Latest News

TNR Sails The Seas With Eric Alterman The National Review

2007-06-26T17:30:38Z

The New Republic has a terrific, terrific article in their latest issue, by British writer Johann Hari, who sailed on this year's National Review cruise and wrote an incredulous 3,000-word takedown of the event and its participants. To be fair, they must have known it would be a pretty good article because it had been done with so much success a decade earlier by theNation's Eric Alterman, who, in 1997, sailed on that year's National Review cruise and then wrote an incredulous 5,000-word takedown of the event and its participants.

Is a decade long enough to elapse before ripping off a stunt? Sure — especially one that worked so well. However, in the tiny, interlocking and overlapping world of the media — particularly the world of left-leaning politically-themed magazines — it's probably not long enough to rip of a stunt without acknowledging it. Which TNR, alas, does not.

Even so, the article really is great, and it's an important one to have written based on the information it collects about right-wing thinking and rhetoric, right from the start:

I am traveling on a bright-white cruise ship with two restaurants, five bars, and 500 readers of National Review. Here, the Iraq war has been "an amazing success." Global warming is not happening. Europe is becoming a new Caliphate. And I have nowhere to run.

Which is a good thing, because Hari collects some unbelievable quotes and anecdotes during the trip, from both National Review presenters and from their eager, cruise-travelling readership. A sampling:

"You must live near the U.N. building," the Floridian says to one of the ladies after the entrée is served. Yes, she responds, shaking her head wearily. "They should suicide-bomb that place," he says. They all chuckle gently.

and

One of the Park Avenue ladies declares that she gets on her knees every day to "thank God for Fox News."

and

Podhoretz goes on to insist that "nobody was tortured in Abu Ghraib or Guantánamo" and that Bush is "a hero." He is, like most people on this cruise, certain the administration will attack Iran.

He also catches fissures within the ranks, like when John Podhoretz insists that "[t]here were WMD, and they were shipped to Syria" and that the Iraq war has been "an amazing success" and "couldn't have gone better." William F. Buckley snaps at him, "Aren't you embarrassed by the absence of these weapons?" (For the record, no, Podhoretz is not.) The piece is worth reading just for Buckley's later comments about how Reagan would have dealt with Iraq ( "I think the prudent Reagan would have figured here, and the prudent Reagan would have shunned a commitment of the kind that we are now engaged in, if only to imagine the Republican presidential candidates scrambling to get their heads around that.

Also worth reading for a nice jab at Republican hypocrisy: "Several days later, the nautical counter-revolution has docked in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, where passengers will clamber overboard into a nation they want to wall off behind a 1,000-mile fence." It should be noted, however, that a more general hypocrisy was pointed out far back in the last decade as well: That, one year after Alterman lampooned the NR cruise, the Nation launched their own version (in which — fun fact! — Christopher Hitchens was a featured participant). Mother Jones took the Nation and Alterman to task on that point ("Is there an irony in the prospect of The Nation hammering out a progressive agenda on the deck of a potential ecohazard while underpaid, overworked seamen toil below?"). According to Mother Jones, Alterman did not seem to see a problem, and to the Forward in 2004, didn't think participating in a Nation cruise himself was any biggie, either. So in the scheme of things, maybe ripping off his story idea ten years later isn't such a big deal. Either way, one can only wonder what Alterman's great friend Rick Stengel might have to say about all this.

Update: Big hat tip to Ankush Khardori, who passed along the piece to me and writes about it here, noting that P.J. O'Rourke predated the lot of 'em by crashing a similar cruise.

Reshuffling the Deck Chairs on the National Review cruise [TNR]
Cruising For Trouble [Penguins on the Equator]

Related, referencing the Alterman piece, which does not seem to be online:
From Port to Starboard, Magazines Take to High Seas Towing the Party Line [The Forward]
Sailing Out [Mother Jones]

Old vs. New Media: Jack Kapica Still Doesn't Get It

2007-06-06T19:00:49Z

First off: This isn't just a random, isolated matter involving an obscure Canadian columnist, nor is it a grudge match because I happen to be the person he misquoted. It addresses the larger issue of Those Who Get It vs. Those Who Don't.

