Robin e-mailed Friday to give the community a heads up to a site she and a colleague are doing entitled Watching America. The site has some sort of a counter or tracker, so consider that a heads up.

It sounds like a wonderful resource and if you're not interested, that's fine but try to pass it on to anyone you think might be interested.

We'll mention them again tonight in our global entry.

And on that topic, we are a resource/review. We will absolutely highlight things that members give us heads up to. However, if visitors pass on something that's a resource, we'll highlight that as well. A few weeks ago, I gave a heads up to a search engine that a visitor had passed on via e-mail. There have been about fifteen e-mails on that (two liked the engine, the rest didn't). As a result of the feedback, we won't highlight search engines again unless they're somehow benefitting the environment, human rights or something along those lines.

But if a visitor has something to pass on to the community that's a resource, we will highlight it.

And again, Watching America sounds like a strong resource. And if I've screwed up the links to it (which I sometimes do), you can copy and paste this into your browser address bar:

www.WatchingAmerica.com

So if I screwed up the link, just copy and paste.

And for anyone wondering, I do not know Robin. Robin says the site is a free site. There's no money being exchanged for this highlight nor any other favors. She contacted the site, and I'm sure others, to get the word out on Watching America and because it seems like something the community might find of interest, we're highlighting it. If you're able to help her get the word out further, please do.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

Here's what's on The Laura Flanders Show today (which is this evening, tonight, or this afternoon if you listen live, depending on where you live; seven pm to ten pm eastern time):

As bad economic news piles up, will our side stop Congress from making matters worse? TIA SWETT of the Mobilization for Global Justice will call in live, from the weekend's protests in Washington at the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. Then representative SHERROD BROWN, D-OH, and author of "Myths of Free Trade: Why American Trade Policy Has Failed," on the upcoming congressional fight over CAFTA, the Central American Free Trade Agreement. And one day before the Catholic Church begins its deliberations on who the next Pope will be, ANGELA BONAVOGLIA, journalist and author of "Good Catholic Girls," on how Catholic women are leading the movement to bring change to the Catholic Church. Join the blog and check out Laura's book tour schedule. This week she's in Burlington, Houston and Austin, with Tariq Ali. Come out and introduce yourself!

Burlington, Houston and Austin? Here are Laura Flanders upcoming speaking dates:

Burlington, VT
Monday 4/18, 7-9 pm
Conversation with Tariq Ali at The University of Vermont.
Ira Allen Hall.
Co-sponsored by Vermont Progressive Party and the UVM Women's Center.

Houston, TX
Tuesday 4/19, 7:30 pm
Conversation with Tariq Ali at The University of Houston.
Houston Room, Second Floor, University Center.

Austin, TX
Wednesday 4/20, 7-9 pm
Conversation with Tariq Ali at The University of Texas.
Jester Auditorium, A121, 21st & Speedway.

Durham, NC
Monday 4/25 Noon
Brown Bag Lunch.
Duke University.
Perkins Library, Rare Books Room.
Co-sponsored by The Sallie Bingham Center for Women's History & Culture.
7 pmThe Regulator Bookshop.
720 Ninth Street.
(919) 286-2700.

Boulder, CO
Monday 5/24 pm
Lecture at The University of Colorado, Old Main Chapel.
Followed by reception with the Women's Studies Department at the Women's Studies Cottage.
7 pm
Word is Out Women's Bookstore.
2015 10th Street.
303 449-1415.

Tuesday 5/3
12-1 pm
Lecture at Denver University.
Co-sponsored by the Gender & Women's Studies Department.
The Chamber Center.
The Garden Room.
5:30-7 pm
Reception.
The Denver Woman's Press Club.
1325 Logan Street.
7:30 pm
The Mercury Cafe.
2199 California Street.
(303) 294 9258

Thursday 5/5
4 pm
Keynote address at The University of Colorado Women's Studies graduation ceremony.
Old Main Chapel.
St Louis, MO
Thursday, 5/12,
7 pm
Reading.
Left Bank Books.
399 North Euclid.
(314) 367-6731

Friday, 5/13,
2 pm
The National Conference for Media Reform, panelist, "Creating the Solution." www.freepress.net/conference.

Jonah e-mails asking if "announcements take up time and space that could be devoted to real issues?" While I understand what Jonah's asking, I think Laura Flanders' or Amy Goodman's or
whomever's speaking events are real issues.

The book industry has lagged and cut back on speaking events. I'm not sure who puts together Flanders' and Goodman's speaking events, but they are doing a great job (as are the two women) because as Lucy noted last week, "Thank God, someone other than Cokie Roberts is coming to my university!"

From my own college days, I can remember the Republican chapters turned out this speaker or that speaker and the Democratic campus chapter didn't have anyone. (Has to do with funding and you can read David Bock's The Republican Noise Machine for more on that.)

I don't know that Goodman or Flanders claims a party affiliation (they are of the left) and voices not supported by either of the two major parties are even more important because they increase the dialogue.

Amy Goodman is in Las Vegas tonight.

Let's note that again:

Las Vegas, NV:
Sunday, April 17, 7pm
The Reading Room
3930 Las Vegas Blvd. South Suite 201
Las Vegas, NV 89119
Book signing event Free and open to the public

[Addtional speaking dates for Amy Goodman's Un-Embed the Media Tour can be found at The Exception to the Rulers web page -- which is also a permalink on the left side of this page.]

Hopefully it will be a sizeable turnout. But it goes beyond that. The people who attend will tell friends about it. The people in the area who learn about it (some after the effect) become aware that other voices are out there.

You can call it getting ideas into the market place (I'd call it getting ideas into the discourse) but
it does make a difference. And it makes a difference whether ten or fifty or one hundred or more attend. Both Goodman and Flanders are strong speakers and inspiring ones.

And any voice not appearing to plug the Fortune 500 is a big thing.

It's about planting seeds and getting ideas out there.

Anything that goes beyond the usual appearences that push Cokie Roberts as a Democratic (oh, my sides are hurting from laughing) increases our understanding not just of what's out there but it also lets us see that brave individuals (such as Flanders or Goodman, or Danny Schechter earlier with WMD) don't just have some regional appeal but have strong support if their ideas are able to be put out there.

I think it's great what they're doing (and the series that The Nation is planning). And notice something about the dates for Flanders or Goodman or anyone similar -- they aren't just going to "swing states." Unlike the Democratic Party's recent idea of how to run a campaign and connect with people, Flanders, Goodman, et al aren't taking the attitude of, "Oh, that state always goes Republican so what chance does little me have there?"

That's an attitude I hope Howard Dean strongly deals with. I think the country's tired of seeing shy, retiring national candidates.

Let's deal with two cities considered "extremely liberal" by the mainstream: New York City and San Francisco. Maybe they're so "extermely liberal" because they have more access to speakers and events than some other towns?

If an area is exposed to only one set of ideas (which media consolidation on all levels, but especially locally has allowed and encouraged), I think it's a big step to stereotype the area without considering how many "drop outs" you may have. People drop out all the time. They get tired of hearing the same exact thing being mouthed by various faces. They disengage from the process because they are getting one message and they realize that message doesn't speak to them. (And if you need to supporting evidence, you can look at voter turnout.)

Seeing a flyer or advert for Flanders, Goodman, The Nation, Schechter or whomever, means maybe you don't go to the event, but you may think, "Who is that person?" And if you see a book or a film or flip the radio dial or TV channel and come across one of them, you may pay attention. The mainstream media has focused on the right and some centerists and it's effected the country.

I realize what Jonah is saying and this isn't a slap on the wrist to him. We certainly have a ton of things to talk about and don't get to most of the things I have on my own list (I do try to get to the things members e-mail in regarding). There are days when I think, for instance, "Okay, today we're going to hit hard on what's going on in Iraq" (which requires going way beyond any reporting in the New York Times) and then a member e-mails something and Iraq (or whatever) gets put on hold.

On this end, I long ago had to let go of the idea that I could plan what we'd talk about because this is a community that's driven by members needs and interests. And we don't play gatekeeper by saying, "Oh that topic? Mmmm. No."

The occupation is very important, the environment is very important, human rights are very important. We could go on and on. But the most important thing, from members e-mails and I'd agree with this, is getting the word out. And certainly, anyone hearing a voice like Goodman or Flanders or Schecther or whomever is going to be exposed to more than one topic.

