Demand better blow jobs

Gail Collins expertly performs her role of making Maureen Dowd look insightful.

Journamalism school

It's remarkable that reporters who are completely ignorant of the facts surrounding Rio's winning bid (say, like, Rio's bid realistically proposed the highest cost and Latin America had never held an Olympic Games, or that the IOC and the USOC are not on the best of terms right now), can publish something on the subject and the AP calls it "Analysis."

Cpy editing

On the Media did a segment on the extinction of the copy editor genus at our major papers. One has to wonder about the NY Times.

What keeps Time afloat?

After we noted that Time magazine slid off the journalism road, crashed, burned and exploded, we find one of the people behind the wheel bragging about it and trying to start it up again.

I'm back from the Last Frontier with this week's dead tree cover story on Sarah Palin, written with the very excellent editor-at-large David Von Drehle. I don't think this will be the last we hear from the soon-to-be-former governor. To me, one of the most interesting aspects of the story is how vehemently the Palin camp blames Barack Obama.

From the story:

For Palin, however, these aren't isolated incidents. She believes they grow from the same root, which is too big and too formidable to ignore. "A lot of this comes from Washington, D.C. The trail is pretty direct and pretty obvious to us," says Meg Stapleton, a close Palin adviser in Alaska. Awaiting a flight back to Anchorage from distant Dillingham, Stapleton adds that the anti-Palin offensive seems lifted straight from The Thumpin', which describes the political strategies of Rahm Emanuel, who is now the White House chief of staff. "It's the Sarah Palin playbook. It's how they operate," Stapleton says.

Palin and her Alaska circle find evidence for their suspicions about the White House in the person of Pete Rouse, who lived in Juneau for a time before he became chief of staff to a young U.S. Senator named Barack Obama. Rouse, they note, is a friend of former Alaska state senator Kim Elton, who pushed the first ethics investigation of Palin, examining her controversial firing of the state's public-safety commissioner. Both Rouse and Elton have joined the Obama Administration. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs scoffed at the theory. "The charge is ridiculous," he said. "Obviously there is no effort ... From my vantage point, a lot of the criticism she is getting from others seems to be generated from self-inflicted wounds.

Meg went a step further at one point telling me, "I just hope to God Rahm Emanuel isn't using taxpayer money to come after Alaska." That's the way they think about it: that these Alaskans filing ethics complaints have been hoodwinked by Obama operatives into wasting the Alaskan government's time and resources. They believe that with Palin gone, the state will no longer face this barrage of "frivolous" compliants. On that point, they are probably right -- there will be much less interest in filing complaints against Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell. Palin, Meg said, was their target all along because she "represents the biggest threat to Obama. She's the only one who can get the base excited." I'm not entirely convinced of Obama's Nixon-esque sabotage capabilities, but I do think Palin has felt under attack for the last eight months and it wasn't a hard leap for anyone in her orbit to connect local progressive wingnuts and the Administration. Palin has never been great at playing defense.

Now, that is the Sham-Wow of hacktastic newsmagazine "journalism." Extol your own story and then proceed to accept, more or less at face value, the paranoid rantings of a press flak, claiming, Victoria Jackson-like, that Rahm Emmanuel is the anti-Christ. Well done, Ms. Newton-Small!

And think about the charge Newton-Small makes: "They believe that with Palin gone, the state will no longer face this barrage of 'frivolous' compliants. On that point, they are probably right -- there will be much less interest in filing complaints against Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell." Thisis not in the context of the Alaskan state legislature. It's about Rahm Emmanuel. She is charging the Obama administration with laying out ethics probes to hurt what she seems to perceive as a political rival. Did the Bush administration's criminality so soil the reputation of the Justice Dept. that this is not only believed, but accepted as par for the course? Or is Jay Newton-Small a fucking idiot? I report. You decide.

It's funny, this morning I clicked on a link to a story claiming Levi Johnson "knows" why Sarah Palin quit (Was someone in Palin's family one of his mom's customers?, I wondered). Only to learn that, according to him, she did it to "cash in." Whoa, I thought. Who'd a thunk it? But then I read the bizarro-world post from Jay Newton-Small and I realized that only those who know the Tundra-billies up close and personal can catch the grift.

How dare you say that to...the Vice President

I find it amusing that reporters and pundits can laugh and laugh at Joe Biden's "gaffes" yet gasp at the very notion of being "disrespectful" of the former Vice-President (and future war crimes defendant at The Hague).

