Beyond the substance of his remarks at West Point on Tuesday night, President Obama deserves credit for eschewing the increasingly irritating practice of politicians using military personnel as props standing uncomfortably behind them.

The TV cameras, of course, couldn't resist panning the crowd -- and found many of the youthful-looking cadets snapping pictures of the Commander in Chief on their cellphones. (One appeared to be snoozing. Whoops.) Nor was the venue chosen by chance. Although his audience was national and indeed global, Obama knew that the pictures of the West Point assembly applauding him and lining up to shake his hand created a powerful and unified image. Welcome to the modern age.

Still, the no-frills address -- sharp, augmented by historical context and detailed in a bullet-point format -- underscored why Obama has been so effective as an orator, including his practice of recognizing and then seeking to preempt criticism. He was particularly effective, for example, in tackling the differences between Afghanistan and Vietnam, citing the possibility of unity in contentious times and stressing, in regard to the current economic climate, that "the nation that I'm most interested in building is our own."

The hostility toward Obama in conservative quarters -- which increasingly borders on pathology -- will doubtless find plenty to criticize within the speech. Moreover, many progressives question the wisdom of doubling down on the investment in Afghanistan, meaning he will be second-guessed from the left as well.

On style points, however, Obama has mastered television like few politicians before him -- and few who follow are likely to match.

Variety has already reviewed HBO's "By the People: The Election of Barack Obama," which premieres on the pay channel on Nov. 3. So rather than a full review, here's my two cents on a few specific aspects of the documentary.

Although the access to Obama, his family and key aides like David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs is a centerpiece of the project, the most emotional moments come from less-identifiable campaign staffers, such as Ronnie Cho, an Iowa organizer with his own remarkable story about how his parents immigrated to the U.S. from Korea. His tearful phone calls to his mother provide lump-in-the-throat moments.

More than anything, though -- and I'm sure much of this will be lost on those who vigorously oppose Obama and his policies -- the take-away from "By the People" is the steadiness that Obama brought to the up-and-down campaign roller coaster by virtue of his personality. Through Amy Rice and Alicia Sams' ever-present cameras, we see him respond to the wins and losses, to the debate prep sessions and the controversy over Rev. Jeremiah Wright, with the same calm demeanor. Only when he speaks after the death of his grandmother does the candidate betray much in the way of emotion, and that's captured in one almost too-perfect tear that rolls down his cheek as he addresses a crowd.

This personality represents a big reason why Obama's harshest critics often sound slightly unhinged. The image they portray of a "radical" simply doesn't dovetail with what the actual man projects in front of the camera -- which, of course, in today's day and age, is how we get to know our candidates. (For more on that, see Barry Levinson's "Poliwood," which I've reviewed here, premiering Nov. 2 on Showtime.)

In some respects, Obama's skills as a politician and coolness under fire have been as much of an irritant to supporters -- who would love to see more flashes of passion and anger from him -- as opponents. But unless his acting skills equal his oratorical ones, that's simply not who he is.

Conservatives will be quick to dismiss "By the People" as mere left-leaning propaganda, and it's clear the filmmakers were enamored with their subject. Nevertheless, the documentary not only captures a historic moment but actually proves educational -- exposing the key qualities that helped a first-term senator make the improbable leap to the Oval Office.

In an age of so much conspicuous certainty, there's something to be said for a documentary that inspires powerful feelings of ambivalence. So it is with "Outrage," which was previously reviewed by Variety (and discussed by my colleague Ted Johnson on his "Wilshire & Washington" blog) at the Tribeca Film Festival but premieres Oct. 5 on HBO.

Written and directed by Kirby Dick, "Outrage" made news by naming names of Republican politicians and operatives who are closeted gays, many of whom have inveighed or voted against gay rights. There is, of course, a clear element of hypocrisy in this, but I'd still stop short of activist Michael Rogers' contention that these figures represent "traitors to their people" who must be exposed. However offensive their hypocrisy might be, there's something troubling about using outing as a form of political retaliation against those who don't adhere to the gay-rights platform.

As "Outrage" demonstrates (the subtitle is "Do Ask. Do Tell"), the GOP has also cynically used gay-bashing as a political tool, which makes the participation of gays in those efforts particularly galling. In addition, prominent Republican officials have seen their careers stall because of whispering campaigns about their sexuality, usually hiding behind code words about them being "too moderate."

Still, the forced collision of private and public lives is distasteful, and one suspects an already-debased political climate won't exactly be elevated by spending even more time obsessing over who politicians are screwing in the literal sense -- whether that's "family values" senators on the right, or Bill Clinton and John Edwards on the left. Nor it it clear, as activists maintain throughout the film, that mainstream news outlets -- faced as they are with dwindling resources -- are somehow abdicating their journalistic responsibility by failing to go sniffing around politicians' closets.

