Friday Media Roundup

Stuff I've read, watched, or listened to that's good enough to recommend.

Yeasayer / "2080" (music): Yeasayer is a difficult band to describe, which is a good thing. I can't imagine anyone agreeing with this, but "2080" reminds me of music that would play in a movie about an optimistic, post-apocalyptic future.

The whole album has an aura of oddly familiar strangeness. It's like the music skipped a few stages of evolution, so it's difficult to see where it came from, but it's still recognizable enough to enjoy.

How about this: (World Music)^2 ? I give up. Great band, regardless.

Heroes (TV): I avoided watching the show until recently because the premise--ordinary people discover latent superpowers and try to avert a world disaster--sounded bland. The execution is excellent though. The show's strength is its constant diet of new surprises and resolutions. It's almost like the anti-Lost--something significant is revealed in every episode, to the point that I don't see how they maintain the pace for more than a few seasons.


The Real All-Americans (book): I'm not a huge sports fan, but I found Sally Jenkins' book on how Native Americans were integral to the development of collegiate football fascinating. I'm surprised I never heard of Carlisle Indian Industrial School, an experiment in assimilating Native Americans by a well-meaning but perhaps misguided army officer, or knew that it was the source for a lot of what we now consider basic parts of football, like the forward pass,
reverses, and training dummies.

The book also brought light to some names I only heard in passing, like Jim Thorpe and Pop Warner. It's worth checking out from the library or buying for anyone with an interest in sports history.

Our Malined Friend

I feel sorry for the toilet seat. It's always the comparison point for grossness.

Every few months there's a story on how Everyday Object X has more bacteria than a toilet seat. "Average keyboard has more bacteria than a toilet seat." "Calling Dr. Gross--mobile phone has more bacteria than a toilet seat." "Why don't you have your baby lick a toilet? Pacifiers have more bacteria than gas station commode."

If there are so many objects more disgusting than a toilet seat, maybe it's time to back off the insults to our porcelain friend. It's doing something right. It is beating our cell phones in the clean contest, and I don't know about you, but I don't poop on my cell phone.

What would I use as a substitute? A far question to ask. If I were a scientist releasing a meaningless study because my company's PR department wants to generate publicity from a media machine that hungers for attention-grabbing stories that require almost no research or effort to report, I'd....well, actually, I'd kill myself, because my life would be a hollow shell, empty of a long-forgotten dream to do something meaningful.

Or...I would use an object that no one would suspect harbors bacteria, and give people two things to fret about. "Office keyboards have more bacteria than corn!" What? Corn has bacteria?

Google Trends

Hey, lazy reporters!

Need evidence to support the conclusion you had before you started writing your political horse race piece? Visit Google Trends. It tracks search engine traffic and news references for popular words and phrases.

Google Trends is flexible enough to accommodate a wide-variety of pre-conceived ideas. Isn't it a shame how people care more about celebrities than politicians? Just search for "Paris Hilton, Hillary Clinton." Oops! Hillary got more news references. Better revise the search: "Paris Hilton, Senator Brownback." There we go!

Hey, how does a goat fare against the three main Democratic presidential candidates? Hoo hoo hoo! Politics is silly.

Google Trends is also useful when planning the news cycle during the slow summer months. Should we go with Summer of the Shark, or Summer of the Monkey? Let's check with America first.

Maybe It's Okay To Make an Ass Out of You and Me on This One

I hate to criticize the media for not being assumptive. In the race to report news, media outlets often gloss over details, report hearsay as fact, and broadcast unverified information rather than take the time to analyze it first.

But how do you allegedly drive a car through a street festival and injure 43 people? The only doubt is whether to call it a street festival or an open market. (I suggest using The Clown Rule).

If you missed the story, I'm referring to an incident that happened last Sunday in SE D.C. No one died, so the article was already off the front page of The Washington Post by Monday night. How many people do you have to maim nowadays to get some staying power? I find it a small miracle that no one died, but there's little information on what people did during and after the situation to avoid casualties.