We can multi-task. (Even if I do a poor job of that.) We can focus on more than one issue at a time. And we need to because issues are related and we need to start integrating. And I'm summarizing an old college term paper here so I've probably lost everyone there. But briefly, in the atomist age we learned how to divide the atom, how to divide this that and everything else.
Classifications and systems and ladders, that's all great. It helps you analyze and learn. But we need to move towards integrating what we're learning and seeing. (Which isn't my original thought, Anais Nin spoke of that in great detail, and with great excitement, when she began to learn of computers in the early seventies and hoped that the integrated circuit might provide us with the means to start pulling things together.)

So I'm guessing that Jonah has some issues he wants addressed that he feels are getting lost.
We can get to those (e-mail what they are Jonah) and we can deal with those but we need to move towards synthesis and integration of ideas and that only happens if we get the word out. That's getting the word out as a community for us here. And that's what Flanders, Goodman, Schechter, The Nation, et al are attempting to do when they travel here, there and everywhere (to steal from the Beatles). So we'll note these things when members bring them up or I happen to notice them. (Members are better able to juggle and remember than I am.)

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]
 

In this morning's Times, note Steven R. Weisman's "U.N. Nominee Is Accused of Seeking 2nd Dismissal:"


A former national intelligence officer for Latin America has accused John R. Bolton and another Bush administration official of trying to remove him from his post to warn others against not cooperating on intelligence matters, according to Democratic staff aides of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
The aides made public on Saturday their summary of an interview with the intelligence officer, Fulton T. Armstrong. They say Mr. Armstrong has charged that Mr. Bolton and Otto Reich, a former assistant secretary of state for Latin America, had sought to press the intelligence community to make its analysis conform with their hard-line policy views on Cuba. The committee is considering the nomination of Mr. Bolton to be ambassador to the United Nations.
Mr. Armstrong was not dismissed, but has since been reassigned. The New York Times reported Saturday that current and former intelligence officials say his job was saved at the Central Intelligence Agency in part by the intervention of John E. McLaughlin, then deputy director of central intelligence.

Also note Sharon LaFraniere & Denise Grady's "Stalking a Deadly Virus, Battling a Town's Fears:"


A cousin of Ebola, the Marburg virus has erupted periodically in Africa in sudden, gruesome epidemics, only to disappear just as mysteriously. This time it has struck with a vengeance, killing 9 out of 10 people infected - a total of 230 people so far, including 14 nurses and 2 doctors who cared for the sick.
The virus is highly contagious, making any outbreak a cause for widespread fear and fascination in a world shrunk by international travel and trade. Marburg spreads through blood, vomit, semen and other bodily fluids. Even a cough can prove fatal for someone hit by a few drops of spittle. Corpses, teeming with the virus, are especially dangerous. A contaminated surface can be deadly - the virus can find its way into someone's eyes, nose or mouth, or enter the bloodstream through a cut.
Once in the body, it moves with terrifying speed, invading white blood cells essential to fighting infection. On Day 3 of the infection, fewer than 200 viruses are in a drop of blood. By Day 8, there are five million.
"That's why dead bodies are kind of like bombs," said Dr. Heinz Feldmann, a virologist from Winnipeg who is here working with the teams of specialists dispatched by the World Health Organization, the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the international aid group Doctors Without Borders.

Domestically, note Ralph Blumenthal's "In DeLay's Home District, Rumblings of Discontent Surface:"


Patricia Baig, a substitute teacher with a comfortable inheritance, paid $2,776 this week to call for Representative Tom DeLay's resignation.
Ms. Baig, 57 - who identifies herself as a fellow Republican of Mr. DeLay, the House majority leader, and is one of his constituents - took out a full-page advertisement on Wednesday in the 62,000 copies of the weekly free Fort Bend Southwest Sun. It urged demonstrators "who want ethical reform" to rally against Mr. DeLay's speech Saturday night to the National Rifle Association convention in Houston, "to protest the actions of Representative DeLay and ask for his resignation," while adding her gun-owner's caveat: "This is NOT a protest of the N.R.A.!"
The Texas fallout from Mr. DeLay's citations for ethical lapses and the investigations of political fund-raisers and lobbyists close to him has been hard to gauge, but there are signs of restiveness here in his hometown, named for the historic plantation and defunct Imperial Sugar refinery that now beckons developers to this thriving Houston suburb of 64,000 people.

Lloyd e-mails to note Adam Nagourney and Jim Rutenberg's "Bob Kerrey Weighing Run for Mayor of New York:"

Former United States Senator Bob Kerrey, the president of the New School University and a Democratic candidate for president in 1992, said yesterday that he was considering a run for mayor of New York City, declaring that Michael R. Bloomberg had failed to fight Washington Republican policies that Mr. Kerrey said endangered the city's finances and security.
Mr. Kerrey, in an interview, also questioned why Mr. Bloomberg had invested so much energy in trying to build a stadium on the West Side of Manhattan. Mr. Kerrey said it would make more sense to put the stadium in another borough, and that the rezoning of the West Side proposed as part of stadium plan would overwhelm the neighborhood.
Asked about reports from other Democrats that he had talked to associates about possibly running against Mr. Bloomberg, Mr. Kerrey at first said he was inclined not to run for mayor. But a moment later, in what turned out to be an expansive conversation, he said, "You know me: I am just crazy enough to do this."

Lloyd, you and I may be the only community members up this early and online. If anyone finds additional stories they want highlighted in the paper, I'll try to do it later (and will do it if you have a point to share with the community). I know this is much earlier than usual but I'm just trying to get this done and get to bed.

The Third Estate Sunday Review's latest edition is up. I always enjoy reading that (even if I have helped with something -- I helped with everything except to the note to the readers this edition). For Times readers, I'd suggest you check out two things: The editorial which is a parody of a Saturday editorial the Times ran yesterday and a sad but funny look at Harry Reid (don't make me break the news to you on the latest re: social security, go to the article and be disgusted over there). It takes his ever changing, ever compromising views to the full extreme and, by making these shifts the topic of "reporting," it allows for some commentary not just on wayward Dems, but also on the Times.

This entry is cut and dry. (Which is what I'd thought we'd do when this site was created.)
But if you want funny, go over to The Third Estate Sunday Review because I believe all of us left it there in the all nighter. (Ava, Ty, Dona, Jess and Jim of The Third Estate Sunday Review; Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man; Folding Star of A Winding Road and Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude.)

Rachel e-mailed a Democracy Now! e-mail (you can sign up for those at the Democracy Now!) web site and asked if we could note Goodman's upcoming appearences again. Yes, we can, and we can also note that the Un-Embed the Media link on the left of this page will take you to the book tour.

But before we do that, I want to note a paragraph in the e-mail which is usually stated by Amy Goodman in each episode of Democracy Now!:

Democracy Now! airs on over 300 radio and tv stations, including Pacifica and community radio stations, NPR stations, public access tv stations, PBS stations, and on Free Speech TV (DishTV Ch. 9415) and LinkTV (DishTV Ch. 9410, DirecTV Ch. 375), World Radio Network's European Service and on the Community Broacasting Association of Australia service.

A number of members have been fortunate enough to watch Democracy Now! on TV or listen to it on radio. (I watch online.) If you're a member who can receive on TV or radio, judging by your e-mails, you've started utilizing that resource. But if you have those resources but aren't aware of them, I'll take the blame for that because I always stress the Democracy Now! web site here. Charlie, who's unable to hear online (which prevents listening or watching) was very excited to find out that he could hear the broadcast on his radio.

At Democracy Now! (online) you can find maps that will help you find out if Democracy Now! broadcasts in your area (and if you have DishTV, you can pick it up anywhere in North America).

Here are Goodman's upcoming speaking dates beginning with tomorrow:

* Amy Goodman in Taos, NM:
Sun, Apr 17
*TIME:
9 AM
Bataan Hall, Civic Plaza Drive
$5; tickets go on sale at 8:00AM
For more information, call 776-8486 or go to http://www.acttaos.com/

* Amy Goodman in Las Vegas, NV:
Sun, Apr 17
*The Reading Room
3930 Las Vegas Blvd.
South Suite 201
Las Vegas, NV 89119
Book signing event Free and open to the public

* Amy Goodman in Nashua, NH:
Tues, Apr 19
*TIME: 7:30 PM
Borders Nashua
281 Daniel Webster Highway
Free and open to the public
For more information, call 603-888-9300

* Amy Goodman in Fairfield, CT:
Wed, Apr 20
*TIME: 2 PM
Sacred Heart University
University Commons
Free and open to the public.
For more information, call 203-371-7755

* Amy Goodman in West Hartford, CT:
Wed, Apr 20
*TIME: 7 PM
A Public Forum Presented by the West Harford Citizens for Peace & Justice.
Conard high School Auditorium.
110 Beechwood Road
FREE AND OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
Sponsors include AFSC, PACE, CT Coalition for Peace & Justice, Pax Educare,
Bookworm, and many others TBA.

