Barbara J. King of the College of William and Mary bizarrely asserted that a "person's sex can be socially constructed" in a Thursday item for NPR.org's "13.7" blog. King used the rare phenomenon of hermaphroditism to justify Chastity Bono's "transformation" to become "Chaz" Bono, and lamented that the "the case of Chaz Bono tells us that enormous unease still exists in our society when individuals celebrate, rather than hide, that transformation."

The biological anthropologist started her piece, "Sex, Gender And Dancing With Chaz Bono," by going so far to refute the standard left-leaning view on sexuality: "A person's sex is unambiguous. As a result of biology, we're born either male or female. A person's gender, by contrast, is a matter of social construction. If we're born female, we may choose to act in ways considered in our society to be masculine — or vice versa. This dichotomy between sex and gender is often asserted as fact, and may seem like common sense. But it's flat wrong. A person's sex can be socially constructed."

King then cited how "intersexuals (once referred to as "hermaphrodites") born in the U.S. during the 1950s provide a striking example…babies born at that time with some mix of male and female sex organs were routinely altered by surgery within a day or two of their birth." She continued by claiming, "The practice of early, urgent, and secret surgical sex assignment in cases of intersexuality is no longer popular among physicians in this country. But sex is still socially constructed when people born male choose as adults to become female, or those born female choose to become male."

After bemoaning the "enormous unease" in the case of Ms. Bono, particularly since she is appearing on the popular "Dancing With the Stars" program, the NPR guest contributor specified that "a diehard fan of the show [Dancing With the Stars], declared that she wouldn't watch it until 'she' (Chaz) was kicked off. Chaz's transformation from Chastity upset her greatly, and she's not alone. The psychiatrist Keith Ablow has warned parents not to allow their children to watch Chaz, for fear that their developing, and thus vulnerable, gender identity might be disrupted." King then added her two cents: "For the record, no evidence exists to suggest that watching a transsexual dance on television causes children any harm."

[Keeping the liberal media in check is hard work. Support NewsBusters by helping us reach our $5,000 fundraising goal. We have $1,400 left to go! To show our appreciation, we'll send you fun items like "I Don't Believe the Liberal Media" buttons and bumber stickers, or a Chris Matthews floormat. Donate now.]

The writer ended with a defense of transsexualism: "The primary issue is of course people, not terminology: People like Chaz Bono, who have a right to transcend biology and to become, physically and emotionally, the sex they know themselves to be. And the rest of us too, who react to Chaz Bono's dancing presence. We can transcend an evolved tendency to think in fixed binaries, and arrive together at an acceptance of constructed sex as well as of constructed gender."
 

Back in June 2011, NPR's Linton Weeks trumpeted several other extreme proponents of eliminating gender differences and hinted at support for this cause: "In a country with the ideal of treating everyone fairly and equitably, do we really need to know if someone is a boy or a girl?" Weeks also claimed that this was just part of the normal progression of society: "As history shows, one enterprise in which Americans excel is the breaking down of divisions."

President Moment-The-Planet-Began-To-Heal: just a regular guy! Let's get the weekend off to a smiling start with this rib-tickler, courtesy Joe Biden.  In a fundraising email I just received from the Obama campaign website [of whose email list of course I'm a proud member], good old Joe claimed, with a straight cyber-face:

"This has never been about Barack and me. We're just two guys."

More after the jump.

R-i-i-i-g-h-t.  Barack Obama, the man who never makes it about himself.  The regular guy who famously said [YouTube] on the night he wrapped up the nomination:

"I am absolutely certain that generations from now we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs for the jobless.  This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." 

Note: the Obama campaign can of course send out messages over the signature of any of its players.  Not surprising that they chose to employ Biden, with his carefully-cultivated image as a regular guy, for this one.  Had it gone out in The One's name, he would have been laughed off the Ethernet!

In an outrageous rant during his 3 p.m. ET hour show on MSNBC on Friday, host Martin Bashir actually attempted to blame budget cutting by Republican lawmakers for a deadly outbreak of listeria in cantaloupe: "John Boehner and his Republican majority decided to gut the food safety and inspection service….Cut, cut, cut. Now the results are in. 16 people have lost their lives."

