Gore Vidal was one of the last century's most celebrated authors as well as a screenwriter, essayist and political figure, and perhaps last of the postwar literary raconteurs just as famous for late-night conversation as their works. The New York Times notes that Vidal was such an engaging guest on "The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson" that he was offered a spot as guest host.

While one of Vidal's most famous plays, "The Best Man," is enjoying a Broadway revival, his 1948 novel "The City and the Pillar" is what set the trajectory for the rest of his career. The novel about a man discovering his homosexuality created a sensation for the era, and led Vidal to pursue work writing for television and the movies, including an uncredited stint for the script of "Ben-Hur."

Vidal ran for a New York Congressional seat in 1960 and for U.S. Senate in California in 1982, both unsuccessfully. But perhaps his most memorable political moment came in 1968, when he sparred with William F. Buckley during ABC's coverage of the Democratic National Convention. He called Buckley a "crypto Nazi," and the conservative icon called Vidal a "queer." Later, he sparred with Norman Mailer on "The Dick Cavett Show." Despite the on-air sparring, what made Vidal such a quotable figure was not just his wit and intelligence, but what he said didn't fit neatly into ideological talking points, particularly a contrast to the 24-news landscape of today. In recent years he was asked to comment on just about any subject, whether it be politics or foreign policy, and he seemed to happily oblige.

After moving permanently to the Hollywood Hills and the death of his longtime companion in 2003, Vidal occasionally appeared at industry events, including a 2008 gathering of political and entertainment figures to push Congress to support a new G.I. Bill.

Backers of California's Proposition 8 followed through on their intention to seek a Supreme Court review of lower court rulings overturning the state's ban on same-sex marriage.

In a petition filed with the high court on Tuesday, attorneys for the supporters of the Proposition wrote that the central question in the case is "where the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the state of California from defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman."

Earlier this year, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in the case and refused to overturn a district court ruling declaring Proposition 8 unconstitutional. But the appellate opinion was on somewhat narrower grounds, citing the 1996 decision in Romer vs. Evans as precedent. That decision invalidated a Colorado ballot initiative that limited the rights of gays and lesbians.

"The age-old definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is constitutional as a matter of state public policy," ProtectMarriage, the org that led the effort to pass Prop 8, said in a statement. "We are hopeful and confident that the Supreme Court will grant review and ultimately uphold its precedent and the will of the people."

The full petition is here.

The Supreme Court also will be considering other cases challenging the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, which a handful of courts have found unconstitutional.

The American Foundation for Equal Rights, which is leading the legal effort to overturn Prop 8, plans to oppose the petition.

In a statement, one of their attorneys, Theodore Boutrous, said, "Because two federal courts have already concluded that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, gay and lesbian Californians should not have to wait any longer to marry the person they love.  We therefore will oppose the petition for a writ of certiorari.  However, we recognize that this case presents constitutional issues of national significance, and are ready to defend our victories before the Supreme Court.”

Updated

The Berenstain family is distancing itself from tie-ins with Chick-fil-A, the fast food chain that is perhaps better known for the anti-gay marriage stance of its president Dan Cathy than its chicken patties.

A statement posted to their site Berenstainbears.com said that the family "does not at this time have control over whether this program proceeds or not," saying that questions should be directed to the publisher HarperCollins or the fast food chain. On Monday, they also posted a statement from HarperCollins saying that the publisher was "disappointed to hear recent statements made by Chick-fil-A. After much consideration, we have decided to honor our previous arrangement, with the chain. We have no plans to work with them in the future." But the HarperCollins statement was removed from the Berenstain website by this morning. A spokeswoman for the publisher did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The Jim Henson Co. also had a promo deal with Chick-fil-A, but also vowed not to do any more business with the fast food chain in a protest over Cathy's comments. A few days later, Chick-fil-A posted notes in its restaurants saying that the Henson Co.'s finger puppets were being pulled over "possible safety issues."

A counter protest is being waged by GOP politicos such as Sarah Palin and Rick Santorum. Mike Huckabee has declared Aug. 1 as Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day.

Meanwhile, a First Amendment attorney writes at CNN that the whole controversy has created a whole new level of misinterpretation of free speech rights.

Marc Randazza writes, "Dan Cathy, the CEO of Chick-fil-A, proudly proclaimed his opposition to marriage equality and drew flak from politicians and citizens nationwide, who said Cathy's position made the chain unwelcome on their turf. Some of the condemnation crossed the line, offending the First Amendment. Some did not. Many don't understand where the line is, and now a population already sharply divided over same-sex marriage is collectively less informed about the First Amendment."

His point is that the First Amendment doesn't protect Cathy from criticism, boycotts and protest over his controversial comments, but it may very well protect the chain from some politicians' vows to use their power of zoning to prevent Chick-fil-A from entering their neighborhoods.

The Washington Post's The Fix says that this may be the worst ad of 2012, so far. It's from Todd Akin, running in the Republican primary in Missouri to face off against incumbent Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.). The spot is a jumble of patriotic and Christian rhetoric that doesn't seem to make a point.

This year will see a blitz of political advertising of unprecedented proportions, and inevitably the wonderment will be how so few of the spots will come with any degree of creativity and even coherence. Rather, the goal is quantity versus quality.

Four years ago China dazzled the world with its Olympics opening ceremony, held in the futuristic Beijing National Stadium. The artistic consultant on the project, Ai Weiwei, is perhaps better known in the years since for his outspoken stance on human rights and corruption in his country, leading to his arrest for two months last year. A new documentary, "Ai Weiwei: Never Sorry," opens today in limited release, after winning the Special Jury Prize at Sundance. The film captures his challenge to the Chinese system as well as his arrest and release, a rare critical voice in a country that is anxious to stifle dissent. A surprise is that the project is the debut documentary from Alison Klayman, who first met Ai Weiwei while working as a freelance journalist.

"This is not a movie about someone without a voice, and I am giving that person a platform," Klayman says. "This is a movie about someone who very much has a voice and it is a very inspirational voice. It is taking an independent look at him and allowing people to get to know gim, which then became a lot more dramatic."

I spoke to Klayman last week about the hurdles she had not only in setting out on her first feature documentary project, but in a country so determined to control its image as it continues to emerge on the world stage.

You were a first time filmmaker with you first met Ai Weiwei. How did you get his trust?

KLAYMAN: The side of why he ultimately trusted me is probably best answered by him, but the way I have always understood my great fortune in having really good access for this incredible story is definitely by the dumb luck. My roommate was curating an exhibition for a local gallery in Beijing of Ai Weiwei's work, and she asked me if I would make a video of that exhibtion for that gallery. I just did it for fun, not even for money, it just seemed like a cool thing to do. I met Ai Weiwei when he came over with the gallery team one morning in December 2008, and I was always filming with a camera in hand and he walked in and they said, that's Alison, she is going to make a video for the show. There was never the point when I pitched him the idea or when I said 'Here's my plan for this project,' which I actually think would be a pretty tough sell, especially to Ai Weiwei. So the way we got to know each other was when I was filming, asking him questions or just being present when he was talking to other people. So when I wanted to continue and I followed up in my capacity as a journalist and because I wanted to film more. He just let it keep happening, he didn't object.

