Skip to main content

I wrote this as a comment on Mike's diary, but I'd like to diary it simply because as an entertainment industry professional, I have a different perspective on this than some.

I have always been one of Mike Stark's biggest fans and supporters.  From way back before CALLING ALL WINGNUTS.  I often wished I had Mike's creativity and cajones when it comes to fighting for what is right.  I think Mike is a huge asset to our community - a gem, in fact - and that progressive politics would not even exist without the Mike Starks of the world.  

But I gotta join the naysayers in regards to his O'Reilly confrontation today - I think it's way, WAY too much to go to a person's house.  

Yes, it's well within your first ammendment rights.  And Yes, O'Reilly is a public figure.  But I think when it comes to going to a person's private home and accosting him and his neighbors, it borders on harrassment.  My perspective after the jump.

For nearly 25 years I've worked in entertainment. From the very beginning I was working directly with some major major stars, and many minor ones.  I was a young woman who looked even younger than I was - so I had to get really competent really fast.  One of the things I had to learn was to be respectful of but not intmidated by celeb-types; to treat them as colleagues but not better than me.  

By the way, despite my resume and awards, I'm 99% sure Bill O'Reilly, would still treat me as a piece of meat.   Despite the fact that I actually have a REAL Peabody award, Bill.  All my own, thank you.  Oh man, would I love to shove that in his face!  (But he'd probably just be talking to my chest...)  

I digress.  What I'm trying to say here is, I work in entertainment behind the camera, with celebs of various levels and I see a lot harassment at their homes; by paparazzi, but also by harassers and stalkers and sometimes, just the curious. It is often devastating to their lives.  I'm not talking the crazies like Lindsay Lohan and Britney Spears who seem to be addicted to the attention. I'm talking about hard working actors and other on-air personalities. Believe it or not, most working actors work very very hard.  It's a gruelling profession.  Some of my professional colleagues (actors/on-air personalities and not always big ones at that) have to travel with body guards because of various threats that might or might not be real.  And contrary to how TMZ may present it, it's not "cool" to have a bodyguard.  It's a huge hassle.  And for many actors/on airs who don't make a fortune (and most of them don't), it's also incredibly expensive.

These people tell me how it feels to not know who could be waiting outside the door of your home.  To not be able to even walk your dog in peace.  One of these people is a star who is a very young, sweet, innocent woman.  Because of just one stalker threat - just one! - she can't even go to a restaurant or movie or shopping alone.

My closest colleague at the moment is not an actor but a tv personality growing in fame exponentially.  On a recent trip to an amusement park, he actually had to worry about the safety of his kids!  His wife (one of my best friends) and their kids were accosted in a movie line - without him even there!  He and his family have moved to a quiet home in an ordinary neighborhood and its understood by the neighbors that they don't brag about who lives in their cul de sac.  It's kind of like AA - mutual respect and desire for privacy keeps everyone acting neighborly and respectful.

I was recently fortunate enough to go to a high-end spa and as luck would have it, there happened to be a woman there who is right wing conservative political royalty. It was a small group at the spa and everyone was pretty shocked when she and her friend showed up w/out serious secret service protection. Maybe secret service were hiding in a massage room somewhere, but we didn't see them. There was also a woman who was one of the heads of a department that Bush has totally decimated and replaced with an unworkable, devastating system.  

Being both a writer and a natural snoop, I enjoyed sussing out both these women and getting my own impressions of them as people.  They were what I'd expect - and they weren't.  People are gray that way, when you take them out of context.  But I'm not going to share who they were, or any of the very personal things I learned about them.  (Maybe I'll fictionalize it someday, but I won't "report" it.) Why?  Because they were in a "safe zone."  I wanted to be in a "safe zone" there, too - and I don't always like to share my professional life.  When you go to a place like that, you go for peace.  I don't think that peace should be violated.

I don't agree when the paparrazi accost bad-behaving celebs at their homes.  And as much as I admire Michael Moore as a filmmaker - nay, WORSHIP him as a filmmaker - it bothered me when he went to Charlton Heston's home.  I worked with Heston way back at the beginning of my career. I was over my head (writing and directing a PSA at age 20 w/no experience) and he was a total gentleman and a pro.  He's not a bad guy - just has done a lot of things I vehemently disagree with.

I get outraged when people go to abortion docs houses.  I feel outraged when people like Michael Shiavo were accosted at their houses.  If anyone showed up at my house for any reason, I'd be over the moon livid. Even the mafia don't harass each other's families.

I do believe we should respect the sanctity of each other's "safe zones."  Our homes, our gynecologist's offices, whatever.  Yes, O'Reilly threatened Mike's home, and others. But that doesn't mean we should act as blindly bullying as the falafel man and his ilk.

O'Reilly is an asshole and a fool.  But I think even he deserves to have some peace when he comes home from a long day of lying on the air, spreading hate in America, and spitting on the Constitution.

I totally get the point Mike was trying to make - especially after the threats O'Reilly has made on air.  

I love you Mike, and respect your courage and convictions.  But I do strongly disagree with this choice of how to deal with this particular situation.