The "It" in question is, How New Media Is The Same As Old Media In All The Important, Fundamental Ways. Jack Kapica from the Globe & Mail thinks that new media is a no-holds-barred plaything to be capriciously and wantoly used by careless and unqualified practitioners, and if they can do it, well la-di-da, then so can he.

The backstory to all this is here, but essentially, Kapica covered a panel I was on at last week's Mesh Conference in Toronto, and completely misrepresented/misquoted/misattributed/made up comments from myself and fellow panelists, asserting that "one theme that ran through this fear-based analysis was that bloggers can, in fact, easily replace news organizations, ousting professional news reporters with freelance amateurs and opinion-mongers." Er, no. That was not a theme, and was never explicitly or even implicitly asserted. Yet after I and others posted a comment disputingthe accuracy of his claims and correcting the record, here (finally, five days later) was his response:

I'm a little surprised about the anger I see in the letters complaining about my blog. A blog is a place for opinion, a point of view, and I'm sure people like those writing their comments to me would be among the first to defend that principle. Judging by the language of the responses I got it more resembles a flame war; I wonder why anyone would want to get involved in something like that.

And holding me to standards of truthfulness so dramatically at odds with those that are tolerated in someone like Michael Arrington smacks of a double standard.

This is the kind of response that makes me want to bonk my head against the wall repeatedly. Sure, a blog is a place for opinion — or reporting, or celebrity gossip or media analysis or Star Trek fan fiction or whatever. A blog is a platform, like print, like TV, like radio. Just one other way of getting information out there. That does not mean that whay you put out there does not have to be accurate. In fact, it does. And if you're the Globe & Mail — or any other publication worth its salt — you should be demanding the same exacting standards of accuracy on the most under-trafficked blog post as you are for your front page. And if you do not, then do not be surprised when readers complain.

Kapica's response post reads half-defensively, half-cluelessly, as he justifies his original post without ever directly addressing the complaints about it: Fundamental accuracy. He dismisses Jay Rosen's request for attribution on certain points, because Rosen wasn't there — which is exactly the point. (In fact, this whole thing was kicked off by Rosen, for whom alarm bells went off seeing sweeping statements made about unattributed comments; his radar was dead on.)

Okay, this post has crossed into the realm of the wonky, but that''s okay, even necessary — because if people are permitted to post inaccuracies willy-nilly with no fallout, then what kind of standard is that? It's not fun having to go through and clean up the china shop after the bull has breezed through — Media Matters and CJR and Jay Rosen, hats off to you — but the only way to enforce journalistic accountability is to hold journalists accountable. That applies to the New York Times and Gawker and Jossip and Newsweek and Men's Fitness and FoxNews (cough Conyers/Jefferson cough), to the Huffington Post and the Globe & Mail, and to globeandmail.com, to bloggers and anchors and ink-stained wretches. It's called taking responsibility, and — new media or old — it's not an option.

In other news, the Webbys were last night. Apparently this Internet thing is catching on.

The new New Journalism beats up on the old [GlobeAndMail.com]
Mesh Conference Redux [GlobeAndMail.com]

Meshfight! Meta-Battle Between New Media And Old Media Over Panel About New Media vs. Old Media [ETP]

Illustration by Hugh McLeod at GapingVoid.com via Loren Feldman at 1938Media.com

ETP is on the road...

2007-05-30T15:05:20Z

...and thus will only be posting to our new and glorious page when we get a sec between danishes at Toronto's fabulous MESH conference, and when we can figure out how to upload the breathtaking photo of Hogzilla that's been thrilling America since the weekend. Hogzilla = news, people. It's a GIANT HOG! Shamu, the gauntlet has been thrown.

p.s. I'm on a panel with this guy — scary! Later on we'll have a video of keynoter Michael Arrington showing off the fabulous speaker's gift, the patented MESH boxers. They're not actually mesh, but oh-ho, if they were, the conference would be that much better!