Bashir went on to blame free market principles in general for the outbreak: "Republicans in Congress talk proudly of their commitment of laissez-faire economics, where government gets out of the way and everything works perfectly. You try telling that to those who ate melon with a side of listeria."

View video after the jump

At the same time, Bashir portrayed President Obama as the would-be hero of the story, foiled by the villainous GOP: "Earlier this year, he signed the Food Safety Modernization Act into law….he actually tried to do something….But guess what actually happened? The proposal died on the vine."

[Keeping the liberal media in check is hard work. Support NewsBusters by helping us reach our $5,000 fundraising goal. We have $1,500 left to go! To show our appreciation, we'll send you fun items like "I Don't Believe the Liberal Media" buttons and bumber stickers, or a Chris Matthews floormat. Donate now.]

Here is a full transcript of the September 30 segment:

3:23PM ET

MARTIN BASHIR: Federal authorities now say that 16 people have died after eating cantaloupe infected with listeria. Among them, William Beach from Mustang, Oklahoma, seen here, who died at the age of 87. His wife found him collapsed on the living room floor struggling to breathe. At least 72 others have been sickened and authorities say those numbers, sadly, are expected to rise.

And while the source of the outbreak has been identified, that doesn't resolve the root cause of the problem. For far too many years the safety of food in this country has been the subject of conjecture and each outbreak of E-coli or salmonella is always followed by cries for tougher safety standards. And the President heard those cries. Earlier this year, he signed the Food Safety Modernization Act into law, bringing about the largest change to this nation's food safety laws since the 1930s. Yes, he actually tried to do something about it. The President also called for an additional $120 million in funding in order to employ more inspectors so that cantaloupe for brunch would not mean admission to hospital by lunch.

But guess what actually happened? The proposal died on the vine. Worse still, John Boehner and his Republican majority decided to gut the FDA's food safety and inspection service. First, slashing $87 million from its budget and then another $35 million from the USDA for good measure. Cut, cut, cut. And now the results are in. 16 people have lost their lives. Close to 100 are sick.

Republicans in Congress talk proudly of their commitment of laissez-faire economics, where government gets out of the way and everything works perfectly. You try telling that to those who ate melon with a side of listeria.

Throughout the weekend, you can get the latest from the show on Twitter at Twitter.com/BashirLive and Facebook at Facebook.com/Martin Bashir. Don't bother reaching for the stars. When we come back, the other programs Republicans want to cut.

The Canadian news magazine Macleans is not a conservative publication. It actually published a cover in 2007  of “How Bush Became The New Saddam.” It published several gooey pro-Obama covers with titles like “On the Road with Obama Superstar.” So it had to turn heads in Canada to see the cover story “The End Of Obama?”

Macleans writer Luiza Savage had a striking first sentence: “Two and a half years into Barack Obama’s presidency, Obamamania has given way to Obamamisery.”

Fourteen million Americans are out of work. The unemployment rate remains stuck above nine per cent. The net number of new jobs created last month was exactly zero. And nearly one in six Americans live in poverty—the most in 27 years.

Sure, the former Illinois senator was dealt a raw hand—elected in the midst of an economic crisis and two long, costly wars, at the burst of a credit and real estate bubble that would take years to unwind. In his inaugural address, the new President acknowledged “a nagging fear that America’s decline is inevitable.” But Obama had promised to be the man of hope and change. “Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America,” he told the millions people who had travelled from around the country and the globe to witness him take office and end the era of George W. Bush.

In January 2009, the unemployment rate was 6.9 per cent and Obama’s approval ratings were over 60 per cent. The question that framed his presidency was whether he would lead the country out of crisis the way Franklin Delano Roosevelt led the country out of the Great Depression, or whether he would become the next Jimmy Carter—a weak, one-term president done in by economic malaise and failures abroad.

This week the Congressional Budget Office revised down its projections of U.S. economic growth. It expects an anemic rate of 1.5 per cent in 2011 and 2.5 per cent in 2012. The U.S. unemployment rate will remain close to nine per cent through the end of 2012, the CBO predicted—a number that could spell political defeat for Obama in the next presidential election.

