An alleged Liberal domination of the media has been a core belief of many Conservatives for decades.  Indeed, it is one of the main principles of Ann Coulter's conspiracy theory that goes so far as to classify all Liberals as traitors.  ("Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant.")

In my own limited experience,  I have not seen this media dominance. If anything, there are more Conservative media darlings right now, and I get Conservative viewpoints thrust at me from multiple directions at a rate that overwhelms anything that might be classified as Liberal.

I use Facebook mainly to collect information and political opinion.  I will "friend" or become a "fan" of virtually anyone or anything that will make me a more informed citizen.  I do have some standards in this regard, however.  Readers of this site might be surprised to learn that I have declined to join the "MI for Removing Republican Hon. Robert Young from the Mich. Sup. Court" group on Facebook, though I have been invited.  I am not a fan of Justice Robert Young of the Michigan Supreme Court (Google lists 86 references to him on this site), but this group trivializes the seriousness of the issues involved.  "Superficial Reason No. 1 for getting rid of Robert Young: When was the last time you met a man who regularly wears bow-ties that could relate to the plight of the common man? Answer: Never."  I don't think Justice Young is losing any sleep or donating his bow ties to Goodwill based on that.  (By the way, it doesn't help when the group's creator has a profile picture that shows him raising a martini glass to his lips.)  Heaven protect us from those who profess to be our friends.  By the way, I do have an answer to that question:  The late Judge William Leo Cahalan, Wayne County Circuit Court, so there.

But I digress.  On Facebook, Conservative posts outnumber Liberal posts 10-1.  That is a "conservative" estimate. LOL, as they say on Facebook.  Saul Azunis, the Republican Party, Conservative candidates for public office, the Federalist Society, etc. virtually drown the Facebook service with their various opinions.  On the other hand, the tide of Liberal posts is scarcely sufficient to get one's ankles wet.

While noting the huge discrepancy on Facebook, i didn't  really think much of it.  However, reading a recent article that listed the Conservatives that most influenced American Politics.  There was a similar list of Liberals.

The top 7 Conservatives:

1. Dick Cheney-former VP
2. Rush Limbaugh-radio talk show host
3. Matt Drudge-internet site owner, the Drudge Report
4. Sarah Palin-former VP candidate and current Fox News something or other
5. Robert Gates-US Defense Secretary
6. Glenn Beck-TV talk show host
7. Roger Ailes-President Fox News Channel

Some scary names there.  But, note, the number of media types included.  Only two, Cheney and Gates, are not currently in the media business.

On the Liberal side:

1. Barack Obama-President
2. Hilary Clinton-Secretary of State
3. Nancy Pelosi-Speaker of the House
4. Bill Clinton-Former US President
5. Rahm Emanuel-President's Chief of Staff
6. Al Gore-Former VP-
7. Oprah Winfrey-TV talk show host

Only one media type on this list. 

One might argue that certainly an incumbent Democratic administration would vault its Liberal officeholders into the "most influential" list.  I considered that.  However, two of the top seven Liberals are former, not current officeholders.  And Former President George Bush was listed number 12 on the list of Conservatives, which was up from 21 when the list was last compiled in 2007, when Mr. Bush was President.

So, I am not persuaded by the Liberal media bias theory, past or present, and certainly not future.  In the recent US Supreme Court case of Citizens United v Federal Election Commission will fundamentally alter the media landscape.  In that case the Supreme Court found that corporations should not be restricted from spending unlimited amounts on political commercials because to limit that spending would violate the First Amendment.  Maybe it won't be too long before the we have the US Chamber of Commerce News Channel.  With Ann Coulter as President?

My clock radio is set to wake us up to WWJ Newsradio 95 every morning.  This does not tempt us to fall back asleep.  Not a lot of fluff and feel good stories at 5:30am.  This was especially the case on Thursday, January 28, when I heard that Geoffrey Fieger was considering a run for Governor of the State of Michigan.  There were a few sound bites from Geoff in which he trivialized every Republican candidate.  It appears that hyperbole is not just for tort reformers.

I have never been a big fan of Mr. Fieger's.  I am sure my opinion, if he learned of it, and if he even knew who I am, would cost Geoff no sleep at night. 