More To The Point, Chuck Klosterman Is Dating Someone Who Likes The Eagles???

2007-05-30T14:11:01Z

'New York' Culture Blogger Flees To 'Rolling Stone' [Gawker]
32 Reasons Why The Eagles Are The Best Band In The Universe [New York Vulture Blog]

Great Lede Alert

2007-05-30T08:38:53Z

"For the record, it isn't until the fourth page of the introduction to his new memoir, No Excuses, that Robert Shrum begins making excuses."
— Steve Kornacki in the New York Observer, "Shrum's Book Explains Much — But Not the Kerry Loss."

Fox's War On Fat (Women)

2007-05-29T22:07:14Z

We know Fox likes pretty ladies. Fine, who doesn't. But its tolerance for remarks deriding women for being overweight, or "overweight," is reaching glaring and unseemly proportions. This was apparent on two occassions last week, troublingly unrelated. The first was on "Your World" With Neil Cavuto, in a segment with a chyron reading — seriously — "Should Physical Size Factor Into Who Wins American Idol?" (Ah, the Cavuto mark: The all-purpose punctuation which transforms even the most outrageous statement into an innocuous, we're-just-asking question). Somehow, the peg of this segment was "American Idol" winner Jordin Sparks, who for the purposes of the discussion was somehow determined to be obese, particularly according to "expert" Meme Roth, spokestwig for National Action Against Obesity. Against the backdrop of shots of Sparks singing in various outfits, looking normal and proportioned and not-obese, Roth said that looking at Sparks made her see "diabetes, heart disease...the vision of unhealth" as Cavuto commented that she was "a little heavy" — well, he is used to consorting with Hooters girls — and Newsweek's Ramin Setoodeh, bewildered, pointed out that she was 17 and looked "pretty normal to me." Footage of another female Idol candidate was briefly shown, too; Ruben Studdard, however, was conspicuously absent.

Meanwhile, on Hannity & Colmes, the discussion on Friday night turned to — what else? — Rosie O'Donnell's departure from "The View" (a perennial H&C favorite, in Sean Hannity's words "a major development in a story we have been covering for quite some time," and he wasn't talking about Anna Nicole Smith). Guest Curtis Sliwa, who often wears a beret, declined to confine his commentary to Rosie's talking point, instead taking it further in discussion with Hannity, Alan Colmes, Ellis Henican and Julia Allison (ETP friend and contributor). The following is an (inexact) partial transcript, since there is plenty of crosstalk:
Curtis: The blob has her own blog!! If you're a sycophantian lackey of Rosie O'Donnell, you can see her at home stuffing the cookies in her face, the blob working her blog! (Mimes the stuffing of cookies into face)

Julia: But once again, you're making ad-hominen attacks! Why go and insult her attractiveness? That's absolutely unacceptable. If you want to insult her viewpoints, do that, but why go for her attractiveness?

Colmes: Good for you! Good for you, Julia!

Curtis: Excuse me, the fact that I'm watching her attack my President and my country, and she looks like Linda Blair in the Exorcist with her head ready to explode!

Julia: But this has nothing to do with what she looks like! You said earlier that it ultimately came down to the fact that Elizabeth is cute and Rosie isn't. But if you had two men in an argument, at what time would you ever hear them say "Oh, you know, this fight is really about their relative
attractiveness." You would never, ever, ever hear anyone say that!

Curtis: Elisabeth Hasselback is the only person on that hencluck show called The View who has any decent basic values about America.