For all that, "Outrage" talks to all the right people and Dick methodically builds his case, beginning with Sen. Larry Craig's arrest in a Minneapolis bathroom and concluding with a 30-year-old clip of the late Harvey Milk, in which he argues that coming out is a vital step on the road to gay rights and equality.

Even if you don't agree with the tactics, "Outrage" deserves to be seen, discussed and debated. Bigotry against gays -- much of it rooted in religion, but also predicated in part on obvious political calculus -- is ugly; the pertinent question is whether that justifies outing as a response.

   -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On a separate gay-progress front, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamationissued a somewhat misleading annual scorecard on representations of the lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender community for the 2009-10 TV season, under the heading "Where We Are on TV." The detailed report can be found on GLAAD's website.

"Misleading" because the focus is strictly limited to scripted programming, which conspicuously omits the heightened presence of gays in primetime thanks to reality TV. Hell, half of Bravo is seemingly devoted to gay characters, albeit in the unscripted realm.

In addition, simple numerical counts aren't always completely illustrative of the bigger picture -- namely, the quality of the characterizations. Those include some promising additions this season, from the gay couple on ABC's "Modern Family" to the teen dealing with coming out to his peers and family on Fox's "Glee." How those programs will unfold remains to be seen.

As is, the study finds slight increases in LGBT characters among series regulars overall, accounting for 3% of characters on the broadcast networks. Depictions on cable declined -- again, based solely on scripted fare, though that reduced presence appears to be accounted for almost entirely by the departure of Showtime's "The L Word."

Keith Olbermann skewered Glenn Beck and the "Fox & Friends" gang on Monday. Bill O'Reilly insisted again that NBC News is corrupt, accused MSNBC of "left-wing lunacy" and gloated (despite saying that he wasn't) about Fox News Channel's booming ratings.

Gee, if this is a truce, it's hard to imagine what war would look like.

The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz assembled a good deconstruction of the supposed Fox News-MSNBC truce that wasn't, and also visited the issue on his CNN program "Reliable Sources" (clip below). Meanwhile, the New York Times' Brian Stelter seemed more determined to defend his original over-statement of the story than actually advance it in his follow-up piece.

Kurtz's key passage states that the high-level talks between News Corp. and General Electric about their respective networks was "never intended to be a cease-fire." Rather, he writes, "The best that the men who run two of the nation's media giants were hoping to achieve was a ratcheting down of the rhetoric between their warring commentators. But Keith Olbermann refused to play along this week, Bill O'Reilly returned fire, and the New York Times got wounded in the crossfire."

Kurtz also paraphrases Fox News CEO Roger Ailes as saying that he can control his nutcases but that GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt couldn't wrangle his. This dovetails with my latest column, which makes the point that diva talent isn't easy to control.

Frankly, I still think the simple goal of toning down the barbs and restoring a semblance of civility is a laudable one. The big problem is where it originated.

If the guys actually running these networks imposed editorial control over their news stars, that would be fine. In print, after all, that's what editors are supposed to do.

In other words, it wouldn't be unreasonable if MSNBC President Phil Griffin prevailed upon Olbermann to be less personal or merely less relentless in skewering O'Reilly -- and let's face it, he often veers outside his lane just to run him over -- in the same way CNN Prez Jonathan Klein theoretically ought to talk to Lou Dobbs about backing off on his "birther" movement obsession, and Ailes should curb the rhetorical excesses of his "nutcases."

What's troubling is for that mandate to filter down from Immelt, who was clearly reacting to O'Reilly's unsubstantiated slams against the company. Update in response to comment below:  These include charges that Immelt is a "despicable human being" directly responsible for the death of American soldiers because GE conducted business with Iran and allegations that NBC has given the Obama administration favorable coverage in exchange for favors from the government. At one point, O'Reilly said it's "not a stretch to assume" that NBC might be assisting Obama hoping for a payoff. Sorry, but that's innuendo, not evidence.

As for Ailes, if all the reporting is accurate he has been fairly unabashed about the quid pro quo twist that says, "Leash your dogs and I'll restrain mine."

The odd part is the hand-wringing assumption that criticism of Fox News would somehow be silenced if MSNBC dialed down its nightly jabs. Historically, though, networks haven't targeted each other (think of it as "Honor among thieves"), leaving it to print critics -- or more recently, satirical outlets such as "The Daily Show" -- to analyze, expose and shame TV channels.

This whole "feud" started, remember, when Olbermann began mischievously punching up at O'Reilly, who took the bait more fabulously than he ever could have imagined -- to the point where the FNC host now sees "smear merchants" around every corner.

But now -- with so much vitriol already in the ether -- the tit for tat has grown petty. There are bigger fish to fry, and these networks should get to the business of frying them. As for the Times' Stelter, he should probably wait until he actually sees a white flag waving before reporting on the next "truce."

Fox News Channel's Stuart Varney came up with a hilarious excuse for Sarah Palin's surprise decision to resign as governor of Alaska before her term's completed.

It's David Letterman's fault!

