The Day Parody Died

If you were ever skeptical that Fox "News" misrepresents little details like "facts" and "information," your skepticism just suffered a major blow:

On August 18, 2000, journalist Jane Akre won $425,000 in a court ruling where she charged she was pressured by Fox News management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information.

The real information: she found out cows in Florida were being injected with RBGH, a drug designed to make cows produce milk – and, according to FDA-redacted studies, unintentionally designed to make human beings produce cancer.

Fox lawyers, under pressure by the Monsanto Corporation (who produced RBGH), rewrote her report over 80 times to make it compatible with the company’s requests. She and her husband, journalist Steve Wilson, refused to air the edited segment.

In February 2003, Fox appealed the decision and an appellate court and had it overturned. Fox lawyers argued it was their first amendment right to report false information. In a six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals decided the FCC’s position against news distortion is only a “policy,” not a “law, rule, or regulation.”

That's right - a court ruled that Fox "News" could continue "reporting" false information. Not "alternately interpreted" information. Not information up for debate. Pure, straight-up false information. As "news."

I'd comment more, but there's little more to be said. There is no depth deep enough, no bottom low enough, that Fox "News" won't sink to.

The Humor in Private Businesses Establishing "News" Sources to "Accurately" Report What's Going On Today

While looking for mor info for the story on the conressional inquiry into Petrobras, I tried to use Google news after getting everything I could from Brazilian media. The pickings were surprisingly slim, so I clicked on a story whose headline was, "In a Hamstrung Oil Industry, Petrobras Will Rule." I was curious where an article like that was headed, so I clicked on it. This is as far as I read:

While the US under President Barack Obama is performing a self-castration in its energy prowess and posture, Brazil, under Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, a firebrand socialist and not a particular friend of the US, is poised to emerge as an energy superpower.
Obama and many of his core supporters have a mystifying aversion to energy, perhaps the most important commodity in the modern world and arguably the one that closely equates to power.

Well, that certainly was not the tack I thought such a headline might take, and I quit reading right there. I haven't seen a "news" story be so wrong in a long-time. Obama as castrator? Riiiight - if, by "castration," we mean "taking small steps to reduce dependency on oil that are meaningful but not enough." And Lula as a "firebrand socialist?" Only if Obama is a "moderate socialist." And as for the whole "friend" thing, well, Lula has criticized the U.S., yes, but that has not stopped him from working with the U.S. on issues like energy policy, even under Bush. Lula has always been a diplomat, a gentleman, and a "friend" to the U.S. So, to summarize: wrong, wrong, and wrong.

And the best part was, in case you didn't get the message, the image at the top of the story? That's right - Lula and the Petrobras president on their recent trip to Cuba, looking off into the distance while a giant image of Che hovers ominously behind them. Even though they aren't in Cuba now, and I'm fairly sure they could have access to a lot of other photos of either Lula or the Petrobras president. But why bother, when a communist specter who has been dead for over 40 years can be used?

I tried to find out more about exactly who the "Energy Tribune" worked for. A quick google search (and I mean quick) didn't come up with much, but really, I just had to look at the "jobs" link at the ET's own site, where member sites included "Global Oil Watch" and "Pipeline & Gas Journal" (really?) were listed to learn all I needed to know. I was actually grateful, though - no pretending at objectivity, no Orwellianism - the editors and author just laid it all out there in the first two sentences for anyone to see where they stood, saving me (and others) a lot of time of having to read further. Plus, it offered me what ended up being my biggest laugh of the day yesterday.

The New York Times Once Again Dazzles Us with Its "Hard-Hitting" Analysis on Brazil

The New York Times had an article up this past weekend about the Brazilian presidential elections looming next year, and specifically, the PT's (Lula's party) candidate, Dilma Roussef. I've already commented on the horrible journalism covering Dilma in Brazil, and I've flogged both journalist Alexei Barrionuevo's and the New York Times' coverage of Brazil for years, but with the latest report, we get the best of both worlds - ridiculous claims and borderline-fear-mongering on the possibility of Dilma's exit and Lula seeking a third term, combined with Barrionuevo's shoddy "reporting" and "analysis." I wanted to break it down bit by bit, but I've been busy writing. Fortunately, I'm able to outsource to Randy on this one (and read his whole post - it's brief but thorough).

