Friday, February 27, 2015

 

Media | News Analysis NY TIMES


Bill O’Reilly and Fox News: They’re in It Together
By JONATHAN MAHLER and EMILY STEEL

The Fox News host Bill O’Reilly aggressively defended his Falklands coverage earlier in his career after reports surfaced that he had embellished stories about his war reporting.

Hours after the news broke that Brian Williams had misrepresented his account of a helicopter trip in Iraq, he issued an on-air apology. NBC News started an investigation, and within days had suspended Mr. Williams, calling his actions "wrong and completely inappropriate."

When Mother Jones reported that Bill O’Reilly had engaged in self-aggrandizing rhetoric about his coverage of the Falklands war, he called one of the authors of the article "an irresponsible guttersnipe" and used his nightly show to fight back against his accusers. His bosses at Fox News, including the chief executive, Roger Ailes, rallied to his defense.

Fox’s handling of the controversy says a lot about the network. It also says a lot about its most visible star, a man who perhaps more than any other has defined the parameters and tenor of Fox News, in the process ushering in a new era of no-holds-barred, intentionally divisive news coverage.

Since dethroning CNN’s Larry King as the king of cable news almost 14 years ago, Mr. O’Reilly has helped transform a start-up news channel into a financial juggernaut, with estimated annual profits of more than $1 billion. He and Fox News have risen not on the back of big interviews or high-impact investigations but on the pugnacious brand of conservatism personified by Mr. O’Reilly.

"Bill’s credibility with his audience is not based on his record as a traditional journalist," said Jonathan Klein, a former president of CNN/U.S. "His credibility, in the view of his fans, is based on his trenchant analysis of the events of the day, his pulling no punches, his willingness to call it like it is."

There are other differences between the two controversies. The incident at the center of Mr. O’Reilly’s occurred more than 30 years ago; Mr. Williams’s happened in 2003. And his accusers are journalists, not military veterans as they were in Mr. Williams’s case. But the most meaningful point of distinction — and the reason Mr. O’Reilly’s job is almost certainly safe — is that he is not an anchorman, with all of the cultural weight that title carries. He’s a professional provocateur.

The accusations against Mr. O’Reilly, which have since been substantiated by other journalists in Argentina at the time, have played neatly into the network’s narrative of being the conservative outlier in an industry dominated by liberals.

"Fox News has a market; the market is people who don’t trust the news media," said Jay Rosen, a journalism professor at New York University. "That strategy requires personalities like Bill O’Reilly to be under attack from the rest of the news media. When something like this flares up, it gets incorporated into a programming strategy."

David Corn, one of the authors of the Mother Jones article and a former Fox News contributor, said he received the tip about Mr. O’Reilly the day after NBC News announced its suspension of Mr. Williams for six months without pay. According to Mr. Corn’s source, Mr. O’Reilly had repeatedly made false claims about his experience covering the Falklands war as a young CBS News correspondent.

Mr. Corn and Daniel Schulman, the other reporter on the article, soon discovered what Mr. Corn describes as a pattern of misrepresentation in Mr. O’Reilly’s statements about his experiences in the Falklands.

Last Thursday, the two Mother Jones reporters emailed a Fox News spokeswoman a list of questions. The first one read: "In numerous instances — on his television and radio shows and in his book, ‘The No Spin Zone’ — Bill O’Reilly has said that he was in a ‘war zone’ during the Falklands war when he was a correspondent at CBS News. But it appears no American correspondents were allowed in the Falkland Islands war zone during the conflict. How does Mr. O’Reilly explain his comments?"

Fox did not respond. Mr. O’Reilly has since said that he never claimed he had reported from the Falkland Islands, where the fighting occurred. "I said I covered the Falklands war, which I did," he said last Friday. He went on to describe his coverage of protests in the aftermath of the war on the streets of Buenos Aires, more than 1,000 miles from the Falklands.

In the days after the Mother Jones article was published, Mr. O’Reilly mounted an aggressive campaign against the article and its authors on Fox, and aired a video clip and an interview with a former NBC journalist that he said supported his version of events. He also threatened a New York Times reporter that he would come after her "with everything I have" if he deemed her reporting unfair. "I don’t want you to get hurt," he said. "This is as serious as it gets."

This is not the first time that Mr. O’Reilly or a member of his staff tried to intimidate a journalist. On Tuesday, the Huffington Post’s Amanda Terkel wrote about being verbally accosted by one of Mr. O’Reilly’s producers after she criticized Mr. O’Reilly for implying that a young woman who had been raped was partly to blame.

In an interview on Monday about his Falklands reporting, Mr. O’Reilly defended his accounts. "Every single thing I said is true," he said. Fox News did not make Mr. O’Reilly or Mr. Ailes available for this article.

Other reports have since emerged questioning some of Mr. O’Reilly’s other assertions. Most notably, Media Matters has challenged Mr. O’Reilly’s claims that he was outside the Palm Beach, Fla., home of an acquaintance of Lee Harvey Oswald when he killed himself with a shotgun in 1977.

Mr. O’Reilly has been ensnared in controversy before. In 2004, he was sued by a former "O’Reilly Factor" producer for sexual harassment. The suit was settled about two weeks after it was filed.

He has long fashioned himself as a kind of embattled underdog, a product of working-class Long Island who felt out of place at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government — where he earned a graduate degree — and at Washington dinner parties.

For years he was a low-profile TV news journeyman doing stints in Denver, Dallas, Hartford and Scranton, Pa., before joining CBS News in New York. Mr. O’Reilly invariably chafed against the constraints of traditional TV news and often quarreled with management.

In 1986, Roone Arledge, the president of ABC News, hired Mr. O’Reilly after hearing him deliver a eulogy at the funeral of a mutual friend. Five years later, with his career at ABC News seemingly stalled, Mr. O’Reilly left the network to join "Inside Edition" as a correspondent and anchor. He brought an edge and point of view to the syndicated tabloid show.

Then, in 1996, Mr. Ailes, impressed by the Mr. O’Reilly’s brash assertiveness, gave him his own show on his new, 24-hour cable news network, Fox News Channel. "And, by the way, everyone advised me not to," Mr. Ailes later reflected. "Because he had been in the business 25 years, and he was never a star."

That changed quickly at Fox. Liberated from the shackles of network propriety and given a Democratic president embroiled in scandal, Mr. O’Reilly channeled his combative, partisan nature into a hit show. Soon he had moved from 6 p.m. to prime time, and was toppling a variety of better-known hosts on competing networks, including Mr. King.

"Larry King loved everybody and Bill O’Reilly doesn’t love anybody," said the journalist Michael Kinsley, a former co-host of CNN’s "Crossfire." "The truth is I sort of prefer the second. It makes for better television." (Mr. O’Reilly once said Mr. Kinsley would not understand an argument he was making about detainees’ rights on Guantánamo Bay until terrorists "cut off his head.")

"The O’Reilly Factor" is a big moneymaker for Fox, bringing in more than $100 million in advertising revenue in 2014, according to the marketing research company Kantar Media. The show drew an average of nearly three million viewers a night over the last month.

And its popularity among conservatives has made Mr. O’Reilly an influential force in Republican politics. Last month, he met privately with the former Florida governor and likely presidential candidate Jeb Bush. (Mr. O’Reilly’s guest list is by no means limited to members of the right. President Obama sat down for two pre-Super Bowl interviews with him.)

Mr. O’Reilly is also one of the country’s best-selling authors. His memoir, "A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity," has sold more than a million copies, according to his Amazon profile. His "Killing" franchise — a series of narrative nonfiction books about the assassinations of historical figures like Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy, with 12 million copies in print worldwide — is also enormously popular, despite drawing criticism for factual inaccuracies.

His first book, in 1998, was a crime novel, "Those Who Trespass," a violent and sexually explicit revenge fantasy about an unhinged broadcast journalist who covered the Falklands war. After experiencing a career setback while covering the conflict, the journalist murders the network executives and correspondents who have slighted him.

Mr. O’Reilly knows perfectly well what his audience wants: a justice-seeking vigilante, whether he’s the protagonist of a fictional thriller or sitting behind a news desk.

His popularity may not be built on his credibility as a news anchor, but Mr. O’Reilly’s audience is loyal, and the current flap seems unlikely to damage his reputation among his fans.

It could have the opposite effect. "The viewers of Fox are more apt to dismiss this as an unfair attack on their beloved anchor," said Mark Feldstein, a professor of journalism at the University of Maryland.

On Monday night, when Mr. O’Reilly addressed the controversy on the air, his audience was more than 10 percent larger than the previous week.

