Britisher

I just have to say that Huffington Post. IMHO, is approaching an "infotainment" ttreshhold in its front page format., quite removed from its origins. I think reactionary crap drawn from the "mediashpere" is now being promoted over the contibutions of its "columnists:. all of whom are still worth reading and who made HuffPo a standout site.. But the front page editing is increasingly tabloid in its format and shallow. Good for short term business I'm sure but after November, assuming the Dems do well.

Take a note from the ABC debate debacle--tuning in can result in tuning out, if the "goods" don't meet market expectations. Retention and brand loyatly count, now more than ever. posted 04/21/2008 at 16:52:57

ABC did indeed miss a HUGE opportunity to benefit themselves. They were GUARANTEED a huge audience and they clearly knew it, judging by the number of commercials they showed. But incredibly they didn't have the faintest of what the audience was looking for. .

ABC still has reporters that practice responsible professional journalism, but they are not the ones in charge. Had they looked to them for the questions instead of the usual suspects, not only would the "debate" have been much improved but ABC would have garnered points from what are clearly the most important demographics now and for the near future--Democrats in general and young Demoncrats in particular.
If the grand poobahs of ABC had paid attention to over a year's worth of public sentiment and interest they could have delivered what the 'market' clearly wanted and needed--subtantial questions that would deliver the desired product of relevant information. Had they taken that apporoach not only would they have enjoyed critical success, they would have enjoyed COMMERCIAL success too! ABC would have been the go-to guys to see the biggest show in town from here-on out.

Instead they clearly lost viewers, and not just for ABC News but for This Week and even GMA. That's just bad business, never mind the ideals of journalism. And where are those viewers going to go? To the Internet--and the advertising dollars will follow..

Charlie Gibson may well find himself actually joining the "middle class" in the near future. posted 04/21/2008 at 09:43:24

Doubly recycled:

http://www.command-post.org/2004/2_archives/2004_08.html

McCain RNC speech, 2004

"War is an awful business. The lives of a nation"s finest patriots are sacrificed. Innocent people suffer. Commerce is disrupted, economies are damaged. Strategic interests shielded by years of statecraft are endangered as the demands of war and diplomacy conflict.
However just the cause, we should shed a tear for all that is lost when war claims its wages from us. But there is no avoiding this war. We tried that, and our reluctance cost us dearly. And while this
war has many components, we can"t make victory on the battlefield harder to achieve so that our diplomacy is easier to conduct." posted 03/26/2008 at 17:56:46

Yes, the media got it wrong. posted 03/25/2008 at 22:06:19

I have to say this:

I contributed to Hillary in 2006. I voted for her in the primary. I;ve been dsgusted by the attacks on her by other Democrats and liberals, and challenged those attacks in comments on various blogs ( not by tossing "equivalent" charges back but by arguing against the points in the attacks).

BUT

HIllary absolutely LIED about her Bosnia experience. She simply LIED. Why? I can't imagine.
All politicians skirt around the truth, or exaggerate or downplay this and that, They are all usually very selective about what they talk about and how. But this was utterly STUPID, on so many levels.

I still find the "faith and hope" message of Obama hyperbolic and naive and the wholesale acceptance of it by so many wide-eyed and juvenile.( whereas I consider my opinion appropriately cynical)....

BUT....

I can't' see anything excusable in what she said about dodging sniper fire--ther'es no nuance or manipulation of the video evidence that I can see, no schwme or agenda at play . The public record refutes her account absolutely.

If anyone who has yet to cast a primary or caucus vote decides against Clinton because of this single lie of hers, I'd say they'd be justified. posted 03/25/2008 at 20:14:27

cooper made a decent effort there. Futile. but decent posted 03/21/2008 at 15:34:11

so when is this story going to be updated,since it's top and front but dates from last night? posted 03/21/2008 at 14:11:03

I though it gruesome and a savage indictment of celebrity obsession. It moved me too.

I used to be a agency celeb photographer (for about 18 months back in the early 80's). The shoots I'd go on were usually specifically organized events( Rolling Stones Steel Wheels kick-off at Inn on The Park, David Bowie's Serious Moonlight Tour launch, "RumbleFish" movie premier etc).

I did however do a few more paparazzi-like shoots where f'rinstance fashion designer Bob Mackie's people gave me an exclusive invite when every other photog there was with a Fashion mag. My job was to shoot the celebs in the audience as publicity for Mackie.

A weirder one was when Liza Minelli;s agents tipped me that she was going to see an off boradway play. I was the only photog there. Even so I ASKED to take her picture and Minelli hammed-it up for me. Very decent of her.

I did a couple of stake-out assignments when there was no event to record and I hated them--a lot of effort for the sake of someone somehwere doing nothing.

When celebs need publicity they can get it in an instant. When they don't need it it's the paparazzi who impose publicity on them. There's no quid pro quo for the "paps"--they feel they own their subjects, make them and break them. They all like to argue that the celebs NEED them, they OWE them! No they don't..
I made a decent amount of money then (absolute peanuts by today's standards) by working WITH celebs--never publish an unflattering photo (we published one I took that gave Joan Rivers more cleavage than she actually had, and we heard she loved it). My boss got exclusive big-money shoots with celebs because of that approach.
The photogs and journalists OWE their loivelhoods to the Clebs, not the other way round. The sickest thing is of course that even when the golden-goose is dead, they STILL justify themselves and make money off the corpse!

BTW South Park just did an eposide where Cartman gets aids and then infects Kyle (?) because Cartman doens;t see the irony and Kyle (?) does. That was funnier than the Spears episode but not the usual Cartman come-uppance fare, and still more direct than the usual commentaries.

I think the Spears episode is worthy of the National Archives as serious social commentary.
posted 03/21/2008 at 16:31:49

ooops, wrong thread posted 03/21/2008 at 14:07:44

When is this important story about Ms Harty and the passport breach/Clinton connection going to be updated? I'm really interested posted 03/21/2008 at 14:06:59

I note also the choice to feature Sam Steins "Clinton Ethics" piece directly below the "Maura Harty" dsitortion . Coincedence? posted 03/21/2008 at 13:58:04