There's no real purpose to this post other than to bring this photo to you with this headline, really, but we'll use it as a segue to something we do actually want to introduce: ETP's highly original, totally uniqaue "Media Blank Of The Year" series running next week, where we'll be celebrating the follies and jollies of the last year in handy list form. We're really excited because we don't think anyone has done that yet. We're also going to be publishing a big long fun post of photos we really really like, like this one, because let's face it, anything goes next week. But since ETP is a serious journalistic enterprise, we'll hook our use of the Condi photo on her recent statement that all the lives lost in Iraq were, like, totally worth it. In fact, we're sure that the Chinese totally have a word for that! And if you still need to be convinced, maybe you should go ahead and read the Taif Accords and Resolution 1559. Sheesh. Does she have to tell you everything?
Well! We started out making a joke and turned this post into a total downer. Kind of ironic, really, since so much about 2006 was about taking total downers and turning them into a joke: Witness Stephen Colbert's White House Correspondent's Dinner speech and basically every night on "The Daily Show" and "Colbert Report," plus all the blogs that somehow managed to find the punchlines (somewhere in our top Media moment listicle thingies there will be a hallowed place for "Cocktober Surprise"). Yeah, we'll list 'em all next week, after we've had time to read everyone else's lists and lift the parts that we like. Until then, Condi is crushing your head. Enjoy!
NB: In case it bears mentioning, this is Condi's quote from "Meet The Press" back in August: "You know, Tim, the Chinese have a character for crisis. It's weiji — danger and opportunity." No doubt the troops appreciate the opportunity to be placed in danger! Because it was — what was that she said? — oh, right. Worth it.
Eric Boehlert
If warbloggers want to spend their waking hours attacking combat reporters, calling them cowardly and unethical, and trying to intimidate the press, so be it. Warbloggers have become an integral part of the right-wing noise machine. But when they get called on it, warbloggers shouldn't demand apologies, insisting they're merely obsessive fact-checkers doing democracy a favor.
Read the full Media Matters column here.
— ETP staff
from NBC
Today NBC's "The Today Show" did a segment on kissing (with nary a mistletoe mention, funnily enough), featuring Meredith Vieira, David Gregory, anthropology professor Helen Fisher and Men's Health EIC David Zinczenko, all talking about kissing and what it means and how if you totally mack out you use 34 facial muscles, which totally counts as exercise. None of the foursome actually made out, which was disappointing for those who tune into the "Today Show" for a little hot n' heavy morning tonsil action, but that's not the point: They forgot the most important tip of all. So, in honor of the holidays and a drunk and sloppy New Year's, here's a tip from ETP: If you think you're not using enough tongue, you probably are. There you go. A little late for drunken indiscretions at office parties, but what can you do. Now go forth and smooch! Just remember to leave your partner with warm memories, not a face covered in saliva. A PSA from ETP! We just sort of thought it ought to be said.
www.watcherswatch.com
Hot off the presses from Nielson, it's the 2006 Most Popular Awards — and this time, there are no consolation prizes (nice try, You). The big winner: American Idol, in multiple categories on multiple nights, with a nod to #3-selling artist Carrie Underwood as well. Also Pirates of the Caribbean, An Inconvenient Truth, Cars, and James Patterson, with a whopping four books on the Fiction hardcover list. Impressive. And, Atoosa may be on to something: High School Musical topped the charts as top album (message: You can play basketball, be on the science team AND star in the school play! And also, it's okay for boys to bake), and Justin Timberlake did well across the board with one of the top albums, downloads and ringtones (message: Sexy was gone, but he brought it back; and also, there's something special for you in that box) . In other news, Shakira's hips don't lie, and neither do the Nielson numbers. In no particular order, here are some of the top categories:
Top 10 Regularly Scheduled TV Programs
Rank/Program, Rating (% of Nielson homes)
1 - AMERICAN IDOL - TUESDAY FOX (17.7)
2 - AMERICAN IDOL -WEDNESDAY FOX (17.2)
3 - DANCING WITH THE STARS ABC (12.7)
4 - CSI CBS (12.0)
5 - DANCING W/STARS RESULTS ABC (11.4)
6 - NBC SUNDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL NBC (11.1)
7 - CSI: MIAMI CBS (10.3)
8 - DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES ABC (10.2)
9 - HOUSE FOX (10.0)
10 - DEAL OR NO DEAL-MON NBC (9.8)
10 - WITHOUT A TRACE CBS (9.8)
Source: Nielsen Media Research. Note: Data from Dec 26, 2005 - Dec 17, 2006. Household Ratings include Live and Same Day timeshifted viewing.
No real surprises here: America obviously loves singing, dancing, serial killers and cranky doctors. but don't let Jeff Zucker tell you scripted shows are dinosaurs, it' s only the crappy scripted shows. And even if NBC forgets about Joey and Coupling, Jeff, we remember.