In short, Barrionuevo actually offers multiple direct indicators Lula will not and does not want to seek a third term, but then turns around and basically says, "but what if...?" It's the worst kind of pandering, (middle-class) fear-mongering and conterfactual idiocy that I would expect of O Globo and those who irrationally hate Lula in Brazil, and not of the New York Times. But I guess if there's anything to be learned over the past several years, it's that the Times cannot, will not, and/or does not employ decent jounalists in its Brazilian post.

Regional Bias in Aiding Brazilian Floods? I'd Like a Little More Evidence, Please

Yesterday, I commented briefly on the flooding in Brazil, but there was something I wanted to go back to, and Randy has already highlighted. In the article, Alexei Barrionuevo and a few of the people quoted in the article blame the federal government, claiming there is a regional bias at play in the lack of aid to the northeast:

Mr. de Sousa Freitas said the town had already provided more than 5,000 subsistence meals for the displaced. He criticized the federal government for not doing more, saying it had sent only 1,051 meals to Trizidela.
Mr. de Sousa Freitas has not been alone in alleging that the government of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has done less for affected areas of the northeast than it did for wealthier Santa Catarina last fall.
Piauí and Maranhão, two of the states most affected by the floods, are also two of the country’s three poorest in per-capita income, with most residents earning far less than Brazil’s minimum monthly salary of $225.
“The people in the south treat the northeast as a subrace of Brazilians,” said Roberto Quiñiero, who owns a small food market in Pedreiras.

It is true that there is major regional bias and difference in Brazil, and the wealthier South and Southeast (including Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paulo, and the southernmost states in Brazil) definitely look down on the Northeast. It even takes on racial tones, as the poor (and often seemingly "browner") people and even people who are bad drivers are referred derogatorily to as "Baianos" and "Paraibenses."

Still, there's not a lot of evidence here for the claim Barrionuevo is subtly making that the government is favoring the wealthier part of Brazil. Basically, one guy is quoted as saying the people of the South (which does not equal "the federal government" or "Lula") are biased against the Northeast, which is true enough but neither here nor there; and another is quoted as blaming the federal government.

Now, I'm not saying the federal government hasn't been quicker to help in the South than the Northeast, or that its federal aid has been greater, but there's no way of knowing that based on this article. To know this, we'd actually need to see some solid economic figures and other statistics actually, you know, COMPARING the aid to the South last year vs. the Northeast this year (as well as the damage to both regions). But we don't get that from Barrionuevo; we just get a couple of victims and local government officials saying there has been a bias, and one federal government official saying there hasn't been any bias.

Certainly, the flooding in both parts of Brazil is tragic, and 300,000 dislocated in the Northeast is a somber number, but that doesn't excuse the New York Times (or anybody else) from suggesting the federal government is to blame without at least offering some evidence beyond anecdotal quotations that that is the case. Certainly, no government is faultless; I'd just like to see a little more "concrete" evidence before you make those claims in a major news source.

In Which the Line between CNN and the Onion Is Blurred, Case #57

The best part about this "report"? The "we will keep you updated" at the end.

The problem with journalism...

Well, I know I'm supposed to be working on my comps. But I added my favorite media critic, NYU's Jay Rosen, to my Twitter feed since I was using him as a source for my paper, and the constant links of awesomeness just keep flowing. (If you're on twitter, follow @jayrosen_nyu)

Today, he commented:

Dozens of subjects I converse with pro journalists easily about, despite large disagreements. Two where it breaks down: "hype" and... Bush.

For in the minds of most pro journalists, "hype" is their opponent. They battle it. To me hype is their industry. They produce cycles of it.

With Bush and the press I'm on the other side of the moon from (many, not all) pro journalists for reasons Greenwald cites http://is.gd/nckA

Greenwald points out that Jon Stewart's critique of Cramer and CNBC (videos posted below) is nothing new, and that Cramer's response was basically the same one that much of the media has given in the last few years.

My papers this week have of course been focused on critiquing journalism and discussing the role that the Web serves in journalism. And one of those points is that Greenwald is absolutely effing right. This is BASIC journalism.

My first course in j-school drilled into my head that journalism is about verification. In blog-land, we verify by posting links. In the mainstream media, where most of our primary sources come from, they verify by quoting someone. If you think that your job ends when you've regurgitated Hank Paulson or Dick Cheney or "Sir" Allen Stanford's words, then you're not alone in mainstream journalism--Greenwald's post proves that.