Some Democrats now worry he is turning out more Carter than FDR. “I’ve just done six town hall meetings. People are shaking their heads and saying ‘I don’t know if I’d vote for him again,’ ” Peter DeFazio, a Democratic congressman from Oregon, told his local TV station after spending the summer recess consulting constituents. “One guy asked me, ‘Give me 25 words what he’s about and what he’s done for me.’ I’m like, ‘It could have been worse.’ ”

She also quoted Sen. Joe Lieberman calling the election a “toss-up.” Then came a review of Obama's recent fighting-Barry speeches:

The economic anxiety among Americans is palpable. Polls show that only 17 per cent of Americans are satisfied with the economy, and after 2½ years in office, even Obama’s own aides concede that he now “owns” it. But after months of Democrats complaining that Obama has looked weak and bullied by Republicans in the debt battles, a different President appeared on the scene on Sept. 8. In front of a national television audience, Obama transformed himself from the wooden, professorial president into an energized leader with new-found focus. In a fiery speech to a joint session of Congress, he laid out a new job creation plan – and called on Congress to pass it immediately….Gleeful Democrats said the hitherto laconic President sounded like he’d finally had a cup of coffee.

Pollster Michael Dimock of the Pew Center for the People and the Press is brought on to curtail the pessimism:

Obama’s approval rating has been more resilient than George H. W. Bush’s during the recession of the early 1990s, says Dimock. “His approval is exceeding other economic and satisfaction metrics by a substantial margin. The only other president who enjoyed that was Clinton,” he says. And surveys of partisan affiliation suggest that Republicans have not made great inroads. The percentage of Americans identifying as Democrats peaked in 2008 with Obama’s election and has been falling ever since—but Republican identification has not been growing. “What you have is a growing share of voters that are disaffected with both parties. It makes making predictions about 2012 tricky,” notes Dimock.

The Macleans article concluded that Obama cannot save himself, but must be saved by other players:

Whatever Congress does with his jobs plan, though, the fate of Obama’s re-election may ultimately depend on factors beyond the control of any elected officials in the United States. Will Federal Reserve Board chairman Ben Bernanke overcome concerns about inflation and juice the American economy by increasing the money supply at the board’s next meeting on Sept. 21? Will German Chancellor Angela Merkel stem the European debt crisis that could potentially push the U.S. over the economic precipice? In the end, the question may be less whether Obama can save himself, but whether others such as Bernanke and Merkel can save Obama.

The Obama administration's crony green subsidy scandal is erupting like a solar flare in Washington. But do you know what your kids are learning in their environmental education classes about this red-hot taxpayer eco-scam? Chances are: not much.

Instead, the U.S. Department of Energy and the Democratic apparatchiks at the National Education Association are disseminating solar power propaganda masquerading as math and science curricula.

Titled "Solar Power and Me: The Inherent Advantages," the lesson plan for middle-school and high-school students directs them to "take note of how solar energy is incorporated into the infrastructure of various cities nationwide and write a short essay about how they would encourage solar energy use in their own town."

A worksheet labeled "All About Solar!" makes the blanket assertion that solar technologies are "a sound economical choice as they can reduce or eliminate exposure to rising electricity rates, or even eliminate one's need to pay an electrical bill! In addition, solar panels can be a smart long-term investment, with many solar vendors offering 20-30 year warranties on their products."

The only warranties worth anything from bankrupt, half-billion-dollar solar company Solyndra Inc. are the warranties on the Disney whistling robots and saunas that adorned its Taj Mahal headquarters. But I digress.

Another worksheet cheerleads the "financial savings" of "solar power and me" and coaches students to "imagine you live in amazing and sunny Anaheim, CA, where the combination of local and federal rebates covers 74 percent of your total cost of a solar panel system!" The exercise then entices the student to take out a 20-year loan on a new solar panel system to produce even greater illusory savings.

Yet another question-and-answer key reads: "How would switching to solar energy affect energy use at your home and school?" Answer: "In general, switching to solar energy would lower your home's electrical costs and reduce your emissions, thus saving money and improving the environment."

But as Brian McGraw of the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute points out: "There might be a small niche market, but solar energy is still largely incapable of producing reliable electricity at rates that are even in the ballpark of cost competitiveness compared to coal or natural gas." Energy Secretary Steven Chu, the force behind billions of dollars' worth of rushed green energy loans overseen by deep-pocketed Obama bundlers, himself acknowledged that solar tech will need to improve five-fold before it even begins to have a cost-competitive shot.