Alexandra Alter contributed reporting.

Wednesday, February 25, 2015

Cold Calculation

Mitch McConnell isn’t trying to avoid a shutdown. He’s trying to win the next election.


By Alec MacGillis  SLATE
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell more than any other major politician today, embodies the permanent campaign mindset that holds such sway in Washington.
Seven weeks after pledging to make Republicans in Congress look less "scary," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is just making them look rudderless. McConnell spent Tuesday scrambling to come up with a way to allow congressional Republicans to vent their opposition to President Obama’s executive order on immigration without shutting down the Department of Homeland Security. As it stands, DHS will be shuttered at midnight on Friday as a result of the Republicans’ demand that the agency’s funding be tied to gutting the immigration order, a demand that McConnell has been unable to get past a Democratic filibuster in the Senate.
Everyone is discovering what was really behind McConnell’s vow to make his party look less "scary."
To avert a shutdown, McConnell proposed that Congress take two actions, passing legislation targeting the executive order while separately allowing funding for DHS. But that gambit drew criticism Tuesday from both camps. Even the Democrats who are skeptical of the executive order are demanding that Republicans pass the agency funding before immigration is taken up. Meanwhile, conservative Republicans see McConnell’s plan as giving Obama a pass on immigration since he can simply veto any legislation targeting his order and implement it with the money approved for DHS. "Cave, cave, cave," one Republican lawmaker told National Review. "It would pass with unanimous Dem support and fractured GOP support in each house—not exactly what the base will want to see."
What both sides are discovering now—if they didn’t anticipate it already—is what was really behind McConnell’s vow to make his party look less "scary." When McConnell’s comments to the Washington Post’s Paul Kane were reported in early January, many in Washington hailed them as a real shift in mindset for McConnell, who had infamously said in late 2010, to justify his party’s obstructionism in the Senate, that the party’s "single most thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
But his comments last month did not, in fact, represent a shift in mindset. McConnell, with his characteristic candor, made abundantly clear that he was urging a shift in tone but that his underlying mindset was not changing at all. The reason he wanted Republicans to look less "scary," he told Kane, was simple: He wanted to "set the stage for a potential GOP presidential victory in 2016." "I don’t want the American people to think that if they add a Republican president to a Republican Congress, that’s going to be a scary outcome. I want the American people to be comfortable with the fact that the Republican House and Senate is a responsible, right-of-center, governing majority," said McConnell. "There would be nothing frightening about adding a Republican president to that governing majority. I think that’s the single best thing we can do, is to not mess up the playing field, if you will, for whoever the nominee ultimately is."
In other words, McConnell wanted the party to project a more reasonable image for a single reason: to improve its chances of winning in the next election cycle. Not in order to restore voters’ faith in Washington, or to tackle the nation’s biggest problems, or, heck, to burnish his own legacy with some major legislative accomplishments. No, his driving goal, now that he had finally become majority leader after 30 years in the Senate, was for his party to win the next election.
This, as I explained in the McConnell biography I wrote last year, is the key to understanding the inscrutable Kentuckian: He, more than any other major politician today, embodies the permanent campaign mindset that holds such sway in Washington, the notion that what matters is less what you do once you have won election than whether you and your party are in position to win the next time around. In the first six years of Obama’s tenure, McConnell calculated, shrewdly, that the way to set up Republicans for wins after 2008 was to relentlessly obstruct Obama, since voters would blame Washington dysfunction more on the party that held the White House, that had a greater philosophical stake in a functioning government, and whose leader had made grand promises to change the tenor in Washington. Sure, Republicans could have achieved more policy goals if they had negotiated with the Democrats on health care, financial reform, and other issues to pull legislation in a more conservative direction in exchange for some votes. But that, McConnell calculated, would have reduced the odds of success in the next election, which was what mattered most. As his ally in the Senate, Robert Bennett of Utah, told me of McConnell’s obstructionist approach to health care reform, "He said, ‘Our strategy is to delay this sucker as long as we possibly can, and the longer we delay it the worse the president looks: Why can’t he get it done?’ "
That was McConnell’s strategy for winning elections when his party was in the Senate minority. But now that he is leading the majority, McConnell’s calculation has shifted to account for the fact that his party will likely be accorded more blame than before for Washington dysfunction. So the strategy for winning the next election has shifted from obstruction to appearing less "scary." But what does it mean, under McConnell’s definition, to not be scary? It does not mean actually getting significant legislation passed or addressing major problems. It means, above all, avoiding government shutdowns, and so he will scramble all week to make sure that DHS stays open.
But he has shown no sign of taking on the underlying issue that has brought the country to this latest brink: a broken immigration system. That is hardly surprising, because McConnell has made plain in the past that this is an issue that he sees as distinctly unhelpful when it comes to winning elections. In 2007, when the Senate took up the immigration reform bill pushed by President George W. Bush—a more conservative approach than what Democrats are pushing today—McConnell, then already the Republican leader, was conspicuously absent from the debate. McConnell, who was up for re-election the following year in a state where anti-immigrant sentiment runs relatively high, waited until it was clear the bill was going to lack the necessary 60 votes before voting against it and did not even speak on it on the floor until its fate was known. Roll Call called him a "virtual no show" and conservative columnist Robert Novak called his performance a "truly major failure of leadership."
McConnell voted against immigration reform again when it passed the Senate in 2013 (again, one year before he was up for re-election) and has not cited it as one of the few areas where he could foresee some consensus with the Obama administration. The irony, of course, is that many Republicans believe that comprehensive immigration reform would in fact help their party in 2016, by allaying the perception of the party as inimical to the interests of Hispanic voters. McConnell’s new proposal, after all, would result in the vast majority of congressional Republicans voting to torpedo an executive order that many Hispanics are hailing as a godsend (and that, for the time being, is now in limbo as a result of a legal challenge). "This is a short-term tack to get them out of a jam that they find themselves in, but the fact of the matter is that what he is doing is starting a full-on assault to stick it to the Hispanic community," says Jim Manley, a former top aide to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid.
Perhaps McConnell fears that many in his party would not even be able to reap those electoral rewards in 2016 because they would be eliminated before that in primary challenges hitting them for their pro–immigration reform votes. Or perhaps the many years of obstructionism have simply eroded his instinct for tackling big issues in a big way. (Once upon a time, he was very much in the mix on major legislation, from tobacco-farmer buyouts to election-machinery overhauls.)
Regardless, the leader of the Senate seems to have zero interest at the current pass besides keeping a government agency from shutting down and thereby hurting his party’s prospects in 2016. That may not be scary—but it is depressing.

Tuesday, February 24, 2015

‘American Sniper’ Jury Finds Ex-Marine Guilty of Murder

Going to Taco Bell after a double homicide did him in! 

