The Tattler...featuring Blogs! Submissions, please...

If you're like moi, you probably have very little time during the course of the day to cruise the Internet, and take a gander at popular new blogs that are revving up - and subsequently - piquing widespread interest out in the wilds of the blogosphere.

On the other hand, perhaps you're an talented insightful blogger with a lot to chirp about.

In spite of the fact you've been toiling away publishing those sizzling posts at the crack of dawn each day, nobody is nibbling at the smorgasbord of delectable goodies you've been tossing their way.

The musings - like zillions of others out there - are going virtually unread.

Meanwhile, the popular "with-it" blog trend-setters, are continuing to make their merry way into dizzying social circles in a big way.

Maybe it's time to pack it in?

Nope!

Now, you have a chance to enter the big leagues, and become a celebrated hit-getter like gossip maven Perez Hilton or the undisputed Queen of the "blogs" Arianna Huffington.

Yes, the Tattler is expanding its horizons, and reaching out into the blogosphere!

Our high-profile website is setting aside a little premium space (!) in order to showcase - and ultimately thrust into the spotlight - a handful of bloggers who deserve a kick-start and a few kudos along the way.

So, if you're a blogger pining for a little more exposure - and aching to be a much-celebrated "Featured Blog" at the Tattler - just zip off an e-mail off to us when you have a mind to.

Contact:

publisher@thetattler.biz

A simple link to your blog to facilitate a quick review of your creative renderings is satisfactory.

However, if you include a brief bio with a couple of insightful (and/or heartfelt) notes on your - hopes, dreams, and wishes - may trigger a profile piece alongside your blog site entry.

Good luck!

http://www.julianayrs.com

Bloggers...thank you for your support! And, have a Happy Thanksgiving...

Since I hooked up with wordpress, I have been able to keep better track of my blog stats - and subsequently - determine what kind of activity is going on in respect to my daily posts.

Frankly, it has been quite heartening to discover these past few weeks that numerous bloggers have either "quoted" my comments on their sites or installed direct links to posts they have been keen on.

Not unlike me, many bloggers painstakingly struggle over their message - with a keen eye to the turn-of-a-phrase - before posting.

Then, after the little gem is published, most wonder to themselves.

Is anyone ever going to stumble on this post - and just maybe - read the material I slaved over?

Fortunately, when I step out the door, I get an immediate reaction to my musings!

When I waltz into a restaurant, or stroll down the street - even step into a crowded Hollywood nightclub - all eyes turn toward me.

"That's him," they whisper, "The famous blogger."

Nonetheless, the support I have received over the past few months, has been quite heartening.

Daily, I receive private e-mail messages about some novel or thought-provoking idea or two, bloggers pine to pass on.

Many are inclined to post a comment on the blog sites, too.

Since I started up my first blog over a year ago on the Fox Network TV Website ("On the Lot") my first-hand experience in the blogosphere has been about ninety-five percent positive!

Occasionally, I do get some wacko spouting off at the mouth, but rarely.

Also, through a glass darkly, I have had the chance to get a glimpse into the psyche of a handful of twisted individuals around the country.

For instance, one day I penned a post after a red carpet premiere in Hollywood, in which I noted that Jeff Goldblum was very kind on the eve of the screening.

Shortly after that, I stumbled across a screwball comment, that some Goldblum fan made on their blog.

The individual, who acted like they owned Mr. Goldblum, referenced my article in which I underscored the actor's good manners.

Rather than just link the story, or say thanks, he proceeded to make a negative remark.

"I LOL! We already knew that. It's too late."

Too late?

Since when is it too late to compliment a person on their exemplary conduct?

Notwithstanding, people do change over time.

Personalities (especially in the spotlight) are often in flux.

A few years ago, an actor may have been a mean scoundrel who spit in the face of the press; but today, they may be meek as a lamb.

Also, new fans are always coming into the fold every day.

For their sake, isn't it a good idea to mention how approachable the object of their admiration is?

Oftentimes, I run into twisted people with no common sense whatsoever, either.

For instance, recently I wrote up a post on an e-mail I received which was a satire on Obama's speech patterns.

However, when I originally penned the post, no credit had been attributed to the original writer in the e-mail I secured the hilarious material from.

One day I was cruising the net when I located the article with a credit to the original author.

Instead of just "lifting" the name of the individual, I actually spent a few moments to thank the blogger for including the author's name, so I could give the comedian professional credit in my own post.

Wasn't that the appropriate professional action to take under the circumstances?

The blogger in question proceeded to read the post - and due to an obvious lack of intelligence or abililty to read and comprehend English - summarily twisted and distorted my intentions in such a convoluted way that it boggled the mind!