You never said, 'I am making a documentary about you.'

KLAYMAN: That exhibtion were photographs from the decade he lived in New York, which was a pretty special show. I used to joke it was his Facebook page, from the decade of 1983 to 93. It was photos of his life but it happened to be pretty interesting. It was was Allen Ginsburg and ACT UP protests and every famous Chinese cultural figure of today back in the 80s, when they were sort of bohemian, sort of couch surfers or whatever it was. It was a really special topic of inquiry as well because it was so personal. I don't think the irony was lost on either of us that it was me and my roommate, who is a Chinese American, and we are both sort of young women in our 20s, living in China, talking to him about when he was a young man living in New York. It was really a special way to get to know each other. He saw the video and was really impressed by it or really pleased by it. ...It was just kind of these different things and slowly became what it was.  One day in the fall of 2009, I overhead him on the wireless mic, he was in the kitchen area and he was talking to a friend who asked him, 'Who's that?.' And he said, that's Allison, she has been filming me for a long time. She is making a documenrtary. And I was like, awesome. It was after that time when I said we agreed he would get to see it before it came out. ... But we had no idea in our minds that it could be what it is now.

Where were you when he was arrested?

KLAYMAN: That was the most terrifying time of working on this film, even though I was in my apartment on the upper west side of New York. I certainly wasnt worried for myself, but it was so scary, it was a risk, that we always knew was there but never expected was around the corner. It was also not clear at all what the outcome would be and that he would be released after 81 days. We didnt know if he would have subversion charges leveled against him, which would inevitably carry years in jail. And we didnt know where he was. For me, I found out late at night in New York and basically stayed up until five or six a.m. on Skype in the studio, and was retweeting good information and translating good information. ...I think I went to bed ... with the comopueer on and Skype open next to me. I was also called upon to do a fair amount of interviews in the states, including on "The Colbert Report," which for me all of that was terrifying. I was not used to speaking about this project. It was not done, and I was also not used to speaking about Ai Weiwei as a person I needed to speak out for. I really thought of it as lucky that I had the best PR training in the world, which was watching Ai Weiwei for like 2 1/2 years.

Did you go back to China after that?

KLAYMAN: I did. After he was released I talked to him on the phone the night he got home. I came in September after he was released June 22, and was also able to go over with him the film, because we wanted to make sure he saw it before it premiered, not only because he was going to view it anyway, but also to know if we were OK, was it safe? I was able to go back [to China] and I didnt have any problems, which is amazing.

One of the most dramatic parts of the movie is when he is released and returns home. The media is camped out at his place, but he is a different person. This outspoken figure is now silenced and can't say anything. What was your reaction?

KLAYMAN: As soon as I saw that, the whole week I was just watching it over and over again. I had dropped it in a very rough version of what our ending still is. It made my heart sink every time when he closes the door. It just felt like you see it on his face, and it was such a stark contrast from everything else in the film. When Weiwei saw the ending, he was very shocked by that footage, he was very struck and did not recognize himself. It was a very scary kind of image.

Does he speak out with the same ease that he did before his arrest?

KLAYMAN: Off the record as an individual, if you showed up at his studio, he would tell you everything. He would not pull any punches. If he was in a good mood, maybe he would say it on the record. What I see is a person who has not changed at all with his convictions. But he is in a tough potision. The truth is he is not safe and he is not superhuman. He is unable to calculate how to walk that fine line, which he was so good at doing before this detention. Now those lines have moved, or they do not exist and it is all under this cloud of uncertainty. So it is hard for him to figure out, as he put it, how to play the game.

Did you yourself run into problems with Chinsese authorities?

KLAYMAN: That is one of the subtexts that runs throughout the film. A lot of viewers are perceptive enough that this film was made, that 'this scene was shot in the police station. this scene was shot of him taking off the guy's sunglasses [in protest].' In large part, I did not face routine difficulties at all in filming at his studio in Beijing. I was never questioned in my capacity as a journalist as to why I was coming and going from Ai Weiwei's place, probably because at the time I was not seen as an important journalist. But the times where it was very tense and scary were the times ... where the entrie purpose was to confront authorities or to file complaints or to request an investigation or a lawsuit. Every morning we woke up and felt, OK, how is it going to go? I where they took a tape or pulled me aside and forced me to delete my footage. But through good filmmaking techniques of constantly changing your tapes, I didn't really lose any footage. In the end, nothing was lost.

The SuperPAC Priorities USA Action is taking down an ad that features footage of Mitt Romney at the 2002 Salt Lake City Games after the International Olympic Committee asked that it be pulled.

Priorities spokesman Bill Burton told the Washington Post, "Once we were assured that Mitt Romney and his allies would be held to the same standard, we were glad to take the ad down from our Web site.”

The pro-Romney SuperPAC Restore Our Future also was to feature footage of Romney, albeit in a positive light.

Priorities' spot, "Romney's Gold," blasted him for outsourcing jobs and for his finances.

Earlier this month, YouTube pulled a Romney campaign ad that featured President Obama singing a portion of Al Green's "Let's Stay Together." The takedown notice was made at the request of the estate for one of the authors of the song. But You Tube restored the spot several days later after determining that it was a fair use.

Robert Duvall will host a Romney campaign fundraiser with Mitt Rommey's wife, Ann, on Sept. 6.

Duvall is one of the rare entertainment figures to host an event for Romney, especially compared to the number of show biz personalities who have headlined those for President Obama. Next month, Gwen Stefani and Warner Bros.' Barry Meyer will host events in Los Angeles for Obama's reelection campaign, with First Lady Michelle Obama the guest.

Duvall's event, first reported by National Journal, will be held at the actor's London County, Va. home, with a general reception costing $2,500 per person, a VIP photo session for $10,000 per person and dinner tickets at $25,000.

Duvall hosted a fundraiser for Rudy Giuliani in September, 2007, and later narrated a movie about John McCain for the Republican National Convention in 2008.

Update: Obama has called HBO's "The Wire" one of his favorite shows. The cast of "The Wire" is hosting an Obama fundraiser on Martha's Vineyard on Aug. 15, according to the Sunlight Foundation.

The FCC is requiring that Comcast carry Tennis Channel on the same tier as Golf Channel and Versus, siding with an adminstrative law judge who said that the cabler was favoring channels that it owns.

Comcast will have 45 days to comply with the order, and must pay a $375,000 fine, the FCC said in its order issued on Tuesday.

“Tennis Channel’s competitive disadvantage against Golf Channel and Versus would be directly relieved if Comcast provided Tennis Channel with equal carriage,” the FCC said. “With equal carriage, Tennis Channel would be able to compete against Golf Channel and Versus on equal footing for content, advertisers and viewers. Futhermore, without the ripple effect of Comcast’s narrow carriage of Tennis Channel on the basis of affiliation, Tennis Channel will be in a better position to compete for broader carriage on the systems of other MVPDs.”

The Jim Henson Co. is severing its ties to Chick-Fil-A, the fast food chain that has triggered outcry over its CEO's opposition to same-sex marriage.