 By MANNY FERNANDEZ and KATHRYN JONES NY TIMES
STEPHENVILLE, Tex. — Eddie Ray Routh, the mentally disturbed veteran who killed Chris Kyle, the former Navy SEAL marksman who inspired the movie "American Sniper," was sentenced Tuesday to life in prison after a jury here found him guilty of murder, rejecting his claims that he was legally insane at the time.
Mr. Routh and his lawyers had argued that he was not guilty by reason of insanity and that he belonged not in prison but at a state mental hospital. His two-week trial for the killings of Mr. Kyle and Mr. Kyle’s friend Chad Littlefield in 2013 centered on Mr. Routh’s state of mind. Jurors had to decide whether Mr. Routh’s erratic behavior, his delusions about hybrid pig people and his heavy drug use were proof of insanity or evidence that he was troubled but criminally responsible.
With the death penalty off the table, the verdict that Mr. Routh was guilty of capital murder left him facing only one possible sentence, and the judge issued it minutes after the verdict was announced — life in prison without parole.
The judge announced the decision in a courtroom just three miles from a movie theater that had been playing "American Sniper" since Mr. Routh’s trial began on Feb. 11. The movie and the trial made for a strange intersection of pop culture and criminal law. The verdict came two days after the movie lost the Academy Award for Best Picture to "Birdman," and Mr. Kyle’s widow, Taya Kyle, attended the Oscars ceremony in Los Angeles on Sunday, then the closing arguments here on Tuesday.
"American Sniper" was widely seen in the Stephenville area — Mr. Kyle attended the local university, Tarleton State University, before he joined the Navy — and it was likely that several jurors had seen the film before they were selected for the panel. Mr. Routh’s lawyers tried to postpone the trial and move it out of Erath County, but the judge turned them down.
The jury deliberated for less than two and a half hours.
"We’ve waited two years for God to get justice for us on behalf of our son," Judy Littlefield, Mr. Littlefield’s mother, told reporters after the verdict. "And as always, God has proven to be faithful."
Mr. Routh, 27, shot Mr. Kyle and Mr. Littlefield in the back on Feb. 2, 2013, at a gun range near this small town 100 miles southwest of Dallas, after Mr. Routh’s mother had asked Mr. Kyle to befriend her son. After serving in the Marines, Mr. Routh received a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder and psychosis, and relatives testified that he had been suicidal and paranoid in the months before the shooting.
He used two of Mr. Kyle’s handguns to shoot Mr. Kyle and Mr. Littlefield 13 times, slaying a sniper who protected Marines in Iraq with such deadly accuracy that insurgents nicknamed him the "Devil of Ramadi."
In several videotaped and recorded interviews and interactions with the police that were played for the jurors, Mr. Routh gave at times puzzling explanations about why he shot Mr. Kyle, 38, and Mr. Littlefield, 35. He spoke of fearing for his life and believing that they were going to kill him or take his soul. He said that Mr. Littlefield was not shooting at the range and that "that’s what got me riled up." He said he was offended that Mr. Kyle had not shaken his hand when they met, bothered by the smell of cologne in Mr. Kyle’s truck and annoyed that the two men did not talk to him on the drive to the range.
"It smelled like sweet cologne," Mr. Routh told a reporter for The New Yorker in 2013, in a phone call from jail that was recorded. "I was smelling love and hate. They were giving me some love and hate."
In finding Mr. Routh guilty and not legally insane, jurors appeared to have sided with the prosecutors, who portrayed Mr. Routh not as a sympathetic, troubled veteran but as a callous killer who stopped at Taco Bell shortly after fleeing the scene and who knew his actions were wrong, a crucial part of the legal test of insanity.
Mental health experts who examined Mr. Routh told the jurors that he had not been directly involved in combat in Iraq and that he had lied about putting the bodies of babies in a mass grave in Haiti as part of an earthquake-relief deployment. Two experts who evaluated him for the prosecution testified that Mr. Routh was not insane and questioned whether he had exaggerated the trauma he experienced while in the Marines to get disability benefits and had tried to sound schizophrenic to get out of prison.
Mr. Routh had made bizarre statements that he believed people around him were half-pig, half-human, and that his co-workers at a cabinet shop were cannibals who wanted to cook and eat him.
But one of the prosecution’s experts who examined Mr. Routh, Randall Price, a Dallas forensic psychologist, testified that Mr. Routh’s statements about pig people may have come not from psychosis but from TV shows, including an episode from "Seinfeld" and a reality show called "Boss Hog," two of Mr. Routh’s favorite programs. The prosecution’s other expert, Dr. Michael Arambula, a San Antonio forensic psychiatrist who is president of the Texas Medical Board, said that the delusions of schizophrenics often had structure and details, but that Mr. Routh’s statements about cannibals lacked specifics.
"It doesn’t have content," Dr. Arambula said.
Hours after the killings, after Mr. Routh had been handcuffed and placed in the back seat of a police car, he told officers that he was paranoid and schizophrenic. Such a statement, Dr. Price and Dr. Arambula said, indicated that Mr. Routh had known what he was doing and was trying to convince the authorities that he was insane, because people with severe mental illness are often reluctant to admit they have a problem.
"He was showing his hand," Dr. Arambula said. "He was looking to get out of what he had done."
Mr. Routh’s lawyers defended his claim of schizophrenia. They called to the stand Dr. Mitchell H. Dunn, a forensic psychiatrist who spent more than six hours with Mr. Routh last year and who testified that the defendant had been in a state of psychosis at the time of the attack and had shot the two men because he believed that they were "pig assassins" sent to kill him.
Dr. Dunn and Mr. Routh’s lawyers used Mr. Kyle’s own words to strengthen their point. As Mr. Routh sat in the back seat of Mr. Kyle’s truck on the drive to the range, Mr. Kyle sent a text message to Mr. Littlefield, who sat next to him in the passenger seat, writing, "This dude is straight-up nuts." Mr. Littlefield responded with a text of his own, asking Mr. Kyle to "watch my six," military parlance for "watch my back." Dr. Dunn described the texts as "compelling evidence."
Doctors at a Dallas veterans’ hospital who treated Mr. Routh before the shooting had said Mr. Routh had PTSD, but the three experts who evaluated him for the defense and the prosecution testified that they did not think that Mr. Routh had it. A prosecutor described Mr. Routh’s PTSD as "kind of a myth that’s come up in this case."
Mr. Routh, who worked as a prison guard and a weapons-maintenance specialist known as an armorer while in the Marines, told the experts who examined him that he had spent time in Iraq at Joint Base Balad, which he described as "plush" because it had a movie theater and other amenities. For the humanitarian mission in Haiti, he was aboard a ship most of the time, and none of the three experts said they believed Mr. Routh’s claims that he had seen or come into contact with the bodies of dead babies there.
"He said there was one time that he and another Marine thought they saw a body in the water, but they weren’t sure," Dr. Price said of Mr. Routh’s deployment in Haiti in 2010.

Saturday, February 21, 2015

Mystery in Monroeville

By Casey N. Cep The New Yorker

Maycomb may have been hot enough to wilt men’s collars before nine, but Monroeville in February has a chill. The tiny Alabama town where Harper Lee was born was shocked earlier this month by the announcement that, fifty-five years after she published "To Kill a Mockingbird," she would finally publish a sequel, "Go Set a Watchman," although it will be a sequel by release date only, since Lee actually wrote "Watchman" first.
South of Montgomery and north of Mobile, Monroeville is the kind of town that feels like it’s at least a hundred miles from anywhere else. I drove there the day after the announcement, and everyone from the postman to my hotel clerk had something to say about Harper Lee’s new book. Nobody, not even Lee’s lifelong friends, seemed to have known that the manuscript existed, and many were confused about why it is being published now, so many decades after the author appears to have forsaken it.
Lee was living in New York City when her first and, up until now, only book was published. She’d moved to the city in 1949 after dropping out of law school. She maintained a rent-controlled apartment on the Upper East Side for decades, but she returned to Alabama often to see her older sisters. Her sister Alice had joined their father’s law firm, in Monroeville, and her sister Louise was raising a family not far away in Eufaula. Like the seasons, Harper Lee came and went: usually home to Alabama for the winters and then back north to the city for the rest of the year.
A severe stroke in 2007 brought her home for good, first to Birmingham, and then eventually to the Meadows, an assisted-living facility not far from the center of Monroeville. Her physical decline has been well observed: confined to a wheelchair, she’s mostly blind, from macular degeneration, and nearly deaf. Her health otherwise, though, has been fiercely debated, especially during these last few weeks. At eighty-eight, Harper Lee rarely leaves the Meadows; she was last seen outside the facility in November for her sister’s funeral.
Ms. Alice and Ms. Nelle, as everyone calls the sisters here, are well known in this community of six thousand or so. Nobody I spoke to was ever more than one story away from the sisters, and people laughed whenever I said that the rest of the world thinks of Harper Lee as a recluse. Over and over again I was told that Ms. Nelle is allergic to press, not people, and that through the years she could be found at David’s Catfish House, the Piggly Wiggly, and the McDonald’s on Highway 21, feeding the ducks by the pond at the park, or playing the slots at the casino in the next county.
But the Lees were an ocean, and the people in town always waded in slowly, retreating whenever they went too far. When Monroeville wanted to put on the stage version of "To Kill a Mockingbird," rather than ask Lee for an exemption, the town acquired the dramatic rights the same as any other theatre company. Lee once objected to a cookbook based on "To Kill a Mockingbird" being sold in the local museum, and it was removed right away. Bookstores had her sign extra copies of the novel until she realized that they were being sold online at higher prices; she started signing only personal copies. No matter what I asked about Harper Lee, people in Monroeville responded as if she needed their personal protection: they are very cautious about what might appear in print about their beloved Ms. Nelle.
Almost everyone agreed, though, that things had changed in the last few years. Harper’s health did not improve in the years after her stroke, and her sister Alice, who was a full fifteen years older, had her own health issues, which forced her to retire from the family law firm shortly after turning a hundred, in 2011. Even before Alice retired she had ceded much of her authority over Harper’s affairs to a lawyer named Tonja Carter. According to the press release earlier this month from Lee’s publisher, HarperCollins, it was Carter who discovered the manuscript of "Go Set a Watchman," and Carter who negotiated with the publisher.
Carter, who is forty-nine, was born in Leesburg, Florida. Her family moved to Monroe Country, and she married at age nineteen. Following a divorce, she remarried in 1990, this time to Patrick Carter, whose father, Jennings Faulk Carter, was a cousin of Truman Capote and grew up next door to the Lees. Sometime before marrying into the Carter family, she came to work as a secretary in Alice Lee’s law office. Like other young women in Monroeville, she was encouraged by Alice to continue her education, first at Faulkner University, in Montgomery, then at the University of Alabama School of Law, in Tuscaloosa, where she earned a law degree in 2006. She passed the bar that same year, and in January of 2007, the firm where Harper’s father and then sister practiced reorganized itself legally as Barnett, Bugg, Lee, & Carter, L.L.C. Carter handled the estates and trusts of several clients, and, according to newspaper reports, presided as a judge in the local municipal court and represented the nearby town of Excel. Her husband, who served briefly as a lay minister in the United Methodist Church, went back to his previous occupation of piloting planes.
 
