Showing posts with label Media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Media. Show all posts

Wednesday, 12 March 2014

Don't Give Up on the Dream... Just Yet





FULLERTON, Ca. -- The popular slogan on T-shirts of the gathering in late fall for community college student journalists reminded me of my days at The Cornell Daily Sun, where a sign behind the Managing Editor's desk reads: "This is a daily, not a weekly."


The T-shirts will be on sale again April 3-5 at the Journalism Association of Community Colleges' state convention in Burbank. They told students to "keep calm and attend JACC" or "keep calm and use AP Style."


Interest in the Fourth Estate continues to grow, even as traditional industry jobs remain stable or grow only slightly. The reason is quite obvious. The expanding opportunity is elsewhere, on the web. And every job needs good writers with critical thinking skills.


Now, of course there are many more skills to learn before entering journalism. A pad and a pen are nowhere near enough and you need to know how to present your writing on the Internet. It helps to carry such devices as a digital recorder and hand-held video camera. Often, a quality smartphone will do the trick.


One of my students in a recent class on multimedia journalism skills, argued with herself about her choice of career recently but still seemed set on journalism.


Journalism has always been a challenge and the job prospects never assured, but opportunities are surely on the upswing with the boom in the variety and quantity of new technology that will require "content providers." Such a stale term kind of takes the steam and First Amendment appeal of being a journalist out of the picture. But the truth is we are still talking about journalists.


Producers, editors and writers now need to get stories to mobile media in the proper form. This means content is being designed for particular devices. In addition, material is designed specifically for where the user is located.


Apparently this goes way beyond the old zoned editions of yesteryear so that your device knows whether you are reading a story on your couch, a Starbucks, or in line at the local grocery store. And today's youth like shorter form video so that this preference has implications for what young reporters need to learn how to do.


You can also listen to these predictions in audio form if you had not already heard them.


While the dynamic duo who became role models to young journalists of the 1970s was Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, today's hero is Edward Snowden, even though he might not be seen as a typical journalist. That's because the new world of digital journalism requires not only more responsiveness to the public, but also deeper research that is not just anecdotal but technically true.


An earlier example was the research done for the Pulitzer Prize winning investigation of disgraced former Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham that revealed his fraud and abuse of government office. This was computer-assisted reporting at its best at the time.


Now it is becoming obvious that the deep web offers journalists even more power in investigations.


A useful place to go to find work is the website run by Mark Grabowski called www.cubreporters.org. While many students seek to find full-time jobs right out of the gate, it is a widespread practice to tryout journalists before they are hired, Grabowski says.


Even better, as Lisa Williams points out, today's reporters should really learn to code. Who can argue that hitting the streets is as valuable as mining data produced by quicker and more powerful computers and knowing how to find the answers to questions posed to huge storehouses of data?


Similarly, I have to agree with blogger Stephanie Yang, who pointed to an entrepreneurial spirit gripping the journalism field. She suggested young reporters join start-ups. Journalism will always have high school students like blogger Taylor Blanchfield who said that this is the best time to enter journalism so she's not giving up on the dream -- just yet.


More journalism jobs require greater technical knowledge than in the past. Now, we are not talking about a day or two of tryout as was common in my day. Believe me, that was high-pressure enough. Some of my undergraduates at National University actually are getting jobs as well, yet the time before they are considered permanent staff keeps expanding along with the skills sought. It obviously will help if you have special technical skills, or even the ability to speak Spanish.


So, again, you really have to want this profession and like the community college journalist, you have to think of it as a calling.


Follow Sara-Ellen Amster, Ph.D. on Twitter: http://ift.tt/1nGYvSa






Tuesday, 4 March 2014

Al Jazeera In Vermont





When Al Jazeera announced its plans to release English-language channel in 2005, the announcement was met with both support and protest in the United States. And so, although the U.S. government doesn't prevent access to the channel, many cable companies, in deciding among the many competitive channels to provide with bandwidth, are reluctant to carry Al Jazeera. After all, Donald Rumsfeld famously accused the channel of "inciting terrorism."


Subsequently, Al Jazeera has remained largely unavailable in the United States. In order to access the channel from most places within the country, Americans must pay upwards of $45 per month in addition to their usual subscription fee (on the Dish network) -- which is prohibitively expensive for many.