But we demand more. We want interviewers who press the point, and why do we only get that from a guy whose show is on Comedy Central, and why is this being pointed out to us by bloggers?

Greenwald says:

It's fine to praise Jon Stewart for the great interview he conducted and to mock and scoff at Jim Cramer and CNBC. That's absolutely warranted. But just as was true for Judy Miller (and her still-celebrated cohort, Michael Gordon), Jim Cramer isn't an aberration. What he did and the excuses he offered are ones that are embraced as gospel to this day by most of our establishment press corps, and to know that this is true, just look at what they do and say about their roles. But at least Cramer wants to appear to be contrite for the complicit role he played in disseminating incredibly destructive and false claims from the politically powerful. That stands in stark contrast to David Gregory, Charlie Gibson, Brian Williams, David Ignatius and most of their friends, who continue to be defiantly and pompously proud of the exact same role they play.

Read his whole post, it's an excellent overview of what was wrong with the coverage leading up to the war, and what is wrong with the media still. I don't want the coverage to be uncritical of Obama any more than I wanted it to be uncritical of Bush.

Our problem so often is that we individualize. It was Judy Miller, not the norms and routines of professional journalism. It was Bernie Madoff, not a culture of capitalism that encouraged greed and dodging rules and said that so long as you're making money, anything you do is right. It was a few prison guards, not a culture that dehumanized the enemy.

When are we going to realize that these problems are systemic and cultural, not individual? There aren't a few "bad guys" who can be punished and the system returned to order.

Populism, Jon Stewart style

Someday I'll be back to blogging something that isn't video. But Jon Stewart's takedown of Jim Cramer, CNBC, and financial "journalism" is so worth watching.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Jim Cramer Pt. 2

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

Digital Colonialism

Sylvia/m has a great post up on digital colonialism--not of the recent femisphere explosion type, but of a more insidious type.

See, I was annoyed this morning by this Columbia Journalism Review piece about the joys of "pro-am" journalism. Karthika's the resident expert on crowdsourcing and the like, but I think (as I wrote before) that there are a lot of problems with this model. One of them is what Sylvia focuses on in her piece--the slant of the blogosphere and new media in general toward middle-class, white US or Western interests. This is a question of access, but also of which voices are privileged.

Then in comments on Trend's wonderful breakdown of the coup in Chile and the overthrow of Allende, boz noted that the notion that many Americans on the left have that we (meaning the US government and the CIA, specifically) are responsible for the overthrow of so many governments in the world is a bit narrow and colonialist, itself.

And then Sylvia's piece about the blogosphere--feminists in particular, but the lessons apply to the left blogosphere in general--kind of summed up a lot of what I was thinking about.

It is not simply an international problem; it happens here in America as well. There are countless people without access to the internet, and who find themselves at the mercy of those who do have access to speak their truths to power. How often do the voices of feminism or the voices of Main Street, for example, reach the ears of the people behind the keyboards? Do people who write and use this medium for contributing to transformative change have an obligation to work for broader internet access and broader outreach?

There is also a broader presence of cyber-discovery, as seen in the recent hoaxes of finding new “tribes” or tracking “dead’ or “dying” languages using digital tools. There’s a distinct Western, anthropological gaze at work that reminds me personally of something out of the 19th century. How is the internet changing how we relate to each other geographically and politically, beyond the idea of having more people to date? How do we address these ways of relating?

I would say that we absolutely have an obligation to work for broader access and outreach. I want to see broadband as a right--and from what I can tell, Obama's FCC team agrees--but more than that, there needs to be a change in thought.

I've got so many thoughts rushing around in my head on this subject, so many tangentially related bits. That the U.S. left needs to get off its savior complex and start working in solidarity with local groups rather than trying to sweep in and fix things. That we here on the Internets need to open up far more than we already have to other voices in other places.

That the problem with journalism these days cannot be fixed by crowds of people spreading useless stories like "bittergate," and that no amount of crowdsourcing will replace having actual foreign bureaus with full-time staff who speak the language, know the country and the people, and can actually provide context to stories rather than parachuting into conflict zones.

I don't have answers, only questions here. But I think you should read Sylvia's piece.

Brazil - Only Newsworthy During Carnaval When Some Women Might Be Topless!!

Though I often put news stories and commentary up on Brazil, it's really hard to find many stories that are available in multiple mainstream media sources in the U.S. Usually, my posts will involve one link because that's all you can find usually find.