The Jim Henson Co. announced on Facebook on Friday that it was going to give the money it receives from marketing tie-ins at the restaurant chain to the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.

"The Jim Henson Company has celebrated and embraced diversity and inclusiveness for over fifty years and we have notified Chick-Fil-A that we do not wish to partner with them on any future endeavors.  Lisa Henson, our CEO is personally a strong supporter of gay marriage and has directed us to donate the payment we received from Chick-Fil-A to GLAAD."

The Jim Henson Co. had been featuring Creature Shop toys as part of Chick-Fil-A kids meals.

Variety's Brian Lowry has a very well written essay on the aftermath of the shootings in Colorado. This time, there seems to be an inevitability to where the "debate" is headed, which is to say nowhere.

He writes, "Both sides actually have elements of merit in their arguments -- insofar as it's hard to legislate away craziness -- but compromise, dialogue and middle ground are so 20th century.

"As things stand, neither argument can make any headway. "New gun-control laws are unlikely," read a Wall Street Journal headline anticipating the call for greater restrictions such incidents inevitably produce, with a gun-control advocate conceding inaction "comes down to political calculus." Another lamented in the New York Times how they "slog along, from one tragedy to the next."

"The bottom line is Republicans are deep in the pockets of the National Rifle Assn., and most Democrats have concluded attempting to curb gun rights doesn't help them at the polls.

"At the same time, there's no shoving the pop-culture genie back in the bottle, so railing against Hollywood represents little more than a fundraising tool for those in the outrage business."

His full essay is here.

"I think it's awful and damaging to the country." David Geffen, at the Television Critics Assn. press tour on Sunday, when asked what he thought of the role of big money in campaigns. Geffen is among the billionaires who have refused to donate to SuperPACs. He says he cannot donate to any more candidates directly because he is already "maxed out" this cycle.

"Seinfeld" star Jason Alexander writes on Twitter that he received a lot of pushback after he said that he did not "understand people who support public ownership of assault style weapons like the AR-15 used in the Colorado massacre."

So on Sunday, he posted a long essay explaining his position, reiterating his support of an assault weapons ban but also challenging notions put forward by gun rights advocates on whether the shootings could have been prevented.

Alexander writes, "Then there are the folks who write that if everyone in Colorado had a weapon, this maniac would have been stopped. Perhaps. But I do believe that the element of surprise, tear gas and head to toe kevlar protection might have given him a distinct edge. Not only that, but a crowd of people firing away in a chaotic arena without training or planning - I tend to think that scenario could produce even more victims.

"Lastly, there are these well-intended realists that say that people like this evil animal would get these weapons even if we regulated them. And they may be right. But he wouldn't have strolled down the road to Kmart and picked them up. Regulated, he would have had to go to illegal sources - sources that could possibly be traced, watched, overseen. Or he would have to go deeper online and those transactions could be monitored. "Hm, some guy in Aurora is buying guns, tons of ammo and kevlar - plus bomb-making ingredients and tear gas. Maybe we should check that out.""

His full essay is here.

On the other side of the spectrum, Rupert Murdoch sent out a tweet on Saturday supporting more stringent gun control laws.

"We have to do something about gun controls. Police license okay for hunting rifle or pistol for anyone without crim or pscho record. No more"

"Glee" co-creator Ryan Murphy and actor Jared Leto are among the new bundlers added to the Obama campaign's list of fund raisers released today.

Murphy, who hosted Obama at his home for an event in June, raised more than $500,000 for the President's reelection campaign. Leto, who chaired a young Hollywood event for Obama at the Soho House in West Hollywood last month, raised between $100,000 to $200,000. The listed bundlers are as of June 30.

They join a list that already includes The Weinstein Co.'s Harvey Weinstein, actress Eva Longoria, Dreamworks Animation's Jeffrey Katzenberg and Sony's Michael Lynton.

Mitt Romney does not release a list of bundlers, except those registered as lobbyists as part of FEC disclosure rules.

Obama's list of media and entertainment bundlers,and the range raised, below:

$500,000+: Former ambassador Nicole Avant and Netflix's Ted Sarandos; Comcast's David Cohen; Capital Group's John Emerson; political consultant Chad Griffin; DreamWorks Animation's Jeffrey Katzenberg; Broadway producer Margo Lion; political consultant Noah Mamet; writer-director Ryan Murphy; attorney Dana Perlman and actor Barry Karas; producer-actor Tyler Perry; designer Michael Smith and HBO's James Costos; political consultant Andy Spahn; Tennis Channel's Ken Solomon; Weinstein Co.'s Harvey Weinstein; Vogue editor Anna Wintour.

$200,000-$500,000: Eva Longoria, Jamie Alter Lynton.

$100,000-$200,000: Music producer Clarence Avant, attorney Joe Calabrese, self-help guru Deepak Chopra, WME chief Ari Emanuel, actor Jared Leto, Sony Pictures Entertainment's Michael Lynton, producer Wendy Wanderman and venture capitalist Mark Gorenberg.

$50,000-$100,000: Producer Peter Chernin, HBO's Richard Plepler, producer George Stevens Jr., producer Bruce Cohen.

The shootings in a Colorado theater early on Friday quickly revived debates over gun control and, to a lesser extent, the influence of movies, TV shows and videogames in contributing to a culture of violence.

Such rhetoric has become all too familiar as politicians, media pundits and academic experts grapple for answers following shooting rampages. The Columbine High School shootings in 1999 led to years of divergent opinion regarding the influence of videogames, and speculation on whether the movie “Natural Born Killers” and dark-themed music glorified violence and even fueled the psyche of the students who carried out that attack.

The movie-theater shootings on Friday spurred pols and experts to a fresh wave of instant analysis.
On MSNBC’s “Now With Alex Wagner” former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell advocated more stringent gun control laws and brought up the proliferation of violence in movies, even among the heroes.
“When I was growing up, the good guys, Hopalong Cassidy, the Lone Ranger, they never killed anybody,” Rendell said. “They disarmed people and sent them to jail. … Now in a movie and one of those videos, the hero kills 48 people before the credits are done.”

Another guest on the show, Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said, “There are folks in that theater who thought that (the shooting spree) was part of the movie … That movie was a glorification of the very violence that would end up manifesting itself in all too real a way.”
Such tragedies have in the past raised questions regarding the legal ramifications for the studios, which have long denied any link between real-world and virtual violence. Attorneys for Lee Malvo, convicted along with John Allen Mohammed of the Beltway sniper attacks in the Washington D.C. area in 2002, cited videogames and even “The Matrix” in mounting an insanity defense.

The American Medical Assn., the American Psychological Assn. and the American Academy of Pediatrics have supported the view that there is a link to exposure of media violence and aggressive behavior in children. In the wake of Columbine, the AMA said that it is “naive to suggest that entertainment media is the greatest factor to blame.” But it also said that it was “naive to pretend that a steady diet of death and destruction...doesn’t in some way contribute to the problem of real-life violence.”

