The depiction of soldiers rushing Lynch out of the Nasiriyah hospital on a stretcher was a dead-on re-creation. Yet something crucial was missing on-screen: the flag U.S. troops dramatically laid across Lynch’s chest as they videotaped her rescue. (In retrospect it was the surest tip-off that the mission had been at least partly staged — it came complete with feel-good props.)

Everyone saw the flag on the incessant news clips last spring. But on NBC Sunday night, the telltale flag was missing. It’s as if the Pentagon had out-Hollywooded Hollywood, and the TV producers thought they went too far. Apparently they decided that the idea of draping the stars and stripes over Lynch during the final rescue scene was too over-the-top, too schmaltzy even for them.

Welcome to the strange world of Jessica Lynch Media Week, where seeing was not necessarily believing. As Gary Dorsey of the Baltimore Sun put it, “After the fog of war came the fog of media, followed by the fog of war and media, then clarifications and alternative views, then the fog of publicity and the war of competing media.”

With a made-for-TV docudrama, prime-time interviews, a Time magazine cover story, and a new book out, the week represented a chance to find out the truth. Or to at least pick the most appealing version of the truth: NBC’s, the Pentagon’s, Time Warner’s or Random House’s.

After being used by the Pentagon, which planted a phony war story about Lynch “fighting to the death” during her capture, and by a White House that refused to correct the record when it became obvious the spin was fiction, Lynch moved into equally dangerous mass media waters. This time she was telling her own story, that of a reluctant star who insists she was no hero. But it was impossible to escape the feeling that she was getting used all over again.

In fact, there’s an eerie parallel between the way the Bush administration sold the Lynch saga and the way it sold the war: Having decided the existing case for toppling Saddam Hussein wouldn’t sell, it apparently trumped up the evidence. Likewise, someone decided the Lynch capture and rescue wasn’t sexy enough on its own — it had to be tarted up. But then, having been used by the White House, Lynch was treated shabbily by Random House, which flogged her book last week on the disturbing news that she’d been raped — news Lynch couldn’t confirm herself, and about which the evidence is inconclusive. The humble, plucky Lynch came through her ordeals a hero, but the administration and the media certainly did not.

To their credit, Lynch and her family tried to keep a little distance from the media machine madness. For instance, they refused to ink a lucrative deal with any TV network for an authorized miniseries. Instead they wanted to tell her story in a book — and one written by a Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaperman, Rick Bragg. But once she signed the book deal ($500,000 for her, $500,000 for him), that meant she had to promote it, which meant time on the couch with Diane Sawyer, Katie Couric, David Letterman and, coming Monday, Larry King.

The talkmeister should be forewarned: The petite, tight-lipped Lynch is one tough interview. Sawyer, notorious for her creepy, how-do-you-really-feel questions designed to elicit some on-camera tears, couldn’t get Lynch to budge, even after she pulled out a surprise photograph of the Iraqi hospital room Lynch was held in. Sawyer’s voice-over informed viewers this was the first time she’d seen the room since her rescue. The camera zoomed in on Lynch for a reaction. Yes, she calmly replied, that was the room she stayed in.

Things were even rougher for “Today’s” Katie Couric, who interviewed Lynch live. Couric ended up doing most of the talking during the Wednesday segment — 1,530 words compared to Lynch’s 950. And approximately 30 different times Lynch gave one-word answers to Couric’s questions. Her favorite being the lonely, “Yeah,” which she offered up 22 times.

Lynch appeared at times surprisingly detached from her own tale. She said she only watched parts of NBC’s Sunday night movie about her life and has not read all of Bragg’s book, 500,000 copies of which were shipped to stores on Veteran’s Day.

There were signs the incessant media hype outpaced public interest. After all, it was Elizabeth Smart, the former kidnapped Utah teen, and her CBS real-life drama, that won the ratings war Sunday night, crowning her America’s Recovering Sweetheart. Asked by the Hartford Courant if her store was ordering extra copies of Lynch’s new biography, one bookstore owner guffawed, “You must be kidding! Who cares? This story has been told to the nth degree.”