In the spring of 2013, the Carters opened a restaurant with a name that nodded to their respective vocations: the Prop and Gavel. They gutted an old furniture store in Courthouse Square, dividing the space between a new office for the law firm and the restaurant, where one of their daughters worked as the general manager and their other three children worked sometimes, too. Just over a year later, the restaurant closed, though there are still salt and pepper shakers on the wine-cask tables and candles in the front window. Steven Dunn, who moved to Monroeville from Kentucky to work as a chef at the restaurant, remembered cooking for both of the Lee sisters. He said that Tonja Carter had referred to Harper as her "godmother" and mentioned that Alice had encouraged her to become a lawyer.
But Tonja Carter seemed to take a different approach to representing Harper Lee than Alice had: where the latter might have mediated informally, Carter litigated. In May of 2013, around the time that the Prop and Gavel opened, Carter sued Lee’s former agent, Samuel Pinkus, to secure the royalties and rights for "To Kill a Mockingbird," which had first been transferred from Lee in 2007 and were reconfirmed in 2011 by a document that Carter herself notarized. That court complaint is one of the only public sources of information about Harper Lee’s affairs, including her finances: the author earned $1,688,064.68 in royalties from "To Kill a Mockingbird" for the period ending in December, 2009, and then another $816,448.06 for the subsequent six months. In October of 2013, she sued the local museum in Monroeville for trademark violations. Both lawsuits were settled out of court, the second one around the time that the Prop and Gavel closed.
When I stopped by the Monroe County Museum earlier this month, a handful of people waited outside for it to open, including a florist who was there to plan a May wedding. Stephanie Rogers, the museum’s director, sent us both upstairs to look at the courtroom that was made famous by the 1962 film adaptation of Lee’s novel, starring Gregory Peck. A $2.5 million restoration, completed in 2002, left the rolled-tin ceiling gleaming and the narrow-planked gum-tree floors glistening.
Rogers, who has worked for the museum since 2007, declined to say much about last year’s lawsuit. "We’re excited for the new book," she told me. The gift shop downstairs still sells coffee mugs, magnets, shirts, and key chains with the words "To Kill a Mockingbird" on them. "We don’t do anything but honor and respect Ms. Nelle," Rogers said. She showed me a handwritten note from the author thanking the museum for flowers they had sent on the fiftieth anniversary of the novel’s publication, in 2010: "My dearest friends, the roses are spectacular and I love them. Sincerely yours, Nelle Harper Lee."
Tim McKenzie, who works just off Courthouse Square and has served on the museum’s board for two terms, said that the lawsuit "knocked us blind" and that "it left a lot of folks with hard feelings." He and others explained how, previously, the Lees had a softer way of dealing with the museum. Alice Lee would make her sister’s wishes known through third parties, and the museum would comply with their requests, including, for example, the removal of "Calpurnia’s Cookbook," which was understood to have violated Harper Lee’s specific preference about the use of the novel’s characters. "We’re small-town folks, we usually just work things out," McKenzie said. "Ms. Alice had a different way of doing things."
Janet Sawyer, who owns the Courthouse Café next door to McKenzie’s office, is one of the few residents willing to speak specifically about the controversy over the new book. "It breaks my heart," she said. "Ms. Lee just wouldn’t want any of this." Sawyer repeated what many others had already told me: Harper Lee said often and emphatically, privately and publicly, that she would never publish another novel. Drinking coffee at the table where the Lee sisters used to come for lunch when their health allowed it, Sawyer said that her business for that day’s lunch had doubled, and that many customers thanked her for speaking to the media. "I don’t really know why they’re not speaking up, but I’m not afraid," she said. "Somebody has to, and I speak my mind." A man knocked to see if she had any food left, and after she’d sold him a cheeseburger that she promised was still warm, she came back to the table. "I just don’t think Ms. Lee wants this book published," Sawyer told me. "This is her lawyer doing this, being greedy."
Wayne Flynt, a professor emeritus at nearby Auburn University, dismissed what he called "the conspiracy theory" about the new novel, and said that Harper Lee "obviously isn’t demented." He said that he visits with the author every month, and that he saw her the day before "Go Set a Watchman" was announced, though curiously she never mentioned it. Lee, Flynt said, has "always had a lover’s quarrel with Monroeville," and he suggested that some of the town’s response has more to do with that than any concern for her wellbeing. "I’m absolutely astounded by what I’m hearing from down there," he said.
Several people who attended Alice Lee’s funeral, in November, have said that Harper’s behavior there was troubling, because she babbled and talked loudly during the service. But Flynt disagreed with their accounts. He told me that Lee was only mourning her sister: a public display of grief that he compared to those common in the Baptist Church. But Flynt added that he has never asked Tonja Carter about her legal or financial relationship with Harper Lee, and while they had exchanged e-mails since the announcement of "Go Set a Watchman," he had not asked her any questions about the book. "If people are so worried about this, why don’t they file grievances with the legal ethics committee of the Alabama Bar and let this go to trial?" Flynt asked. (If a complaint had been filed, we wouldn’t necessarily know: any such complaint or investigation would remain confidential unless a lawyer were found or pleaded guilty.)
Tonja Carter did not respond to e-mails or telephone calls, and her law office, which is an unmarked storefront next to the Prop and Gavel, was closed when I tried to visit. Her comments so far have been confined to the press release and a statement from HarperCollins—in which she was identified as Lee’s "dear friend and lawyer"—and a series of texts and e-mails that she exchanged with the New York Times. Questions remain about where and when she found the manuscript of "Go Set a Watchman": the publisher said that it was found in the fall, but Carter said that it was August; both have said that it was found in "a secure location," but have not been more specific.
Carter has also not explained her involvement in transferring the copyright for "To Kill a Mockingbird" from Harper Lee in 2011, or her very public disagreement that same year with Alice Lee over a memoir by a writer named Marja Mills, titled "The Mockingbird Next Door: Life with Harper Lee." Mills first met the Lees in 2001, when she went to Alabama to write a feature for the Chicago Tribune. She had more luck at getting the sisters to talk than almost any reporter before her, and returned a few years later to live in Monroeville; for eighteen months, Mills lived next door to the Lees, renting a house with Alice’s help.
Mills had meals with them, watched the film "Capote" with Harper, interviewed Alice extensively about Lee family history, met with local family members and friends who shared their stories, and soaked up life in Monroeville like a sponge. By 2006, Mills had moved back to Chicago to shape her notes into a memoir. She continued to visit the Lees occasionally when her travels brought her to Alabama, and both sisters seem to have coöperated with the book—Alice more formally by allowing herself to be recorded; Harper by allowing Mills to take notes and then, according to Mills and a friend of the Lees, reviewing the quotations and stories that were included in the book.
But on April 27, 2011, after the memoir sold to Penguin Press, a statement signed by Harper Lee circulated that said, "Contrary to recent news reports, I have not willingly participated in any book written or to be written by Marja Mills. Neither have I authorized such a book. Any claims otherwise are false." That statement was quickly refuted by Alice Lee, who wrote in her own statement: "The letter signed by Harper Lee and sent on April 27 via the Barnett, Bugg, Lee & Carter email address was sent without my knowledge and does not represent my feelings or those of my sister. I hope this letter puts the whole matter to rest."
It did not, and three years later, when Penguin published "The Mockingbird Next Door," the matter was argued again by press release. On the eve of the book’s publication, another typed statement bearing Harper Lee’s signature went forth: "Neither my attorney nor I have retracted my original statement. Rest assured, as long as I am alive any book purporting to be with my cooperation is a falsehood."
When I spoke with Marja Mills by telephone, she expressed confusion over those statements attributed to Harper Lee in both 2011 and 2014. Carter, Mills said, was "confrontational" about her seeing Harper Lee and publishing the memoir, while "at the same time Alice was making it clear that both were welcome." Mills produced a handwritten letter from Alice dated May 12, 2011, which she believes explains some of what was happening. "Imagine my shock," Alice Lee wrote to Mills, "when I began to read and get clear about the statement sent from BBL & Carter’s office. I had made no statement and could not [see] how that would get started. When I questioned Tonja I learned that without my knowledge she had typed out the statement, carried it to The Meadows and had Nelle Harper sign it."
Alice’s letter continues, "Poor Nelle Harper can’t see and can’t hear and will sign anything put before her by any one in whom she has confidence. Now she has no memory of the incident." It ends, "I am humiliated, embarrassed and upset about the suggestion of lack of integrity at my office. I am waiting for the other shoe to fall."
Not long after that exchange, Tonja Carter obtained durable power of attorney for Harper Lee. Around the same time, Carter’s husband Patrick was involved in a lawsuit against his father over the family’s homestead in Monroeville. That lawsuit and the one against the Monroe County Museum were invoked several times by those who told me that they feared legal action if they spoke directly about Carter’s representation of Lee.
Of course, tensions between lawyers and small towns are central to Lee’s famous novel, and many outside of Monroeville believe those tensions explain the suspicions about this new book. Clark Cooper, an attorney from Birmingham, had the rare opportunity to meet Harper Lee at the Meadows in 2011. "I really feel like Tonja’s being thrown under the bus by some of the local residents," he told me. He came to know Carter when she helped arrange his meeting with the author and her sister, and based on that experience four years ago, he said, "Folks who think she’s riding rough shod over Harper Lee—they don’t have a clue."
HarperCollins, which will publish "Go Set a Watchman" in July, appears to have a similar level of confidence in Carter, since it has dealt with her and has had no direct communication with Harper Lee about the new book. Tina Andreadis, senior vice-president of publicity at the publisher, confirmed to me that HarperCollins has worked only with Tonja Carter and Andrew Nurnberg, who has been the author’s foreign-rights agent since 2013.
Talking with Harper Lee is not something that many folks get to do these days, even though the Meadows is only a mile or so away from Courthouse Square. A long-time friend of the Lees, Dr. Thomas Lane Butts, told me, "This business of cutting Harper Lee off from her friends and relatives has been going on a long time." Every day that I was in town, a security guard waited by the entrance to the Meadows to turn away unwelcome visitors.
Otherwise, life in Monroeville seemed to go on the same way it always has. White collars still came for the lunch buffet at the Sweet Tooth Bakery & Deli and got takeaway from the Courthouse Café. Girls rushed in after school to be fitted for ball gowns and prom dresses at Susie’s Formals and Fabrics. My Time Christian Bookstore sold choir robes and leather Bibles and novelty notebooks with "I Got This—God" and "God’s Not Dead" on their covers. Rehearsal for the town’s annual production of the "To Kill a Mockingbird" play took place the same as every other year for the last twenty-six, though the actor playing Tom Robinson had to work late, so his part was briefly filled by the female director. The whole town gathered for Mardi Gras, with bikers leading a parade that ended with riders on horseback and fire engines with their sirens screaming. As she has been for the last fifty-five years, Harper Lee was somehow the talk of the town and the only person about whom nobody knew quite what to say.
Casey N. Cep is a writer from the Eastern Shore of Maryland.

