S03.E18: 2016 Republican National Convention

[HawaiiTVGuy]

23 hours ago, Victor the Crab said:

Just when I thought Newt Gingrich couldn't be more loathsome, he says shit about how feelings are more important than facts when it comes to governing. If that were me in the journalist's chair, I would have called him and his ilk lying saboteurs right in his puffy face. Or taken a battle axe to it, whichever.

I always thought those two songs best described how voter dissatisfaction with President Obama four years best described the former song, while Mitt Romney was the latter song. Of course, now you can replace them with Clinton and Drumph respectively and get the same results.

The interesting thing is he was there as an "impartial" analyst and stated that the candidates will appeal to emotional points, and not factual points, he actually has a point, unfortunately many people tend to vote with their emotions.  However, the fact he is obviously on one side and trying to justify lying about the state of the country in order to garner votes is the icky part.  This type of attitude reminds me of the Trump supporters who came from Michigan to Cleveland to be "counter-protesters".  Complete political neophytes, had never voted or had an interest in politics, then they saw Trump, and admitted not knowing who he was before seeing him for the campaign.  And now all of a sudden "he can create jobs" and "he has the Midas touch" is being spewed out of their mouths without any irony.

[theatremouse]

Yeah, Newt was making a reasonable point, but for the wrong reason, or perhaps, in the wrong context. For example, lately, when certain politicians bullshit and say they're not being politically correct, what they really mean is they're going to say racist things and think they shouldn't be criticized for it.

An actual example of just not bothering to be politically correct (in a sincere way) would be if Newt's point were that strategically, it works to play to people's emotions rather than relying on facts. That's true. It's manipulative, but it works. That's a valid statement. However he seemed to have been drinking his own kool-aid since he sounded like his point was less so "strategically, this works, so of course they're doing it, fuck off" as "emotions are indeed more valid than facts". I appreciated the interviewer pushing back, repeatedly (hell I think there should be live fact-checkers during debates so when someone says something patently false they get buzzed AGT style) but I also would not have minded if she took a different tack, when he seemed to be having none of her facts, if she'd called him out on it, not just pointing out how untrue his statements were, but maybe turning it around and saying "so the point is to be disingenuous, fear mongering, manipulative bastards?"

Edited July 29, 2016 by theatremouse

[OneWhoLurks]

Quote

 

With respect to whether or not politicians can use artists’ music: Briefly, if these artists are the songwriters and have affiliated with a Performance Rights Organization (PRO), like ASCAP, SESAC, or BMI, and the venues in which these events are taking place have purchased a blanket license to publicly perform the songs that are in the catalogs of these organizations, these candidates are within their rights to do so.

While in most other countries creators of works can rely on “Moral Rights,” the United States does not recognize this concept. This concept of Moral Rights is succinctly summed up by Betsy Rosenblatt from Harvard Law School:

…the ability of authors to control the eventual fate of their works. An author is said to have the “moral right” to control her work. The concept of moral rights thus relies on the connection between an author and her creation. Moral rights protect the personal and reputational, rather than purely monetary, value of a work to its creator.

 

Quote

 

Thus, there is currently no practical legal mechanism for artists to avail themselves of in order to stop the unwanted use of their work. The problem, however, is less a legal one, and more a systems problem.

The reason, for instance, that Queen doesn’t just withdraw their music from the PRO with whom they are affiliated, and thereby force candidates and/or venues to directly license their work, is because this would also preclude them from collecting the massive amounts of money their songs generate via usages that one assumes they are OK with.

Undoubtedly, the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, where the RNC Convention took place, has blanket licenses with the PROs in place. And, certainly at some point after the RNC Convention ended, some other event took place in this arena – perhaps a sporting event – during which songs like “We Are the Champions” and/or “We Will Rock You” were played (because one or both of those songs are always played at a sporting event), and the members of Queen who wrote those songs would eventually receive compensation for the public performance of those songs via a percentage of the blanket license fees collected and distributed by their PRO (this, of course, also means they will eventually receive payment for Trump’s usage).

 

Quote

 

Certainly, music being played at arenas – particularly pre-recorded music – could easily be measured, rather than still being modeled. For example, a Shazam-like listening device could be deployed to capture which songs are being played in real time.

In this manner, artists would know precisely when and in what context their music is being used. This would not only allow for artists to have better information, but for venues too to be able to have a better sense of the precise cost related to their music use.

In other words, currently venues must pay a blanket license fee that allows them to publicly perform anything in the PROs’ catalogs. Of course, they play only a fraction of the songs in the catalog, even though they’re paying for the right to play everything. But, if, instead, they could simply choose the precise songs they want to play, they could do a cost/benefit analysis, and pay for the songs they perceive as creating value, and not pay for the ones they don’t desire to use.

 

From Modeling To Measuring: A Blockchain Solution For Music At Political Events

[Tara Ariano]

In case you missed it, here's the Previously.TV post on the episode!

Watch Last Week Tonight's Supergroup Sing A Song Forbidding Politicians' Unauthorized Use Of Their Songs

And a sideburn for Spotify!

