Rob Lowe’s Litigation Woes

When Rob Lowe starred on “The West Wing,” his character had to face many a crisis.

Now the former Brat Packer is going to have to face Gloria Allred’s real life questioning under oath.

Lowe launched a legal preemptive strike when he filed a lawsuit against three former employees, which included a former nanny, Jessica Gibson, against whom Lowe is alleging breach of contract and breach of a confidentiality clause. Lowe claims Gibson demanded $1.5 million in exchange for her silence concerning sexual abuse allegations.

Lowe’s lawyer has dismissed the nanny’s claims as “outrageous” and “untrue.”

Gibson, in turn, has filed a suit of her own, which alleges that during the time period between September 2005 and January 2008, the actor touched her inappropriately on several occasions.

The former nanny’s lawyer is the pervasive Gloria Allred, who immediately took her case on the cable show road.

Allred has reportedly scheduled the sworn videotaped depositions of Rob Lowe and his wife Sheryl Berkoff for late May.

“I’m sure some of the questions will make him uncomfortable, but our job is to get to the truth,” Allred told E! News. “They are going to have to sit down, and we are going to have a lot of tough questions for them.”

There appears to be plenty of material for a jury to chew on.

Gibson worked on and off for Rob and Sheryl Lowe for seven years, quit several times but apparently returned to the job.

Greta Van Susteren has gotten hold of copies of two e-mails sent by Gibson to Rob and his wife. One reads: “It was just time for my heart to let go. It’s not fair to you and the boys. I have nothing but love and respect for your family.”

Another, which dealt with the subject of leaving her job, states, “It had nothing to do with you or Rob either.”

These e-mails may be pivotal in the Lowe case because of the absence of any physical proof or witnesses to the alleged harassment.

Lowe already has a character witness in the form of Aaron Sorkin, the writer-producer and creator of “The West Wing.”

Sorkin told People magazine via e-mail, “I’ve only known him to be a gentleman who cares first and most for his family. I’ve worked with Rob twice – for three years on The West Wing and for another six months when he starred in the [London] West End revival of A Few Good Men.”

This isn’t the first time Lowe has had to deal with bad publicity.

While attending the Democratic National Convention in the late 1980s, a videotape surfaced in which Lowe was depicted in a compromising position with a teenage girl.

You can bet Allred is going to try to convince a judge that the twenty-year-old footage is still relevant evidence.

James Hirsen is a media analyst, Trinity Law School professor and teacher of mass media law at Biola University.

Bruce Springsteen’s Far-Left Turn

Gone are the days of the arm swinging “Dancing in the Dark” and foot stomping “Hungry Heart.”

Instead it looks like Bruce Springsteen has caught the Babs bug.

Or maybe he’s been listening in his sleep to Beyonce’s latest because he’s definitely drifted way “To the left.”

Although Springsteen did help campaign for Dem John Kerry during the 2004 presidential election, endorsing a candidate for the first time, his music and musings are now reflecting the views of far-Left Hollywood and the candidate controlling MoveOn.org.

Former Rolling Stone critic and current Springsteen manager Jon Landau is trying to convince the press that the artist’s new album, “Magic,” is not political. But the “Gypsy Biker” song has lyrics that suggest otherwise.

Take a look:

“The speculators made their money,
On the blood you [a U.S. soldier] shed,
The profiteers on Jane Street [upscale area in Manhattan],
Sold your shoes and clothes.”

In addition, Springsteen sat for a spell with “60 Minutes” correspondent Scott Pelley to, among other things, wax geopolitically.

The Boss focused on issues that have been stressed by far-Left Web sites like MoveOn and Daily Kos including CIA interrogation techniques, the domestic surveillance program and detention of terrorist suspects at Guantanamo, placing the issues in the “anti-American” category.

“I think we’ve seen things happen over the past six years that I don’t think anybody ever thought they’d ever see in the United States,” Springsteen said.

“When people think of the Unites States’ identity, they don’t think of torture. They don’t think of illegal wiretapping. They don’t think of voter suppression. They don’t think of no habeas corpus.”

Actually, he’s right. They don’t think of those things.

When people think of the United States’ identity, they think of a country where kids of working class parents grow up to become rich rock stars.

