Phil Donahue Strikes Back
Relegated to the outskirts of mainstream media, the talk-show veteran and former MSNBC anchor works the indie film circuit with 'Body of War'
MORE
NYTV
On a recent Friday afternoon, Phil Donahue was sitting in a dimly lit production studio in midtown Manhattan when a reporter entered. Mr. Donahue looked up. He was wearing a checkered dress shirt over jeans and sneakers. Under a crop of shaggy white hair, his big blue eyes bulged mischievously.
He offered a mock warning to his fellow film producers in the studio. “Now watch what you say,” said Mr. Donahue. “We have a member of the mainstream media in our presence.”
These days, the godfather of daytime television is no longer a card-carrying member of the club. Ever since February of 2003, when MSNBC cancelled his nightly talk show, Mr. Donahue has been wandering through the outskirts of the American media. Recently, he has settled into an unlikely role: a TV icon turned freelancing filmmaker.
“What can I get you to drink,” said Mr. Donahue. “A shot and a beer?”
Mr. Donahue was in from Connecticut for the afternoon to put the final touches on his first feature-length documentary, Body of War. Mr. Donahue recently described the movie as a “non-nuanced, anti–Iraq War documentary,” about a “heartland kid who suddenly went from a social life of single bars and courtship to a daily routine of catheters, puke pans and erectile dysfunction.”
“Little Miss Sunshine, we are not,” said Mr. Donahue.
So far, Mr. Donahue doesn’t have a distributor for the film, which he has financed with his own money. He hopes to begin showing Body of War at film festivals by the end of the summer. The market for Iraq documentaries, said Mr. Donahue, was growing more crowded by the day, but he felt confident that his would stand out. “There are no tanks in this movie,” said Mr. Donahue. “No Humvees. Nothing that goes BOOM.”
“This is Baby Jessica in the well in Texas,” said Mr. Donahue.
Body of War focuses narrowly on the physical and political struggles of Tomas Young, an injured veteran adjusting to life in a wheelchair. Mr. Young, a freckle-faced twentysomething native of Kansas City, Mo., joined the Army a few days after Sept. 11. He had expected to fight in Afghanistan. Instead, he went to Iraq. On his fifth day in combat, he was patrolling Sadr City when a shot ripped through him.
Mr. Donahue reached out to demonstrate. “The bullet entered here,” said Mr. Donahue, tapping a reporter near the left clavicle. “It exited, here, in the T4 vertebrae of the spine.”
“Now he’s paralyzed from the nipples down.”
Mr. Donahue said his inspiration for the film was a Pulitzer Prize–winning photograph of a naked Vietnamese girl running from a cloud of napalm. “See the pain,” said Mr. Donahue. “Don’t sanitize this war.”
The film features two original songs, written and performed by Eddie Vedder, the front man of Pearl Jam. Mr. Donahue explained that he and Mr. Vedder first met in 2000, when they were both campaigning for Ralph Nader. Their paths crossed again in the spring of 2007, in Scottsdale, Ariz., at a Chicago Cubs fantasy camp. Next Page >
Oh reading this piece reminded me of those carefree days in the summer and fall of 2000 when Mr. Donahue and Eddy Vedder and Michael Moore and all those other oh so swell celebrity "progressives" were saying that Bush and Gore were Tweedledee and tweedledum and how there was really no difference between the two parties and oh how fun it was to go around the nation telling people over and over just how swell and honest and PURE Mr. Nader was...oh what FUN times they must have had...well...only a complete fool believes that silliness now...now that we know that Nader was being funded by anti union textile baron Roger Miliken. After he ran again in 2004 funded by a bevy of pro Bush Republicans. After the world went into flames and these young men and women injured in Iraq went to a war that Al Gore would never, ever, EVER have let us get involved in....what a different world we live in now. But Nader is still saying that the two parties are the same....and that our candidates are still tweedledee or tweedledum ( I see how its confusing, I dont know which is which) But today....somehow....Michael Moore is a hero to young Democrats who dont even know the role he played in putting Nader in the White House and...in this entire piece we dont hear a word from Mr. Donahue about the effect of his buddy Ralph throwing the election over to Bush and SCOTUS and Co... I, for one, will never forgive these people until they fess up for the role they played in the horror of getting Bush to the White House and then ask publically for the forgiveness of all us sincere liberals and real progressives who didnt buy the lie that they and Nader threw out. The subtext of their campaign was that those who supported Gore were nothing but supporters of a GOP lite political party and corporate shills. I was offended by that message then and have been waiting for an apology from these posers ever since.
