Post strikes again

Some news requires a tabloid approach. Today’s New York Post cover proves why. I mean, really, there are few of us in this business who wouldn’t, just once, like the opportunity to publish a cover like this.

I could care less about the story, but this graphic does put the whole thing into the correct perspective.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
The Cranbury Press Blog

E-mail me by clicking here

Too, too funny

Please watch this.

http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/syndicated_player/index.jhtml

This is way too funny. Few guests get Colbert, but Nation editor Katrina VandenHeuvel gets it and gives the Colbert Nation a run for his money.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
The Cranbury Press Blog

E-mail me by clicking here

I guess Imus comment on this

I wasn’t going to say anything at all about this — I’m uncomfortable calling for the firing of radio hosts over their speech, no matter how venal and reprehensible their comments may have been — but I thought I’d pass along this post from Crooks and Liars:

On “The Situation Room” today, Human Events editor Terry Jeffrey said that Don Imus “represents a general decline in standards in American broadcasting” and that politicians should avoid his show because they would then have to “take a stand on the various outrageous things he says.” During his high and mighty sermon of decency, Jeffrey conveniently ignores the far more toxic venom spewed on a daily basis on conservative talk radio.

Imus’ statements past and present — documented here by MediaMatters — are deplorable and should be condemned. That goes without saying. The point, however, is the blatant double standard. Did Dick Cheney have to “take a stand” on Rush Limbaugh’s myriad racist/sexist /insensitive remarks before going on his show last week? Did Secretary Gates have to condemn Laura Ingraham for advocating that her listeners jam the Democratic voter assistance lines in November before chatting it up last week?

I agree entirely with Jeffrey’s point that we need to raise the standard of American broadcasting, but the most egregious violators are squarely on his side and we should apply the standard consistently. Echoing what John and Digby said earlier, this incident should provide a perfect opportunity to expose right-wing talk radio
for what it really is: a bubbling cauldron of vile hate-speech.

Any thoughts?

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
The Cranbury Press Blog

E-mail me by clicking here

Out-foxed

John Edwards and Barack Obama may win some support among the Democratic netroots for the decision to skip the Fox-sponsored TV debates, but they are doing a disservice to voters.

John Nichols, the peerless correspondent for The Nation, writes today on his blog that John Edwards — and by extension, other Democrats — should not have backed out because “Democrats need to get a whole lot better at dealing with conservative media” and because the “should, by their actions, confirm that they are better than Bush,” who rarely faces off against his critics.

Most broadcast and cable networks are unfriendly forums for progressive ideas. But they won’t get any friendlier if Democratic presidential candidates refuse to appear on them. And those candidates won’t get any more agile when it comes to parrying attacks – be they fair or unfair – if they avoid challenging venues.

Edwards should have accepted the invitation and then used the debate to talk about what’s wrong with American media. He could have started by discussing the flaws of Fox and then, if he wanted to do something useful, he could have pointed out that they are mirrored by other networks.

Instead, he has decided to avoid a potentially unfriendly forum. It’s a political misstep that this able contender ought to reconsider.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
The Cranbury Press Blog

E-mail me by clicking here