Originally posted to hopesprings on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 10:19 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Well said. (18+ / 0-)

    There are some things that just cross the line, and this was one.

    I know a lot of people on this site were outraged when the Fox people ambushed the JetBlue CEO outside his apartment.

    I don't see a whole lot of difference with this.

    And, yes, O'Reilly has threatened to do similar things to Mike Stark and others. But does that really mean we need to sink to his level?

    Somehow, somewhere, we've got to get "two wrongs don't make a right" into our political discourse.

    O it is excellent to have a giant's strength: but it is tyrannous to use it like a giant. --Measure for Measure, II.2

    by RogueStage on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 10:17:33 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for the perspective (7+ / 0-)

    Great diary.  One thing that strikes me about this whole debate is:

    Yes, it's well within your first amendment rights.  And Yes, O'Reilly is a public figure.

    Those arguments are purely legalistic.  That is, "he was within his legal rights, and probably won't get arrested, because. . ."

    But aren't those the standards we ridicule right-wingers for holding themselves to (Gonzales/Bush may not have technically broken the law by doing xxxxx)?  There are far more meaningful dimensions of moral debate than pure legality in a self-moderated community.

    Undecided, due to abundance of good choices. Interestingly, I've never heard a Republican say that.

    by cardinal on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 10:21:31 AM PDT

  •  Wonderful diary (5+ / 0-)

    So many guns...so few brains. --Philip Marlowe

    by Castine on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 10:21:53 AM PDT

    •  Thank you. n/t (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      standingup, arkylib, sgary

      For those of you who hate O'reilly, take some comfort in this - he's going to need another face lift in a year or two and even make up won't be able to disguise the next one!

      Laws are spider webs through which the big flies pass and the little ones get caught. ~Honoré de Balzac

      by hopesprings on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 10:29:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Alex Ovechkin of Washington Capitols (28+ / 0-)

    lives across the street.  We all know he is here - Caps practice rink is on top of Ballston Common Mall, about 2/3 mile away.  He has chosen to use his house as a refuge when he is in residence, and even the kids who are hockey fans have not bothered him.

    I make a distinction between knocking on someone's door and/or attempting to talk to them in a public space with a camera on when they are a public figure versus putting signs up in the neighborhood   -  I would not want press camping on my lawn to stake out Ovechkin, nor would I want people putting up harrassing signs in my neighborhood.

    And there is a distinction between approaching someone in a public space and going to their house and knocking on their door.  Insofar as their is previous history between Stark and O'Reilly - and there is - it is hard to see how any reasonable person would see Stark's actions as in anyway covered by the practice of journalism:  this was personal as much as it was political.  

    And I wonder if taking a picture of Mr. O'Reilly while he is on his own property does not represent an additional crossing of the line.

    I do not accept the rationale that because O'Reilly acts the part of the bully and the fool we have to respond in kind.  O'Reilly has been doing a pretty good job of destroying his own credibility.  I wonder how much of the Mike Stark scenario Bill O will try to shove down Chris Dodd's throat tonight -  perhaps someone should get in touch with staff (Tim Tagaris?) and make sure he is well prepped on the subject.

    Stark is making himself the story - the same thing unfortunately happened in Virginia last year.  

    Those who can, do. Those who can do more, TEACH! If impeachment is off the table, so is democracy

    by teacherken on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 10:21:54 AM PDT

    •  Good point Teach. I have been reading Mike's and (7+ / 0-)

      related diaries and I have very mixed feelings about the whole thing.  But, this diary and your comment brings a clear picture for appropriate response action to someone like Bill O'Reilly.  Thanks.

      Never grow a wishbone, daughter, where your backbone ought to be. Clementine Paddeford

      by blubryeyes on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 10:26:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well put: (5+ / 0-)

      I do not accept the rationale that because O'Reilly acts the part of the bully and the fool we have to respond in kind.  O'Reilly has been doing a pretty good job of destroying his own credibility.

      Mike's passion is something that is worth it's weight in gold.  And O'Reilly had to go and make it personal - which is what he does.  O'Reilly is the guy who pokes the hornet's nest with a stick, while he's safely encased in a rubber suit.

      In my business experience, anyway, it's always best to destroy your enemies while NOT making it personal.

      Laws are spider webs through which the big flies pass and the little ones get caught. ~Honoré de Balzac

      by hopesprings on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 10:28:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Excellent dairy, hopesprings- (5+ / 0-)

        I, too have spend a career dealing with celebrities.  Although they were primarily musicians rather than actors, it means a lot to most to just be able to feel "normal" once in a while.  Accosting someone - anyone - when they're in their jammies getting the paper crosses a line of civility and decency that is better left uncrossed.

        O'Reilly is vile and loathsome, and if there is one person in this world I have not met but truly despise, he would be it.  However, I like to think that we are more intelligent and civilized than he, and should conduct ourselves accordingly.  The following statement should be a given, but obviously it needs to be repeated:

        JUST BECAUSE O'REILLY DOES SOMETHING DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT

        As much as I admire Mike's efforts, this stunt brings him (and this site by association) down to Bill's level.  And that is not somewhere we want to be.  If there's anything to be gained from this, maybe it's that Bill will think twice before attempting or threatening a similar stunt.

        But somehow I doubt it.

        It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds - Samuel Adams

        by Red no more on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 10:44:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  about the Virginia thing (0+ / 0-)

      I respect the positions on both sides of this debate.  I have my own opinion.

      I just want to ask, how did the Virginia issue w/Mike Stark & G. Allen wind up in the end?  Was Mike Stark ineffective?  How was the "Macaca" controversy unfortunate?  

      Just asking, not being jerky.

      •  I think it's different (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ray Radlein, Sol Fed Joe, lamzdotes

        because it was a public event.  And the "Maccaca" thing was a public event.  And a public statement.  

        Public territory, to my mind, is open territory.

        Laws are spider webs through which the big flies pass and the little ones get caught. ~Honoré de Balzac

        by hopesprings on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 10:38:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Mike Stark was not part of the original Macaca (6+ / 0-)

        that was a UVa student born in Fairfax County (Allen was born in California) named S. R. Sidarth who was of South Asian background.

        Mike's several confrontations with Allen became something of a distraction for the Webb campaign, which had to point out he had no relation with the campaign, not even as a volunteer.  The first incident might have worked marginally against Allen but the 2nd undid anything that was gained from the first.  

        Please do not confuse Stark's going after Allen with Allen's remarks towards a 20 year old college student who was functioning as Webb's "tracker" and who had introduced himself to Allen so that the now former Senator would know who he was.  It was ironic that Allen was welcoming him to Virginia, and it infuriated Webb that Allen's attitude was that the people of the area, from which Webb is in large part descended, were racist:  Sidarth had stayed with relatives of Webb the night before.

        The Macaca incident damaged Allen - first his campaign handled it very badly.  Second, it legitimized talking about several things, most especially his tendency to bully people: one writer from the very Republican Richmond Times Dispatch wrote specifically about it.  Third, it connected with the piece Ryan Lizza did about Allen's racism and legitimized that story, bringing Ken Shelton, a former teammate, out in public.  Finally, when Allen then mishandled the question about his grandfather (and hence his mothe) having been Jewish, that put him on a teeter, from which he fell when he attacked Webb for the now Senator's books.  

        Stark was probably set up in the 2nd incident, but the press in part of the state was of him being led off in handcuffs and an implication that he was harrassing Allen.  

        Those who can, do. Those who can do more, TEACH! If impeachment is off the table, so is democracy

        by teacherken on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 11:08:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I was just referring to the hotel (0+ / 0-)

          the incident where he was tackled when trying to ask a question about the Macaca thing.

          I didn't realize there was any measurable harm from the tackling incident.  I thought it kept the whole issue in the news and helped drive home the perception that Allen was/is a man who certainly exhibits racist tendencies.

          I know very well how it all started.  It would be even more stupid for Allen to say welcome to Mike Stark and call him Macaca.  I'm not that uninformed.  I was just asking how the tackling incident was unfortunate.  I wasn't clear.  Thought it was obvious and well known where Mike Stark was involved.

          thx for the response but I still am missing how it was unfortunate in the end.  

          •  first incident was a distraction (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AaronBa

            it may have been a net positive, albeit not a large one

            the 2nd incident totally cancelled out any benefit from the first.

            FWIW  both Sidarth and Stark are on a panel along with Lane Hudson who exposed what Mark Foley had been doing.  I do not plan to attend.

            Those who can, do. Those who can do more, TEACH! If impeachment is off the table, so is democracy

            by teacherken on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 12:17:33 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  one other thing (0+ / 0-)

            I didn't mention it, but in the Virginia tackling incident, I don't think Mike Stark made himself the story, he was aggressively asking a question.  The Allen thugs tackled him and, at that point, he became part of the story.  

            He may be a self promoter who injects himself into a story, but I don't see how that was the case in Virginia.

            hope that makes sense.......

        •  my impression as well (0+ / 0-)

          I said something similar below, though I put the matter in starker terms than you.

    •  This is where I break with Mike Stark (8+ / 0-)

      and the people that support his action against O'Reilly.

      Stark is making himself the story - the same thing unfortunately happened in Virginia last year.

      This entire escapade strikes me as self-serving. I've appreciated much of what Mike Stark has done in the past, but this crosses my line. Inflated perhaps by a false sense of importance, Mike Stark has mistaken cojones for brains.

      At this point in time - on the eve of YearlyKos - this is about the dumbest action imaginable.

      And, to agree with the diarist's larger point about stalking, I too work in the entertainment industry and have had the ocassion of being friends with and working with various celebs only to directly witness how stalkers can become an emotional burden and potential physical danger. O'Reilly will undoubtedly make noise about this and he will be justified... and Mike Stark will post his videos and pix of the encounter and O'Reilly will show them on air. And Mike Stark will make a name for himself... and YearlyKos will be left to clean up the mess.

    •  Excellent comment! (5+ / 0-)

      And as much as we all want more journalists who speak truth to power (quick plug for the McClatchy Washington Bureau who does that very well), you nailed it:

      Stark is making himself the story - the same thing unfortunately happened in Virginia last year.  

       

      We have many better examples of citizen journalists and bloggers who understand and practice journalism with the standards and ethics that are important.  We should be more supportive of them in my honest and humble opinion.    

  •  No, going to their house is just about right (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pissedpatriot, ca democrat

    at this time.

    Is it a bit threatening?  Oh yeah, I can see how it would be seen that way.

    But no more threatening then half the crap that the right wing propaganda artists have put out on the air about liberals.

    There is a great set of dialogue in the "Untouchables" from the Malone character about how to deal with this kind of situation, and I think you know the section I am talking about.

    They come after you, you go after them and you go after them a bit harder then they did you.  There are certain lines that you do not cross that is true; but the right crossed the Rubicon long, long ago and have not been pushed back across it.

    Mike did what he did in part to fight for the Republic, and in that cause and for that reason I sanction his actions as totally appropriate.

    •  we need to want to win (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ThaliaR

      Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

      How do you know a Republican is lying? Ask one: If the Republicans can lower gas prices for 60 days before an election, why won't they do it all the time?

      by ca democrat on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 10:26:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I love Gandhi, but his methods work on reasonable (6+ / 0-)

        people with a shred of decency still in them.  And I am not exactly sure that would describe the American far right at the moment.

        •  The British occupation of India (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ThaliaR, ca democrat

          was neither characterized by reason nor shreds of decency.

          "Then they fight you" means "with anything but reason and shreds of decency". That's the point.  Their inherent lack of reason and decency is on display for the world to see, then, see, "You win."

          Ghandi's words show how to use your enemy's lack of reason and decency against them, not how to rely on your enemy's reason and decency.

          It behooves us to act with reason and decency, especially against enemies who have none. That's the point.

           

          "In all chaos there is a cosmos, in all disorder, a secret order." Carl Jung

          by Unduna on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 10:48:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You aren't getting it. (0+ / 0-)

            the Raj is not what I am talking about.  The British people were fundamentally still a decent and reasoned folk; there was a self imposed limit on what all they would do.

            So Gandhi COULD win using his methods against those people.  Sure the power structure would try to maintain itself, all power structures do; but after a point the people operating that power structure and their underlings that carried out the policies... they just could not continue because it would not be reasonable or decent to do so.

            You think the American right has ANY of that in them?

            No, those fuckers over at FR and LGF would turn you to smoke before they called it quits.

    •  And here is the part I am talking about (0+ / 0-)

      just imagine it all metaphorically speaking of course...

      http://www.youtube.com/...

      •  There's a bit of a difference. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        hopesprings

        The quote from "The Untouchables" is how to deal with a ruthless mob boss who has already left a trail of dead bodies in his wake.

        We're talking about dealing with a loudmouth tabloid commentator.

        Somehow, "putting one of his boys in the morgue" seems a bit overboard to me.

        Just sayin'.

        O it is excellent to have a giant's strength: but it is tyrannous to use it like a giant. --Measure for Measure, II.2

        by RogueStage on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 11:21:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  As I said think in metaphor here (0+ / 0-)

          but something you said jumped out at me:

          The quote from "The Untouchables" is how to deal with a ruthless mob boss who has already left a trail of dead bodies in his wake.

          That applies here as well since Billo enables the boss in question; he is Bush' Baghdad bob...

          You have to destroy the enemies infrastructure; and Billo and Fox are part of that infrastructure.  

          You don't have to do it physically, no violence need take place, but you have to take the fight to them and not sit back thinking he is only a tabloid commentator, because he is a bit more then that.

          He is one of the voices on RNC propaganda station one.....one of the bigger voices.

  •  Nicely put, but I don't agree (0+ / 0-)

    It's not my personal style to intimidate people.

    But, I don't think it should be ruled out.

    Like I have been saying, Dems tend to take a knife to a gunfight.

    I think when someone like Billo is causing so much damage to the country and our culture, then it's time to do the unexpected.

    that's what Stark did.

    I support his efforts and wish I had his cajones.

  •  Should we have respected Hitler's home? (0+ / 0-)

    or should we have fought him on ALL fronts?

    Is there a point when it is so dire that the cause trumps etiquette?

  •  As another lifelong entertainment person, (6+ / 0-)

    I disagree.

    Mike Stark is simply doing what Bill O'Reilly himself advocated: turn up on people's doorsteps to press your point.  Now, let us see Bill complain about Mike turning up on his doorstep, when just last week Bill was recommending the exact same treatment for the JetBlue CEO.  That was the point of Mike's stunt.

    I'm all for on-camera types having privacy, but not when they're hypocritically advocating that their political opponents' should be violated.

    •  asdf (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Yoshimi, smintheus

      Now, let us see Bill complain about Mike turning up on his doorstep, when just last week Bill was recommending the exact same treatment for the JetBlue CEO.