* Amy Goodman in Los Angeles, CA:
Thurs, Apr 21
*TIME: TBAKPFK benefit with Tariq Ali
More details to be posted soon.

* Amy Goodman in Claremont, CA:
Fri, Apr 22
*TIME: Noon
Humanities Auditorium on the Scripps campus
981 N. Amherst Avenue
Claremont
This event is free and open to the public
For more information: tracy_maclean@pitzer.edu or 909.607.7025
Sponsored by Scripps College Gender & Women's Studies and Intercollegiate
Media Studies of the Claremont Colleges

* Amy Goodman in Glendale, CA:
Fri, Apr 22
*TIME: 3 PM
Glendale Community College
Kreider Hall
1500 N. Verdugo Rd.
Glendale, CA 91208
Tickets: $5 suggested donation

* Amy Goodman in Berkeley, CA:
Fri, Apr 22
*TIME: 8 PM
Florence Schwimley Little Theatre
1920 Allston Way, Berkeley, CA
Tickets are $15.00.
They can be purchased in person at 2239 Martin Luther King Jr Way inBerkeley
or by calling 510-848-2288

* Amy Goodman in San Francisco, CA:
Sat, Apr 23
*TIME: 11 AM
San Francisco New Life Expo
Concourse Exhibition Center
635 8th Street at Brannan Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
Tickets available at the door or call 415-382-8300
Saturday General Admission:
$15
Three-Day Weekend Pass:
$30
Students & Seniors (60+) with ID:
$10 per day, at door only
For more information, go to http://www.newlivingexpo.com/

* Amy Goodman in Ashland, OR:
Sat, Apr 23
*TIME: 6:30 PM
Book-signing Benefit
SOU library
Tickets are $35 ($25 for students), including book.
For more information, go to www.dnonjpr.org

* Amy Goodman in Ashland, OR:
Sat, Apr 23
*TIME: 7:30 PM
SOU's Britt BallroomTickets are $10 ($5 for students)
For more information, go to www.dnonjpr.org

* Amy Goodman in Los Angeles, CA:
Sun, Apr 24
*TIME: 1 PM
LA Festival of Books
Panel Discussion, Are We Making the World Safe for Democracy?
UCLA Royce Hall
Tickets are free and can be obtained by ticketmaster.
Details can be found at www.latimes.com/festivalofbooks

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]

The Laura Flanders Show starts in moments, here's the line up for tonight's show:

Want to fight back and win? We'll talk to people who did just that! PAUL WEST on Rain Forest Action Network's, successful kids-based campaign to pressure banks to stop underwriting global warming. Then EILEEN CLANCY, documentary film maker and member of I-Witness Video, the group whose footage got 90 percent of RNC-related arrests thrown out of court and may even result in criminal charges against the police. Plus LINDA BYRKET, whose video evidence of the Ohio voting debacle, was put into the Congressional Record, by Rep. John Conyers, D-MI. Then, Revolutionary dub poet, LINTON KWESI JOHNSON talks about his new DVD and CD titled, "Live in Paris with The Dennis Bovell Dub Band."

Quick note for A Winding Road and Folding Star's entry Wednesday about the state of the Democratic Party:

At this point in our history, we should all be painfully aware that we do not exist alone in this world, that the actions of our Government have global repercussions. The United States can only continue to play the bully for so long before it finds out that as big and as tough as it may be, when all the other kids on the playground team up against it, it's in trouble.The Bush Administration has made a habit of alienating the rest of the world and the confirmation of Bolton is going to take us one more giant step down that path.
We're facing just under four more years of Bush and Co, and who knows how many more wars they're cooking up. It's quite obvious to most who are paying attention that they have plans for Iran in the very immediate future.
Do we want a bully like Bolton at the UN trying to sell a war to an organization he believes doesn't exist at all, except as the pawn of the United States? Someone who blows a gasket when what he personally believes can't be backed up by intelligence agencies and wants the analyst who dared speak the truth fired?
Thanks to Bush & Co, we've already demonstrated to the rest of the world that we're either a country willing to lie our way into war or, best case scenario, a country that has incredibly faulty intelligence agencies. We need to be rebuilding our credibility now. We need someone with at least a shred of their own personal credibility who believes in what the United Nations stands for, someone who won't rush to embrace questionable intelligence for questionable means.
As I noted yesterday, this all really comes down to Senator Chafee. While he is a moderate Republican, the man seems so far to be bending to party pressure, making noises in tune with his Republican colleagues on the Committee. [. . .]
It would be nice to see Republicans in Congress show more backbone for a change, to see them realize that they're not George W. Bush's personal staff. They're there to provide a CHECK and BALANCE to Bush.
But with the majority of the Republican Party controlled by the far right, it's usually a cold day in hell if we're seeing any real independent leadership in Congress these days from anyone on the Right.
I'm just as fed up with many of the Democrats, by the way, for falling into general party thought rather than thinking for themselves.
Today, I heard Senator Harry Reid, the Senate Minority Leader, proudly note that his party has come to the Hill to Legislate. As an example, he used the fact that they helped pass legislation that had been in the works for decades. He named the Class Action Fairness Act specifically.
You remember that one, right? The Bill that stripped the state courts of the right to rule on class action lawsuits against corporations, and moved them directly to the far more Corporation friendly Federal Courts.
This is something that Senator Reid notes proudly as his party coming to the Hill to Legislate?? This slap in the face to all working class Americans, this giant tongue kiss to Corporate America?So, Reid is really saying that his party has come to the Hill to Legislate for Corporate Interests. But, wait, the Republicans already cornered that market, didn't they? So where does that leave the rest of us?
Where are the true leaders who put what's right above what the party dictates is the thing to do??

E-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]

On the front page of the Times, you learn that "Stocks Plunge to Lowest Point Since Election." This continues the reporting that Jonathan Fuerbringer did yesterday in the Business section of the Times (and we noted his article yesterday). From this morning's article:

Stocks tumbled to their lowest levels since the presidential election yesterday, extending a recent slump that has come amid fears that economic growth is slowing.
The sell-off yesterday was ignited by surprisingly weak earnings from I.B.M., and steepened throughout the day. It was the worst single day for the market this year and capped the worst week since August.

And?

Well I guess I slept through the final vote on Negoponte because on A28, Scott Shane tells me about "how difficult the challenge awaiting John D. Negroponte, the veteran diplomat chosen by Mr. Bush as the first director of national intelligence" is (in "Panel Rebukes C.I.A. and F.B.I. for Shortcomings in October"). Has Negroponte been confirmed?

No, he hasn't, the Senate has yet to vote (he has passed the committee). And whomever is responsible for writing that sentence should have reworked it. Put it into sports, the only thing the Times seems to grasp (well sports analogies anyway), a story this spring that contained a sentence such as "winning eight gold medals at the Olympics will provide all sorts of new challenges for Michael Phelps as he attempts to return to normal life after the Olympics." The predictions belong in the horiscopes. Negroponte's not yet confirmed. Currently, nothing awaits Negroponte other than a vote in the Senate. If confirmed, he will then have things awaiting him.

(I truly hate it when sentences like that make it into the paper because my first thought is always, "Wow, I missed that." Then I raise an eyebrow but assume the writer must know what they're talking about. Then I have to do research. Get the sentences correct from the start and spare readers this hassle.)

From yesterday's Democracy Now!:

Negroponte Confirmed By Senate Committee
Meanwhile, the Senate Intelligence Committee has put the man who coordinated the bloody Contra War of the 1980s one step closer to being in charge of US intelligence gathering. John Negroponte was approved yesterday in a closed-door vote, clearing the way for the full Senate to vote on his nomination as the country's first Director of national Intelligence. The Committee also approved Lt. Gen. Michael Hayden as deputy director.