The story resurfaced briefly today. The police department stated that the driver was a single Mom, high on crack, with her 7-year-old daughter in the back seat. This item got almost as much attention as the original incident. As it should. It's bad enough to get hit by a car, but who wants to get run over by a stereotype? That's no way to die.

FOX News sent over a camera crew after this development. Their latest report states that when the car finally crashed, a group of Mexicans popped out of the trunk and started singing La Cucaracha ("La Cucaracha" is Spanish for "We don't actually sing this song. It sucks."). They released a correction soon after the initial report. They meant to say allegedly.

I LOVE THE MEDIA!!!!

INTERNET NEWS ROX. (1)

(1) Source: Wikipedia

Worst Idea Ever

At least for 2006.

"O.J. Simpson: If I Did It, Here's How It Happened"

The follow-up interview: "If I did it, and happened to videotape it, here's what the videotape would look like."

Headline...

Bear attack victim loved nature, hated bears, dad says
Okay, I added the "hated bears" part.

This was on the front page of Yahoo. I think they're testing the waters for Summer of the Bear.

From Yahoo's Front Page.

Will Super Bowl XL live up to its name?

***

The deep questions are always the hardest to answer.

Will Super Bowl 143 live up to it's name? Gee, I don't know. It's hard to imagine anything surpassing the drama of Super Bowl 117. And don't get me started on the razzle dazzle in Superbowl 126: Part 2.

Here's a real question: Will Superbowl Best Mutha-Fucking Superbowl Ever Live Up To Its Name? That would be something I'd be genuinely curious about. But Superbowl what--35? 40? Not much of a name to live up to.

...

On the cover of a "special" edition of Newsweek:

AMERICA'S HOTTEST COLLEGES!

"Woo hoo! Show your tits, Princeton!"

"It's Colleges Gone Wild. [cue island music] You won't believe what these colleges will do to get your tuition money."

Dear Media

I know the war in Iraq, Social Security, and the national debt are important and all that. But let's talk about the real today: WHERE ARE THE SHARK ATTACKS?

We started off with two wonderful ones, right after each other. I ran out and bought a can of Wite-Out for my "Summer of the Shark 2001" shirt.

Then...nothing. It's been almost a whole week without a shark attack. What gives? I don't care if there haven't been any real shark attacks. Can't Wolf Blitzer strap on a dorsal fin and bite someone? And what is Tom Brokaw doing nowadays? I'll tell you what he should be doing: biting people in the ocean. Throw your former comrades a bone, Brokie.

Media, this is the people speaking: WE WANT MORE SHARK ATTACKS!

Shark Attack Update

Keep em coming, media! BOW DOWN TO THE POWER OF THE SHARK!!!

YEEEESSS!

Summer of the Shark is back!

We Regret The Error

- A picture caption on Page 1 Wednesday incorrectly identified a man on a bicycle as the reputed mob boss Joey "the Clown" Lombardo. In fact, the man's name is Stanley Swieton and he has no ties to organized crime. A story explaining the mistake is on Page 1 of today's Metro section.

(from the Chicago Tribune)

Stanley's name has the connotation of a man who would be very agitated about the mistake.

The State of Reporting Today

1.The news: Doomsayers Say Benedict Fits World End Prophecy

2. The research:" 'His reign will only last a few years at most. This signals that we are living in what may be the end of days as we know it,' said one Web Site entry by someone calling himself SmartBob."

3. The intellectually rigorous analysis: "The prophecy -- widely dismissed by scholars as a hoax -- is attributed to..." Yeah, that makes it all better.

I have a suggestion for Reuters. How about you change the headline to, "First Article Ever Written Without Speaking to a Single Person"?