D.C. lawmakers took action during the Clinton administration to address TV violence, mandating that all TV sets include a “V-chip” so parents can block objectionable programming. California in 2005 was among the states passing laws banning the sale of violent video games to minors. The Supreme Court overturned the law in 2011, ruling that video games were protected speech and limiting what lawmakers at the state and federal level can do legislatively about media violence.

Details about the suspect and his motivations, much less what he watched, were only starting to emerge by mid-afternoon on Friday, but based on past tragedies the issues of gun control and media violence are bound to get further play on cable TV talk and elsewhere in the days ahead.

“It happens every time, anytime there is an incident of this kind,” said Jonathan Freedman, a psychologist at the U. of Toronto and author of “Media Violence and Its Effect on Aggression: Assessing Scientific Evidence.” The MPAA has supported some of Freedman’s research, but his argument, and that of others, is that the hundreds of studies on the subject as inconsistent and even dubious.

“Fiction is fiction and people know it is fiction,” he said. “What happens when people witness the real thing, that is another story.”

Freedman pointed out a contradiction to those who suggest a causal link: The violent crime rate has gone down since 1990, while violent movies have proliferated and violent videogames have have emerged as a multi-billion dollar industry.

Meanwhile, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an advocate of tougher gun laws, was among the first high-profile elected officials to call on presidential candidates to put the issue atop their agenda. Bloomberg said, “You know, soothing words are nice, but maybe it’s time that the two people who want to be president of the United States stand up and tell us what they are going to do about it, because this is obviously a problem across the country.”

Gun rights supporters, however, were wondering whether the problem was just the opposite, and whether restrictions on concealed weapons may have made a difference. Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-Texas) said on one talk radio show, I”t does make me wonder, you know, with all those people in the theatre, was there nobody that was carrying? That could have stopped this guy more quickly. I mean, in Tyler Texas, we had, in my hometown, we had a shooter come in over a domestic matter and just start shooting people, and it was a guy with a concealed carry. He got killed, but his shooting at this guy caused him to run and no doubt saved a lot of lives. He was a real hero.”

BMG Rights Management, which issued the take down request that led to YouTube pulling a Mitt Romney campaign ad featuring President Obama singing Al Green's "Let's Stay Together," said that it acted on the request of the estate of Al Jackson, one the song's co-author. But they denied that partisanship was the issue and instead the estate's desire not to be associated with either candidate.

YouTube has since restored the video, along with an AP report on Obama's singing, after concluding that they were within the legal bounds to do so.

A BMG spokeswoman said, in a statement, "Our sole motivation in this instance, as it is in all instances where we  discover unlicensed uses of our clients' copyrights, is to protect the rights of our clients without regard to political party or cause.
 
"BMG has taken down the use of this specific song in the context of the Romney ad as well as the Obama video after a complaint. The Estate of Al Jackson Jr., co-author of the work in question, does not wish his legacy to be associated with political ads by either candidate.

"We have respected the Estate's request, but we do understand that there can be a reasonable debate about fair use.  But we trust that debate can occur without the insinuation of political activism."

What BMG seems to suggest is that the issue of "fair use' is not so clear cut. So if there is further action, it will be up to Jackson's estate to pursue in court, but not via a take down request.

President Obama ordered all flags on government buildings flown at half mast until July 25 "as a mark of respect for the victims of the senseless acts of violence perpetrated."

Obama and his Republican rival, Mitt Romney, have canceled campaign events and appearances their their campaigns have been pulling ad spots running in swing state markets.

Obama's complete remarks are below:

YouTube has restored a Mitt Romney ad that features President Obama singing from the Al Green song "Let's Stay Together," which was pulled earlier this week at the recommendation of the rights holder BMG Rights Management.

Also restored was an AP report from January featuring Obama singing a few bars of the song.

The Romney campaign argued that its use of the clip was "100% proper" and fair use, and YouTube apparently agrees.

YouTube issued this statement explaining why it restored the video: "When we're notified that a particular video uploaded to our site infringes another's copyright, we remove the material in accordance with the law. We have a counter notification process in place if a user believes a content owner has misidentified their video, and we reinstate content if a user prevails in that process. We also reinstate videos in cases where we are confident that the material is not infringing, or where there is abuse of our copyright tools."

Digital rights orgs had protested the takedown as an abuse of copyright law, but some entertainment attorneys who specialize in such campaign music cases have argued that the Romney campaign would have a tough time proving that it was in the right. So the next chapter could be a lawsuit filed on behalf of BMG, if they want to press things that far.

BMG Rights Management represents one of the co-writers of the song, Al Jackson Jr., according to the Los Angeles Times.

The restored ad is below:

Morgan Freeman has made a $1 million contribution to the pro-Obama SuperPAC Priorities USA Action, the type of high-profile donation supporters hope will lead to other giving if Democrats have hopes of achieving any kind of parity with the flood of money going to outside groups backing Republicans.

Freeman’s donation, which was made in June, will be included in the org’s report to the Federal Election Commission filed on Friday.

In a statement issued by Priorities, Freeman said that “Priorities USA is doing a great job of protecting the values I believe in. I am happy to help them and I hope others will do so as well.”

The SuperPAC was launched last year by two former White House aides, Bill Burton and Sean Sweeney, and drew initial support from Jeffrey Katzenberg, who gave $2 million and, along with his political adviser Andy Spahn, has been helping them raise money within the entertainment community.

But Democratic-oriented SuperPACs have had trouble matching the contributions going to Republican-aligned groups, such as Restore Our Future and Crossroads GPS, in part because of opposition on the left to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision and the perception that it has led to a flood of big money from individual donors into politics. David Geffen, for instance, has said that he “doesn’t contribute to (SuperPACs) or approve of them.”

But other donors who have decried Citizens United nevertheless say it doesn’t make sense to watch the other side create an uneven playing field, particularly when it comes to the fall campaign. Bill Maher expressed those sentiments when he gave $1 million to Priorities in February, and others who have given include Steven Spielberg, J.J. Abrams and Katie McGrath and Chelsea Handler.

After being courted for some time, Haim Saban, one of the most prolific donors to Democrats in the era when so-called “soft money” was legal, last month gave $1 million to a SuperPAC that will split the money evenly between Priorities and outside orgs supporting Democratic House and Senate candidates.
Burton said last week that Priorities will have raised a total of $6 million in June. Although that trails the sums raised by conservative groups, such as Restore Our Future, it reflects an improvement in their fund-raising from previous months.

“President Obama has done a remarkable job in terrible circumstances,” Freeman said in his statement. “He has ended combat operations in Iraq, put in place sensible reforms of Wall Street, save the auto industry and protected the health care of every American with a pre-existing condition. He has recognized the full equality of all our brothers and sistaers and placed impressive, accomplished woman on the Supreme Court. In return for this he is being targeted by hundreds of millions of dollars in special interest money. I for one am proud to lend my voice --- and support --- to those who defend him.”

Mitt Romney's campaign claims that their use of a clip of President Obama singing portions of Al Green's "Let's Stay Together" was "fair use," but the attorney who has represented artists in two of the most celebrated recent cases of campaign copyright trouble doesn't see it that way.

