Skube bashes blogs and admits to Ed Cone that he doesn't even read them. He answers TPM's question like this:
So against my better judgment, I sent Skube an email telling him that I found it hard to believe he was very familiar with TPM if he was including us as examples in a column about the dearth of original reporting in the blogosphere.
To which I got this response: "I said I did not refer to you in the original. Your name was inserted late by an editor who perhaps thought I needed to cite more examples ... "
Who inserted the names of the blogs for Skube's article that were included if he doesn't read them? Ask jim.newton@latimes.com
I've been blogging for over six years now, working 12-16 hour days for many of those years and I've loved almost every part of the gig. That is up until the last six months or so. My email Inbox has been insane for I'd say five years now. At times I must receive one every 20 seconds when it's a hectic news day. I have to turn that around because emails have been so valuable to me personally and to the site. Not only do I receive great tips from readers on things I may not have seen, I do get interview requests and transcripts sent from the various shows via email along with everything else you can imagine. I like to respond to my readers as much as possible, but with the volume of emails that's almost impossible now. Please keep sending them. I plan on doing some meditation on this issue over the holidays.
OK, in fairness, I don’t use communications in general the way the 20-somethings (or less!) Facebook is trying to cultivate do; even with actual friends, my messages are more along the lines of “are you free for dinner next Friday?” than “Hey, I’m around, wanna meet up?”
Still, at the risk of sounding like an old fuddy-duddy (after all, I am an old fuddy-duddy), there are very real virtues to old-fashioned email. You can convey a lot of information, if necessary — and it’s information that stays available in the archive. Plus, the lack of immediacy is, given the way I live, a virtue. In general, I can’t break what I’m doing to talk to you or text you; so an asynchronous form of communication, which I can respond to when convenient, is a huge advantage...read on
When you do email myself or anyone else at C&L, please make sure you have a good subject line. If it's in reference to a story published elswhere then please make sure you link to the article or video and include some of the text. I usually delete anything that only has a link with no explanation. How do you handle your Inbox? I understand my Inbox isn't normal. Are you leaving emails in the dust or just incorporating them into your vast reservoir of technological linkage tools?
via Newshounds: Did you know that Fox News is a "private channel"? That's what Fox's London bureau chief, Scott Norvell said in an op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal Europe on May 20, 2005. He also wrote this: "Even we at Fox News manage to get some lefties on the air occasionally, and often let them finish their sentences before we club them to death and feed the scraps to Karl Rove and Bill O'Reilly."
All right all you right wingers, mobilize. Its time to set the record straight. I'll help you this time. Let's get that Scott Norvell on the line and get a retraction. We can say that he was taken out of context. That always works. Email me with a strategy. Blogswarm maybe?
The Bush Administration apparently does not want a U.S. military study that found no direct connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda to get any attention. This morning, the Pentagon cancelled plans to send out a press release announcing the report's release and will no longer make the report available online.
The report was to be posted on the Joint Forces Command website this afternoon, followed by a background briefing with the authors. No more. The report will be made available only to those who ask for it, and it will be sent via U.S. mail from Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia.
It won't be emailed to reporters and it won't be posted online.
Asked why the report would not be posted online and could not be emailed, the spokesman for Joint Forces Command said: "We're making the report available to anyone who wishes to have it, and we'll send it out via CD in the mail."
Another Pentagon official said initial press reports on the study made it "too politically sensitive."
ABC News obtained the comprehensive military study of Saddam Hussein's links to terrorism on Tuesday. Read the report's executive summary HERE.
The study, which was due to be released Wednesday, found no "smoking gun" or any evidence of a direct connection between Saddam's Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist organization.
The report is based on the analysis of some 600,000 official Iraqi documents seized by US forces after the invasion. It is also based on thousands of hours of interrogations of former top officials in Saddam's government who are now in U.S. custody.
Others have reached the same conclusion, but no previous study has had access to so much information. Further, this is the first official acknowledgement from the U.S. military that there is no evidence Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda.
UPDATE: According to ABC News, "[The report] won't be emailed to reporters and it won't be posted online."
According to our great C&L commenters, it can be found here.
Love me, love my pie-eyed optimism. The interim anchorage of Jake Tapper on ABC's This Week, has left me surprisingly encouraged. First, they have taken Jay Rosen's suggestion of how to fix the Sunday shows by working with Politifact to fact check claims made by guests. Then Jake himself has been soliciting feedback on his Twitter/Facebook streams, which I think has shaped some of his questions (and he responds to individuals, unlike many journalists on Twitter). And now, This Week is taking the initiative to move past the tired (and false) dichotomy of every issue falling into Dem vs. Rep binary scale. From ABC email promo:
On “This Week,” White House Economic Adviser Austan Goolsbee, and two key Senators EXCLUSIVELY join interim anchor Jake Tapper to debate next week’s critical Senate vote on whether financial reform will move forward. Goolsbee defends the President’s plan, while Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) argues that the bill does not go far enough to keep banks from getting too big. Republican Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) lays out what needs to be changed in order for the White House to gain Republican support.