If I knew all it took to write a wire service article was cobble together a bunch of quotes from people posting with fake names on different web sites, I would have become a reporter long ago. Heck, I am a reporter. I'm putting it on my resume. Have you ever posted a comment on Pancake City? You're a source! I hope you don't mind if I use you in my next article, "People on Web Page Comment on Shit".

And as for the doomsday people: how about this. We'll make a deal with you. Gather together and agree on one day, any day you want, for the doomsday to occur. Heck, pick a week. It's cool. But if that time passes and the four horsemen are still in the stable, then you have to shut the f--- up forever. Forever ever? Yes. I thought that was the deal in 2000, but here we are again.

You know, I hate Duke as much as anyone...

...but is this really the best poll for The Washington Post to run in terms of promoting good sportsmanship?



After making fun of Duke many times in my life, and several times on this blog, I have no authority to criticize someone else for fanning the anti-Duke flames. In fact, I may be a hypocrite in saying this. But besides the Teen Beat wording of the poll, it makes me uncomfortable that The Washington Post is actively encouraging the dislike of people, especially a non-professional player, J.J. Redick.

This is the type of poll I would expect to see on a blog or The Diamondback's web site (UMD's college newspaper). It seems out of character for a national newspaper.

Perhaps the WP could have used a better headline...

...about people's responses to the tsunami than this one:

Internet Sparks Flood of Donations

But let us be thankful that CNN is on the job to tell us the truly horrible part of this disaster.

So...

How many brown people have to die before it leads the local nightly news?

I know it's no "How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Roll pop?", but it's important to me nonetheless.

The night the tsunami shattered coastal regions in Asia, the local news in D.C. did a story at 11:05. The estimated dead were at least 10,000. The top story: Some travelers were stranded at airports because, and this is really bizarre, lots of people travel around Christmas and snow continues to fall towards the ground, in spite of the fact that people are traveling for the Christmas holiday that very day.

Snow is a jerk. But will snow be a jerk in Washington D.C.? To Ronnie in the Weather Tower, a man who not only catalogued the daily weather stats but also pulled off the amazing stunt of commending viewers for bravely soldering on during the horribly frigid weather while almost-simultaneously expressing regret for the lack of snow this Christmas, a substance that, to the best of my knowledge, requires cold to form.

Then came the brown people. And, I kid you not, after describing the disaster and giving the death count, they, through an act of TV news wizardy that will put to shame any critic who ever said the news never sticks with a story, somehow, found a few stranded travelers in Sri Lanka and started talking about them.

The next night, same station, the disaster lead the newscast. At that point, the death toll had risen to at least 28,000. While that doesn't answer the original question, it provides a valuable clue.

Based on these two nights, the number of brown people that have to die to lead the local nightly news is between 10,000 and 28,000. Of course, this is assuming there isn't an obviously bigger story, like the President being assassinated or a Twinkie factory shutting down.

Personally, my gut feeling tells me the magic numbers are 18,000 brown people, 10,000 white people, and 3 Americans. Unless the Americans are in another country, where in that case it would take at least 5 killed by violent death, 12 by natural disaster, with an exception if there's a movie about the disaster coming out next week, like "Death Not Fun(nel)" or "I-cy Danger, I See France," and the media conglomerate that owns the local television station also owns the movie studio making the movie. Then the number is anyone's guess.

I Didn't Know Acceptance Was Controversial

This is almost beyond words. NBC and CBS are refusing to air an ad because it makes the "controversial" statement that turning people away from a church because they are gay is wrong.

It's a good thing Janet Jackson's nipple wasn't gay, or the villagers would have burnt the network down.

You can watch the horrifying ad here, and read about the networks' justification for rejecting the ad here.

Say It Ain't So, Post

I love The Washington Post. The paper isn't perfect by any means, but overall I think it's the best in the nation. They do a lot of thoughtful, original reporting and have the best online site in the business.

Most recently, I was impressed with their "debate referee" feature after the presidential debates, where they examined the veracity of the statements made by the two candidates. I read similar fact-check features by the other major newspapers, and the Post creamed them in terms of breadth and detail.