How bizarre that Cheney can accuse of Obama of the most heinous acts (and, in my view, Cheney is perfectly within his rights as a citizen to do so), and the glorified gossip columnists who play the role of journalists on TV (what Walsh calls "prissy hall monitors") can hardly contain their anger over Gibbs' far more mild response.

More to the point: imagine what things might be like if TV journalists had shown just a fraction of the interest in, and outrage over, Dick Cheney's torture and chronic lawbreaking as they have for these petty offenses to his honor and good name.

Oh, and here's Cheney on Biden back in December.

WASHINGTON — Vice President Dick Cheney offered an unabashed defense of the Bush administration's claims of broad executive powers Sunday, mocking criticism from Vice President-elect Joe Biden and saying the president "doesn't have to check with anybody" before launching a nuclear attack.

In an interview with Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday," Cheney fired back at Biden's contention that Cheney was probably "the most dangerous vice president" in U.S. history. He also ridiculed Biden for mistakenly citing Article I of the U.S. Constitution, rather than Article II, in talking about executive branch powers during an October debate.

"If he wants to diminish the office of the vice president, that's obviously his call," Cheney said of Biden.

Mike Lupica is a jerk, vol. 12

I don't know much about the news writin' business, but this seems rather, um, unprofessional and shitty.

Insiders said [Lisa] Olson was originally assigned to do a story on the Giants place kicker Lawrence Tynes, who went from goat after missing two late game field goals to hero when he made the final one to win the game in overtime.

At the last minute, Olson was told to drop her Tynes line, apparently because Lupica, dashing for a private plane to fly him and his kids back East, said he was doing a similar story about the Scottish-born kicker.

The last-minute switch meant Olson also had to file a new story, which arrived late. Lupica, meanwhile, wrote about Tynes in his story, but never quoted him. When the Snooze doled out its Super Bowl press credentials to 21 people last week, Olson was not among those chosen, despite having covered football all season long, traveling with either the Giants or Jets.

Lupica, by comparison, didn't begin showing up at Giants games until the playoffs, according to sport department sources.

Neither Lupica nor Sports Editor Leon Carter returned a call seeking comment. Olson could not be reached for comment.

Leon Carter just lost a lot of credibility in New York.

Casual suggestions

Another telling glimpse of life on the campaign bus.

Tiger Beat Times

Hey, Gail, if this shit bores you so goddamned much, go cover Brittany.

Meanwhile, Bob Somerby is howling.

It’s hard to know less than Chris typically does. Presumably, that’s why Jack Welch came to love him.

Prostrate

It's nice to see the Times doing a little fact checking on Giuliani's prostate cancer/U.S. has the bestest healthcare in the world claims, but "disputed" is not a synonym for "bullshit."

Gym rats

Yep, truly bizarre. The idea that GM's "lavish health benefits" did not give its workers incentive to stay healthy is stupid enough. But if the reporter truly believes that by making its workers exercise, Toyota doesn't need to provide health benefits to their workers' families, that reporter shouldn't be allowed to sharpen pencils at the Times, let alone do any reporting.

A cure for cancer

Incentives!

The decision by Mr. Giuliani to address health care so early in the campaign season is a recognition of the resonance the issue has among voters.

Using explicitly partisan language, perhaps intended to stir memories of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s failed bid to reform health care as first lady more than a decade ago, Mr. Giuliani cited horror stories and selective statistics about health care in foreign countries that provide universal coverage. Mr. Giuliani said that a “socialist” model would bankrupt the government.

“That is where Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards are taking you,” he said. “You have got to see the trap. Otherwise we are in for a disaster. We are in for Canadian health care, French health care, British health care.”

But Mr. Giuliani’s speech offered very little in the way of specifics. He said his goal was to outline his “vision,” with more details to come in the fall.

In proposing a tax exemption of up to $15,000 for a family and $7,500 for individuals, Mr. Giuliani said that money could be used by consumers to buy an insurance policy of their liking. The money left over, he said, could be put into a “health savings account” to be used to pay for deductibles or other uncovered medical expenses.

Mr. Giuliani said the resulting flood of competition among insurers for customers would lead them to reduce the costs of their policies, estimating that only 20 million to 30 million of the 120 million who currently get their insurance through an employer would need to sign up for individual insurance plans for that to happen.

“You have to start bringing the price down before you can figure out how many people can you include,” he said at a news conference after the speech. “It can’t be done with a magic wand all at once.”

Mr. Giuliani said that it could take as long as four years for any of the proposals suggested by the Democrats to become reality and that his plan would begin to have an impact more rapidly.