Now let's note Eric Lichtblau's article on page A6, similar problem. Whomever wrote the headline (reporters don't write the headlines) needs a talking to. "Afghan Trips Over Rules He Upheld to U.S. Senate." That is not based on Lichtblau's reporting. "Afghan Allegedly Trips Over Rules He Upheld to U.S. Senate" or "Afghan May Have Tripped Over Rules He Upheld to U.S. Senate"  fit the story. Last time I checked, a jury of one's peers was not composed solely of one one headline writer for the Times. Perhaps the headline writer was predicting how the case would turn out? At this point, the man has been charged, he has not been tried and the headline's wording is incorrect.

A5 has Douglas Jehl's "Bolton's Pressure on C.I.A. Analyst Angered Colleagues" which Krista e-mails to call our attention to. From the article:


An attempt in 2002 by John R. Bolton to remove the national intelligence officer for Latin America from his post prompted John E. McLaughlin, the deputy director of central intelligence, to intervene against the request, according to current and former intelligence officials.
Mr. McLaughlin's previously undisclosed role is being reviewed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as it considers the nomination of Mr. Bolton to be ambassador to the United Nations. In testimony last week, Mr. Bolton acknowledged that he had sought to have the intelligence officer, Fulton T. Armstrong, reassigned.
The incident is one of at least three being reviewed by the committee in which Mr. Bolton sought the removal of subordinates or intelligence officials during his time as an under secretary of state. Senate Democrats who oppose Mr. Bolton's nomination intend to highlight the infighting as an indication that Mr. Bolton's actions toward subordinates were inappropriate enough to require action by other senior officials.


Also on A5, Judith Miller continues her grudge f*ck against the UN with "Swiss Investigates Possibilty of Bribery in U.N. Contract." When Judith goes scoop, nothing goes right . . .

(Sorry, Eli.)

Cedric asks, "Where is Rudith Miller when we need her?" Last I heard, she was on the run from a crazed Judith Miller determined to silence her. ("Rudith Miller" was a humorous spoof of Judith Miller many months ago and so Judith Miller attempting to silence her or track her down is a joke. For the record, to the best of my knowledge, Judith Miller doesn't attempt to physically track down anything except when commanding military units in Iraq. Unsuccessfully.)

Lynda e-mails to note Anne E. Kornblut's "Inquiry Finds Radio Host's Arrangement Raised Flags:"

Officials at the Education Department expressed concerns about a contract with the conservative commentator Armstrong Williams last year, even bringing it to the attention of a White House policy adviser when it came up for renewal, according to an internal department report released on Friday.
The report, by the department's inspector general, found no evidence of unlawful or unethical behavior in connection with Mr. Williams's contract but criticized top department officials for "poor management decisions" and lax oversight.
"As a result," it said, "the department paid for work that most likely did not reach its intended audience and paid for deliverables that were never received."
The report did not address questions about whether hiring Mr. Williams to promote President Bush's signature education initiative amounted to covert propaganda.

Billie e-mails to note David D. Kirkpatrick and Carl Hulse's "Frist Accused of Exploiting Religion Issue:"

Democratic senators accused Senator Bill Frist, the Republican majority leader, of exploiting religion for partisan ends by taking part in a telecast portraying them as "against people of faith" for blocking President Bush's judicial nominations.
"Our debate over the rules of the Senate and the use of the filibuster has nothing to do with whether one is religious or not," Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, said at a news conference with Senator Harry Reid, the minority leader from Nevada. "I cannot imagine that God - with everything he has or she has to worry about - is going to take the time to debate the filibuster in heaven."

Hulse and Kirkpatrick may have an early case of Saturday Night Fever (or Sunday Morning Stupors -- see "Clubbing With the New York Times") because their article compares Frist's infomerical to speeches by John Kerry delivered in churches. (They quote a person doing the comparison and they let it stand without challenge so I think it's fair to say that they compare the two.) Frist isn't making a speech. He's doing an infomercial. (And showboating on religion which I didn't think God was for, but I'm not able to diagnose anyone's health via videotape, so presumably we must defer to Saint Frist of All Things Small and Petty.) There is a difference. I don't recall anyone criticizing John Kerry for making speeches in churches (perhaps they should have, perhaps they shouldn't have) or, for that matter, George W. Bush (presumably, the Bully Boy's supporters were just glad Bully Boy had finally drug himself into a church, even if he did have to borrow money for the collection plate on at least one church visit after the campaign).

To cast the filibuster as a God vs. the ungodly seems far different than anything Kerry or the Bully Boy, on those rare times the Bully Boy made it into church, said in church during the
presidential campaign. My opinion. As always, I could be wrong. (And admittedly, feel-good stories such as those "reporting from ____ church, this reporter" articles always put me to sleep.) But if Saint Frist is setting himself up for a career change to a tele-evanglist, more power to him, and Godspeed, Saint Frist, Godspeed. Any route that takes you from the Senate and out of politics, Godspeed.*

In National Briefing, Albert Salvato does what should always be done when reporting on statutory rape, he actually tells us the consent age in Ohio. So let's note that and credit him for that.

I also wanted to comment and criticize the Times on their "corrections" (positive criticism as well as negative criticism) but I'm frankly too tired. Put it on the "later today list" along with Luke (wotisitgood4), A Winding Road and other items that have been waiting. And remember this is Saturday, a day when I help The Third Estate Sunday Review. So don't be surprised if the "later today list" ends up not happening today.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

*I'm going by Webster's "Godspeed." Some sources utlizie "God speed" and that might be the correct form. But after searching it online and finding it in various forms, I pulled down Webster's and will let them have the final say.

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]

Damn that Bob Somerby of The Daily Howler. Each day lately he makes it harder and harder to pull quote by writing these incredible pieces with so much information that picking one section means implying that others aren't worth noting.

On a good day, members and myself can usually do a good job of pull quoting from something. And if I'm the one pull quoting from one of his entries of late and am at a loss of which important section to utilize, I can usually justify the pull quote based on one of two things: he's addressing the New York Times (which we focus on here) or he's describing the war on Al Gore that the press declared (an issue that he writes passionately about). If it's the former, that's our focus more often than not, so I don't ever feel bad for emphasizing that. If it's the latter, since he's been such a strong voice on the distortions of Gore's statements and records, it deserves to be noted and I can justify that.

But today (actually yesterday, it's now Saturday and we're referring to Friday's entry) he blows away the two backups I usually have for picking one section from an entry that covers so much and does it so well. When all else fails (or if it's a Klein piece I want to enjoy/savor in print form), quote the opening.

There's no way to do any form of justice to Somerby's piece today (actually Friday) without noting it in full, so we'll throw fair use out the window and quote it in full.

Just joking.

We've done magazine spotlights on The Progressive and The Nation recently. (We'll do In These Times soon as well. The last issue I received in the mail had a cover story that would have had the community groaning -- and e-mailing to complain -- not because of the points made in the article but because of the reliance on the false stereotype of "Red" states and "Blue" states. That's the only reason we haven't done a spotlight on In These Times.) (I'm speaking of the two entries where the magazine themselves were addressed, not just a "check out this." And on The Nation one, Gina felt I didn't speak enough as to why I found the magazine a must read. She's probably correct. So it could be argued that there were not two magazine spotlights but one and a half.)

The print medium is not the beginning and end of the world of good journalism. (And my reasons for avoiding The Nation online when possible -- other than the web only features -- is because I'm used to/reliant on getting an issue in the mail and being able to read it away from the computer screen.) There are many wonderful pieces that appear online only.

And if someone asked me to pick only one web site by an individual to highlight, I'd pick The Daily Howler. Which isn't to say I agree with every opinion Somerby shares (the community and I disagreed with Somerby on the issue of Lawrence Summers), but Somerby's argues his case well and it's a joy to read his writing. (And speaking for myself, not the community, disagreements would make up less than ten percent of the time.)

Community member Dallas and I often exchange e-mails on The Daily Howler (Dallas also loves The Howler) and recently he asked what I thought Somerby's best service was. Dallas' offered that he provides a constant check on the press. I'd agree that's valuable and a good point. I'd offer that Somerby backs it up.

It's not a surprise to any informed news consumer that the mainstream media so often gets it wrong. (Everyone gets it wrong sometimes. I probably get it wrong more often than any.) But Somerby's not just calling out, "Wrong!" or "Wrong again!" Instead, he's documenting how it was wrong.

Why does that matter?

(Consider this an op-ed and all statements my own personal opinions which anyone's free to disagree with either in a private e-mail or in comments to be shared with the community.)