Frankly the theme of this post was to be Geoff's potential as a candidate for Governor.  Unfortunately, I could not locate those WWJ sound bites again, and I couldn't find anything on the story during a short tour of the internet.  However, I did find Geoff Fieger's blog, FiegerTime.  I was prepared to hate it.  Blogs are the perfect medium for ill-informed rants (present blog excepted, of course).  What better vehicle for Geoff Fieger.

However, the blog is not bad.  I think he writes it himself: "....corporations have gotten pro-business judges elected in numerous States".  (have gotten?  not the greatest wording, but a nice, common touch).  I find a I agree with a lot of what Mr. Fieger says, for instance:

"I don’t care if we elect a Republican or a Democrat so long as they are not insane. By that, I mean insane as defined by doing the same things and expecting different results. The next Governor of Michigan will have to be Roosevelt (Teddy AND Franklin) – someone who can break up the corporate stranglehold on government and really represent the interests of working families."

Now, that I like.   And, Geoff's bio lists his favorite quote, which sounds like the battle cry of tort reformers everywhere:

I'll list FiegerTime on my blogroll next time I update it.

"Good evening, Mr. and Mrs. America, from border to border and coast to coast, and all the ships at sea.  Let's go to press."--Walter Winchell

During 2010, I intend to jump into the podcasting business.  This will be an enterprise, I am sure, that will bring enlightenment and entertainment to, and a boatload of fan letters from, a rapt and adoring audience.  Or not.

Why would a man of my age--and charm, technical ineptitude--and charm, and inexperience--and charm, want to get involved in the broadcasting "game"?  Not sure.  I do have a great face for radio, to use an old joke.  Maybe I want to become a multi-media mogul like Rupert Murdoch.  Maybe because I have a rich, nasal baritone voice that could annoy an audience in a way that my writing cannot. 

Am I motivated by some element of vanity and ego?  Probably.  And irony.  I will love to see the look on my kids faces when I tell them I can be found in the ITunes library.

But I am anxious to try the "radio" approach.  Maybe, as a lawyer, I think I can reach a listening audience with a message (if any), in the way I try to reach a judge or jury through oral argument, opening or closing statement--a way that just doesn't come through in a brief.

Well, we'll see where this takes me.

And though this is contrary to many business models, this enterprise might benefit from some advance thinking and planning.

Here are a few things I'd like to think through as I begin.

There are a lot of podcasts.  Compared to real radio, podcasting is cheap and easy.  You don't have to buy airtime or sell advertising.  The technical requirements are modest and within the budget and understanding of most.  I have done my homework on the tech issue, by which I mean I read Podcasting for Dummies last month.  And, while I must admit I didn't quite get all the technical stuff, I can confidentially state that I have already forgotten most of the things I did understand.  I am sure trial and error will win through as it always has for me.

No one pays to listen to a podcast.   As a money making venture, a podcast has considerably less potential than a child's curbside lemonade stand--on a dead end street.  Unless you want to hustle to find advertisers, podcasts are pay as you go ventures.  They are free on ITunes for a reason.  That may be a reflection of the relative worth of most podcasts.  You are never tempted to play a podcast over and over, much less dance to one.  The very ease of making and uploading podcasts results in a wide variation in quality.  You can get CNN commentary and switch immediately to three high school kids with a garage band telling you what has been wrong with rock and roll music for the past forty years--generously laced with obscenities to let you know they mean business.

So, given these considerations, will I be able to make an interesting, high quality, instructive podcast about civil justice issues, especially, when:

Everybody hates lawyers.  Why is this?  People think lawyers are arrogant.  But they think doctors are arrogant.  People think lawyers make too much money.  But they think doctors make too much money.  People may not like doctors a whole lot, but they absolutely love them in comparison to how they feel about lawyers.

Again, why?  Well, the justice system is an adversarial one, and each side in every legal dispute has its own paid advocate.  Each party to case has an opposing goal.  On the other hand, doctors are all working together toward one goal, making the patient well.

While a lawyer will argue and fight passionately for his client, the public suspects that if that lawyer had been first approached by the opposition, he would fight just as passionately against his current client.  The public perceives that a lawyer's sense of justice depends solely on who is paying his bill.  A bit of a turn off when the public thinks you would, if paid, argue that the sun rises in the West.  (Well, I guess it depends what galaxy your spaceship is in at sunrise, doesn't it?  See what I mean.)