Recently, however, Burlington Telecom, owned by the small city of Burlington, Vermont, (population 39,000), decided to carry Al Jazeera English, sparking debate among residents and leading some groups to ask for its removal from the list of channels. Bloggers in the city and around the world jumped on the story. KABOBfest's Will (Palestine/US) explains the debate and concludes:


As we approach the end of the Bush presidency, it should be apparent to everyone that the the old thinking of "us good, them bad" is failing and having destructive repercussions. It is time Americans engage the world and expose themselves to voices beyond our borders. Al-Jazeera, English represents just that. Burlington, VT is exceptionally progressive, but these questions should be raised in every community around the country -- most of which do not have televised access to Al-Jazeera, English.



Hanaan, also from KABOBfest, introduces a video (from Al Jazeera English itself) on the story, saying:


Despite its reputation for open-mindedness, there are more than a few idiots in Burlington, with the Israel Center of Vermont and the Defenders Council of Vermont leading the way:






From Burlington itself, two letter-writers are quoted in the Burlington Free Press's blog section. The first, Scott Baker, argues that to drop Al Jazeera from Burlington Telecom would amount to censorship:


Part of the very problem in relations between the U.S. and the Middle East is that their citizens don't know enough about each other. Our relationship is defined by government policies, not open communication and understanding of different perspectives. Yes, Al Jazeera discusses Al Qaeda, because it's a very real issue on its home turf. Yet, if you read and listen extensively, most Arabs and Muslims are just as angry at Al Qaeda as most Americans are.



In the same post Steve Flemer argues against Burlington Telecom's choice to host Al Jazeera English:


...It would seem to me that this fledgling city-owned outfit, already struggling with customer subscriptions far below expectations, would want to provide a varied cable menu without having to feel like they needed to make potentially self-harming political statements.



A comment on the website of Seven Days, a popular local newspaper, sums up the sentiments best, saying:


Forget conservatives versus liberals -- the real debate over Al Jazeera in Burlington and elsewhere is increasingly turning into a debate between those who have watched the channel and those who have not. Those who have watched Al Jazeera on air will benefit from its strong global perspective on international news and affairs. On the flipside, most of the sections of society insisting Al Jazeera be dropped have never even watched it. Even when one sets aside the fact that one group should not be allowed to impose itself on the other, the question of whose views are more credible is easy to answer.



This article also appears on Voices without Votes.


Follow Jillian York on Twitter: http://ift.tt/1jVxF9r






Wednesday, 5 February 2014

'The Mindy Project' vs. 'New Girl': Who Wins?


Have you been watching the third season of "New Girl"? I have. I've been a loyal fan since it debuted in 2011. There was just something so endearing about Zooey Deschanel and her portrayal of Jessica Day (though I get why some would be annoyed by how absolutely precious she can be). I, however, simply thought she was a clumsy breath of fresh air.


Fast-forward to now and I have been sorely disappointed, almost from Episode 1 of Season 3. I'm not sure why. Is it because Jess and Nick (Jake Johnson) are a couple? Nope. I love them together and the "I love you"/finger guns exchange on Sunday's post-Super Bowl episode only added to that. Is it because Coach is around but Damon Wayans Jr. is only considered a "Special Guest Star" and not a regular cast member? Maybe. Is it because there has been more Winston (Lamorne Morris) and not enough Schmidt (Max Greenfield), and Schmidt and Cece (Hannah Simone)? Kinda-sorta. I'm always cool with more Winston, but I do miss the Schmidt/Cece romance and, as far as I'm concerned, there is never enough Schmidt. But with plenty of the focus on Jess and Nick, the other characters are losing out and it has been pretty awful. After two seasons, I'm finding Jess grating on my nerves and I am ready to lose it whenever Deschanel utters something ridiculous (which, as of late, has been almost always).


What probably isn't helping "New Girl"'s cause is the fact that "The Mindy Project" is one of the funniest and best-written shows right now. Watching "New Girl" and "Mindy" back-to-back only highlights just how crappy "NG" has gotten and how "Mindy" has elevated its game. But apparently no one else has noticed, because Zooey and "New Girl" continue to get love from the awards shows while "Mindy" and Mindy Kaling continue to be neglected.