‘Invasion’ Déjà vu

It all started in 1955.

Author Jack Finney penned a sci-fi novel called “The Body Snatchers,” in which seeds from outer space invade the planet, take folks over while they’re asleep and grow evil body doubles in creepy plantlike pods.

The tale so captured the public’s imagination it’s been made into a movie four different times.

First it was “Invasion of the Body Snatchers.” Then it was “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” for a second time. Third time it was simply “Body Snatchers.”

Now another cinematic installment is about to hit the theaters. For a change of pace, it’s called “The Invasion.”

It stars Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig and once again hits on some timeless social and political themes—individualism vs. conformity, personal freedom vs. social control, human compassion vs. callousness.

Guess every couple of decades we need a movie reminder to keep us from becoming dreaded “pod people.”

Thoroughly Modest Michelle

It’s back to the big screen for Michelle Pfeifer.

In her latest movie roles, she’s a villain times two.

In “Hairspray,” Pfeiffer plays mean ex-beauty queen Velma Von Tussle opposite John Travolta, who dresses up as a Big Beautiful Woman for his Edna Turnblad role.

And in “Stardust,” Pfeiffer plays a wicked witch who’s on a search for eternal youth.

Speaking of eternal youth, Michelle seems to have found it in real life.

She’s also hung onto something else that in Tinseltown is quite rare—her modesty.

It turns out that Pfeiffer passed on the starring role of the film “Basic Instinct.”

Why? Because she didn’t want to bare it all for the camera.

Had she taken the movie part, Pfeiffer would have played scheming seductress Catherine Tramell. Instead Sharon Stone took the risqué role and the rest is sordid cinematic history.

“I just couldn’t do that one, because of the sexual parts, the nudity. My father was still alive. I’m kind of prudish,” Pfeiffer is quoted as saying by Contactmusic.

The star adds, “I am not that uninhibited about my body. I’m modest.”

Rod Stewart’s Profanity Peeve

There was one prominent celebrity at Al Gore’s Live Earth concerts who focused on a different kind of environmental contamination.

Veteran rocker Rod Stewart was appalled at the profane language that polluted the global festivities.

Comedian Chris Rock’s vile vernacular at the London venue necessitated U.K. TV and radio personality Jonathan Ross to issue an apology to the viewing audience.

“I listened to people effing and blinding during the Live Earth Concert last weekend and it just sounded so cheap,” Ross remarked.

The lewd, crude language prompted Stewart to promise his audience that he’ll personally pay up if he curses while performing.

“If you hear me swear on stage I’ll give you all a tenner [10 British pounds],” the legendary singer pledged.

Michael Moore’s ‘Sicko’ Stunts

In a transparent move to promote his “Sicko” film, Michael Moore showed up in Sacramento, California, and testified at a briefing hosted by former actress of “The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis” and current state senator Sheila Kuehl to advocate a so-called universal health care system. The event was followed by a rally and screening of Moore’s film.

“I’d like to see executives of these companies in a perp walk in handcuffs,” Moore muttered.

Then the frustrated filmmaker granted the town of Bellaire in his home county the privilege of paying $40 per ticket for a sneak peek at his movie and, for an additional sixty bucks, the chance to attend a party where he autographed film posters, surgical gloves and bandages. The money went to the Democratic Party.

“I am anticipating the onslaught of attack,” Moore told reporters at the event.

In a kind of comical karma, Moore’s “Sicko” film has been pirated. The public can now view the thing for free thanks to its wide availability for downloading on the Web at no cost.

Ironically, in 2004 Moore told a Scottish paper, the Sunday Herald, he was happy that people engaged in copyright violations.

“I don’t agree with the copyright laws and I don’t have a problem with people downloading the movie and sharing it with people as long as they’re not trying to make a profit off my labor. I would oppose that,” Moore said.

“I do well enough already and I made this film [“Fahrenheit 9/11”] because I want the world, to change. The more people who see it the better, so I’m happy this is happening.”

More words for Moore to eat on the eve of his “Sicko” release.

On another Moore hypocritical note, I reported a while back on how filmmakers Debbie Melnyck and Rick Caine had set out to film a biography of someone they truly admired. However, while producing “Manufacturing Dissent,” the two made a discovery that their hero, Michael Moore, was far from the person, or for that matter the professional that they had imagined.