Attorney Larry Iser represented Jackson Browne and David Byrne in their suit against two Republican candidates who used their music without permission. In 2008, Browne sued John McCain, the RNC and the Ohio Republican Party for the use of "Running on Empty" in a campaign commercial, which led to a high-figure settlement an apology. In 2010, Byrne sued then-Florida Gov. Charlie Crist for the use of "Road to Nowhere" in a campaign spot, leading to a settlement and a rather infamous videotaped apology from Crist himself.

Earlier this week, YouTube took down the Romney campaign's spot, citing a takedown request from BMG Rights Management. The Romney campaign defended their use of the footage as "100% proper," which conservative bloggers and some digital rights activists saw the takedown as an assault on free speech.

But Iser said that the notion that the use of the Obama footage is "fair use" because it is a public figure singing merely a few bars at an event in the public interest misinterprets the intent of the "fair use" standard. The exception is for commentary or criticism of a copyrighted work, and "they are not commenting on the Al Green song, if you will. They used it to attack President Obama and his donors. They are not using it to comment on the copyrighted work."

On Monday, after the clip was removed, an AP video clip of Obama remained on YouTube, leading to complaints that there was a double standard: BMG had the clip removed in one instance and not in another.  While AP could claim the "hot news" exception in covering a news event, YouTube faced a "synchronization license issue" in posting the video, Iser notes. It, too, has since been removed.

Iser also says that it is not a defense on the part of the Romney campaign to claim a double standard, as the owner of a song "gets the right to choose" whether to enforce a copyright or not. Al Green, who co-wrote the song, is also an Obama supporter, and could have concerned about his right of publicity and false endorsement. Republicans grouse that it is often their side that are hit by such copyright claims because the music business is dominated by liberals, and there may be some truth to that. (Green's rep did not respond to requests for comment.)

Chuck Dixon, co-creator of the Bane character that appears in the upcoming "The Dark Knight Rises," called Rush Limbaugh's notion that the movie is an attack on Mitt Romney "silly." Dixon also calls himself a "lifelong" conservative.

He tells Comicbook.com, “The idea that there’s some kind of liberal agenda behind the use of Bane in the new movie is silly. I refuted this within hours of the article in the Washington Examiner suggesting that Bane would be tied to Bain Capital and Mitt Romney appearing. Bane was created by me and Graham Nolan and we are lifelong conservatives and as far from left-wing mouthpieces as you are likely to find in comics.”

Rush Limbaugh guaranteed all sorts of attention today when he attacked Warner Bros.' upcoming "The Dark Knight Rises" as anti-Mitt Romney.

His evidence is the presence of a villain named Bane, which he sees as a reference to Bain Capital. Per the Washington Post, Limbaugh said, "The movie has been in the works for a long time, the release date’s been known, summer 2012 for a long time. Do you think that it is accidental, that the name of the really vicious, fire-breathing, four-eyed, whatever-it-is villain in this movie is named Bane?"

The character actually was created in 1993, before Romney even got in to politics, and co-creator Chuck Dixon calls the claim "ridiculous."

It's true that Hollywood leans left, that plenty of Warner Bros.' executives are supporters of President Obama and that Democratic senator Patrick Leahy has scored another cameo in the latest film. But when "The Dark Knight" was released in 2008, some conservative commentators saw it as a nod to then-President George W. Bush.

"There seems to me no question that the Batman film 'The Dark Knight,' currently breaking every box office record in history, is at some level a paean of praise to the fortitude and moral courage that has been shown by George W. Bush in this time of terror and war," wrote Andrew Klavan in the Wall Street Journal. "Like W, Batman is vilified and despised for confronting terrorists in the only terms they understand. Like W, Batman sometimes has to push the boundaries of civil rights to deal with an emergency, certain that he will re-establish those boundaries when the emergency is past."

This actually reminds me of a screening I attended of "The Incredibles" the day after the presidential election. Many in the crowd crestfallen that John Kerry had lost, and, with that in their minds, saw the animated as somehow pro-Bush. The director of "The Incredibles," Brad Bird, appeared afterward at a Q&A and had to defend the movie as apolitical, having been conceived before Bush took office. It speaks to how the news cycle can influence the interpretation of otherwise nonpartisan entertainment. For his part, Limbaugh thrives on comments made to provoke and jest, as nothing gets the juices flowing than the idea that mass culture contains some ulterior message.

If the latest Batman films present contradictory partisan leanings, maybe it is time to retroactively parse past summer hits for political intent. Obama does enjoy support from those responsible for the biggest summer blockbuster of them all, "Star Wars," as evidenced by this ABC News story.

Updated

The House Appropriations Committee unveiled new funding bill for 2013 and beyond that cuts federal funding to public broadcasting.

The bill cuts all funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in 2015. The CPB, which distributes funds to public stations nationwide, also would see $111.3 million rescinded from its budget in fiscal year 2013, and $222.5 million in 2014. Public broadcasting operates on an advanced appropriations cycle.

While the funding bill won't make it too far in the Democratic-controlled Senate, which already has proposed a $445 million budget for public broadcasting, it reflects an ongoing effort by conservatives to force public broadcasting to rely on sources of private donations. Mitt Romney, for instance, last year said that public broadcasting should be able to survive on its own philanthropy.

"This proposal flies in the face if the will of the American people, who routinely rank public broadcasting as one of the best investments the federal government makes and who overwhelmingly support our work and our public service mission, across the ideological spectrum," said Patrick Butler, president and CEO of the Assn. of Public Television Stations.

He said that federal funding already has been slashed by 13% over the past two fiscal years, and that the cuts "would mean the end of public broadcasting in America."

It would seem that the outlook for public broadcasting is better this year than last. Coming off of Tea Party victories in the 2010 midterms, the new Republican majority in the House was anxious to make a mark, and it followed through on the budget resolution to end government support for public stations. The NPR missteps that ended in the resignation of Vivian Schiller didn't help, either. But as some congressional detractors have pointed out, public stations have on their side the viewers, a powerful constituency that can press local representatives to save "Sesame Street," as the debate is often framed, and the idea of zeroing out funding was stopped in the Senate. This time around, PBS also can point to some genuine hits, like "Downton Abbey" and "Sherlock," as added reason not to cut funding for stations who would not be able to afford the license fees to carry such shows, although the network is anxious to point to educational and arts programming that commercial broadcast and cable networks probably never would carry.

Paula Kerger, president and CEO of PBS, said, "While we understand the many difficult decisions appropriators must make and that the nation is facing challenging economic times, if enacted, such drastic cuts in federal funding could have a devastating effect on public television stations, especially those in rural areas.

"Last year, a study conducted by the bi-partisan research team of Hart/American Viewpoint found overwhelming public opposotion to the elimination of government funding of public broadcasting, with nearly 70% of voters -- across the political spectrum -- opposing such a cut.

"We urge members of Congress to listen to the American public, which consistently support the federal investment in public broadcasting.”

