Tag Archives: media bias debate

Fact Checking ABC’s This Week: Most Statements PolitiFact Sees as ‘False’ Uttered by Democrats

Back in April, as ABC’s Jake Tapper took over as interim host of This Week (pending the arrival of ex-CNNer Christiane Amanpour in August), the show asked the fact-checkers at PolitiFact to evaluate the truthfulness of statements made on the show . After nearly three months, the results show far more Democrats and liberals earning a “False” rating, with most of the “True” ratings going to Republicans and conservatives. The discrepency remains even if you take into account that about two-thirds of the evaluated statements came from Democrats in the first place. From April 11 through June 20, PolitiFact has handed out seven “False” statements — six to Democrats/liberals, one to a Republican. During that same time, seven “True” labels were handed out — four for Republicans/conservatives, just two for Democrats (one, ironically, going to former President Bill Clinton). Retired General Colin Powell also picked up a “True” for a statement about the number of troops President Obama has deployed to Afghanistan, but it’s hard to say which side Powell represents these days. PolitiFact is a project of St. Petersburg Times Washington bureau chief Bill Adair, who is a frequent “fact check” guest during election years. Some of the statements hardly seem worthy of a fact-check (such as Clinton’s assertion that he never had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate; who ever said that he did?), but here are the 14 instances of “True” and “False” labeling of statements made on This Week, along with a short quote from PolitiFact’s verdict: Democrats/Liberals : Charles Schumer, April 11: “No one questioned that she (Judge Sotomayor) was out of the mainstream.” FALSE : “We recalled that phrase came up a lot during the Sotomayor confirmation debate, so we did some checking. To start, we direct your attention to a July 13, 2009, AP story under the headline, ‘Sessions: Sonia Sotomayor “out of mainstream.”‘…And Sessions wasn’t the only Republican to invoke the ‘out of the mainstream’ claim….We understand that ‘out of the mainstream’ is a subjective term, but the fact is that a number of Republican senators used that exact phrase.” Former President Bill Clinton, April 18: “I never had a filibuster-proof Senate.” TRUE : “Senate records show Republicans held 43 seats when Clinton came into office, and they added another seat in June of that year with the election of Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas….Republicans won a majority of seats in the Senate in the 1994 elections and retained control of both houses throughout the remainder of Clinton’s presidency.” Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown, April 25: “Fifteen years ago, the assets of the six largest banks in this country totaled 17 percent of GDP … The assets of the six largest banks in the United States today total 63 percent of GDP.” TRUE : “Independent sources and experts confirm that, so we rate his statement True.” HBO Host Bill Maher, May 2: “Brazil got off oil in the last 30 years.” FALSE : “In 2008, Brazil ranked No. 7 on the list of the world’s countries that consume the most oil, using about 2.5 million barrels per day….It’s also embarking on more offshore drilling in some of the deepest waters for exploration. Brazil is hardly ‘off oil.'” Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, June 6: “Every major study that has been done by a legitimate group … shows that there are hundreds of thousands of jobs to be created if you pass our (cap-and-trade) legislation. And if you wind up pricing carbon.” FALSE : “The fact is that other ‘legitimate groups’ have performed studies and reached different conclusions. Kerry’s statement suggests there is some unanimity of opinion among legitimate organizations about cap-and-trade’s effect on jobs. And that’s just not so.” Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas, June 6: Turkey is an Arab country. FALSE : “The one thing that Turkey has in common with the Arab world is religion: An estimated 99.8 percent of the Turkish population is Muslim….Moulitsas has graciously copped to his error (and even invited us to ding him), but the Truth-O-Meter doesn’t cut any slack for confessions.” Democratic strategist Donna Brazile, June 13: The Obama administration “has been constrained by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, which basically gives the responsible party the lead role in trying to not only fix the problem, but contain the problem.” FALSE : “In fact, the Oil Pollution Act specifcially gives the federal government the authority to decide who’s in charge of the clean-up — the polluter or the government. The company, in this case BP, will pay for the clean-up response. But the federal government can give the orders if it chooses.” White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, June 20: “In the case of General Motors, the (Bush) administration wrote a check without asking for any conditions of change.” FALSE : “The Bush administration did put specific requirements on the auto companies that included paying down debt, limits on executive compensation, and negotiated reductions in wages and benefits for autoworkers. It also required the companies to submit detailed restructuring plans by Feb. 17, 2009, that would show how the company planned to achieve and sustain ‘long-term viability, international competitiveness and energy efficiency.'” Republicans/Conservatives : Arizona Senator Jon Kyl, April 11: “President Obama himself attempted to filibuster Justice Alito, who now sits on the Supreme Court.” TRUE : “We found that Obama did join a broader Democratic effort to filibuster Alito. Democrats said Alito opposed abortion and was too deferential to executive power. But in what’s become Obama’s trademark on-the-one-hand, on-the-other-hand style, he joined the filibuster while at the same time saying he thought it was a bad idea.” Jon Kyl, April 11: Says he did not say Republicans would filibuster immigration reform. FALSE : “Kyl’s staff provided us with a transcript and video; they said it showed more context for Kyl’s statement. We reviewed the material; here’s an extended version of Kyl remarks: ‘My guess is, neither (card check and immigration reform) will have the votes to pass. But because political promises have been made to key constituency of the party that is in power, that they’re going to do something about these problems, they will bring up very partisan legislation. Republicans will, primarily Republicans, will vote it down, that is to say we will prevent it from coming up through the filibuster….'” GOP Chairman Michael Steele, May 23: In Hawaii, “they don’t have a history of throwing incumbents out of office.” TRUE : “Depending how you count it, that puts the re-election rate in Hawaii between 98 percent and 100 percent, which is higher than the national average over the same period….No incumbent has ever lost a November congressional election in Hawaii.” Michael Steele, May 23: The Republican Party “fought very hard in the ’60s to get the civil rights bill passed, as well as the voting rights bill.” TRUE : “The degree of Republican support for the two bills actually exceeded the degree of Democratic support, and it’s also fair to say that Republicans took leading roles in both measures, even though they had far fewer seats, and thus less power, at the time.” House Minority Leader John Boehner, June 13: “The House has never failed to pass a budget in the modern era.” TRUE : “According to the Congressional Research Service, the nonpartisan research arm of Congress, the House has indeed passed a budget every year since the Congressional Budget Act first took effect for fiscal year 1976.” Goes Both Ways : Retired General Colin Powell, May 30: “The president has added close to 68,000 troops in the last year, since he came into office, not just the 30,000 you hear, but the others that were added before that.” TRUE : “Obama took office with about 34,000 troops. There are now 94,000 troops and closing in on 98,000 troops by summer. When you count small additions by NATO, that gets us close to 68,000.” As with many political statements, there were many “Mostly True” (5 Dem vs. 2 GOP, plus Joe Lieberman), “Barely True” (2 Dem vs. 1 GOP, plus a BP official), and “Half True” assertions (9 Dem/Lib vs. 2 GOP/Con) catalogued over the past three months. You can see the whole list at PolitiFact.com .