Throughout Fox's breaking coverage Friday, fill-in anchor Varney kept repeating the question of whether Palin was hounded out of politics by the "vicious" and "scurrilous" attacks against her, citing Letterman's joke about her daughter (and the subsequent controversy that Palin and her supporters stoked) as a prime example.

Sorry, it doesn't wash.

Even if you accept that Letterman's poorly constructed joke was beyond the pale -- and for the record, I feel all that righteous indignation was highly calculated and overblown -- it's hard to defend buckling to such comments as the rationale behind Palin's action. After all, if she truly aspires to higher office, the criticisms will be a lot more pointed than the kind that get delivered by latenight comedians.

Of course, the notion that Palin is nobly stepping aside to A) advance her political career or B) for the greater good of Alaska doesn't endure close scrutiny, either, so Varney was in essence grasping at straws. As Fox News' Carl Cameron put it -- summing up the hanging curve that Palin has served up to detractors -- the political ads against her in any future race will simply say, "Sarah Palin wants to be president, but she quit her last job."

Meanwhile, the unhappiest man in America is probably John Ziegler, the conservative talkshow host turned documentary filmmaker who has sought to transform defending Palin -- or rather, lambasting the mainstream media's handling of her -- into a cottage industry. If Palin is truly out of politics -- as some, in the frenzy of instant analysis, suggested she might be -- it's another sign that the Wasilla native was out of her depth all along.

Strictly as TV theater, Palin's rambling speech -- with her bizarre basketball analogy about when to "pass the ball for victory" -- rightfully should mark the end of her time on the national political stage. As the New York Times' increasingly indispensable Gail Collins noted, not only was the delivery bizarre, but the timing served to "interrupt the plans of TV newscasters to spend the entire weekend pointing out that Michael Jackson is still dead."

The Jackson experience, however, might also explain why Palin is destined to be with us for awhile. Because as with the so-called King of Pop, the Palin circus is just too outlandish, too irresistible a story, to go away anytime soon.

Remember last November, when newspapers were flying off racks and broadcast news ratings soared because of the election of Barack Obama?

To quote those "Bruno" ads, that was so 2008.

The media remains fascinated with Obama, all right, but it still can't resist its tabloid cravings for illicit affairs, shark attacks and freak shows such as the one represented by the later years in the life and now death of Michael Jackson.

Nearly a week after Jackson's death, the story is still dominating cable news, network morning shows and even key newspapers like the Los Angeles Times, which seems to have seized on "owning" the Jackson story by keeping it on the front page every day as its latest bid to save the struggling Tribune-owned franchise.

Unfortunately, such coverage is better suited to TMZ.com and other outlets that are more comfortable wading through celebrity trashcans -- no slap at them, by the way (as I've noted in an earlier post, it's Harvey Levin's world now; we just live in it), but a mere statement of fact.

There was "Nightline" on Tuesday, trying to cover the Jackson story without getting its hands dirty by running a puffy profile of TMZ mastermind Levin. "We use the same principles that 'Nightline' uses," Levin said earnestly, but I couldn't help thinking that the reality was a little closer to the other way around -- that "Nightline" has inched closer to TMZ's celebrity-crazed mix.

Like the shark attack mania and Chandra Levy-Gary Condit coverage that dominated the news in the summer before the Sept. 11 attacks, Jackson's death occurred after Memorial Day, when network primetime is free and easy. In fact, it's considerably freer and easier today than it was when the decade began, what with network ratings at historic lows, making a hasty news special look infinitely preferable to rerunning "Private Practice" or burning off episodes of "The Unusuals." (Even leading anchors have gotten into the act, with Katie Couric fronting "Michael Jackson: Picking Up the Pieces" under the "48 Hours" banner on CBS.)

Let's face it, documenting the unfolding events in Iran -- especially with the government cracking down on journalists -- and explaining the Obama administration's effort to reform health care is complicated and difficult. And South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford simply isn't known well enough on the national stage to compete with a personality like Jackson, though as Stephen Colbert noted earlier this week, the Republican would have been even luckier had he publicly admitted cheating on his wife one day later.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Michael Jackson's Media Attention
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Mark Sanford

The Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism summed up the obvious with its running tally of news coverage (excerpted below), and I have a feeling the figures for the current week will be even more jaw-dropping, if sadly predictable.

Bottom line: When it comes to feeding the media beast, even Obama and Iran currently can't lay a hand on the gloved one.

In Just Two Days, Jackson’s Passing Nearly Passes Iran in the News of the Week

 With unrest in Iran and a new political scandal, the media had its pick of stories to report on the week of June 22-28. But by week’s end, the death of Michael Jackson quickly dominated the media agenda, according to a report by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism.