Wow...how divided a nation we still live in, eh Tim? "Posers" would be a good description of the "sincere liberals and true progressives" you are apparently trying to defend. Al Gore, as I've mentioned (without retort) to EVERY one of my liberal-minded friends who've given me a hard time about supporting Ralph Nader (twice...and a lot of good my vote for Kerry did last time, eh?), did not even win his HOME state (Tennessee, in which Nader was not even on the ballot). If he wins his HOME state, he doesn't need to worry about the crazies in Florida. End of discussion. And as for your claims of Nader financial backing, I have heard this nowhere else, don't feel like googling it at the moment, and I'm sure Al Gore had no "dirty" money supporting his campaign either. That's the whole point of all of this - the current wishy-washy Democrats and overall corrupt 2-party system gave us this war, no matter who was president. If a 9-11 type of tragedy had happened on Gore's watch, we would not have invaded Iraq as a "solution," I agree. But do you really think Gore would've taken on the true root of the entire oil dependency problem, Saudi Arabia (how many of the hijackers were Saudi again)? It was the Gore/Clinton administration that saw the record-setting Republican takeover of Congress, or did you forget that part? And once the Republicans took over Congress, Clinton/Gore lost even more of what little political spine they had to begin with, til Al Gore finally figured out the world is ending (and believe me, I believe in global warming, it's just not a new issue) after he's been out of office for what, 6, 7 years? Sorry if I'm a little jaded toward you "sincere and true" folks who would rather rehash falsities from the past rather than fight the evils of the present (and future). !Viva la revolucion!
Phil should start up his show again and publish is over bittorrent. Fuck the networks.
The US is quickly headed into a dictatorship or civil war. God Bless Fucking america!
Oh, please. Stop using Nader as your scapegoat. Gore was so right wing in 2000, he didn't even fight the Florida election fraud that REALLY cost him the election. If you rightwing Democrats would only fight the Republicans instead of us, you might earn some street cred. Most of you sad people are probably going to support your latest corporate shill, Hillary, proving that you've learned nothing from history.
From way up here in Canada (yes we have toilets now and even running water) it never ceases to amaze me how Americans rarely question their politicians on their politics. They appear more interested in who they screwed or what they look like in a bathing suit.
The political debates are almost comical in how the politicians use the maximum number of words to say "my oponent is an idiot" while not directly answering a single question. Each candidate sells only their own particular flavour of fear.
The American mainstream media should be embarassed over their complete lack of balls, insight or research. CNN "The Most Trusted Name in News" hasn't asked a good question in years. Their definition of "in depth reporting" means that they actually read the title of a brief that was dictated from a guy that was watching some competing news channel on his iPhone while he attended a news conference.
I was watching Phil Donahue last night on CBC when he said "descenters are essential to democracy", so why is it that anytime someone disagrees with the Whitehouse they are immediatly stamped as "Un-American"?
But most of all I don't understand why the American public tolerates the intellectual pablum that is spoon fed to them by the main stream news channels. Why is the truth so objectionable and the appetite for CNN / Fox News so great. Acting on a lie is usually worse than telling a lie. Bombing Iraq to attack the Taliban as a case in point. Iraq had nothing to do with 911 and hopefully we all know that now. Effective reporting and the freedom of the press is paramount to the democratic principals we all say we want. If the press discovers something that the public should know then they need to have the guts to say it.
Allowing the owners of mass media to control the contents of news programs means that you have put sensorship into the hands of anybody that can ifluence the owners. Since the owners are George W. Bush (Shrub) has proven his willingness to use that influence with notable effectiveness I might add.
Democracy, freedom and a forward moving society needs input from all sides in order to effectively examine alternatives. Liberal as well as Conservative groups both have valid points of view and neither is always correct. And most importantly neither should be silenced.
From way up here in Canada (yes we have toilets now and even running water) it never ceases to amaze me how Americans rarely question their politicians on their politics. They appear more interested in who they screwed or what they look like in a bathing suit.