We love the narrative. That's what story-telling is all about. That's what it's always been about.
When a movie is made of an actual event or of someone's life, facts will always lose out to the narrative. What's emphasized about Billie Holiday's life in Lady Sings the Blues, for instance, says more about the kind of movie Berry Gordy wanted to make than it does about Billie Holiday's life. (I enjoy the movie Lady Sings the Blues and am not attempting to slam it. But the fact remains that the film plays fast and loose with the actual facts and events.)

When you or I retell our day at the end of the day, we'll pick out the biggest event (or what seems the biggest) and work other events into the tale in relation to that event. That's the narrative and I would say we're all guilty of it but it's such a human characteristic that I don't think we can be "guilty of" it anymore than we can be guilty of breathing.

When a professional storyteller (say a novelist) is imposing a narrative, it's part of what they do and part of the form they're working in. But a novelist (or screenwriter) usually doesn't claim to be objective.

The mainstream media claims to be objective. Obviously, any story that makes it into print contains the reporter's opinion of what was the most salient detail (and the editor or editors).
That's probably understandable and hopefully the person's been trained in some way (self-educated or college educated) to pick out aspects that are rated to be important (on whatever scale).

But as feature writing has seeped into hard news, the use of the narrative has gone beyond what many think the news should do. A meta narrative is being imposed upon a piece to put it into a larger scheme (strange considering how the press has so lost their sense of perspective). To use one of the issues Somerby has devoted a large amount of attention to, the war on Al Gore.

The meta narrative became that Gore is a liar who will say anything to get elected so the details included in stories (often false and when not false, often stretched the point that they should have broken) were shaded to fit the meta narrative.

Perspective would be to say that Gore spoke out for this; however, he said this previously in a speech or voted for this while in the Senate. Meta narrative is not perspective. It's the tool/device of creative writing. And it's seeped into the hard news. (I'm speaking of print news. I have no use for TV news.)

What Al Gore wore wasn't a character revealing trait. He was slammed for what he wore in some instances, he himself; and in others he was also slammed because others supposedly picked out what he wore. Which was the truth? It's an unimportant issue but having made such a big deal out of it, the press should have decided which was the issue.

But the meta narrative was "Gore is a liar" so they didn't even bother to figure out which aspect to go with. "Phoney Gore picked out more phoney clothes to wear" was at odds with "Phoney Gore can't even dress himself." But the same reporters could alternate both "perspectives."

When I'm watching a movie, I know that I'm getting the set up in the first ten minutes (more and more the first five) and in that first ten minutes, I'll get the moment that jolts us into the first act. I know to look for the midpoint and that we have to be carried into the second act around minute sixty-seven or sixty-eight for a comedy (which usually run around ninety minutes). That's an artistic form and there are rules and conventions (which some trailblazers break).

The news isn't supposed to be that way. Good reporting doesn't require "art." (For instance, when I've praised John F. Burns in the past -- in the past -- I noted that he did the basics and covered them well: who, what, where and when.) It requires telling what just happened.

And perspective isn't the writer's (or editor's) personal theme that they've latched onto. That's really sloppy reporting, in my opinion. A reviewer will do that. But a reviewer isn't writing hard news. Hard news is supposed to be about what happened, so why is it so often about fitting something into a preconcieved framework? Cherry picking bits and pieces to prove your opinion before you even witnessed the event?

Now maybe objectivity is all a pose (I wouldn't argue with that) but when the mainstream press wants to argue that they are objective, they can't do that and continue to rely on meta narratives that they are imposing.

The meta narrative also means avoding asking questions because the reporters already "found" the story before the event takes place. Therefore, why ask questions or show skepticism when all you have to do is find the bits and pieces necessary to back up the meta narrative you've already imposed?

With the war on Gore, the press overwhelmingly let the RNC set the agenda. They ran with those talking points. If they thought it would make them buddies with the RNC, they were mistaken. Unless they've gone over to Fox "News," they're still (wrongly) labeled the "liberal media" and exceptions aren't often made for individuals.

How dumb is the press covering politics? I often wonder that. There's never been a campaign I've worked on where in some manner it wasn't stressed that you do two things: kiss their ass and make sure you provide good snacks. Keep 'em fed and flattered and you can usually count on good press as long as you're feeding and flattering better than the opposition.

And I've seen that work when utilized and fail when not. (I can remember one woman who was raked over the coals and lose her seat in what largely appeared to result from her refusal to provide more than basic cold cuts.)

But maybe they're not stupid and spoiled (and there are exceptions in every category so anyone reading this who wants to insist in an e-mail, "That's not me!" consider yourself the exception and save the e-mail)? Maybe they're just another person in our society addicted to access and working on their anecdotes?

Maureen Dowd had a column entiled "I Got a Nick Name." Hold on, and I'll see if it's in BushWorld (now out in paperback). Yes, it is. It starts on page 125. She writes about the various nicknames the Bully Boy has for members of the press. (I believe her nickname is "Cobra;" David Gregory's is "Stretch.") Dowd's not (as I read her) trumpeting that she had a nickname. (The administration has ignored Dowd -- thereby missing the point of kiss their ass and feed 'em well.) Now maybe, if for instance, Margaret Carlson is dubbed "Half-wit" by the Bully Boy, it's a great anecdote for her and one she'd never tire of telling? (To the best of my knowledge, the Bully Boy's never dubbed her Half-wit. So we'll take the opportunity to do so.)

And maybe the access that comes with that is just too damn too much to let actual reporting interfere? Certainly the "Maverick" McCain press can be traced to the illusion he's created of access.

But there's been a huge breakdown in journalism where feature writing has seeped over into what was supposed to be hard news. And that should frighten you because as hideous as the rules imposed by the administration on journalists who want access are, they can get a lot worse.
Any feature writer can tell you that long gone are the days when you could spend days with the subject you were profiling, long gone are the days when you could write whatever about the subject. Now each interview with a celebrity tends to come with a list of guidelines (often including which subjects are off limits) and they sometimes usually include when the article will be run.

If the press doesn't address the reality of hard news soon, expect things to get much worse.
I'd trace the breakdown to when celeb covers became common place at Time, et al. (Long before the synergy that created "AOL TIME WARNER DISNEY ABC . . .") When p.r. reps realized that the cover wasn't just a boom for their client but also for the magazine, they began imposing guidelines. (Pat Kingsley is either the worst or the best at that -- depending on whether your the press or her client.)

There's a lot of talk (which is true) about the fact that news divisions have been cut back and about how the various mergers have led to "cross-promotion" (what we used to just call hype).
That has happened. But there's also the very real fact that what we think of as hard news has disappeared or eroded. And this isn't about "attracting young readers." This predates the new panic over, "Young adults don't read us!"

Katrina vanden Heuvel rightly pointed out that the Times elected to front page a story on Judith Regan (questionable choice for a front page -- but remember, the Times is trying desperately to become a player in L.A. -- and failing miserably -- and the story was Regan goes to California).
vanden Heuvel noted that in this front page story (which making the front page of the main section should require it be a hard news story) the issue of Regan's love nest visits with the recent failed Homeland Security nominee weren't even raised.

How do you do that? How do a hard news story on a woman who's most famous (infamous) in recent months for shacking up at Ground Zero?

Either Regan's publicist made sure that issue was off limits (and raising it would end the interview) or else the line between feature reporting and hard news is not just blurry, it's invisible now.

The meta narrative was "Judy goes to LA where she will no doubt be a huge success just like here!" (Which not only sets the Times up to be a player in coverage of L.A. but also, subtext, says to L.A., "New Yorkers have great ideas too! Don't short change us, L.A.!") And anything that painted ambassador Regan as anything less than the huge success light was eliminated from the story.

As I remember it, one of her best sellers, by Michael Moore, wasn't released willingly and required pressure on the company to get it out. That detail would interfere with the glowing portrait, so it's not included.

If, as a country, we're having trouble grasping complexities, part of the reason might be because we've lost them as the meta narrative has rushed to turn everyone into saint or sinner. And the meta narrative is a creation of feature writing.

I don't want to come off like someone's who's stood against feature writing. (I still enjoy it when it's actually good. That's less and less these days.) In school, I did feature writing. I competed in feature writing contests (and did well). (Note: There was no desire to be a reporter on my part. The paper wouldn't have been turned out if people didn't all throw in what they could. There were issues when it was basically myself and one other person putting out the whole thing.) (Her more so than me.)

I liked feature writing and could do it easily because it's light and frivilous (both of which I can be -- more often than I should be at my age). And I've heard the debates on the pro and cons of feature writing and hard news for sometime. I did feel (and still do) that anything is topic for the front page of the main section. But not written in anyway. If you're going to do a hard news story, your requirements are greater than with a piece of feature writing.