Where to begin with "Mindy"? Well, Kaling, for one. The actress-writer-creator-executive producer and her character have always been confident -- unapologetically so. At first I was a little thrown by it and perceived it as arrogance, but then I realized her self-assured attitude was actually kind of refreshing. She's pretty, talented and funny -- why wouldn't she be a little cocksure too? (Aside: Have you read her book? It's awesome, just like her, and it's clear why she believes in herself. She had a wonderful upbringing, raised by loving, supportive parents, both of whom stressed the importance of education. That alone seems healthy enough, but Mindy -- and Mindy Lahiri -- also seem like women who are content with their lives and that radiates a positive aura about them both.)


But enough gushing about Kaling. Because, to be honest, it's Chris Messina's Danny Castellano that does it for me (though I'm not sure if it's Messina or Dr. D that has captured my heart). For the most part, Mindy has dated an array of men and all of them have been fascinating, whether it was the "SNL" guys, Bill Hader and Seth Meyers, or her former "Office" cohorts BJ Novak and Ed Helms. Josh (Tommy Dewey) was all right, Casey (Anders Holm) seemed like the one, and there was, and maybe even might still be, hope with Cliff (Glenn Howerton), but let's call a spade a spade here: Danny is Mindy's lobster. They are the end game, as they should be.


The rest of the cast is also fabulous, a nice mix of normal and crazy. Morgan (Ike Barinholtz) continues to be ridiculously fantastic, I dig the one-liners Beverly (Beth Grant) and Tamra (Xosha Roquemore) get to throw in every now and again, but I would love it if Jeremy (Ed Weeks) and Betsy (Zoe Jarman) got a little more love and attention from the writers. And while that seems like an already large-enough cast with not enough screen time to share, I couldn't be happier with the addition of Adam Pally's Peter Prentice.


And I think that's the perfect example of how "The Mindy Project" is doing it right and how "New Girl," well, isn't. The cancellation of "Happy Endings" devastated many of us, but it was great when both Wayans Jr. and Pally found work on "New Girl" and "Mindy," respectively. But "New Girl"'s writers have yet to properly work in Coach and he just seems to be back with no real purpose. "Mindy"'s writers, on the other hand, properly introduced Peter, fleshed him out, and he fits in almost as though he'd been there from the start.


Guest stars shouldn't make or break an episode; they should simply enhance something that's already entertaining. That was one of "Happy Endings"' problems. I only liked the six main characters and any outsider worming their way into an episode -- be it a parent or a friend or love interest -- was unwelcome. Mindy's guest stars (think James Franco, Chloe Sevigny, Timothy Olyphant, Max Minghella and Kevin Smith) have only added to already-hilarious episodes. "New Girl" used to be like that (remember the days of Dermot Mulroney, Justin Long, Lizzy Caplan, David Walton, Olivia Munn and Margo Martindale?) but now the show seems to rely solely on their guests to make an episode less painful to watch.


The post-Super Bowl episode was actually reminiscent of "New Girl"'s good ol' days, but the rest of the season has been sub-par thus far. Prince may have been a stunt, but his spot was actually funny and his appearance made sense. Perhaps Adam Brody will bring some of his Seth Cohen-y magic when he shows up in Tuesday's episode, "Exes," as Jess' former boyfriend. But is a guest star enough to make an all-around quality show? Nope. But I'm as confident as Mindy Lahiri that "New Girl" will bounce back and find its footing again. If the Prince episode was a sign (see what I did there?) of things to come, the comedy can return to its roots of uncomfortable hilarity. And when "Mindy" returns (on April 1, waaaaaaah!!!), hopefully Fox's best one-two punch will be a force to be reckoned with once more.


"New Girl" airs Tuesdays at 9 p.m. ET on City and Fox. "The Mindy Project" returns with new episodes on Tuesday, April 1 at 9:30 p.m. ET on City and Fox.



Loading Slideshow...




  • "The Mindy Project," "J&M's Christmas Party"




  • "The Mindy Project," "J&M's Christmas Party"




  • "The Mindy Project," "Halloween"




  • "The Mindy Project," "Halloween"




  • "The Mindy Project," "Halloween"




  • "The Mindy Project," "Halloween"




  • "The Mindy Project," "Halloween"




  • "The Mindy Project," "Halloween"




  • "The Mindy Project," Halloween"




  • "The Mindy Project," Pilot




  • "The Mindy Project," Pilot




  • "The Mindy Project," Pilot




  • "The Mindy Project," Pilot




  • "The Mindy Project," Pilot




  • "The Mindy Project," Pilot




  • "The Mindy Project," Pilot




  • "The Mindy Project," "Hiring And Firing"