And worse yet, a lawyer doesn't work for his client using mysterious drugs, shiny instruments and big machines that go "beep"--like a doctor does.  All a lawyer uses are words and time.  Clients know how to talk.  Clients can look at a watch.   So, clients are a little testy at having to pay a lawyer to talk, read, charge for time to get the client what the client believes he should have been entitled to in the first place.  Without a lawyer.  By talking and reading and writing himself.  And without paying for it.   Add to this that the lawyer is going to tell the client that he can talk and write better than the client can. And, that he knows more than the client.  Arrogant bastards, those lawyers.

This may explain why there has never, in my recollection, been a successful sitcom about lawyers.  A little bit tough to create lovable, funny characters that tell jokes about other people's problems while charging them for attempting to solve them-whether successful or not:

Funny lawyer:  "Gee Doc, did you see the look on the jury's faces when the prosecutor showed that you billed Medicare for three MRI's performed on a day when every state east of the Mississippi was under a black-out.: (Laughs).  "Here is my bill.  I'd like it paid before your sentencing date."  (Huge laugh.)  True story, by the way. 

Funny Lawyer:  "Mr. Smith, we have finally found your uncle's original will, giving you all of his property." 

Client:  "Finally. We have been looking for it for two years."

Funny Lawyer:  "Yes, but unfortunately I left it in my briefcase which was in my car when it was stolen from the strip bar parking lot." (Laughs).  Also a true story.

So, in a world where the former head of the Michigan lawyer's oversight agency is now filing motions that the former Mayor of Detroit can only afford to pay restitution at the rate of $6 a month, a lawyer will have to work hard to cultivate a rapport with the listening audience.  That and to avoid the appearance of thinly veiled lawyer advertising.  We'll see how things work out.  I think the first piece of advice I'll give myself is to steer clear of using a clever pun to name my show, like say "Examine My Briefs".  Boy, I'd hate me already.  Oh, yeah, and I won't use "Send Lawyers, Guns and Money" as the theme song.  It isn't good to sound too clever.

"Good Night and Good Luck."
 

Very interesting promotional video for Detroit's WJR, made in 1966.  Much has changed since then, both for Detroit and for the station.  A very young J. P. McCarthy is no longer with us, for one.  The station has substantially changed its format.  Tiger broadcasts and Adventures in Good Music with Karl Haas has given way to the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Dr. Laura.  A wonderful mix of local programming, high brow stuff as well, has been replaced by garbage.

The piece was filmed in 1966. a year before the riots, and maybe promo was not really reflective of contemporary conditions in the Detroit area.  The auto companies are not thriving now as they did then, and many of the companies shown as WJR advertisers are now out of business.

All this aside, the film does show that there was much to treasure in Detroit in 1966.  Though much is different, we still have a lot to be thankful for.

Picking up from the previously posted, The Court Martial of Private Harry Speakup, I present this courtroom classic from the Marx Brothers film, Duck Soup.

"I suggest that we give him ten years in Leavenworth or eleven years in Twelveworth."

"I'll tell you what I do.  I'll take five and ten in Woolworth." (pronounced "Woolwoith".)

Sam Waterston, eat your heart out.

On Wednesday, December 30, 2009, John Minnis of the Detroit Legal News wrote a nice article about the upcoming Kaye Tertzag Tribute Dinner (details about the event here).  The article is entitled,"Kaye 'Chach' Tertzag, Purple Haze".  Here are a couple of quotes from the article:

The world of golf has the coveted green jacket. The world of Detroit jurisprudence now has the coveted purple jacket in honor of the late Kaye “Chach” Tertzag.

The well-liked retired Wayne County Circuit judge, who died Wednesday, Feb. 4, 2009, at the age of 70 after a short battle with bile-duct cancer, is remembered for many things — his judicial skills, his legal acumen, his warm love and respect for his fellow man and his purple sport coat. In fact, one of the judge’s last wishes is that he not be laid out in his purple sport coat so that it could be left for posterity.

And:

Daughter Kara, an attorney with Ford Motor Co., is flattered by the tribute being paid to her father.

“I am so touched that so many people have expressed such an interest in honoring my father,” she said. “I am looking forward to giving a toast, as I did at his memorial, of hope and happiness, despite the sense of loss and sorrow we all feel from losing my Dad.

“I love the law, as he did, and I love our community, as he did. I can only hope to do his name justice in the upcoming years, with both my legal career, and my service to the community.”

On January 7, 2010, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued its unpublished opinion in the case of Brown v Eastman Outdoors, Inc. No. 286844.