See the original post here:
Fact Checking ABC’s This Week: Most Statements PolitiFact Sees as ‘False’ Uttered by Democrats

AP Quietly Lowers the ‘Normal’ Unemployment Bar to 6%

Those looking for evidence that there a move afoot in the establishment press to lower the bar for whatever economic accomplishments might be accomplished during the Obama administration will be interested in how the Associated Press’s report on the government’s June jobs report defined “normal” unemployment. Perhaps it’s valid for reporters Jeannine Aversa and Christopher Rugaber to refer to 6% unemployment as “normal,” if by that they mean “typical non-recessionary” or “long-term average” unemployment. But I couldn’t help but remember that during the Bush 43 and Reagan years, unemployment rates just above and occasionally even below that level were described by wire service reporters and other journalists as “persistent unemployment” — i.e., decidedly not “normal.” I quickly found several AP and other reports from those eras that confirmed my recall of what is now a demonstrated double standard. Here is the opening sentence from the AP report , followed by the term-redefining paragraph: A second straight month of lackluster hiring by American businesses is sapping strength from the economic rebound. … Unemployment is expected to stay above 9 percent through the midterm elections in November. And the Fed predicts joblessness could still be as high as 7.5 percent two years from now. Normal is considered closer to 6 percent , and economists say it will probably take until the middle of this decade to achieve that. “Closer to 6%” seems to imply that “normal” is really “slightly above” that level.  It’s legitimate to question whether there has really been an economic rebound when people who are looking for work aren’t finding it and so many others have abandoned their quest. The truth is that the number of people reported as working according to the Establishment Survey in yesterday’s Employment Situation Report is lower than it was a year ago , when the recession as normal people define it ended. It’s also worth remembering, assisted by an updated version of the indispensable chart from Innocents Bystanders , that the administration predicted that its stimulus plan would return the economy to the AP’s new “normal” by the first quarter of 2012, three years earlier than “the middle of this decade”: Oops. Here are some previous examples of situations described by the establishment press as “persistent unemployment”: October 7, 2003 — Both an AP story and an item at USA Today on California’s recall election told readers that “Californians face an $8 billion state budget deficit, persistent unemployment and struggling schools.” The Golden State’s unemployment rate in September 2003 was 6.4% . June 13, 2003 — A Reuters report on consumer sentiment relayed that “Consumer sentiment deteriorated sharply in early June, suggesting persistent unemployment is taking its toll on Americans’ expectations for the economy’s future.” The national unemployment rate in May 2003 was 6.1% . April 4, 2004 — A Fox News item to which AP contributed claimed that “there is evidence that persistent unemployment, despite other signs of a recovering economy, is taking its toll on the president’s popularity.” On April 2, the government reported a national unemployment rate of 5.7% . Going back further, in a March 29, 1987 book review at the New York Times (“No Time for Radicals”), Michael Janeway wrote this of author Robert Lekachman: “Under Ronald Reagan, the author writes, no god but that of the marketplace is worshiped, yielding ‘privatization, militarization, persistent unemployment, de-unionization, middle-class shrinkage, and the triumph of plutocracy.’ Mr. Lekachman’s cases in point, when backed by fact and figure, make for an intelligently passionate brief against the Reagan Administration.” Janeway didn’t dispute the factual accuracy of Lekachman’s claim about “persistent unemployment, which at the time was 6.5% . Gosh, who knew that “normal” was only a half-point or less below that of “a mean society”? But what was once “persistent unemployment” is now “normal.” No double standard there (/sarcasm). Oh, wait a minute. Maybe the AP pair is subtly informing us that as long as the Obama administration is in power and Democrats control Congress, “persistent unemployment” will be “normal.” If so, guys, thanks for letting us know. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

Read the rest here:
AP Quietly Lowers the ‘Normal’ Unemployment Bar to 6%

CNN’s Sanchez on Mel Gibson: ‘Very Politically Involved’

Today on CNN, Rick’s List host Rick Sanchez was, as he likes to say, all over and drilling down on a story of major import.  No, nothing about the dismal unemployment numbers we’re seeing this recovery summer.  Despite repeated teases on the topic, he didn’t get around to it. Sanchez was all over and drilling down on the latest Mel Gibson antics, despite pushback from his audience: SANCHEZ: Some of you are tweeting me, in fact I’m reading these as I go telling me, why are you covering the Mel Gibson story? That’s not really news. I’m thinking, it’s not? Mel Gibson, one of the most renowned actors, who is very politically involved, caught on tape in the past saying things about Jews and about women? When did Mel Gibson become very politically involved?  In a 2006 Entertainment Weekly interview Gibson said , “Everyone always presumes I’m a Republican. I’m not.” A check of Federal Election Commission records shows no political contributions from Mel Gibson.  Years ago, he wrote a letter endorsing a candidate in the California GOP lieutenant gubernatorial race, but even then noted : “I don’t often support political candidates.” Does Sanchez automatically presume that someone who says nasty things about women and minorities must be very politically involved?  Or does he assume that a Hollywood personality not routinely spouting liberal lunacies has to be a Republican? Viewers might be interested in seeing the evidence Rick has that Gibson is very politically involved.  At any rate, his devoting so much time to the story kept Sanchez from reporting on the most recent Obama economic failures.                