  • "The Mindy Project," "Hiring And Firing"




  • "The Mindy Project," "Hiring And Firing"




  • "The Mindy Project," "Hiring And Firing"




  • "The Mindy Project," "Hiring And Firing"




  • "The Mindy Project," "Hiring And Firing"




  • "The Mindy Project," "In The Club"




  • "The Mindy Project," "In The Club"




  • "The Mindy Project," "In The Club"




  • "The Mindy Project," "In The Club"




  • "The Mindy Project," "Danny Catellano Is My Gyencologist"




  • "The Mindy Project," "Danny Castellano Is My Gynecologist"




  • "The Mindy Project," "Danny Catellano Is My Gynecologist"




  • "The Mindy Project," "Danny Castellano Is My Gynecologist"




  • "The Mindy Project," "Thanksgiving"




  • "The Mindy Project," "Thanksgiving"




  • "The Mindy Project," "Thanksgiving"




  • "The Mindy Project," "Thanksgiving"




  • "The Mindy Project," "Teen Patient"




  • "The Mindy Project," "Teen Patient"




  • "The Mindy Project," "Teen Patient"




  • "The Mindy Project," "Teen Patient"




  • "The Mindy Project," "Teen Patient"




  • "The Mindy Project," "Teen Patient"




  • "The Mindy Project," "Teen Patient"




  • "The Mindy Project," "Teen Patient"




  • "The Mindy Project," "J&M's Christmas Party"




  • "The Mindy Project,"Two To One"




  • "The Mindy Project," "Two To One"




  • "The Mindy Project," "Two To One"




  • "The Mindy Project," "Two To One"




  • "The Mindy Project," "Two To One"




  • "The Mindy Project," "Two To One"




  • "The Mindy Project," "Two To One"




  • "The Mindy Project," "Christmas Party"





Follow Denette Wilford on Twitter: http://ift.tt/1aPmSpc






Tuesday, 4 February 2014

Super Bowl 2014 Is Most-Watched Program In US History






The Denver Broncos may have checked out of the Super Bowl early, but the rest of America was very tuned in.


The 2014 Super Bowl was the most watched Super Bowl in the game's history, Capital New York's Alex Weprin reported Monday. The game brought in 111.5 million viewers, making it the most watched TV show in US history:



That is an improvement compared to the 2013 Super Bowl between the Baltimore Ravens and the San Francisco 49ers which grabbed 108.41 million viewers. The 2011 and 2012 Super Bowl's brought in slightly more than that, but none as high as this year's 43 - 8 Seattle Seahawks victory.


Also on HuffPost:



"; var coords = [-5, -72]; // display fb-bubble FloatingPrompt.embed(this, html, undefined, 'top', {fp_intersects:1, timeout_remove:2000,ignore_arrow: true, width:236, add_xy:coords, class_name: 'clear-overlay'}); });




The One Glaring Fault Of The Seinfeld Super Bowl Reunion






The AMC Pacer is the George Costanza of cars if we’re to believe the Super Bowl special of "Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee" that brought George, Jerry and Newman back together for the big game.


Though both Costanza and the Pacer are short and squat, the mid-'70s compact car already has its celebrity association with Wayne and Garth as the Mirthmobile in “Wayne’s World.”


There’s no doubt Costanza deserved a better choice of car. In fact, he deserved a car that reflected the “Seinfeld” universe that was reopened in this special episode of "CCGC." Especially since that universe already contains the George Costanza of cars -- the K-Car era Chrysler LeBaron convertible, otherwise known as the “Jon Voight Car,” that George bought in the episode “The Mom & Pop Store."


Below, are three "Seinfeld" vehicles more worthy of George Costanza.



"; var coords = [-5, -72]; // display fb-bubble FloatingPrompt.embed(this, html, undefined, 'top', {fp_intersects:1, timeout_remove:2000,ignore_arrow: true, width:236, add_xy:coords, class_name: 'clear-overlay'}); });




On Macklemore, and the Broader Problem of Cherry-Picking Someone's Old Tweets





I come neither to bury Macklemore, nor to praise him.


The lightning rod rapper's Up With People reboot at the Hashtag Grammys has stamped a temporary bullseye on the back of his leopard-print Goodwill pimp fur. Some want to tear him down for his three-year-old tweets they perceive to be anti-gay; other more disingenuous pitchfork-and-torch wielders want to show that he's a 9/11 Truther with the help of his Twitter archive and a well-appointed question mark at the end of a headline.