So it really disturbs me to read that their Executive Editor Leonard Downie is planning on dumbing down the newspaper.

The Post just wrapped up its annual self-evaluation meeting, an offsite event that includes top editors and executives from the paper's business side. This year's meeting focused on the paper's declining circulation -- now at 709,500 daily copies, down 10 percent over the past two years -- and the results of an extensive readership survey taken last summer.

In an effort to win new readers, Downie said Post reporters will be required to write shorter stories. The paper's design and copy editors will be given more authority to make room for more photographs and graphics.

The paper will undergo a redesign to make it easier for readers to find stories. It is considering filling the left-hand column of the front page with keys to stories elsewhere in the paper and other information readers say they want from the paper, which they often consider "too often too dull," Downie said.

"Newspapers should be fun and it should be fun to work at one," [No. 2 editor] Bennett said.

Someone needs to make a Washington Post Barbie.

• "Working at a newspaper is hard. Tee hee hee!"
• "Newspapers should be fun!"
• "Words are boring. I want to see pictures that mooooove!"

I welcome any change to make information easier to find and understand. But not at the expense of content. In many news articles on political issues, the reporter is bound by the requirements of the pyramid structure and even handedness. The interesting details tend to be buried later in the story, and I worry that they will one of the many things that will be sacrified in the name of new readers, who, evidentially, don't read newspapers because they have too many words and not enough pretty pictures.

Oh, Great

Now even the troops are demoralizing the troops. Sure, they're happy with the first half-dozen reasons they were given to go to war, but reason Number #7 comes along and all of the sudden they're Mr. and Mrs. Hoity-Toity Why Are We Here Wah Wah Wah. F'ing flip-floppers. (link)

Best quote:

Asked if he was concerned that the Marines would be punished for speaking out, Autin responded: "We don't give a crap. What are they going to do, send us to Iraq?"

On a side note, if you want to find out why The Washington Post rocks, read the first article I linked (reason Number #7). If that same article appeared in another newspaper, it would have been watered-down and weakened out of an editor's fear of appearing biased. When a newspaper can back its assertions with facts, it should never shy away from expressing those assertions in the strongest terms.

A Few More Comments

I'm glad the Bush-Cheney campaign has stopped saying that John Kerry voted for higher taxes over 350 times and switched to a more reasonable 98 times.

I think the anchors on CNN are a bunch of morons, but they actually made one insightful comment. They mentioned that when Cheney said "F--- You" to Sen. Leahy last June on the Senate floor, it was because Sen. Leahy criticized Cheney's connections to Haliburton. Haliburton makes Hulk Cheney angry. Cheney no like talk about Haliburton. You could see it the first few times Edwards mentioned it in the debate. Cheney would perk up and scowl or begin to twitch.

This is too funny.

Most of the instant online polls have Edwards winning in a landslide. I think instant polls are worthless and often have no relation to fact. So I put zero stock in them. But they are a decent barometer of the passion and post-spin effort of each side, and in that respect these polls bode well for the Democrats.

The Debate That Will Decide the World

It must be fun to work as a journalist and report your own thoughts as the news.

Reporters Underpaid, Not Appreciated By Editors

PUGSY THE AVERAGE JOE: "Wow, that's really unfair. I think reporters should…hey, wait a minute."

For example, did you know that tonight's Vice-Presidential debate is more important than usual? That a strong showing by Cheney could stem the blood flowing from President Bush's hand, which Kerry bit off after the debate last week (story on FOX News)? That for every five points Edwards scores, he gets to tickle Cheney once, and only one tickle is enough to destroy Cheney's image as a glum, serious communicator?