After examining decades' worth of failed subsidized solar efforts at home and around the world, the Institute for Energy Research concludes: "Although stand-alone solar power has a certain free-market niche and does not need government favor, using solar power for grid electricity has been and will be an economic loser for ratepayers and a burden to taxpayers."

The DOE/NEA curriculum encourages students to pressure politicians to pour more money into supposedly underfunded green energy schemes.

But the House Budget Committee reported last week: "The president's stimulus law alone included tens of billions in new government subsidies for politically favored renewable-energy interests: $6 billion in loan guarantees for renewable energy investments; $17 billion for the Department of Energy's energy efficiency and renewable energy programs; $2 billion for energy-efficient battery manufacturing; and billions more on other 'clean-energy' programs for a total of $80 billion. Two years later, the president's promise of millions of jobs stands in stark contrast with reality."

A more useful homework assignment would be to have these future taxpayers calculate how much their moms and dads are spending to prop up Obama's green jobs industry and its elite Democratic campaign finance donors/investors. The White House projected 65,000 new jobs from nearly $40 billion in green job stimulus spending. Instead, fewer than 3,600 jobs were created. Get out your calculators, kids: That's $4.85 million per job. Investor's Business Daily crunches the numbers further on the taxpayers' return on its DOE green loan guarantee "investments" and finds that the program will cost a whopping $23 million per job.

A separate NEA solar energy lesson plan marketed with Dow Corning teaches 5th- through 8th-graders "how solar panels work." A more apt, real-world lesson would teach them how they don't work. The myth that this alternative energy source "pays for itself" is busted with just a cursory glance at the Denver Museum of Science and Nature.

President Obama staged a photo-op on the facility's solar panel roof in 2009 when he signed the green jobs goodie-stuffed stimulus law. The museum refused to disclose electric bills before and after installation of the solar array. But after digging into the lavishly taxpayer-funded project, the Colorado-based Independence Institute discovered that the panels — which only last 25 years — wouldn't "pay for themselves" until the year 2118, more than a century from now.

It's elementary. The government shouldn't be in the business of picking any eco-winners or losers. "Too Green To Fail" redistributes wealth from viable private projects to pipe dreams, forces higher taxes and energy costs on everyone, and rewards partisan funders at public expense. Teach your children well. They're inheriting the bill.

It’s apparently Fatso Friday at The Washington Post. In his “In the Loop” column, Al Kamen ponders Chris Christie’s “girth” and cites the “weight stigma” specialist Rebecca Puhl of Yale, who says overweight candidates face deep bias: ““There are so many negative weight-based stereotypes — people think overweight and obese people are lazy, out of control, or lacking in discipline and willpower,” she says.

At the top of the deep-bias mountain was liberal columnist Eugene Robinson, who closed his column on Christie’s weight with a slap: “I’d just like to offer him a bit of unsolicited, nonpartisan, sincere advice: Eat a salad and take a walk.” Mocking Christie’s weight is apparently fair game, since he ran for public office:

You could argue that this is none of my business, but I disagree. Christie's problem with weight ceased being a private matter when he stepped into the public arena – and it's not something you can fail to notice. Obesity is a national epidemic whose costs are measured not just in dollars and cents but also in lives. Christie's weight is as legitimate an issue as the smoking habit that President Obama says he has finally kicked.

Robinson also underlined: hey, have you noticed what an enormous tubbo Christie is?

By this standard, a man who stands 5-foot-11 — Christie’s reported height — would be obese if his weight reached 215 pounds. While Christie does not disclose his weight, it appears to exceed the 286 pounds that would place him among the 5.7 percent of American adults whom NIH classifies as “extremely obese.”

He lectured: “My intention is not to blame Christie for the federal government’s deficit spending — or, in fact, to blame him for his own obesity. Blame is not the point. Christie is just 49 and has four young children; politics aside, I’m sure he wants to be around to share the milestones in their lives. He prides himself on bullheaded determination and speaks often about the need for officials to display leadership. Well, Gov. Christie, lead thyself.”