Even readers of Lynch’s hometown newspaper seemed underwhelmed. In an online — and unscientific — poll conducted by West Virginia’s Parkersberg News and Sentinel, the daily asked readers if they planned to buy Lynch’s book; 72 percent said no.

No doubt the Bush administration hoped viewers and readers would stay away. The Lynch rollout came during a bleak week for the White House, as it hastily summoned Paul Bremer, its top administrator in Iraq, back to Washington for crisis talks on how to quickly fix the political and security mess in Iraq. And Lynch’s insistence on national television that she felt used by the Pentagon for making a show of her rescue and for telling absurd tales about her alleged heroics was just the latest cut at the White House’s shrinking credibility when it comes to the war in Iraq.

Also, her personal Iraq tale about an unprepared group of lost, confused and exhausted soldiers making wrong turn after wrong turn before being boxed into an ambush where 11 soldiers were killed is not exactly the stuff of recruiting brochures.

Meanwhile, Fox News was noticeably shut out of the Lynch sweepstakes, the only major broadcast or news network that did not get any access to the former POW. So Fox talker Bill O’Reilly focused on reports that topless photos of Lynch were reportedly purchased by Hustler publisher Larry Flynt, who now says he won’t publish them.

Note this absurd exchange between O’Reilly and ABC’s Sawyer, out front plugging her exclusive interview “get”:

O’Reilly: By the time you talked to her, this topless thing wasn’t out yet, right?

Sawyer: No.

O’Reilly: OK.

Sawyer: But we’ve checked and I don’t think she’s going to have a comment on it.

O’Reilly: No, I wouldn’t either. But — and isn’t it a sad commentary that this is the country we live in now?

Sawyer: Yes, and somebody sold these. I mean this …

O’Reilly: Of course they did. I mean, you know, we’re going to have this Paris Hilton video tomorrow. You know about this thing?

Sawyer: You’re going to have it here?

O’Reilly: We have it, yes. We have it right here.

Sawyer: Are you going to put it on?

O’Reilly: I’m going to put some of it on, not a lot. I’m going to show the folks tomorrow. But isn’t it a sad commentary that everybody now …

Sawyer: Why are you going to put it on?

O’Reilly: Going to put what?

Sawyer: Why are you going to put it on?

O’Reilly: I’m not going to put on the sex stuff.

Sawyer: Oh, all right.

O’Reilly was referring to a 3-year-old sex tape of celebrity rich girl Paris Hilton that’s currently making the Internet rounds. Lumping Lynch with the lurid Hilton sex tape seemed symbolic of the way the right has tried to discredit her, once she blew the whistle on the Pentagon for hyping her heroics.

“I won’t read Lynch’s book either. There’s just something not right about all of this. I don’t care for the fact that a nasty finger is being pointed at our Military,” read one bulletin board post at GOPUSA.com. “This is not the time to condemn, it’s the time to support.”

The other constant conservative online theme during Lynch Week was that her ordeal simply confirmed that women should not be in the military. Lynch, wrote conservative commentator Chuck Muth, “is now being used by anti-war liberals to cast further doubt on America’s mission in Iraq, instead of casting doubt on the dubious — some would say outright stupid — Army decision to put women in combat and harm’s way in order to placate loud-mouthed feminists. It’s LONG past time for Jessica Lynch’s 15 minute of fame to be over.”

But despite the right’s fervent wishes that she’d go away, Lynch has been everywhere lately. Last week was book rollout week, which meant getting photographed by Annie Leibovitz for Vanity Fair’s year-end Hall of Fame issue. And it meant sharing Glamour magazine Women of the Year honors with Britney Spears, who’s out promoting her own product this week — a new CD — and who also sat down, exclusively, for a Sawyer interview of her own. (On ABC Tuesday night, we learned Lynch was a “prissy” child. On ABC Thursday night, we learned from the Madonna-kissing Spears that “when I was younger, I used to run around my house, naked, when I was 13.”)

The fact POW Lynch kept bumping into pop tart Spears out on the marketing matrix wasn’t the week’s only absurdity. Watching competing media outlets scrap over Lynch was sadly amusing. Time magazine devoted 22 pages, complete with 19 photos and illustrations, to the Lynch saga, while online Time.com asked readers, “Is Jessica Lynch a hero? Yes or no?” So, in a classic jab, rival Newsweek, trying to piss on Time’s Lynch bonanza, committed just 500 words to her in this week’s issue, opting with the dismissive lead, “The Jessica Lynch blitz isn’t a feel-good celebration for everyone.”