Friday, February 20, 2015

'Out of My Mouth Comes Unimpeachable Manly Truth'

What I learned from watching a week of Russian TV.
By GARY SHTEYNGART

On a cold, sunny New Year’s Eve in 2014, I am sitting at the edge of my king-size bed at the Four Seasons hotel in New York, munching through a stack of Wagyu beef slices and demolishing a bottle of pinot noir while watching a woman play a man playing a bearded woman on Russian state television. Standing on a stage lit by gleaming chandeliers before an audience of Russia’s elite celebrities, the parodist Elena Vorobei sings to the tune of Gloria Gaynor’s "I Will Survive," in a crude impersonation of Conchita Wurst, the Austrian drag queen who won the 2014 Eurovision song contest. Vorobei is dressed in a sparkling gown, winking cheekily, scratching at her bearded face and swishing her lustrous wig around. "I have a beard!" she belts. At one point she throws out a Hitler salute, a gesture that’s meant to evoke Austria, Conchita’s homeland. The camera pans the laughing audience, cutting for a moment to a well-known actor-singer-writer-bodybuilder and then to one of the show’s M.C.s, Russia’s pop king, the also-bearded Philipp Kirkorov (widely assumed to be gay). The men, who are almost all tanned, in sharply cut suits, grin with unconstrained glee. The bejeweled women wear tight, knowing smiles. Everyone sways and claps.
With the exception of fishing, soccer and the Orthodox Church, few things are taken more seriously in Russia than Eurovision. Indeed, much of the sequined musical fare on Russian television looks like an endless Eurovision rehearsal. When Conchita won, back in May, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, an ultranationalist in Russia’s Parliament who is roughly equivalent to Michele Bachmann, said her victory meant "the end of Europe." The deputy prime minister and the Orthodox Church issued statements essentially denouncing the collapse of Christian civilization as we know it. On tonight’s show, broadcast to millions of Russians, the message is clear: Europe may have rejected homophobia, a value it once shared with Russia, by giving a musical prize to a drag queen, but Russia, like Gloria Gaynor herself, will survive, never to succumb to the rest of the world’s wimpy notions of tolerance. A country where gangs of vigilantes who call their cause "Occupy Pedophilia" attack gay men and women on the streets of its major cities will now carry the mantle of the European Christian project.
"I love you, Russia," the bearded singer intones in English at the end of her number. "Russia, I’m yours," she adds in Russian.
Seven more days of this, I think, as I crawl over to the minibar.
You might be wondering why I left my home and family and started watching Russian drag-queen parodies. I am the subject of an experiment. For the next week, I will subsist almost entirely on a diet of state-controlled Russian television, piped in from three Apple laptops onto three 55-inch Samsung monitors in a room at the Four Seasons Hotel in Manhattan. (If I have to imbibe the TV diet of the common Russian man, I will at least live in the style of one of his overlords.) Two of the monitors are perched directly in front of my bed, with just enough space for a room-service cart to squeeze in, and the third hangs from a wall to my right. The setup looks like the trading floor of a very small hedge fund or the mission control of a poor nation’s space program. But I will not be monitoring an astronaut’s progress through the void. In a sense, I am the one leaving the planet behind.
I will stay put in my 600-square-foot luxury cage, except for a few reprieves, and will watch TV during all my waking hours. I can entertain visitors, as long as the machines stay on. Each morning I will be allowed a walk to the New York Health & Racquet Club on West 56th Street for a long swim. Vladimir Putin reportedly takes a two-hour swim every morning to clear his head and plot the affairs of state. Without annexing Connecticut or trying to defend a collapsing currency, I will be just like him, minus the famous nude torso on horseback.
Ninety percent of Russians, according to the Levada Center, an independent research firm, get their news primarily from television. Middle-aged and older people who were formed by the Soviet system and those who live outside Moscow and St. Petersburg are particularly devoted TV watchers. Two of the main channels — Channel 1 and Rossiya 1 — are state-owned. The third, NTV, is nominally independent but is controlled by Gazprom-Media, a subsidiary of the giant energy company that is all but a government ministry. Executives from all three companies regularly meet with Kremlin officials.
Each channel has a slightly different personality. Channel 1 was the Soviet Union’s original channel, which beamed happy farm reports and hockey victories at my parents and grandparents. It features lots of film classics and a raucous health show whose title can be roughly translated as "Being Alive Is Swell!" Rossiya 1 is perhaps best known for a show called "News of the Week," featuring a Kremlin propagandist, Dmitry Kiselev, who once implicitly threatened to bomb the United States into a pile of "radioactive ash." (Sadly, for me, Kiselev is taking this week off from ranting.) NTV is more happy-go-lucky, blasting noirish crime thrillers and comedy shows, like a "Saturday Night Live" rip-off shamelessly titled "Saturday. Night. Show." But during regular breaks for the news, the three networks are indistinguishable in their love of homeland and Putin and their disdain for what they see as the floundering, morally corrupt and increasingly lady-bearded West.
Here is the question I’m trying to answer: What will happen to me — an Americanized Russian-speaking novelist who emigrated from the Soviet Union as a child — if I let myself float into the television-filtered head space of my former countrymen? Will I learn to love Putin as 85 percent of Russians profess to do? Will I dash to the Russian consulate on East 91st Street and ask for my citizenship back? Will I leave New York behind and move to Crimea, which, as of this year, Putin’s troops have reoccupied, claiming it has belonged to Russia practically since the days of the Old Testament? Or will I simply go insane?
A friend of mine in St. Petersburg, a man in his 30s who, like many his age, avoids state-controlled TV and goes straight to alternative news sources on the Internet, warns me in an email: "Your task may prove harmful to your psyche and your health in general. Russian TV, especially the news, is a biohazard." I’ll be fine, I think. Russians have survived far worse than this. But, just in case, I have packed a full complement of anti-anxiety, sleep and pain medication.