The three network morning shows on Friday all highlighted the United States' success in killing terrorist Anwar al Awlaki. However, although these same programs were sensitive to the slightest possible civil rights violation by the Bush administration, they did not seemed interested the fact that Al Awlaki was an American citizen.

Good Morning America, Today and the Early Show mentioned this detail, but didn't provide any analysis or question the President's authority to make such a move. GMA's Brian Ross simply offered, "He was considered such a serious threat to the U.S. that the President had authorized the use of lethal force against him, even though he was an American citizen."

Early Show and Today simply both described al Awlaki as an "American" or "American-born." CBS's Bill Plante noted that Awlaki was "the first American who was ever placed on the CIA's kill or capture list."

Writing on ABC News.com, Jake Tapper and Jason Ryan explained:

How does President Obama have the right to target for killing a US citizen such as Anwar al-Awlaki?

That’s a good question.

As of now, the administration’s legal justification is unclear.

…

Needless to say, this unprecedented ruling has been severely criticized – and all the more so today, with the assassination having been carried out.

The points raised by Tapper online weren't repeated on GMA. ABC's Brian Ross gave only biographical information on al Awlaki: "Born in the United States, in New Mexico in 1971, Anwar al Awlaki went to college in Colorado before heading up mosques in San Diego and Virginia."

[Friday readers: We need today to be our big day! Show your support for NewsBusters by helping us reach our $5,000 goal today. Donate now and get a liberal media bias gift as a thank you.]

In contrast, on the April 16, 2009 World News, reporter Jan Crawford covered the "chilling" revelation that detained terror suspects such as Abu Zubayda were "tortured with an insect in a confinement box" by the U.S.

A just-released report by the Media Research Center, Red, White, and Partisan, showed that journalists saw civil liberty abuses everywhere during the Bush years. On the first anniversary of 9/11, NBC reporter Jim Avila mourned:

JIM AVILA: "This is Jeanean Othman, an American of Palestinian descent. Born 42 years ago in suburban Chicago. Now worried everything she learned as an American about justice and civil rights collapsed along with New York’s Twin Towers."

In the report, the MRC's Tim Graham reminded:

On ABC’s Nightline on December 19, 2005, Terry Moran threw this hardball at Vice President Dick Cheney: “I’d like to put this personally, if I can. You’re a grandfather. I’m a father. When we look at those girls and we think that the country we’re about to pass to them is a country where the Vice President can’t say whether or not we have secret prisons around the world, whether water-boarding and mock executions is consistent with our values, and a country where the government is surveilling Americans without the warrant of a court – is that the country we want to pass on to them?”

The same networks that fretted over insect "torture" and threats to civil liberties should also follow up on the Obama administration's killing of an American citizen.

A transcript of the September 30 GMA segment, which aired at 7:03am EDT, follows:

---

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Let's bring in ABC's chief investigative correspondent, Brian Ross. Of course, Brian, you've been tracking al Awlaki for years and his links go all the way back to 9/11. He even met with two of the 9/11 hijackers.

BRIAN ROSS: That's right, George. He was considered such a serious threat to the U.S. that the President had authorized the use of lethal force against him, even though he was an American citizen. The United States has been seeking to kill or capture al Awlaki, for almost two years.

LEON PANETTA (Secretary of Defense): Awlaki is a terrorist.

MICHAEL LEITER (National Counter Terrorism Center):  Probably the most significant risk to the U.S. homeland.

ERIC HOLDER (Attorney General): We certainly want to neutralize him.

ROSS: Born in the United States, in New Mexico in 1971, Anwar al Awlaki went to college in Colorado before heading up mosques in San Diego and Virginia. He presented a calm demeanor in a 2001 Washington Post video profile.

ANWAR AL AWLAKI: I mean, Islam is a religion of peace.

ROSS: But only a year later, al Awlaki would move to Yemen, his family home and the place American authorities say he began to use his internet preaching to recruit terrorists to wage jihad against the United States.

AL AWLAKI: Never underestimate the power of fear, especially when the enemy of Allah hears Allahu Akbar.

RICHARD CLARKE: He could take to them in an American vernacular with arguments that they understood.