Early last week, ongoing attention to protests over the Iranian election continued to dominate the news narrative, and by week’s end Iran filled 19% of the newshole, making it still the No. 1 topic of the week. But much of that came early. Indeed, in the first two days of the week, nearly a third of all coverage (31%) was devoted to events in the country. But as the protest movement moved underground, and the story became harder to cover, coverage subsided. By Wednesday attention shifted to the third biggest story of the week—the controversy around South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, who admitted to an extra-marital affair after having gone missing for several days (11%).

But it was the late Thursday afternoon reports that Michael Jackson had died that captured the essence of the media narrative last week. The passing of the “King of Pop” was the No. 2 story last week, accounting for 18% of the newshole. From the time of the announcement of his death through the end of day Friday, more than 28 hours (60% of news coverage studied) was dedicated to Jackson’s passing. Cable news led the coverage, devoting 93% of airtime to the icon on Thursday and Friday. The story captured 55% of online coverage and 37% of front-page newspaper coverage. All other stories vied for attention amidst the biggest celebrity story in a decade.

My weekend reading included Robin Givhan's Washington Post piece, "Echoes of TV's First Lady," which concluded that Michelle Obama's only real cultural antecedent is Clair Huxtable, the lawyer mom on NBC's iconic 1980s comedy "The Cosby Show."

The only problem, as was evident throughout the piece, is that supporting and propping up that premise meant ignoring or discounting examples that might inconveniently undermine it. And given that "Cosby" signed off 17 years ago, there are plenty of characters and personalities -- beginning, most glaringly, with Oprah Winfrey and Tyra Banks -- that Givhan was forced to omit or significantly diminish in order to buttress her theory.

Of course, to make her case that "the last similarly accomplished and wholesome black woman to enter the homes of TV audiences" was the "Cosby" character played by Phylicia Rashad, Givhan had to downplay African-American female doctors on "Grey's Anatomy" and "Private Practice," just to cite a few high-profile current examples, as well as series such as "Girlfriends." Nor does the article exhibit any recognition of how the TV world has changed -- that no comedy or drama circa 2009 approaches the broad reach and cultural heft of "Cosby," which premiered a full quarter-century ago in a media landscape that bears scant resemblance to today's highly fragmented marketplace.

Such disclaimers would clearly soften such a story's hook. But it doesn't make them any less obvious, or any less accurate.

Frankly, I see this as an increasingly common affliction in some of our major newspapers -- a product of reporters too willing to please their editors, too harried to make an extra call, or too ambitious to entertain conflicting information that might dilute a gee-whiz pitch. The aggravating part is that it's a short hop from the Post's Style section or the New York Times' Arts & Leisure pages to the ravenous maws of network morning shows and cable news, virtually ensuring that a half-baked or bogus concept can circle the media globe, as the saying goes, before the truth can get its pants on.

Throw in the prevailing fascination with all things Obama, and it's a prescription for all the non-news that's fit to print ... and link to ... and copy.

More than 1,200 people had the odd experience of watching TV as a shared communal event on Monday, as Fox screened the two-part season finale of "24" at the Wadsworth Theater to what could only be described as a wildly appreciative audience.

It was clearly a sign of studio support for the show, which has rebounded creatively this year. That's no small accomplishment, since the series followed up its Emmy-winning season with what most agree (including yours truly) was a subpar Day Six, then saw its latest flight delayed by the writers strike.

To my mind, the key to the current season has been its villain-by-committee approach. As opposed to trying to sustain a single thread, as in the past, the show has essentially mined a threat for an extended arc, then handed off to a new bad guy that helps carry the story line for the next batch of episodes. The fact that those heavies have been cast with top-notch actors like Jon Voight and Will Patton certainly doesn't hurt, though in terms of inheriting a mess, the roller-coaster format has given the show's fictional president (played by Cherry Jones) a series of headaches that makes Barack Obama's situation look like a relative picnic.

As I stated in moderating the event, "24" also remains a political Rorschach test, seized upon by forces on both the left and right who are eager to frame real-life issues in pop-culture terms. More than anything, the "Does America support torture because it watches Jack Bauer?" nonsense is representative of how the cable networks covet casual news viewers and try to cloak their coverage in anything that they think will help lure them in.

Yet despite the current torture headlines, series co-creator Joel Surnow's outspoken conservatism and former Vice President Dick Cheney's unintended promotional tour for the program, "24" is at its core a thriller. As exec producer Howard Gordon stated, people have been watching James Bond for more than 40 years, with the spy having by now outlived the Cold War that birthed him by a couple of decades.

A small cloud hovers over "24" because of the latest off-screen fracas involving star Kiefer Sutherland, but the show is currently scheduled to begin production on its next season in a few weeks and be back on its traditional January-through-May schedule for 2010.

Perhaps by then, God willing, Cheney will be out of the news.

The Senate held a "The Future of Journalism" hearing this week, and I finally caught up with the testimony of David Simon, the former Baltimore Sun reporter who parlayed that experience into "Homicide" and "The Wire," then recently followed it up by producing the splendid HBO Iraq miniseries "Generation Kill."

