Bright Hall http://brighthall.aol.com Bright Hall http://brighthall.aol.com/media/feedlogo.gif Bright Hall http://brighthall.aol.com en-us Copyright 2009 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/Why Do Americans Oppose the Release of Information?http://brighthall.aol.com/2009/04/26/why-do-americans-oppose-the-release-of-information/http://brighthall.aol.com/2009/04/26/why-do-americans-oppose-the-release-of-information/http://brighthall.aol.com/2009/04/26/why-do-americans-oppose-the-release-of-information/#commentsFiled under: , ,

Matt Negin is now a contributor for The Cram, a student news arm of the newly launched PoliticsDaily.com. To follow his future work, click here.

In a new Washington Post poll, most Americans approve of Barack Obama's performance during his first 100 days in office.

But although the Post led its Sunday story with that finding, another response in the survey about the recently released torture memos is considerably more newsworthy. Apparently, 44 percent of the public disapproves of Obama's decision to release secret documents from the Bush administration detailing the interrogation of terrorism suspects. Fifty-three percent approved.

That key question also revealed a deep partisan divide, with three-quarters of Democrats backing the disclosure of the memos and just as many Republicans opposing the hotly debated move.

Why does access to more information fall along a partisan split? I was just as perplexed last year when I covered the Roger Clemens steroids-in-baseball hearing on Capitol Hill, and Democrats on the government reform committee harshly interrogated The Rocket while their Republican counterparts defended him. (I still can't figure out why, and Clemens has not been recorded by the FEC for any GOP campaign donations.)

But when did the issue of releasing information -- albeit from the secretive Bush administration about the sensitive issue of torture -- begin to irk conservatives? Shouldn't the availability of information be heralded by all, whether it be documents implicating a Democratic governor of New York in a prostitution ring or sexual instant messages between a Republican congressman from Florida and his congressional pages?

Whether the new information about counter-terrorist interrogations during Bush's term justifies the use of waterboarding or exposes a lack of understanding about torture methods, the very fact that the public can debate the use of torture with more understanding is valuable. Public debate without appropriate information is just yelling or pandering (or cable-news filler).

For example, one nugget from the torture memos released April 16 includes information (some in a footnote) about how simulated drowning, or "waterboarding," was used 266 times on two suspects. This news raised questions of not only waterboarding's effectiveness, but its frequent use. Advocates and critics of waterboarding can now understand better the controversial topic they're debating.

Yet even after that news has been reported, 44 percent of the public (mostly Republican but not all) still think it was a bad idea for Obama to make those documents available to be read by anyone, according to the Post poll. The question was not a matter of defending or criticizing the use of torture; it was, "Obama has ordered the release of previously secret records of Bush administration policies on the interrogation of terrorism suspects. Do you support or oppose Obama's decision to release these records?" Out of everyone asked, 32 percent "strongly oppose" the president's move, and another 12 percent "somewhat oppose" it.

One of the arguments against the memos' release is that potential suspects now have a wider view into counter-terrorist methods. (Still, fake drowning is fake drowning, whether you know it's coming or not.) And then there's the idea that because terrorists are potentially very dangerous, maybe the public doesn't want to know what it takes to get information that could help authorities prevent an attack.

These points appear to be valid, but certainly not partisan; nobody on Capitol Hill wants to make it easier for terrorists to strike. What they should want is the most information available to adequately serve public discourse.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>Matt Negrin2009-04-26T17:53:00+00:00No Handshakes Allowed, Mr. President!http://brighthall.aol.com/2009/04/21/no-handshakes-allowed-mr-president/http://brighthall.aol.com/2009/04/21/no-handshakes-allowed-mr-president/http://brighthall.aol.com/2009/04/21/no-handshakes-allowed-mr-president/#commentsFiled under: , ,

The president of the United States may be the most powerful person in the world, but there are still things he's not allowed to do -- like trade stocks while knowing insider information, or throw Naked Thursday dinner parties at the White House.

Now, add to those taboos shaking hands with leaders of certain countries.

It was only recently at the G-20 summit that Barack Obama was "bending his tall frame" to the king of Saudi Arabia. But on Friday, Obama shook hands with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez at a summit in Trinidad and Tobago.

As the fair and balanced network Fox News objectively told us in a headline, "Handshake With Obama Belies Chavez's Contempt for America."

And Dick Cheney, who like Santa Claus apparently has a list of things that are naughty and nice, told that same award-wanting news network that the handshake "was not helpful."

The Angler added, "I think you have to be very careful. The world outside there, both our friends and our foes, will be quick to take advantage of a situation if they think they're dealing with a weak president or one who is not going to stand up and aggressively defend America's interests."

So there you have it, Obama. Be very careful. Next time a foreign leader who says bad things about the United States reaches out his hand to extend diplomatic politeness, you know what to do.

The snub.

There are several ways to effectively perform a snub. The first, and most obvious, is to ignore the outstretched hand of the anti-American figurehead. You stand there, and you say something nice, like, "Nice to see you." If it gets awkward, take a drink of whatever's in the glass you should always be carrying for situations like this.

But this is the Venezuelan president, the man who Fox News kindly reminds us called the United States four years ago the most "murderous empire that has existed in the history of the world." A simple snub won't do; you need finesse. Take one out of the junior-high playbook and reach out to shake Big Hugo's hand, then spike it up in the air and comb it past the back of your head, exclaiming, "Psyche!"

Another good phrase to yell is, "Not!!"

If he tries it again, use the King Cobra: Stare him down until his hand starts twitching, then jut your head and torso forward abruptly and pull it back. Give out a, "What?!"

That'll teach Chavez not to call capitalism "the devil."

Update: Jimmy Fallon and I evidently share a sense of humor (view the April 20 monologue).

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>Matt Negrin2009-04-21T02:15:00+00:00Espionage: Iran's New Word for, 'We Got Nothing'http://brighthall.aol.com/2009/04/19/espionage-irans-new-word-for-we-got-nothing/http://brighthall.aol.com/2009/04/19/espionage-irans-new-word-for-we-got-nothing/http://brighthall.aol.com/2009/04/19/espionage-irans-new-word-for-we-got-nothing/#commentsFiled under: , , ,

It's difficult to take a country's court system seriously when it convicts defendants in secret trials. It also doesn't help when the president of that country is a Holocaust denier and suspected terrorist. And it really doesn't look professional to accuse the defendant -- a journalist -- of "espionage" without providing a single piece of real evidence.

But such is the perplexing case of Roxana Saberi, the Iranian-American reporter who was convicted of spying by Iran's shady court this week. The prosecutors accused the 31-year-old journalist of passing along secret information to U.S. intelligence agencies.

Spying is a pretty serious career choice, not to mention time-consuming. For Saberi to successfully spy on the Iranian government, she would have to maintain a cover, make contacts and stay under the radar for most of the six years that she's lived in the country (at least, according to the Spy Museum tour I took in D.C.).

So if suspected spy Saberi was supposed to lay low, why was she filing dozens of stories each month for news organizations like the BBC, NPR and Fox? In June 2007, she was on the front line in Tehran when Iranians burned down gas stations in opposition to fuel rationing. And she was on the scene when the Islamic country banned women from soccer games the year before, too.

Either Roxana Saberi is a terrible spy, or she's not a spy at all.