Apparently that "Brazil isn't interesting enough for mainstream media" rule flies right out the window during Carnaval, though, as several other journals (and those three are just a small sampling) are picking up the AP's report on a dancer who has allegedly set the record for "smallest genital covering ever." Nor is it limited to this - all of a sudden, a quick Google news search on Carnaval in Rio (ending this week) brings up numerous stories selling sex and dancers and little else. Nevermind that, as I've said before, Carnaval is a complex social event that involves enormous planning and preparation, detailed floats, parades, competing social clubs, celebration, somber topics, and societal issues. I haven't seen Brazil covered in the news this much since Bush traveled to Brazil back in 2007.

And yet, now that Brazil is back in the news, what do a majority of the stories focus on? The near-nakedness of some of the women. Does Carnaval include topless women? Yes. Yes, it does. But to say that that is the single thing that characterizes Carnaval is like saying that the Detroit Lions' football game is the single thing that characterizes Thanksgiving. There is so much that is going on in terms of complex societal relations, politics, and culture, all of which is worth celebrating and discussing and which goes well above and beyond a handful of scantily-clad women in a nation of well over 180 million people. And the U.S. decides to report on some good old-fashioned T&A.

Hey, American media - way to perpetuate steroetypes of the "exotic other" in Brazil.

Some thoughts on objectivity

As we noted in the comments to my "blogging our bodies" post, the idea that language and the user of language can be neutral is impossible. Queen Emily noted that it is cisgender white men who write with the "objective" voice, that others are always assumed to be Other, to be biased.

In studying journalism, it's been pointed out to me several times that women journalists and journalists of color are always presumed to be biased when dealing with issues that relate to their gender or race. White men, by contrast, can be "neutral"--can live up to the famed journalistic goal of being "objective."

Of course, this is crap.

Straight, cisgender white men write from a straight, cisgender white man perspective. In the field of journalism, most of them are also from the middle or upper classes, are educated, and thus bring additional slants to their writings. (Witness the coverage of the bailout of the financial giants v. the coverage of the proposed bailout of the big 3 automakers.)

In any case, "objectivity" is impossible. I would maintain that facts and truth are possible (at least truth insofar as it relates to empirical fact--George Bush is President, Nancy Pelosi said something, John McCain voted for that bill, it contained this text), but the idea that a journalist can put aside his or her own personal feelings and more importantly, his or her background to write from an "objective" position is impossible. The best we can hope for is, as one of my profs said, verification.

We see more and more verification being supplanted with this false idea of "balance" these days. Balance is even more screwed up than objectivity. Remember Jon Stewart going on Crossfire (a purportedly "balanced" show) to bitch out the hosts for hurting America?

"Balance" means that you go find someone from one side of an issue, and someone from another side, and get both their opinions, and then you're being "objective."

Yeah, well, there are lots of problems with that. But the one I'm thinking about right now is that it once again buys into a false binary. The idea that there are only two sides to any issue is a lie, but it sure buys into the way we like to see things in this country.

Democrat/Republican. Black/white. Male/female. Gay/straight. For/against. Enemy/ally.

This leaves out so much nuance that it's disgusting.

For instance, the auto company bailout. I hate the auto execs--they've fought environmental restrictions for years, they'd love to bust their unions themselves, and it was damn stupid of them to fly private jets to Washington to ask for money. I would much rather see $25 billion spent elsewhere. But I think we should do it, because millions of jobs would be lost, because bankruptcy would completely break the unions for good, and because the auto companies are finally starting to invest in green technology, and right now would be a good time to continue supporting that.

In any case, I would argue that our binary fetish is one of the biggest problems we've got in this country, and it's being made worse by this obsession with "both sides" in the media. There are never just two sides to any issue.

It's even worse when the binary drawn is completely false: black voters vs. gay voters over Prop 8, for example. Two completely different categories--as if one cannot be black and gay, or that these categories have anything to do with one another, even if you accept that they are categories with clearly defined boundaries, which I don't.

One of the things I liked best about Obama was that he seemed to understand that issues are more complex than two sides. That he can and will talk to people who are on "the other side" and find common ground, and that being biracial, being raised by a white family while being read as black by society, he understood that binaries are not what they appear to be. I hope that continues.