These tweets can be, and have been, explained. Let's not waste time with a defense of someone who is not as controversial as society wants him to be.


(And let us also not waste too much time pointing out that BuzzFeed's "Is Macklemore a 9/11 Truther?" post should have been called "190,658 Best Clicks For This Stunningly Lazy Post With Only Two Sentences But Now Also Two Updates That Disprove The Whole Post.")


This is a broader problem. There is literally nothing more irresponsible in today's media climate than cherry-picking from someone's thousands-deep Twitter history to either prove a point or a raise a conspiratorial red flag.


Rummaging through someone's LiveJournal or Blogspot or sent emails/gchats or even Facebook posts for unpopular opinions usually comes with some contextual marker of their integrity and character. But Twitter is unlike other platform in that it almost thrives on being context-free, making instant opposition research on a celebrity like Macklemore or a suddenly waist-deep nobody like Justine Sacco an easy game utterly devoid of journalistic fairness.


Like everything you post for Internet consumption, what you say on Twitter will live on forever. But your tweets are unique in that they often actually do live in a vacuum. We're piggybacking shitty half-baked jokes on top of news stories, or we're responding to smarm with snark, or we're attempting to one-up each other on silly memes and hashtag games, and these little snippets of questionable comedy that seem so goddamn LOL in the moment live on in our permanent archives as stand-alone nonsense (and, sometimes, borderline hate speech) without the building blocks that spawned them.


Let's take the non-Macklemore inspiration for this post:



Justin Green, online editor for conservative columnist-heavy Washington Examiner, hates Asians! This is damning stuff! Let's draw conclusions! And if you didn't see the follow-up to this, you'd walk away thinking he was serious:


2014-02-03-asiansgreen.jpg


If I do retweet Green's jokey sentiment the next time the Outrage-Industrial Complex sparks national fury over something demeaning toward Asian people, devoid of its proper context, he will have to explain himself. But how many people will even see that explanation? How many of the 190,000 who clicked that BuzzFeed post will walk away thinking Macklemore is a 9/11 Truther and tell their friends about it as fact if it's a gerbil up Richard Gere's bumhole? Macklemore's "dykes" tweet got more than 2,000 RTs and has been embedded into countless breathless posts. The follow-up from this week is not getting the same love (no pun intended, seriously).



This is, perhaps, the dangerous beauty of Patton Oswalt's brilliant Twitter joke construction experiment from last August. If you checked your Twitter feed without knowing what was what, you may have noticed some off-color, off-brand tweets from the comedian.




And so on. (Click here for the rest, this was so good it hurts.) Of course, these were two-part tweets, and taken together this was one of the best comedy tactics we've ever seen on the platform. For example:


2014-02-03-pattonjews.jpg


2014-02-03-pattonguns.jpg


But now, five months later, these tweets aren't packaged together, and if Patton Oswalt says anything about Jews or Hitler, someone will undoubtedly Google "Patton Oswalt Hitler Jews" and find the "Hitler was absolutely right about the Jews" tweet. Sure they'll eventually paint themselves fools, but remember than fewer than one in five American adults are on Twitter. They'll see the tweet embedded in some article before a correction or update, and they will walk away thinking Patton Oswalt is a rabid anti-Semite (his feelings about dentists are currently unknown).


Much of our modern media, filled with hoaxes and corrections disguised as "updates," isn't journalism. It's not even pretending to be journalism, and that's fine. Really, we need interesting content to read, even if it's not by definition journalism. But we must get away from the shrug emoticon worst practice of using someone's prior tweets against them to impugn their character or question their integrity. That's just lazily pointing at stuff.


Slade Sohmer is editor-in-chief of HyperVocal and co-host of SiriusXM's daily "Politics Powered By Twitter" program on POTUS 124. This piece first appeared on HyperVocal.


Follow Slade Sohmer on Twitter: http://ift.tt/LIGe9l






'Sherlock' Season Finale: Holmes Kills A Man In Cold Blood






sherlock season finale
'Sherlock' Season Finale: Left With No Other Recourse, Sherlock Shoots Magnusson In Cold Blood






Wrapping its latest quick season, "Sherlock" ended with a moment we never expected to see. With no other legal recourse available to him in order to protect John and Mary, Sherlock shot Magnussen in cold blood. "I’m not a hero. I’m a high-functioning sociopath," he said as an explanation for his choice.