It's all true because I read it. You see, a few days ago, the Associated Press sponsored a 537-person poll which asked, "How would you describe the effect the Vice-Presidential debate will have on who you vote for in the elections? No effect, a little effect, some effect, a lot of effect?" Out of the responses, 52% said a lot or some effect, an 27% increase from the responses to the same question last year. Thus, after the poll results were released, many political analysts began running stories saying how this is one of the most important VP debates in recent history.

Ha! Just kidding. The media didn't run any stupid polls, or talk to people like Pugsy to see what they "think" about tonight's debate. Can you blame them? I mean, come on. His name is Pugsy. Who the hell wants to talk to someone named Pugsy?

I'd give you my pre-debate analysis, but there hasn't been any articles examining the two candidates' strengths and weaknesses, so I don't know what to think.

Pancake City: Predictor of the Future

It looks like the media is getting a head start.

From the exclusive Pancake City poll:

After the Presidential debate this Thursday, the press will:

interview ten audience members after the debate, and quote the person whose comment can be fitted into the story they wrote the night before.

say: "Both candidates made misstatements and distorted their opponent's position. Hey, did you catch our monkey story?"

Come on, monkey story!

Argg! Media Make Me Mad!

Candidate X claims that his opponent "steals babies from their mothers, glues the babies to a giant wheel, and charges parents who want to adopt $100,000 to spin the wheel for a chance to win the baby of their dreams. Or a toaster."

Candidate Y claims that while Candidate X was flashing children in a schoolyard, he was wearing a blue overcoat, when, in fact, the overcoat was turquoise.

The news headline? "Candidate X and Candidate Y both play loose with the truth."

My exaggeration aside, read this article and try to tell me that stupidity under the guise of fair-mindedness isn't at play here.

And if John Kerry has said anywhere near the same number of falsehoods about George W. Bush's words, and with anywhere near the same amount of gall, then this reporter failed to do her job by listing those falsehoods.

CBS National Guard Documents

You know you have a credibility problem when your News President looks like he has a fake mustache.

Back from porn, on to politics

"President Bush on Monday criticized a commercial that accused John Kerry of inflating his own Vietnam War record, more than a week after the ad stopped running, and said broadcast attacks by outside groups have no place in the race for the White House."

That's the lead of an AP article and in spirit many others by various news organizations on Bush's comments. Here's the problem: President Bush didn't criticize the Swift Boat commercials. In fact, he said the exact same thing he's been saying for the past few weeks--I condemn all 527s and I hope my opponent joins me in doing so--but used a trick straight out from Rhetoric 101 to make it seem like he was condemning the ad.

When asked to condemn a specific ad (e.g. "Kerry Will Eat Your Baby") he condemned the class of ads (e.g. "227 Ads--Funded By Out-of-Work 227 Actor Florence Johnston") and made it appear that he was condemning the baby-eating ad by saying, "This baby-eating ad is a 227 ad."

Josh Marshall describes this better than I do, and he has a transcript of Bush's comments so you can read it yourself. It doesn't change the fact that a majority of news organizations are reporting Bush condemned the ad when he didn't.

A few things to, um, add. The reason Bush can get away with misleading people is because of his carefully cultivated image as a plain-spoken guy who's not very good at words. Reporters parsed every word out of Clinton's mouth because they viewed him through the paradigm that he is a brilliant politician, a former lawyer, and assumed he had the ability to chose his words carefully so he could either tell the truth technically but not in spirit, or mislead people through language that allowed people to hear what they wanted to hear, not what he said.

And they were right to do so, because Clinton did do all of these things. The problem is that Bush uses the same tricks but he wears cowboy boots and says folksy aphorisms like "I can't say it any plainer" to masterfully cover his use of them up.

It's perhaps the element that is most responsible for his success. His image that almost everyone has bought into is that he's too dumb to be clever. That he has a lot of political skills, but speaking isn't one of them. A man who uses language so clumsily isn't skilled enough to mention 9-11 and Saddam Hussein right after one another so people would think there is a connection. (Search for "Before September the 11th" in this transcript of his 2003 State of the Union address).