So back to journalism. It would seem that the profession, which often talks about the need for more diversity, understands that bodies and language are not neutral, that one cannot leave one's body and background behind to be objective. Yet it still clings to these ideals as though there is no other way to be.

Well, those of us in the blogosphere know otherwise. We neither leave our identities at the door, nor bother trying for "balance." Yet at least some of us try to verify our facts--the very custom of linking to other blogs, to news organizations, YouTube videos, documents, government sites shows that. You can't just state a fact in the blogosphere without backing it up--well, you can, but you're soon going to be asked for backup.

And since we have unlimited space to rant and rave and receive comments from readers, we get to explore many, many perspectives on complex issues. Our readership may (except for the occasional troll) agree with us on core principles, but any comment thread on a well-read blog will show you plenty of differences, arguments, and hairsplitting. This is a GOOD thing. It's far healthier than tossing up Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson and pretending that these two rich white guys actually cover a range of opinions.

Performatives redux: Colin Powell

Colin Powell was always one of those Republicans I had some respect for (like McCain used to be, but I digress). Powell seemed to have at least some awareness of the world around him and especially of the importance of diplomacy. Like everyone else, I was disappointed when he went before the UN and, well, lied. When he stepped down in the wake of Bush's re-sort-of-election, I was really angry, because I felt that residual respect and affection for Powell in this country could've swung the election for Kerry if he'd resigned before the election. He wouldn't even have had to make an explicit endorsement--his leaving the ship would've been a sign.

Powell was head of the State Department--the department that relies most on performative language, according to Cook. The Secretary of State and his underlings do their job mainly by making statements. Approval, disapproval, etc. are expressed through the media as well as through direct diplomacy.

Powell, then, knew exactly what he was doing when he took to Meet the Press to make his endorsement of Barack Obama.

He didn't appear on stage with Obama and probably won't (though you know the ad people are working overtime to cut his words into a spot). He sat in a chair, comfortably, and spoke honestly. He didn't invoke race once. He prefaced his statement with both respect for and criticism of John McCain, and especially of the choice of Sarah Palin, and then spoke of Obama as a potentially transformational figure.

And most importantly, he called out the Republican party on scare tactics and fearmongering, on xenophobia and hatred. Powell of all people has tremendous power to make the comments that there's nothing wrong with being Muslim. As a general, as one of the architects of several of our recent wars in the Middle East, he will be accused by no sane person of being a terrorist sympathizer. When he spoke of an American Muslim soldier who died in Iraq, he sounded sincere, unlike McCain's phony invocations of a bracelet from a soldier's mother.

Implicit in those statements was an endorsement of Obama as the better leader on Iraq. He didn't have to say it outright. He invoked Iraq and a fallen soldier in a way that if I didn't know better I'd call a left-wing dogwhistle. I felt for just a second as if Powell had whispered in my ear, "I'm sorry about that, guys. I'm trying to fix it."

Powell's appearance on a news talk show was itself the top headline on the New York Times and the third headline on the Washington Post today. While I'm not going to go into what that says about canned news events and the corporate media here, suffice it to say that once again, we can see that speech is itself a form of action, especially in the executive branch.

She's a beauty queen

So I'm used to feminist complaints about overly retouched, unrealistic photos in fashion magazines. I've even indulged in a bit of this myself (even while I photoshop zits out of my own pictures on Flickr.)

But now apparently there's some controversy (granted, this is from FOX NEWS) about an UNretouched photo of Sarah Palin gracing the cover of Newsweek.

I found this ridiculous sentence while searching: "The cover photo is a very close-up picture, which drew controversy because many people say that a close-up picture of a woman is meant to be unflattering."

To me, among many, many other things, this proves the fact that Republicans chose Palin because she was pretty, not because of any other qualities she brought to the ticket. I've seen hundreds of unflattering photos of Obama and McCain this election cycle, not to mention insulting and racist cartoons. Yet we're supposed to be up in arms because she was NOT photoshopped?

First off, from what I know of photojournalism (and I do TA in the photojournalism department of my university), altering the photo is a breach of ethics. Now, granted, that usually has more to do with adding people into events where they weren't, or making someone look worse (whoops, Fox), or, perhaps, making a black man look blacker?

So apparently I'm supposed to be up in arms because a close-up photo of a very attractive 44-year-old woman with more money than average and better skin than I've got shows what, her pores? That she's got a few fine lines?

This is ridiculous.