That might explain why the Iranian government first arrested her on the charge of buying a bottle of wine. They continued to hold her by claiming that she wasn't a real journalist like she claimed because she didn't have press credentials. Well, that's true -- because Iran's government had revoked her press pass in 2006.

But maybe the Iranian government does have a case after all. As revealed by a simple Google search that I can only imagine is the sole tool Iran's prosecutors used, Saberi told the U.S. government two years ago detailed information about Iranian weapons. Prepare for damning evidence:

Specifically, she mentioned "missiles that are hard to track with radar, super-fast torpedoes recently tested in war games, and other domestically produced weapons" in addition to its "tanks, armoried personnel carriers, missiles and a fighter plane."

But when I say that Saberi told the U.S. government about those weapons, I mean that she told anyone who was listening to NPR -- or even Iran, which was boasting its weapons as part of its annual Army Day Parade when she reported that story. So scratch that line of argument.

So if it's nearly impossible to make the case that Saberi is a spy, why did Iran charge her with "espionage?" Aren't there other serious crimes to commit against the Iranian government, like celebrating Passover, or acknowledging the Holocaust, or buying a bottle of wine? According to Saberi's father, the charges were so ludicrous that she had to be "tricked" into confessing.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said that she's "deeply disappointed" in the ruling. I'm going to have to agree -- disappointed in the lack of creativity on Iran's part.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>Matt Negrin2009-04-19T08:51:00+00:00How the News Is Fooling Youhttp://brighthall.aol.com/2009/04/16/advertisers-mull-the-best-ways-to-dupe-readers/http://brighthall.aol.com/2009/04/16/advertisers-mull-the-best-ways-to-dupe-readers/http://brighthall.aol.com/2009/04/16/advertisers-mull-the-best-ways-to-dupe-readers/#commentsFiled under: ,

Conventional business theory tells us that if consumers want a product, and if they can afford it, then they'll buy it. For the best items, there's no need to trick people into thinking they should spend money on something they don't need -- like OxiClean or Snuggies.

But gone are the days of conventional business. Now, companies are experimenting more and more with a type of advertising that is at best morally questionable, and desperate at worst. That technique is the fake news story.

The best example of this appeared April 9, when an advertisement dressed as a news story appeared on the front page of the Los Angeles Times. The ad, which had the headline, "Southland's Rookie Hero," under a small NBC logo, was a plug for a TV show about police officers. But it was written as if a Times reporter had gone out and done his own reporting on the fake setting of the show. The first paragraph of the advertisement reads, in part:

"This is the story of one such day when this reporter got a chance to ride along for a rookie's unforgettable first watch."

The ad, no doubt a huge cash grab for the Times (owned by the bankrupt Tribune Co.), was boxed in its own column adjacent to a real news story. The paper's reporters, upon seeing the ad that bumped some story to Page 3, petitioned the sneakiness of the ploy and said it "has caused incalculable damage to this institution. This action violates a 128-year pact with our readers that the front page is reserved for the most meaningful stories of the day. Placing a fake news article on A-1 makes a mockery of our integrity and our journalistic standards."

If only that instance were unique. Fake news ads are rare in print, but the same type of trickery can be found all over news websites online. On the increasingly popular Daily Beast site, for example, a news box below the header "Best of the Beast" teases a story called, "How Bottega Veneta Is Keeping Luxury Relevant." The ad apparently falls under the "Luxury" category and is also tagged as "Sponsored." It leads here, to a fake story under the classification, "Daily Beast Promotions."

At the Huffington Post, the public relations flaks for Shrek the Musical have planted a fake story where a real one might go, leading to a video player showing a brief clip of the performance. The headline is even mimicked in Huffington Post style: "WATCH: Shrek The Musical On Broadway," under a small highlighted tag that says, "Advertisement." The "author" of the fake story, on the ad's own Huffington Post page, is "Shrek The Musical."

The Drudge Report, in particular, has housed this type of ad style for much longer, giving advertisers a picture box in a story space virtually identical to main news items with same-sized graphics. The only discrepancy is this disclaimer below ads in what must be 3-point font: "Support The DrudgeReport; Visit Our Advertisers."

These teases seem dubious and shallow. There is a certain street-sense mantra that can be followed when observing ads, and that is: If an ad is pretending to be something else, be skeptical of both the product and the company. (You wouldn't immediately trust the man taking money from tourists on the side of the street with his trick-card deck, would you?)

The obvious caveat is that news organizations (print and online alike) need advertising dollars more than ever. The New York Times (which ran this front-page ad from CBS in January with the headline, "Front Page News") reported Tuesday that some big papers will report a 30 percent drop in ad revenue during the first three months of this year. Big players in the media circle are also playing with new ways to make money off of news, like asking readers to pay to read stories, similar to how the Wall Street Journal charges for its content.

But the solution cannot be cleverly placed faux features that simultaneously trick readers and devoid their expectations of journalistic integrity. They may not be as irritating as pop-up ads, but at least pop-up ads are more honest.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>Matt Negrin2009-04-16T01:43:00+00:00Help Us Find the 17 'Socialists' in Congresshttp://brighthall.aol.com/2009/04/09/help-us-find-the-17-socialists-in-congress/http://brighthall.aol.com/2009/04/09/help-us-find-the-17-socialists-in-congress/http://brighthall.aol.com/2009/04/09/help-us-find-the-17-socialists-in-congress/#commentsFiled under: ,

The witch hunt has begun.

Channeling Joseph McCarthy, one of Alabama's Republican congressmen declared Thursday that no fewer than 17 socialists are roaming the corridors of the House of Representatives.

"Some of the men and women I work with in Congress are socialists," said Rep. Spencer Bachus at a Birmingham breakfast. When asked to clarify his comments, he said he knows of 17 socialist House members, The Birmingham News reported.

This statement lets us know two things about Bachus: He believes there are socialist members of Congress, and he doesn't think socialism is very good.

But, wanting to keep the big secret to himself, he didn't give any names. So, it's time to dust off the old shoe leather and do some investigative reporting. Where can we find a group of 17 socialists on Capitol Hill seeking to undermine the American way? I did some gumshoe digging through congressional groups and found two subcommittees with exactly 17 members. Coincidence?

The first is the Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry, a division of the Agriculture Committee. But one of the members is Mike Rogers, one of Bachus's fellow Republicans from Alabama, and it's unlikely that Bachus would want to implicate a like-minded politician. So scratch that.

The other one I found was the Subcommittee on Homeland Security, part of the powerful Appropriations Committee. Now we're talking. No chickens and yogurt for these 17 policymakers; we're talking ballistic missiles and heavy-armor tanks, just the sort of thing a group of socialists would want to mess with. But unfortunately, a Google News search for "Subcommittee on Homeland Security + socialists" returns hardly anything. Seeing as that is the extent of my investigative capabilities, I was resigned.

Of course, it's entirely possible that the 17 socialists whom Bachus knows about are interspersed in clandestine ways among Congress's 435 House members. Well, 434 -- assuming that Bachus, the top Republican on the Financial Services Committee, does not suspect himself of being a socialist.

Or does he? A staple of socialism is controlling the media and the flow of information. The more censorship, the better for socialist leaders wanting to shape public opinion. Knowing that, take a look at Bachus's website, similar to the other websites kept by all members of Congress. When I tried to find out Bachus's recent committee news -- in "Committee News" under the "Press Room" tab -- I was greeted with this charming message:

"Not Found

The requested URL was not found on this server."