For the complete document, here's a link, by way of Jim Romenesko's Poynter site. But the key passages include Simon's observation that because newspapers can't monetize the Internet sites that are aggregating their content, "the parasite is killing the host;" and that the industry's demise began out of greed and mismanagement "long before the threat of new technology was ever sensed."

Simon left the Sun in the mid-1990s, right when I was starting at another Tribune newspaper, the Los Angeles Times. And with the benefit of hindsight, I think he's right about almost everything -- including the pervasive effects of a "prize culture" that he documented in the final season of "The Wire," where editors push Pulitzer-bait projects at the expense of the nuts-and-bolts reporting that actually serves their local community.

As for greed, Tribune got into the layoffs-in-pursuit-of-bigger-margins business long before the Internet began leeching away profits. Indeed, I was hired there to fill a vacancy left after job cuts and a hiring freeze imposed about a year before I started in '96.

Simon closed his testimony by outlining several proposals to help "save" newspapers, which mostly boil down to providing antitrust protection that would allow them to collude on a system to charge for online content; and facilitating the shift to non-profit status. Both sound like reasonable ideas to me, though I confess to some skepticism about either gaining much traction. For starters, too many on the right are delighting in the financial woes assailing what they deride as the "mainstream media" (see Jeff Jacoby's Boston Globe column on the misguided gloating) to let such measures to move forward without turning it into a political circus.

Meanwhile, Simon is moving ahead with his next HBO series, "Treme," about the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. Based on his Senate testimony, it's an appropriate choice, because the guy knows a thing or two about how to clean up a complete mess.

 

Fox News Channel didn't endorse Barack Obama, and one suspects few of its primetime hosts would publicly admit how happy they are to have him in office. Nevertheless, his administration is working out very, very well for the right-leaning cable network.

From News Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch's comments regarding today's quarterly earnings:

"Our Cable Network Programming segment showed remarkable growth, led by the Fox News Channel, which nearly doubled its operating income over the year-ago quarter. ... The Fox News Channel (FNC) almost doubled its operating income versus the third quarter a year ago, primarily from increased affiliate revenues on higher rates. In the quarter ended March 31, 2009, FNC primetime ratings were up 23% compared with the same period a year ago."

The practical implications of this -- amid an otherwise tough quarter for the media conglomerate, in keeping with the deflated results put up by its peers -- are that Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes and his posse should continue full steam ahead in delivering voice-of-the-opposition attacks on the Obama administration. Murdoch might have personally softened his political views (or so Michael Wolff says in his biography of the mogul), but he's nothing if not a pragmatist, and feeding red meat (and of course Tea bags) to the disenfranchised right has been very good for business.

So remember, the next time you see someone on Fox complain about the president being a socialist/Marxist/fascist/foreign-born/closet-radical/terrorist sympathizer, strictly from the standpoint of good old-fashioned capitalism, they wouldn't have it any other way.

The Washington Post's ombudsman has tackled an issue that I've often considered -- namely, whether it's possible for a TV critic to weigh in on a politician's TV persona and performance without spilling over into political commentary.

Ombudsman Andrew Alexander writes that the Post received plenty of angry email about a Tom Shales piece in which he praised Obama's smoothness at a primetime press conference. After quoting some of the reaction, Alexander interviewed Shales, who told him, "I never talk about policies. I talk about how [Obama] comes across on TV. I like him based on what I see on television."

I agree with Shales -- both in his assessment that Obama is a masterful performer by TV standards, and that it's possible to analyze television dexterity without considering specific policy merits. A pre-2008 John McCain, who famously referred to the media as his "base," won reporters (and critics) over more with his style, accessibility and "The Daily Show" appearances than his policies. Even Ronald Reagan's critics grudgingly admit (or most of them do) that he spun a great yarn. By contrast, one needn't be a wild-eyed liberal to have serious doubts about Sarah Palin's readiness for national office based on how ill-informed she appeared in a number of campaign interviews.

That said, it's virtually impossible in today's shrill, overheated environment to register even the most innocuous opinion about a prominent politician without appearing to take sides. Any praise or criticism thrown Obama's way will invariably trigger knee-jerk responses from the customary knee-jerkers on both political poles. Still, conservatives tend to be far more vehement about this, inasmuch as they're always seeking evidence to buttress their self-serving claims that the "mainstream media" has it out for them.

Nothing will mollify such voices short of an admission of bias and being "in the tank" for Obama. That said, the impulse to "review" a presidential news conference is sort of asking for trouble -- often motivated by the desire of feature-section editors to demonstrate that they can play in the same sandbox as the big boys on the national desk.

Ultimately, I'd say if you want to cover politics from every angle -- including the significant question of how imagery plays through the media's filter -- then be prepared to take a few hits. If your analysis is honest, only the wing nuts and true believers will be truly bent out of shape by it, and frankly, most of them are pissed off before they read word one.