DAY 1
I glance from monitor to monitor, muting the volume on Channel 1, pumping it up on Rossiya 1, lowering it two bars on NTV. On one channel, Asiatic dwarves are shooting confetti at one another. Another screen shows a musical number performed by cadres of athletic dancers celebrating the 33 medals Russia won at the Sochi Olympics. Each line is met with the English refrain "Oh, yeah!" Another channel has two men dressed as giant bears, break dancing.
Russian TV has lovingly preserved all eras of American and European pop culture, and it recombines them endlessly, the more nonsensically, the better. Two frosted-haired individuals — a small bearded man and a middle-aged giantess — belt out a cover of the 1989 Roxette hit "The Look." On another monitor, the famed Tatar crooner Renat Ibragimov, a dapper elderly man, performs a rousing version of Tom Jones’s 1960s dark pop ballad "Delilah." If Spinal Tap actually existed, it would be touring its heart out in Vladivostok right now. But no matter what the style of the music, the studio audience goes bananas with the clapping and cheering. I send a few clips to my friend Mark Butler, who teaches music theory and cognition at Northwestern University, to help me understand the Russian style of enthusiasm. "The audience is not clapping solely on two and four, as listeners versed in rock do," he writes back. "Nor are they ‘one-three clappers’ (the stereotype of people who don't get rock rhythm). Instead, they are clapping on every beat."
I remember all this clapping from my early teenage years, at bar and bat mitzvahs in the Russian nightclubs of Queens and Brooklyn, and my constant need to slink away from the applause so I could be shy and alone in the parking lot. The happiest applause, in my memory anyway, belonged to my grandmother and her generation, who seemed amazed to still be walking the earth and to be doing so in the relative wonderland of Rego Park, Queens.
Slightly drunk off a frisky Clos Du Val pinot noir, which I’ve been sipping along with another helping of Wagyu, I can’t help myself. I begin clapping too, mouthing the lyrics "Forgif me, Deelaila, I jas’ kudn take anymorr." In my high spirits, I take an affectionate look at my surroundings. The Four Seasons is a fine choice of hotel for my task. The lobby is filled with Russians, trendy grandmas sparkling from head to toe in Louis Vuitton and Chanel, guiding their equally gilded granddaughters past an enormous Christmas tree. The view from my room faces the nearly completed 432 Park Avenue, a 96-story luxury condominium building, which will be one of the tallest habitable towers in Manhattan (apartments start at nearly $17 million). If I had checked in for New Year’s Eve 2015, by which time 432 Park Avenue is expected to be complete, some of the tenants staring back at me would very likely belong to the class of Russian oligarchs who have helped transform the real estate in London, and now in New York, into the priciest on earth.
On NTV’s New Year’s extravaganza, the talk among the presenters turns to politics. The end of the year, after all, is a time to take stock, and stock-taking, whether at the kitchen table or the bathhouse or upon waking up after a night of drinking on some icy railroad platform far from home, is a national tradition. Russia is a country blessed but mostly cursed to endure years of civil war, global upheaval and dissolution of empire so transformative that other countries would have just given up and called it a day: 1917, 1941 and 1991 come to mind as moments when the very nature of Russia changed. In 2014, Russia changed again, or rather, Putin has taken a more definitive turn in his increasingly aggressive, anti-Western style of politics. He has become a conqueror, like the Russian czars he sometimes invokes with pseudomystical reverence in his speeches. In 2014, he concentrated his neo-imperial ambitions on Crimea, a sunny peninsula jutting into the Black Sea.
The year wasn’t supposed to end the way it did. The Sochi Olympics, perhaps the most corrupt in Winter Olympic history, were designed to present Russia as a nation that could compete with the West on its own terms, a nation that could mount an expensive pyrotechnical display while celebrating literary heroes like Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, Chekhov and Nabokov. The fact that in 2013 a museum dedicated to Nabokov’s work in St. Petersburg was spray-painted with the word "pedophile" by the same sort of people who revile Conchita was not mentioned.
In February, a pro-European revolution swept the Ukrainian president, Viktor Yanukovych, a strong ally of Putin’s, from power in Kiev, replacing him with Petro Poroshenko. With Ukraine slipping from the Kremlin’s orbit, Putin sent Russian troops to occupy and later annex Ukrainian Crimea. Putin has said that Crimea is as important for the Russian people as the Temple Mount is for the Jews and Muslims, an opinion that should offend Russians, Jews and Muslims alike. For most people born in the U.S.S.R., myself included, the word Crimea evokes memories of summer vacations gorging on pelmeni (a species of dumpling) and getting reacquainted with the sun in decaying hotels and private huts. Think of it as a shabbier Fort Lauderdale with the occasional Chekhov statue. In any case, the loss of Crimea, with its majority-speaking Russian population, has been one of the most acutely felt wounds of the dissolution of the Soviet Union — having Crimea fall outside of Russia’s borders was like cutting off a piece of the Floridian peninsula below Jacksonville — and its reconquest has elevated Putin’s standing far above that of any Russian leader in perhaps a century. But that proved not to be enough for him.
The imposition of Western sanctions against Russian officials after Crimea’s annexation dealt but a glancing blow to the Russian economy. Putin’s next move, his support of pro-Russian rebels in Ukraine’s industrialized Donbass region, led to a war that the United Nations estimates has displaced a million people and resulted in more than 5,000 deaths, and further sanctions from the West. (As of this writing, a cease-fire has been brokered, but it is fragile and may not last.) But it is the collapse of the price of oil, Russia’s main export commodity, that has weakened the regime. As the price of a barrel of Brent crude and the value of the ruble go down, the tenor of propaganda on Russian television goes up.
 
The presenters of a Pan-Slavic Russian-Ukrainian-Belorussian concert are rattling off a list of Russian pop stars no longer allowed into Ukraine after Putin’s invasion of Crimea. "We don’t have such blacklists," the M.C. says. "We wish all people love and friendship without any boycotts."
 
"They" — meaning Ukraine and the West; according to the Russian media, NATO and the C.I.A. have all but taken over Ukraine’s government, so it’s hard to resist conflating the two — "have oppressed our artists!" another singer says.
"They’re not allowing us to have our own point of view."
"How can one not love one’s own president? That’s our point of view."
"On our stage, there are no borders."
The presenters sound genuinely hurt, and they are speaking for much of their television audience when they complain about the West’s cold shoulder. This is geopolitics as middle-school homeroom. Like an ambitious tween who longs for social success, Russia wants to be both noticed and respected. The invasion of Crimea and the bloody conflict in Eastern Ukraine got the world’s attention, but now the cool nations are no longer inviting Russia for unsupervised sleepovers, and the only kids still leaving notes on Russia’s locker are Kim Jong-un and Raúl Castro.