Now, hold on to your subpoenas, Justice Department officials. That broken link appears to lead not to Bachus's main page, but instead to something called "republicans.financialservices.house.gov." Now all we have to do is figure out who those guys are, and we're on our way to finding some answers.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>Matt Negrin2009-04-09T23:33:00+00:00Will Bright Hall Win a Pulitzer?http://brighthall.aol.com/2009/04/08/will-bright-hall-win-a-pulitzer/http://brighthall.aol.com/2009/04/08/will-bright-hall-win-a-pulitzer/http://brighthall.aol.com/2009/04/08/will-bright-hall-win-a-pulitzer/#commentsFiled under: , ,

First, to answer the question: Probably not -- but only because the Pulitzer Foundation refuses to accept blog entries.

Still, nobody knows for sure, because this year, the list of Pulitzer finalists has not been leaked. Usually, the chief of Editor & Publisher, Joe Strupp, names them on his media-focused website after Pulitzer jurors slip him the nominations anonymously. This lets journalists and readers debate over who they think deserves which prize for which scoop, and it can be fun.

Not this year. "They all shut their mouths," Strupp told Roy J. Harris Jr. on Romenesko. "It's the tightest it's been for leaks in years."

There's still about two weeks left until this year's best-in-journalism prizes are announced, and anyone and everyone is eligible. For those of you upset that March Madness is over and want to play some pick-'em games, that's what the "comments" section is for.

Here are some starters, brainstormed in the spirit of Joseph Pulitzer, a sensationalist yellow journalist who threw wild accusations around in his papers during the Spanish-American War:

Best Objective Reporting - Chris Matthews's "Oh God" moment introducing Bobby Jindal.

Best Scoop - Sarah Palin's allegation that Barack Obama is "palling around" with Bill Ayers.

Most Politically Correct Editorial Cartoon - The New York Post's dead-monkey drawing.

Most Sincere Apology - The one for the New York Post's dead-monkey drawing.

Most Relevant/Senseless On-Air Rant Against the Bailout - This guy.

Strongest Solution to Save the News Industry - Jon Stewart, or possibly The Onion.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>Matt Negrin2009-04-08T02:48:00+00:00What's Really Funny About Tribune's April Fools' Prankhttp://brighthall.aol.com/2009/04/03/whats-really-funny-about-tribunes-april-fools-prank/http://brighthall.aol.com/2009/04/03/whats-really-funny-about-tribunes-april-fools-prank/http://brighthall.aol.com/2009/04/03/whats-really-funny-about-tribunes-april-fools-prank/#commentsFiled under: , , ,

The bankrupt brains at Tribune Co. sure had a laugh Wednesday. After filing for bankruptcy, shrinking their papers' Washington bureaus and firing hundreds of employees across the country, Tribune thought it could make it all better with a joke.

So on April Fools' Day, they issued a press release -- accompanied by a mysteriously well-designed homepage -- that boasted the creation of something called the "Accelerator," some kind of super-communications thingy that threatens to make the Internet obsolete in a year. It uses nanotechnology, it displays holographs, it has voice recognition in every language, and it has a plutonium battery. All this (and so much more) is detailed on Tribune's release and website, which looks like it took hours, and maybe days, to perfect.

When crafting this prank, Tribune's idea men -- Sam Zell, Lee Abrams and Randy Michaels -- must have put a lot of effort into it, maybe even working overtime. Michaels, the chief operating officer, says in the fake news release that the Accelerator team "put in long hours, many of them sober. And this marvelous device is the result -- The Accelerator(TM) will mean billions in revenue, and the end of the extremely competitive advertising environment in which we've been operating."

Nobody laughed very hard upon reading this. And given Abrams's propensity for writing "think pieces" full of misspellings, ALL-CAPS DECLARATIONS and stream-of-consciousness ideas from a dream-like state, it's no surprise that the Tribune team made its highest priority for April 1 wiping out its Tribune.com website to promote a product that isn't real. (Abrams's style is not representative of the papers his company owns; in addition to not proofreading, he also doesn't check facts, which is evident in this January blast about a quote from Mariah Carey that she never said.)

So who was the joke intended for? Investors who wanted to see how the flailing company is performing after the first three months of 2009? Editors of the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times who wanted to see if their newsrooms would be losing more money this month?

Perhaps the group laughing the least is the growing number of laid off journalists who have felt the slice of the mighty Tribune sword. Former reporters of the Tribune's Hartford Courant, which fired 100 employees in February, have formed an "Alumni Association and Refugee Camp." One of them, noting that the folks in the Tribune Co. tower have more time on their hands than those at the struggling papers who are picking up more work for less wages, visited the Hartford newsroom and saw that the journalists "are in no mood for jokes -- at least corporately produced jokes."

(I know for a fact that Courant reporters love good fun; when I was an intern there last summer, the staffers dug out the eyes of CEO Zell's face on a cake before devouring it, in between two waves of buyouts.)

For what it's worth, though, the press release for Tribune's phony gadget has a glimmer of truth in it -- but not for the Accelerator. Rather, for Tribune.

Take, for example, this quote from Tribune Interactive President Marc Chase (real person): "There are still a few bugs to be worked out." Like the billions of dollars in debt that Zell heaved onto the company when he overtook it in December 2007?

Chase also says, "We're confident that we're in the end-stage development phase." That may be a bit foreboding for a company operating under Chapter 11 and not showing any signs of ever seeing numbers in the black again.

Michaels, though, was more direct in his triumph. "The game is over," he said. "We win."

Hilarious.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>Matt Negrin2009-04-03T03:11:00+00:00The Superstitious Defense of Norm Colemanhttp://brighthall.aol.com/2009/03/31/the-superstitious-defense-of-norm-coleman/http://brighthall.aol.com/2009/03/31/the-superstitious-defense-of-norm-coleman/http://brighthall.aol.com/2009/03/31/the-superstitious-defense-of-norm-coleman/#commentsFiled under: , ,

The Minnesota Senate race is getting closer to an end, and Norm Coleman probably won't win. A three-judge panel ruled on Tuesday that at most, 400 ballots questioned by Coleman, who is barely losing to Al Franken, can be recounted in court in about a week.

The news is great for Franken and Democrats, who are that much closer to getting 59 seats in the Senate, a very powerful number that can potentially dust off threats of Republican filibusters. But Coleman and the Republicans aren't giving up. They have raised millions of dollars to fuel the recount, delaying either senator from working on Capitol Hill.

Yet money may not be enough to win this legal battle stemming from Nov. 4, at least according to Coleman's lawyer, who suggested Tuesday that supernatural forces had something to do with the unfortunate rulings.

"We said that this court's Friday the 13th order is wrong, and now their almost April Fool's Day order is equally wrong," said attorney Ben Ginsberg, referring first to the February 13 ruling that discarded some ballot categories as grounds for recounting.

Obviously I'm no legal expert or scholar of law, but I don't think it's absurd to suggest that when the defense brings up scary bad-luck days like Friday the 13th or "almost April Fool's Day," its options may be running thin.

Ginsberg also said that if the court doesn't change its mind, "it will give us no choice but to appeal that order to the Minnesota Supreme Court." Will the Coleman campaign object to the high court's ruling if it falls on Memorial Day? Or the first night of Passover? What about Mother's Day?

The idea that somehow supernatural spirits or a national day of pranks are influencing the judges' decisions is, obviously, one that hasn't been academically explored very deeply. But don't rule out Coleman's defense just yet, because there is precedent for such a claim.

As elections neared in India a few weeks ago, for example, the main political parties agreed to suspend poll talks during Holi, a festival that celebrates practical jokes and even brings people together to toast a figure named "Mr. Stupid." And further, as the parties decided when to make a formal election announcement, Friday the 13th loomed -- but was brushed aside by a party official who told the Times of India, "We are not worried about the date. Friday the 13th is a Western concept; it will not harm us."

Although, another party leader said that on the day of Sankashti, "Lord Ganesha will turn Friday the 13th into an auspicious muhurtham [moment].''

For an older, yet American, perspective, take a look at Edward Stanwood's 1912 column called, "Election Superstitions and Fallacies," in which he notes that many myths circulate in the political world just as broken mirrors forecast a family member's death, even though causality cannot be proven. For example, before Ulysses Grant was reelected in 1872, people believed that no president with a middle name could be voted into office for a second term (John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren, William Henry Harrison and James Knox Polk were all limited to single terms).

(It had also held true as a mystic notion at the time Stanwood wrote his article that no senator could ever become president.)

One more contemporary example: As some of you may know, John McCain carries around lucky coins. One of them, a penny, was given to him by the publisher of the the New Hampshire Union Leader, Joe McQuaid. When I interviewed McCain last year during the primaries, the Arizona senator assured me that he still carries around the one-cent piece, and told me to send that message to the editors at the Union Leader, for whom I was writing.

Do superstitions hold true? Maybe not. McCain did lose the election, three sitting senators have become president, commanders-in-chief with middle names have been re-elected, and even India's elections have had a share of anti-Muslim controversy.

Let's just hope the next phase of the Coleman-Franken recount doesn't wind up on Halloween.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>Matt Negrin2009-03-31T22:24:00+00:00If I Hear One More Thing About Teenage Vampires ...http://brighthall.aol.com/2009/03/27/if-i-hear-one-more-thing-about-teenage-vampires/http://brighthall.aol.com/2009/03/27/if-i-hear-one-more-thing-about-teenage-vampires/http://brighthall.aol.com/2009/03/27/if-i-hear-one-more-thing-about-teenage-vampires/#commentsFiled under: , ,

The elite prep students at the prestigious Boston Latin school are evidently concerned that vampires are roaming their halls.

The gossip has seeped so much, in fact, that the academy's headmaster had to send a note to everyone Thursday to quash the "rumors involving 'vampires.' "

This moral panic, the Boston Globe reported, was started when a group of girls teased a "Goth" student for being a "would-be vampire," spreading the rumor that she had sucked someone's neck blood. More childish students freaked out when the police arrived at the school for a completely unrelated incident.

Apparently, teens have been sickly obsessed with vampires since the confusingly popular book/movie "Twilight" began romanticizing the night crawlers months ago. Girls across the country had Twilight sleepovers to celebrate the movie and Robert Pattinson's budding facial hair.

Why now? Vampire literature has stacked libraries for centuries, stemming from Heinrich August Ossenfelder's 1748 erotic poem "The Vampire" and thriving in the latter half of the 20th Century with Anne Rice's popular Vampire Chronicles. Clearly there's a market out there for readers interested in secretive bat-like characters sinking their teeth into the virgin flesh of sleeping women.

(I'm more of a classic movie buff myself, preferring the likes of Teen Wolf to silly unrealistic fantasies. But I digress.)

Just as we thought the fake-literature fad spurred by Harry Potter was finally ebbing, here comes another book about magic, or the undead, or something. Suddenly, thousands of teenage (and college) girls who hadn't had anything to read since the Deathly Hallows were racing to Borders to buy, of all things, a vampire romance story pretending to be a book.

And for some of them, it's gone too far. Vampires at school? Really? What, exactly, are the questions on the entrance exam for Boston Legal, and how do they not weed out the overly imaginative?

Here's a comment on the Globe story from what appears to be one of the girls who poked fun at the "would-be vampire:"

WE OBVIOUSLY DONT BELIEVE IN VAMPIRES
THE MEDIA IS MAKING US LOOK DUMB
THEY WERENT RUMORS, THEY WERE MAKING FUN OF THE KIDS
IM DISAPPOINTED IN THE GLOBE

Perhaps. And perhaps I'm not doing a great job of curbing this discussion, despite the headmaster's plea in his letter to "not sensationalize or discuss these rumors."

But another commenter on the story claims that the vampire hysteria at Boston Legal was in fact started by three freshmen who "call themselves vampires, who bite each other's necks and put band-aids over the hickies/bites." Further, they deny that Twilight inspired them because they say the movie "misrepresents vampires."

Imagine that. A fictional story misrepresenting a fictional being. Kind of makes you want to stab something with a silver cross.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>Matt Negrin2009-03-27T01:50:00+00:00Since When Do Politicians Care About Newspapers?http://brighthall.aol.com/2009/03/24/since-when-do-politicians-care-about-newspapers/http://brighthall.aol.com/2009/03/24/since-when-do-politicians-care-about-newspapers/http://brighthall.aol.com/2009/03/24/since-when-do-politicians-care-about-newspapers/#commentsFiled under: , , , ,

Animated disagreement between coworkers is a venerable tradition often denied to Bright Hall's far-flung, break room-less staff. Advise & Dissent is an attempt to fix that. Click here for past debates, and click here to read Tony Romm's argument against nonprofit newspapers.

The difference between a newspaper and a press release from a senator's office is that the first usually contains the whole, objective truth, and the latter is full of spin and bias.

So it may be striking some political and media observers as odd that politicians have begun lining up to offer federal help to print journalism. The latest effort comes from Senator Benjamin Cardin, who on Tuesday introduced a bill that would allow newspapers to get a bunch of tax breaks if they work as nonprofits.

There is a catch, though -- they would be barred from political endorsements on their editorial pages.

Cardin, a Democrat from Maryland, said his effort is aimed at helping local papers, not big conglomerates that also dabble in TV and radio. Unprecedented numbers of newspapers big and small are on the verge of disappearing, and many have already declared bankruptcy or stopped printing -- like the Rocky Mountain News and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

The cause is a deadly cocktail that is part terrible economy and part old business model, which relies almost solely on advertisements, which have been steadily declining for years.

"We are losing our newspaper industry," Cardin said. "The economy has caused an immediate problem, but the business model for newspapers, based on circulation and advertising revenue, is broken, and that is a real tragedy for communities across the nation and for our democracy."

The Tribune Co. -- which owns big state papers like the Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times and Baltimore Sun -- filed for bankruptcy last December. One of its papers, the Hartford Courant, shed 100 jobs last month, bringing the newsroom to a shadow of what it once was.

Other papers -- like the Baltimore Examiner and the San Francisco Chronicle -- will likely stop publishing in mere days if a miracle doesn't arrive (like a rich buyer). Although to save the Chronicle and other Bay Area papers, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has asked the Justice Department to consider allowing some of those publications to merge.

And at the beginning of January, a Connecticut lawmaker, Frank Nicastro, asked the state government to consider bailing out the local Bristol Press, a scrappy paper in danger of shuttering its printers.

Why would politicians -- who thrive on mastering control of their carefully crafted messages -- step up to the plate to help newspapers, which have a history of uncovering political secrets and at times bringing down elected officials?