Mary's secret past as a covert operative was uncovered in this installment, and her attempts at having a new life separate from that were endangered by Magnussen, who used information to blackmail people of all kinds. He was a shark preying on everyone, and so Sherlock put him down with no remorse.


For his trouble, he was exiled from England -- for about four minutes. It was supposed to be longer, but the episode ended with a startling return. Despite shooting himself last season, it would appear that Moriarty has returned. At the very least, his image took over every screen in England. And so, Sherlock Holmes and John Watson are needed again, though we've no idea when they'll pick up the case.


"Sherlock" will be back for a fourth season, but there is no indication when it might happen. Thus far, the show has been running one-and-a-half to two years between seasons.


TV Replay scours the vast television landscape to find the most interesting, amusing, and, on a good day, amazing moments, and delivers them right to your browser.


Related on HuffPost:



"; var coords = [-5, -72]; // display fb-bubble FloatingPrompt.embed(this, html, undefined, 'top', {fp_intersects:1, timeout_remove:2000,ignore_arrow: true, width:236, add_xy:coords, class_name: 'clear-overlay'}); });




What We Can Learn From Philip Seymour Hoffman's Death





On Saturday, actor Philip Seymour Hoffman was found dead in a downtown Manhattan apartment, a hypodermic needle reportedly in his arm and two bags of what was thought to be heroin nearby. He had spoken openly about his addictions in the past, including a recent relapse that had landed him in rehab in the spring of 2013. He was 46 and leaves behind three children and a career at its prime.


The list of celebs who, like Hoffman, checked themselves into rehab in 2013 -- and let the public know about it -- isn't a short one: among them, Josh Brolin, Zac Efron, and perhaps most famously Lindsay Lohan. Illustrating there's no particular "type," others included ABC News co-anchor Elizabeth Vargas, who entered treatment for alcohol addiction in October; Hairspray director Adam Shankman; and former child star Amanda Bynes. Earlier this year, singer Ke$ha announced she'd be entering a center for help with an eating disorder.


Used to be that those battling addictions -- famous or not -- might keep their need for assistance under wraps, quietly entering and exiting centers without anyone knowing. But as the chronicling of celebrity lives becomes ever more vigilant, their adventures in recovery have grown more public. This could be a good thing: Increased exposure and conversation could help remove the lingering stigma surrounding addiction, and treatment of such, helping more people understand that addiction is a serious issue that doesn't discriminate based on income, social standing, looks, or anything else. Certainly, celebrities raise the profile not only of the specific institution they attend but the idea of recovery in general.


On the other hand, the Hollywood promotion of addiction treatment could in some cases serve to normalize, possibly even glamorize, the idea of living to excess, and maybe excuse the reckless behavior that often lands celebrities in rehab in the first place. Rehab can be used as a mea culpa, for the famous and the non-famous: a way to make amends or smooth over a situation while also earning praise for "dealing with their demons." Efron reportedly admitted himself after failing to show up for work filming his upcoming movie, Neighbors. R&B singer Chris Brown entered rehab for anger management in October after reportedly punching a man in the face. Going to rehab can work to take a bit of the heat off. In some instances, there seem to be few lasting consequences for those who overuse alcohol and drugs, or mismanage anger, in their professional lives: Such recovering addicts as Robert Downey Jr., Drew Barrymore, and Robin Williams have maintained glorious careers, and, well, people keep buying Chris Brown's music. That's not always the case -- the second chance (or third, or fourth) -- for regular people, as tragedies like Hoffman's death illustrate. The ending isn't always happy. But until an event like this happens, it can be easy to think otherwise.


In fact, how seriously celebrities take rehab may impact how seriously "regular" people do as well. Celebrities who go in and out of rehab may be struggling privately, but the message the public receives in those cases -- enough details to know that a celebrity is back in a program, but not enough to know why -- is too often that rehab is a place to go whenever you feel the need to get away for a bit. Brown, for example, stayed only two weeks. For those celebrities who aren't facing real addictions or looking to make real change -- but instead seeking a quick and easy way to apologize, or perhaps a spike in media attention -- the message gets muddled.


Certainly, for many celebrities, revealing a trip to recovery is more of a necessity than a desire to be "open and honest" with the rest of the world. It's generally better to be the one to tell the story than have it told for you. Still, the motivation for telling the story, and for entering recovery, matters, as does evidence of a real drive to get well. It shouldn't take a tragedy like the death of a young actor to reinforce the real danger in addiction for everyone, famous or not.


