Letterman's Humor, Maybe

I don't care much for golf -- to either play it or watch it. (What a phenomenal waste of time when you get down to it. Then again, I've only played it four times and didn't have much to show for it.)

However, I'll stop and watch it -- when it's being broadcast in high-definition. (Granted it will be only for 5 to 10 minutes.) Hi-def certainly makes the game that much more, well, watchable.

Sadly, what hi-def gives, it takes away.

So there I am watching the Dave Letterman program last night and time has not been kind to Dave. (I guess stage make up can take you only so far.) (A quick flick of the remote, though, shows that Jay Leno -- appearance-wise -- seems fine. I still don't know why he's "retiring" next year.)

The only thing more tired than Dave's looks was his routine -- running down the GOP. They were modestly funny efforts. But if you were looking for fair play -- you weren't going to find it. He made one joke about Barack's informercial but Elliot Spitzer ended up as the punch line. A video segment later on the program showed the start of Barack's infomercial -- an uninspired takeoff of the old Laverne & Shirley program. (Which was probably lost on the studio audience.)

Before I bailed out he was doing a Joe McCain bit which was somewhat funny. (Joe, the GOP candidate's brother, called 911 to complain about being stuck in traffic and said some impolite things in the process.) However, he went to the well one too many times on that gag. Lastly, he was trying to see how many Sarah Palins could fit in a Lenscrafter store. (As a skit, it probably did better as a concept, because the execution left me puzzled.)

If Dave expects to have me as part of his audience, he'll have to be playing at a pro-am tournament.

Newsweak

I was shopping at my local Giant. I'm old school as I like for someone else to ring up the charges and pack my bags rather than have myself do it. While waiting, I glanced at the magazine rack. I was shopping in an upscale neighborhood -- or so I thought -- as Newsweek was on display.

So while I wait, I picked it up just to look at the cover. Well what would you know? On the cover was an article on how Obama might just run a center-right government. (I know that Ann Coulter is pushing a get drunk and vote for McCain program but was it possible that I drank so much that I totally blacked out during the voting process?) After checking my watch, I realized that the election hasn't yet happened.

There was also a little bit about why Fareed Zakaria is voting for Obama. (Just out of curiosity, who died and made this guy important? Seriously, when he would be on This Week it was time to refill the coffee mug.)

So, being a supporter of the fairness doctrine that I am, I searched for the bone thrown to the McCain campaign. I had a dozen items that had to be scanned at the checkout. I could have a few hundred, and I'd still be looking for something neutral (much less positive) about McCain.

Now, I haven't read Newsweek in eons, which suggests that I'm way overdue for a physical. It wasn't out of any sense of bias but rather, they would print first and ask questions later -- way later. Check out out this and this to see why. Moreover, if you compare an edition of the magazine from, say, twenty years ago, you'll find way more (liberal) opinion and a whole lot less news.

Now I note that the magazine's circulation has plummeted. If I read this article correctly, it seems that the magazine has lost a half a million readers in the past year. (That's one one of every six for the magazine.) Yikes!

I guess I wasn't the only one who put the magazine back on the rack and walked away.

A Cliche Moment

How many times have you seen a movie where the "bad guy" is aided by someone who thinks he (or she) is going to enjoy the riches when Mr. Evil takes over? Sure, every villain has an enabler. But what happens when the bad guy gets the run of the town? Well, if the script is true to form, he kills the enabler. Why have him hanging around when he's no longer useful?

Well, Barack Obama is not a bad guy. Well, perhaps bad for our future.

However, since grabbing the lead -- BO has effectively dismissed any need for the media.

Thanks for the help pal, but you're expendable.

Bang!

The Media in a Nutshell

Years ago, a mild mannered reporter for a large metropolitan paper spoke to me (and hundreds of others) about the press. He started his discussion by talking about how journalists are lazy, undisciplined, biased, sloppy and a few other choice adjectives. He then paused. Someone from the back said, "Keep going."

Let me keep going.

I swore off network news years ago. It wasn't due to any perception of bias. (It was there; it was less of an issue over the fact that a nightly broacast was 1/3 actual news and 2/3 features. After a while, one tires of hearing the same story about a miracle drug that is 5-10 years from being marketed.)

I hardly read the papers. Growing up, I read the New York Daily News religiously. The poor executives at the NYDN don't know what they are marketing -- a serious city paper or something to rival a Fleet Street rag. The editorials are written as if they are sermons from the mount while page 3 has the lastest fashion trends. Curiously, as the NYDN becomes silly, the New York Post has become, well, more serious. Worst yet, it's a better read. The NYDN may have several columnists but they all say the same thing.

Back in the day, I craved the Sunday talk shows. Granted it was a little more than recycled sound bites but it was interesting nonetheless.

However, I have come to the conclusion that the media no longer cares about the audience or more precisely -- me. (Plunging ratings and circulation numbers don't happen in a vacuum.) No, rather they are more concerned about keeping themselves amused. Harp on McCain and Palin's supposed gaffes; ignore the Iraq War, it's going too well; skimp on the coverage that blames the liberals for their role in the economic mess. You get the idea.

Moreover, everyone thinks I'm entitled to their opinion. I used to read Mike Lupica for sports -- not to bash Bush. I read Mens Health for fitness tips; not to read about how swell Obama is; and there's no end to Fox-bashing throughout the New York Times. Maybe there is an audience for this type of thing -- it's certainly not me.

Take MSNBC and Newsweek. Earlier today, the morning news host interviewed a junior reporter about the magazine's latest presidential poll. Obama is leading by 13 or so points. Both the host and the reporter were at pains to mention that this poll was consistent with a host of others. (Well, that was actual news to me.)