Excerpt from:
CNN’s Sanchez on Mel Gibson: ‘Very Politically Involved’

Captionfest: Katie, Bill, and Wolf at the World Cup Edition

Below is a photo of CBS “Evening News” anchor Katie Couric and CNN’s Wolf Blitzer hanging out with President Bill Clinton at the World Cup last Saturday. Couric posted a link to the photo from her Twitter account , where she noted that “Clinton’s people invited [her] to [the U.S. vs. Ghana] game last minute.”

MSNBC Host Calls Leftist Advocacy Group Co-Founded By Obama ‘Non-Partisan’

ROTF, laughing my Demos off . . . Barack Obama is president.  Oil is gushing in the gulf.  America was eliminated from the World Cup.  Looking for a laugh break? Try this: MSNBC has described DEMOS as “non-partisan.”  OK, I hadn’t heard of them, either.  But their web site just happens to mention that Barack Obama is “a founding Board member of Demos.” But that didn’t stop Chris Hayes of the lefty Nation mag, on MSNBC this evening subbing for Ed Schultz, from, yes, describing DEMOS as “non-partisan” in introducing the group’s Washington, DC director, Heather McGhee.  And who is Heather?  From the DEMOS site: “previously, she was the Deputy Policy Director, Domestic and Economic Policy, for the John Edwards for President 2008 campaign.” View video here . Predictably, McGhee spoke in favor of the Dems’ financial regulation bill.  Her argument included this pro-Obama gem: “People understand that we’ve now got someone in Washington watching out for the consumer,” etc.  Don’t you sleep better at night knowing Barack Obama’s in the White House? Poking around the DEMOS web site, we find this  description of the group’s “four overarching goals”:     *  a more equitable economy with widely shared prosperity and opportunity;     * a vibrant and inclusive democracy with high levels of voting and civic engagement;     * an empowered public sector that works for the common good;     * and responsible U.S. engagement in an interdependent world. Shall we translate?: income redistribution, lax voting enforcement, bigger government, weaker defense. Yup, sure sounds non-partisan to me! Note: My first instinct was to Google “DEMOS” + “Soros,” and while I can’t independently verify it for the time being, sure enough I got some hits, as here , listing the group as being funded by the far-left’s biggest financier.

See the original post:
MSNBC Host Calls Leftist Advocacy Group Co-Founded By Obama ‘Non-Partisan’

Network Morning Shows Unanimously Gush Over Larry King

The morning programs of the Big Three networks all sang the praises of CNN host Larry King after he announced on Tuesday his upcoming retirement from his program, while overlooking his liberal bent at times. Both Willie Geist on NBC’s Today show and CBS’s Harry Smith labeled King ” legendary ,” while ABC’s George Stephanopoulos heralded how he was ” on top of his game ” for most of his career. NBC correspondent Peter Alexander reused Geist’s “legendary” label, and chronicled the CNN personality’s “perch in prime time” during his 25 years on his Larry King Live program, spotlighting how he “has interviewed nearly 50,000 people over more than 50 years in broadcasting.” Alexander underlined this with clips from King’s interviews of Frank Sinatra, Ross Perot, and Paris Hilton, noting that ” if you wanted the country to listen, you sat down with Larry King .”  The correspondent also included a clip from Ken Baker of E! News, who stated that “whoever is going to replace Larry King has obviously very big shoes to fill .” CBS’s Smith used the “legendary” term in the top-of-the-hour tease at 7 am Eastern. Twenty minutes later, during a segment with substitute anchor Erica Hill, he described King’s 1985 premiere on CNN as a “grand experiment” and concluded that “twenty-five years later, it seemed to work out all right.” The two labeled him a “very interesting” and “good” guy. At the bottom of the hour, correspondent Jim Axelrod did a similar chronicle of the CNN host’s career to Alexander’s on NBC, choosing instead President Obama, Carrie Prejean, and Lady Gaga as the notables to highlight. His concluding line echoed Ken Baker’s line on NBC: ” Whoever gets the job, they won’t be easy suspenders to fill .” Smith then brought on The Washington Post’s  Howard Kurtz to discuss the host’s impending retirement, who, as Tim Graham noted earlier on Wednesday , speculated whether a “variety show” like King’s, where “you talk to a president one day and Lady Gaga the next,” could survive in an “increasingly partisan cable television universe.” ABC’s Stephanopoulos proclaimed the host ” the undisputed king of late night talk ” on Good Morning America and stated that “no one had a longer run and King was on top of his game for most of it .” After correspondent Dan Harris’s report on the CNN personality’s career, Harris, Stephanopoulos, and substitute anchor Elizabeth Vargas speculated on who would replace King. The former Clinton operative endorsed a liberal colleague of his at CBS: ” Katie Couric’s my pick . But, I guess she doesn’t want it.” The three morning programs did all mention how King’s past few years were “rocky,” as Stephanopoulos put it, between a decline in ratings and the reports of a possible divorce with his seventh wife. But they all omitted his occasional shots at conservatives, as MRC’s Notables Quotables chronicled over the years.

