Athenae posts a comment to her query about what people want out of the newspaper. It’s about as good a mission statement for the newspaper business as you’ll want to read. It ought to be nailed to the front door of every Times, Trib, and Observer in the land.

First Draft – What We Need In Newspapers:

I want the local news. I want to know what’s going on in my town today, and what’s on the agenda for tomorrow. I don’t give a frell about Ann Coulter’s opinion or George Will’s opinion and I could give a frack about the recycled WSJ bloviations as well. Spare me those odious filler trivia blocks.


I want to know what’s on the school lunch menu. I want to know what’s on the school board agenda. I want to know what the budget for the county’s road and bridges fund is buying. I want to know what the hours are at my local public library. I want to know what movies are showing in town and what time they start. I want to know what the phone numbers are for the food bank and what the city bus route map looks like, and if you could give me a decent weather forecast that would be a bonus. Put in the phone numbers for the school, and include the names and contact information for the paper’s editorial staff (not just circulation, advertising and the obit desk, thankyouverymuch). While you’re at it, run the names and district numbers, AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK, of my city councilmen, state legislators, and federal Congresscritters.

There’s more, and it’s all good. Go read.

So I’m 5 weeks behind on my blogging. This little morsel from The Editors is still fresh and tasty.

The Poor Man » That’s what I’m talking about (Quoting this post at Bottle of Blog):

When are these people going to get it? You can’t consistently defend the…um…principles of the modern Republican party because they don’t have any. They don’t believe in anything–not anything they can tell you, anyway, and still get re-elected. They have no convinctions.

They have propaganda.

And if you stupidly adopt one of their “talking points” today as a principle, as a conviction, as a value today, you’re going to look like a fucking idiot tomorrow.

I was listening to the podcast of the April 8th edition of NPR’s On The Media today, and just had to retch at the interview with John Stossel. The 20/20 anchor was on the program to defend the side of the “Global Warming Is Nonsense” contingent. Here are a couple of exchanges that brought me up short:

BROOKE GLADSTONE: You don’t believe that is the case [that the vast majority of scientists believe that global warming poses a serious danger]. The consensus seems to be clear. Why don’t you believe it?

JOHN STOSSEL: Because scientists tell me that the people writing the alarmist reports do not reflect the majority of scientists who really understand it; that the way you characterize it is not the way I’ve heard good scientists characterize it; and that the idea and the tone of voice you use is very telling – it’s saying “Yes, there’s a crisis. How can you refute that? You’re such a jerk.”

Really? Which scientists? Stossel never says, and Gladstone never asks. She’s diverted effectively by his whine that she’s pre-judging him, but instead of taking it like a man and countering her with evidence, he just complains that she’s implying that he’s a jerk.

Look, maybe it’s true that Stossel’s contacts in the scientific community are right to pooh-pooh the evidence. I’m willing to hear them out. But how are we to know or judge their claims without knowing who they are or why they believe the way they do. This is sloppy he-said, she-said journalism, completely unenlightening and not at all informative. Stossel’s rhetoric is hollow; it just sounds like he’s making a point.

But here’s the thing that really almost made me throw my iPod against the wall. Keep in mind here that Chrichton has been belittling environmental science of late…

BROOKE GLADSTONE: In December, you featured novelist Michael Crichton on 20/20, and you praised him for contradicting something most people believe and fear. You went on to say that environmental organizations are fomenting false fears in order to promote agendas and raise money. Why use a fiction writer to refute the scientific community?

JOHN STOSSEL: Because he’s famous, and he’s interesting, and he’s smart, and he writes books that lots of people read, and I could interview the scientists for 20/20, but more people will pay attention when this particular smart fiction writer says it.

Sweet Jeebus, John… do you hear yourself? You’ve just told us that you don’t particularly care about Crichton’s scientific credentials or the worthiness of his argument. All you care about is that he’s famous. That response tells me more about your character and values than anything about the nature of your argument. I think it’s the stupidest, most baldly cynical thing I’ve ever heard anyone in the media say… and that’s saying something.

Don’t know if I get a vote in this, but Stossel’s my choice for Wanker of the Week.

I’m getting really tired of this debate. Are bloggers journalists? Isn’t that kind of like asking, Is a car a murder weapon? Are all priests pedophiles? Are all journalists vapid jagoffs?

Are bloggers journalists? The answer is, of course, “It depends.” Some bloggers are journalists because some journalists blog. But having a blog doesn’t make you a journalist, any more than owning a gun makes you a murderer. A blog is a type of web page, usually enabled by a particular type of software which allows you to post anything you want, from pictures to links to incoherent rants to real reporting. A blog is what you make it, and whether a blogger is a journalist depends on the substance of the content, not the form it takes.

Of course, it’s easy to see how those in the media could have lost sight of this fact over the years. The media have built themselves a nice little bubble house, inside which they can tell themselves that anything they do is fascinating and interesting and worthwhile. Anything they do is news, they seem to think, because it’s presented as if it were news. Adopt a certain tone of voice or style of writing and you can make the most trival drivel appear to be Serious Stuff. But 95% of it is a pile of crap with an expensive haircut.

The real question ought to be, Are journalists journalists? Are you a journalist just because you’re on television? Are you a journalist just because you get published? Is that all it takes, or is there more to it?

The Battle for America.

Sure, it’s a big file, but you’ll want to suck down every last megabyte.

Digby took my breath away with this post, which I hope you’ll read. It contains the text of a speech Bill Clinton gave on the anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech. Aside from seconding Digby’s stirring comment about the values of the Democratic Party and why they’re worth fighting for, it’s damn good to remember a time when we had a president that had a heart and a brain. You wanna kick Clinton for his personal peccadilloes, well fair enough. But on the podium, m’boy could bring it.

Via The Regular:

[George] Clooney’s excellent letter in response to O’Reilly’s tirade against Clooney for organizing a Tsunami relief fundraiser, of all things. Just another part of the bizarre Right-Wing war on celebrities.

Wanna see some smack down? Read it. Read it now.

This email has probably made the rounds, but I wanted to stash a copy here, too. Thanks to Cousin Stef for sending me a copy…
——
Dear President Bush,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law.  I have learned a great deal from you and understand why you would propose and support a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. As you said, “in the eyes of God marriage is based between a man and a woman.”  I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22clearly states it to be an abomination…  End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians.  Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness – Lev.15: 19-24.  The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors.  They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath.  Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?
7. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though Lev. 19 expressly forbids this:  27.  How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

Andrew Cline at Rhetorica writes:

Last week I began to notice the assertion “everything changed on 9/11”—especially as preceded by the ad populum fallacy “everyone knows.” I say “began to notice” because up until last week I have not encountered many situations in which someone actually spoke this assertion to me. I was certainly aware of it otherwise.


I noticed it because in each case my interlocutor wished to frame his/her remarks in a new reality that supposedly proved his/her conclusions, e.g. “Everyone knows that everything changed on 9/11, so we had to invade Iraq to fight terrorism.”

This has been much on my mind lately, too. As Nels wrote in the comments to Dr. Cline’s post, 9/11 gave us a glimpse of our vulnerability in one sudden, shocking, collective experience. The events of that day shifted our understanding of the world in certain fundamental ways, but 9/11 most certainly did not “change everything.”

Here are a few things 9/11 didn’t change, just off the top of my head: it didn’t change our Constitution, our laws, our history, or our traditions. It didn’t change our need for access to healthcare, good jobs, and a strong economy. It didn’t change the meaning of fairness, honesty, or truth. It didn’t change our essential impulse to be good to each other. It didn’t change our need to educate our children, nor did it diminish in any way the importance of a free press. 9/11 didn’t make us any less obsessed with pop culture or with shopping or gossip. 9/11 didn’t make us any less dependent on foreign oil. Our freedom to travel has been subject to small inconveniences, but not curtailed in the least. 9/11 didn’t even change the fundamental safety record of airlines, for crying out loud; flying is still the safest way to travel.

(My wife makes a good point here: It is in times of greatest danger when our essential values are most called upon. We are not a free society only when it’s easy. Our freedoms and our “American character” are supposed to be what carry us through when the going gets rough.)

9/11 didn’t change everything, but our response to 9/11 changed a lot. We are less safe, less respected, less liked, and less powerful. I, for one, am tired of hearing people repeat this worn phrase as prelude to shirking their responsibility or abusing their power. 9/11 did not change the essential character of American society or make us any less a democratic republic. If any of that happens, we will have done it to ourselves.

Who understands the world today like no one else? Why, The Medium Lobster, that’s who…

As you all know, we were entrusted three years ago by George W. Bush with rings of mystical power, which would harness the awesome energies of Free Emotions such as Hope, Dignity, and Resolve into potent forces to use to break up terrorist cells, secure and stabilize Iraq, and spread democracy throughout the world. And we have indeed been successful. Who could forget when Captain Fortitude destroyed an entire al Qaeda training camp with one blast of his Determination-Vision, or when Freedom Woman used her enhanced Optimism Senses to uncover the location of terrorist cell in Pakistan?

However, the Medium Lobster has not come to celebrate old victories. Indeed, we face a grave danger in Iraq – one that can no longer be ignored. As violence in the country has increased dramatically, we must act, while there is still time, to bolster the spirits of the American public. For the project of Freedom in Iraq is endangered not by armed guerillas and terrorists, but by the deadly force of Pessimism.

For just as Hope, Dignity, and Resolve are focused through our mystical power rings to become intense and powerful beams of super-force, so is Pessimism channeled by the dark and powerful mystics of our foes into terrifying powers.

Indeed, it was only last week that the evil Doctor Jihad used his Crystal Orb of Negativity to summon massive car bombings throughout the country. And it was only within the last few days that the maniacal Islamobot used its deadly Press Accounts Of American Casualties Ray to decapitate more American hostages.

Iraqis recognize the danger, and they are refuting Pessimism. For they know that negative attitudes, and not a massive, violent nationalist and religious insurgency, are the true threats to freedom and democracy within this new and independent state.