During their movie making experience, Melnyck and Caine learned about Moore’s fabricated persona; in particular that he did not grow up in working class Flint, Michigan, but in Davison, a wealthy nearby suburb.

They discovered that Moore was not removed as editor of Mother Jones for political reasons as he has claimed, but was fired for bad editing. They learned that Moore shot footage of himself and interspersed it with other events to imply things that never actually happened (such as Moore asking Roger Smith, former CEO of General Motors, a question at a shareholders’ meeting).

The most devastating information unearthed, though, is that Moore actually did speak with then-GM chairman Roger Smith, whose supposed evasion is the central premise of “Roger & Me,” but withheld the footage from the film. (Premiere previously reported this but “Manufacturing Dissent” actually displays footage of Moore interviewing Smith.)

“Anybody who says that is a (expletive) liar,” Moore told the Associated Press when confronted with the charge at his Michigan “Sicko” sneak preview.

Moore also admitted that he had “a good five minutes of back and forth” with Smith at a 1987 shareholders’ meeting, as reported by Premiere magazine in 1990. But Moore claims that was before he began working on “Roger & Me” and had nothing to do with the film.

By evading interviews with Melnyck and Caine, Moore and his staff behaved like the corporate targets that Moore despises. At one event, the filmmakers’ soundboard was unplugged while other reporters were allowed to tape. At another event, a staffer kicked the filmmakers out of an arena and threw their camera to the ground.

An indication that the makers of “Manufacturing Dissent” had a serious change of heart about Moore was revealed in the tagline used to market the film. It read: “Michael Moore doesn’t like documentaries. That’s why he doesn’t make them.” A slogan that appeared on movie posters also conveyed their dampened sentiments: “It’s Never Been so Hard to Get Michael Moore in Front of the Camera.”

Because the criticism of Moore came from self-described “progressive liberals,” who were originally motivated by their admiration for Moore before they reluctantly concluded that he was not what he appeared to be, the mainstream press actually treated the film more favorably than similar polemic material from the Right.

Moore’s talent has been to bring humor, a brisk pace and controversy to the documentary genre. “Manufacturing Dissent” demonstrated that Moore also brings fabrication.

Can we expect Moore of the same from “Sicko?”

Judge Throws Book at OJ

A federal bankruptcy judge has ordered O.J. Simpson’s daughter to give a deposition by week’s end in a lawsuit about the former football star’s canceled book, “If I Did It.”

The issue involves a bankrupt company owned by Simpson’s children.

The company was previously ordered to turn over any copies of the book. You know, the where he explains how he might have committed the killings of ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.

Hopefully this judge will be able to trace the money and put it where it belongs – in the bank accounts of the victims.

Keith Richards Sucks Dad Up His Nose

Rolling Stone Keith Richards may have indulged in a host of illegal substances in his life, but, hey this is not something to be bragging about.

“The strangest thing I’ve tried to snort? My father. I snorted my father,” Richards told the British music magazine NME.

“He was cremated and I couldn’t resist grinding him up with a little bit of blow. My dad wouldn’t have cared,” he said. “… It went down pretty well, and I’m still alive.”

Richards’ father, Bert, died at age 84 in 2002.

It’s bad enough to be boasting about sucking up blow, but mixing it with your departed dad’s remains is ghoulish.

Howard Stern Plots Against ‘American Idol’

Fox’s “American Idol” is in Howard Stern’s crosshairs.

The show with the most dominant ratings in broadcast television history is in danger of being “ruined,” according to the satellite shock jock.  

The toilet tongued Stern has been working with Web site votefortheworst.com and using his radio platform to try and persuade his listening audience to follow the dictates of the site, which advocates that “Idol” viewers vote for the poorest performer on the show.

The designated contestant of the current season is an atonal, arrhythmic, androgynous singer named Sanjaya Malakar. Malakar has inspired tears, endless Internet chatter, late-night comedy ribbing and a direct threat from curmudgeonly judge Simon Cowell. 

Cowell has signaled his intentions to quit “Idol” if Malakar wins. “I won’t be back if he does,” Cowell recently declared to “Extra.”