"[Pelosi]'s been a big fan of newspapers her whole life," spokesman Brendan Daly said to the Chronicle about the California Democrat's letter to the attorney general. "She wants to ensure their survival, but is also very concerned about antitrust laws."

But not all of Washington's suits are backing dead-tree journalism. Colorado Rep. Jared Polis, a Democrat, earlier this month took partial credit for the Rocky's death and argued it was "mostly for the better."

Still, even extreme ideas like shoring up a federal bailout for newspapers isn't a totally new idea. But the problem lies in what makes newspapers unique -- their inherent objectivity and independence from government. The fourth estate operates as the most established watchdog of public office. If federal, taxpayer dollars were injected into its ink, could the press on one hand thank the government for the help but on the other hand continue to ask dogged questions of leaders?

Perhaps the debate is too idealist, if newspapers are on the way toward obsolescence as many suggest. And maybe the time has come for the industry to think of the bigger picture. Former Miami Herald editor Tom Fiedler, now my dean at Boston University's College of Communication, told Fox News, "I truly believe that no democracy can remain healthy without an equally healthy press. Thus it is in democracy's interest to support the press in the same sense that the human being doesn't hesitate to take medicine when his or her health is threatened."

Yet there are a lot of angry readers out there who would like nothing more than for newspapers to cease -- and the sooner the better -- despite not understanding the barriers between newsroom reporters and opinions on the editorial pages. As one commenter wrote on this very blog, "When the media changed from having a responsibility to having an agenda then the fourth estate lost its credibility."

One thing is for certain. Whether you agree with a newspaper's editorial positions or not, it is tough to refute that both local and national newspapers do serve a public good. You can whine all you want about how The Washington Post endorsed Barack Obama or how your local paper backed Sarah Palin. But to think that those papers don't spend every day trying to report what's happening in your community and the world is just naive.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>Matt Negrin2009-03-24T23:36:00+00:00Japan, Without Steroids, Is Baseball's Besthttp://brighthall.aol.com/2009/03/24/japan-without-steroids-is-baseballs-best/http://brighthall.aol.com/2009/03/24/japan-without-steroids-is-baseballs-best/http://brighthall.aol.com/2009/03/24/japan-without-steroids-is-baseballs-best/#commentsFiled under: , , ,

TOKYO -- At 6 feet 3 inches, and only 169 pounds, right-hander Hisashu Iwakuma kept the Koreans at the plate for most of the game.

On the offensive side of Japan's lineup and earning his spot as the championship's hero was Ichiro, who at 5 feet 9 inches and 160 pounds drove in two runs with an up-the-middle line drive after a patient, samurai-like at-bat.

There is no denying that Japan is likely the skinniest baseball team not only to win the World Baseball Classic (twice in a row), but probably to even play in it. Coming from a country whose main foods are noodles and fish, most of these players would probably scoff at the notion that injecting their bodies with steroids would make them better athletes.

As if somewhat proving this point, Japan firmly manhandled the United States in the semifinals, 9-4, like a horde of miniature players overtaking a country that boasts baseball as its national pastime. But in truth, there is no country that loves baseball more than Japan.

At the crack of Ichiro's swinging bat as it drove the ball into center field, bringing two runs home in the top of the 10th inning yesterday, the room full of some 40-odd Japanese students I was in erupted in riotous cheers. "Pressure's on, Korea!" one student yelled.

That scene was being repeated all across Japan, in ramen shops, bars, offices and even train stations with televisions tuned to the most important baseball game of the next four years. For the same reason that Japanese (and Korean) fans constantly chant and cheer during games despite the score, these citizens -- young and old, employed and retired -- were glued to the screen itching for a win for Japan. Call it a form of conformist nationalism if you want, but it sure sells ThunderStix.

The final score was 5-3, but it might as well have been 55-0.

Japan's history with Korea stems back much further than baseball, and emotions still broil from Japan's occupation of its Asian neighbor during World War II, when it forced thousands of Korean women into sexual slavery. A win for Japan in the WBC championship game means more than a trophy and an after party in the locker room, and more than bragging rights until 2013. It means asserting dominance over a country that may never get a true, genuine apology from the Japanese government for what happened more than 60 years ago.

But that history doesn't show on the surface. Yesterday, it was all about Yu Darvish's blown save and salvaged win, Ichiro's game-winning shot and the tears and champagne that flowed in both San Diego and Tokyo.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>Matt Negrin2009-03-24T09:14:00+00:00This Again? Some Still Claiming Media's Obama 'Swoon'http://brighthall.aol.com/2009/03/23/this-again-some-still-claiming-medias-obama-swoon/http://brighthall.aol.com/2009/03/23/this-again-some-still-claiming-medias-obama-swoon/http://brighthall.aol.com/2009/03/23/this-again-some-still-claiming-medias-obama-swoon/#commentsFiled under: , , ,

Kevin Ferris's op-ed today titled "Media's swoon over Obama" even reached the commentary pages of Japan's largest newspaper, The Daily Yomiuri, where I first read it. I wonder how many other people took it seriously.

Ferris, an editorial page editor for the Philadelphia Inquirer, uses a new documentary about campaign coverage to rehash the old argument that during the 2008 race, "the media let us down in nearly every respect."

Fine. Let's hear what you've got to say.

Pointing to a spot in the anti-Obama, anti-media documentary by John Ziegler, Ferris rages over how it is the fault of "the media" that lots of facts about Sarah Palin stuck with voters, while many facts about Barack Obama did not. He notes how voters remembered Palin's expensive wardrobe, Bristol's pregnancy and Tina Fey's impersonation. But "what didn't sink in" about Obama was, according to Ferris/Ziegler, his "background in Chicago politics, his association with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers."

Never mind that referring to Obama's "background in Chicago politics" is too vague to mean much. Do these men really think that the American public didn't hear enough about Bill Ayers? I can still hear Palin's sound bites in my head from every stump speech she gave referring to Obama "palling around with terrorists."

The anti-media, anti-Obama crowd is apparently still seething over its claim that the mainstream media didn't cover Obama's relationship with Ayers. Is that so? What about this front-page New York Times article titled, "Obama and '60s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths," that ran above the fold a month before the election? Don't forget the Times's story the very next day, called, "Palin, on Offensive, Attacks Obama's Ties to '60s Radical."

Maybe these critics should read the Times instead of vaguely bashing it. In the documentary, filmmaker Ziegler also says about Obama, "There was a subconscious decision to treat him differently, lowering the bar for him, because he's black."

Then he lashes out at "the media" for allegedly playing down the Jeremiah Wright fiasco when clips of the pastor surfaced in which he said, "God damn America."

"Rev. Wright is the best example," Ziegler says. "If a white candidate had that kind of a connection to a raving lunatic KKK member -- I mean, please, it's so obvious, it's ridiculous."

So obvious indeed -- almost as obvious as a simple Google search that proves you entirely wrong. Here's a partial list of stories in mainstream publications exploring the link between Obama and Wright:

Los Angeles Times: Poll shows Rev. Jeremiah Wright hurting Barack Obama (March 17, 2008)
New York Times: The Obama-Wright Factor (March 20, 2008)
Washington Post: For Obama, Wright the Latest in a Long Line of Tests (April 28, 2008)

All of this fair and thorough reporting is, according to Ziegler and Ferris, the "death of journalism." You can view parts of the documentary online here. As if to solidify his point that "the media" floated Obama into the White House, he highlights on his website the face of what he sees as truth and fairness: an interview with Sarah Palin, who talks about how important it is to have "fairness in the media."

(Some reminders of how much Palin believes in the truth: She claimed credit for denying the Bridge to Nowhere when she in fact asked for it; she baselessly claimed Obama would "experiment with socialism;" and she claimed a state ethics report cleared her of fault when it in fact found her guilty.)

What's truly newsworthy, though, is a Rasmussen poll that Ferris cites, showing that 51 percent of voters on Election Day "thought reporters tried to help Obama win." How did these reporters do this while they were busy reporting the Wright scandal and the Ayers association, and following up on every other piece of dirt the McCain campaign could bring up? If giving an easy pass to Obama was the media's job, then, to quote Ferris and Ziegler, they really "let us down."

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>Matt Negrin2009-03-23T01:44:00+00:00Wow, Obama Made a Joke on a Joke Show. Get Over It.http://brighthall.aol.com/2009/03/20/wow-obama-made-a-joke-on-a-joke-show-get-over-it/http://brighthall.aol.com/2009/03/20/wow-obama-made-a-joke-on-a-joke-show-get-over-it/http://brighthall.aol.com/2009/03/20/wow-obama-made-a-joke-on-a-joke-show-get-over-it/#commentsFiled under: , ,

Way to break a leg, chief.

Anyone cruising around on the Drudge Report this morning got a glimpse of a grainy image of Barack Obama bowling, above the headline "GUTTER BALL." The jab is a reference to Obama's comment on The Tonight Show that his new bowling score of 129 is "like Special Olympics or something."

Now critics are jumping all over Obama's quip, even after a spokesman hastily dished out a statement in defense saying that the president "made an offhand remark making fun of his own bowling that was in no way intended to disparage the Special Olympics."

And apparently, before Obama's appearance even aired on television, the president called the Special Olympics chairman from Air Force One and apologized for being funny.

"He was very sincere, expressed an interest and an openness in being more engaged in the movement, and said he was a fan of the movement," chairman Tim Shriver said on Good Morning America, " and I think importantly he said he was ready to have some of our athletes over to the White House to bowl or play basketball or help him improve his score."

So much for wanting a president we can relate to. Raise your hand if you've never made a joke about the Special Olympics.

Anybody?

Bueller?

Thought so. It would be naive of us to assume Obama is forever stoic, even in a time of economic gloom. He may not be Jerry Seinfeld (what do they do with the handicapped parking spaces at the Special Olympics, just pile all the cars into those two spots?), but at least he's trying.

For the record, the audience was too busy laughing at Obama's actual score to hear the Special Olympics crack and react to it, but everyone at home heard it loud and clear.

Let's hope it doesn't cripple his public standing.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>Matt Negrin2009-03-20T10:58:00+00:00The Huffington Post: Whose Side Are They On?http://brighthall.aol.com/2009/03/19/the-huffington-post-whose-side-are-they-on/http://brighthall.aol.com/2009/03/19/the-huffington-post-whose-side-are-they-on/http://brighthall.aol.com/2009/03/19/the-huffington-post-whose-side-are-they-on/#commentsFiled under: , , , ,

Chris Dodd, the Democratic senator from Connecticut, yesterday admitted to his role in allowing AIG to pay its executives bonuses with taxpayer money. He told CNN that he was responsible for adding language to the stimulus bill that would allow such contracts to retain their legality, despite saying Tuesday that he had nothing to do with the language.

The news isn't great for Dodd, who is already stumbling in his home-state polls. But one place you'd never suspect that is The Huffington Post.

The Huffington Post -- or "HuffPo" -- has long been a Democrat-friendly news aggregator and blog hub, known for its screaming, all-caps banner headlines pertaining to the issue du jour. So yesterday, following Dodd's admission, the Huffington Post decided to instead put the blame on the Federal Reserve.

"WHOSE SIDE ARE THEY ON?" HuffPo asked, above the more specific headline, "Fed Failed To Tell Obama About AIG Bonuses." That second statement has certainly been a talking point from the White House, which has insisted that Barack Obama did not know about the bonuses until just before the public found out.

That's not all, though. Below the website's main picture of Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, the AIG building and Obama, another sub-headline reads, "Dodd: Treasury Insisted On Weakening Bonus Provision," again playing to the Democrat's spin that he was pressured by the administration to add the language to the stimulus bill.

This should not be a surprise to many people, and this is by no means the first time such selective headlining has appeared in the Huffington Post. Yet with nearly 8 million visitors per month, the Huffington Post is trailblazing the way for online opinion molding.

Arianna Huffington, the founder of the website, has said that her creation is the new form of journalism. Yet most of the site's content is from other news sources, such as breaking news from The New York Times, The Washington Post and the Associated Press. Often, HuffPo will scream a headline that links to a page on its site with pasted text from another news publication's story. For example, in HuffPo's headline about the Fed not telling Obama about AIG bonuses, the website links the text to this page, which reads: "ABC News: Sources in the Obama administration Thursday said ..." before another link to ABC that says, "Read the whole story."

And in its current headline, "ADDING INSULT TO INJURY," HuffPo skips itself as a middleman and links directly here, to Bloomberg.

Yet despite this method of newsgathering -- called aggregation, because it is not original reporting -- the Huffington Post has defended itself as being a real form of journalism, like newspapers. One major difference, though, is its lack of fact checking. An embarrassing consequence of hasty cut-and-pasting hit the HuffPo in February when it linked to a YouTube video that had been digitally altered to make it seem as if media host John Gibson referred to Attorney General Eric Holder as a monkey. After attentive viewers pointed out the mistake, the Huffington Post put up this seemingly awkward apology, "John Gibson Did Not Compare Eric Holder To Monkey With Bright Blue Scrotum (UPDATED)."

The Huffington Post, seen as a liberal alternative to Matt Drudge's aggregating website, also defends its sense of journalism by pointing to its presidential campaign scoop during last year's primaries. A contributor, Mayhill Fowler, had attended a private fundraiser with Obama in San Francisco and taped his now-infamous comments about how Pennsylvanians "cling to guns or religion." If the Huffington Post is biased, it argued, then why would it post such a damaging piece to Obama?

The answer lies in timing. Obama made the closed-door speech April 6, and the HuffPo contributor -- who donated to Obama's campaign -- mulled over the story for five days before posting it. In objective, tried-and-true journalism, reporters don't wait for their prejudices to decide if they should post up a snippet or not, no matter whom it praises or condemns.

"Our highest responsibility is to the truth," Arianna Huffington told the Bay Guardian at the end of last year. "The truth is not about splitting the difference between one side and the other. Sometimes one side is speaking the truth. ... The central mission of journalism is the search for the truth."

It would be nice to see Huffington follow her own advice every day. The Observer has ranked the Huffington Post the world's most powerful blog, but it is simply that -- a blog, with a clear ideological preference to who benefits and who doesn't. The hub is a good source for breaking news from a variety of places, but almost always news that favors liberals -- or, more likely, items that embarrass Republicans.

"Someone is going to sue the Huffington Post," Joshua Benton, the head of Harvard's Nieman Journalism Lab, told Time. "It's not just about the volume of the content that it appropriates. It's about the value."

We can all admit that the news media is transforming as the Internet eclipses disintegrating newspapers. As Arianna told the Bay Guardian, "We're all basically trying to reinvent journalism."