The lady (who posts anonymously and uses a photo of Raquel Welch to represent herself online) proceeded to post a negative comment about me!

In contrast, any intelligent sensible person would have recognized my obvious thoughtfulness and professionalism.

Talk about wacko!

More recently, a couple of individuals attempted to post negative comments on my blog in response to my expose on Richard Raddon in recent days.

Since the posts were written anonymously - and were traced back to the LA Film Festival site - it was obvious to me that a person in support of Raddon was involved in some all-out skulduggery on his behalf!

Needless to say, I zapped their comments into oblivion.

What am I thankful for this turkey day?

To be blessed with the precious good fortune of having readers at my blog sites who are like-minded, sound in intelligence, and of good heart.

Happy Thanksgiving, eh?

Obama...Los Angeles Times "videotape" controversy! Unbiased reporting?

When I spied a few twitters on the Internet last night over the Los Angeles Times scandal that has been brewing over the past twenty-four hours - I got the distinct impression from the musings of a handful of blog writers - that the editors at morning daily were wrongfully "withholding" incriminating evidence which established Obama's questionable past associations with individuals of dubious character.

On the heels of the brouhaha - management at the TIMES responded to McCain's finger-pointing - by publishing an account of their own version of events in what appeared to be a sincere effort to shed light on the issues.

For those of you in the dark, McCain is alleging that the daily "intentionally suppressed" a videotape it obtained through "unknown" sources which allegedly reveals Barack Obama at a 2003 banquet acknowledging a friendship with a leading Palestinian scholar and activist, Rashid Khalidi.

In response, the editors were adamant in their rebuttal piece - that contrary to what McCain believes - the newspaper sought to bring the matter to the public fore.


The editor noted for the record that - if anything - the daily simply sought to protect a confidential source who provided the tape on the provisio that it not be released.

The Times keeps its promises to sources, Editor Russ Stanton asserted to the media, in the wake of the controversy.

Management did not respond to the McCain's allegation that they were inclined to favor Obama, though.

Stanton either sidestepped that issue or overlooked it perhaps?

For the most part, the paper's arguments appear to be reasonable, under the circumstances.

But, can the LA TIMES be trusted to report fairly on the issues without bias?

After all, they are at the heart of the controversy.

It wouldn't be the first time a news organization - or media outlet - pulled the old soft-shoe to get themselves out of a tight fix.

Is there an independent "body" - a media watch organization - that can be called upon to act as a mediator in the dispute?

If not, perhaps the current crisis cries out for one to be established, to ultimately preserve the integrity and ethical standards of the media at large in the future.

Sarah Palin...guilty of "Abuse of Power". Yup, I feel vindicated...

Lethal dose of Kryptonite (truth) topples Palin...


Yesterday, Fox lodged an in-depth report on the Palin "incident" on their website - and consequently - a post I penned on the Sarah Palin probe based on allegations of "abuse of power" was linked to the Fox Network site.

As a result, there was a big surge in traffic to my blog at wordpress yesterday, as intrigued voters sought out clues on the Sarah Palin fiasco.

One whacko Palin supporter zipped off a message to me - obviously triggered by the fact he was angry with my searing criticism of the VP hopeful - and asserted in that communication that because Palin's camp rushed forward this past week (when all else failed to block the investigation) to conduct their own analysis of the events - that somehow - this established Palin was eager to resolve the issues.

"Don't you feel foolish now?" he snidely remarked in his skitzo communication.

Boy, does that guy need his head examined!

Especially in view of the facts that have unfolded.

On the contrary sir, I feel vindicated.

Since day one, I have been following the Palin story.

Weeks ago, I reported that Palin initially agreed to cooperate with the Legislature's investigation into the matter, until John McCain plucked her out of obscurity to be his running mate.

At that juncture - the stakes got higher - so Palin was obviously forced to re-think her tenuous position.

Then, Palin maneuvered her first flip-flop.

On the grounds that the investigation was turning into a political witch-hunt - manipulated by a handful of democrats with their own agenda - Palin began to vigorously resist the investigation.

When her aides - and husband Todd, too - were served with subpoenas to testify, for instance, they thumbed their noses at the proceedings and defiantly refused to obey the legally-binding court orders.

Desperate - her legal eagles scurried to file a lawsuit in Superior Court in the State of Alaska - in a bold-faced effort to block the proceedings.



Unfortunately (and no doubt due to the glaring facts in evidence) things went seriously awry for Sarah, thereafter.

For starters, the court dismissed the legal action filed by the stalwart Republicans, on the grounds that the Legislature was vested with full jurisdiction to carry out their probe on Palin.