ROSS: U.S. authorities say the accused gunman at Fort Hood, Major Nidal Hasan, killed 13 soldiers, after al Awlaki provided religious justification for jihad in a series of E-mails. Al Awlaki was also accused of organizing the attempt to bring down an American jetliner over Detroit, Christmas day 2009. U.S. officials say the so-called underwear bomber was advised by al Awlaki, prior to the mission. And that there were many, many more drawn to al Qaeda training camps in Yemen by al Awlaki's message to do battle on the United States.

CLARKE: I think taking him out of the picture is a major achievement in terms of American security.

ROSS: In fact, even as he was in hiding, al Awlaki was preparing his latest message for al Qaeda through its monthly magazine. It showed a picture of Grand Central terminal in New York City and it was entitled, "Targeting the population of countries that are at war with the Muslims," George.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And, Brian, because he was trying so hard to target the United States, because he had so many links to the United States, American officials are now braced for some kind of retaliation.

ROSS: Absolutely. Just as with bin Laden, there's a feeling that his followers may, in fact, carry out some sort of a retaliatory strike. Even so, it was worth taking him out. And it's a major and historic achievement in the war against al Qaeda.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You mention this is a historic achievement. And it comes on the heels of a summer where, step-by-step, person-by-person, U.S. officials, U.S. drones have taken out a number of high level al Qaeda operatives.
           
ROSS: Absolutely. Up and down the command structure of al Qaeda, both in Afghanistan, Pakistan and now in Yemen, senior, major figures are taken out, the most public figures. There are still operational people left. But the major leaders are, in fact, taken out. It is a huge accomplishment.

Back in the 1970s, there was a lot of discussion about the way TV executives were grabbing ratings with female jiggle. “T&A,” it was called. The jiggle continues, but now it’s coming from somewhere else. So far, the hot new trend of the 2011 TV season is…dangling male genitalia. That’s full-frontal male nudity…hidden behind graphic effects.

CBS was thrilled the September 19 premiere of its reboot of the sleazy “Two and a Half Men” drew gonzo ratings. After all the Charlie Sheen drama, how could his TV character’s funeral not attract a crowd? But that wasn’t enough for Chuck Lorre & Co. They had to debut actor Ashton Kutcher in the nude. First, Kutcher  pulled the pixilated-nudie stunt Monday afternoon on the season debut of the Ellen DeGeneres show. Then they repeated it on CBS Monday night – twice. The opening gag of the season is that Kutcher’s character has a stunning endowment.

On Fox’s “The X Factor,” the network is ripping off its own “American Idol” formula, complete with former “Idol” judges Simon Cowell and Paula Abdul. But the “X” could stand for X-rated content. On the September 21 premiere, the second hour began with what should be called an obscene  five-minute prank.

“Idol” always airs wacky and untalented oddballs in its audition phase, but has featured nothing like the contestant named Geo Godley at the “X Factor” auditions in Seattle. As he began performing his own ridiculous song called “I’m a Stud,” he dropped his pants and displayed his male parts for the studio audience. Fox playfully covered his crotch with the show’s red X logo. 

If this were an actual, unwelcome surprise, Godley would have been escorted off the stage in seconds by security staff like the human garbage he is. Instead, Fox milked the entire stunt for five minutes. First, he started singing the stupidly awful song. Then he dropped his pants. Fox even showed a closeup with the X. We saw revolted crowd shots. We saw appalled judge takes. Then he pulled up his pants and kept singing.

Then he dropped his pants again. Paula Abdul acted sick to her stomach and cameras tracked her all the way to a bathroom. On and on…and on it went. We got to hear Paula puking. Then, the remaining judges, one by one, denounced the performance.

Nicole Scherzinger of the Pussycat Dolls said “I’m a little traumatized.” Soul music producer L.A. Reid said it was "offensive, disgusting, distasteful, upsetting." Cowell put on his angry face: “What the bloody hell was that? I came here and I put 5 million dollars on the line, and…that appeared. I don't know what you were thinking.” 

Oh, come on. This was expected – and milked by Fox. The better question is: What was Fox thinking? The network that’s supposed to be airing a show trying to attract a family audience with millions of children watching is expected to edit this garbage out of the show. Fox did the opposite. It exploited the scene to grab eyeballs and ad revenue.

The segment ended with Abdul returning to the stage to applause for her apparent disgust. She looked into the camera and said, “I just witnessed a nightmare on stage. It literally got me sick.” So why is Fox sickening the public?

