Did you catch HBO?
I'm just enraged. I don't like liars. I don't know why anyone has to lie about the public record to begin with. Ava and I will be addressing the garbage that was HBO's Bee Gees' 'documentary.' Barry Gibb wasn't truthful but maybe his memory's shot? I don't know.
I don't like liars. And that 'documentary' is nothing but lies.
And penises. Let's be clear. No female artist -- except Lulu who is only on as an ex-wife -- is featured. But we get the ramblings of past his prime Justin Timeberfool? He's not high, he insists. We're all supposed to giggle over that? To pretend it's funny or insightful? To pretend he's pertinent to anything other than how a White man can steal Michael Jackson's act but not his art? Because, let's face it, there's no art to Justin.
This was garbage and I asked Ava, "Did anyone praise this s**t?" Yeah, they did. So we're going to be stuck reviewing it because if we don't use our voice, then the record reflects that lies and garbage are a-okay.
Here's a thought for you stupid people writing praise about this bad documentary: Learn some facts. You're too stupid to review something you know nothing about. Time and again, we (Ava and I) are asked, "Why didn't you review this, why didn't you review that? It's important." And probably over our heads. We're not scientists. We venture into areas we don't know with great trepidation and tremendous leaning on friends to walk us through subjects we don't know.
Years ago, NEWSWEEK (gutter rag) decided it wanted to write about TV and how TV was 'sexing up' and dealing with themes that were 'risque.' They published their garbage piece and when I personally pointed out to a NEWSWEEK editor their most glaring error in the article, I was told, "It doesn't matter because it's about TV. It's not important."
If it's important to write about, it's important enough to get it right.
If you're wondering about the glaring error, NEWSWEEK included the FRIENDS' episode where Chandler handcuffs his female boss.
"It was the other way around!"
I know that. So does everyone who ever watched the episode. She wants to have sex in the office, she handcuffs Chandler and she has to leave suddenly. Rachel discovers Chandler handcuffed.
That's what happened. Unless you read NEWSWEEK which got it wrong.
And which didn't think it mattered because it was just TV.
Well, when not sneering down their noses, do you think they might grasp that journalism is what they publish and that journalism is supposed to have standards. Refusing to correct a glaring error is not journalism. Insisting that an error doesn't matter because it's 'only TV' is not journalism.
Barry Gibb is not the most gifted songwriter of all time. But he is talented. He's got much to be proud of as do his two late brothers. But that special was disgusting because it was filled with lies. I'm not talking, "Let me tell you all about what Lulu told me!" I don't care about the personal life lies. I really don't. I do care when you rewrite public history. I do care when you tell a story and present it as fact even when it does not add up chronologically. I do care when you pose as woke but you're just a joke, the same joke you were in the last century. These are things I care about.
NEWSWEEK cares about nothing. They have a slam book post -- posing as journalism -- on Glenn Greenwald. At every opportunity, they distort what Glenn actually wrote.
If you haven't read Glenn's piece yet (we noted it Friday here), please do. When NEWSWEEK decides to go after someone, it means they've done something significant and done something that frightens NEWSWEEK.
For those unfamiliar with NEWSWEEK's real history -- it was a cover for many agents and it struggled for years but was kept afloat by the Agency. It did the CIA's business and many, many people in the press worked overtime to cover up these ties.
A gossip columnist for THE LOS ANGELES TIMES running a blind item didn't destroy Jean Seberg's life. But NEWSWEEK -- left out by our friends at FAIR -- didn't print a blind item. They printed that a pregnant woman was not pregnant by her husband. He was the husband of record and only a government front would run a story like that and not fear fallout. That was the height of defamation at that time. They didn't just print that, they printed that Jean gave them an interview. No, she didn't. But you don't hear about that from FAIR and the other pretend watchdogs of journalism. You hear them attack a gossip columnist who ran a blind item.
NEWSWEEK, far more than any other publication, still -- STILL -- has much to fear from the public questioning the relationship between so-called journalism and the CIA.
Read Glenn's article and grasp how it's scared a lot of people already.
If you're new to the Jean Seberg issue, we've covered it here for years and years and years. Most recently, earlier this year, Ava and I wrote about it "Media: Lies and Liars All Around."
The following sites updated: