PSoTD

That Dick Cheney won't be on his show after the current administration ends.

Is that Matthews' reading of Cheney's choice of programming? Or is this Matthews' standard for this determination? If so, is it the Tom DeLay line of deceit? The Ann Coulter line of lack of credibility? The Pat Buchanan line of ridiculousness?

CRAWFORD: Again, I gotta ask, where does that leave Dick Cheney if the neocons are heading for the hills. Where does he end up in this administration?

MATTHEWS: I know what he does. He moves out to the eastern shore of Maryland and waits there like [indecipherable] with a gun. And he waits until the next administration comes into office. If it’s a Republican administration — like McCain — he has a lot of influence. If it’s a Democratic administration, he starts coming on programs like this. He won’t be on this show, but like this.

I dunno, I think the show "Seinfeld" lost a lot of its comedy spark after every episode's first viewing. Althouse has a post today saying that Richards' racist remarks last week have ruined it for her, that until that point she always found it funny. But to me, Seinfeld isn't a series that ages well - and part of that is because almost every character is an extreme caricature, and repeated viewings don't seem to add any depth or new laughs. Not that there's anything wrong with that...

Don't get me wrong, in the 1990s I was a regular and dedicated viewer. But the repeatability comedy value of the series seems pretty limited to me now.

For whatever reason, this reminds me of Lou Dobbs' Space.com foray...

Thanks, New York Post.

Your message

To: Letters
Cc:
Subject: Dear Judith Regan
Sent: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 13:34:02 -0500

was deleted without being read on Mon, 20 Nov 2006 17:09:29 -0500

Roxanne and Amanda have a great idea how Judith Regan can make turn something useful out of her O J Simpson book. Send Regan an email.

I have to admit, I like Paid/Unpaid MUCH MORE than Pro-Am. But there's a recognition in this business model for "pro" reporters.

Gannett Co., the nation’s largest newspaper chain, plans to create stories with information from bloggers, people who post in Internet discussion groups and other non-journalists in hopes of winning readers from the Internet, television and other news sources, officials with the company said.

Gannett, which operates 90 newspapers, including the nation’s largest, USA Today, is hoping “citizen journalism” will reverse the company’s part of an industrywide trend of declining circulation and advertising revenues, officials said.

“It’s pretty big,” said Michael Maness, Gannett’s vice president of strategic planning. “It’s a fairly fundamental restructuring of how we go about news and information on a daily basis.”

Under the plan, the “Information Center” will be divided into seven areas: public service, digital, data, community conversation, local, custom content and multimedia.

Of course, I'd be more hopeful of my own success in this arena if they had an area called "total crap".

Ed Bradley. America's loss.

Because he cost the Republicans the victory on Tuesday!

Several members of Congress have been discredited by the voters in their districts and "retired" from service. It was an indictment that they weren't credible do the job well enough any more, and it was time to give somebody else a chance.

Shouldn't there be a similar fallout for journalists, especially those who report Republican Party talking points as actual reporting? There are political reporters in both print and electronic media that just aren't credible at this point. And being a shill for the Republican Party has a lot less general news value when Republicans don't control all the power, because those shills are unlikely to get much real news from the Democratic Party power base. But there's always Fox News for the shills. They won't change. But for every other news organization...

What "journalists" should be retired from their current employer at this point?

(and please, no chorus of Bob Novak, please. I think everyone but his employer knows about him.)

When I go home from playing basketball on Wednesday evenings, I listen to a few minutes of Michael Savage on talk radio. It's a little like shock therapy - it is hard to believe that someone with his beliefs and his anger has earned a radio show, but there it is.

It was somewhat enjoyable last night to hear him turn on Rush Limbaugh. He basically called Limbaugh a liar and a con artist. In my opinion he's right, but I never thought I would hear this on conservative radio.

From Savage's web site today:

Rush Limbaugh says he feels “liberated today because I no longer have to carry the water for" the Republican Party. Basically admits he has been deceiving his audience!

Interesting development. Will ConRadio eat themselves?

Stuff I'm not seeing in the American news media today:

Is the news media, spending SO MUCH RESOURCE ON A TRIVIAL STORY INVOLVING A SENATOR THAT ISN'T EVEN RUNNING FOR OFFICE THIS YEAR.

Okay, it's not funny. It's sad, sad, sad, sad, sad, sad, infinity sad.

Because it's so predictable.