This type of plain-spoken man doesn't have the savvy to hold a press conference and say the same thing but juggle his words in a way that gives a lazy media the wrong impression. He can't. He's stupid. And we'd be too smart to fall for it.

Addendum: I like using the word addendum. It makes me feel smart.
Addendum 2: Props to The Washington Post for getting it right.

Letter to the Ombudsman

Every few months, I write a letter to the WP's Ombudsman about something that they printed (or didn't print). I'm surprised that I usually get a thoughtful response, either from him or the author. If I were Ombudsman, I'd do everything I could to discourage people from writing in so I could take more naps, including calling people "poopy heads." Who are they going to complain to? The Ombudsman?

I sent this one a few minutes ago:

Hi,

I was about to cite the article regarding Cheney criticizing Kerry for saying he would fight a "more sensitive" war on terrorism than Bush as an example of journalism done right. Cheney makes a newsworthy comment, which gets reported. The DNC points out that Bush made almost the same comment to the same group that Kerry spoke to, and it gets printed after Kerry's comment.

Except that when I revisited the article so I could link to it, I noticed it was rewritten. The DNC's point was removed and replaced with a much weaker rebuttal by Kerry's campaign that doesn't include Bush making a very similar point to the same group.

I understand the general principle of valuing a response from "the spokesperson" over "a friend of the spokesperson," but this is just bad judgment. The fact that Cheney criticized Kerry for something that Bush also said in principle is a critical piece of information to this story. I think it should have remained, either in addition to the Kerry campaign's response or in place of it.

On a related note, why does the Washington Post allow politicians to quote phrases from other politicians' speeches without printing the entire section it was quoted from to give the reader some context? Politicians from both sides take each other words out of context. It only takes a few sentences to reprint the original context, or describe the situation behind the comment. It's a non-biased way of letting the reader decide for himself if the attacking politician is honestly representing his opponent's words. Couldn't this be practice be made a policy at the Washington Post?

Sorry to belabor my point about context, but there have been several instances (besides this article) in the past few weeks where my opinion of someone has changed after learning about the context which he or she spoke.

For example, I read a quote from Kerry saying he would have attacked differently than Bush did when he was reading to the children on the morning on 9/11 and was told about the attacks. I thought Kerry said that unprompted and I felt he was taking a cheap shot at the President. While it wasn't the best decision President Bush could have made, it's understandable under the circumstances.

Then I read on a well-known blog on politics that Kerry was responding to a question about what he would have done in Bush's situation, and I no longer thought his comment was unwarranted since he was responding to a question and not making an unprompted attack. It's possible that my memory isn't serving me right, but I don't remember this being mentioned in the original article on Kerry's response. (I've noticed that The Post does include context often, but it is often in a related article a few days after the first one and/or in an "Analysis" piece.)

In general, I think The Post does a great job in reporting, better than most newspapers, but there are still a few areas I think the organization can do even better.

To all my hoes and bitches,
Jason W."

I'm tired of newspaper articles that argue that the current incivility in national politics isn't all bad relative to the worst moments in U.S. history. Every time there is an article like "Dick Cheney Calls Dick Gephardt Dick Head," next to it will be a companion: "The Nation's First Bitch Slap: Hamilton vs. Burr."

While it is comforting to know we haven't surpassed events like "Senator Coughs During Colleague's Speech, Gets Bayoneted" (1869) or "Rockefeller Socks a Fella" (1912) it's time to raise the bar. If your eight-year-old takes a dump on the carpet, it doesn't help that he also did it at age two and flung it at your mother while singing the Star Spangled Banner. He's eight. He's out of the plastic pants. He should know better.

I feel like this country is in denial. Our politicians act more uncivil and display a Machiavellian worldview through their actions, and our comfort is that at least they didn't write The Prince.

