Daily Quarrel-Whose House? Edition

President Barack Obama wants us all to know it’s his house. The White House. Did you watch the press conference? I did. Obama smacked down a couple of reporters during the presser and I applaud him. Some of the press is, predictably, a bit perterbed. Personally, I do NOT care if the dude smokes cigarettes. It doesn’t affect his judgment and it’s legal. How boring. But, I’m getting off track.

Here’s the video:

Here’s some of what was swirling after the press conference…

There was a bit of a kerfuffle because Obama called on Nico Pitney. If you’re interested in petty new media v. ole media beefs and tiffs, go ahead and bone up here.

Over at Mother Jones, Kevin Drum disagreed with a piece Walter Shapiro wrote for Politics Daily in a piece called Obama and the Press. Shapiro thinks that Obama got testy with a reporter when pressed on specifics about repercussions for Iran because he knew that he was wrong. Drum doesn’t think so. Drum thinks that Obama’s just more willing to call reporters out for being poorly briefed or writing what he considers to be frivolous questions, like the ones about his smoking habit.

“On camera, the rules are supposed to be same: the president is expected to pretend that every reporter is serious and well-briefed and every question is smart and penetrating.  But Obama doesn’t always like to play by those rules.  He’s occasionally willing to pull back the curtain on the media’s inanity and to call a dumb question a dumb question.  Unsurprisingly, reporters don’t like this much.” link

David Kurtz at Talking Points Memo wrote that Obama had a pretty major ‘tude. Michael Crowley at the New Republic agrees.

If you’re looking for a run-down of Obama’s wildly ballyhooed “tone change” toward Iran, look no further than this piece at The Swamp.

Stephen F. Hayes of the Weekly Standard thinks that Obama’s statement was good, but that his responses to the reporters on Iran were not good. He thinks that Obama is missing an opportunity to positively shape the situation over there.

Michelle Cottle at the New Republic agrees with me and does not think trying to catch the president smoking a square is a good use of resources. The Swamp apparently does not share our sensibilities on the topic. Making the distinction between being an occasional smoker and a constant smoker was headline worthy to somebody. Ugh.

Mike Madden of Salon thinks that Obama was testy too, but he mostly agrees with Obama’s stance on Iran. He also cannot resist a final jab at the president for sneaking an occasional drag or seven of a cigarette.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Daily Quarrel

Friday Rock Out!

If you follow me on Twitter, I’m sure you know I’m beyond excited about seeing Black Joe Lewis and the Honeybears play tonight at the 9:30 Club. So, here’s a couple of his videos to jam out to. I believe that the second video, “I’m Broke”, has one or two NSFW turns of phrase in it, FYI.

Have a good rock out! See y’all again on Monday.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Friday Rock Out

Is The Daily Show better at covering the news than “real” journalists?

A friend of mine, Rickey, asked me a while ago what I thought about The Daily Show in terms of its relationship to journalism. He asked me on twitter though, and I laughed and told him that I could write him an essay about it, but I couldn’t express myself effectively in 140 characters.

What is journalism? Nobody seems to agree on this. I could sit here all day and try to pin it down, but I am reminded of Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart’s famous quote when he attempted to define obscenity and pornography. He said, “I know it when I see it.” So, I prefer to think about what makes GOOD journalism.

Good journalism informs clearly and pays a great deal of attention to citing multiple sources. It also gives perspective and tells news consumers why they should care. Good journalists add value to the facts through visual tools and make sure their stories are current. Good journalism is based on facts whether there’s opinion in it or not. Good journalism is compelling and inspires people to care about things that are important to them whether it’s a sexy topic or not. Good journalists represent the facts truthfully and completely by avoiding cherry picking facts to support whatever angle it is they’re trying to portray.