But let's leave the reinventing to the journalists.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>Matt Negrin2009-03-19T08:32:00+00:00Somebody Bring Wall Street a Big Chocolate Cakehttp://brighthall.aol.com/2009/03/18/somebody-bring-wall-street-a-big-chocolate-cake/http://brighthall.aol.com/2009/03/18/somebody-bring-wall-street-a-big-chocolate-cake/http://brighthall.aol.com/2009/03/18/somebody-bring-wall-street-a-big-chocolate-cake/#commentsFiled under: , ,

It seems to me that the stock market is like a bipolar kid at a birthday party. At any point he could be wailing and running around, knocking over lamps and chairs, or he could be perfectly complacent while he eats ice cream.

The difference is instead of lamps breaking, people lose millions of dollars.

Sometimes the peaks and valleys in the Dow Jones index make about as much sense as a Jackson Pollock painting, and even financial experts are befuddled. Last week, the Dow -- a composite mix of 30 "indicator" stocks -- inexplicably jumped nearly 6 percent in one day.

Why? Nobody knows. Some said it was because investors were itching to buy stocks and leaped at the first signs that the day's market wasn't dropping dramatically. Maybe traders were scanning the news looking for just a glimmer of hope, such as Citigroup's CEO announcing a profit in the first two months of the year. Citigroup's shares rose a remarkable 38 percent that day, even though the CEO's comments weren't entirely meaningful because they didn't reflect a full quarter of business.

The point is that stock market trading is almost entirely psychological. Investors take risks when they feel good and draw stalemates when in lousy moods. If something as superficial as monitoring Google News for company highlights can lift the market to record heights for no material reason, surely there's a better way to revive the economy than hoping that companies begin making profits.

I'm talking about bringing some good cheer to Wall Street. The Daily Show's John Hodgman suggested last month that maybe it's time for an Emergency Christmas. At a time when market experts are just as confused as the people whose money they're handling, maybe our best advice should come from new people with radical ideas. How about Crazy Hat Day every Thursday? Weekly potlucks? Nobody seems to like Mondays; maybe we could show a funny movie on those big TVs, like "Along Came Polly."

I don't really know the legal rules about gift-giving on the floor, but would it be illegal to offer chocolate incentives for buying stock? Godiva could sponsor a week of record trading.

All of this seems silly, but so does the fact that every day, investors are waiting for good news to break as an excuse to open up their wallets. The Fed today announced that it would create $1 trillion, and the Dow, which had been down, surged to end 91 points up. But that won't happen again tomorrow. Over the past month, nearly every stock market rise was met with a fall the next day, save for a bizarre last week of trading.

Before the market begins to fall again, maybe traders should chuck conventional wisdom and heed the advice of the indulgent: Life is short; eat dessert first.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>Matt Negrin2009-03-18T21:34:00+00:00'Torture' at CIA Jails Is OK ... If Jack Bauer's Therehttp://brighthall.aol.com/2009/03/16/torture-at-cia-jails-is-ok-if-jack-bauers-there/http://brighthall.aol.com/2009/03/16/torture-at-cia-jails-is-ok-if-jack-bauers-there/http://brighthall.aol.com/2009/03/16/torture-at-cia-jails-is-ok-if-jack-bauers-there/#commentsFiled under: ,

Apparently, whatever went on at the overseas CIA prisons that held al-Qaida captives after the Sept. 11 attacks "constituted torture," according to a secret report from the International Committee of the Red Cross that was granted access about two years ago.

This possibly surprising revelation came to light yesterday as journalist Mark Danner, a professor who somehow obtained the report, released excerpts of it that will appear in the New York Review of Books. Danner cites the report as saying that the "high-value" detainees in overseas prisons gave identical accounts of what happened to them before 2006, including simulated drowning ("waterboarding"), beatings and sleep deprivation.

"The ill-treatment to which they were subjected while held in the CIA program, either singly or in combination, constituted torture," the report apparently says.

This is, evidently, not good. The report is the first official account to describe the U.S. military's treatment of prisoners as "torture," presumably much to the chagrin of the U.S. military. Back when Donald Rumsfeld was President George W. Bush's Defense secretary, he was flabbergasted that photos had been leaked from the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq that showed officers committing what looked a lot like torture. How did he brush that criticism aside? Cleverly.

"My impression is that what has been charged thus far is abuse, which I believe technically is different from torture," Rumsfeld said at a press conference. "And therefore I'm not going to address the 'torture' word."

Susan Sontag, in her scathing 2004 New York Times Magazine criticism, mocked Rumsfeld for his war on semantics and also pointed out, "The charges against most of the people detained in the prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan being nonexistent -- the Red Cross reports that 70 to 90 percent of those being held seem to have committed no crime other than simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time, caught up in some sweep of 'suspects' -- the principal justification for holding them is 'interrogation.' Interrogation about what? About anything. Whatever the detainee might know. If interrogation is the point of detaining prisoners indefinitely, then physical coercion, humiliation and torture become inevitable."

Since then, the military was able to similarly not "address the 'torture' word" -- until now. And seeing as the old Rumsfeld Runaround won't work this time, it seems to me that the military has but one option: Make every American watch '24.'

'24,' the real-time, non-stop action orgy that pits superhero Jack Bauer against every terrorist ever, is not as much a FOX television show as it is a public service announcement for the use of torture against terrorists. And it makes a good case -- assuming, of course, that those being tortured are all guilty, which they always are in '24.'

Yet a dozen episodes into the series and I'm convinced that all it takes to find out the location of the CIP device or a squadron of renegade African footsoldiers is a good stab in the thigh with a ball-point pen, courtesy of Jack Bauer. Unfortunately, the official Red Cross report makes no mention of Bauer, or any Kiefer Sutherland-like character contracted by the military.

Whatever the circumstances, there will always be uncertainties. For example, the newest '24' episode airs on FOX tonight, and I have no idea what's going to happen. And not even the most sleep-deprived, waterboarded detainee can get me that information.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>Matt Negrin2009-03-16T07:12:00+00:00AIG Is Going to Pay Itself How Much, Now?http://brighthall.aol.com/2009/03/15/aig-is-going-to-pay-itself-how-much-now/http://brighthall.aol.com/2009/03/15/aig-is-going-to-pay-itself-how-much-now/http://brighthall.aol.com/2009/03/15/aig-is-going-to-pay-itself-how-much-now/#commentsFiled under: , ,

Giant financial monster AIG is sticking it to the man. The man being Barack Obama.

After cashing in on $170 billion federal bailout money -- the stuff that's funded by your taxes -- the company is going ahead with $165 million in bonuses to the executives who helped cause the financial crisis, the Washington Post has unearthed.

The company's government-appointed chairman, Edward Liddy, defended the bonuses in a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. He said the bonuses must be given to the execs because they were already promised last year.

In other words, these company "bonuses" are nothing more than guaranteed cash pinatas that are rewarded regardless of how well or terrible the execs do. For those of us not wheeling and dealing in the financial world, here is an analogy to the situation:

You break your mom's favorite plates. She gives you $100 to go buy new plates. You take the money and buy video games for yourself instead.
Further, Liddy told Geithner that the bonuses are necessary to keep the most talented executives at AIG -- presumably the supposed talented executives who lit their company on fire and gave Wall Street a heart attack.

