The Waterbury Republican-American evidently does not believe in God and Senator Dodd. Well, maybe the former, but certainly not the latter. :) In an editorial Monday, the Rep-Am’s editorial board calls Dodd "Tammany Hall’s senior senator" and scolds the national media — as well as, in a subsequent editorial, the Hartford Courant — for failing to more vigorously cover "the sweetheart mortgages he got from Countrywide Financial CEO Angelo Nozilo." (Countrywide is described as "the Enron of subprime mortgages.") "This scandal has legs," the editors assert.
I haven’t followed this at all, so I have no idea whether it’s a big deal; I just saw the link on InstaPundit, and since it involves Connecticut’s, er, other senator, I figured it deserved a post.
Meanwhile, in other Connecticut news — and speaking of the Courant — the Nutmeg State’s paper of record is eliminating 60 newsroom staffers and reducing the number of news pages in the paper per week from 273 to 206. Here’s the memo to staff. (Hat tip: my dad.)
It’s times like these I’m really happy I went into law instead of journalism.
“So Drudge is starting his thing, that he does every summer, where he’s like, ‘It’s HOT! Global warming is REAL!’ And then in the winter, he says, ‘It’s COLD! Global warming is NOT real!” –Becky
To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as Ã¢â‚¬Å“military analystsÃ¢â‚¬Â whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world.
Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administrationÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found. …
[C]ollectively, the…several dozen…military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administrationÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s war on terror. It is a furious competition, one in which inside information and easy access to senior officials are highly prized.
Records and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse Ã¢â‚¬â€ an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks. …
In turn, members of this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated. Some analysts acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their access.
A few expressed regret for participating in what they regarded as an effort to dupe the American public with propaganda dressed as independent military analysis.
(Hat tip: copndor.)
I’ve been looking all day for a scan of the Lawrence Journal-World’s front page, so I could do a compare & contrast with the front page of the Memphis Commercial Appeal. But the J-W wasn’t on Newseum when I checked earlier. Now it is, albeit with a strangely low-quality picture. Anyway, both front pages are after the jump. Heartbroken Memphis fans, you may not want to click the link below.
Yesterday afternoon, I blogged about Maureen Dowd’s column in yesterday’s New York Times, in which she argued that Hillary Clinton’s willingness to out-and-out attack Barack Obama — even though the resulting damage will probably inure only to John McCain’s benefit, not Hillary’s, in the end — might indicate a self-interested preference for a McCain victory in November. The theory, of course, is that an Obama defeat in the general election would open the door for Hillary, The Sequel in 2012. "Some top Democrats are increasingly worried that the ClintonsÃ¢â‚¬â„¢
divide-and-conquer strategy is nihilistic: Hillary or no democrat," I quoted Dowd as saying.
Silly me, thinking Maureen Dowd had an original thought.
As it turns out, this very topic has been the subject of a raging debate in the center-left blogosphere for almost a week, with various prominent bloggers weighing in both sides of the issue — creating a dialogue that’s much more illuminating and insightful, unsurprisingly, than a Maureen Dowd column. Details after the jump.
The New York Times busted out its MAN WALKS ON MOON / CLINTON IMPEACHED / U.S. ATTACKED headline style for Governor Spitzer’s resignation:
Meanwhile, the Post, Daily News and Newsday all seem more interested in the latest revelations about the identity of the governor’s call girl than about the fact that, er, the governor resigned yesterday. Heh. God bless tabloid journalism. (And some people say the interest in this story is primarily prurient in nature. Puh!)
With no primaries or caucuses until April 22, tonight presented the last opportunity for the next six weeks to see Wolf Blitzer "call" a state — complete with his typical pattern of stammering, stalling and repeating himself, as well as his gratuitous overuse of the word "now," his self-referential commentary, his time-wasting restatements of obvious facts (Democratic primaries are proportional, superdelegates are party leaders, etc.), and his "questions" to CNN’s other correspondents and analysts that aren’t actually questions at all, but are in fact declarative sentences that again repeat facts that Blitzer has already reported two or three times. Wolfie, you’re doing a heckuva job!
Nobody wastes as much time listening to himself talk — while reporting "breaking news" — as Wolf Blitzer. And oh, I do love it so.
By the way, with 77 percent of the precincts reporting, Obama leads 58% to 40%. And exit polls find that nearly half of the voters said she isn’t honest and trustworthy. These are Democrats, remember.
(Via the Newseum. More after the jump… including a few New Jersey and Connecticut papers thrown in for good measure.)
As I noted below, Wolf Blitzer was in full self-caricature mode when he announced that John McCain had clinched the GOP nomination: the rambling run-on sentences, the senseless repetition of people’s names and other random words, the redundant recitation of the same facts over and over again, the odd choices of verbal emphasis, the constant talk about everything being “important” and “historic,” the endless self-referential comments, the unnecessary references to “right now,” “standing by,” etc., etc.
I patched together a video of the carnage:
Drudge: “FLASH: Karl Rove will join FOXNEWS as contributor; likely used throughout Super Tuesday coverage…” Heh. I would say this will make liberals hate Fox even more, but I’m not sure that’s actually possible.
Rove, incidentally, has an article in today’s WSJ about the “new rules” (and some old rules) of presidential politics.
Like a duck in a noose.
2007’s corrections of the year. (Hat tip: Becky.)
Less than two months after the New York Times cancelled its wildly unsuccessful “TimesSelect” pay-for-content scheme and made its website free again, Rupert Murdoch announced that the Wall Street Journal website will be free, too. The WSJ has long, if not always, made would-be readers pay for access to its website, so this is a big deal. (Headline shamelessly stolen from InstaPundit, to whom, a hat tip.)
Tennessee law professor Glenn Reynolds, of InstaPundit fame, has been named one of the 10 most influential legal scholars in America, according to the Social Science Research Network. (Hat tip: Ken Wagner.)
He’s also a nice guy.
Anyway, congrats to Glenn on the honor! He should beware, though: rankings are fickle. One minute you’re firmly ensconced in the Top 10, and the next minute you lose to Stanford. Don’t rest on your laurels, professor! Keep on influencin’! You don’t want some lesbian ceramics professor to steal your glory.