Follow Dr. Peggy Drexler on Twitter: http://ift.tt/1gaj8WZ






BBC Caption Fail Welcomes 'Year Of The Whores'






We're pretty sure "whores" aren't a part of the Chinese zodiac, but the BBC begs to differ.


A subtitle snafu last week accidentally confused "horse" and "whores" during coverage of the Chinese new year, resulting in an hilarious mix-up for the normally staid broadcaster. A viewer captured the hiccup on camera, and shared the evidence on Twitter.







Meant to read, "Welcome to the year of the horse," the subtitle instead displayed, "Welcome to the year of the whores." An inadvertently funny line follows: "People around the globe celebrate."


Other BBC caption fails in recent years include "a moment of silence" turning into "a moment's violence" during coverage of a funeral. According to the Independent, the Archbishop of Canterbury has also been referred to as the "Arch bitch of Canterbury."


Also on HuffPost:



"; var coords = [-5, -72]; // display fb-bubble FloatingPrompt.embed(this, html, undefined, 'top', {fp_intersects:1, timeout_remove:2000,ignore_arrow: true, width:236, add_xy:coords, class_name: 'clear-overlay'}); });




NY Times' Public Editor Criticizes Paper Over Tweaks To Chris Christie Story






The New York Times' public editor sided with critics of the paper who thought that an editor's note should have been attached after changes were made to a crucial story about Chris Christie on Friday.


Margaret Sullivan wrote on Monday that the changes the Times made to its story about accusations against Christie made by one of his former political allies were significant enough to have warranted comment. The paper altered the lede of its story, which initially said that Christie's accuser "had the evidence to prove" that the governor knew about the infamous lane closings on the George Washington Bridge when he said he hadn't known, to say that "evidence exists" that Christie knew.


The Christie campaign used the change, and the subsequent criticism of the change, to attack the Times' reporting on Saturday.


At the time, the paper's metro editor told HuffPost's Michael Calderone that no note was attached to the story because it was one of "dozens" of routine changes that were made.


By Monday, though, the editor, Wendell Jamieson, had changed his tune, as he told Sullivan:


“I don’t believe there’s a correctible error in that initial lead,” he said. “But should there have been an editor’s note? Perhaps. I regret not suggesting that.”

For her part, Sullivan said that the change should have been addressed:


My take: This change was more than a nuance. Acknowledging that could have taken the form of a straightforward correction. The change also could have been explained in an editor’s note or could even have been acknowledged in a sentence in the body of the article.


"; var coords = [-5, -72]; // display fb-bubble FloatingPrompt.embed(this, html, undefined, 'top', {fp_intersects:1, timeout_remove:2000,ignore_arrow: true, width:236, add_xy:coords, class_name: 'clear-overlay'}); });




Blogger Lindsay Bottos Is Using Her Internet Haters' Own Words To Fight Back






In case you require proof that the Internet is a hostile place for women, look no further than Lindsay Bottos' Tumblr.


The 21-year-old artist and student, tired of the vitriolic anonymous comments she received about her looks, artwork and personal life, decided to do something about it.


lindsay bottos


Bottos is working on a series of images combining the harsh comments posted on her blog with self-portraits. The first set of images, published on her Tumblr on Jan. 26, has already been reblogged over 98,000 times.


lindsay bottos


In her initial Tumblr post, Bottos explained why she started the project:


I get tons of anonymous messages like this every day and while this isn’t unique to women, the content of the messages and the frequency in which I get them are definitely related to my gender. I almost exclusively get them after I post selfies. The authority people feel they have to share their opinion on my appearance is something myself and many other girls online deal with daily.

lindsay bottos


Bottos makes sure that the photograph and the comment make sense together; for example an image showing her body hair will be paired with a comment criticizing her decision not to shave.


"I picked the messages by subject matter," she told BuzzFeed. "They reference my tattoos, or face, or weight, or body hair. I wanted them to represent the scope of the messages I get.”


lindsay bottos


Bottos considers the series a work-in-progress, and plans to continue collecting and screencapping the anonymous comments she receives to use in the project.