"We cannot attract and retain the best and the brightest talent to lead and staff the A.I.G. businesses -- which are now being operated principally on behalf of American taxpayers -- if employees believe their compensation is subject to continued and arbitrary adjustment by the U.S. Treasury," Liddy explained.

Again, that might be complicated. Here's another analogy:

Remember those video games you bought instead of the nice plates? You tell your mom you need them to keep you happy so that at some point in your life you might think about buying those new plates.

As many as 400 AIG buddies are getting the money. The most lucrative bonus is for $6.5 million. Seven suits are getting more than $3 million. That's not a typo.

Here's an analogy --

Oh, you get the idea. It's a boatload of money.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>Matt Negrin2009-03-15T09:16:00+00:00Bristol to Levi/Levi to Bristol: It's Over!http://brighthall.aol.com/2009/03/12/bristol-to-levi-levi-to-bristol-its-over/http://brighthall.aol.com/2009/03/12/bristol-to-levi-levi-to-bristol-its-over/http://brighthall.aol.com/2009/03/12/bristol-to-levi-levi-to-bristol-its-over/#commentsFiled under: , , ,


We should have known it was only a match made in politics.

Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston have called off their wedding and broken up more than two months after the birth of their first baby. According to Levi, who brought their relationship to the public outside his house, the breakup was mutual.

But if there was ever a universal truth, it is this: Rarely, if ever, is it truly mutual.

Take, for example, a statement from Bristol, in which she says she's devastated about the intentions of her ex-boyfriend's sister. Mercede Johnston says in a Star magazine story that Bristol "makes it nearly impossible" for Levi to visit their kid.

Bristol takes Mercede to task, via the statement from her mom's political action committee: "Unfortunately, my family has seen many people say and do many things to 'cash in' on the Palin name. Sometimes that greed clouds good judgment and the truth."

Were Bristol's words evidence of her motivation to dump Levi, or merely her reaction to an angry teenage boyfriend suddenly overcome with responsibility?

People magazine boasts a source who claims the breakup was, in fact, mutual. "It kind of just happened," the person said, adding that the couple broke it off "a few weeks ago."

Brevi was supposed to get married in the summer. What about all those old lovey-dovey quotes between the two while Bristol's mom was the Republican vice presidential nominee?

Last October, Levi told the Associated Press, "We both love each other. We both want to marry each other, and that's what we are going to do."

In February, Bristol told Fox News, "Eventually, we'd like to get married. We're focusing on, like, getting through school and just getting an education and stuff, getting a career going." She also called Levi a "hands-on" dad.

Oh well.

Perhaps Tina Fey did have it right when she impersonated Sarah Palin on SNL and quipped, "I believe marriage is meant to be a sacred institution between two unwilling teenagers."

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>Matt Negrin2009-03-12T23:53:00+00:00John McCain's a Twitterer. Seriously.http://brighthall.aol.com/2009/03/07/john-mccain-twitters-seriously/http://brighthall.aol.com/2009/03/07/john-mccain-twitters-seriously/http://brighthall.aol.com/2009/03/07/john-mccain-twitters-seriously/#commentsFiled under: , ,

Call it the 140-Characters-or-Fewer Express.

John McCain, the failed Republican presidential candidate who said last year that he doesn't know how to use a computer, is apparently "twittering" his thoughts on government spending.

This is not a joke.

McCain, a self-defined maverick, has jumped on the twitterwagon pulled by Sen. Claire McCaskill and a bunch of other members of Congress. A couple of his "tweets" (ugh) even have exclamation points, characterizing the emotions that he tried so hard to convey during the campaign.

The Arizona senator's updates range from the dry ("Having breakfast with secretary gates @ the pentagon") to the very dry ["attending subcommittee on federal financial managment" (sic)]. He also has Top 10 lists of what he considers daily wasteful spending projects ("on my way to the floor to continue to talk pork").

For those of you who doubt McCain's technical abilities, think again. MSNBC reported that McCain is twittering his tweets all by his twittery self. Or you can take it from the twitterer, who proclaimed in a Feb. 26 tweet at 9:07 am, "YEs!! I am twittering on my blackberry but not without a little help!"

On the Senate floor, McCain also announced, "I've begun to twitter, and we've been tweeting for the last week the top 10 earmarks every day." In another text burst, McCain professes that twittering is his "new found love."

The online social network/trendy craze has been the subject of scores of articles over the past couple of weeks, highlighting its use by lawmakers and prominent TV journalists alike. Its actual news value is debatable, but its potential for encouraging ADHD behavior is indisputable. The Washington Post's Dana Milbank said of twittering members of Congress during Barack Obama's budget speech, "They whipped out their BlackBerrys and began sending text messages like high school kids bored in math class."

It's also comforting to know that textual sound-bite journalism hasn't yet infiltrated all journalists' offices. Politico's top editors vowed never to twitter, despite some of their reporters' accounts.

And in case you want to find yours truly on Twitter, you begrudgingly can. But I'll save you some time. I last tweeted more than two months ago, after I read that if I ever wanted to amount to anything successful, I would have to sign up for an account. My last words were, "Matt Negrin is removing twitter from the 'journalism' category." Maybe that's why McCain has more than 150,000 "followers," and I have 31.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>Matt Negrin2009-03-07T00:22:00+00:00State of Colorado Now Less Objectivehttp://brighthall.aol.com/2009/03/03/colorado-rep-i-shot-the-rocky/http://brighthall.aol.com/2009/03/03/colorado-rep-i-shot-the-rocky/http://brighthall.aol.com/2009/03/03/colorado-rep-i-shot-the-rocky/#commentsFiled under: , , ,

One of the country's bigger newspapers died last week. The Rocky Mountain News, a Colorado tabloid that covered the community like Rush Limbaugh covers the podium, even put out live feeds and a documentary on its final night of publication, which was announced the day before by executives of the prolific Scripps company.

Now, Denver's a one-paper town, as the Denver Post scoops up a handful of Rocky reporters and enjoys a bittersweet triumph in newspaper rivalries. (The two competing newsrooms actually shared the same building.)

Trampling on the grave of the beloved and hated Rocky is a U.S. congressman from Colorado, Jared Polis, who said Tuesday that he and bloggers deserve credit for vanquishing the news source.

"I have to say, that when we say, 'Who killed the Rocky Mountain News,' we're all part of it, for better or worse, and I argue it's mostly for the better," Polis said at a progressive-politics event, the Post reported.

"The media is dead, and long live the new media, which is all of us," the Democrat declared.

Good for you, Jared. Drinks are on the house. Here's to less information and more misguided opinions. Who needs newspapers, anyway?

The Rocky's fall from the mountaintop is the first big fatality for the newspaper industry, although certainly no surprise to a country that seems to disrespect the press more than most democratic societies should. In case you're unaware of the most recent bankruptcy filings, here they are:

Dec. 9, 2008: Tribune (owns Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Baltimore Sun, other big dailies)
Jan. 16, 2009: Star-Tribune, Minnesota's largest paper
Feb. 21, 2009: Journal Register, which owns 20 dailies
Feb. 23, 2009: Philadelphia Inquirer & Daily News, Pennsylvania's biggest papers

Other papers treading water for a lifesaver include Hearst's San Francisco Chronicle and Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Oh yeah, and the Houston Chronicle. And the Chicago Sun-Times.

When all these newspapers die, I wonder where the self-proclaimed new-media bloggers will get their information. Do they know how to make a phone call?

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>Matt Negrin2009-03-03T10:19:00+00:00