David Postman certainly didn't have to share this tale of newsroom etiquette gone awry...a breach of one of the cardinal no-no's of journalism. But he did, to his credit.
Contrast that to Dan Savage's screed on the topic. Which, upon further reflection, makes me think the reaction in the Stranger's newsroom might have been something close to that which rhymes with "turkel smirk." Now that would be a Savage Love for the ages.
Posted by Eric Earling at August 14, 2007 10:13 PM | Email This
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/government/story/125557.html
The link is to an article titled - 20 Pierce bridges ranked low
Let's talk about #9 on the list in the attached
graphic (open the link and it is legible there) N
Proctor - Puget gulch ... This particular bridge just
underwent (completed earlier this year) a multi-year
and ~$3.5 million dollar renovation. Although the News
Buffoon seems to have "overlooked" commenting on this
in the article. I would be interested in hearing
exactly what is going on here when a bridge which was
just renovated is still on the list of the low ranked?
*******************************************
I have been one of the most outspoken people in "America's #1 Weird City" on the topic of City Government not being held to account. If there is any doubt that the News Buffoon is simply a "house organ" that plays whatever tune the City wants played, this should help to put that to rest.
Hatred can be a powerful motivator. The leftists, now fully kicked to the curb by those they so rabidly supported, remain in a pout over the fact that Rove kicked their butts. Thus, for them, Rove is the Anti-Christ, which results in utterly nonsensical and childish nonsense like that exhibit by Particle Man (Who was first to post on this item on Postman's blog and who actually compared Rove's departure as being on the same level as the ending of World War 2) and those few clowns in the Times newsroom.
The problem here is that while those few couldn't contain themselves, there is little doubt that many of the remainder were doing internal cart-wheels. And the resulting email from Boardman and subsequent mention here (On Postman's blog) was nothing more than eyewash for the masses, used by David and the Times to attempt to buttress their respective, yet non-existent, "bias cred."
For David to even bother to mention this episode really makes no more sense then his frequent and bizarre obsession with the NPI Blog. While the Times isn't quite the Pravda (AKA, the PI) of Puget Sound, both David and the Time's leftist bent is rather well known.
And frankly, the mention of this email in his blog does nothing to change that.
Posted by: Hinton on August 15, 2007 08:39 AMGee, if there is no bias in the media, why on Earth would anyone have to remind reporters to keep their personal politics to themselves? Oh, and why would the fact that we're heading into a major political year make any difference? Is keeping personal politics out of reporting less important any other time?
It would have been more interesting to hear of the reaction in the room if there wasn't a guest there. I can imagine a round of "high fives" and congratulatory praises all around for ushering another Bush administration official out of office.
I have to wonder too, whether Postman reported this thinking that the exchange between Boardman and his reporters would win some sort of praise since Boardman seems to be sincerely urging his people to keep their personal views to themselves? What is does for me, though, is simply highlight the fact that the Times newsroom is exactly what its critics argue; a cabal of liberal reporters and editors who have a considerable personal stake in bringing down this administration.
Posted by: MJC on August 15, 2007 09:05 AMInvestigators have also found that someone using a computer at The New York Times edited the entry for President Bush by adding the word "Jerk."
This observation is not mine, but I agree with it - "If some conservative did this to the entry for a liberal icon on Wikipedia .. for instance, if someone were to alter Ted Kennedy's entry to describe that moment where he was wandering up and down a dirt road worrying about his political career while Mary Jo Kopechne suffocated in the back seat of his car, it would be surely labeled "hate speech" by the left."
Regardless, the undertone is that the real admonition was "keep your personal politic opinions to yourselves and into the news pages where it belongs".
Can you please drop the references to sex practices? It is below the tradition of quality journalism the SP represents. It lowers you to the level of the equine anal blog.
Posted by: pbj on August 15, 2007 09:38 AMHad this been a priest this is how it would have read:
TACOMA, Wash. -- A former elementary school teacher, and member of the leftwing group NEA has been charged with kidnapping a 10-year-old student and is suspected of raping him multiple times.
Jennifer Rice, 37, was arrested Saturday and booked into the Pierce County Jail for investigation of kidnapping, five counts of first-degree child rape, and four counts of child molestation. ...
Kudos to Postman for helping to illustrate what we already knew.
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 15, 2007 12:23 PMDripping with contempt and accusing Rove of everything from Genocide to torturing baby kittens, most of them used this departure as "further proof" the wheels were coming off at the white house.
Maybe the MSM doesn't hire people old enough to remember any other Presidents "lame duck" term in office, but it's not at all uncommon for major players to drop off in the last 18 to 24 months in office. Most people over 30 probably remember it happening to Clinton and those older than that remember Reagans appointees leaving.