Mr. Giuliani, who is not seeking any changes in the current Medicaid program for the poor, did not promise that all the uninsured would be covered under his proposal.

He was also not specific about a federal government role in helping the poor or lower middle class buy their own insurance, saying he envisioned some combination of vouchers and tax refunds.

The ideas he outlined, steeped in a bedrock conservative faith in the ability of the free, unfettered market to solve problems, are similar to those advocated by President Bush.

The president’s proposals have failed to gain traction and Mr. Giuliani did not try to address the central criticisms of moving away from an employer-based system.

For instance, he offered no assurances that insurance companies would not “cherry pick” by insuring only healthier people, or by charging much higher rates to more vulnerable people — like those with chronic diseases.

Instead, he said, moving to a market system would create incentives for people to remain healthy.

Currently, he said, “there is no incentive to wellness.”

This from a guy who had colon cancer, was given the best treatment available, and nursed back to health by Super Chick. I know the conservative ideology of unfailing devotion to the "free market (when it suits their clients' purposes)" but I did not know that ideology could trump genetic and environmental effects on people's health, not to mention economic factors. Learn something new each and every day.

And if you're thinking, "Heck, I saw Sicko and the French system looks pretty good," remember, the French don't speak English.

And Michael Moore is fat.

UPDATE: Of course, the indispensable Mr. Somerby unpacks teh stupid in Santora's article.

Insider trading

There's lots to excerpt from the excellent 1999 James Fallows essay (it's dated 2002, but was originally published in 1999, when the impeachment craziness was still in full flower) that Matt and Ezra have been playing volleyball with today, but this passage is particularly on point.

Internally driven stories. Institutions fall apart when they start doing what's convenient for internal reasons, rather than addressing the outside world--the customer who has to be wooed, the enemy who needs to be fought, the mystery that has to be solved.

Monica was an "internal" story from the start. It was interesting to people in Washington because it was about people in Washington. The sense of zip in the whole city picked up--as you drove through town, you saw crowds of cameramen outside the grand jury site; pundits, lawyers, and politicians scooted from studio to studio to give their latest views. Meanwhile, in sharp contrast to the O. J. and Diana stories, Monica was not doing much for newsstand sales or viewership. When the Starr Report was finally released, cigar and all, it sold strongly; and niche cable outlets could attract larger-than-normal audiences by concentrating on Monica news. But most weeks the story did not do well for newsmagazines or network news--and yet the media kept dishing it out.

Journalists are not, of course, just shopkeepers meeting market demand. The highest achievement of the trade is to make people care about and understand events or subjects they had not previously been interested in. This requires journalists to be internally guided to a large degree--but not just by parochial, insider obsessions. Sally Quinn's notorious "This Town" article, published in the Washington Post the day before the 1998 election, attracted immediate attention because it was smoking-gun proof of how parochial the obsessions could be. ^[4]People who had spent their careers in Washington--and referred to it as "this town," as Quinn pointed out--were mad at Clinton for (as they imagined it) making their culture look bad, and they took it out on him with their reports. An internal compass is one thing; a Marie Antoinette–like assumption that the masses are wrong is something else.

As Fallows points out, when anything Lewinsky related showed up on the newsstands, circulation declined. People outside of the immediate pool of pols and the Washington press corps were not only driven mad with the frenzy of the story, they were driven mad by the general public's refusal to care about the president's indiscretions. "Where's the outrage?!" was the mantra, you may recall.

We're seeing the same thing on a smaller bore with the primaries campaign. We are months from the first votes being cast, so you would think that the "journalists" covering the campaign or the pundits paid to discuss "policy" would have more to write about than Hillary's "revealing" outfits or whether Obama's answer "sounded presidential." Perhaps some context on the issues around Obama's answer might be something worth covering. And what was Ms. Clinton talking about when she was wantonly showing so much...breastiness? Who knows? Who cares? For the press covering the election, it's not about what separates the candidates substantively; it's about how the candidates differ in style. Not what they say, it's how they say it. In other words, which candidate best matches the portrait of the Washington press corp of what a president should look like. In other, other words, which candidate is going to fit in the best in "this town."

Truth is, they aren't really interested in what the candidates are saying because, as Washington insiders, they know it's all a show put on to impress the rubes and the hoopleheads who aren't savvy enough to know that this is all just an enjoyable day at the races.

"Gov't sources assure us..."

Tom Tomorrow graphically explains how the world works.