      But O'Reilly will not make this point on his show. So no one in his audience will connect the two... and Dem candidates who have committed to YKos will be forced to address this stupidity rather than more pressing issues.

      •  I don't think it'll play out like that. (0+ / 0-)

        I really don't think all the OTHER news networks that are attending Yearly Kos will have the slightest bit of interest in asking the candidates to address a squabble that a talking head on FOX is having.  

        News networks are competitors; they won't help promote each other's ratings by asking candidates questions about some other network's current ratings-generating gambit.

        •  I am willing to bet (0+ / 0-)

          that the Washington Post, for example, will make it a story when they do one of their hit pieces on the "leftwing" Yearly Kos. And then people like Howie Kurtz on CNN will analyze the story about the story. And then Tim Russert will have some Nantucket pundit on pontificating about the far left crazies, etc etc etc.

        •  The point of this diary is NOT (0+ / 0-)

          "how will this affect Yearlykos?"  That's a whole other issue already addressed in a diary on the rec list.

          It's just a perspective that I believe involves something we progressives are supposed to be fighting for - the right to privacy.  

          I don't want the government sending goons to my home; I'm not going to use their dirty tricks on one of my enemies, either.

          I'm not going to illegally bug O'Reilly's phone.  

          If I overhear O'Reilly plotting a "crime" (or even admitting a lie?") in a restaurant, in a public place?  Sure.  I'll record it on my cell phone.  But I'm not going to eavesdrop on his property (unless the law would be kind enough to give me a warrant to do so...).

          Laws are spider webs through which the big flies pass and the little ones get caught. ~Honoré de Balzac

          by hopesprings on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 11:07:12 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  ...and (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      smintheus, hopesprings

      don't we consider O'Reilly a bad person for advocating it in the first place?  How does actualizing his bad ideas make any sense?

      Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

      by pico on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 10:58:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I agree, but for a different reason (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yoshimi

    Mike did exactly what BillO did with JetBlue. I have no problem whatsoever dosing someone with their own medicine. BillO deserved it - cut and dried.

    BUT (and you knew that was coming) I'm having a hard time seeing any positive effect come of this. Those of us aware of the JetBlue ambush, see the justice in this. So far so good. But the vast majority of people will never make the connection. BillO knows this and probably took his newspaper into his kitchen and danced for an hour.

    BillO won't have to scavenge the hidden comments to attack this site for being over the top. He'll simply point to what happened to him in his front yard today. Most of his viewers will not make the JetBlue connection and will see it just the way BillO wants. They will never learn the text of what Mike passed out to the neighbors. BillO's never going to air that.

    It's not that I think Mike did anything unfair to BillO. BillO did ask for it. But now Mike's up against the coordinated muscle of the FOX empire. That's a tough, if not impossible, fight that will be waged in a very slanted ring. I'll root for Mike all the way, but I think it will turn out badly.

    What's done is done, and I'll support Mike to the end. But I really wish he hadn't gone there.

    •  Will O'Reilly even discuss this? (0+ / 0-)

      It will be VERY hard to discuss it without mentioning what Mike was doing while he was there: the falafel incident. He'll have to do some big time dancing and I would guess he'd prefer to leave that whole story behind. So I would not be surprised to not even see him mention it on that piece of garbage show.

      "We didn't create this fetid political swamp, we just live in it." - Digby

      by Whigsboy on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 11:36:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  What's good for the goose... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FutureNow

    Sorry, but someone who sends his lackeys to confront people at their homes has no justification to whine when the tables are turned.

    The penalty that good men pay for not being interested in politics is to be governed by men worse than themselves. - Plato

    by robroser on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 10:36:35 AM PDT

    •  He doesn't need justification (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Yoshimi

      to complain.  He will easily turn this into an anti-Kos narrative... simply because one Kossack here mistook balls for brains.

      •  Who cares... (0+ / 0-)

        what he tries to turn it into? The 28% who support Bush and watch O'Reilly's show are going to believe his hypocrisy about progressive/Democratic blogs regardless.

        Is the fear that he'll turn the other 72% their way? I just don't see that happening, so why am I supposed to care what he says?

        The penalty that good men pay for not being interested in politics is to be governed by men worse than themselves. - Plato

        by robroser on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 10:53:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You should care (0+ / 0-)

          because when the MSM now talks about YKos it will be peppered with this stupid sideshow about Mike Stark.

          •  I should? (0+ / 0-)

            Perhaps, but I don't. If you thought MSM coverage of YKos was going to be all hugs and kisses before, I don't know what to tell you.

            They're against blogs and non-MSM just as much as O'Reilly is already. I don't see this changing a thing.

            The penalty that good men pay for not being interested in politics is to be governed by men worse than themselves. - Plato

            by robroser on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 11:00:24 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Respectability (0+ / 0-)

              Mike Stark doesn't represent this site. I don't represent this site, none of us do. That's the great and wonderul thing about a blog. We're never going to be respectable until we conform to what the "mainstream" deems okay. The price for that respectability is too high if it means we have to self-censor. And I'm not talking about language, although we can be civil and still get our point across. But when we censor because of how our discussions or our tactics might be perceived by the mainstream, then we're in danger of becoming them.