This is a really interesting exchange for a few reasons. One, it's amazing the extent to which Sliwa thinks it is appropriate to mock Rosie's appearance. Two, Julia's point is spot-on — no one described the Geraldo-Bill O'Reilly smackdown last month in terms of who was hotter (though ETP may have mentioned the manliness of Geraldo's mustache). Three, note that on a politics-neutral matter — Rosie's appearance is neither left nor right — only Colmes supported Julia's point (and note also that Julia was not invited on as a partisan guest). Four, note the way Sliwa effortlessly dismissed The View based on its female-only cast (aka the "hencluck") — even though it's fair to say that panel shows like, say, Meet The Press are very often — oh, let's just use the phrase — sausage fests. But at no time does that fact even come remotely into a qualitative assessment of the content. Five, Sliwa's outfit. He chose to wear that on television. Shouldn't that go to his credibility somewhat?

There's a lot in the preceding paragraph to chew over, particularly the feminist points about The View (which was handily addressed today by Nora Ephron). But what is important to note is how easily, how casually, a woman's weight became an issue of derision and mockery on one of Fox's most popular shows, and the responses of that show's hosts to that mockery — on a network where the standard of what counts as "obese" is clearly skewed, where the female on-air personalities are all gorgeous and lithe* and then men are not necessarily all beanpoles like John Gibson (and where the guy at the top certainly is not). It's a double-standard that is alive and well in pop-culture in general, but at Fox, it played out at its nastiest the other night on Hannity & Colmes, and at its most insidious the other day on Neil Cavuto.

Related:
Yes, We Know, Rosie is Not Size 2. Move On. [Julia Allison]

*Please note that this is not to be taken as an implication that they are not qualified — as a guest on "The Live Desk" with Martha McCallum last week, I was extremely impressed with McCallum's quickness and professionalism in addressing a breaking story.

Welcome To ETP 2.0!

2007-05-29T13:19:54Z

Greetings, readers! You have probably noticed soemthing different about Eat The Press today, perhaps beginning with when you went to our brand-new shiny Huffington Post, gleaming like a jewel in five-part harmony. That makes no sense but the redesign sure does: Now HuffPo's great content has been broken out into five sections — Business, Entertainment, Media, Politics, and Living Now — plus the hyperkinetic front page featuring all the breaking news you will ever, ever need so seriously, just delete those other silly sites off your bookmarks, they're just taking up space. As for Eat The Press, we've nestled comfortably into our new home on the Media page, which will scoop up all the latest headlines on the beat, while ETP focuses on commentary and reported pieces. In the meantime, HuffPo media will continue to run smart, incisive pieces by our wonderful contributors like Harry Shearer, Jay Rosen, Nora Ephron, and the Erics Alterman and Boehlert, plus ETP contributors like Jason Linkins, Ankush Khardori and Glynnis MacNicol, whose contributions will continue to enrich the site. I will be working with HuffPo's new and awesome Associate Media Editor Michelle Kung, the woman who will be mainlining freshly-pumped media news into your needy veins, and hopefully ETP will continue to serve you with content that adds to the conversation. In the meantime, find us at our brand-new URL, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/media/the-news/eat-the-press — fun to say ten times fast! — and check out our archives anytime you're feeling nostalgic. Thanks as always for reading — welcome to ETP 2.0!

The NYT Mag's Ad For "Knocked Up"

2007-05-28T23:13:13Z

Wow — you could do worse for the pre-buildup to a summer flick than a giant, 8000-word cover story in the New York Times magazine (circulation 1.6 million, not including online). That's what "40 Year Old Virgin"/"Freaks & Geeks"/"Undeclared" wunderkind Judd Apatow got this weekend courtesy of writer Stephen Rodrick, who shadowed Apatow during the pre, post and pan-production process for his new movie "Knocked Up," in theaters everywhere on June 1st. It's pretty obvious that "Knocked Up" is going to be a massive hit — Apatow is hilarious, and he's hit on a winning formula in the Seth Rogen/Paul Rudd/Leslie Mann combo, plus his heaping helping of heart underneath the gross-out humor and sex jokes. In fact, that's what Rodrick picks up on, and then some:
Both of the films Apatow has directed offer up the kind of conservative morals the Family Research Council might embrace -- if the humor weren't so filthy. In "Virgin," the title character is saving himself for true love. "Knocked Up," which opens on June 1, revolves around a good-hearted doofus who copes with an unplanned pregnancy by getting a job and eliminating the bong hits. In each of the films, the hero is nearly led astray by buddies who tempt with things like boxes of porn, transvestite hookers and an ideology about the ladies possibly learned from scanning Maxim while scarfing down Pop-Tarts. By the end, Apatow exposes the friends as well meaning but comically pathetic and steers his men toward doing the right thing.