I write in defense of beauty rituals and makeup, glitter and sparkle and high heels and femininity. And I don't pick on Sarah Palin for using any of the above. I don't even pick on her for being "Caribou Barbie" or "Bible Spice." She's allowed to be a pretty woman and to make herself even prettier.

But what the hell is wrong with us that a simple unretouched photo is enough to set the right wing howling that it's unfair coverage? What's wrong with showing a 44-year-old woman's skin? Do they honestly think someone's going to decide not to vote for her because they can see her laugh lines?

After debates over Biden's possible Botox, and comments that Palin could wink so she clearly hasn't had it (used to imply elitism on the part of the Democrats), this whole tempest in a teapot seems forced at best. At worst, it's profoundly insulting to the woman's intelligence--and to all of ours.

But then, presidential campaigns in general are an insult to our intelligence. And the more we harp on issues like this, the more they really do seem like a beauty contest.

Fox for Progressives

So as you may or may not know, I've become addicted to Rachel Maddow. Not watching her yet? Here's a taste:



In any case, though I love Rachel (and to a lesser extent, Olbermann), I must admit that this ain't journalism and it isn't a step forward for the journalistic profession as such.

It's punditry, of course, just like FOX News. The dangerous thing about it, just like the dangerous thing about the blogosphere, is that it leads you to think everyone is thinking like you.

I watch Rachel for the laughs, and because she is in fact quite bright and backs up her sources. Because she's a young, smart, liberal woman who's an out lesbian with her own prime-time news commentary show, and that makes me happy.

I don't believe in "objective" journalism. I believe in transparency. I believe that it's impossible to hide your opinion, to pretend that you don't have a horse in the race. If you're a human being, you're going to have an opinion, you're going to be swayed one way or another. It's just not possible. And thus I think that it's better to be out in the open about it.

Still, I get my news from NPR, which of any American news outlet seems to come the closest to the "objective" ideal. That doesn't mean they don't call out bullshit when they see it--listen to the hilarity when actual lipstick was applied to an actual pig. Even objectivity doesn't mean some sort of mythic balance between two sides.

It should mean finding the truth.

Anyway, I appreciate Rachel Maddow because she usually has backup for her sources, and her opinions are clearly that--opinions.

My dream media landscape would include much more public funding for NPR and PBS, enough to make them truly competitive news sources. Because not-for-profit news is the only way we're going to get truly disinterested (at least financially--the reporters and producers will always be human and thus never truly disinterested) news. Then MSNBC and FOX and whoever else wants to get into the game can put out whatever kind of news and commentary they want, because there would be something to check it against.

Of course, the calls of liberal bias on NPR wouldn't stop, not when Republicans have found it such an effective campaign strategy. But a recent study (Kull, Ramsay and Lewis, "Misperceptions, The Media, and the Iraq War") found that NPR and PBS consumers had the fewest misperceptions about the Iraq war--and that having those misperceptions contributed to the likelihood of supporting the war, and of voting for Bush.

Anyway, that's my dream.

Most of you regular readers know that I'm working on my master's in journalism. Yet very little of what I do currently is actually journalism. I blog. I write op-eds for Global Comment. I write about comic books, movies, and pop music. Very little of that is real journalism. I suppose that when I do an actual interview with a comics writer (like this one) that might count, but I don't really flatter myself that it has a huge effect on the world.

Not to denigrate the impact of art--I think art and music, literature and film can have a huge impact on the world, and it's one of the reasons that I return over and over again to writing fiction. Willow Wilson's AIR and Brian Wood's DMZ, Warren Ellis's BLACK SUMMER and Alan Moore's V FOR VENDETTA and WATCHMEN all could conceivably change people's minds about political issues, and for that comics are as valid as any other format. But when I'm writing about them? At best I'm a critic, at worst a glorified fangirl.

I'd love to do real journalism when I get out of school. Love to go write for one of the heavy magazines and do long, in-depth investigative pieces that require months of work at a time.

But it ain't what I do now.

And it ain't what Rachel Maddow is doing, either. Or Keith Olbermann or Chris Matthews or Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity or Brit Hume. At least not most of the time.

Really?

I don't care who it alienates (although it's not like I care who my normal posts alienate) - is a Hannah Montana story, featuring none other than Billy Ray Cyrus's offsping, really the top story at CNN.com right now (1 AM Brazilian time, midnight EST in the US)??????

I mean.......COME ON