The other day, I posted an item about the inability of some pundits to differentiate reality from fiction by repeatedly drawing the Fox series "24" into the "Is there any justification for torture?" debate. Today, an arm of the conservative Media Research Center weighs in with a column somehow equating real-life torture with the "torture porn" genre advanced by the "Saw" franchise and its ilk.

Outrage over the torture memos is "a hard sell," writes Colleen Raezler of the Culture and Media Institute (the MRC has no shortage of official-sounding subdivision names), "when Hollywood filmmakers continually unleash depraved violence labeled 'entertainment' on movie-goers."

Frankly, it's an understatement to say I'm no fan of those movies. But to make the absurd link between such dramatic excesses and the question of torture being used as a tactic by the U.S. government is so bone-headed it's difficult to decide where to begin.

For starters, the "Saw" movies are watched by a very specific demographic -- teenagers and young men -- who for the most part couldn't give a rat's ass about the political implications of torture. So trying to connect the grisly genre's popularity (albeit within a narrow, mostly non-voting demographic) with some kind of public endorsement is about as feeble an argument as one could make.

Second, the media -- that is, movie critics and entertainment reporters -- have for the most part repeatedly bashed "torture porn" for being vulgar and distasteful. The problem is that these movies are essentially critic-proof and -- because they're inexpensive to produce -- profitable. Inasmuch as the MRC umbrella also encompasses the Business & Media Institute, one would think the group could appreciate an example of the free market at work.

Finally, and I hate to repeat myself here, it's fictional. Just because people like watching James Bond brutalize villains doesn't mean we're all for the CIA adopting the same tactics. Raezler also conveniently ignores a number of dramas that have depicted torture in a more realistic manner, from "Marathon Man" to "Syriana." Again, the fact that I enjoy those movies doesn't mean that I think we should be performing dental surgery on suspects or extracting their fingernails. Indeed, merely thinking about either makes me cringe.

If Hollywood-bashing conservatives want to criticize the entertainment industry for cashing in on dreck, more power to them. Hell, regarding "Saw," give me a pitchfork and I'll join the parade. Still, anybody conflating that to actual torture might not qualify as an expert on water-boarding, but their reasoning is clearly all wet.

Attention, pundit and political classes: Can we please, please, declare a moratorium on filtering the torture debate (or if you prefer, "harsh interrogation techniques," or "enhanced interrogation methods") through the prism of the Fox series "24"?

 This is hardly a new issue, and one of the program's co-creators, Joel Surnow, probably contributed to perpetuating the discussion in a chest-puffing New Yorker interview in 2007. In the piece, Surnow jokingly proclaimed himself a "right-wing nut job" and boasted about his relationship with Rush Limbaugh.

Seriously, though, I'm beginning to wonder if the punditocracy A) thinks its audience is so stupid that they can't engage a policy discussion without dramatic visual aids; B) is so desperate to link news to pop culture that they're grasping at straws; C) somehow made it all the way to adulthood without ever watching a James Bond or "Dirty Harry" movie; or D) thinks "24" is actually a reasonable facsimile of reality -- you know, the kind of reality where African dictators can assault the White House by water with an elaborate Scuba attack. Sadly, it's probably all of the above.

Yes, "24" premiered shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, which made all those spy shows introduced that fall (the others being "Alias" and "The Agency") seem oddly prescient, when it was mostly just one of those weird coincidences. As a consequence, the show's questions about how far America and its defenders would go in the name of thwarting terrorism got sucked into the national discourse. As he suffered to save us, Jack Bauer went beyond being just the unluckiest counter-terrorism agent on the planet to become a symbol, especially for those who feel the end justifies virtually any means.

The convenient amnesia here is that there have always been heroes that pushed into vigilante territory, without trying to extrapolate from that to yield a referendum on torture. Bond had a license to kill, and did so cold-bloodedly. Dirty Harry shot down a suspect and stepped on the bleeding wound to get information. Batman swooped in from rooftops to mete out justice.

These characters are entertaining on a number of levels, not the least being that violence and vengeance can be extremely cathartic when they're done well. But that doesn't mean the people tuning in or anteing up for tickets are gung-ho to see alleged real-life terrorists and criminals dangled off buildings or have electrodes attached to their vital areas.

Perhaps conservatives were so desperate for a Hollywood production that appeared to endorse one of their own that they got carried away and sought to conjoin this hyper-stylized thriller to current events. My guess is it's more a sign of the fact that news organizations see pop culture as the Holy Grail to lure younger viewers and women to newscasts they wouldn't otherwise be caught dead watching. So we get Paris Hilton's arrest being covered like a national emergency, and constant references to "24" in the context of how the public feels about torture and "ticking-bomb" scenarios.

Call me wacky, but I'd like to think that most people can tell the difference between fiction and reality. And if they can't, then they're such pathetic, hopelessly befuddled lost causes that they probably have a future in cable news.