As for the book, “I Am a Soldier, Too,” Time magazine managed to condense it to 4,500 words, without losing much in the process. Bragg does his best to rev up the story and give it a real country holler feel (“Bad luck followed the little caravan like a hungry dog”). But he seems to be straining just to spread the story out over 207 pages. And that where’s-the-beef quality served to highlight the one sensational allegation Bragg makes — that during a three-hour block between the time her Humvee crashed and she was brought to the hospital, Lynch, unconscious, was tortured and raped by her captors. The passage, which takes up just two paragraphs in the book, grabbed headlines around the world.

Lynch told Sawyer upfront the whole rape notion was “questionable,” but Bragg said Lynch’s parents wanted it included in the book. Still, the red-hot allegation, stuck inside an otherwise sleepy read, couldn’t escape the whiff of publishing desperation that accompanied it.

As one furious Philadelphia Inquirer book reviewer put it, “Last week’s revelation that she was sexually assaulted during those lost three hours, timed specifically to promote this book and her appearances, is repugnant, virtually unparalleled in the rancid history of publicity. It’s rape as a marketing tool.”

Whether Lynch was in fact sexually assaulted may never be known. (Iraqi doctors who examined her insist she was not.) But it’s hard to attribute lofty journalistic motives to a publisher who decided to introduce such an inflammatory accusation, based on relatively sketchy evidence, into a story that’s already drowning in contradictions and revisions.

Likewise, NBC had high hopes for its Lynch movie. “This story is Mission: Impossible, but it’s real,” one NBC insider told Daily Variety last spring, before some of the shine began to fade. “It’s as good a story as you can get from this war. It’s uplifting, heroic, compelling and dramatic.”

But in the end, after seven script revisions, the disclaimer that popped up on the screen Sunday night said it all: “This motion picture is based on a true story. However, some names have been changed and some characters, scenes and events in whole or part have been created for dramatic purpose.”

That’s because NBC failed to get the rights to Lynch’s story, and had to rely on the tale of a 32-year-old Iraqi attorney, Odeh al-Rehaif, and his tell-all book, “Because Each Life Is Precious: Why an Iraqi Man Risked Everything for Private Jessica Lynch.” Clearly al-Rehaif put his life, and the life of his family, in danger by alerting U.S. troops to Lynch’s whereabouts in an effort to get her rescued. And in the end he was rewarded with political asylum in the States, a job at a Republican-run lobbying firm in Washington, as well as a handsome, six-figure book deal. (Not to mention the fact NBC turned al-Rehaif into a dashing Andy Garcia-like star, not the Jon Lovitz look-alike he is in real life.)

On-screen, al Rehaif came across as Ahmad Chalabi’s long-lost cousin; a native Iraqi who laid out the kind of script Pentagon war planners dreamt about. But like Chalabi and his rosy pre-war prediction that U.S. troops would be welcomed as liberators in Iraq and resistance would crumble with Saddam’s collapse, al-Rehaif’s tale of an Iraq desperate for U.S. intervention, of Iraqis with an almost insatiable love of Americans, had some holes in it. It’s not Swiss cheese holes like Chalabi’s fantasy, but al-Rehaif’s claim that his wife worked as a nurse in the hospital where Lynch was treated have been dismissed by others on staff there. “He’s a big liar who should be hung by his ears,” one Iraqi nurse told ABC.

And al-Rehaif’s most chilling, dramatic claim, that while peering through a glass panel into her room he saw a Fedayeen soldier slap Lynch during an interrogation, was denied by a hospital staffer in a Washington Post report this summer: “Never happened. That’s some Hollywood crap you’d tell the Americans.”

Tuesday on ABC, Lynch herself denied al-Rehaif’s graphic account of a beat-down, telling Sawyer it never happened. That may explain why Lynch refused to meet with al-Rehaif last month when he come calling in Palestine, W.Va., in search of an audience with the former POW on the heels of his own book release.