Howell Raines was slammed for running a piece on Britney Spears on the front page of the main section (of the Sunday edition of the New York Times). (That sentence has way too many "of"s, I know.) (But in a feature piece, you could get away with it if you did it humorously -- I didn't, I'm just being lazy.) But Britney Spears can be a front page story. (I wouldn't read it, but . . .)
Provided you're doing something other than a feature on Spears. Spears can be an entry point in a serious article/hard news on what sort of image sells today, for instance. (I believe her sales have eroded -- though no one seems to notice -- and as such, unless that was the topic, she'd be a bad pick for a state-of-music front page story.)

This debate predates me (I heard it all the time growing up from my grandfather who worked for a newspaper). But somehow, when someone wants to write about why people don't read papers as much now or why the newspapers aren't the trusted sources they once were, no one wants to remark on the erosion of hard news. Somerby (getting back to the topic) has spent parts of the week noting that an op-ed columnist wants to tackle the issue of how the media is seen but doesn't want to address anything other than comments/complaints from the right.
I'd agree with Somerby on that.

I'd also add that the columnist seems unaware that his own industry has lost it's way (not just the columnist's paper) and fallen into feature writing passing as hard news. (Feature writing can often be nothing more than p.r. When people complain that the news industry has served as a p.r. mouthpiece for the Bully Boy, whether they realize it or not, they may be noting the decline of hard news.)

Imposing the meta narrative is a tool of columnists, reviewers, and feature writers. It's not supposed to be a tool for hard news. And if concerned columnists want to explore topics about the decline in readership or trust, they'd do well to note that topic. (One I can't imagine any of them being unaware of since it predates all of them.)

When Somerby backs up his points of the meta narrative (and that's what I see him addressing -- as always, I could be wrong), he's not just saying "They got it wrong!" He's showing how they shaped something. Sometimes he's focused on hard news, sometimes he's focused on a columnist, sometimes he's focused on some "larger message" that they're selling us.

This is a serious issue (to Dallas and myself at any rate, though once upon a time it was a serious issue to the press itself) and it surprises me that no one's thought not only to explore it (no one at a paper) as a regular op-ed or that a paper hasn't realized that Somerby would be a great op-ed addition. There was a time when the kind of criticism he provides would be appreciated because it would delight and enrage readers.

For selfish reasons, I'm glad that Somerby hasn't been snapped up. Two days a week in a paper would be a big step down to someone who enjoys reading him five days a week. But considering that he takes no advertisements at his sites and that he, like everyone else, has to eat, it does make me sad that no one's offered a paid op-ed job. (Or for that matter, a regular slot as a guest on Air America.)

He makes you think and provides you with something beyond a simplistic "wrong!" Again, I have disagreed with his opinions on occasion, but even then I've enjoyed reading his arguments.

Somerby might argue, and he'd be correct, that of course he wouldn't be hired by a paper. The ones being hired are the ones who stay within the established lines of what is now acceptable criticism. (Thank God for FAIR, but the periodical MORE is missed -- by me anyway.) These days errors are "systematic" and carry no personal responsibility. And you don't call someone to task (unless they are a competitor). Certain op-ed writers decry the "partisan" nature that they feel our country has descended into (as though people just woke up and decided "I'm going to be partisan today for no other reason than because someone online is") but they refuse to address any criticisms of their own industry.

Everything's always "fine" and everyone's doing a wonderful job inside the circle, to hear them tell it. Lloyd sent me an editorial from the LA Times which was an apology for some racist (I believe it was racist) coverage in the far past. He'd wanted a comment on it personally (which he got) and one here (which he didn't, I've been running behind all week -- more so than usual).
I don't remember the editorial now. (It's rare that one of the 800 to 1000 e-mails that come in a day don't copy and paste something and they tend to all blend and blur after awhile unless I comment when they're fresh.)

The opinion I shared with Lloyd was that the LA Times apology was like the Times apologies. ("The Times" refers to the New York Times throughout. When speaking of the Los Angeles Times, it is noted as the "LA Times," otherwise, "the Times" refers to the New York Times.)
It comes very late (the WMD apology was an exception), after all the participants are gone, and
it puts the blame on systematic problems while noting that they wished someone had brought it to their attention at the time. The fact of the matter is that it's usually something that was brought to their attention. Criticism in real time is usually ignored and it's often a case of "reiventing the wheel" because the media doesn't make us aware of earlier criticisms. For instance, Birth of a Nation, a racist film, was not endorsed by all when it was released. (Check out the history of the NAACP if you truly believe that everyone was saying, "Way to go D.W.!")

And the above might not be fair to the LA Times. I'll admit that I honestly don't recall the subject of the editorial/apology. What I do recall is what I wrote back to Lloyd. Where's the apology for Jean Seberg? Where is it?

Will it ever appear? Or will they continue to act as though that was all the doing of Joyce Harber and that no one else was involved in that smear campaign? When an editorial staff (later editor of the paper) passes along a tip and vouches for the source, Joyce Haber (who was serious about her job but not a hard news journalist) is going to run it. At what point does the paper apologize for that? When all the participants who've gotten a pass (or one) is long forgotten?

That's how these apologies/clarifications tend to be handled. Long after everyone's gone and with some note of how at the time, there was no criticism or questioning of the original reporting.
As though the paper, whichever paper, had just suddenly discovered a problem on their own or just been made aware of it.

If confronted in real time, the people responsible might be forced to be creative. Yes, I vouched for that tipster, yes, that's my hand writing, but I just can't recall any details now. Or, even better (different person, same issue), I was trying out a "motor scooter" and fell off it that day during lunch, so I'm not responsible. (That really is an excuse that was offered.)

So these apologies always come late ("if they come at all" -- Tracy Chapman, "Behind the Wall" from her self-titled debut album).

And it's hard for me to get overly excited about apologies that don't come with any responsibility.

Bob Somerby provides real-time criticism and, provided The Howler is up for many years to come or some of the criticism from it is turned into a book by Somerby, it will be very interesting in fifty years or more to read the "clarifications," "editorial notes" and "apologies" that will be forthcoming. "We had no idea" carries a lot less weight when you don't have to dig through microfilm to find out that yes, they did have an idea; yes, they were informed in real time of the problems with the reporting.

The press has never been perfect and it never will be because people aren't perfect. (I'm certainly not.) And any commentary on the loss of trust in the press should carry with it comments on the long history of demonizing the press as the "liberal media." And a columnist (it was a Times columnist which is why we're not naming, he's not the problem, the attitude is, which is why we're addressing it) should address that. He or she should also be prepared to address the reality of the erosion of hard news.

Focusing on criticism from the outside and not examing the very real move from hard news reporting to feature writing isn't something that should be easily dismissed.

It's an issue that Daniel Okrent (still waiting to see if he comes across where the Times pushed "paper of record" -- doubt he will) dismissed, without addressing. Writing of the way the paper was versus how it is, he offered that no one would want to read the cut and dry way the paper once reported. Well of course he'd think that way, he's not from the newspaper world, he's from the magazine world and from the magzine world of feature stories.

His whole life has been teasing the reader interest, finding a sensational angle to hook/hype the story.
He's the last person apparently that we could look to for a defense of hard news. (Why he was ever chosen as the public editor of the Times . . .) I'm not that excited about the new public editor (based on reporting from people who've worked with him at the Wall St. Journal) but maybe, if nothing else, he can address the surrender of the standards of hard news to feature writing.

On a day to day basis, five days a week (six if we're lucky enough to get a weekend Howler), Bob Somerby addresses the meta narrative with concrete examples. How supposed different voices are somehow speaking unison. It's not just that one repoter got something wrong, it's that so many did and the reliance on imposed meta narratives in supposed hard news reporting is often the cause. Which seems to suggest that papers are no longer comfortable with being "the first draft of history" and now desire to be the last draft. Won't happen.

Historians will dispense with the easy praise so many currently earn. Historians can do that because, as with these "editorial notes" and apologies, they come several years down the line.
James Wollcott's dubbed certain individuals Attack Poodles (read the book, it's informative and will make you laugh). And let's hope that their present moment of fame and all the goodies that fame provides are enough for them because there's no legacy for them. (No noble one anyway.)
Truth telling matters and as Rebecca noted last week, Robert Parry is not known today for being a popular writer (or jovial TV pundit), he's known because he wrote about what others didn't want to.