Update: "The Daily Show" weighed in on torture in a big way on Tuesday, as Jon Stewart went back and forth with Cliff May, president of the impressive-sounding-but-I-have-no-idea-what-it-does Foundation for Defense of Democracies, one of those groups that seems to exist largely to have its founder/leader/front man booked on cable news.

Click here for the interview, which Comedy Central has broken into multiple parts.

The Discovery Channel will devote an entire week to Alaska-themed programming beginning April 12, promising to "transport viewers to one of the most unforgiving environments on the planet." In fact, this might be the most time any network has spent in Alaska since Fox News' Greta Van Susteren temporarily movedin with Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and her family. (That's an exaggeration, if only a slight one.)

Discovery's "Alaska Week" will feature special episodes of the ongoing series "Dirty Jobs" and "Mythbusters" set in Alaska, along with the hit crab-catching show "Deadliest Catch." Other offerings will include "Arctic Roughnecks," "Out of the Wild: The Alaska Experiment," "Alaska: Most Extreme," "Untamed Alaska," and my personal favorite, "Bear Attack!," about a series of maulings (OK, three) that took place near Anchorage over a six-week period. (Free tip: There are crossover possibilities with "The Office" on this one.)

Given the continued speculation surrounding Palin's political future, Discovery is perhaps missing an opportunity. Palin still enthralls a portion of the conservative base, which can't understand why the rest of the nation thinks she's a dunderhead and assumes they're suffering from some "hot for teacher" fixation. Actually, I think Democratic strategist Chris Kofinis nailed it on MSNBC's "Countdown With Keith Olbermann" when he said nominating Palin in 2012 would be "political suicide" on the GOP's part, which I guess makes me a God-hating tool of the liberal establishment.

Still, the governor certainly has enough of a base to produce hit TV shows by cable rating standards. So I propose -- free of charge -- the following ideas for programs that other networks could offer as part of their own "Alaska Week" editions:
-- "Media Attack!" (Fox News) -- A sobering look at how a politician who can't think of a newspaper that she reads, can't name any reform efforts with which her famously reform-minded running mate was associated and who seems so woefully over her head even many prominent conservatives say she isn't ready to be president is, somehow, strictly a victim of the media. Sean Hannity hosts.

-- "Hot Northern Nights" (MTV) -- A look at teenage sex in a state where all that snow on the outside heats things up on the inside. Of course, the kind of things you can catch in this context can be pretty deadly, too. Kim Kardashian hosts.

-- "Fabulously Dirty Jobs" (Bravo) -- Reality series focusingon the McCain PR team assigned to clean up the messes surrounding Palin during the 2008 campaign, whichprompted them to open a combination PR firm/hair salon/matchmaking/second-hand clothing service. Heidi Klum hosts.

-- "Russia: The Most Dangerous Neighbor" (History) -- What's itlike for Alaska residents to live in constant fear of a Russian invasion that would turn America's largest state into a socialist, Vodka-swilling stronghold? Includes CGI reenactments of what the U.S. will look like under Russian control. Glenn Beck hosts.

-- "Mother Bears" (Animal Planet) -- Reality series about the similarities between human and bear mothers' behavior in Alaska. Joan Lunden hosts.

-- "Deer in the Headlights" (MSNBC) -- A retrospective of Palin's campaign interviews, complete with wacky sound effects. Rachel Maddow hosts.

-- "Todd and Sarah Plus Five" (TLC) -- A reality show about juggling political life with a family of five kids, especially when they get old enough to begin having kids of their own. Dr. Phil McGraw hosts.

-- "Polar President" (Chiller) -- The title is self-explanatory, but it's hard to think of another one -- even the bear-mauling thing -- that would be nearly as scary. Jamie Lee Curtis hosts.

If you'd like more examples, I'll try to find some and I'll bring 'em to ya.

The Parents Television Council newsletter is always good for a few laughs, but I'd hate to think that anybody takes it too seriously, especially with a blaring headline like, "Why PTC's Work Matters: Violence on TV = Violence in Society."

The front page opens with a tragic story about a four-year-old boy being killed by automatic weapons fire, just to soften readers up for the inevitable fund-raising pitch. Then PTC -- pardon the expression -- moves in for the kill: "Scientific research and common sense suggest one very big and very obvious reason why our society today is so violent: Because our entertainment promotes it."

Of course, there are a few convenient omissions in the PTC's argument, beginning with the fact that the organization's most frequent preoccupation appears to be sex and language, not violence. Moreover, the group's right-leaning allies are among the first to object to any restrictions on guns or firearms, leading to the old bit of hypocrisy that goes, "Guns don't kill people; TV kills people."

What really troubles me, though, is the persistent effort to equate social science with chemical and biological sciences, acting as if there's a proven, direct causation between media violence and societal violence. Even studies that suggest a correlation in this area can't experiment in the real world or control for all the variables that might explain why crime goes up or down, why one kid kills and another doesn't, why I could watch more violent crap growing up than anybody without becoming a psychopath. And as someone who has read plenty of research on the topic, I feel confident saying that any respectable social scientist who isn't currently lobbying for grant money would acknowledge as much, provided that you were willing to endure speaking to a social scientist.