The political debates are almost comical in how the politicians use the maximum number of words to say "my oponent is an idiot" while not directly answering a single question. Each candidate sells only their own particular flavour of fear.
The American mainstream media should be embarassed over their complete lack of balls, insight or research. CNN "The Most Trusted Name in News" hasn't asked a good question in years. Their definition of "in depth reporting" means that they actually read the title of a brief that was dictated from a guy that was watching some competing news channel on his iPhone while he attended a news conference.
I was watching Phil Donahue last night on CBC when he said "descenters are essential to democracy", so why is it that anytime someone disagrees with the Whitehouse they are immediatly stamped as "Un-American"?
But most of all I don't understand why the American public tolerates the intellectual pablum that is spoon fed to them by the main stream news channels. Why is the truth so objectionable and the appetite for CNN / Fox News so great. Acting on a lie is usually worse than telling a lie. Bombing Iraq to attack the Taliban as a case in point. Iraq had nothing to do with 911 and hopefully we all know that now. Effective reporting and the freedom of the press is paramount to the democratic principals we all say we want. If the press discovers something that the public should know then they need to have the guts to say it.
Allowing the owners of mass media to control the contents of news programs means that you have put sensorship into the hands of anybody that can ifluence the owners. Since the owners are George W. Bush (Shrub) has proven his willingness to use that influence with notable effectiveness I might add.
Democracy, freedom and a forward moving society needs input from all sides in order to effectively examine alternatives. Liberal as well as Conservative groups both have valid points of view and neither is always correct. And most importantly neither should be silenced.
Gore didn't fight the florida vote returns.
I wondered about that at the time. He took it as calmly as Bush took hearing the news of the twin towers. Florida was so obviosly rigged and I have always wondered what became of the voting rights of people wrongly named as criminals without the right to vote because their names were similar to convicted individuals. That highly illegal step should've been renounced immediately by Democrats to judges to academic institutions. But are those falsely accused people still barred from voting today.
The Bush campaign was the most insidiously criminal unashamed conspiracy flouted upon the United States and ranks with the Native American holocaust of the 19th century.
And while I'm here I will say 9/11 was not the first terroist attack on US soil. Custer lead a big part of state sanctioned terroism that Hitler approved.
Amen--Not enough Americans who think this way.
A vote for Nader is a vote for McCain. A vote for McCain is a vote for WAR....A vote for Nader is a vote for WAR!
Great to hear Phil Donahue at last got his movie out into the theaters. The previews are excellent. Hopefully the sheep of America are ready to see the truth about the Bush WAR and it's vile harm to America and American families, especially families of the Bush WAR veterans. Co-Director Phil Donahue goes way beyond the likes of a Ms.Oprah, again demonstrating the sacrifice and courage it takes to show Americans real courage in the media world.
Excellent comments about the scab scam Nader/Michael Moore political campaigns that helped put the horrors of a Bush administration in the American White House. At least Michael Moore, in his way, has recanted. Nader is the same tragically misguided bag of hot air and old bones that has (unfortunately for Americans) out lived his message.
March 23, 2008
I just caught a little bit of "Body of War" on CSPAN, very moving! Mr Donahue made an interesting observation, i.e., "this is the most sanitized war in history"!
Mr. Donahue is raising valid questions, seems like he desrves honest answers. Good luck Mr. Donahue, and I sincerely mean that.
Brian Lamb (CSPAN) just stated that the media had backed off the war since casualties had dropped after "the surge".
See some of my prevous posts:
Sad, I just read the post that 4,000 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq. Have there been any polls on what percentage of the Iraqi people appreciate what America has sacrificed for them?
ALSO
What did Senator Obama base his stand on for being, as he said, “against the war from the start”?
Most people are against war, but if they approve or vote or authorize a military action, they at least base it on a perceived threat which they feel is a reasonable response. We knew Saddam had nerve gas for a fact, and had used it! So, most folks believed the analysis presented by the President, that there was compelling evidence that Saddam was a threat, a nuclear, biological, chemical and terroristic threat.
As a sitting jury, Republicans, Democrats, Independents and (if you believe the pollsters) the average American too, all believed the “evidence presented by the Bush Administration, and chose the safe thing to do: Remove the threat! After all, If you don’t base decisions on evidence, what do you base them on and if you can’t trust what your President affirms is the truth, who can you trust?