Wednesday morning on the “Today,” show, Lynch softened her tone, saying she wants to meet with al-Rehaif and thank him, but that she “want[ed] to do it on my own time, whenever there’s no media around.”

As soon as the current marketing rollout wraps up and al-Rehaif and Lynch send the press away, they should be able to get some time to themselves.

Russert isn’t the only famous child in media. He isn’t even the only famous child at NBC, which also employs Jenna Bush Hager and Chelsea Clinton (who renewed her three-month temporary contract earlier this year, despite barely producing any work for the network). Fox has Peter Doocy, Chris Wallace and, here in New York, Greg Kelly. ABC has Chris Cuomo, and CNN Anderson Cooper. A.G. Sulzberger is a reporter for the New York Times. Some of those people are fine journalists, by the way. Nepotism has always been a major force in journalism and media — it is a fact of life and one that would be exhausting to be continually het up about — and plenty of nepotism beneficiaries are wonderful writers and talented people. If you’re raised by interesting people and get a good education at home and at the finest schools, you really ought to turn out pretty smart. But Russert is emblematic of the sort of nepotism that gives nepotism a bad name. He’s not a wonderful writer or a particularly talented person. And unlike Chelsea Clinton and her very silly “reporting good news about people who do charity or something” beat, he’s actually got a real journalism job that someone else without the name Russert could be doing much more effectively. He’s not even particularly good on TV.

Russert in some respects more closely resembles a second-generation politician than a typical dynasty hire in journalism. Like Al Gore and Harold Ford Jr., he is a graduate of St. Albans — the elite Washington all-boys private school that molds little moderate politicians and self-consciously imitates the old New England boarding schools that used to serve the WASPs who ran the country — and like a junior Kennedy he’s decidedly less impressive than his tragic father. Russert spent his college years at Boston College acting basically like a well-off young meathead. (His sole notable achievement during those years was being the subject of one of the Internet’s very first “embarrassing Facebook photo of the child of a notable person” stories.) He was hired at NBC, in what most took to be a slightly unconventional corporate expression of grief, within months of his graduation with a communications degree.

He seems dimly aware that nepotism won him his job, but in denial as to the fact that it’s allowed him to keep it. As he told Howard Kurtz in 2010:

He knows what some colleagues and detractors say — that he wouldn’t be in this job if not for his last name. “I just try to really block that out,” Russert says. “The news media is a results-oriented business. I don’t think a company like NBC would pay me if I wasn’t qualified and wasn’t able to produce on this level…

“There will always be people who will say, ‘Oh, he’s only gotten where he is because of his father,’ and that certainly helped. But I’ve been able to stay here because of me.”

Denial of his extraordinary genetic luck for the sake of his self-respect is a common trope with poor Luke. He was using the same line in 2008, barely after he was hired: “Did my name get my foot in the door? Absolutely, I’ll be the first to admit that. But has my performance and ability got my butt through the door? Yes.” (In the same interview, Russert revealingly compared himself to Joe Buck, a second-generation sportscaster with an astoundingly enviable career, whom no one on Earth actually likes.) He also claimed to have absolutely no clue how he managed to score two much-sought-after (unpaid, natch) internships as a college student, at NBC and at Michael Bloomberg’s City Hall. “I went through the application process like anyone else,” he told the Times. (Russert had at least one other killer internship, too, at ESPN.)

But our target here is Russert, and he is not personally responsible for NBC’s decision to bequeath him a broadcasting job. If we focus on the work and not the means by which Russert got the job, things don’t look much better. Initially, at least, the grown-ups on the air always seemed to be holding Russert’s hand as he tried to remember his lines, as if he were a child and not a fully grown college graduate and professional. It’s obvious that everyone who knew his father loves Luke. But everyone’s affection for the kid is not transmissible through a television set, alas, and Russert’s appearances seemed like some rich guy’s kid’s piano recital suddenly taking place in the middle of a professional orchestra’s concert.