So, is The Daily Show good journalism? Is Jon Stewart a good journalist? Overall, the answer is no. This doesn’t mean that they don’t cover many of the bases much of the time, but The Daily Show regularly forgoes the requirements of good journalism in the interest of comedy and entertainment. That’s their prerogative and I thoroughly enjoy the results.

But, why do I say that The Daily Show forgoes the requirements of good journalism? The Daily Show often shows clips without context. Often when I watch the show I find myself saying, “But that’s not the whole story!”

Also, while Jon Stewart is a well informed, intelligent man, he often goes easy on interview subjects. One of the most egregious examples I can think of off the top of my head is his interview with Bolivian President Evo Morales.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart M – Th 11p / 10c
President Evo Morales
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Economic Crisis Political Humor

If the embed doesn’t work for you, here’s a link.

It’s an entertaining interview to watch, but it’s a love fest that completely ignores the many criticisms of Morales. Bolivia was experiencing upheaval in several regions before the interview and Morales was getting more and more snippy with the United States. Did Jon Stewart ask anything about any of that? Not a chance. It was an exercise in “What a swell guy!” It was almost as bad as MoDo‘s been lately.

He’s not always so soft. His interviews sometimes take on a downright skull cracking tone. His interview with Jim Cramer comes to mind.

Good journalists don’t take it easy on anybody. Truly, that’s cheating your subjects out of a chance to address negative things that are out there about them and it definitely cheats your audience out of the opportunity to educate themselves. But, again, The Daily Show is about entertainment. I don’t begrudge them the editorial control to nail or go easy on whoever they want to. But, if we’re calling them journalists, they’re bad ones.

Leave a Comment

Filed under journalism

The Daily Quarrel-Twitter Edition

Twitter’s been getting a ton of kudos because of the way the service has been used to talk about the election and protests in Iran. However, every time somebody gets appreciators, the haters are soon to follow. I tend to have an issue with the way that people talk about twitter in general because people say things like, “Twitter’s doing a better job at xyz than the mainstream media.” Twitter does nothing except provide a forum. Its users are the ones that do stuff.

Regardless, all the tweaple out there have done a lot to get the word out about the situation in Iran. They also took a heaping helping of potshots at CNN in the process. My question is, why just CNN? I didn’t get the impression that the rest of the networks were out there doing God’s work either, so why’s CNN the whipping boy?

Whatever, here’s the beef.

The Washington Post did a good job summarizing the impact of Twitter on the election controversy over in Iran. The LA Times did a good job too. Their article had some good anecdotes.

Marshall Kirkpatrick at ReadWriteWeb asked CNN to please check Twitter to see what the heck is going on over Iran. Another example of the CNN bash-a-thon was the hashtag #CNNFail. As things went from yikes to ZOMG in the streets on Tehran, CNN was debating the relevance of Twitter. Oy. How embarassing.

Here’s CNN’s response via Mashable.

Now for some of the naysayers. Michael Crowley wrote an entry for The New Republic blog, The Plank, that expressed his discomfort with the fact that there’s no way to confirm first-hand accounts on twitter. He says he’s found several of the most touted tweets to be suspect. He wrote another one too, actually, that said that he is frustrated with people confusing Twitter’s use as an organizing tool for the people of Iran with its usefulness as a reliable news source. I, like Crowley, don’t want to be a wet blanket, but I happen to agree with the guy. Crowley cites this article by Kevin Drum over at Mother Jones. I think it’s definitely worth a read.

Jason Zengerle also thought people were probably speaking too soon. He wrote an entry for The Plank that reminded us of a previous “twitter revolution” in Moldova.

Joshua Kucera wrote a piece for True/Slant that asked whether we could all be being led astray by Twitter.

Lastly, here’s a Q and A with Clay Shirky over at TED Blog. This is a MUST read.

So, between the cheerleaders and the wet blankets is probably the truth. There is no doubt that Twitter has been vital in this series of events. I think what we will continue to debate is exactly how this tool was most effectively and importantly used.

I’ll leave you with a video from last night’s episode of The Daily Show that lampoons CNN’s graphics that notify the viewer that what they’re seeing is unverified. I can’t seem to get it to embed, but here’s a link.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Daily Quarrel

Needes in my Eyes-Song of the Day

Sometimes as I’m walking down the street listening to my iPod I track forward over and over and over again looking for a song that feels right. I’m finicky about music. Anyone who’s ridden in the car with me while I’m driving will tell you two things. One, I’m not a very good driver. Two, I have a tendency to not listen to entire songs.

But today I was on the yellow line on my way to krav maga and a song came on that fit. It fit the weather, my mood, the pace of the train…it was perfect. I listened to it 2 times in a row before I got to class. Then, on my way home I had to listen to it again. It was Needles in my Eyes by the Beta Band. It’s a great song and I thought I’d share it with y’all.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Song of the Day

Daily Quarrel-Health Care Edition

The health care debate is starting to heat up on the hill these days. Just yesterday I saw Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) railing against the idea of nationalized health care on C-SPAN. Well, the media is loathe to be left out of any debate, so here’s some of what I’ve seen floating around that series of tubes we call the internet.

Here’s a good intro to the subject from USA Today. The bulleted list at the end is a good way to quickly familiarize yourself with the ideas being thrown around. If you’re more into the nitty gritty, this analysis from the Congressional Budget Office might be more your style.

The Editors at The New Republic think that we could probably reform health care this country without nationalizing, but they don’t recommend it.

An article at Politico says that Senator Ted Kennedy‘s (D-MA) health care plan would cost $1 trillion and leave an estimated 37 million people without health coverage.

Meanwhile, over at the Weekly Standard’s blog…Matthew Continetti discussed the cost of torts on doctors in the United States and the effects of malpractice lawsuits on the cost of health care. CQ delved a bit deeper into the issue of medical malpractice with this article that looks at the difficulties any bill that does not address malpractice will face from the American Medical Association.

The New York Times posted an article that stated that the AMA opposes government sponsored insurance, but the AMA released a statement that claimed that the NYT article was misleading. From the statement:

“The AMA opposes any public plan that forces physicians to participate, expands the fiscally-challenged Medicare program or pays Medicare rates, but the AMA is willing to consider other variations of a public plan that are currently under discussion in Congress.”

Lawrence A. Hunter at the National Review says that Obama’s Healthcare is HillaryCare all over again. Meanwhile, the Editors at the National Review see this whole debate as an opportunity for Republicans to watch the Democrats splinter.

David Brooks wrote his weekly New York Times column about health care today. He imagined how health care reform could come to fruition.

Finally, the League of Ordinary Gentlemen have a five part series on health care reform that’s worth a read.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Daily Quarrel

Daily Quarrel-Iranian Election Edition

The interwebs are all a-Twitter about the Iranian election this past weekend. Ahmadinejad won, but there have been accusations of fraud and protesting in the streets of Tehran since the election. The people of Iran are calling BS on Ahmadinejad’s victory.
There seems to be a widespread belief that television news has completely dropped the ball on this issue. I don’t watch a lot of news on television, but I did see coverage of the Iranian election on Saturday afternoon on cable news while brunching at a restaurant. I also watched Meet the Press yesterday and Joe Biden was on the show to discuss the Iranian election. I’m not sure what previous coverage of world news made everyone think that cable news networks would cover this, but people are entitled to be angry. If you think that the television networks screwed the pooch, I suggest you stop watching. Hit them where it counts. Gut their ratings.

But, without any further ado, here’s some of the conversation that has been raging on the internet since the election.

Freddie over at The League of Ordinary Gentlemen doesn’t think that the civil unrest in Iran will lead to any lasting change.

Over at Gawker, John Cook used a screenshot of the New York Times’ homepage to show that executive editor Bill Keller is out of touch with the state of things in Tehran. Keller co-wrote a story about Ahmadinejad’s uniting of power that appeared directly under a picture of civil unrest in the streets. Gawker also broke down the #CNNFAIL phenomenon for those who missed it.

