Monday, April 11, 2005

A Winding Road, CJR Daily, Slate and Nightline

A Winding Road is back up at the original site and Folding Star has also created a mirror site (due to problems with Blogger*). From today's entry:

Today the hearings on John Bolton began, after being delayed from last Thursday, and being the political junkie that I can be I made sure to tape the hearings on CSPAN. I'm actually playing (and fast forwarding, I haven't the time or the patience to listen to the Republican members of the Committee kiss up to Bolton to show their approval) the tape as I write this, so I have yet to see it all the way through.
So far, the highlight has been the disruption by a handful of women who, directly after Bolton's questioning by Republican Senator Chafee of Rhode Island, stood up with large pink banners with slogans that said 'Bolton = Nuclear Proliferation', 'Diplomat For Hire No Bully Please' and 'Ban Bolton, Not Treaties' and calling out "No on Bolton. He does not represent our interests. He does not represent global security!"
The women were calm and moved out as soon as the security officers ordered them to do so, one calling out "Please vote no. We're here because there are no Senators representing the District of Columbia. This is my voice!"
The women were peace activists from Code Pink, and watching their peaceful disruption was truly watching Democracy in action, especially as, for about thirty seconds, someone moved to stand in front of the CSPAN camera, blocking any view of the women and their signs. Whether or not this was a purposeful attempt to block viewers from the protest, I can't say.

* I was asked whether I thought CJR Daily or Slate would cover the issue of Blogger in their blog reports. In e-mails that went out Sunday, I said, "No, I didn't. Having missed it on Friday, they wouldn't acknowledge their mistake (or that Wired beat them to the punch) come Monday."

How did it play out?

Rory, who reads CJR Daily out of "some planned frustration desire," e-mailed noting Candy Perfume Boy covered the blogs today and, no surprise, no mention of the brownout. (For Susan, "Candy Perfume Boy" is a term derived from Madonna's "Candy Perfume Girl" song. She uses the term in that song -- off Ray of Light. For Vanessa, yes, I'm sure that Chrissie Hynde's use of
"bully boys don't bother me, I purse my lips and they run away" from Pretenders "Sense of Purpose" is the reason for the use of the term "Bully Boy" to apply to Bush. "Sense of Purpose" first appears on Pretenders album Packed! And before anyone writes in, Hynde has stated it's "Pretenders," not "the Pretenders.")

Rory: CJR Daily is it's usual blend of uselessness. There are nine links in the "Blog" Report. Let me repeat, the "Blog" Report. How many of the nine links go to blogs? Did you guess nine? Wrong. Did you guess eight? Wrong again. Did you figure that at least half had to go to blogs?
Still wrong. Three go to blogs. Three links out of nine go to blogs in what they call a "Blog" Report. I only visit to laugh at them.

Glad they make Rory laugh, however, one of the links goes to a "blog" by Washington Monthly so some might argue that it's five sources (ABC, the Times, etc.) and four to blogs or "blogs."

We'll also note, since Candy Perfume Boy never tells (he's such a don't ask, don't tell boy, no?) that Candy Perfume Boy interned at The Washington Monthly. He's written for them (on NPR in 2003). He'd dispute employed, I'm sure. (I'm blanking on exact wording.) But isn't it strange, that CJR Daily, while reviewing others, doesn't feel the need to disclose what some might see as a conflict of interest? I'll agree with Jess (Third Estate Sunday Review), this is the true "circle jerk."

And while Candy Perfume Boy is slapping people down (as he is in the copy and past Rory sent me) for not admitting mistakes, he might want to check with his colleague Suzy Q who wrote a newspaper report during the campaign but left out a key piece of information. When it was brought to her attention, she noted that the info appeared in a Washington Post article. But the thing is, it appeared in the New York Times article she was originally reviewing (by Jodi Wilgoren). A community member pointed that out in real time. So her "correction" is less than honest. (And the community member has a comment up in the comments section on it from real time. Unless they've deleted it.)

So possibly, when Suzie Q's "correction" still wasn't correct and CJR Daily had the information (and has it in the comments section now unless they've deleted it), Candy Perfume Boy shouldn't be wasting everyone's time harping on the mistakes of others?

Or maybe there's just a set of standards they apply to others, but not themselves? That would explain a great deal.

David Wallace-Wells does the Slate blog report today (Lyle e-mailed it in). For the record, Juan Cole is correct and DW-W shows the same attitude people criticize in the mainstream media by doing "Cole says" and "but ___ says." He quotes a political scientist, DW-W, holding two degrees in poli sci, I'm confused as to what allows the "political scientist" quoted to claim the term but if he (and as Rebecca would say, "It's always a he") majored in political science, he may need to supplement his college education because he's missed Juan Cole's point. (Or maybe he just read quickly?) At any rate, when dealing with basic facts, DW-W should do more than offer a he said/she said.

For those who felt I came off "too nice" (Gina, Lincoln, KeShawn) to CJR Daily and/or Slate in the roundtable (I don't believe I even mentioned Slate by name, but I may have), I'm sorry if the impression was that I was being nice. I wasn't attempting to be nice. Or even "fair." Neither have ever figured in my life too prominetly. A friend who dabbles in politics e-mailed me a Slate story back in April of 2004 and I chewed her out for it. Hold on and let me see if I saved that e-mail.

Here it is:

"Please don't send me this s**t anymore. You yourself have talked about the fake left of The New Republic. I know you're not familiar with the site but if everyone you know recommends things to you, and think of how large that list is, and you're finding out about the ever floundering Slate via a sidebar on MSN, that should tell you all you need to know. Life is too short (or mine anyway) to spend it reading this f**ked up, psuedo left crap. If you're looking for an online only magazine, check out Salon which is really come to life these days. Please, never again e-mail me something from Slate."

That pretty much sums up my feelings for Slate. (We've noted Jack Shafer here, for pointing out Judith Miller's Hardball appearence and critiquing it. If you have to visit Slate, do so for Shafer, not the rest of the nonsense passing for "informed" discussion.)

The only time I see Slate these days is if a member sends it in via e-mail. The same with CJR Daily. Life's too short. And let's note that Slate got an award from members (more than one) in our year-in-review as something like "biggest waste of time." The community doesn't care for half-assed posing. And Erika, who's never sent Slate in via e-mail, has noted in e-mails is as obsessed with The New Republic as CJR Daily. One wonders if the rag might have already gone under were it not from the "props" from those two.

I wasn't attempting to be "nice." I just have nothing to say about either CJR Daily or Slate that's positive and they really don't effect my daily life. There were other topics I was interested in. And one of those will pop up in the next roundtable (which Ava's hoping we can do this weekend).

Lastly, to those asking about the The Nightline episode on PNAC (mentioned in the roundtable) it aired March 5, 2003. The site's version of it was "edited" to say the least. Members who missed the broadcast can e-mail and I'll send you a copy of the transcript (done from the episode by a friend).

E-mail address for this site is