His initial role was as MSNBC’s semi-official “young person” correspondent, because reporting on what he himself was seemed the least ridiculous thing to have Luke Russert suddenly doing in a national cable news network’s presidential election coverage. And in his role as a young person reporting on what young people think of presidential politics, Russert sounded like an old person — like an old Washington lifer — talking about what he thinks the young people today are all about. (No self-respecting young person, to use one brief example, uses the term “millennial.“)

Here’s an early report:

This is like a master class in pointless political pseudo-analysis. All the resources and staff of MSNBC at his disposal, and the package still looks and sounds like it was put together for a high school civics class presentation. (I mean, except that Larry Sabato shows up halfway through. I guess it is professional Washington journalism!) Kids are turning off their reality TV and tuning into the real-life Amazing Race! Facebook and stuff, some experts say! Only time will tell. For MSNBC, I’m a person with no business having this job.

(This is the piece that Russert concluded by making a minor gaffe that set the right against him, for a moment: The “smartest kids in the state” go to UVA, he told Matt Lauer, so they naturally favor Obama. This was actually just poorly stated conventional wisdom, not really “liberal bias” — by “the smartest kids in the state” he meant, he later explained, kids “from affluent, highly educated households.”)

Months after hiring Russert, Steve Capus, president of NBC News, called him one of the network’s “rookies of the year,” which doesn’t reflect well on NBC’s 2008 rookie class. (Russert returned the favor with effusive praise for his boss.)

On the basis of his impressive reporting and ease in front of the camera still being named Russert, Luke was promoted, after the election, to congressional correspondent. That’s the contempt with which NBC News views the occupation of journalism. To make Luke Russert a congressional reporter is to say, “We believe that this job requires no particular knowledge, training or skills. If a German shepard could be trained to speak, it could perform this work.” (That’s true of most cable news work, granted, but it really doesn’t have to be.) Proper reporting on the House of Representatives is actually difficult and largely thankless work, generally done by very hardworking and underpaid reporters. The assignment was transparently NBC’s attempt to help Russert develop chops, and what it has yielded thus far is the time Charlie Rangel called Luke dumb, which MSNBC turned into a two-day story.

NBC seems to be keeping Russert employed in the hopes that he’ll eventually develop an ability to simulate gravitas. Hopefully “Meet the Press” will still be on the air by the time Luke has mastered his serious face.

His Twitter feed presents a perfectly dull person with perfectly banal thoughts. When he drifts into attempted solemnity it’s usually more amusing than his actual attempts at humor. (More quality insight, right here.) It’s precisely what you would imagine the result would be if the elite Beltway press somehow collectively raised a child from birth — which is, in effect, what actually happened. He subscribes to every shibboleth of Washington conventional wisdom and shows fealty to all the proper institutions.

When Jeff Himmelman wrote that the legendary Bob Woodward had misrepresented a few facts in “All the President’s Men,” Russert was outraged on behalf of the institution of Bob Woodward:

Pathetic the chattering class is trying to sell books and papers on issues of no substance attacking the most storied career in journalism.

— Luke Russert (@LukeRussert) May 1, 2012

Luke. “The chattering class” is you. (And Bob Woodward, whose singular goal for the last 35 years or so has been “trying to sell books.”)

A popular reoccurring trope in Russert tweets and interviews is his deep respect for the politicians he is lucky enough to cover. “No matter how much I disagree w pols,” he writes, “I always respect their desire to stand up for their views & put their family through hell 2 win.”

To Kurtz, again:

Unlike most journalists, he describes covering Congress as “a real honor.”

“I have a real respect for them. While a lot of folks view them as the epitome of everything that’s wrong with America now, it takes a lot to put yourself out there in the public sphere, and your family.”

What if some pols’ views, if they even have any to speak of, are not worth standing up for? Was putting the family through hell worth it then? The 435 people who make up the House of Representatives are, on average, no nobler or wiser than any randomly selected group of 435 Americans. In many cases the members of Congress are much dumber and more craven than the people they represent (they’re also, on average, richer, whiter and much more likely to be male). To Luke Russert, though, they are noble public servants, and to love America is to respect its political elite. This is a classic symptom of Beltway myopia: mistaking the politicians for democracy. The greatest moment in politics, for Luke Russert, was the time the president argued in circles with Eric Cantor for a while, on TV, and no one came away having changed their mind.

