring La Canada; some aspiring Hollywood starlets, etc.) need actual sitcom writers. As Tolstoy might have said, funny families are all alike, but each unfunny family is unfunny in its own way.

FEBRUARY: The New York Times runs a surprisingly complimentary piece about Los Angeles magazine, with a memorable picture caption: "Kit Rachlis, editor of Los Angeles magazine, says that despite an anti-intellectual streak, the city is wide open to new ideas." The city may be. But, as readers here know, Kit Rachlis isn't.

Meanwhile, ABC resurrects a new, C.S.I.-inspired version of Dragnet (since cancelled), which I'd guess sets a record for the number of times the word "semen" is uttered on network television. Producer Dick Wolf tells me I'm imagining things when I ask about this, but I don't think so. Sample dialogue about a corpse from the revived Dragnet (now with more bodily fluids!): "Semen on the outside of the vagina and anus and not on the inside?" Geez, I know; I hate it when that happens.

MARCH: Tim Robbins, who along with mate Susan Sarandon, is prominently against the war in Iraq, gives Lloyd Grove, then of the Washington Post, what-for at a post-Oscars party. The actor was angry that Grove had dared to interview Sarandon's mother, who doesn't agree politically with her daughter. "If you ever write about my family again I will [bleeping] hurt you!" Grove reported Robbins yelling. Hey, Tim, give peace a chance.

APRIL: The Saddam statue falls, and L.A. Times TV critic Howard Rosenberg (now thankfully retired) writes one of his in-my-day-by-crikey complaining columns: "When it came to history's pantheon of epic-TV footage, nothing Wednesday matched [Prague, the dead Ceausescus, the Berlin Wall falling — insert preferred Rosenberg moment here]." Hmm, sounds like someone forgot to take his Metamucil. Makes you wonder how disappointed Rosenberg would have been by footage of Saddam's capture a few months later.

MAY: Disgraced New York Times reporter Jayson Blair is discovered to have done most of his field reporting without straying far from his beloved office vending machines. He explains his self-destruction by saying that in order for Jayson Blair the human being to live, Jayson Blair the journalist had to die. For such an imaginative young man, that shows an odd lack of ability to think outside the box. Couldn't both have died?

JUNE: New York Times feature writer Rick Bragg is then discovered to have relied on an uncredited stringer for one of his atmospheric Down South stories. He quits the Times in a huff after being reprimanded. Spring Streetologists may recall that Bragg had a short but memorable tenure in 1994 at the L.A. Times, which he quit in a huff after just 23 days because he didn't like his story assignments. Still, he managed in that time to acquire a nickname — Commander McBragg — and be heard in the office comparing himself to Faulkner.

JULY: Bravo premieres a gay series, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, which is great, but they also premiere the awful gay dating show Boy Meets Boy. How bad is it? Oh, Mary, don't ask. The twist is that some of the contestants are actually straight, which the gay bachelor doesn't know and isn't supposed to be able to guess. So they could all (pretty much) pass for straight, and then everyone learns a lesson: "You can't tell who's gay and who isn't, and it really doesn't matter," says one contestant. Well, it matters if you're looking for a date, you idiot.

AUGUST: The O.C. premieres on Fox and the Washington Post's Tom Shales just doesn't get it, describing the pilot script as "breathtaking in its imbecilic banality." So when the teen drama returns in October after hiatus, viewers are treated to a hospital scene between Seth and Summer, who, we learn, is an occasional candy striper, with a highbrow patient named Tom Shales.

Seth: "You've read Madame Bovary?"
Summer: "Five times. It's Tom Shales's favorite book. Ooh — I should go check on him. He's, like, incontinent!"

SEPTEMBER: The bulk of each season's new sitcoms are usually bad, but this season's feature dialogue is so inane you wonder why the writers even bothered. Take ABC's It's All Relative, a boy-meets-girl farce in which boy has an Archie Bunkerish dad and girl was raised by two gay guys. "I told you he was something out of a Bronte novel," girl gushes to her two dads about her fiancé. "Nineteenth-century novels had sincere male characters." Yes, like when Heathcliff dug up Cathy's dead body to look at it. I guess that was sincere, but probably not what prospective dads-in-law want to hear.

OCTOBER: I'm so disgusted with the new sitcom crop that I become addicted to teen dramas. My friend Rob Long, sitcom writer and National Review columnist, takes me to task: "Why the resistance to my theory that the WB network is primarily for young women and men who have similar tastes?" he asks. "I mean, come on! This is a network that manages to turn a show about Superman into a show about interesting hair. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But let's put it this way: If there's a TV on in Barbie's Malibu Beach House, it's tuned to The Gilmore Girls. And yes, Ken is watching too."

NOVEMBER: The New York Times's anno horribilis continues when Slate discovers that Hollywood correspondent Bernard Weinraub had lifted, "nearly verbatim" — as the Times admitted later in an Editor's Note — a paragraph in a story about shady private eye Anthony Pellicano from my friend Luke Ford, an L.A. blogger and porn-industry expert. Naturally, the blogosphere has a field day, and a Times editor calls Luke personally to apologize. "It sure beats the last time the Times called," Luke tells me. "A reporter wanted to know about spam e-mails for bigger penises."