[OneWhoLurks]

Quote

 

On his program this week, HBO comedy show host John Oliver mocked my suggestion, in defense of Donald Trump, that crime is on the rise.

Oliver said I prioritized feelings over facts in arguing that America is becoming less safe. He focused on a CNN interview in which the host insisted that crime is declining, and claimed that the American people’s concerns about safety run contrary to fact.

Setting aside the irony of CNN complaining that anyone would sensationalize crime, the host was wrong. In fact, crime is rising in America, even if the left doesn’t want to admit it.

 

Quote

 

The executions of police officers in the streets, the clear and growing terror threat, and the increasing crime rates in our cities are real phenomena. And despite smug laugh lines from the likes of John Oliver, the American people are reasonably concerned. A recent Gallup poll found that the number of Americans who worry about crime “a great deal” is higher than at any time since 2001.

Given the world around us, Donald Trump’s call for a return to “law and order” is not foolish. It is supported by both the facts and the feelings of millions of Americans.

To mock these feelings may amuse those who are comfortable and safe watching cable television in wealthy neighborhoods. But it is an insult to the innocent citizens and law enforcement officers being killed, and to the millions of other Americans who fear for their families’ safety.

 

Newt Gingrich: HBO's John Oliver laughs about crime while innocent Americans get killed

[Jersey Guy 87]

No reason to give Newt the benefit of the doubt.  He was not promoting the idea that playing to feelings is effective in campaigning, he's promoting the idea that because he feels crime is rising it is regardless of what the facts are.  He dismisses the actual data because what he feels in his heart is a better reflection of reality.  He has embraced the Trumpiness.

[lucindabelle]

On July 24, 2016 at 11:48 PM, Totale said:

That ending song would have been more fun if I had more of a clue who the performers were.  I recognized Cyndi Lauper and Heart, the others were a mystery to me.

Subtitles would have been nice.

On July 26, 2016 at 6:31 AM, TVcritic said:

Come to think of it: remember that old woman during a McCain campaign who called Obama a Muslim? McCain told her "He's not a Muslim. He's a decent man."

Racism is still heavily engrained even in some of the supposedly 'moderate' Republicans.

But overall it was a nice moment- a woman was spouting conspiracy theory (she actually said arab not Muslim) and he took the mic away from her and said no ma'am no ma'am hes a decent family man.

 

compare and contrast Donald with "there's something going on."

 

Edited August 1, 2016 by lucindabelle

[b2H]

If you have it on tape or can find the episode on YouTube, they do list out who participated in the song.

[ganesh]

On 7/29/2016 at 7:43 AM, Jersey Guy 87 said:

He has embraced the Trumpiness.

I'm assuming he's got a spot in the cabinet if he plays along for the election.

[simplyme]

On 7/27/2016 at 11:17 PM, theatremouse said:

For example, lately, when certain politicians bullshit and say they're not being politically correct, what they really mean is they're going to say racist things and think they shouldn't be criticized for it.

Another pet peeve of mine is related to this, at least in my mind. If someone says something particularly stupid or offensive (for example, a public facebook post or a tweet) and gets fired from their job at a private company, some people start talking about how the person's free speech was violated. Um, no. The first amendment protects a person's right to criticize the government, and it protects them from the government curtailing their free speech. If they are harassing an individual, libeling someone, making the company they work for look bad, etc. then there are often repercussions. Companies firing someone for giving them a bad name is not a violation of free speech. Certain people's inability to understand this drives me up a wall.

Regarding the 24/7 news making people paranoid, that's true. I would also argue that e-mails and copy & paste facebook posts pushing an outlook an agenda similar to Fox News have become very pervasive within the last 8-10 years. They certainly existed before then, but they're practically a freaking cottage industry now. (Other viewpoints also have their emails/posts, but I only see them occasionally.)

[OneWhoLurks]

Quote

In the case of Queen vs. the RNC, it turns out that Queen can rightfully proclaim, “We are the champions.” Plus, we may see more changes coming forward that allow songwriters more control over how their music is used.

Quote

 

After Queen’s complaint, its PRO, BMI, decided to utilize its Political Entities license clause. “As a way to protect our affiliates, the BMI Political Entities license has a provision that permits BMI to exclude any musical work from the license at the request of a BMI songwriter or publisher,” says BMI’s SVP of licensing Mike Steinberg. “Once the songwriter or publisher voices an objection to BMI, we alert the campaign that we have removed the song from the license.”

Last week, BMI sent letters to the Trump campaign and to the RNC, detailing Queen’s objections and asked them to sign its Political Entities license. By doing so, they acknowledge that Queen’s music is no longer part of BMI’s blanket license and the campaign can no longer use it.

 

Quote

Furthermore, Steinberg tells FORBES that the PRO is going to look how it can invoke the license down the road, even though, at this point, songwriters aren’t able to “opt out” of a specific license type preemptively. “The current sensitivities surrounding the Political Entities license ensure we are going to be looking at this more closely in advance of the next election cycle to determine if such a mechanism would be feasible and permissible within the constraints of our consent decree,” he says.

Updated: Queen Is The Champion Over Donald Trump And The RNC (Sort Of)