              After the shooting at UV, we self-censored ourselves out of a discussion about gun control becuase the Censorship Police on this blog told everyone it was inappropriate to discuss this while the families were grieving. As though they wouldn't grieve for the rest of their lives. So we tabled the discussion, permanently. It was never fully discussed and we missed an opportunity to have an important dialogue about an important issue.

              Access to the powerful is a dangerous and enticing thing. We must be careful not to allow that access to turn this blog into another cheerleading site. We aren't here to make the Dem leadership feel comfortable. We aren't here to make the MSM happy or win their approval (we're never going to get it anyway, they see us competition). We aren't here to earn respectability.

    •  Is Bill whining? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hopesprings, dannyinla

      I bet he is laughing all the way to the bank with a week's worth of shows about the DailyKos hate site and its stalker/harasser.

  •  it's a fine line, it really is.... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BachFan, RogueStage

    I agree with your perspective, as someone who used to interview famous and semi-famous musicians regularly (I, too, try to remember to look at the 'privacy' thing in an AA-type light, that's a good analogy...).

    Thing is, when others pull this kind of in-your-face BS--as is my understanding that Bill O has done in the past (but please, please correct me if I'm wrong, because I do not remember any particulars off the top of my head)--it should be OK to dish it back.

    If a Bill O does this kind of crap, and he's not called to account for it, he'll keep doing it. Does it make us look bad to stoop to his level? I really don't think so. Sometimes, you just have to fight fire with fire.

    My two cents, please be gentle :)

    "Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees"--Peter Garrett, Midnight Oil

    by o the umanity on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 10:44:51 AM PDT

    •  Yes and no... (0+ / 0-)

      ...or as my mother used to say, "Just because your friends are jumping off cliffs, does that mean you have to do it too?"

      O'Reilly really was in the process of burying himself.  He was flailing around pretty wildly there already.

      I'm also not sure O'Reilly actually sent "Fox Security" to anyone's homes (and again, if Fox Security is made up of those bonehead guards at the Fox Studio gates who couldn't find a parking pass for me yesterday, I'm not exactly shaking in my boots...)

      ...I think Jet Blue was accosted outside his office...though please correct me if I'm wrong. And hate to say it, but Fox does have the bogus coverstory that they are "news", even though we know they are not.  

      I agree that Mike should be considered "press" also, but rank and file press don't often leave signs on neighbors lawns....

      Laws are spider webs through which the big flies pass and the little ones get caught. ~Honoré de Balzac

      by hopesprings on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 10:55:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The Jet Blue CEO was accosted outside his home (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        hopesprings, lcork, o the umanity

        So I do see it partly as giving Billo a dose of his own medecine, though the signs and flyers were too mauch IMO.

        I'm upset about this because there's no way any side of the story's going to get reported in the MSM except Billo's.

        "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." - Franklin D. Roosevelt "They are a threat to your children, David" - George W. Bush

        by sidnora on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 11:41:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  excellent point (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sidnora, hopesprings

          I'm upset about this because there's no way any side of the story's going to get reported in the MSM except Billo's.

          'The votes are in, and we won.' - Jim Webb

          by lcork on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 12:41:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Well, good points, both, but I (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sidnora

          kinda see it Sidnora's way here: who else is going to know about this, if drastic measures aren't taken?

          there's no way any side of the story's going to get reported in the MSM except Billo's.

          "The Press" in this country falls all over itself regularly to harass others, in pursuit of "The People's Right To Know". In this case, IMO, when there's no other alternative (it's not like people haven't tried other means to get this point across, right?); and if and when the boob in question essentially asks for it, and uses similar tactics, then why not?

          Long as no one gets physically injured during such a confrontation, this kind of shit needs to be brought to everyone's attention--and not just FAUX's (or other MSM's) one-sided accounts.

          "Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees"--Peter Garrett, Midnight Oil

          by o the umanity on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 12:47:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  that's the thing that gets me... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        hopesprings

        O'Reilly really was in the process of burying himself.  He was flailing around pretty wildly there already.

        Bill-O was doing such a fabulous job of making himself look like a raving out-of-control whack-job, and then along comes Mike to distract everyone from Bill-O's flaming dance of self destruction.  I see no benefit in that.

        'The votes are in, and we won.' - Jim Webb

        by lcork on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 12:39:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  just agreeing (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hopesprings, dannyinla, BachFan, philimus

    I too am a public figure in a small town. (small frog in a small pond) and a public figure nonetheless. Not from an entertainment perspective, I just do legal work for public entities. It is beyond the pale rude to go to someones home uninvited under these circumstances. I  live with regular death threats from borderline personalities, and in some sense accept that as part of the price I pay for the job, but coming to my house unannounced puts you automatically in that category and I would be reasonably in fear of my safety. this behavior should be discouraged and it matters not that O'Reilly engages in egregious behaviour on his own. We can't be phony, and just becuase Mike is a rock star in the blog world does not excuse wrong behaviour.