Andrew Sullivan and TehranBureau claim to have been victims of Denial of Service attacks.

Award winning blogger, Michael Totten has done an excellent job covering the situation in Tehran. I can’t even begin to summarize his thoughts, but I suggest that if you click only one link to get a sense of the situation, click this one. Nico Pitney at HuffPo also did a great job. He liveblogged all yesterday and continues to update. What both Totten and Pitney did well was continue to update with reports from folks in Iran and reactions from all over the world.

The social media wizards over at Mashable came up with a guide to following the fallout with social media.

According to Andrew Sullivan, the reports of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s intentions to investigate the election are did not mean exactly what we thought they might.

Marty Peretz of the New Republic is not convinced that Ahmadinejad’s victory was rigged at all.

Jason Zengerle of The New Republic thinks that Robert Gibbs‘ response to questions about the protests make the opposition sound like upset soccer fans.

John Holbo wonders, assuming the election was rigged, why it was rigged so poorly? E.D. Kain at The League of Ordinary Gentlemen thinks that Iran’s status quo might have been thumbing its nose at us.

At the Weekly Standard, John McCormack is advising Obama to stand up for liberty if he still wants to be the Ronald Reagan of the left.

Ken Ballen and Patrick Doherty wrote a piece for the Washington Post that asserts that the numbers over in Iran could totally be accurate based on polling numbers recorded last month.

Here’s an anonymous report from Iran at Salon.

The Wall Street Journal thinks Obama should stand with the protestors.

William Kristol told conservatives that the responsibility of a loyal opposition was to put forth ideas on how to handle the situation instead of preemptively trumpeting failure of the Obama administration.

An editorial at the National Review Online, said that Barack Obama “…has given the impression that he wants the dictatorship to stabilize itself so he can get back to the work of appeasing it.”

Finally, here’s a link to a flickr set that has some compelling photos of the demonstrations in Iran.

As usual, this is but a jumping off point. Feel free to post any other interesting links in the comments.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Daily Quarrel

It’s FRIDAY! ROCK YOUR FACE OFF!!!

Have a good weekend!

Leave a Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Daily Quarrel-WTF Edition

Apparently it is important for us to nail down whether the guy who shot and killed a security guard at the Holocaust Museum is a right-wing nutjob or a left-wing nutjob. I just want to make it ABSOLUTELY clear that THIS is the BS that causes the vast majority of the population to tune out the news and political discourse. It’s no wonder that almost every time somebody talks trash about the status quo here in Washington and how they’re gonna lay down the law they win big.

Here is a perfect example of how the blogosphere can get it horribly, egregiously wrong.

Ben Smith at Politico reported that the address of the Weekly Standard’s office was found on said nutjob. Smith believes that this totally thwarts the leftys’ contentions that the nutjob was a righty.

Jonathan Chait at The New Republic said NUH UH! He’s just an uber righty.

James Kirchick at The New Republic was still pretty sure he was a righty, but also said that leftys aren’t completely incapable of being anti-Semitic nutjobs and it’s all 9/11 and Ron Paul’s fault.

Then, Ben Smith responded to Chait and Kirchick. He stuck to his guns, but said he probably didn’t express himself well enough.

Chait, for his part, dug his heels in and managed to acknowledge some of Kirchick’s argument while sticking to his point that the nutjob was clearly a righty.

Today is just one of those days when I feel like a certain wart covered lady…

Leave a Comment

Filed under Daily Quarrel

Daily Quarrel-Ink By the Barrel Edition

“Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel.”

It’s an old newspaper adage that journalists love to throw around. Well, today’s DQ is the epitome of what that adage is about. It’s newspaper company versus newspaper people and it’s gotten quite ugly. Welcome to the end of the journalistic world as we know it, and for the record, I feel just fine.