Patricia Harrison, president and CEO of CPB, said, “This House Labor, HHS, Education Appropriations Bill would clearly begin the elimination of CPB funding.  This action is in stark contrast to the overwhelming trust and value the American people place in our country’s public broadcasting service. ”

Gary Knell, NPR's president and CEO, said, "We are disappointed and troubled by these proposals and we and our member stations are actively engaging with members of Congress to explain the damage it would do to public radio and television stations if enacted. Over 34 million people rely on public radio stations every week for fact-based, independent news they can trust, for civic and civil dialogue, and for music and cultural programming that can't be found anywhere else."

Updated

A spokeswoman for BMG Rights Management defended their takedown notice of a Mitt Romney ad featuring President Obama singing a few bars from Al Green's "Let's Stay Together."

The BMG spokeswoman said, "Our duty is to protect the rights of our songwriters and other clients without regard to political party or cause. In this case, the use of the music in question was not approved by the rights holder. As a result, normal takedown procedure was followed."

The Romney campaign says that its use of Obama's singing is "fair use," and said that it planned to defend its rights. I can file for a counter notice with YouTube to restore the ad, after which the rights holders have 10 days to give YouTube notice that they have filed action in court seeking an order to stop the showing. If no such order is filed, the video can be restored. Of course, 10 days are like eons in a presidential campaign.

Green wrote the song with Al Jackson Jr. and Willie Mitchell.

Update: Timothy B. Lee of Ars Technica sees this as a "bogus" takedown request.

He writes, "The Romney ad seems like as clear-cut a case of fair use as can be imagined. Obama's singing is a core part of the ad's message, and copyright law explicitly mentions commentary and criticism as justifications for fair use. And it's hard to imagine the ad harming the market for "Let's Stay Together."

"Yet the "notice and takedown" process established by the DMCA and apparently utilized by BMG Rights Management in this case doesn't give the Romney campaign much recourse. It can file a counter notice stating that it believes its clip to be fair use, but YouTube is required to wait a minimum of 10 days before putting the video back up. In a campaign where the news cycle is measured in hours, 10 days is an eternity."

Over the weekend, the Obama campaign came out with an ad, "Firms," that featured the voice of Mitt Romney singing "America the Beautiful" while slamming the candidate for outsourcing. Then the Romney campaign followed that up with its own version of a candidate, this time Obama singing Al Green's "Let's Stay Together."

"America the Beautiful" is in the public domain; "Let's Stay Together" isn't. And this afternoon the Romney campaign's spot, mocking Obama's lyrical prowess, was taken down with the notice, "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by BMG_Rights_Management." The ad was posted on the Romney campaign's site, and is titled "Political Payoffs and Middle Class Layoffs." It was meant to tie Obama to upper income elites, as he sang at a fundraiser at the Apollo theater in January.

A spokeswoman for BMG could not immediately be reached.

The Romney campaign has argued that its use of clips --- of journalists and, in this case, musician lyrics --- is "fair use." "Our use was 100% proper, under fair use, and we plan to defend ourselves," said one campaign source.

Green is an Obama supporter, and, after the President sang the lyrics and sales of the recording shot up, the singer performed at a campaign fundraiser.

The Center for Democracy and Technology in 2010 did a report on "abusive" takedowns during campaigns, concluding that "short clips in political advertising should in many cases be permitted under copyrightʼs 'fair use' exception. Fair use permits the use of a copyrighted work for purposes such as 'criticism' or 'comment,' subject to a four-factor balancing test that is applied on a case-by-case, fact-specific basis." Among them is the issue how how "transformative" the work is. Courts have given even more leeway to "fair use" when it has to do with issues of public concern, the study noted, which is why "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" gets away with using so much embarrassing material from the cable news networks without first obtaining permission.

The Obama campaign's ad is below.

Also, below is AP coverage of Obama singing Green, which remains on YouTube. Conservative bloggers and reporters are questioning why this version has not also been pulled. Musicians have a history of allowing their songs to be used by politicians they favor --- which in the music business tend to be those on the left --- while being diligent about pursuing copyright claims against politicians they are against. They also have pursued false endorsement claims, although it is hard to see how that would apply in this case.

Bob Schieffer objected to Mitt Romney's use of his image in a campaign spot that ran during Sunday's "Face the Nation."

The ad opens with Schieffer saying, "When the President was elected, he talked about hope and change. Whatever happened to hope and change? Now, it seems he is just coming right out of the box with these old-fashioned negative ads."

On "Face the Nation," Schieffer said, "I want to start with something that we didn't know about when this broadcast started. But it is my understanding that just a few minutes ago, the Romney campaign bought time on 'Face the Nation' during one of our commercial blocks and in some other markets around the country running a new ad, which includes me."

Schieffer noted that the spot was done without his permission or that of CBS News.

"It comes as a total surprise to me and and that is that. But that's where we are in politics."

Schieffer's remarks are here.

News organizations have been objecting to campaigns' use of clips, arguing that it leaves a false impression that they are endorsing a candidate or a position. But campaigns say that such material is "fair use," although there are not exact standards of when a line is crossed and the use of copyrighted material becomes infringement.

Haim Saban's contribution was made last month to Unity 2012, a SuperPAC that raises for Priorities USA Action, Majority PAC and House Majority PAC.

Media mogul Haim Saban has given $1 million that is being split between a pro-Obama SuperPAC and other independent committees supporting Democratic candidates for the Senate and the House, sources said.

The money will be split evenly between Priorities USA Action and the two other PACs. His contribution is expected to be reported in disclosure reports next week.

Saban has been one of the likely donors to Democratic SuperPACs, as pressure builds on the left to try to come even close to matching the avalanche of money being given to Republican-supporting SuperPACs.

Saban, who owns a controlling stake in Univision and made a fortune from the children's series "Mighty Morphin Power Rangers," already indicated earlier this year that he planned to give. He was one of the most prolific "soft money" donors to Democrats before it was curbed in light of campaign finance reform laws in 2002.

On Friday, Priorities' Bill Burton told Bloomberg TV that the PAC would report $6 million raised for June, marking an increase in contributions from the previous month.

Other entertainment figures who have given to Priorities include Jeffrey Katzenberg, Steven Spielberg, Bill Maher and Chelsea Handler.

Mitt Romney will give interviews today to ABC, CBS and NBC as well as Fox News and CNN, in what is a sign that the campaign sees the need to more aggressively respond to attacks on him over his career at Bain, questions of when he left the firm and whether he will release his tax returns.

The only pitfall is that he's appearing on a summer Friday, normally a low point in public attention, although what he says will certainly get substantial play through the weekend and on Sunday talk shows.

Architect Frank Gehry and his wife Berta are hosting Yo-Yo Ma at their Santa Monica home on Aug. 6 to raise money for President Obama's reelection.

The event costs $2,500 per person, with proceeds going to the Obama Victory Fund. The President is not on the bill, but a number of surrogates are hosting events as pressure is on after Mitt Romney and the Republican National Committee greatly outpaced Obama and the Democrats in fundraising in June. George Clooney is among the hosts of an Obama fundraiser in Geneva in late August, and Jared Leto hosted an event for the President at Soho House in West Hollywood last month.