Also, here is the second-most surprising list of the batch: A list where the number-one show is "Studio 60." And it's not even the list of Top Ten Super-Earnest Self-Referential Sanctimonious Television Shows Written By People Who Obviously Consider Themselves Creative Geniuses! Though we'd give them that one, too. It's this one:
Top 10 "Timeshifted" Primetime TV Programs - 2006
Rank/Program, % Increase in Viewership
1 - STUDIO 60 - NBC 10.9
2 - HEROES - NBC 9.1
3 - GILMORE GIRLS - CW 7.9
4 - AMERICA'S NEXT TOP MODEL - CW 7.7
5 - 30 ROCK - NBC 7.5
5 - FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS - NBC 7.5
7 - THE NINE - ABC 6.7
7 - SUPERNATURAL - CW 6.7
9 - KIDNAPPED - NBC 6.6
9 - ONE TREE HILL - CW 6.6
9 - SMALLVILLE - CW 6.6Source: Nielsen Media Research. Note: Data from Dec 26, 2005 - Dec 3, 2006. Percent Increase in viewership is based on difference between Live Household Ratings and Live+7.
The most surprising list, as Radar already pointed out, was this one:
Top 10 Cited Wikipedia Entries - 20061 Web 2.0
2 Steve Irvin
3 Mark Foley Scandal
4 Blog
5 Ajax
6 World War II
7 Snakes on a Plane
8 Meme
9 Wiki
10 RSSSource: Nielsen BuzzMetrics. Note: Data from Jan 1 - Dec 10, 2006
I don't even know how to decode this. Ajax? Apparently, the internets are abuzz with secondary characters from Greek mythology, or really feel strongly about leaving their toilet bowls sparkling. Nick: Ajax is a development technique named last year that makes pages like Google Maps all Web 2.0-ish, but I sure as hell wish people were looking for the legendary king of Salamis. Also, sort of meta that one of the top wikis is "wiki."
Source: Nielsen BuzzMetrics. Note: Data from Jan 1 - Dec 10, 2006
More results below, including proof that Yahoo! topped something this year.
NY Times
Today the New York Times runs a very unusual op-ed: Censored. An essay by former CIA official Flynt Leverett has been thoroughly redacted by the White House. The censored essay — titled "Redacted Version of Original Op-Ed" in case you missed the chunks of blacked-out text throughout — is what remains of an essay criticizing Bush's policies toward Iran. According to the Times, it elected to run the redacted version after the White House claimed that portions were classified (this, please note, is after the CIA, which has cleared over 20 other pieces by Leverett, cleared the entire piece). Wednesday, Rep. Louise Slaughter sent a letter to Bush asking whether the redactions were politically motivated.
The Times delayed the essay's publication last week but apparently decided that this redaction attempt deserved a public challenge; meanwhile, Leverett and co-writer Hillary Mann have promised to fight for the publication of the redacted parts. Next to the op-ed the Times has taken the unusual step of listing a number of specific news stories online, guiding readers to the redacted info: "The deleted portions of the original draft reveal no classified material." TPM Muckraker, which had the details yesterday, in turn got it from an item published on the Washington Note by blogger Steve Clemons, but noted that item had been taken down and replaced with a version missing some of the original info.
Meanwhile, former CIA director George Tenet's book is due out in February; should be interesting to note what gets through ("July 10, 2001: Dum-de-dum, not much happened today...").
www.flackandkurtz.com
This week's Sunday New York Times included a piece on women in business entitled "How Suite it Isn't: A Dearth of Female Bosses." It's a strikingly candid look at the reason women, despite tying with or exceeding men in numbers of college and graduate degrees, still aren't making significant career breakthroughs in the highest corporate echelons. Author Julie Creswell gives a cursory mention to the explanations typically cited to explain the lack of female business stars - the necessity of taking time off for families, the lack of mentoring and fewer networking opportunities. But she isn't afraid to dig deeper, and even point a few accusatory fingers. The first is at men, who frequently still stonewall women at work and allow the "Good Old Boy" culture of corporate boardrooms to flourish. Women who've reached the top are also identified as potential culprits for brushing off mentoring opportunities, neglecting to support younger women looking to move up, and declining to keep their status as female chief executives in the forefront. Creswell also hits on the self-sabotage occurring among professional women who earn graduate degrees and/or high positions at a young age. One female executive is quoted as saying, "There is a whole lot of hand-wringing going on with women...They get the high-power degrees and then they drop back because they tell themselves they're not going to get very far anyway."
Creswell's candor is a refreshing dose of honesty about a sensitive topic. Finally, women are willing to admit that we ourselves are part of the problem, Still, we can't help but wonder, why didn't the Times mention these widespread factors when it addressed the near-identical issue at law firms in March?