So, the New York Times Company has threatened to shut down the Boston Globe before and, therefore, it wasn’t a huge shock when they said that they hadn’t ruled out shutting it down. But, now it looks like they’re just going to try to sell it. The largest union at the Globe had a chance to take a much smaller pay cut in order to prevent “Newspaperpocalypse: Boston”, but they decided against it and are faced with a mandatory pay cut that dwarfs the previous one they rejected. I’m sure they feel a bit silly now, but what are ya gonna do? At least this is choice fodder for one of every journalist’s favorite activities: talking about how much better stuff was back in the day.

On April 2 of this year the NYTCo. theatened to shut down the Globe, giving them 30 days to agree to $20 million in concessions or else. This happened just days after the Globe cut the equivalent of 50 full-time positions from the newsroom.

In late April the Times Co. decided they didn’t want to negotiate in public.

At the beginning of May the unions asked for and received an extension. Then, the NYTCo. eased up a bit after several unions agreed to pay cuts.

P. Steven Ainsley, The Globe’s publisher, said that he thought there could be a future for the paper, but that it would most likely involve more belt tightening.

So, the largest union at The Globe set a vote for June 8 to vote on the newest package of concessions floated by NYTCo.

Tom Friedman really cheesed some folks at the Globe off for bragging about his privileged existence at the Grey Lady in an article that appeared in the New Yorker. The offending passages reads:

Thomas Friedman, the Times’ chief foreign affairs columnist, lauded the efforts that Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., has made to keep the newsroom intact, saying, “I just have a great deal of admiration for him.” He told me that since taking his current post, in 1995, he has never been asked by Sulzberger what he was planning to write, or how high his travel expenses would be. “To be able to say what I want to say and go where I want to go—other than a Sulzberger-owned newspaper, you tell me where that exists today.” link

The Globe’s Brian Mooney fired back with a letter that included this choice couple of phrases: “The New York Times Co. wants you to slit your own throats and take money out of your pockets so Tom Friedman (and others in New York) can travel in style and at great expense — and then brag about it. The Times (not the Globe) lost $74.5 million last quarter and will lose a bundle in this quarter. Stand up and tell the Times the contract they’re trying to shove down your throats is an outrage. Vote No on June 8.” link

On the day of the vote, the union rejected an offer from The New York Times Company that would have resulted in a 8 percent cut in pay along with several other concessions in benefits and such. Some probably rejected the offer thinking that the NYTCo’s threat to impose a 23 percent wage cut if the offer was rejected was an empty one. Well, they were wrong. At least the cut means that NYTCo’s not threatening to shut them down anymore, right? Right guys?

Yesterday the largest union at the Globe filed a complaint with federal regulators, arguing that the New York Times’ decision to unilaterally impose a 23 percent pay cut on the union was a violation because the union claims that they have not reached an impasse in negotiations. New York Times Co. chairman Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. said that he had no choice.

So, what do you think? Should they have swallowed the initial package? Also, what do you think of the New York Times and the Boston Globe covering their own spat and potential demise? Is it ethical?

***Update***

That’s what I get for trying to post early today.

Some folks at the Boston Globe got together to write Sulzberger a letter. In it they call him a mensch and go on and on about how they knew he wants to do “the right thing” and that he can’t possibly want to cut their pay by that much. Somebody’s mother is just kvelling over how well her lessons in guilt are working out.

Jack Welch tweeted that the New York Times Company is acting like a big ole’ hypocrite. “So ironic to see NYT act so brutish toward labor. Certainly would be crucifying any Company with labor practices like theirs.” He then clarified his statement, saying, “My New York Times labor tweet a few min ago refers to their BRUTISH dark age labor relations with their Boston Globe employees”

Oh, and a cartoonist at the Globe posted a cartoon that has 23 percent missing.

1 Comment

Filed under Daily Quarrel, journalism