Or, put another way, Judd Apatow is a raging, raging conservative: The "40-Year Old Virgin" glorifies love-based sex and demeans sex-based sex; all those who are worthy turn away from it, and the arc of all the main characters is to eschew it. "Knocked Up" might as well be a pro-life ad: See, kids, you can embrace your unplanned pregnancy AND fall in love with your impromptu partner in procreation! Perhaps this is the happiest medium ever for the New York Times: Cater to Red America with 8,000 words glorifying such family values, while apppeasing its rabid Liberal base wit the hat-tip to penis, drug and hooker jokes. If only Adam Nagourney could appeal as evenly to all sides. Enjoy the above trailer for "Knocked Up" — while it seems to give away the entire plot, as trailers these days seem to do, at least with Apatow you can be assured that the rest of the movie's 129 minutes will be funny, too.

Disclosure: Steve Rodrick is a friend of ETP's. Judd Apatow is not. Seth Rogen is Canadian.

The New York Times, Back On The Gossip Beat

2007-05-28T14:51:04Z

Last year after the Page Six scandal broke, I noted on HuffPo how much the New York Times seemed to revel in the story (six photos of Jared Paul Stern on the front page! Twelve reporters assigned to cover the story!). Yesterday ETP was reminded of that with the Sunday Styles section, where not one but two articles gleefully plumb the depths of the gossip industry, one jumping on the latest juicy allegation in the Page Six imbroglio and the other looking and the effect of glossy gossip mags on little girls.

The first, by Alex Williams, happily dives into last week's scurrilous allegation by Stern and former sixer Ian Spiegelman that Page Six honcho Richard Johnson had accepted an evelope of cash from restarateur Nello Balan. Except the allegation wasn't so scurrilous, after all — despite some quibbling over what funds went where at the Post, it was sort of right on the, er, money: $1000 straight to RIchard Johnson. "How much positive ink does a $1,000 gift to a gossip columnist buy?" wonders Williams, and proceeds to add it up, tracing the mentions of Keanu Reeves sipping wine here or David Duchovny and Téa Leoni nibbling there. Conclusion: $1000 buys a lot of ink at Page Six — not to mention a full-length story in the NYT Style section. (No wonder Nello Balan doesn't think there was anything wrong with it!)

Much thinner a read is the gossip-girls piece by Stephanie Rosenbloom, which provides the flipside to Newsweek's alarmist "Girls Gone Bad" cover of a few months back ("Are we raising a generation of 'prosti-tots'?"). Rosenbloom begs to differ, and offers up legions of 9-year-olds who may know their way around Britney's exposed nethers but are made of stern enough stuff to disavow such bad-girl antics. Her conclusion: Kids are safe, good breeding trumps, good kids can tell the difference. Also, the word "badonkadonk" is now officially in the NYT lexicon. Meanwhile, Sophia Ambrosino, 12 , of Manhattan, we're with you: We preferred Linsay Lohan in her "Parent Trap" days, too. Remember when this little girl couldn't do coke and crash up her car? Sigh.

Upshot: Gossip still A-OK at the NYT, as long as other people are dishing it. Alas, poor Boldface, we knew you well.

Burying the $1000 Lede: Richard Johnson, Jared Paul Stern, and the Latest Page Six Allegations [ETP]
Gossip at the New York Times, Above and Below the Fold [HuffPo]

Rosie O'Donnell: Bully, Suck, Sore Loser

2007-05-26T00:02:25Z

Unbelievable. Rosie O'Donnell actually quit The View, three weeks before her contract was up, like a big, blubbery baby. Seriously.

There are huge ironies here, but the first one that struck us was that she left after her showdown with Elisabeth Hasselbeck, aka the "Poor Little Elisabeth" O'Donnell claimed to have been forced to go easy on lest she be perceived as a bully.

Except, of course, that that is exactly what Rosie O'Donnell is: A huge bully. The exchange on The View was a stunning display of that, from beginning to end. For those who only caught the highlight clip (starting with Rosie saying in a soft, menacing tone: "Do you think I think the troops are terrorists, Elisabeth? Yes or no?" and then graduating to a "Paradise By The Dashboard Light"-style "YES...OR...NO?"), the entire clip is telling (we've got it below, courtesy of YouTube). It is incredible TV, no question — but wow is it ever revealing about Rosie, who starts off on the attack, eyes narrowed, trying to nail Hasselbeck on a semantic point and then feinting back into the victim pose, sulking that everyone paints here as "Big Fat Lesbian Loud Rosie attacks Innocent Pure Christian Elisabeth," which, in point of fact, may not be entirely incorrect but is one hell of a generalization to fall back on after failing to stick someone on a point . A more accurate depiction might be "Rosie Attacks" — because that's what Rosie does best, and she's done a great job of it on The View, but yeah, she's certainly done it loudly and she's certainly wielded her moderator's chair like a blunt cudgel, swung with force more than facts.

Bullies never like it when the tables are turned, and Rosie was no different; it is instructive, I think, to note that Rosie's pouting complaint about Elisabeth was that she didn't stick up for her or come to her defense — the exact same grievance she had against Barbara Walters in their feud. A careful watching of the argument reveals that it's not at all about the substance of Rosie's comments — and specifically, her implication that the US and/or the troops in Iraq were akin to terrorists — instead it was about how Elisabeth failed to stand up for Rosie and how Rosie failed to clarify her statements at Elisabeth's suggestion. This fight was not about the war in Iraq (despite Joy Behar's best efforts) — it was 100% about Rosie's nose being out of joint, and about her ability to dish it out but not take it.

For those who are not fans of Hasselbeck — like Donald Trump — well, fair enough: She supports a stupid, terrible war and I don't agree with most of what she says, but one thing I will say about her is that I respect her willingness to engage on the issues, honestly, and pretty bravely considering the unpopularity of her viewpoint. But that is beside the point here, anyway: This fight was not about politics, it was about what Rosie thought Elisabeth should have said about her politics or something but which really meant Rosie's ego.

It is ego that drove Rosie to quit three weeks before the expiration of her contract, ego that impelled her to pout in non-rhyming free verse on her blog, posting a self-pitying video and affecting a put-upon air. This is the same woman who took a week to apologize for the "ching chong" comment. And now she's walking three weeks early, because she picked a fight with an easy mark — and lost? Wow. From bully to baby in 0.5 seconds. But it's not an arc that should be surprising, really, because this seems to be how Rosie rolls — start out as the Queen of Nice, end up hurling accusations and parting bitterly. Even so, she's a professional, or should be — and with three weeks left to go, a professional stays in the hot seat she's been given the freedom all year to create, and sees it through — at the very least for the sake of the fans who have supported her through each controversy, not to mention the spirit behind the show that gave her yet another chance at the spotlight. Then again, it is called The View; I guess when that view stopped being Rosie's, it was time to go.

Murdoch, Bancrofts Continue to Offer a Pointed Demonstration of Inertia

2007-05-24T19:58:41Z

We figure its time for another installment of the ongoing saga of Rupert Murdoch and his bid to purchase Dow Jones. Currently, the state of play might best be summed up thusly:
Nothing continues to happen.
The current state of nothing happening does not preclude the possibility that something may, at some point, happen.