What information did Senator Barack Obama have at the start? If he had something different from what the President released, did he share it with the press? If he had the same information that was given to the Republicans and other Democrats alike, why did he reach what most would conclude was an illogical or irrational conclusion? Were we not taught that one of the concepts of national defense is that if the evidence supports “incoming missiles” that we take action before they impact? So, if the evidence indicates an eminent threat and the verdict is “that’s not good enough” then it seems to raise an issue of poor judgment? At the least, that “jury member” reached a verdict that seemed to lack common sense.
Is this Double Speak, presenting what was bad judgment as being good judgment, based on armchair quarterbacking on the day after the game?
JOHN McCain's "FREE RIDE WITH THE MEDIA."
“WRAPPING ONES SELF IN THE FLAG IS THE LAST REFUGE OF A SCOUNDREL!!
And that is how he gets the free ride from the press because any negative comment would be considered an attack on his sacrifice as a POW,
He can say anything, no matter how outrageous,and the press will stand up and dutifully salute ,because he has taken refuge in the flag
JUST A NOTE ABOUT JOHN McCAIN,THAT YOU SHOULD CHECK.
JOHN SUFFERS FROM PTSD( POST TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER) FROM HIS 5 YEARS AS A PRISONER OF WAR.
NO PERSON SUBJECTED TO THAT MENTAL AND PHYSICAL STRESS FOR THAT LENGTH OF TIME CAN WALK AWAY WITHOUT BEING DAMAGED MENTALY AND PHYSICALLY.HIS SHORT TEMPER AND FORGETFULNESS ARE INDICATORS.
YOU DONT WANT A 71 YEAR OLD SURVIVOR ANYWHERE NEAR THE"RED"PHONE AT 3 AM.
HE IS A HERO FOR HIS UNSELFISH SERVICE TO HIS COUNTRY BUT "OLD SOLDIERS NEVER DIE,THEY JUST TAKE THE MEDALS AND HONORS BESTOWED ON THEM BY A GREATFUL NATION,AND GRACEFULY FADE AWAY TO ENJOY THEIR TWILIGHT YEARS!
Elliot Altshuler
Lauderhill,Fl
E-mail: statah@aol.com
Phil Donahue,
I am dissapointed that you think that you or Americans are better than other inocent children from other countries. I got so mad at you last night on H & C Fox News. I do have family over in Iraq that are on the ground fighting and they are proud to be there and very proud to be an American. You are a slap in the face to our Military and the parents of the men and women over there and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Mr. Donahue,
I was in Iraq with the 1 MEF during Major Combat Operations in the spring of 2003. I was with the a Navy medical unit deployed in Iraq. We saw many casualties from all services, including Iraqi forces and civilians. War is horrible, but there are many great heroic stories of wounded Marines leaving the hospital and hitching rides back to their units in order to continue the fight. There are many heroic stories of wounded Soldiers returning home and overcoming great adversity. There are heroic stories of Soldiers returning to Iraq with amputations. I know there are Soldiers and Marines that received terrible wounds, some less visible than others, and these are stories that need to be told, but why concentrate on one, why not use your skills to tell the entire story of war. War also creates heroes out of ordinary men. My grandfathers fought in WW I and WW II, Father in Korea, myself in Iraq, and my middle son will soon be a Marine. My oldest son turned down an appointment to VMI and my youngest son shows no interest in a service academy or enlisting. My point is; someone has to be there, someone has to sacrifice for the country. And, if not you and not anyone that you know, who do you suggest? If you do not believe we should ever engage in military combat, why bother with a Defense force. Well, we bother with a Defense force because we champion freedom and liberty around the world. We keep the sea lanes open for shipping and, through our presence, stop other rouge nations from doing the unthinkable. Because we, as a nation, have sacrificed other nations exist.
I realize you do not like this president, but many of us equally disliked the one before. His personal affairs brought shame to the highest office in the land. And, now we cannot support our current operations because the prior president cut the military in half. Maybe there should be a documentary on the gutting of the military during the mid-1990’s, the poor pay, poor housing, and toll that those 8 years took on overall morale. After this war is over you and those like you will go back to completely ignoring the military service members. We expect nothing less.