Here is the original post:
Network Morning Shows Unanimously Gush Over Larry King

Olbermann: Palin a ‘Phony,’ ‘Idiot’

Name-calling isn’t just for 6-year-olds anymore. Keith Olbermann proved once again that Sarah Palin is the media’s favorite conservative to hate, mock and condemn when he called Palin an “idiot” who endorses “stupidity instead of intelligence.” Olbermann named “Sister Sarah” his “Worst Person in the World” on “Countdown” June 28 after Palin mistakenly said Ronald Reagan’s alma mater was “California’s Eureka College” during a speech at Cal State Stanislaus. Reagan attended Eureka College in his hometown of Eureka, Ill. In addition to labeling her speech a “gaffe fest,” Olbermann called her mistake “symbolic of her imbecility, her corner-cutting,” saying it was one of “perhaps, 100 things that brand her as a phony.” One wonders where Olbermann’s outrages was when then-candidate Obama mistakenly said in June 2008 that he’d been to 57 states. This isn’t the first time Olbermann has unleashed on a conservative woman. Olbermann gave Palin the moniker “Worst Person in the World” last May after Palin refused to appear on his show. Olbermann also called her “idiot-woman” once and “idiot” twice after Palin nixed a “Countdown” appearance. Olbermann has also ridiculed Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann in the past by comparing her son’s participation in Teach for America to a Star Wars-like crossing over to “the dark side.” During the 2008 presidential campaign, Olbermann also called Palin “sick” and an “out of control liar” for “cutting” her state’s special-needs program. The accusation was misleading-Palin had really increased the program’s funding by 10 percent.

Link:
Olbermann: Palin a ‘Phony,’ ‘Idiot’

Cramer Rips Federal Gov’t for Congressman’s 1,000-2,000 Dow Drop Prediction: ‘Washington Has Decided to Eviscerate Profits’

On CNBC’s June 29 broadcast “Power Lunch,” Rep. Paul Kajorski, D-Pa. made a pretty prediction about the Dow Jones Industrial Average ( DJIA ) should Congress be unable to pass financial regulation legislation. [Video Available Here ] “You know, I wish every one of them would ask the question and also the industry and media, what happens in this country if this bill fails?” Kanjorski said. “Do you think 236 points down on the Dow is surprising? Check 1,000 or 2,000 points if we fail to change the ways that caused this problem.” That caught the attention of CNBC’s Erin Burnett, who played the clip for “Mad Money” host Jim Cramer. Cramer blasted Kanjorski and the entire institution of the federal government for being a drag on the markets for a myriad of reasons on his June 29 “Stop Trading” segment of CNBC’s “Street Signs.” “You know, they are the problem,” Cramer said. “And we all know it, right? It’s like let’s not even outthink it. I love our bureaucrat congressmen in Washington, but they’re the problem. And I don’t want to be just Mr. Rick Santelli here, but give me a break.” Cramer noted the timing – on the eve of a financial regulation bill vote and asked why he was waiting until now to tell us. “I mean, really – so he’s telling us about the 2,000 points? Now he’s telling us?” Cramer continued. “I mean, like other than a couple of congressmen and senators.” But according to Cramer, things are much more dire than the Washington, D.C. political playbook. He explained there was a real problem with the mentality in the federal government – to demonize profits. “What is the 10-year telling us?” Cramer continued. “We’re done. It’s 1934. I’ve been saying over and over on the show – the market’s overvalued, the market’s overvalued. Just try to buy a yield. It’s because, you know – we’ve had it. Washington has decided to eviscerate profits. No one wants to say this because what happens when you say it, is you got a bullseye on your back and I don’t even feel like saying it because I already have a ton of them. But you know it really is – I mean to like listen to Congress tell us about what causes a 2,000-point decline and then just accept it and say, ‘Yeah, that’s interesting.’ I’m not playing that game. I’m too old.” Cramer said the problem was very complicated with what he said was a deflationary phenomenon. He explained there were very few positives with the S&P 500 index to point at what he deemed “gloom-busters.” “We have radical deflation in this country,” Cramer said. “I mean, that’s what it is. People are maybe working, earning money off the books. I’m doing a series on the show. I’m trying to find companies that are gloom-busters. I gave combed most of the S&P 500, some of the S&P 600, you know the next level. I’ve got about four or five companies that say things are good. I mean, this is a remarkable time in the American economy. This market deserves to go down. Now I know a lot of people will say, ‘Wait a second, it just rallied from 270.’ We’ve all played that game. We know what happens – the ultra-funds come in in the last half hour, they rebalance – you go down 500 in the last minute. Maybe it’s our fault. It’s our fault because of TARP or … whatever.”