First Lady Michelle Obama will headline a fundraiser on Aug. 12 at the Beverly Hills home of Gwen Stefani. The event is billed as a "Sunday of fun," with members of No Doubt and their families also present. Tickets start at $2,500 per family of four, $5,000 for a photo op (couple), $8,000 for a photo op (family) and $25,000 for event co-chairs. Obama also is expected to raise money at two other events in her visit to Los Angeles.

Word is Obama himself will visit some time in September, although the schedule has changed rather rapidly in the race for campaign dollars.

Yo-Yo Ma performed at Obama's inauguration, and the President awarded him with the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2010.

FCC chairman Julius Genachowski issued a statement late on Wednesday calling a new law passed by Russia's lower house of Parliament "troubling and dangerous," warning that it stifle investment because it gives the government broader powers to censor sites.

The law is aimed at curbing child pornography, but Genachowski suggested that it could be misused.

"Today, the Russian Federation’s lower house of parliament, the State Duma, passed a bill that gives the state power to create a registry of blacklisted websites," Genachowski said. "If enacted into law, this will require Internet service providers and website hosts to block access to the blacklisted sites or risk being added to the blacklist themselves.  This is a troubling and dangerous direction.  The world’s experience with the Internet provides a clear lesson: a free and open Internet promotes economic growth and freedom; restricting the free flow of information is bad for consumers, businesses, and societies."

Genachowski added that he recently attended the Saint Petersburg International Economic Forum in Russia, where he "heard broad interest in expanding broadband access, and broad recognition of the potential of the Internet as a strong engine for innovation, economic growth and creativity, as well as improved education, health care, and government services."

"While protecting children on-line is a legitimate governmental concern, the Duma’s bill, in its current form, could lead to restricting access to valuable Internet content and services and chilling innovation, economic opportunity, as well as free expression," Genachowski said.

Genachowski's statement came after Wikipedia's Russian site went dark in protest of the bill. His words also are somewhat unusual. Earlier this year, the FCC chairman stayed out of the debate in Washington over the Stop Online Piracy Act, which Wikipedia also protested as giving government officials too much power to curb content, even if it was to combat piracy.

Kirk Cameron is one of the few show biz types to go public with their social conservatism, and he follows through with a new video he taped for the National Organization for Marriage opposing same-sex marriage.

NOM said on its website, "Made famous as a child actor, today Kirk Cameron is one of America's most important marriage champions. Kirk stands fearlessly in defense of God's truth about marriage despite frequent and merciless harassment by the mainstream media for his outspoken Biblical views."

The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation's Herndon Graddick said in response, "Kirk Cameron and the anti-gay activists at NOM are making a claim that Americans know to be false. This rhetoric won't work anymore. Communities across this country love and cherish their LGBT neighbors, friends and family members. This includes people in families headed by LGBT people. Their implication that LGBT couples can’t create loving and stable homes is not only outdated and irrelevant; it’s designed specifically to hurt those families.”

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) is taking issue with the recent episode of HBO's "Newsroom," and even called HBO's co-president Richard Plepler to protest that it unfairly portrayed him as advocating the repeal of the 14th Amendment.

Per Talking Points Memo, Lee's office said that he supported "clarifying" the 14th Amendment, not its repeal.

The 14th Amendment grants citizenship to anyone born within the U.S. borders.

Update: An HBO spokeswoman said, "We have had very respectful conversations with the Senator and that is where we are at this point."

Director Jason Pollock is in the midst of making "Undroppable," a documentary about the school dropout crisis, but there's a twist that separates this project from the likes of "Waiting for 'Superman'."

Pollock, with more than 100,000 Twitter followers, is using social media to unveil portions of the project as he makes it, hoping that an expected feature film debut in 2013 will come with a built-in audience.

While education is near the top of so many surveys as a priority issue among the electorate, it is not an easy hook to garner attention at the multiplex. ("Waiting for 'Superman'" is a rare exception, with a gross of $6.4 million). More than 70 clips from "Undroppable" have been posted on the project's YouTube site, with interviews with 60 teachers and students from six different schools. The focus is on students who are graduating despite the hardships in their low-income communities.

Pollock also is producing the project along with Adam McKay, Yoxi CEO Sharon Chang and talent manager Scooter Braun (star client: Justin Bieber).

The schools in the project are La Causa-Youthbuild Charter School in Los Angeles; Collins Academy in Chicago; Palumbo Academy in Philadelphia; Joplin High School in Joplin, Mo.; New Bedford High School in New Bedford, Mass.; and East High School in Des Moines, Iowa.

A clip from the project is below:

TV stations are asking a federal court to put a stop to the FCC’s plans to require that TV broadcasters post political ad spending information online.

The new rule initially would apply to network affiliates in the top 50 markets, and is scheduled to take effect on Aug. 2.

In a filing with the U.S. District Court of Appeals on Tuesday, the National Assn. of Broadcasters asked for an emergency stay and said that the FCC engaged in “arbitrary and capricious decision making” when it adopted the new rule in late April. Although broadcasters already are required to make such information public, it usually only can be accessed by visiting the station itself and requesting the public file.

“This will place NAB’s members at a distinct disadvantage to their non-broadcast competitors, who will not be required to post rate information on the Internet,” the NAB said. They also said that the stations would face a “significant burden” by being forced to post information online “on an almost real-time basis.”

The NAB also said that the new rule raises antitrust concerns, as stations will now have easy access to a competitor’s rate information. Although the NAB proposed a compromise proposal to offer a summary of ad buys without the rate information, a majority of the FCC’s commissioners rejected it.

“Non-broadcast competitors will be able to determine in a matter of seconds exactly what prices local broadcast stations are charging for specific spots,” the NAB said. “As a result, they will acquire an unfair advantage over broadcasters in the competition for political and commercial advertising, just as a poker player who is able to peak at an opponent’s hand acquires an unfair advantage in a poker game.”

FCC chairman Julius Genachowski, a champion of the new rule, told lawmakers on Capitol Hill on Tuesday that it can be carried out with relative ease and that the agency would hold a demonstration workshop next week. The data will be posted to a central database on the FCC’s website. He was addressing an oversight hearing of a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing.

Norman Lear is once again countering the religious right with the Born Again American movement, a twist on Born Again Christian, with a followup to a song written by Keith Carradine.

Lear wrote on the Huffington Post last week, "I would fight another war, if they let me, to defend that Born Again Christian's constitutional right to express that point of view. But I believe that the view itself hasn't an ounce of constitutional credibility, and I am correct in thinking it totally un-American. Each time this has occurred to me, such is the power of good phrasing, I've thought of myself as having a Born Again American moment."

The followup video, created by Mark Johnson, is below. Carradine penned the song several years ago.

Lear, by the way, was honored on his 90th birthday last month at a Kennedy Center benefit for People for the American Way, the progressive org he founded in the early 1980s. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was among the speakers --- her speech here --- and the event also featured Jane Lynch and Kathleen Turner.

Brian Ach/Getty Images photo: Lear, Pelosi, PFAW's Michael Keegan and Lynch at June 21 event.

Sony's "Men in Black 3" was a hit in Chinese theaters this summer, but it wasn't the same film American moviegoers saw.