DECEMBER: L.A. Times media columnist Tim Rutten calls up retired New York Times columnist Russell Baker and both scratch their chins together about the Problem With Newsrooms Today. Baker worries that today's media folk "are part of a highly educated, upper-middle-class elite — they lack empathy for the rest of the country. If you've never lacked health insurance — and most reporters and editors never have — you don't understand what it means for the 43 million Americans who are doing without it." Most reporters and editors I know have at some point lacked health insurance, because my circle includes a lot of freelancers, a world that is evidently foreign to these two comfortably situated gents. I wish I understood what it means to live in such a cozy, insulated cocoon! Media New Year's Resolution Number One: Start social climbing.

— Catherine Seipp is a writer in California. This piece first appeared in Los Angeles City Beat and is reprinted with the author's permission



To: sandintoes who wrote (39808)1/5/2004 8:53:52 PM
From: calgal  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 59480
 
RE-Post:

The Bulls Returned in 2003, but Will They Stay?
Wednesday, December 31, 2003

URL:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,107113,00.html

NEW YORK — Investors celebrated the long-awaited return of the bull market in 2003, snapping up shares after three years of bitter declines. But 2004 arrives with a warning for an increasingly exuberant Wall Street: The best of the gains is over.

With stocks advancing since March on investor hopes for a strong economic recovery, the three main gauges are trading at their highest levels in nearly two years.

Stiff challenges for the coming year, however, include the risk of rising interest rates, a widening mutual fund probe and investor overconfidence.

"In 2004, the first issue is for individual investors to get their expectations in line," said Robert Froehlich, chief investment strategist for Deutsche Asset Management in Chicago. "When we started this year, no one thought anything positive was going to happen."

"Now that the Nasdaq is up 50 percent, many might believe we'll get 50 percent gains from here to eternity," he said. "But 2004 won't be as strong."

Market forecasts for the new year are certainly more modest, ranging from a flat performance to a 15 percent advance. At least one analyst believes that after a decent rise in the first half of 2004, the Dow Jones industrials (search) will slide from over 10,000 back to 8,000.

In 2003, the three main gauges have posted solid double-digit gains, with the Nasdaq reaching 2,000 -- last seen Jan. 15, 2002 -- and the Dow crossing the 10,000 milestone, the first time since May 31, 2002.

Analysts cite several risks to the market in 2004, both fundamental and technical:

-- With short-term interest rates at a 45-year low, the Federal Reserve (search) faces increasing pressure to raise rates to stave off inflation in a recovering economy. Indeed, at its Dec. 9 meeting, the Fed issued upbeat comments about the economy that some analysts believed signaled a possible rate hike by mid-2004. Higher rates could dampen consumer and business spending, which are critical to a solid rebound.

-- A presidential election year typically sees more modest stock gains, of about 7.3 percent, compared to a robust 16.7 percent in the third year of a presidential term, according to the Stock Trader's Almanac (search). Experts attribute that to political uncertainty in an election year and a "juicing" of the economy by incumbents in the third year that loses effect over time.

-- State and federal regulators continue to widen their probe into shady trading practices in the mutual fund industry. While individual investors have largely stayed put in funds, more revelations of wrongdoing might rattle confidence and spark selling.

-- In general the value of stocks is a bit high relative to companies' profits, particularly in the tech sector. Many analysts believe stocks are due for a pullback of about 10 percent or more.

"It's pretty dangerous when investor consensus gets very bullish at the same time valuations are getting stretched and risks are high," said Bernie Schaeffer, chairman of Schaeffer's Investment Research. He forecasts a Dow 8,000 by the end of 2004.

Still, investors can't help feeling upbeat.

Ted Kennedy, an executive for a franchising company in Ann Arbor, Mich., recently began increasing his shares in health care and consumer cyclicals, which typically do well during an economic recovery.

"There is life after recession," Kennedy said. "The decline that happened during the last bear market was the most significant in my investment lifetime -- I had never seen a drop this sustained. ... Now I'm more optimistic."

That attitude is in sharp contrast to how investors felt when dismal corporate profits, terrorism fears and accounting scandals sent the Dow to a five-year low and the Nasdaq and S&P indexes to six-year lows on Oct. 9, 2002.

That date turned out to mark the end of the bear market which began in 2000 -- the first three-year downturn since Franklin D. Roosevelt (search) was president in 1941 -- as investors came back in 2003, lured by rock-bottom interest rates, a $350 billion tax cut package and optimism after the war in Iraq subsided.

Analysts say the good economic news will continue in 2004, but with investors upbeat, much of the strong data already has been priced into the market. That could make stocks resistant to a significant advance and vulnerable to declines should the data unexpectedly disappoint.

In addition, the market historically has seen short-term "cyclical" bull markets happen within a longer-term "secular" bear market. Some analysts believe a secular bear market began when the tech bubble burst in 2000; if so, that could mean fleeting gains in 2004.

"With rates rising, more of the surprises in 2004 will be on the negative side than positive," cautions Tim Hayes, global stock strategist at Ned Davis Research in Venice, Fla. "The market has now gone up for more than a year. It wouldn't be unusual to see a stiff correction."