Link:
Cramer Rips Federal Gov’t for Congressman’s 1,000-2,000 Dow Drop Prediction: ‘Washington Has Decided to Eviscerate Profits’

Arizona Writer Latest Journalist to Pass Through Media-Democrat Revolving Door

Investigative journalist John Dougherty of Arizona deserves a hand from everyone concerned with liberal media bias, because he has given it up. Dougherty, pictured right in a photo from his website, has, shall we say, crossed the border from being biassed to seeking the Democratic nomination for US Senate . In the late 80’s he was involved with uncovering Charles Keating’s use of campaign contributions to five senators-including John McCain, whom Dougherty would most likely face in an election-in exchange for putting pressure on banking regulators. He also investigated Governor Fife Symington, polygamist leader Warren Jeffs and Sherrif Joe Arpaio. Whatever else he has done in the past, Dougherty has already succesfully morphed into a politician, writing a blog for the Huffington Post on illegal immigration and its relationship to crime that directly contradicts the conclusions he reached in an article he wrote for the High County News. Dougherty told Jilted Journalists that, if elected, he would hire investigative reporters as his staff to investigate other politicians and that he “can’t wait to hold hearings at the US Senate.” He also said that he shares much of the Tea Party’s frustration with government, although “‘Government is not the problem, corrupt government is the problem,’ he said, blaming lobbyist spending for putting corporations and special interests ahead of people. Government needs to be ‘much more aggressive,’ ‘strong,’ and ‘tough,’ he said.” If elected, Dougherty would join a long line of journalists who sought public office: Senators Harry F. Byrd (both Senior and Junior), President Warren Harding, Clare Boothe Luce, Pat Buchanan, Steve Forbes, William Randolph Hearst and even McCain’s challenger in the Arizona Republican Primary, JD Hayworth. As one of the most famous journalists ever to run for public office, Dave Barry once wrote: “And of course the most agonizing question is: Why, really, do I WANT to be president? Is it just so that I can have a limousine and a helicopter and a big plane and a huge staff of boot-licking lackeys waiting on me hand and foot? Yes.” That just about sums up the attraction of journalists to politics.

Read more:
Arizona Writer Latest Journalist to Pass Through Media-Democrat Revolving Door

REVIEW: In HBO’s ‘For Neda’ the Symbol of Iran’s Green Revolution Comes to Vivid Life