The narrative that they want to believe is that Obama will win (and more importantly signify a rejection of Bush -- whether that's important or not, I will defer to posterity).

If they wanted to do the audience a service -- then they would explain the volatility of the polls. Furthermore, they would have reminded the audience that the polls are a snapshot in time and are not stone cold locks regarding who is going to win. (Remember Obama's victory in New Hampshire? Neither do I but it was a stone cold lock.)

Like sports fans who are happy to see their football team with a big lead at the end of the third quarter, they just rejoiced about how Obama is coasting to victory.

Click.

Bias - What Bias? TV Version

Tuesday night I was downtown and the restaurants were packed. (Silly me, I thought that we were in the midst of a neo-depression.) I need to get out more often. However, I was stuck indoors last night.

I checked out the Thursday SNL episode. The opening sketch was the highlight of the show. (That's not saying much -- the remainder of the program consisted of snide comments passing for jokes and the old standby on video -- vomit humor.)

Now the opening bit, with Will Ferrell reprising his "W" impersonation was, well, OK. Of course, it wasn't what they didn't say that was interesting. Nary a joke said about "That One".

Later, Paul Krugman was on the Charlie Rose show on PBS. Since the Nobel Laureate was talking economics, rather than politics, it was utterly fascinating. More fascinating was Rose asking for Dr. Krugman's take on what Obama will (and should) do as President regarding the current economic mess.

(Obviously the show was taped in the future for broadcast last night as there were no questions asked regarding John McCain's reaction to the economic situation.)

Again, I need to get out more.

Bias, What Bias?

From today's New York Times:

1. Title: "$150,000 Wardrobe for Palin May Alter Tailor-Made Image "
Page: A1
Impact: RNC-donated wardrobe may impact Ms. Palin's "hockey-mom" image.
Staff: Two reporters and two contributors
Note: Article is prominently displayed on the website.

2. Title: "Acorn Report Raises Issues of Legality"
Page: A17
Impact: Discusses how ACORN disregarded laws and procedures to support its voter registration efforts.
Staff: One reporter, one contributor.
Note: Article not on the website's splash page. Type in "ACORN" in search box to get this story.

Again, we need to emphasize that The Times's editorial page does not impact its reporting. We all get that right?

Name The Party - DWI Edition.

Here's an Instapundit feature that can be found here.

From today's Daily Obama (formerly the New York Daily News):

Soon to be ex-Representative Vito Fossella is convicted of drunken driving. His political affiliation can be found in the first sentence. It's the front page headline story.

Slide over to page 10 and read about how Harlem Assemblyman Adam Powell IV is facing a DWI charge. He nixed a plea deal. What's his party? Good luck hunting for it. (The website article helpfully suggests you read abut Vito Fossella's woes.)

These Guys Know What They're Doing

"You have a commitment from the U.S. government and the Federal Reserve to do whatever is necessary to keep the financial system whole," says Richard Bove, banking analyst at Punk Ziegel. "That's extraordinarily important, and it's why the we've argued that the financial crisis is over."

US News & World Report, 7-14 April 2008, page 80

A Stroll Through NYC

I know we haven't weathered this financial imbroglio yet -- there is a lot of bad things (and no doubt some good things) that will arise before it's all settled -- and that may take years.

Perhaps I've seen one too many episodes of "24" and this financial meltdown is only a distraction for God knows what else is on the way.

But for now, it isn't a panic. Last night in lower Manhattan people were going to restuarants -- many enjoying the Indian, er, Native American, summer nights and dined outside. I also saw folks commuting to and from the financial services sector. Granted they looked glum, but they did have their jobs.

I write this because the media -- such as the New York Daily News and Bill O'Reilly (whom I actually like) -- are making this financial meltdown to be the worst thing ever. (Spend a few months in Iraq or Afghanistan -- and get a sense of perspective.)

It may be but that's certainly not the case now.

Richard Cohen Knows All

Being a newspaper columnists seems like an easy gig -- write 750 words on what your thoughts regarding a current issue three times a week.

Then again, it could be a chore -- especially when you're not really thrilled with the topic on hand -- and would prefer to toss in a gratuitous partisan shot

Such was the case with a Richard Cohen column penned yesterday. He starts off by being grateful that Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke is a student of the Great Depression. Then he recounts the similarities (they are somewhat strained) between the economic situation of the late 1920s and today.

OK, when you don't have anything to say, go with a history lesson.

Then out of left field, he starts comparing the outlooks of Obama-Biden with McCain-Palin. Here is where it gets, well, conventional:

"Barack Obama's people feel they have control over their lives. Sarah Palin's people do not have a similar confidence."

First of all, isn't McCain, the Presidential nominee? I thought the game plan was to make Palin the second coming of Dan Qualye. Who got the memo saying she's the next Dick Cheney? (And if elected, see her vilified as the next Spiro Agnew.)

Anyway, count me in as an SP person -- I certainly believe that I have control over my life. In fact, if Mr. Cohen opted to have actually thought about things -- he would have reviewed Obama's acceptance speech. (Remember the Greek columns at the Stadium?) In short, he addressed Americans as victims and that he was coming to their rescue.

Moreover, he foolishly notes: "This is why the Republican National Convention made war on the media." Well, having been in a couple of wars, I would disagree. In fact, the RNC is simply calling the media out for being in the tank for Obama. (And don't get me started on that.) Criticism isn't warfare but then again, did Mr. Cohen ever spend time in a foxhole?

Mr. Cohen is like his liberal columnist brethren -- whatever the issue -- hit McCain-Palin and don't let anything inconvenient like the facts -- get in the way.

What's most remarkable about Mr. Cohen's easy gig -- someone actually pays him to write such drivel.