Which brings us, finally, to Friday's Howler. Somerby's addressing how certain indivduals not only shy away from informing you that the emperor has no clothes on, they also cover for the court jestors and stenographers. In this case, Time magazine fluffs for Ann Coulter. I'm not sure whether it was Time or People that pioneered the instant-feature (hype, hype, hype, detail, hype, hype, hype) but they're of the same parent company and they've crossbred many times over. The result is that Coulter can be a noted person (one of one-hundred) and therefore, Time's happy to fluff. From The Daily Howler:

But Carney's magazine wants to pander to people who find themselves drawn to Coulter. Therefore, Carney is paid a very good wage to type a paragraph like the one that follows. Yes, this actually is the way he ends his three-paragraph profile:
CARNEY: In her books, Coulter can be erudite and persuasive, as when she exposes the left's chronic softness on communism. But her signature is her gleeful willingness to taunt liberals and Democrats, to say out loud what some other conservatives dare only think--that Bill Clinton is a "horny hick," for example, and his wife "pond scum." It's what makes Coulter irresistible and influential, whether you like it or not.
According to Carney, Coulter–who thinks that twenty percent of the public are traitors–is frequently "erudite and persuasive, as when she exposes the left's chronic softness on communism." But as Digby pointed out earlier this week, Carney is cleaning up for Coulter when he presents this mild construction. What does Coulter actually say in Treason, the book to which Carney alludes? As Digby notes, this is the way she starts her critique of the left's great softness on Communism:
COULTER: Liberals have a preternatural gift for striking a position on the side of treason. You could be talking about Scrabble and they would instantly leap to the anti-American position. Everyone says liberals love American, too. No they don't. Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence. The Left’s obsession with the crimes of the West and their Rousseauian respect for Third World savages all flow from this subversive goal. If anyone has the gaucherie to point out the left's nearly unblemished record of rooting against American, liberals turn around and scream "McCarthyism!"
Is Coulter sincere--or is she just playing the rubes, separating them from their money? We
don't have the slightest idea. (For what it's worth, she has always struck us as the one public figure who may well be mentally ill.) But as almost any sane person can see, that is the work of a screaming nutcase if we assume that Coulter is sincere. Indeed, Treason was such a nut-cake book that a long string of major conservative writers stepped forward to denounce it when it appeared. But not Carney! Carney pretends that Coulter made an "erudite" presentation, a presentation that was quite "persuasive." In fact, Treason was denounced as the work of a crackpot all across the conservative world. But Carney is playing Time's readers for fools. So Time's readers don’t have to be told.
Why did Carney write this odd profile, ending with this odd summation? After all, a person like Coulter can be quite "influential" without being "erudite" (or "persuasive," if judged by normal standards); why did Carney feel he had to pretend that Coulter makes perfect good sense? Simple answer! Like Coulter, Carney is being paid good money to play the rubes for total fools. His owners want to sell them mags, and they want Carney to keep them happy. So Carney typed what he was told. He's paid good money for typing this drek--and like good boys throughout human history, he was willing to work for the dough.

There's much more worth reading, the entire thing in fact. Damn that Bob Somerby.


The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

[Note: This entry was originally posted at The Common Ills.]
 

On April 3, 2005, an entry appeared over at The Third Estate Sunday Review entitled "CJW Daily from Corporate Journalism Whores (parody for your laughing pleasure)." It's a funny piece. And, disclosure, Ava and I thought it up while tossing mocking references back and forth to CJR Daily. We had something of a comedy performance by the time we were through and really didn't have any idea that it was anything worth writing down until, to provide some much needed laughs the Saturday April 2nd, we offered our spoof to the others. (Jim, Ty, Jess and Dona of The Third Estate Sunday Review; Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude and Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man.) At which point, everyone got to work on taking a comedy bit and turning it into something more.

Most of the jokes were ones people got. For instance, calling Watler Cronkite (see the entry) "Wilson Cronkite" was a joke alluding to how CJR Daily reduced Kathleen Hall Jamieson to "Kathleen Jamieson." (Though, as has been noted, maybe we should all be glad they didn't take it further and call her "Kathy Jamieson.")

But throughout the "Wilson Cronkite" piece, there are intentional errors. Walter Cronkite hosted the news on CBS, evening news, and we knew that. A few concerned people wrote in to The Third Estate Sunday Review about that and Ava's still getting e-mails on that. To cut down on her having to explain it and to note a flaw that we've alluded to here but never really addressed, I told her I'd do so. (And community member Dallas also made this possible/necessary by hunting down the specifics on something I've repeatedly alluded to here.)
(No community member e-mailed here about the issue. Either they were aware of the intention behind the joke because it's been alluded to so much here or they felt that since it appeared in The Third Estate Sunday Review, they should take the question to The Third Estate Sunday Review.)

Walter Cronkite did not work on Good Morning America or Nightly News (or anything else we intentionally put in). The joke was to get to the correction which is in fact wrong.

CJR Daily ran a 'correction' to a post that was not correct and that's what we were spoofing.

You need to go to "Hidden Angle: Taking Pot Shots" from October 22, 2004. The author is Susan Q. Stranahan. In that piece, Stranahan reports on coverage of John Kerry and Jodi Wilgoren. Stranahan doesn't make the point that Bob Somerby did at The Daily Howler, which is how two reporters (one for the New York Times and one for the Washington Post) covering the John Kerry campaign were also able to apparently pop over to Dick Cheney's
event in the same state and quote him (in remarkably similar passages).

Stranahan focuses solely on the New York Times (in the text) and on the report filed by Jodi Wilgoren. While repeating Wilgoren's reptition of Cheney's remark that to go duck hunting, John Kerry had borrowed a jacket, Stranahan -- taking Wilgoren to task -- makes a mistake that Wilgoren didn't make, she presents only one view: Cheney's claim that Kerry borrowed the jacket.

Later, the piece was ammended to include a "correction" in the form of an "Update:"

In fact, as the Washington Post reported, Kerry borrowed the camouflage jacket. He did not buy a new one as Vice President Cheney indicated.

There's a problem with this correction (labeled an "Update") and it's that Stranahan or someone appears to want to provide cover for not noting that earlier. To read the post and the "Update," is to be left with the impression that, dealing with the Wilgoren article, they were left to believe that Cheney's comments were correct and thank God for the Washington Post.

That's simply not the truth. Stranahan should have read the Wigoren piece more carefully. And the "Update" should have noted that the same thing was reported by Wilgoren in her Times piece that Stranahan was reporting on.

Wilgoren included that detail in the piece Stranahan was reviewing. And the second comment on the "Go to Comments" page noted that:

Another question is why was an UPDATE needed via the Washington Post? In Wilgoren's pice, right after quoting Cheney, she immediately noted that he'd borrowed the jacket:
"I understand he bought a new camoflage jacket for the occassion, which did make me wonder how regularly he does go goose hunting," Mr. Cheney said to a chorus of boos. "My personal opinion is his new came jacket is an October disguise, an effort he's making to hide the fact that he votes against gun-owner rights at every turn."
In fact, the outfit was borrowed, along with the shotgun, from the farm's owner, and within hours Mr. Kerry was back in tailored suit and rose-colored tie for another photo-op [. . .]
Again, in Wilgoren's paragraph right after the Cheney quote, we have the info that is later necessary for an "update" and via the Washington Post.
[Do not consider this an endorsement of Wilgoren's writing. I'm merely noting that in her article for the Times -- the one that CJR Daily is dicussing -- she covered this issue. The Washington Post wasn't needed for an UPDATE, in fact, no UPDATE was needed.]

I agree with the majority of that posted comment except I'd add to "no UPDATE was needed" this: "if Stranahan had read the Wilgoren piece more closely."

She didn't. Now maybe she or CJR Daily got taken to task for the piece, for reprinting a falsehood (Kerry bought a new jacket) which was GOP spin and as such didn't bear repeating in the watchdog forum that CJR Daily is supposed to be? Or mabye Stranahan or someone at CJR Daily later read the Washington Post piece and noticed that the jacket was not borrowed. Thinking this fact was noted there, and only there, they felt the need for an "Update."

But the fact remains that Wilgoren's original article included that the jacket was borrowed (immediately below the Cheney quote -- and Stranahan quotes the Cheney quote so she read at least that far from Wilgoren's article).