On the heels of this ruling, investigators vowed to surge on with their fact-finding mission, interviews with key witnesses, and what have you.

Yes - it was made crystal clear to the Palin camp - that the investigation would go forward in spite of Palin's deceitful efforts to conceal facts and evidence - with the specific aim of saving her political reputation.

Today, it comes as no surprise, to hear that Palin has been found guilty on all the charges of "Abuse of Power."

First, it should be noted for the record, that investigators acknowledged that Ms. Palin had the authority (as Governor) to fire a State employee.

But, that was never the issue.

However, Palin supporters will put their own spin on that in the next few days, in an underhanded effort to effect damage control.

Ignore it, 'cause it amounts to a lot of smoke and mirrors.

No, it was the manner in which the "firing" was handled, the specious grounds on which the dismissal was undertaken, and the attempted cover-up afterwards that is the real crux of it all.

Right off-the-bat, it's obvious that Palin was guilty of distorting and misrepresenting the facts, in a dishonest ploy to validate her inappropriate unprofessional (illegal) conduct.

For example, from the get-go, Palin plied the bald-faced excuse that the Trooper was ripe for firing because he shot a female Moose without a license.

The investigators determined, however, that Palin did not disclose all the facts regarding the incident.

Palin neglected to point out that the Trooper was in the presence of his wife (who held a license)when the Moose was shot.

One of the investigators noted for the record - that if the Trooper was guilty of some illegal act on that occasion - his wife would be, too.

But, the woman in question was Palin's sister, so the Gov conveniently witheld the information.

That is just the tip of the iceberg, as they say in Alaska, when it comes to the kind of hypocrisy Palin is inclined to daily engage in at whim.

The former beauty Queen often utilized snatches of information to sway public opinion, but often held back on pertinent facts that would clearly establish the opposition's allegations of wrongdoing to be true.

For example, Palin was on-the-rag a lot over the Trooper's alleged misconduct, and gave the impression his wild unpredictable behaviour warranted a "firing".

On this premise, Palin took a leap, and asserted no wrongdoing for her attempted intervention.

However - the nervy little broad neglected to note for the record - that the Trooper had already been investigated - and summarily - disciplined.

In a nutshell, the issues she raised were neither here nor there in the grand scheme of things.

Notwithstanding the foregoing mind-boggling deceits - it was also determined by virtue of the full-scale investigation into the events - that Palin deliberately partook in actions officials warned were illegal.


For instance, Palin installed her husband (Todd Palin) to handle communications over the State Trooper matter, in spite of the fact a State Official made no bones about the fact Todd's dubious involvement was unethical.


That is why the investigators in the recent probe issued a finding - that the contacts were not only a breach of ethics - but tantamount to an "abuse of power".

Specifically, the report noted the following.

"Sarah Palin knowingly - as the term is defined in the (ethics) statutes - permitted Todd Palin to use the Governor's office and the resources of the Governor's office, including access to State employees, to continue to contact subordinate State employees in an effort to find some way to get Trooper Wooten fired."

It is a matter of record that Todd Palin asked to review Wooten's personnel file, too!

Without doubt, Palin also crossed the line because the State Ethics Act holds that public officials have a duty of public trust that prevents them from attempting to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action.

Pursuant to State Law, twelve members of the Legislature's fourteen member Legislative Council, elected to deliberate on their findings in a closed-door session this past week.

After the better part of the day had elapsed, the Council voted unanimously to release the whopping 263 (!) page document to the public.

Curiously, the council is made up of 10 Republicans and 4 Democrats.

That kind of blows to smitherines the allegation by Palin that Democrats were strong-arming the proceedings against her, doesn't it?

Civil penalties for the offenses range from impeachment by the Legislature to a reprimand or fine in the sum of $5,000.00 by the State Personnel Board.

I can hear the protesters in the street crying out now.

Impeach! Impeach! Impeach!

If Palin has any conscience - or sense of decency - she'll bow out of the Presidential Race and give McCain the opportunity to dredge up an appropriate alternative candidate that won't try to hoodwink the American Voter - like Palin has tried to - since day one of her celebrated entrance onto the world stage.

Federal "Shield" Law...Journalistic ethics separate wheat from chaff!

Interactive newsroom a wave of the future?


In the OPINION section of the Los Angeles Times, an attorney - Scott Gant - penned an article on the issues surrounding a proposed Federal "Shield" law geared towards protecting Journalists, their work product, and subsequent sources.

Mr. Gant noted that the Bush administration opposes the measure on the grounds that it would weaken law enforcement efforts and jeopardize National Security.

Baloney!