Daily Show

If you missed The Daily Show last night, go out of your way to catch the first 10 minutes of the repeat tonight at 7:00 (in the DC area). It encapsulates the best about The Daily Show and reminds one of the worst habits of major media outlets: avoiding or being timid about saying the truth in fear of seeming biased.

I MUST KNOW WHO RANCE IS!!!!

Rance is a blogger who has become an Internet celebrity in the past few months. You see, Rance says he is a celebrity...but he won't tell us which one!

So, many of the fluff news sites (AOL, MSN, etc.) and a few of the non-fluff ones have written articles on this amazing mystery.

To me, the mystery is simple. One, it's not Ben Stiller. He's too busy appearing in 43% of the summer movies. And it's not anyone really famous because they have people to write their blogs for them. So who's a well-known actor that is only moderately popular and has the free time to tell people about his life?

I'll link to the answer so you can try to figure it out for yourself, but the clue is in his name, Rance. Or, if you add an F, France.

I hope Rance is just a regular guy playing a prank and posts a message like this one day:

"Hey all you fools who have been reading about what groceries I bought and how many times a week I do laundry. Well, guess what? I wasn't folding celebrity underwear. I was folding my own underwear. HA HA HA HA HA HA!"

A Brief Letter

Dear Ms. Tina Brown,

Are you drunk when you write your columns? No, really. I'm not being sarcastic. I truly wish to know if, one, are inebriated when you write your column for The Washington Post, and two, if so, the degree of said inebriation.

Sincerely,
Me

JEE-SUZ...

If I told media conglomerates this once, I've told them a thousand times. Trying to suppress something only makes it more popular. (see Nightline, Michael Moore's new movie).

From America's leading news magazine

"Bush, Kerry make Time's 'most influential' list" (Yahoo headline)

Way to go out on a limb there, Time.

The Modestly-Titled "Newsmap"

Newsmap is a media watcher's dream. Using Google News, the program tallies the number of news outlets reporting on one story, like Condoleeza Rice's decision to testify to the 9-11 commission. It then displays the headlines of the most popular stories in boxes whose sizes are determined by each story's relative popularity to other stories.

My explanation doesn't justify its elegance. It's a wonderful mix of content and design.

Al Franken

Quote I never expected to see in an article about Al Franken:

"His butt was like a cut basketball. Which, you know, you don't normally see in comedy writers.''

The New York Times has a lengthy feature on Al Franken. I found the depth of his involvement in politics interesting, such as when he organized a meeting with influential members of the media and John Kerry in his house early in the primary season.

Also, the four-page spread on his dunkable ass didn't hurt.

Tricksy Reporters!

Calhoun provided records to CBS News to prove he was on the base at the time. He says the President regularly drilled during the months of May through October 1972, when Mr. Bush was working on an election campaign.

"I know he was in there on drills, uh, four months. And it could have been five and it even could have been six."

But Calhoun's account appears to be at odds with records released by the White House. They show that President Bush logged no Guard duty -- anywhere -- from April 17th until October 28th.

I am posting this to point out a sneaky thing the reporter who wrote this did. It is customary practice for reporters to filter out ums, uhs, and other filler sounds that we use on a daily basis from quotes. But the AP writer left the 'uh' in Calhoun's quote, which nudges the reader to doubt what Calhoun says. And considering that the next paragraph contradicts what Calhoun says, I think that the 'uh' was intentionally left in as an editorial comment.

I found it an interesting writing technique. But maybe I'm overanalyzing the writers' intentions. Any thoughts?

Must be a Slow News Day

On the front page of Yahoo:

Voter blasts Dean for 'mean mouthing' Bush

Here's the summary of the story: Voter blasts Dean for "mean mouthing" Bush.

Here's the entire story, no detail left out: Voter blasts Dean for "mean mouthing" Bush.

Yahoo, where's my story? I've been blasting Leno for mean mouthing O.J. for years. Okay, he's a murderer. We get it. But it's 2004. Time to move on...to that wacky killer, Scott Peterson! Let me tell you folks, I'd hate to get a Mother's Day gift from him. Hi-o!