Because he is being groomed to be a simulacra of his father, and because he is merely a jukebox for the cliches and conclusions of the elders grooming him, Russert can get tripped up when attempting to be Broderian on the fly. Dylan Ratigan threw him for a loop when he challenged him on the eternal wiseness of bipartisan-approved “free trade” deals — Russert just laughed, nervously and idiotically, when faced, for what was probably the very first time in his life, with actual arguments against making it easier for American corporations to gain access to cheap and easily exploitable foreign labor.

Ratigan: My Colombian, the Colombian deal’s my favorite. That’s a big job creator. Whaddya say we do a deal with the only country in the world that openly murders all labor organizers, to ensure that they will never ask for a raise ever.

L’il Luke: Well, Colombia, though, in all fairness, Colombia has had massive strides in improvement in terms of their security. I mean, you’re bringing up something that George Miller–

Ratigan: But I’m saying the murder rate of union organizers on a per capita–

L’il Luke: Well, that’s why there’s Democratic opposition in the House for it right now and they have to figure out that, you know, technicality there.

Just a little technicality! A minor bump on the road to a reassuring, job-creating compromise!

Dylan was just having a bit of fun with Luke, there. A few months later they bonded over their shared love of Seriousness About The Deficit. From Luke’s pious, pitch-perfect, impossible-to-parody script on a sad display of partisanship:

If you look at the backdrop, Dylan, just look at the stats. Federal revenue now is at its lowest level since 1950. If you extend the Bush tax cuts the way the Republicans want, you get $3.8 trillion added to the deficits. If you add them the way Democrats want, you get $3 trillion added over the next three years. If you don’t do anything to Medicare or Medicaid or social security, those programs will not be solvent.

Both parties don’t want to tell the American people it’s time to drink their tough medicine.

Both parties are going to try to take 2012 as the avenue to have this debate further. But as this debate goes on and on and on, the real difficult decisions, the real ideas of how are we going to cut this deficit, they go unanswered.

All so folks can can get re-elected, continue to get their $174,000 salaries, and the beat goes on and on. The special interests get rich, the parties can argue and argue and argue.

Really, nothing sums up contemporary American media and politics better than a twerp like Luke Russert sternly announcing that we’ll all soon have to get used to taking our “tough medicine.”

NBC gave him a talk show with the deeply stupid name “Rock Center” (no one in the known history of New York has referred to Rockefeller Center as “Rock Center,” I’m sorry that “30 Rock” took the name you wanted but you have to come up with something different), where he is not quite as funny as a late night talk show host and not quite as newsy as a news show host. And, obviously, not as opinionated as a cable news show host, because as a network evening news anchor, Mr. Williams is not allowed to think for himself, or hold opinions on issues other than the annoyingness of those Brooklyn Hipsters.

But it’s the never-ending, nonstop, beat-you-over-the-head blue-collar Jersey Shore shtick that grates the most. It’s desperate and unconvincing, coming from a multimillionaire television personality. We get it! You used to be “authentically” American, according to some arbitrary signifiers! (And if you’re so damn proud, why did you lose your accent?)

HACKIEST 2011 MOMENT:
A January appearance on “The Late Show With David Letterman,” in which Letterman, who in recent years has often displayed an environmentalist streak, asked Williams if recent freak weather events could be traced to anthropogenic climate change. Williams, mugging but clearly uncomfortable, declined to even acknowledge the existence of climate change itself. He refused to “take sides,” and joked, “What have I done to deserve this?” A perfect encapsulation of the uselessness of the “objective” (and idiotic) network nightly news anchor, too cowardly or dumb to “take sides” on a “debate” between craven political actors and the nearly universal scientific consensus. (But why would we expect a regular guy’s guy from Jersey to understand all that complicated climate science? He’s too busy cruising the shore in his souped-up Bel Air Hardtop with Mary and Puerto Rican Johnny to examine the evidence!)

- – - – - – - – - -

(Read the introduction here. Read the 2010 Salon Hack 30 List here.)