Currently, any reporter or news organization that refuses to cough up documents and information on the heels of a subpoena, may be fined, held in contempt of court, or tossed into jail.

Mr. Gant posed an intriguing question.

Who would fall under the protection of such a Statute?

The Washington legal eagle mused that by virtue of a proliferation of - bloggers, podcasters, and a myriad of fawning news outlets on the World-Wide-Web - that lawmakers would have to take a "stand".

To date, the House has defined Journalism as:

"The gathering, preparing, collecting, photographing, recording, writing, editing, reporting or publishing of news or information that concerns local, national or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public."

Understandably, under current thinking on the "Hill", due protections would be extended to those who "practise" journalism regularly and for a "substantial portion of the person's livelihood for substantial gain".

Would those who sell "gossip" be included?

Indeed - should the shield law be limited to so-called "professionals" - or be more inclusive to reflect a broader view of Journalism in the Internet age?

From there Gant took a giant leap and boldly asserted:

"The line distinguishing professional journalists from others who disseminate information, ideas, and opinions to a wide audience has been blurred."

He summed up by concluding:

"We're all capable of being Journalists now."

On the contrary!

Documentarians, perhaps. Journalists, no.

In my view - the distinction between a Journalist and one who "documents" and/or disseminates information - is crystal clear!

Journalists check their sources, for instance. And, verify their facts. Also, they endeavour to present a level playing field where both sides of the issues may be argued so the reportage is ultimately unbiased and balanced.

To quote the Detective from the old Dragnet series:

"Just the facts, man."

Notwithstanding, it should be noted that Journalists usually attend a College or specialized "learning institution" to "be educated" about - well, let's see - silly little concepts like ethics, rules of professional conduct, and standards in Journalism.

Oh yes, there may be a fine line between Journalists and those "others", to some.

To me, it's evident after perusing a few "news bites" on the Internet this morning, just how wide the "divide" is.

I found Mr. Gant's arguments not only self-serving but laughable and naive; in essence, he was reaching!

If anything, he has a skewered slant on things.

To boldly assert that the musings of a few - who dabble in social or political commentary on a personal blog or by podcast - are to be taken as legitimate Journalistic offerings is a ludicrous assertion by any stretch of the imagination.

Sir, there is an old saying:

"Consider the source."

Fortunately, there are a handful of true journalists who still carry the "torch" - and likewise - make every bold-faced effort to shed light in dark corners in a courageous pursuit of the truth.

Gee - maybe that's why we have Awards for outstanding accomplishment in Journalism - do 'ya figure?

Yes, to honor those who exemplify the epitome of standards and ethics in Journalism.

Citizens in the land of the alleged "free" should take every precaution to preserve - what to a handful - may appear to be a lofty ideal fading into oblivion.

Henry Anatole Grunwald once said:

"Journalism can never be silent: that is its greatest virtue and its greatest fault."

Las Vegas...Review-Journal to raise newstand cost. Not worth paper printed on!

As I strolled in to the local grocer to snap up a steaming cup of hot java and the morning paper, the clerk informed that the cost of the Review-Journal was going up to seventy-five cents on July 1st.

Well, what is my savvy consumer response to that?

As Samuel Goldwyn once quipped,

"You can count me out!"

Nope, I won't be gleaning the news that's not fit to print, anymore.

No loss.

After all, recently I became frustrated with the daily for a couple of reasons.

The - um - journalists, for starters.

A few days ago one of their columnists - Doug Elfman - chose to take a swipe at pin-up gal - Pamela Anderson - on a very shaky premise which was a big turn off.

Notwithstanding, that kind of tabloid-style piffle should be left to the gossip mongers, not to a writer employed at what has been hailed as a reputable newspaper in Las Vegas.

In addition, I have found that their reporters go on ad nauseam about this 'n that, much to their detriment. Obviously, the Journal has a lot of excess space each edition - otherwise - why would the editors let these bozos expound on such fluff?

When I wrote for a major daily years ago, my editor gave me a great piece of advice: get to the point. I adhere to the principle to this day.

I was also shocked this past week at the arrogance of one of their reporters - Benjamin Spillman - who claims to toil in the business section of the paper.

He had the audacity to zip off an e-mail to me in response to a post I wrote a few days ago - assuming that because I chose not to mention a tidbit in the feature - that somehow my report was off. On the contrary.

His assumption that I was not familiar with a particular fact was way off-base too.

Not only was I aware of the item, but I chose not to include it in the feature, because the mainstream media had been all over the item like flies over sh**. More importantly, the tidbit was so old, it was turning grey with age.