Yes, that's a ton of lettuce

* One of the Washington Post's most loved and hated columnists is Leving. (I have a few friends who are now crying with joy.)

* Howard Kurtz's response to my question in his chat today:

Arlington, Va.: I disagree with your analysis on the Weekly Standard story about the supposed bin Laden-Hussein connection. I think the real reason this story hasn't got much attention is because Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld, who in the past have willingly sighted specious evidence to support various claims on Iraq, haven't said: "See? This proves our case."

That's an important mark of whether a story like this has any meat in it (and it's one that doesn't require journalists to do extensive analysis of the info in the memo and risk getting fooled again). If there was new information in this story that could be supported after a rigorous analysis, wouldn't the Bush administration seize upon it, especially considering they've promoted flimsier evidence in the past? Has any major Republican leader, or non-partisan leader of the intelligence community, supported the claims of this story?

Howard Kurtz: In fact, the Defense Department disputed the notion that there was new and conclusive evidence here. But it's certainly worthy of media debate. This was, after all, a previously undisclosed administration memo on a controversial subject to which the press has devoted acres of type during the whole Saddam/9-11/uranium/WMD/terrorism debate. As I mentioned in today's column, the NYT and WP did come around to doing more substantive analyses of the memo obtained by the Standard.

Um, Liberal Media? Hello?

Here is something I never thought I'd see. The AP story about Rumsfeld's comment came out roughly 12 hours ago. As of now, a link to it is on the front page of FOX News. But not on The Washington Post's front page. (Or on The New York Times's site. Or CNN's, for that matter.) How much crazy stuff does this old man have to say before he gets some media attention?

Good News!

I love the Weekly World News. I buy it several times a year and have never been disappointed. This week's story about Hillary Clinton's continuing relationship with alien hunk P'Lod sucked me in. The WWN is funny, and intentionally so, although I'm not sure all of its readers get the comedy of this week's horoscope for Sagittarius: "Avoid root vegetables."

Even the classifieds are funny. Under Money Making Opps.: "HOW TO get one million people to send you $2.00. Learn my easy method! Plus receive proof this method works. Rush $2.00 to..."

FOX News Loves Al Franken

Stories like this make me happy to be alive. This lawsuit is almost too funny to be true.

LOL!

Which of these headlines appeared on AOL today?

a) Armless child embraces life

b) Armless but not harmless: paraplegic killer strikes again

c) Armless child embraces life...without arms! No, really. We're fuckin' serious.

Not Punny

The feature story in The Washington Post's Weekend section is about the weekend of an active Washingtonian named Chad. The headline: "Hanging With Chad."

Bad Post! Bad Post! No three-year-old puns!

Snowstorm Driving Tips from The Washington Post: Real or Fake?

1. If you don’t have to go out, stay inside and off the roads.
2. Be careful when it snows. Snow is slippery.
3. Slow down. Posted speed limits are set for ideal driving conditions.
4. Every time your car skids, God kills a kitten.
5. Leave more room between your car and other vehicles on the road.
6. If you don’t want to flop, go easy on starts, turns and stops.
7. Similar to ‘hydroplaning’ your car can ‘snow-o-plane’. Be careful.
8. Make sure you be careful.
9. It’s important that you be very careful.
10. Run over an old lady. Just kidding! Be careful.

Answers: 1, 3, and 5 are true. 6 is half-true (I added ‘if you don’t want to flop’). 4 is true too, but it isn’t on The Washington Post’s site because they’re atheists. (original link)

The Ball Will Soon Be Rolling

I figured out how to bring the Pentagon's global warming report into the U.S. news media stream. Put Gene Weingarten on it. Okay, he hasn't answered the questions below (yet!) but I'm sure he will.

Hi Gene,

A nutty organization did a study recently that said that climate change is