Okay, so maybe the writers aren't that old or don't have very long memories, anyone with an IQ of over 30 should probably be able to make the mental leap that political appointees don't stick around for the end - they jump when they time is right and that can mean a good offer elsewhere. (Rove leaves whitehouse just as the next election cycle is heating up? No, there couldn't be any connection right?)
I'm sure all of these overpaid hacks think they were being clever and really "driving the final nail in the coffin of Satan." I wonder if they realize how much the sounded like small children saying "We don't like him because he beat our team." It was really pretty pathetic.
Those that really know Rove understand the guy was a brilliant direct marketer. He understood that all politics was local and built the kind of grass roots organization for the GOP that the dems have built with Union assistance. It's not about ideology, it's about outbound telemarketing and direct response media.
He also had a knack for taking a "headcount" view of congress and could identify where the easy and tough votes were. It wasn't so much about changing minds as reading them. The guy has a great future in direct mail, catalog marketing, or late night infomercials if he wants one.
That so many people want to paint Rove as so evil and powerful is laughable to anyone that actually understood his function in the elections and management of the whitehouse. The man was a very good accountant and administrator that took the time to know the score on big issues - but he wasn't an "architect" of policy nor was he "Bush's Brain" as so many on the left would have you believe.
I think we'll see Rove in this election cycle behind the scenes. He never wanted to be a public persona anyway, and the kind of work he's best at can be done via telecommute. Frankly, by being able to concentrate on the spreadsheets and data he'll probably be a lot more useful than he was behind a desk at the White House.
Anyone that thinks he's "over" doesn't understand squat. Talent like that doesn't go away and the gigs only become more lucrative going forward.
Posted by: johnny on August 15, 2007 12:55 PMWhat makes Rove's departure different is that the Bush Whie House has been under scrutiny for all of it's second term largely because of stuff that Rove spun for it.
I agree though, that there's no way to look at him other than an amazing spring of raw talent in his area. It's just a pity that people like him don't "use their powers for good instead of evil."
More to the point of this particular post, I think that it's laughable that anyone really expects the media to be unbiased. Lean left and listen to NPR, hate Limbaugh, and read Daily Kos. Lean right and pray at the altars of the Drudge Report and O'Reilly.
In all, why's this a surprise? We're old enough to pick our news sources so that we get the stories we want to hear in language we like.
Posted by: scott on August 15, 2007 04:10 PMWhat makes Rove's departure different is that the Bush Whie House has been under scrutiny for all of it's second term largely because of stuff that Rove spun for it.
I agree though, that there's no way to look at him other than an amazing spring of raw talent in his area. It's just a pity that people like him don't "use their powers for good instead of evil."
More to the point of this particular post, I think that it's laughable that anyone really expects the media to be unbiased. Lean left and listen to NPR, hate Limbaugh, and read Daily Kos. Lean right and pray at the altars of the Drudge Report and O'Reilly.
In all, why's this a surprise? We're old enough to pick our news sources so that we get the stories we want to hear in language we like.
Posted by: scott on August 15, 2007 04:10 PMYou see Scott, it's exactly that kind of thing that makes me wonder about the hollow cry of "politics of personal destruction." You say Rove worked for evil. What exactly did he do?
He helped a President get elected and re-elected by fundraising and management of resources. People can whine all they want about supposed dirty tricks which are not so easily documented and which can only be very tenuously linked to Rove if at all, but given examples raised, I have to laugh. I grew up in Chicago and did some time in developing countries in South America. Nothing Rove has been accused of could compare to some of the things unions and the party machines have been doing in Chicago for a century, and if you want to see evil, look up "death squad" and see a real definition of dirty politics.
Was the Iraq War Rove's fault? I don't remember him giving speeches for it. I seem to remember Edwards, Kerry and Ms. Clinton all giving speeches supporting it, but don't remember Rove doing it. Does this make Clinton, Kerry and Edwards all evil?
(And God, please don't give me any of that crap about how they were "tricked" or "mislead." We are talking about senators who sat in on intelligence subcommittees and even former wives of Presidents, Presidential Candidates and U.S. Senators that all had access to volumes of secret intelligence.)
Did Rove really expose Plame? Well, the official report says that Richard Armitage pointed out to the press that Plame worked for the CIA and he wasn't arrested for it because Plame wasn't covert. (Liberal talking points aside, the facts really do speak for themselves.)
Even if you believe Rove did do it (and I'm guessing a number of liberals reading this would never believe otherwise) then you have to ask, isn't the fact that Plame worked for the CIA and was instrumental in sending her husband a pertinent fact in the national debate?
Was it the drug care for seniors that made Rove evil? He did a lot of work on that one. Some other piece of legislation? Where was his evil?
The left-wing attack machine has you believing the guy is evil, but I think that if you were intellecutally honest, you'd find it very hard to come up with specific instance that he did anything other than support a President that was re-elected by a solid majority after his first term.