This is not atypical of Cowell’s “X Factor” folks. A similar publicity ploy emerged in the UK. The flasher in this case was a fan, reported The Sun newspaper: “The incident took place on Wednesday as the panel introduced the first episode of the new series, to be screened on ITV1 tomorrow. A massive 200,000 fans applied to be in the audience…and the flasher was one of only 700 who won tickets….The fan's shocking behavior was seen by several audience members sitting nearby — including children.” Notice the flasher conveniently pulled this stunt right around the series premiere.

When the Parents Television Council filed a complaint against Fox with the FCC, a new line of defense emerged. The blog Reality Blurred claimed Godley wasn’t even naked. An audience member reported he was wearing a leopard-print thong. The blogger also noted Godley wore a thong in his…YouTube audition video, further removing the idea that anyone at Fox didn’t know what kind of indigestion they were manufacturing for the folks at home.

So now Fox is elaborately faking male nudity? That’s going to be their defense? They will do anything, including sending Abdul to fake-vomit over the fake-flasher.  

The show’s host, Steve Jones, told The Sun the real story about Godley: "I spoke to Simon backstage after and asked him what he thought. He said it was probably his favourite audition ever — and I agreed.”

How can a nasty funeral plot on “Two and a Half Men” and the global-pandemic movie “Contagion” and the ugly tone of the Charlie Sheen roast be compared to the Republican debates? Brent Lang of the entertainment-media blog The Wrap somehow accomplishes it. 

“The overwhelming pessimism that gripped America throughout the end of summer and the dawn of fall has cast a shadow across the cultural landscape,” Lang explained. “It may not have been planned that way, but either through scheduling happenstance or from a sincere desire to reflect our times, the movies and television shows that have aired or premiered in recent weeks collectively form a howl of rage and discontent.” And, then so does the GOP:

Behind all these downbeat diversions was the troika of Republican presidential debates that took place over the last four weeks. In one, Congressman Ron Paul implied that a person who had opted out of the private insurance market should be left to fend for themselves if they got sick — that was greeted with cries of “yes” and applause.

Not to be outdone, Rick Perry experienced an equally rapturous response from the crowd, after moderator Brian Williams reminded viewers the Texas governor had overseen 234 executions.

Is it any wonder there's all this ill-feeling?

According to the a study in Rasmussen Reports, a plurality, or some 46 percent, of Americans believe the nation’s best days are in the past. A mere 34 percent maintains the best days have yet to come.

The economy is teetering on the brink of a double-dip recession, while President Obama finds himself dealing with three foreign wars and an unemployment level that is stubbornly fixed at 9.1 percent.

It’s not just that people are worried about the future; they’re angry about the present, too.

After months where boy wizards and battling robots whisked moviegoers away from their troubles, the national disillusionment slowly started to seep into the multiplex.

Lang said “don’t expect the misery to stop anytime soon.”

As [actor Michael] Shannon told TheWrap: "There can't be a lot of people on planet Earth right now who feel like things are going great. Everybody is feeling powerless, and feeling like everything's so fragile, and it could all fall apart at any second."

And the light and fluffy diversions keep coming. In place of the tale of rugby victories and racial reconciliation he painted in "Invictus," this year’s Clint Eastwood biopic, “J. Edgar,” focuses on the life of one of the most reviled and corrupt figures in American history, J. Edgar Hoover.

But wait, there's more: Alexander Payne’s “The Descendants” centers on a cheating wife who falls into a coma (it’s a comedy!); “Shame ” concerns sex addiction; and would-be blockbuster “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo” offers up such a full buffet of rape and incest that it’s being billed as “the feel bad movie of Christmas.”

Political drama “The Ides of March,” meanwhile, is so laced with arsenic that star and director George Clooney said it couldn’t have worked just a few years ago, when everyone was still grooving to strains of “Yes we can.”

“You know, we were in pre-production on this film in 2007, before the Obama election,” Clooney told Parade Magazine. “And then we realized that a good portion of the country was elated with what happened in that election, so we had to shelve the movie until people were cynical again. I didn’t think it would be quite this quick.”

Lang concluded with the political crash of Barack Obama depressing Hollywood: “Certainly, the vessel for the country's hopes has crashed. And don't look to find any new ones on the movie or TV screens.”