Until then, please enjoy this picture of some cute bunnies sitting inside teacups.

Back in February of 2006, the popular urban legends site Snopes confirmed the veracity of the rumor that some users of the drug clomipramine may experience an unusual medical side effect: the act of yawning may induce orgasm. For this reason, we recommend users of clomipramine follow this story very closely.

For the rest: here's today's news. Some members of the Bancroft family--the older members who largely have controlling interest--continue to maintain that they will not sell to Murdoch. Most notably, Dow Jones director Christopher Bancroft, who tells the Wall Street Journal today that he's received letters from many Journal reporters who don't want Murdoch to take over, and that their outpouring has "left him emotionally moved." Why, it could be that the very reporters reporting on the reporters in the report were among the people who reportedly established this rapport with the subject of their reportage.

See how we made our own fun there?

Elsewhere the Wall Street Journal (re-)reports that divisions remain within the Bancroft family over what to do.

While some Bancrofts, especially younger ones, are open to exploring other alternatives, the family is far from reaching a consensus on what course to take, according to people familiar with the matter.

"People familiar with the matter?" At the Journal, couldn't this mean just about anybody?

Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that the divisions within the Bancroft family over how to proceed translate to a scenario in which members of the family start backing Murdoch. It only means that not every member of the family is in agreement with every other member. This is vital news to anyone who has not had any experience being part of a family, and who, in addition, has never read the opening line to Anna Karenina.

RELATED:
Key Dow Jones Holder Cites Opposition To Murdoch Bid [Wall Street Journal]

Olbermann's Special Comment: A Time.com Exclusive

2007-05-24T14:39:37Z

Here is Keith Olbermann's "Special Comment" from last night, a blistering denunciation of Bush's "second surge" and the Democrats' weak-kneed agreement to go along with it and their "betrayal" of the American people who voted them in last November ("few men or women elected...have been sent into office with a mandate more obvious nor instructions so clear: Get us out of Iraq"). The man's got a point, but this post isn't about that, nor is it about Olbermann's impressive feat of talkin' tough while wearing a pink shirt and tie. It's actually about an item heralding it on Time.com yesterday.

The headline wasn't that much of a stretch, really — "Exclusive: Olbermann to Blast Iraq Compromise" — I mean, who couldn't have figured that out — but what's interesting is that Time's Ana Marie Cox, arch-nemesis of Eric Alterman, obtained a rough draft of Olbermann's speech for last night's show, and posted the excerpt on Time's "Swampland" blog. Cox averred that she had it "on good authority" that it was legit; a pretty credible claim, we know now, but also before it aired, thanks to phrases like "with the stroke of a cursed pen" (which you just knew would be pronounced "cur-sed" like them smart Shakespeare types say it). But the credibility isn't the point: The point is, it was sort of a weird item. Weird because it was so bloggy, but so not Time-y.

Blogs love the leak — the dude from Engadget said so himself as he was explaining how they'd screwed up so massively on the iPhone story. Obviously they are not alone in that — what newsweekly or paper doesn't love a nice juicy leaked document?— but the difference is that the blog standard for publishable leaked material is way, way lower. Look! An internal email! The Conde Nast air-conditioner will be off between the hours of 10 and 12! Free pizza in the conference room at four! Seriously, this is the sort of stuff that has easily made it to blogs in the past (to the consternation of one Andrew Krucoff) — easy scoops delivered straight to the inbox, easily framed with a joke.

Now, there's no question that this was of slightly more news value — but, really, only slightly. Essentially, all it was was scooping Keith Olbermann on something that it was a safe bet he'd say, anyway. That's not to say it's not interesting or buzzy — Olbermann generates heat, pure and simple — and there's no denying that the topic of the supra-surge is uppermost in mind. But it's unusual to have a post which itself has no analysis; Swampland typically consists of the thoughtful musings of contributors Cox, Joe Klein, Karen Tumulty and Jay Carney,* but rarely do they break anything other than their own opinions. Cox's post has this dash of analysis — "I got a feeling the netroots are gonna like this one" — which may have explained the raison d'etre of the post vis a vis traffic (though not borne out) — but otherwise, just not a typical Swampland post.

