the old gray lady has alzheimers

Journalismism

'Times' Poll: Should or Should We Not Print Lies?

By Choire Sicha | January 12, 2012

Everyone is pretty aghast and/or in stitches over today's weird and kinda embarrassing escapade by the New York Times public editor, Arthur Brisbane: "I’m looking for reader input on whether and when New York Times news reporters should challenge 'facts' that are asserted by newsmakers they write about." Not just when; whether! A list of people currently making fun of this runs from editors of city papers to New Yorker correspondents to totally random unemployed people to... well, the Times staffers are all sitting on their hands right now. GOSH, HOW THAT MUST BURN.

How does this argument even go, anyway? PRO: Sure! Let the record reflect whatever people say, that way we have a record of it. CON: No, definitely not! The newspaper should report all lies unchallenged!

(Also, oh yes, let's have readers—aka BLOG COMMENTERS—provide the "input" on these issues. Er, no offense, some of my best friends are blog commenters.) Anyway, haven't seen Twitter make so much fun of one person since, hmm... a SuperBowl half-time show, or maybe that time that ESPN became the LeBron network? Hey, only 18 months till Arthur Brisbane's term is up.

money makes the world go around

Hey, Media: It's Not About Romney; It's About Money:

...the reason that Mitt Romney is winning is because there is no one who can touch him on money. Whether it's campaign contributions or PACs, this nomination process was over before it began because the very, very rich Romney is Wall Street's pick. This is not news. But with the rise of Super PACs in the wake of the Citizens United decision and the no-ceiling spending they can engage in under the guise of "free speech" (remember: if money equals speech, then some people have more speech than others, no?), we've moved into a new realm of crazy. That's news. Big-time fucking news. But it's pathetic when Stephen Colbert is one of the only media figures making the effort to expose how corrupting Super PACs are.

Mr. Rude Pundit is correct.

let me introduce you to one of my favorite bloggers

CNN Sucks Really Bad

Consider: CNN's idea of political balance was a panel consisting of a Bushie clown, a Tea Party bozo, a centrist Democrat operative who helped sell out the progressive wing of the party to "triangulate" away from labor and blacks to a "center" in the 1990s — and, finally, poor, permafucked Roland Martin. This was "balanced" in the same way that a yardstick can span three feet — yet, on the left end, have a marking of 1 INCH and on the right end have a marking of 1 MILE. There's a middle there, in the media's abstracted math, and it doesn't matter to them what kind of see-saw real geometry creates.

Really, go visit Et tu, Mr. Destructo?