    •  I'm not public by any toss of the coin (0+ / 0-)

      but in the early days when I was making social issue documentaries, I used to get emotionally caught up and ocnnected in the lives of my subjects, and would call them from home to interview them and keep up with their lives. I'd give them my home number and was listed.

      I had to stop when an accused (but charges dropped by wife) incester who got my home number from the wife who'd dropped the charges started calling me at night and making threats and talking about my address...

      ...I am pretty sure and was at the time he wasn't going to do anything and was all bluster.

      But I still changed my number, unlisted myself, and stopped giving out my home telephone.

      Laws are spider webs through which the big flies pass and the little ones get caught. ~Honoré de Balzac

      by hopesprings on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 10:59:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  What if it had been Rupert Murdoch's home? (0+ / 0-)

    How would you have felt if Stark had gone, instead, to the doorstep of O'Reilly's boss, Rupert Murdoch?

    Stop bitching and start a revolution!

    by Randian on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 10:57:56 AM PDT

    •  I'm pretty sure (0+ / 0-)

      Mike wouldn't have gotten near Murdoch or his property.

      But if he had approached Murdoch in the same way as he did O'Reilly, yeah, I think I'd feel the same way.

      To do it outside one of Murdoch's many places of business?  Sure!  Go for it!

      Laws are spider webs through which the big flies pass and the little ones get caught. ~Honoré de Balzac

      by hopesprings on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 11:01:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  an analogy: Code Pink at Rumsfeld's house (0+ / 0-)

        Several years ago, the antiwar group Code Pink organized a rally at Donald Rumsfeld's house to protest the Iraq invasion; I cheered them for this. I would probably sheer a similar demonstration outside of a Murdoch residence.

        There may be some analogy, were protestors to show up outside the Murdoch estate to protest against the propaganizing of society by the likes of Murdoch; while the difference, of course, was that Rumsfeld's salary (unlike Murdoch's) was paid by the taxpayers, the similarity between protesting against Bush (or administration officials at their place of residence) and protesting against someone like Murdoch at his residence, is to make visible the harm that they do. And that they do harm to society and get away with is, I think, without question.

        The group ACORN also does this when they brintg groups of tenants to the homes of slumlords to protest - a form of protest that has gone on for decades.

        Stop bitching and start a revolution!

        by Randian on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 11:42:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks, I agree (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hopesprings, irishwitch

    Apparently more stars have been making Nashville their home because we just don't do that kind of thing.      Nichole Kidman (who owns a house here with Keith Urban) has commented on how she can actually go to the mall unmolested.  It's something about the whole southern hospitality / chivalry thing combined with the fact that stars generally eat and shop at a lot of the same restaurants as the common folk.  I served George Jones through the Taco Bell drive-through window one time.  

    I always assumed DC, LA and NYC had a similar thing going on in that natives just sorta know how to treat the resident famous faces.  They aren't who they play on TV.  That so many people would think it's OK to do this kind of thing startles me.  Even when he was at his most vile, nobody in the anti-war movement here protested Toby Keith when he was in town recording.  

    I really wonder if it is a regional thing, if the paparazzi have gotten so out of control in some places that people are starting to think they can do it too.

    •  I live in LA and NYC (0+ / 0-)

      and also have a couple mega celebs in the little NY town where we have a home.

      Most people respect celebs in NYC and leave them be.  Also in LA, depending on where you are.  

      But there seem to be certain personalities - the one I work with for example - whom people think they "own."  I've been with actors far more famous than my friend/colleague who no one would think of bothering - but this tv personality who is not even that widely know yet gets approached all the time - with entitlement from fans. Some major stars don't get bothered, other minor ones do. It's odd that way.  Must be an "energy" thing.

      Still most celebs DO have to be wary and have some kind of "filters" set up around their "safe zones".  I went to a private party at a major A list couple's estate(I'm not the LA party type; this was a small special event honoring a close friend) and directions were not even given out until last minute, ID's had to be shown at gate, etc.  The couple had little kids and had had kidnap threats.  

      It's serious stuff.

      Laws are spider webs through which the big flies pass and the little ones get caught. ~Honoré de Balzac

      by hopesprings on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 11:19:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  also (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        hopesprings, irishwitch

        lots of tourists in LA who don't just leave people alone. LA is a big city and there are a lot of weird people...

        I agree with most of your diary, have been in the industry for a while as well. (Except for the part about how most actors don't make much money....if you're a working actor, you make insane money by most people's  standards....Even occasionally working actors can make pretty dang good money. Not everybody is Julia Roberts, but lots of people who aren't really that famous in comparison are HUGELY wealthy, especially if they have a syndicated TV show.)

        The most shocking place for the way celebs are treated for me was Australia. I worked on a movie there and a radio station had a contest for people to find out where the stars were staying, and then they broadcast the location. Shocked me.