I always endeavour to report on news that is current and fresh and of interest to my readers. Unlike reporters at the Review-Journal who rely on old archives to whip up a story, I am actually in-the-trenches getting the scoops. And, more often-that-not, get my news flashes to copy for my readership well ahead of the "competition".

Notwithstanding, it should be noted that a Managing Editor (with a reputable publication) posted a comment on one of a number of web sites my blog is fed to, and applauded me for a story - he asserted - was the best report on the subject he'd read in fifteen years.

Benjamin, you're out of your league.

Now, go scrape the egg off your face.

Mayhill Fowler..sniping senior snares Bill Clinton. Nasty stuff!

The LA TIMES hailed Mayhill Flower - an over-the-hill self-proclaimed writer cum sh** disturber - as an outright "media revolution" in the morning paper.


In the tabloid-style piece, James Rainey argued that the so-called roving web "journalist" (I use the term very loosely) had a big one up on pundits and newsies like Tim Russert, Katie Couric and Larry King in recent days because she allegedly won the contest for nabbing the most provocative presidential quotes to date.

Bullsh**!

One of the quotes Mr. Rainey was referring to was an eyebrow raising comment uttered by Clinton - which she caught on video - in response to a question about the upcoming Vanity Fair article in which Todd Purdum disparaged the former president.

When you read the article - and are made privy to the machinations of Ms. Fowler leading up to the event - then it's quite obvious to any fifth-grader that the back-stabbing bottle-blond is "no journalist". In fact, she's not even a cut above an ambulance-chasing attorney, a private dick hiding outside Motels scrambling for the dicey goods on cheating husbands, or even the handful of tabloid writers who invent scintillating tidbits to titillate the nation at supermarket stands each week.

With a bit of gleeful cluck, Ms. Fowler attributed the big "scoop" to persistence, serendipity and the flouting of old rules of mainstream journalism.

Forget about the serendipity, there was nothing the least bit magical about the moment.

As to the flouting and persistence - yup - the two culminated in sleaze-ball conduct that ranks her right up there with the Nixon-era gang who "rat-fu**ed enemies of "dirty dick".

In contrast, she proudly boasts about her own slimy maneuverings.

"Of course, he had no idea I was a journalist," she chirped on the telephone to the reporter who was all ears. (I had no idea either)

"He just thought we were all average ordinary Americans who had come out to see him. And, of course, in one sense, that is what I am."

Whoa, Nellie!

You call an ambushing smut-chaser an average ordinary American?

Not content to let Clinton just twist in the wind in the aftermath she was inclined to stir up the intrigue a bit.

With dime-store-novel flair she confessed to the reporter that originally she intended to slip Bill her business card (Yeah, guess she figured he goes for older tail, too) with the hope of landing an - um - interview.

Darn it all - during a hot flash or something - she dropped the little name plate on the crowded rally floor - so what was Nancy Drew to do?

"I managed a handshake, but my mind went blank," she wistfully recalled of the moment that brought the moth close to flame.

"I missed my moment," she ruefully recalled to Rainey.

Yeah, at that juncture, she must have been just about p**ing her pants.

But, as fate would have it (Rainey himself was quick on the uptake and managed to piece the end scenario together on the fly) "...ever the ebullient retail politician, (Bill) reached out a second time."

Eureka! The Gods were smiling down on her, no doubt!

Now the female primal call for self-preservation was thrown into high gear as she scrambled for a scratch - an itty-bitty scrap of something - to snatch her back from the jaws of oblivion.

Yes - the Vanity Fair accusations that Bill dirtied his legacy by running with unsavory friends and business associates - would do the trick.

The hungry tigress leapt towards her prey.

"Mr. President, what do you think about the hatchet job somebody did on you in Vanity Fair?"

Ironic, in view of the fact she was just about to heave-ho the old axe herself into Bill's back.

When he responded with his infamous comments - "slimy, dishonest" - she videotaped it knowing full-well what she intended to do with the footage as she innocently gazed intently into his eyes.

She's a real piece of work, eh?

Ms. Fowler, sorry to burst your bubble, but -

You're supposed to be reporting the news, not creating it, fool!

No wonder celebrities, politicians and other luminaries in the public eye are wary of the media.

In sum, the premeditated efforts by scumbags like Fowler to launch an assault to assassinate character, underscore that she - and others like her - are nothing short of stalkers and slashers out for a merciless kill.

You're not a journalist, Ms. Fowler, you're a menace to the community at large.

It must be an ugly sight when you look at yourself in the mirror in the morning.

As to the LA TIMES?

Well, they should be ashamed for glorifying such disreputable unethical conduct.

No wonder the daily has lost its luster in recent days.

But, it makes a great liner for the kitty litter box.

Meow!

Bill is irresistible, after all...