It might be a hopeful sign that the show will be overseen by Bryan Fuller, who created the imaginative, not completely awful “Pushing Daisies.” Less hopeful: Fuller is also developing a show based on “Silence of the Lambs.” This undoubtedly essential “Munsters” update comes in the midst of an unprecedented glut of reboots and reimaginings, all thick with the promise that No, really, this will be very different. It will creepy and full of action and with a feminist theme. You know what’s really different? A stinkin’ original idea.

We have already endured the small-screen update of “Charlie’s Angels” and the cinematic revival of “Footloose” – both of which, by the way, died on the vine. Broadway is now almost exclusively revivals, “jukebox musicals,” and stuff based on old Whoopi Goldberg movies. We will soon be treated to both a new “21 Jump Street” and “Dark Shadows.”

Other classics also up for a fresh look: “Godzilla,” which you may recall, fared so well last time someone attempted it.  “The Crow.”  “20,000 Leagues Under the Sea.”  “Woody Woodpecker.” Leonardo DiCaprio is currently considering a “Six Million Dollar Man” remake. Oh, and “rehearsal is for fags” impresario Brett Ratner may be redoing “The Last American Virgin.”  I know I don’t catch everything going on with the young folk, but has there been a great national longing that translates into “Give the people another ‘Last American Virgin’!”? Have you seen the original? It’s no “Porky’s.” Quite frankly, it’s not even “Zapped!”

Tired old ideas aren’t just spawning like Duggars, they’re being cloned. There are currently two “dark and less campy” television dramas based on old fairy tales — “Grimm” and “Once Upon a Time.” There are two competing Snow White movies coming out in 2012, “Snow White and The Huntsman” and “Mirror Mirror.” Both, of course, feature a totally kickass Snow White who doesn’t waste her time trilling to little birds. She’s busting heads! Even “The Munsters” will find itself vying for NBC’s attention against another pilot the network has approved: “Frankenstein.”  (Not to be confused with the movie of “I, Frankenstein,” also currently in the works.) There are 300 million people in America. And four ideas.

Humans have always had a natural inclination toward returning to the same stories. It’s why the plays of Aristophanes continue to be performed, why vampire tales still ignite the imagination, why “Doctor Who” never goes out of style. I’m not convinced, however, that’s why remakes of “Get Smart” and “The A-Team” happen.  Every time a television show or movie gets underway, millions of dollars and hundreds of careers are on the line. It’s understandable that a seemingly sure thing would have more allure than something riskier. (Again I say, “Community.”) And sure, Hollywood has had a self-sucking parasite for eons. That element of terribleness existed even before Ernest made that “Beverly Hillbillies” movie all those years ago.

But all you have to do is sit through the trailers at the next movie you attend, or read what the network midseason replacements include, and you’ll feel a little bit of contact death of the soul, a plague emanating from somewhere deep in the bowels of L.A. But I can’t be alone in saying that I don’t want to watch a movie because I saw it 20 years ago. And I sure as hell don’t want to watch it because it was a crap TV series 20 years ago – no matter how edgy anyone promises that reboot of “Hangin’ With Mr. Cooper” will be.

Greenspan said too that the downgrade would likely precipitate market turmoil, but that the possibility of a double-dip recession depended on Europe..

Appearing alongside Greenspan, Austan Goolsbee, the chairman of the White House’s council of economic advisors, hit out at S&P. “Well, the basic case is they made a $2 trillion math error and forgot to check their work,” he said. “So rating agencies that didn’t make a $2 trillion math error reaffirmed the AAA status.”

Watch the clip below:

The poll results, released Tuesday show that 55 percent of respondents think that failing to raise the debt ceiling would be “a real and serious problem,” while only 18 percent said it would not be. This contrasts starkly to results gleaned from a Gallup survey in May, in which 47 percent of people said they would want Congress to vote against raising the debt ceiling.

Meanwhile, support for President Obama’s proposal for lowering the deficit significantly trumps that for Republican proposals: 58 percent of NBC/WSJ poll respondents said they preferred Obama’s suggestions to lower the federal deficit by $4 trillion over 10 years by cutting federal spending, raising tax revenue from the wealthy and reducing some Medicare spending. Contrastingly, only just over a third prefer the House Republican proposal to reduce the deficit by $2.5 trillion over 10 years through cutting spending alone and not raising additional revenues.