        I choked on your post. It nearly killed me. Hitler killed people. Your post is just like Hitler. - Pope Bandar bin Turtle

        by Buffalo Girl on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 11:24:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I do think it is an energy thing (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        hopesprings, irishwitch

        also, some people have more of a look than others. I once worked at a movie theater in Westwood and we'd get celebs all the time. Some would get noticed, others not. Tom Selleck, for instance, is just so tall and has such a distinctive face, and a large head that he just sticks out - Tom Selleck and 350 people. You just can't miss him.

        I choked on your post. It nearly killed me. Hitler killed people. Your post is just like Hitler. - Pope Bandar bin Turtle

        by Buffalo Girl on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 11:29:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  anxious to hear Keith Olbermann on this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hopesprings

    although I'm still capable enough of denial to get by right now with the whole episode slipping off the radar unnoticed.
    KO is in no small way responsible for Mike's notoriety, and I wouldn't be at all surprized if this blows up in the MSM, Mike's attention from Keith will come in either bronze, silver, or gold form.

  •  Good diary, hopesprings. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sidnora, hopesprings, sgary, RogueStage

    I can understand the depth of feeling on all sides of this, but I think your take and that of dannyinla pretty well match mine: It's not about "stooping to their level" - at all - it's about doing what works.

    As much as I have applauded much of Mike's work in the past, I believe this, unfortunately, will backfire. A little more thought and planning could have paid huge dividends in this guerilla conflict.

    As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. - Justice William O. Douglas

    by occams hatchet on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 11:13:28 AM PDT

  •  As someone who has been involved with abortion (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hopesprings, JanetT in MD

    rights most of my life, I deplored the tactics of the anti-choice nutjobs who would stand outside doctors' homes and picket them (the woman who does the abortions at the one remaining clinic in SD has them at the end of her driveway --which fortunately is a LONG driveway--every day)and yell through bullhorns. Oftent hey were breaking sound ordinances but if the cops sympathized, nothing happened.  

    I've also deplored for years the fact that if you become famous, you give up all rights to privacy. I rally think there needs to be a law that says when s someone isn't attending a  public function like a premiere, they still maintain rights of privacy. Not talkin' about a kid who asks someone for his autograph, but the paparazzi who lurk at restaurants to get photos or who follow actors around when they're shopping.  

    I think Mike was wrong in the way he went about this. A FAR better way that it would have gotten the RIGHT kind of press, would have been to hand out the material outside CNN NY's studios. ANd I think Bill sucks and I think he's a disgusting excuse for a human being--but even he--and more to the point, his poor NEIGHBORS who may or may not like him-- deserves peaceful enjoyment t home.

    Bush?  Nah.  Picket outside HIS house all you want, whether Crawford, Kennebunkport or D.C.deserves some

    The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

    by irishwitch on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 11:34:46 AM PDT

    •  I agree (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      irishwitch

      And I too used to use my body to block those horrible "Operation Rescue" folk from LA clinics in the 90's.

      They would stoop at nothing.  Our posture was very "in your face" - but we were the defenders, not the aggressors.

      Laws are spider webs through which the big flies pass and the little ones get caught. ~Honoré de Balzac

      by hopesprings on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 01:51:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Mike Stark is a self-promoter (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    philimus

    And there lies the problem. He talks about himself in the 3rd person. He grandstands. He can't just let the issues take center stage, he's got to relate everything to himself. Not unlike O'Reilly, in fact, he's so eager for attention that he'll stoop to get it.

    This has been becoming a bigger problem at dKos IMO.  Several of the most prominent posters here seem to turn virtually every issue around to themselves. It's tedious and trivializing. I'm sorry to say that I believe the proportion of ego-centric posts among highly recommended diaries has been going steadily upward over the last year or more. There are times when we are inevitably part of the story. But not often.

  •  Familiar faces aren't the only ones with stalker (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hopesprings

    problems.  Writers deal with it too.  Laurell K. Hamilton, who writes the best-selling Anita Blake and Merry Gentry series, has written abotu her encoutners with scary fanboys. SHe's had idiots show up at her house. Shehad one twit demand that she prove she wasn't reallya  badass vampire hunter  by showing she wasn't packing a pistol.  Mercedes Lackey, the reigning doyenne of fantasy, received death threats so scary she stopped going to cons and the F.B.I. became involved. CHristine Feehan, who writes best-sellig gPB vamp romances, has been stalked by a nutty fan.

    Even I have dealt with it. Back int he eighties I wrote a half dozen Irish fantasy stories. One was published in the Magazine of Fantasy and Science FIction. It was about a woman whose husband, an IRA man int he Black and Tan War, is murdered by a nasty British officer. It was set 6060 years before.  I was shocked to see an envelope from F&SF containing a leter--from an impassioned Unionist who hated Catholics who used my story as proof that I was linked with IRA bombings in London and Belfast, and who seemed to hold everything unpleasant that happned in Ulster since King Billy won the Battle of the Boyne, against me personally. He lived in NYC, as I did at the time. I was scared shitless, especially since we'd been active in protests agaisnt the British treatment of I.R.A. prisoners int he Maze--the Hunger Strikes were going on.

    The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

    by irishwitch on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 01:37:56 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site