Some 13 minutes were trimmed, including one scene in which Will Smith erases the memories of a crowd of onlookers in New York's Chinatown. According to China Southern Daily, the government may have censored that part of the film because it evoked the image of the Chinese government's tendency to censor.

The "Men in Black" cuts got plenty of coverage on the blogosphere in the U.S., but evoked very little discernible outrage from the Hollywood institutions that have so zealously professed a defense of free speech.

As the Onion AV Club noted, wryly, "It is, indeed, the most glaring example of Hollywood films kowtowing to Chinese censorship since the last one."

Another blogger, Sonny Bunch of Doublethink, saw irony in the furor that greeted the MPAA's R rating for the documentary "Bully," yet little over the many times Hollywood blockbusters have been edited to meet the demands of Chinese film authorities.

Of course they're right, but censorship is seen as a part of doing business in China, and for the studios, it's a price they're willing to pay to avoid missing out on an exploding market.

While the studios allow edited movies in other territories to respond to cultural sensitivities, and more often than not with little attention, the practice takes on a higher profile due to the size and potential of the market, market, and by what can sound to Americans like stringent, even bizarre rules. (For instance, films allowed to enter the market are not permitted to depict or mention time travel).

Moreover, Hollywood, like many other industries, is measuring success in China by access to the marketplace, not by the content it can get past authorities.

Earlier this year, a deal to ease China's quotas on foreign films was hailed as a trade breakthrough by the Obama administration, the MPAA and studio moguls. There was little mention of any demand for relaxation of content standards.

Chris Fenton, president of DMG Entertainment Motion Picture Group, which is co-producing "Iron Man 3" in China with Disney and Marvel, says that acceptance of Chinese edits has much do to with the way studios and producers gain entry into the market: The challenge is to establish trust, not to push the envelope.

And while the uninitiated may look with puzzlement at the way business is done there, he says, the attitude is one of partnership -- to make each other look good, not to offend.

"It is relationship-based," Fenton says. "It is (about) understanding the other side and having them understand you. It comes down to a strategic approach to what you are pushing into that market, why you are pushing it and how you (can push) it."

Nevertheless, the increasing profile of the Chinese market will undoubtedly draw greater attention to the treatment of censorship there vs. here.

SCOTUSBlog's Tom Goldstein does a second-by-second reconstruction of the reporting of the Supreme Court's healthcare ruling, giving a full explanation of what went wrong with Fox News and CNN and what went right with other news sources.

He writes, "The two networks’ responses to how Thursday morning unfolded are also a study in contrasts.  Both got identical incorrect information from their producers inside the Court, who made mistakes despite their best efforts.  The reaction in some quarters at CNN has been apoplectic.  But Fox – which like CNN is taking steps to avoid making a similar initial mistake in the future – generally views Thursday morning’s “transparent” broadcasting of information as it developed in real time as exactly how its reporting should function.

"At the White House, there is more to the story than the spin that the President believed the Administration had lost the case only for a very short period of time.  In fact, for at least a few minutes he thought the opposite and for more than five minutes, he had substantially worse information than many Americans."

Updated

President Obama issued a statement today in tribute to Andy Griffith, who died today at age 86.

"Michelle and I were saddened to hear about the passing of Andy Griffith this morning.  A performer of extraordinary talent, Andy was beloved by generations of fans and revered by entertainers who followed in his footsteps.  He brought us characters from Sheriff Andy Taylor to Ben Matlock, and in the process, warmed the hearts of Americans everywhere.  Our thoughts and prayers are with Andy’s family."

Griffith and Ron Howard revived their Mayberry roles for a video for Obama in the 2008 campaign.

And when Griffith did a public service announcement for Medicare in 2010, it created some friction coming in the midst of the healthcare debate. Public Policy Polling even measured Griffith's favorability rating, which dropped in North Carolina as the spot was viewed as expressing support for the Affordable Care Act.

Update: More on the political side of Andy Griffith: The New York Times, in a front page story, looks at how Griffith's signature character, Sheriff Andy Taylor, contrasted to the redneck image of southern authority in the midst of the civil rights era.

Neal Genzlinger writes, "While the urbanites were ascendant, characters like Atticus Finch in “Mockingbird” and Sheriff Taylor of “The Andy Griffith Show” were keeping the flame of Main-Street nobility and wisdom alive. In Andy’s town, the fictional Mayberry, a place modeled on Mr. Griffith’s real hometown, Mount Airy, N.C., slick, eggheaded urban types didn’t generally swoop in and solve problems. More often, they were the problem."

Griffith, he notes, was a Democrat, and was even asked once to run against Jesse Helms in North Carolina.

In the Washington Post, Mary Curtis writes, "Griffith supported another Democrat, N.C. Gov. Bev Perdue, in her campaign. Counting down the days of her lame-duck tenure and fresh off the GOP legislature’s successful override on three bills she vetoed, she said in her statement: 'Throughout his career, he represented everything that was good about North Carolina: a small town boy and UNC graduate who took a light-hearted approach to some of the attributes he grew up with and turned them into a spectacularly successful career.'

"In 2010, an ad in support of health care legislation seriously dented Griffith's approval numbers in his beloved North Carolina, a poll showed. Which was enough of a shock that a Democratic consultant suggested to the News & Observer, 'It's a good time to call up Barney Fife.'"

Curtis adds that in the 1960s, Griffith skirted dealing with race on "The Andy Griffith Show" as it was a sitcom, and something that "Andy could not have solved in a half hour, so he left it alone."

Variety's Brian Lowry notes that Griffith's legacy extended to "A Face in the Crowd," in which Griffith's Lonesome Rhodes had more than a few similarities to Glenn Beck.

Finally, so associated was Griffith with the Democratic Party that in 1990, state Democrats in North Carolina even urged him to run for Senate in a bid to unseat Jesse Helms. A poll conducted that year show that Griffith had a nine point lead on Helms.

I'm in Minneapolis this week, visiting my family here and doing my best to try to unplug for a bit. As such, blogging will be sporadic. So have a great Fourth of July, and I'll be back on a regular schedule next week.

Anderson Cooper came out publicly to The Daily Beast's Andrew Sullivan --- but the CNN anchor also gave a long explanation of the struggle that gay journalists have in covering the story and being the story.

Read the post here.

Cooper writes in an e-mail to Sullivan, "I've always believed that who a reporter votes for, what religion they are, who they love, should not be something they have to discuss publicly. As long as a journalist shows fairness and honesty in his or her work, their private life shouldn't matter.

"Recently, however, I’ve begun to consider whether the unintended outcomes of maintaining my privacy outweigh personal and professional principle. It’s become clear to me that by remaining silent on certain aspects of my personal life for so long, I have given some the mistaken impression that I am trying to hide something - something that makes me uncomfortable, ashamed or even afraid. This is distressing because it is simply not true.

"I’ve also been reminded recently that while as a society we are moving toward greater inclusion and equality for all people, the tide of history only advances when people make themselves fully visible. There continue to be far too many incidences of bullying of young people, as well as discrimination and violence against people of all ages, based on their sexual orientation, and I believe there is value in making clear where I stand."