Did you catch that? In addition to representing the White House plan for economic reform, they've asked on a fairly progressive Senator who argues that it's not progressive enough. Okay, it's not earth-shattering, but I do find it a step in the right direction and after four years of monitoring Sunday shows, this is the first time I remember them looking at an issue and considering a progressive point of view as a reasonable alternative. Contrast that with Meet the Press's David Gregory and his glib dismissal of any responsibility as the host to keep his guests honest in any way. Yup, I'm going to see This Week's actions as a positive change.
ABC's "This Week" - Sens. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., and Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio; White House economic adviser Austan Goolsbee.
CBS' "Face the Nation" - Chief White House economic adviser Lawrence Summers.
NBC's "Meet the Press" - Sens. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Richard Shelby, R-Ala.
NBC's "The Chris Matthews Show" - Panel: Katty Kay, Andrew Sullivan, David Ignatius, Kelly O'Donnell. Topics: Does Obama Want A Fight On Wall Street Reform Or To Move On To Immigration? Is the Extreme Anti-Washington Rhetoric Seditious? Meter Questions: Should Republicans Issue A New Contract With America? YES: 11 NO: 1; Will President Obama Win Comprehensive Middle East Peace? YES: 3 No: 9.
CNN's "State of the Union" - Sens. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., and Robert Menendez, D-N.J.; Gov. Jennifer Granholm, D-Mich.
CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS" - We discuss everything from Goldman Sachs to economic and political brawls in the US and abroad. First, Fareed has a candid conversation with Timothy Geithner, US Secretary of the Treasury. Then, we have a great panel featuring: Eliot Spitzer, Slate columnist and former NY governor and attorney general; Andrew Ross Sorkin, the chief mergers and acquisitions reporter for the New York Times and author of Too Big to Fail; Martin Wolf, Financial Times' chief economics commentator; and Amity Shlaes, Bloomberg columnist and senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
"Fox News Sunday" - Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.; Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, co-chairmen of a bipartisan commission on debt.
CNN's Bush Moment CNN was a little over anxious in their coverage of Bush's speech tonight. Download | play -WMP Download | play -QT
Wolf: Let me interrupt for a second. I think what happened Jeff, is that the President is rehearsing and the pool, the network pool inadvertently went to the President as he was rehearsing...
Just another CNN conspiracy moment to make our Commander in Chief look bad.
Update: CNN just sent me an email with a document saying that:"NBC stage manager has now admitted he cued the president early and CNN was the only network ready to go."
In a Friday surprise, MSNBC political analyst Craig Crawford announced on his CQ Politics blog Trail Mix today that he is leaving the network.
"Three months short of my current contract," he wrote, "I sent the following to the boss, [MSNBC President] Phil Griffin: 'Phil, Just wanted to give you the heads up that my situation with MSNBC has become so unrewarding for me that I've decided to move on. — Craig'"
In an email, Crawford tells TVNewser, "This was a long time coming. I haven't felt like a good fit for MSNBC since the presidential campaign, and their hard turn toward point-of-view programming.
"So many of my booking calls lately have been for segments bashing Sarah Palin, for instance. I was boring myself, and surely the viewers.
"But no particular event brought this on, just my desire to try other outlets and have more fun. I have a fine and rewarding home with the great folks at CQ-Roll Call. I enjoy blogging for them and doing our web videos.
"Perhaps I'm not cut out to be a cable cowboy anymore, dunno. Prefer remaining independent and do my own thing for any channel, including MSNBC, that books me. After a dozen years with one channel, I'd rather play the field for a while."
In the interest of disclosure, I have spoken with Craig in the past--as we set up his book chat last year--and I've communicated with him via Facebook on this as well. I like Craig as a person, and I can certainly understand a level of frustration if the only subject for which he's invited is Palin. However, I don't know if that's the whole truth. In the comment section of his blog, he revealed some more:
i simply could not any longer endure being a cartoon player for lefty games, just gotta move on to higher ground even if there's no oxygen
Lefty games? Oh dear. I asked Craig to explain what that meant, but he refused. In fairness to Craig, since his appearances were basically with Countdown, I don't think that anyone will argue there isn't a lefty slant, but games? It's a troubling characterization. Craig commented again:
i have never and never will forgive Chris [Matthews] for calling me a racist after the West Virginia primary (the last time I will ever go on air with him). Probably should have resigned then and there, but better late than never.
I haven’t felt like a good fit for MSNBC since the presidential campaign, and the hard turn toward point-of-view programming. No particular event brought this on, just my desire to try other outlets and have more fun. As far as Chris is concerned, on Morning Joe after the West Virginia primary he accused me of always defending Clinton and what he claimed to be her racially motivated campaigning. That’s the problem. Trying to be fair became seen as bias in the new thinking over there. But I do wish my many pals at MSNBC nothing but good things.
The truth is, there were times that the anti-Hillary coverage got to me, and I wasn't a Hillary-supporter. But that was over a year ago, and claims of loyalty aside, leaving with bad blood three months shy of your contract ending seems to be a strong statement to make for transgressions more than a year old. Now, I'd like to think that Craig was taking a principled stand against "point of view" programming, but as Mediaite points out, Crawford announced he was going from the frying pan into the fire:
Crawford says on his blog he will be on Fox & Friends as a guest on Monday, although FNC says he won’t be. He also writes in the comments that he is a “free agent.”
Update: Crawford took down the F&F booking info shortly after publication.
Oy. F&F isn't point of view programming, Craig? C'mon now. Clearly the free agent thing had Crawford thinking, because later on Facebook and Twitter he asked what people thought of CNN's Rick Sanchez as a possible new "anchor buddy". I admit, I wasn't too complimentary.
I do think that collectively we're reaching a form of critical mass on being tired of opinion media masquerading as journalism. There will always be a certain percentage of the population that needs their pre-conceived notions reinforced, but by and large, Americans don't trust "journalists" any more, with reason. And this stand of Crawford's--as contradictory as it appears on its face--may be another crack in the dam.
A C&Ler named mc sent in this very good e-mail about the causes of the financial meltdown we've just witnessed and the people who helped cause it.
I have almost 40 years of experience as a retail banker and financial services provider. I opened, managed and served as country head in Spain, Korea, Canada and the US. I would like to contribute comments and blogs.
It is not so difficult to find the people who should be held accountable for the financial meltdown of 2009. It seems, however, from 2001 until the present day nobody tries to find anyone responsible for anything.
There are 2 people in government that bear the bulk of the responsibility for our financial meltdown as well as the presidents of all banks that participated in the approval of mortgages with substandard credit criteria and the packaging and selling of such mortgages as asset backed securities. Additionally, all of these banks had, or should have had, senior risk asset management committees who were equally responsible. In each case they understood the risks and didn’t care as long they increased compensation for themselves and their company
As for the politicians, 2 of them bear the primary responsibility of these bankrupting financial policies. We need look no further than John McCain’s financial advisor Phil Gramm. Gramm, on Dec. 15, 2000, snuck into a congressional bill an act which prevents the government from regulating investment banks’ credit swaps. Gramm is the one who called Americans whiners and told us that the crisis was in our heads. McCain considered him for the position of Secretary of the Treasury.
Equally responsible for our economic crises was the SEC chairman (Christopher Cox), who changed a key regulation in 2004. Under pressure from those who wanted to please their campaign contributing Wall Street buddies the SEC approved a measure that let investment banks lend out 30 times the amount of capital they had backing up their loans. Before 2004 they could only lend out 12 times the amount of capital.
A solution to the banking meltdown that would prevent it from happening again would be:
1) Reinstate the regulation of CDSs and CDOs by the SEC (assumes increasing head count & improving the quality of staff).
2) Reinstate the 12 to 1 leverage ratio.
3) Require increased capital by product where the riskier assets require more capital reserves
4) Create a regulation that requires each sale of packaged assets by a bank or investment broker to provide some percentage of recourse to the purchaser.
5) Make the board of directors have fiduciary responsibly to stock holders and face fines and civil charges
There are others that share a lot of the blame too, like Bernanke, and no doubt he could name them too. But this is right on: The conservative mania for deregulation -- they like to call it "small government" -- is the root cause of our economic meltdown.
And Sarah and the Tea Partiers are still trying to sell us on the idea that more of the same is what we need. Because, you know, a nice PCB cocktail topped off with a cigar is just what you need to cure cancer.
If you want to see who the real corporatists are then wait until they are put to the test over the Citizen's United ruling. Conservatives have been trying to destroy any type of campaign finance reforms and what this ruling means is that corporations will be allowed to blackmail any candidate just by threatening to spend gobs of money against them if they vote the wrong way.
At any moment, the Supreme Court will announce whether it will allow corporations to spend unlimited funds on political campaigns.
Sign my petition to the Supreme Court now, and tell them to keep unlimited corporate spending out of our federal elections. PETITION TEXT
Unlimited corporate spending on campaigns means the government is up for sale and that the law itself will be bought and sold. It would be political bribery on the largest scale imaginable.
This issue transcends partisan political arguments. We cannot have a government that is bought and paid for by huge multinational corporations. You must stop this.
CNN was a little over anxious in their coverage of Bush's speech tonight.