Mr. Brown slipped and fell on ice at Eastman's business.  He was making deliveries to Eastman at the time.  He injured his knee in the fall, but attempted to continue working anyway.  Ultimately he had to call another driver to finish his route.

Eastman did not, apparently, dispute the existence of ice at the door Mr. Brown used to make his deliveries.  But, as all good Michigan businesses do, it moved for Summary Disposition on Mr. Brown's negligence case, stating that the ice was open and obvious, and so, in spite of any negligence on the part of Eastman, any injury sustained by Mr. Brown was basically his own fault.  He is to blame for attempting to do his job, and not guaranteeing his own safety. 

But, Mr. Brown argued, even though he saw the ice before he fell, the ice was effectively unavoidable because he was told he had to make deliveries at the door where he sustained his accident.  There is indeed a small loophole in the Michigan open and obvious "doctrine" which may preclude dismissal of a case by a judge, if encountering the hazard was "effectively unavoidable".  Unfortunately, most Michigan defendant's get around this by having someone say that there was another door to the business.  Of course, the other door may be an employee's only entrance, or a trapdoor to access the roof, or may be 4 feet wide when the plaintiff is delivering equipment 5 feet wide.  But, generally the bare allegation of another opening in the business does the trick for defendants, and the hazard is held not be be unavoidable.  Case dismissed.  (By the way, it is interesting to note, that in snow and ice cases it is always held as a matter of law that these "alternative entrances" are clear, dry and hazard-free.  How can they know that?)

So it had held by the trial court in Mr. Brown's case. Eastman employees had testified that "plaintiff would have been entitled to make deliveries elsewhere".  The trial court held the hazard was not effectively unavoidable because of the option to deliver to another door.  Case dismissed.

The Court of Appeals looked at the case and said:  Wait a minute.  Plaintiff says he was required to make deliveries at this door.  Defendant says he wasn't.  Isn't that a factual question?  Who is right?  And who is to determine who is right?  And de terming who is right is very important to Mr. Brown's case.  The trial court, without seeing or listening to the witnesses determined, as a matter of law, that the Defendant was right.  Why must the Defendant be right--and right as a matter of law?

Well, in the olden days, in premises liability cases, such issues were decided by juries who listened to all the evidence and made findings on disputed factual issues.  That is there job.  It is not the job of a judge.  This doctrine of Michigan Law is older than the judicially created Open and Obvious "doctrine".

The dismissal of Mr. Brown's case was reversed, and the case will be returned to the trial court for a trial by jury.  At that time, Mr. Brown might win, and he might lose.  However, the mere possibility that a jury might allow Mr. Brown to prevail is a possibility tort reformers want to eliminate.  They want to take that uncertainty out of the corporate profit calculation.

Thanks to Judges Servitto, Fort Hood and Stephens.  They got this one right.  It is but a small step, but welcome nonetheless.

I found this clip whilst cruising around the internet.  It was produced in 1917 by the Detroit News for movie audiences of the day.  Remember, boys and girls, there was no CGI in the movies then, no color, no sound even.  So, Pixar Nation, YouTube Nation, MTV Nation and Twitter Nation may not be able to stay with this piece for its entire seven minutes, but, in my opinion, this is well worth the effort.

I searched, in vain, for landmarks I could recognize some 93 years later.  But I was especially interested in the way the Detroit Police handled speeders (beginning at :50).  The motorcycle cop, clocking the malefactor at a dizzying speed of somewhere between 40-45 mph, leaps from his motorcycle onto the vehicles running board.  The motorcycle goes off on its own and comes to a rest on its side at a nearby curb.  The  officer puts his whole upper body through the cars open window, and somehow manages to get the speeder to the side of the road.  Thankfully, police chase policies have  changed a bit since then.

Speeding was no simple Civil Infraction in 1017.  Offenders are sentenced to labor on the House of Correction "farm", and they are shown moving little bits of sand from one pile to another.  Not exactly something out of "I am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang" (Paul Muni, 1932).  They are then summoned by bugle to "chow".

I am not sure whether this part of the newsreel was designed to show the efficiency of modern police procedures, or the price paid for violating the law.  Not sure it succeeded on either count.

The Michigan State Trap Shooting competition is shown beginning at 6:30.  The clay pigeons are launched mechanically by a machine operated a human being.  This unfortunate is stationed behind a thin plywood shield placed directly in the line of fire! 

Ah, nostalgia.  It ain't what it used to be.