So to write that "In fact, as the Washington Post reported, Kerry borrowed . . ." is flat out wrong. "In fact, as Wilgoren noted in her next paragraph and as the Washington Post reported, Kerry borrowed . . ." is closer to the truth.

At the time of the "Update," no one may have been aware that Wilgoren reported that in her original article. (I have no idea who wrote the "Update." Perhaps it was someone other than Stranahan and Stranahan herself might have been aware that Wilgoren's piece included the paragraph. If so, Stranahan may have felt, as Bob Somerby did, that you don't include a known falsehood at length and then in the next paragraph, after the chuckles die out, fleetingly note, "Oh by the way, Cheney is incorrect.")

But when going to the trouble of doing an "Update," someone should have checked Wilgoren's original article, the one Stranahan was commenting on, because the information that the jacket was borrowed is in that article.

As it stands, the "Update" implies that Wilgoren left that piece of information out of her reporting. Wilgoren did include that in her report.

And while missing it that day might have been possible, there are writers that give me a headache and in that period, I wouldn't fault Stranahan for bailing on Wilgoren early on, the fact remains that three days later in their "go to comments" a CJR Daily reader noted that Wilgoren had included that fact in her article and even went to the trouble to quote the paragraph it was from.

Maybe CJR Daily doesn't read the comments? Maybe they're just offered to let readers vent and CJR Daily is too above it all to note reactions to their pieces? I have no idea.

But the "Update" has been allowed to stand (Dallas copy and pasted and sent this in this week) and impression from the "Update" is that Wilgoren missed a detail but thank God the Washington Post didn't! That's not reality.

And that's why one of the joke's of "Suzy Q.'s" Blog Report in the CJW spoof was to make mistakes repeatedly and then run a correction that still got it wrong.

As with most jokes, it loses something when it's explained. But I've alluded to that mistake from time to time here and when Ava passed on that she was still attempting this week to explain the joke to concerned Third Estate Sunday Review readers who were attempting to inform The Third Estate Sunday Review that the mistakes were intentional and part of the joke, I thought we'd touch on it here. When Dallas then went to the trouble of hunting the entry down for me, it was something I intended to address all week but kept putting off due to time limitations.

Stranahan may not have authored the "Update." Whomever did, however, appears unaware (to this day) that no article from the Washington Post was needed to round out that Kerry borrowed the jacket since the details were included in Wilgoren's original article cited by Stranahan. The correction (labeled "Update") leaves the impression that Wilgoren didn't include the detail. Wilgoren did include the detail and the "Update" should have been ammended long ago to note that. (My opinion.)

And noting this is not praising Wilgoren's reporting on the Kerry campaign. It's not praise worthy. It's embarrassing, my opinion. Also my opinion, Wilgoren's recent reporting is a remarkable turn around and far from the fluff and mean spirited nonsense she turned in during the Kerry campaign and immediately after. Because I found her so useless reporting on the campaign and immediately after, I thought she was completely useless. I was wrong. And I can say that without cringing (I'm often wrong). CJR Daily needs to admit that their "Update" is wrong and correct it since the web page remains and will apparently do so for some time.

(And note, Lois Romano is the author of the Washington Post piece cited in the "Update" CJR Daily refers to.)

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

[Note: This post originally appeared at The Common Ills.]

I have two apologies.

First, I'm sorry, I thought I was lying down for a nap and instead slept for hours. (And hours.)
I'll highlight The Daily Howler and some other things tonight before officially going to bed.

Second, Eli notes that thanks to this morning's entry, he's had "When Love Goes Wrong" in his head all day. Me too. A stray thought ended up reappearing throughout the day as I hummed or sang, "When Judy goes scoop, nothing goes right." I think they should use that for all of her (Judith Miller's) personal appearences and anytime she's on the NewsHour or any other show willing to book her.

It was a stray thought this morning, "When Loves Goes Wrong," as I hurried around trying to do several things at once and get out the front door. But if you know the song, you know it's a very melodic one. As Eli points out, "There are far worse songs that could get stuck in my head." Agreed.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

[Note: "When Loves Goes Wrong" was written by Harold Adamson and Hoagy Carmichael.]

We'll start off by noting, yet again, that at the "about" page for Meet the Press, Gloria Steinem continues to be listed as "Gloria Steiner." It's Steinem. The continued refusal to fix this problem when you are aware of it is beginning to look like something more than sloppiness.

For anyone who wants to weigh in but is sick of the online form, the address for Meet the Press is mtp@nbc.com and maybe continued pressure will make them correct their typo which has been allowed to stand for two years now? Three? Longer?

Here's the paragraph in question:

Since those beginning days, "Meet the Press" has interviewed First Ladies Eleanor Roosevelt, Nancy Reagan, Rosalynn Carter, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Laura Bush appeared on "Meet the Press" the first three years of her husband’s presidency. Other notable women appearing as guests over the years on "Meet the Press" include: Barbara Jordan, Shirley Chisholm, Jane Fonda, Phyllis Schlafly, Geraldine Ferraro, Gloria Steiner, Elizabeth Dole, Madeleine Albright, Tipper Gore, Condoleezza Rice, Nancy Pelosi, Shirley Temple Black and Caroline Kennedy.

Let's start with Blinky & CBS's Face the Nation (check your local listings if you're interested in watching this Sunday progam):

Host:
CBS News Chief Washington Correspondent Bob Schieffer
Topics:
Majority Leader Tom DeLay's Ethics Issues
Role Of The Filibuster In The Senate
Guests:
Rep. David Dreier
Chairman, Rules Committee
Republican - California
Rep. Charles Rangel
Ranking Member, Ways And Means Committee
Democrat - New York
Jan Crawford Greenburg
Legal Correspondent
The Chicago Tribune

I'll assume Jan Crawford will address the "role of the filibuster in the Senate" since the other guests are House Representatives.

So Dreier's going to speak ethics? That's pretty interesting. Will Blinky ask him about the shared home and whom Drier shares it with? (This is public record, I'm not breaking any news here.) (And note, the suggestions of an ethical issue do not have to do with the sexual orientation, just that alleged orientation being in conflict with the rep's stance on issues and the fact that the roommate works for Drier.)

Moving on to the second train wreck (at least Blinky doesn't let Face the Nation pander to junk news), we'll note ABC's This Week:


Guests:
Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., former majority leader
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., member of the Judiciary Committee
Maria Shriver, first lady of California and author of "And One More Thing Before You Go"
Students from Georgetown University and Catholic University


Then, dissecting the week's political news: our classic roundtable, George Will, Cokie Roberts and Sam Donaldson.

If by classic, they mean stale and out of date, they're on the money. Again, if you're going to play the Blinky drinking game during Face the Nation (down a shot each time he blinks), have plenty of alcohol on hand. I guess for This Week, you could take a shot everytime Cokes or Sammy tells George Will, "You're right" (in any variation on the line). Or you could wager with your friends as to whether Cokes will wear the classic pearls or those trashy metalic ones that make her look like Rosie the Robot from The Jetsons? But you can't play clutch-the-pearls journalism (or "journalism") without a set of pearls, so rest assured she'll be wearing them.


Over at NBC's Meet the Press (all shows air Sundays, check your local listings for the time):

REP. ROY BLUNT (R - Missouri)
House Majority Whip
REP. BARNEY FRANK (D - Massachusetts)
DEXTER FILKINS
New York Times
JIM MIKLASZEWSKI
NBC News

Dexter Filkins and Cokie Roberts on TV the same Sunday? Why do broadcasters hate
America?

Remember, if you're not watching Meet the Press, you're living your life.

Will Dexy pulls his gun on Russert? Doubtful. Will he cross the line between reporter and cheerleader? (Doesn't that one seem like a trick question?)

Will the world go on if you miss the inside the beltway gossip?

Yes, it will. But watch if you must. Hope this helps you pick.

Sam e-mailed asking, "If you had to watch, like you'd die if you didn't, which one would you watch? Well death can be noble but I'm guessing you mean I have to pick one. In which case I'd go with Blinky. It's a half-hour show, so it's over that much quicker. Plus, it's a Cokes and Dexy free-zone.

Oh, one more thing you can watch for if you watch Meet the Press. Is Dexy reporting or is he predicting? I have no idea if Elisabeth Bumiller's been on TV in the last twelve months or not. But she did grasp, to her credit when I've seen on her TV, that she was a reporter and stuck to facts (or her concept of facts). Watch and see if Dexy makes predictions or leaves the area of observation to editorialize.

He's not supposed to do either.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.