DAY 2
I miss Putin. He is on a TV sabbatical for most of this week, enjoying the 11-day extended New Year’s holiday, swimming up a tsunami in his presidential pool, I’m sure. Putin’s face did show up on all three of my monitors around midnight, Moscow time, as he delivered his New Year’s address to the country. "Love of homeland is one of the most powerful, elevating feelings," Putin declared, with his patented affectless-yet-deadly seriousness. The return of Crimea will become "one of the most important events in the history of the fatherland."
For the rest of New Year’s Day, Russia falls into catatonic American-movie mode. The state-controlled networks hand themselves over to "Avatar," "The Seven Year Itch" and "The Chronicles of Narnia." Despite the bad blood with Obama, there is simply no way to fill out a day of programming without "Die Hard" or a David Blaine magic show. I enjoy a light snooze interrupted by further beef injections from room service.
The evening news on Rossiya 1 starts off with Ukraine. The anchors of the three networks are a clan of attractive, dead-eyed men and women. They speak in the same unshakable "out of my mouth comes unimpeachable manly truth" tone that Putin uses in his public addresses, sometimes mixing in a dollop of chilly sarcasm. Their patter has a hypnotic staccato quality, like a machine gun going off at regular intervals, often making it hard to remember that they are moving their mouths or inhaling and exhaling oxygen.
Putin’s popularity has mostly survived intact despite the ruble’s collapse and the gradual pauperization of his subjects. The media helps with a twofold strategy. First, the West and its sanctions are blamed for the economic situation. Second, the nascent Ukrainian democracy is portrayed as a movement of torch-wielding Nazi fascists under direct control of their Western masters. Few Russian families escaped unscathed from Hitler’s onslaught, and Nazi imagery, which remains stingingly potent, is invoked frequently and opportunistically, as a way of keeping historical wounds fresh.
On today’s news, the so-called Ukrainian Nazi fascists are celebrating the fascistic life of the neo-Nazi Stepan Bandera with a torch-lit Hitlerite parade. Bandera is a complicated figure, a Ukrainian nationalist who flirted with the invading Germans during the Second World War but was ultimately imprisoned by them. Any march through Kiev by Ukraine’s Right Sector, a xenophobic, socially conservative right-wing movement that has more in common with Moscow’s current regime than either side would like to admit, is catnip to the newscasters. "Instead of celebrating New Year’s, they’re celebrating the fascist Stepan Bandera," the reporter declares. "It looks like fascist ideology will be the basis of the Ukrainian state."
The leader of Right Sector did run for president of Ukraine in the May 2014 elections. He and his "fascist ideology" received 0.7 percent of the vote. Since the election of Poroshenko, who won by a majority, Ukraine is now easily the most democratic and pro-European republic in the former Soviet Union, excepting the Baltic States. It is, in fact, the anti-Russia. This, of course, drives Russia nuts.

DAY 3
I wake up feeling swollen. Movement is difficult, especially in my lower extremities. Probably just gout. The monitors are turned off at night, but the laptops are still whirling, the satellites still transmitting. I waddle over to my marble bathroom and look at my sleep-creased face.
There’s one small consolation in my day: crossing 57th street, moving through crowds of Russian, Asian and South American shoppers who are spending their way across New York, and finally dropping into the saltwater pool at the health club. I try to clear my mind of Russian TV, but the high-decibel pop soundtrack and the booming voices of the news anchors travel with me underwater, haunting my eardrums.
Back in my cage, the morning’s Catskill-smoked-salmon-and-egg-white sandwich arrives as I flick on the monitors, one showing the Red Army Choir singing its brains out, another with an advertisement for a 24-karat golden necklace for men that "doesn’t just show your material status but your good taste." The thick, gleaming chain — chains, I should say; buy one, get one free — goes for 1,490 rubles, about $45 at the start of 2014, but about $25 at the start of 2015 as the ruble continued to plunge.
The news is pretty exciting today. Two reporters for LifeNews, a Russian channel that heavily supports the rebels in Ukraine and is rumored to have ties to Putin’s F.S.B. security service, had their camera smashed during a torch-lit parade through Kiev. "Anti-Russian feelings are approaching hysteria," the reporter says.
I look at my watch. A full minute into the piece, and he hasn’t mentioned fascism, Nazism, neo-Nazism or the perfidy of the West.
"Torch-bearing parades are associated with Nazi Germany," the reporter says.
On the monitor tuned to NTV, I catch a comedy called "An Ideal Pair." The programming notes describe the plot: "Zoya is a sportswoman with a male character. That’s why she has trouble with the stronger sex and everyone runs away from her."
 
I’m noticing a trend of movies about Russians in their mid-30s who are not yet married, a phenomenon confounding to most Russians who prefer to marry, have 1.61 children and then divorce early in life (according to the United Nations, Russia consistently has one of the highest divorce rates). Like most Russian rom-coms, the movie seems overly long, wordy and ridiculously chaste. Even a mild kiss fades out before anything can happen under the sheets. It’s rare to find a society with a more contradictory approach to sex. A new conservatism, led by the Orthodox Church, is constantly at odds with whatever progressive notions the Soviet Union instilled. Abortion was pretty much the most common form of birth control: The efficacy of Soviet prophylactics left much to be desired. Today, you can barely find explicit sex in a commercial film like "An Ideal Pair," but watching one of the dance numbers on television makes you want to reach for a body condom just to be safe.
I crack open another bottle of wine and settle back into the world I cannot leave, with the January wind whipping past my lonely skyscraper. On Channel 1, the scandal of the smashed camera in Kiev rages on. There are many close-ups of the injured camera lying in what looks like snow or confetti. Then it’s time for Macaulay Culkin in the original "Home Alone."

DAY 4
I am crawling through the snow in Kiev searching for my cellphone, which has been stolen by the neo-Nazi fascists. I find it by a wall defaced by a giant swastika, its screen shattered by the torch-bearing Ukrainians. "Allo," I say in Russian. "Someone please help me. It’s cold out here." A dead-eyed anchor from Rossiya 1 appears on my FaceTime. "Torch-bearing parades are associated with Nazi Germany," he declares. I wake up and trundle off to the bathroom, pop some benzos and crawl back into bed. I sleep maybe three hours total. When I’ve occasionally returned to Russia for visits, I’ve sometimes woken up in the middle of the night thinking, What if they closed the borders? What if I’m supposed to live out the rest of my life here? Even though I’m ensconced in a luxury pad in the very epicenter of Manhattan, a similar feeling disturbs my sleep.
Today, I’m a mess. My breast stroke at the club looks more tadpole than frog. Back in my sunlit chamber of horrors, Rossiya 1’s news is on a rampage. A 35-car pile up in New Hampshire. No serious injuries, it seems, but clearly the West is falling apart. Things are even worse across the ocean. "An unpleasant New Year’s present for Prince Andrew," a reporter says with a honed mixture of seriousness, sarcasm and glee. "Britain is shocked by a sex scandal between the prince and a minor who claims to have been held in ‘sexual slavery.’ " Viewers in Yekaterinburg wolfing down their morning kasha are given a rundown of the crimes committed by the British royal family, from Prince Harry wearing a Nazi uniform to Princess Diana’s death "in mysterious circumstances."
 
Russians, on the other hand, are leading exemplary nonfascist lives. At the site of the Air Asia disaster, in the Java Sea, "Indonesian authorities are relying heavily on Russian divers and their equipment" to find and recover the doomed plane. In the northernmost reaches of Russia, we meet Aleksey Tryapitsyn, a "salt of the Earth" postman in a tiny village who somehow doesn’t smoke or drink and has been featured in a recent documentary, "The White Nights of the Postman Aleksey Tryapitsyn." His wife is pretty salt-of-the-earth too. "I’m such an ordinary woman," she says, "I know how to do everything: shoot a gun, catch ducks."
The lessons for all Russians, especially spoiled Camembert-addicted Muscovites, are clear: In the difficult days to come, learn to shoot a gun, learn to catch ducks.
Today I have visitors: the Moscow-born writer Anya Ulinich and her friend Olga Gershenson, a professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. I order a meat plate from room service, and we settle in for lunch.
Last night, Anya found out that her cousin was killed in a small town not far from Donetsk, the Ukrainian city that has been a stronghold for pro-Russian fighters. "He was found dead in the lobby of his apartment building," Anya tells me. "Nobody knows who killed him. There’s no police. It’s just anarchy."
"I blame Putin roundly for this," she says. "It used to be a normal town."
She sighs. We glance from screen to screen. On NTV a man in a leather harness is dancing — well, practically having leather intercourse — with an equally leathered woman in front of two giant gilded statues of gladiators.
"That ballet is kind of cool," Anya says.
"Yeah, it’s amazing," Olga adds.
We watch for a while without saying another word.

DAY 5
My psychiatrist agrees to make a rare house call. We try to recreate the customary couch-and-psychiatrist’s-chair arrangement, except I’m in my king-size bed and he’s seated just to the right of me. The monitors are still on. On one, a Ukrainian drug dealer is caught in Moscow, and there are close-ups of his dastardly red Ukrainian passport. On another, two men are passed out on the grass, a spent vodka bottle between them. "There it is," I say to my doctor. "Russia."
I shut my eyes and think of what I mean by that.
"In my books, I’ve tried to understand my parents and what they went through in the Soviet Union," I say. "Maybe this project is another way to get to know them. Times change, regimes change, but the television stays pretty much the same.
 
"I don’t agree with my parents about politics in the States that much, but we do tend to agree on Putin. That’s true of a lot of Russian-born friends of mine. It’s weird, but Putin brings us together with our parents. It’s nice to know that there’s a source of cruelty in the world that we can identify together.
"Imagine if my parents had never taken me out of Russia. Where would I be now? All this" — I gesture to the three screens — "would be my permanent reality."