Earlier at The Wrap: "Is Hollywood Bailing on Obama?"

[Hat tip: Dan Isett]

Nancy Benac of the Associated Press is thoroughly in the tank for Michelle Obama. Her latest article was headlined "First lady a not-so-secret campaign weapon." She began: "She's mingled barefoot among Aspen's elite, stirred a Vermont utility executive to tears and bucked up disenchanted New Yorkers." At the same time, the media can tout her for shopping at Target and for mingling with the Aspen elite. Michelle Obama the Target shopper wearing $42,000 diamond bracelets? Benac waited for paragraph 21 to mention that, where that kind of contrary information belongs.

Benac picked up the Obama campaign line — she's an "enormous asset" — and ran with it, barely noticing the idea that every re-election campaign counts on the First Lady, and every First Lady is more popular than her husband, and every First Lady can offer a personal portrait to warm people up to her husband's personal side. No, Michlle Obama causes people to tear up, and deeply motivates feminists like Gloria Steinem:

Campaign manager Jim Messina says Mrs. Obama is a unique ambassador for her husband because of her front-row seat during his first term and her knowledge of his character. "She was an enormous asset to the president traveling the country in 2008, and we expect that she'll play just as critical a role in 2012," he said.

Mary Powell, a Vermont utility executive, said her 15-year-old daughter used some of the money she inherited after her grandfather's recent death to attend the first lady's luncheon in Burlington last summer, and both mother and daughter came away from the event moved.

"I found myself tearing up a couple of times," Powell said. "She feels like the real deal."

Feminist leader Gloria Steinem, who appeared alongside Mrs. Obama at a New York fundraiser last week, describes the scene there as "a room full of New York women who are activists, who care deeply about the issues, many of whom are feeling that the president could have been stronger as a negotiator, that he's handcuffed by the right wing."

"You can imagine the feeling in a New York room," Steinem said. "Well, by the end of her speech, people were standing up cheering and ready to go to work. It was a transformation."

Benac reported that since mid-May, Mrs. Obama has headlined more than a dozen fundraisers for the Democratic Party in lots of liberal sites like Berkeley, Aspen, and Burlington, Vermont — AP doesn't call those "liberal" towns. They can be pricey: "On July 26, she hit a $1,000-and-up breakfast in Park City, Utah, and a $1,000-and-up luncheon in Aspen, Colo., where she kicked off her shoes and mingled in a tent on the lawn."

Her name's been on campaign e-mails that "I plan on doing" more than ever before on the campaign trail — but Benac then quickly noted that "She's promised a 'rigorous' schedule — without taking too much time away from the Obamas' 10- and 13-year-old daughters. Inevitably, family obligations mean she's not out there as much as some Democratic partisans would like for one of the party's prime assets."

There are zero critics of the First Lady, and zero critics of President Obama in the AP story. Criticism is just mentioned in a brief burp, and then the tone of praise returns:

At the podium the first lady is both poised and cautious. She often speaks from a teleprompter and relies heavily on her stump speech, addressing largely sympathetic audiences at closed fundraisers. "My motto is: Do no harm," she joked to reporters when asked about her political role. Mrs. Obama surely has not forgotten the flak she caught during the 2008 campaign for her remark that for the first time in her adult life she was proud of the United States. She later issued a clarification saying she had always been proud of her country.

Benac assured readers:

Mrs. Obama is more at ease as a campaign surrogate now, after years in the spotlight. At the start of each appearance she gives a shout-out to prominent locals, singling out "amazing" politicians and "favorite" people. Trying to humanize her husband, she tells audience after audience about the quiet moments, after their daughters are asleep, when Obama hunches over letters from struggling Americans. "I see the sadness and the worry creasing his face," she tells her listeners.

He's sad and worried — and outside the campaign rhetoric, the economy's still in the dumps. Being sad about it doesn't make you a "prime asset"  to the country.

GOP consultant Rich Galen is quoted in paragraph 23, but not to say a discouraging word. "First ladies can scoop up considerable amounts of cash and considerable amounts of good will," he said. "There's almost no downside."

There's certainly no downside when you have Nancy Benac writing your press releases and calling them AP articles.