So, to the ineviable assessment: Good post or lame post? (I am blogger, hear me judge.) I pick.... GOOD POST! (Wheee, yaaay, confetti!) Why good and not lame? This was basically just a reprint of an Olber-rant, right? Yes, precisely: Cox is the one person at Swampland who knows best that blogs are conduits just as much as they are the main attraction. Knowing how to frame something is key, but also knowing what tidbits to throw out to the reader, and when your own analysis is superfluous, and understanding that not every blog post has to Say Something Impressive (barring this one, of course). It's stuff like this that highlights the nimbleness of the web and keeps the info flowing in between opportunities to make fun of the McCain-Romney bitchslappery. Nothing novel where the blogosphere is concerned, but as Time.com keeps pushing for web presence and attracting a different audience than the magazine, it's stuff like this — more Wonkette than Time — which could very well give them the edge. Either way, Eric Alterman ain't gonna like it.

*Oops, I originally wrote "Jay Conason" — clearly I was confused. Sorry, Joe Conason! And Jay Carney! And Eric Alterman, while I'm at it!

"Coming Up, The Situation Room With That Jew Wolf Blitzer!"

2007-05-23T23:18:35Z

Men's Fitness Doctors Andy Roddick's Guns

2007-05-23T15:06:08Z

On Friday, TMZ noticed that Andy Roddick looked rather buff in his recent Men's Fitness cover — weirdly, egg-white-and-whey-enzyme- muscle-building-protein-powder-with- a-dash-of-steroids buff. Were those really Roddick's guns, it wondered, or had Men's Fitness indulged in a little Kate Winslet-Emma Watson-Martha Stewart-style photoshoppery? Survey says: Yes! Turns out we got the confirm from the brawny Mr. Roddick himself. Via Towleroad (which has some yummy before and after pics showing that Roddick didn't need any damn help), we nav'd on over to AndyRoddick.com, where the tennis star posted an entry to his blog (yes! Posted an entry to his blog!). Unfortunately, information ain't free, and you need to be a member to read the whole thing, so we'll trust Towleroad for the excerpt:
"I spent the last few weeks in Austin really focused on my training and getting back into shape...but pretty sure I'm not as fit as the Men's Fitness cover suggests...little did I know I have 22 inch guns and a disappearing birth mark on my right arm. I saw the cover for the first time when I landed after Rome...it was pretty funny...I walked by the newsstand in the airport and did a total double take ...I can barely figure out how to work the red-eye tool on my digital camera...whoever did this has mad skills...maybe Rafael Nadal wants his arms back?...if you can manage to stop laughing at the cover long enough, check out the article inside, the photo shoot on the boat was pretty cool..and I recognize the person in those photos..."

Roddick seems pretty good-humored about the whole thing, but really, this is a pretty big violation: Retouching a photo to smooth out some wrinkles is one thing — and done with regularity, obviously — but digitally changing a body part — actually, two — is a completely different story and Men's Fitness definitely knows by now that it's one hulking heavyweight of a no-no. On the cover, no less! More importantly, why does Men's Fitness need to retouch the guns of a world-class athlete? And what does it say about the message it's sending its readers — and whether it can be believed on anything, at all? To whom can readers turn for gun information they can trust?

Not Men's Fitness, apparently, which means that we probably can't trust them on losing the gut, working the glutes, and how to get her back in the sack. And is that really the girl behind the porn? What now can we believe? Maybe if Men's Fitness offered photoshopping tips...

Andy Roddick Responds to Men's Fitness Cover Image [Towleroad]
Checking In From Austria [AndyRoddick.com]

Related:
Pics of Andy playing tennis in Madrid! [AndyRoddick.com]
SNL: Merv the Perv, Andy Roddick Edition [YouTube]