"You’re in a virtual childhood here," my psychiatrist says. "These are regressive feelings."
"Also, the televisions in the Soviet Union used to explode," I say. "Sixty percent of the house fires in Moscow used to be caused by exploding televisions at one point."
We’re silent for a bit, as happens often in the course of psychoanalysis.
Still, it’s good to talk.
 

DAY 6
Oh, the hell with it. I’m just going to start drinking after breakfast. And no more shaving or wearing clothes. The Four Seasons robe will do just fine. A woman with a Russian name on her tag rolls in my coffee and an H & H bagel with whitefish.
"Whitefish and not salmon?" She chastises me as if she were a Channel 1 television anchor and I were Ukraine.
"I’ll get the salmon tomorrow," I promise her.
I watch a Jerry Springer-style show called "Male/Female." Today’s topic: Tatyana, a woman from the village of Bolsheorlovskoe, 300 miles from Moscow, wants to find out the paternity of her latest child. A DNA test is administered to scores of the village men, and there are shots of poor Tatyana’s bedraggled neighbors voicing their opinions of her.
"A whore is a whore."
"You get drunk, come to her house and bang!"
The village itself looks as if it has been banged repeatedly by some coarse muzhik in an ill-fitting Chinese-made sweater. The dwellings are tiny holes with room for a refrigerator, television and a sprinkling of roaches.
There’s a panel of experts, including a lawyer, a psychologist, a painter and a poet with a velvet jacket and a luxuriant, poetic mustache, commenting on Tatyana’s problems. "All Russian couples should have children while sober," the poet duly notes.
Tatyana herself speaks with a hoarse country warble and is missing many critical teeth. Still, she’s oddly beautiful, and unlike a similar apparition on Jerry Springer, she never fights back even as the hosts and audience humiliate her. She sits there stoically, like a fallen character out of Dostoyevsky. In her own way, she is a model citizen for Putin’s new Russia. She knows to keep her trap shut while being continuously shouted at by persons in authority.
The DNA results are presented, and none of the assembled sad sacks proves to be the father. Tomorrow, Channel 1 will air the second part of Tatyana’s story. More villagers will be brought in for their DNA tests. Tatyana will once again be told she’s a whore.
There’s no way I can watch the news anymore without at least two minibottles of the Absolut, which I wash down with a couple of beers. The monitors are blurring one into the next, and I’m having trouble following the proceedings. On one screen, a man with a gun is being inhumane to others, while on another a woman of cubic-zirconia-grade glitz is singing nonsense. I let myself dissolve into the nonsense and the menace, as if I were a man just returned from a day of hardship at the hands of thieving bosses and thieving traffic cops somewhere in Tomsk or Omsk. What a powerful weapon Putin’s television is. How skillfully it combines nostalgia, malice, paranoia and lazy humor; how swiftly it both dulls the senses and raises your ire.
 
I bury my face in a hypoallergenic pillow. I need another drink.
 
But instead of the Absolut, I decide to do something forbidden. I whip out my laptop and log on to the progressive news site www.slon.ru. (Slon means "elephant" in Russian.) My friends in St. Petersburg subsist on these analytical blogs and news sites, the Slates and Salons of Russia. Slon is one of the remaining few that has not been bent to the will of the regime. Two other favorites, Gazeta.ru (gazeta means "newspaper") and Lenta.ru, have lost their impartiality.

The two main headlines on Slon are not about the decline of the euro versus the dollar. They are about the price of Brent crude oil falling below $57 a barrel. Another article concerns the opposition leader Alexey Navalny’s refusal to continue to live under house arrest (the activist and his brother were convicted of unsubstantiated charges for challenging the administration). Another article is titled "How the Regime Will Fall: A Possible Scenario."
Tens of millions of Russians, mainly younger and urbane, use social media. I imagine at least a few of them are posting the article on "How the Regime Will Fall" on their timelines or tweeting it out with abandon.

DAY 7
Today is my lastday in virtual Russia. The Christmas tree in the Four Seasons lobby is being disassembled, the ornaments put into boxes labeled "American Christmas ‘We Make the Magic Happen.’ " Upstairs in my room, Russian Christmas Eve — Orthodox Christmas is celebrated on Jan. 7 — is just beginning.
I watch the second part of the "Male/Female" exposé of Tatyana, the village temptress. Today on the panel of important people judging Tatyana, instead of a poet, there’s a "showman" or "performer," with a Barbie doll stuck in the lapel of his studded jacket, his hair styled into a thick pompadour. A redheaded dude in a jacket bearing the single word "Russia" proves to be the father. "Yes! Yes! Yes!" Tatyana screams.
"I would castrate all of these men," one of the program’s hosts says of the male villagers present in the studio.
Keith Gessen, the Moscow-born novelist and journalist, comes by. I have ordered a mortadella and Spanish jamón platter. "You’re like a Russian person who lives in luxury, but you have to imbibe this trash," Keith says after examining the three monitors.
Keith follows Russian TV closely, and he has noted a shift in the last few years. "You’re watching the news, but the news is the news. Not from the information they’re giving you but from how they’re presenting the information. You feel like it’s a message being sent to you by the Kremlin."
As the television drones on about the glory of Russia-backed rebels in Ukraine, he asks me if I’ve heard of the murder of Batman, an especially lawless rebel commander in the Donbass region in Eastern Ukraine.
"Apparently," Keith tells me, "he was attacked and killed by Russian forces or other rebels because he was out of control."
 
 

 
 
I snap open my laptop and take a look at the uncensored Russian websites. Batman’s murder is top news. The New York Times has already posted an article about Batman’s demise. The only places where he’s not mentioned are Rossiya 1, NTV and Channel 1.
After Keith leaves, I focus on the Christmas service, currently reverberating live across two networks. There are blue-eyed women in kerchiefs, bearded priests in gold, gusts of incense. From the proceedings at the ornate Cathedral of Christ the Savior, we suddenly cut to a small, humble church in an equally small and humble town to the south of Moscow.
Dressed in a simple sweater, his gaze steady and direct, Vladimir Putin celebrates the holiday surrounded by several girls in white kerchiefs. In the solemn act of religious contemplation, Putin’s expression is as unknowable as ever. Here he is, the self-styled restorer of the nation. But who is he? We are briefly shown people in the back pews reaching upward, straining to snap a photo of him with their smartphones. We are told that children who are refugees from rebel-held Luhansk are staying on the grounds of the church. The Kremlin has given them "candy and historical books" for the holiday. Are the girls in white kerchiefs standing next to Putin the very same ones who had to flee the violence his regime has backed, if not itself unleashed, in Ukraine?
Putin stands there, the centerpiece of his tableau, a contented man. Therein lies the brilliance of Russian television and why watching a week of it has been so painful. Unless you’re a true believer, its endless din just reminds you of how alone you are in another man’s designs. That man is Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin. These are his channels, his shows, his dreams and his faith.
On my last visit to Moscow several years ago, a drunken cabdriver from a distant province drove me through the city, nearly weeping because, he said, he was unable to feed his family. "I want to emigrate to the States," he said. "I can’t live like this."
"You should try Canada," I suggested to him. "Their immigration policies are very generous."
He mock-spit on the floor, as he nearly careened into the sidewalk. "Canada? Never! I could only live in a superpower!"
It doesn’t matter that the true path of Russia leads from its oil fields directly to 432 Park Avenue. When you watch the Putin Show, you live in a superpower. You are a rebel in Ukraine bravely leveling the once-state-of-the-art Donetsk airport with Russian-supplied weaponry. You are a Russian-speaking grandmother standing by her destroyed home in Luhansk shouting at the fascist Nazis, much as her mother probably did when the Germans invaded more than 70 years ago. You are a priest sprinkling blessings on a photogenic convoy of Russian humanitarian aid headed for the front line. To suffer and to survive: This must be the meaning of being Russian. It was in the past and will be forever. This is the fantasy being served up each night on Channel 1, on Rossiya 1, on NTV.
A generation from now, Channel 1 news circa 2015 will seem as ridiculous as a Soviet documentary on grain procurement. Young people will wonder at just how much nonsense their parents lived through and how, despite it all, they still emerged as decent human beings. As for me, I am escaping from Russia once more. Three satisfying clicks of three Samsung remotes and my whole week fades to black.
Gary Shteyngart is the author of "Little Failure," a memoir, and the novels "Super Sad True Love Story," "Absurdistan" and "The Russian Debutante’s Handbook."