"The Debate is Over: TV Violence Harms Children!" the PTC nevertheless proclaims, insisting, "Case closed! American families are at risk from television programming that falls outside of our society's agreed-upon standards."

Frankly, I'm not sure our society's standards are any more agreed upon than the case is closed, but when it comes to the anti-smut-violence debate, the PTC is a bit like John Belushi's character in "Animal House." Once they're on a roll, there's really no point in quibbling about the details.

President Obama is planning more primetime news conferences. It's a very good idea as a political strategy, and perhaps explains why his opponents and media critics are having fits when it comes to the new president.

Over the last few days, Obama has appeared on "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno" and been interviewed by Steve Kroft on "60 Minutes." In stark contrast to his predecessor, he betrays an ease and command of the facts in these settings that's perhaps befitting of not only a natural politician but a president weaned in the television age, one who can segue from detailed policy discussion to adorable anecdotes about his young daughters flying aboard Air Force One or playing on their "Rolls-Royce of swing sets."

Obama's style is a big reason why the most outlandish charges leveled against him are only registering with his most vociferous critics, who are finding a loyal audience of like-minded viewers and readers buying into the "He's a socialist!" because, well, they can't understand why everyone else can't see it, too. The more heated and strident these criticisms become, though, the more those offering them are likely to be marginalized in the eyes of public's vast majority, to whom Obama looks like a genial if extraordinarily bright guy.

The latest head-scratching criticism directed Obama's way is that he relies too much on a TelePrompTer, a charge that's particularly amusing coming from certain TV and radio hosts who would be lost without a script/prompter/talking points in front of them. The assumption seems to be that he's cheating, somehow, by sounding so polished and articulate. Yet after President Bush -- who even supporters generally acknowledged wasn't exactly a great speaker -- such denunciations have the feel of splitting hairs. People want their president to sound smarter than they do, and I suspect most don't mind if cue cards are involved to help them get there.

There's plenty of room to disagree with Obama on policy matters, and critics on both the left and the right are second-guessing his response to the financial crisis. Political foes should remember, however, that the public's exposure to their political leaders (and indeed, celebrities of almost any stripe) occurs through the medium of television. As he has demonstrated over the last few days, Obama is gangbusters in this vehicle -- funny, resolved, tough when he has to be. Based on that TV presence, those who want to be taken seriously beyond the fringes of the tin-foil-hat crowd should choose their lines of attack accordingly.

Rahm Emanuel -- President Obama's chief of staff, and the Emanuel brother with the really cool if relatively low-paying job -- exhibited himself to be a master PR tactician this week, given the fallout from his remarks about radio personality Rush Limbaugh.

Interviewed on "Face the Nation," Emanuel characterized Limbaugh as "the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party,"adding in regard to Limbaugh's criticism of the new president: "He has been up front about what he views and hasn't stepped back from that, which is he hopes for failure. He said it and I compliment him for his honesty. But that's their philosophy that is enunciated by Rush Limbaugh and I think that's the wrong philosophy for America."

Emanuel thus shrewdly set up an internal conflict in the Republican Party, given that the only constituency Limbaugh has to answer to is his vast radio audience, which loves it when he does impolitic things like refer to the White House press corps as "butt boys" and feminists as "feminazis." Such colorful commentary led new GOP chairman Michael Steele to refer to Limbaugh (accurately) as an "entertainer," while going further to label some of his remarks "ugly" and "incendiary." Steele later apologized, but not before cable news had a field day with what amounted to this intramural skirmish.

For Limbaugh, of course, this is all good news, and he sounded not-so-secretly delighted at being the center of attention on such a vast stage during his radio show Tuesday. Lacking other identifiable big-name Republicans to lampoon, David Letterman called Limbaugh a "bonehead" on Monday night, while Jimmy Fallon joked that Limbaugh wanted his new show to fail, too. (It's still early for Fallon, but in terms of the premiere, he got his wish on that one.)

Limbaugh is undoubtedly the loudest conservative voice out there right now, and Sean Hannity probably ranks second. But Limbaugh is an entertainer, which is liberating for him but also perilous for politicians drawn into his orbit. They're concerned about broadening their base; Limbaugh -- sitting on a $400 million syndication deal -- need only satisfy his existing one.

Conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg isn't exactly the sharpest knife in the intellectual tool shed, but after defending Limbaugh he did acknowledge the strategic savvy behind zeroing in on the radio titan in his latest Los Angeles Times column, noting, "Limbaugh and other right-wing talkers are popular with a third of the country. Fairly or not, they turn off moderates and self-described independents."

Bottom line: If Endeavor's Ari Emanuel had just played other talent agencies as deftly as his brother manipulated the Republicans, CAA, WMA and UTA would all be having a really bad week.