The HBO documentary For Neda , directed by Antony Thomas and narrated by famed Iranian actress Shohreh Aghdashloo , first aired on HBO in the United States on June 14 but went viral in Iran on June 1, well before the regime even knew about it . In an HBO interview , Mr. Thomas stated that the goal of the film was to look beyond Neda Agha-Soltan as the most prominent symbol of the Green Revolution and into the soul of whom Neda was as a human being. To that end, Mr. Thomas and crew succeeded brilliantly. The emotional rollercoaster ride one undergoes while traversing Neda Soltan’s short but eventful life in For Neda ranges from the tender and sublime to black despair and furious outrage. At times, For Neda also induces in the viewer an unnerving sense of paranoia. Throughout much of the film, the regime is the evil villain unseen on the screen but whose ominous presence is most keenly felt. The rather ordinary but highly illicit home interview sessions in Iran with Neda’s family and others engender a dark foreboding to the point you almost expect regime jackboots to bust down the doors at any moment. The rest of For Neda is also fraught with many palpable dangers that make the fictional James Bond’s seem trite by comparison. In For Neda , we know that the consequences of regime discovery and reprisal are as perilous, real and horrifying as it gets. For those reasons and many others, Neda’s family refused to talk to the media for the longest time. After Neda’s death last June 20, the regime forcibly moved the family to prevent their home in Tehran from becoming a Green rallying point (which it had in fact become), then thoroughly silenced them. Yet after much coaxing online, Neda’s family finally (and fearlessly) agreed to a live interview in their home to tell Neda’s life story. The man chosen to travel to Iran to secretly interview Neda’s family and capture it all on video for HBO was Saeed Kamali Dehghan , a courageous 24-year-old Iranian expatriate and editorial contributor to the UK Guardian. What Mr. Dehghan lacked in formal journalism experience he would make up for with great human insight, derring-do and balls of titanium. He would need all of those qualities for this trip. The slightest slip-up, careless act or suspicion-inducing look could lead him straight to Evin prison and all that entails . Fortunately, Mr. Dehghan succeeded in entering Iran undetected and completing his lonely and dangerous mission. For that, we all owe him an enormous debt of gratitude. The video he smuggled from the homes and hearts of Neda’s mother, father, sister and brother is extraordinarily captivating and poignant. It reveals to us, layer by layer, the story of whom Neda Soltan was as a living person and kindred human spirit. Perhaps the most amazing aspect of Neda’s life, as revealed in For Neda, was how closely it mirrored those of most ordinary young American women. Rebellious at a very young age, Neda refused to wear the chadar in elementary school, which is required of all female students in the Islamic Republic. Even more amazingly, l’enfant terrible Neda won her fight. She would do battle with the chadar and other female clothing restrictions throughout her all-too-short life, one of many rebellions Neda would conduct against the repressive and misogynist Islamist legal codes in Iran. Neda Soltan’s subversion of thought also extended to literature. From Wuthering Heights to The Last Temptation of Christ , Neda’s widely varying and mostly illegal collection of books reveals a most curious and searching young mind that wanted to know and experience all the best that humanity had to offer, most of which was and is forbidden in the Islamic Republic. Perhaps the most poignant moment of all in For Neda is when her mother recalls the day Neda was fatally shot by a basiji sniper in the streets of Tehran. In phone call after phone call, Neda ignored her mother’s pleadings to come home. During her last call prior to her death, Neda had told her mother how dangerous the streets were becoming and promised that she would at last return home. The rest is now history in a revolution that continues to unfold before our eyes. Its ending is still unwritten, but is eyed by the Greens and the diaspora with great hopes for a free and democratic Iran. Were such a revolution of freedom to succeed, it would not only transform Iran itself beyond measure but the world at large, given the Islamic Republic’s larger-than-life place in it today. In summation, For Neda is one of the most compelling, moving and gut-wrenching documentaries I have ever seen. The film succeeds wildly in projecting the entire scope of the Green cause through one of its earliest, youngest and most defiant revolutionaries, and in the most human and personal of terms. Here is perhaps the ultimate insight into Neda’s persona as revealed in the film. On Election Night last year, Neda smelled a rat and refused to cast a vote when she found only Ahmadinejad observers were allowed at the polls. Yet despite the fact Neda did not vote herself, the news that the election was most likely fraudulent compelled her back out onto the streets to speak up for family and friends whose votes had been stolen. That courageous, selfless and defiant act, one which would ultimately cost Neda her life, captures the essence of Neda’s spirit, the spirit of the HBO documentary that bears her name, and the spirit of the Green Revolution itself. Crossposted at Big Hollywood .

Read the original here:
REVIEW: In HBO’s ‘For Neda’ the Symbol of Iran’s Green Revolution Comes to Vivid Life