Stern is gleeful over the possibility of the show’s demise. “We’re corrupting the entire thing.  All of us are routing ‘American Idol,’” the Sirius bigwig boasted during a recent show. “It’s so great. The No. 1 show in television and it’s getting ruined.” 

Stern routinely uses Malakar as fodder to debate Eric Lynch, a habitual caller. Lynch is firmly against the idea of harming the integrity of “Idol.” In jousting with Lynch, Stern launches verbal missiles at the show while he promotes the idea of Malakar becoming the next “American Idol.”

Fans of Stern have demonstrated cult-like tendencies in the past, as listeners appear to follow the dictates of their leader. He has even thrown his weight around in statewide elections in New York. 

Malakar was in the bottom two or three of “Idol” contestants during the initial episodes of the show. But he was noticeably absent from the lower vote-getter categories in those telecasts that took place after Stern started to focus on his get-out-the-vote effort in March.

With over 30 million people tuning in each week, other networks are likely pleased with Stern’s campaign and heartened by the fact that this year’s “Idol” ratings are down 10 percent. 

Since the actual vote tallies are not released to the public, exactly how many voters Stern has managed to corral is unknown.  Malakar does have his own fan base and is also being covered extensively by Indian media.

Fox has issued a statement on the matter, expressing its skepticism of Stern’s actual impact on the plurality of the vote. 

“With 30 million votes every week, and hundreds of millions of votes over the season,” the Fox statement reads, “the power of true fans of ‘American Idol’ dwarfs any attempt of people trying to gain notoriety. Despite the press coverage, these campaigns don’t affect who moves forward in the competition.”

In private, though, Fox execs’ fingers must be crossed that Malakar is booted sooner rather than later.

Tables Turned on Michael Moore

Filmmakers Debbie Melnyck and Rick Caine set out to film a biography of someone they truly admired.

However, while producing “Manufacturing Dissent,” the two made a discovery that their hero, Michael Moore, was far from the person, or for that matter the professional that they had imagined.

During their movie making experience, Melnyck and Caine learned about Moore’s fabricated persona; in particular that he did not grow up in working class Flint, Michigan, but in Davison, a wealthy nearby suburb.

They discovered that Moore was not removed as editor of Mother Jones for political reasons as he has claimed, but was fired for bad editing. They learned that Moore shot footage of himself and interspersed it with other events to imply things that never actually happened (such as Moore asking Roger Smith, former CEO of General Motors, a question at a shareholders’ meeting).

The most devastating information unearthed, though, is that Moore actually did speak with then-GM chairman Roger Smith, whose supposed evasion is the central premise of “Roger & Me,” but withheld the footage from the film. (Premiere previously reported this but “Manufacturing Dissent” actually displays footage of Moore interviewing Smith.)

Other well-known documentary filmmakers such as Errol Morris (“The Fog of War”) express disdain in the film for Moore’s documentary style.

By evading interviews with the filmmakers, Moore and his staff behave like the corporate targets that Moore despises. At one event, the filmmakers’ soundboard is unplugged while other reporters are allowed to tape. At another event, a staffer kicks the filmmakers out of an arena and throws their camera to the ground.

An indication that the makers of “Manufacturing Dissent” have had a serious change of heart about Moore is revealed in the tagline used to market the film. It reads: “Michael Moore doesn’t like documentaries. That’s why he doesn’t make them.” A slogan that appears on movie posters also conveys their dampened sentiments: “It’s Never Been so Hard to Get Michael Moore in Front of the Camera.”

Because the criticism of Moore comes from self-described “progressive liberals,” who were originally motivated by their admiration for Moore before they reluctantly concluded that he was not what he appeared to be, the mainstream press are actually treating the film differently than similar polemic material from the Right.

Here is a sampling of some recent mainstream media takes:

- “Balanced documentary lifts lid on Michael Moore,” Reuters

- “Filmmakers question Michael Moore’s tactics,” A.P.

- “An intelligent, provocative and, arguably, even necessary examination of the phenomenon of Michael Moore — the man, his movies and his methods…,” Variety

Moore’s talent has been to bring humor, a brisk pace and controversy to the documentary genre. “Manufacturing Dissent” demonstrates that Moore also brings fabrication.

Maybe now there will be more skepticism about Moore from left-of-center folks who in the past refused to question his work.