"The feedback I've gotten has been overwhelmingly encouraging and I'm really excited to keep working with my ideas and evolving my work," she told The Huffington Post in an email.


lindsay bottos


Bottos is a welcome voice in the larger conversation about how women are treated on the Internet. In a Jan. 6 piece for Pacific Standard magazine, Amanda Hess shared her own experiences of receiving rape and death threats from online commenters, and revealed that women are much more likely to report online harassment and stalking than men. She also dismissed the claim that such threats are "harmless":


Threats of rape, death, and stalking can overpower our emotional bandwidth, take up our time, and cost us money through legal fees, online protection services, and missed wages... As the Internet becomes increasingly central to the human experience, the ability of women to live and work freely online will be shaped, and too often limited, by the technology companies that host these threats, the constellation of local and federal law enforcement officers who investigate them, and the popular commentators who dismiss them—all arenas that remain dominated by men, many of whom have little personal understanding of what women face online every day.

Some men have seen first-hand the vitriol women face online -- a notable example is Conor Friedersdorf, a staff writer at The Atlantic. In a Jan. 7 piece, Friedersdorf recalled the "intensely personal missives of hyper-sexualized hate" he read while managing the emails of writer Megan McArdle during a guest-blogging stint. He called for readers to "stop passively accepting behavior towards women (or any person) that wouldn't be tolerated anywhere in offline life."


Passive acceptance is the exact opposite of Lindsay Bottos' attitude when it comes to this project -- and that's why we love it so much.


Check out the rest of the images here.


Also on HuffPost:



"; var coords = [-5, -72]; // display fb-bubble FloatingPrompt.embed(this, html, undefined, 'top', {fp_intersects:1, timeout_remove:2000,ignore_arrow: true, width:236, add_xy:coords, class_name: 'clear-overlay'}); });




These Kids Could Teach Richard Sherman AND The Media A Thing Or Two






After contributing to a well-timed interception that won the football game and sent the Seattle Seahawks to the Super Bowl, Richard Sherman was on top of the world. His post-game interview might have been way over-the-top, but it became an instant classic.


In the video above, the Fine Bros' panel of commentating kids analyze the clip and the media firestorm that followed in a way that only the juice box-set can.


Noah, age nine, contends that Sherman's post-game rant was the result of him drinking "a bunch of soda and he's hyper now." The rest of the insights are equally perfect and hilarious.


The kids also take the media to task for its largely negative, even-more-inflammatory response to the rant. As nine-year-old Dash said, "The human race just feels like you have to say something about everything, but you don't really have to."


From the mouths of babes...


Also on HuffPost:



"; var coords = [-5, -72]; // display fb-bubble FloatingPrompt.embed(this, html, undefined, 'top', {fp_intersects:1, timeout_remove:2000,ignore_arrow: true, width:236, add_xy:coords, class_name: 'clear-overlay'}); });




Katie Couric Reveals Her Wedding Plans






Katie Couric says she'll be a summer bride!


The former "Today" host attended Howard Stern's 60th birthday party in New York City this weekend and revealed that she will tie the knot with fiancé John Molner in the summer of 2014, US Weekly reported.


When Stern asked if he was invited to the wedding, Katie reportedly replied, "No, but to the party. [The wedding is] going to be family only."


Couric and her fiancé got engaged last September after dating for almost two years. This will be Couric's second marriage. Her first husband, Jay Monahan, died of colon cancer in 1998.


Fun fact: back in spring 2013, Couric interviewed the Howard Stern and his wife, Beth Stern, about their marriage. In the interview, Stern's wife revealed that the shock jock is actually sweet at heart, saying, "I have to say, he's so romantic at home -- he's so sweet, kind, gentle, sensitive."


Now you know!


Keep in touch! Check out HuffPost Weddings on Facebook, Twitter and Pinterest.


Related on HuffPost:



"; var coords = [-5, -72]; // display fb-bubble FloatingPrompt.embed(this, html, undefined, 'top', {fp_intersects:1, timeout_remove:2000,ignore_arrow: true, width:236, add_xy:coords, class_name: 'clear-overlay'}); });




Why the Woody Allen Affair Makes Us All Uneasy, and Rightly So





It is impossible to read Dylan Farrow's account of what she says Woody Allen did to her as a child without feeling queasy.


What's your favorite Woody Allen movie? Before you answer, you should know: when I was seven years old, Woody Allen took me by the hand and led me into a dim, closet-like attic on the second floor of our house. He told me to lay on my stomach and play with my brother's electric train set. Then he sexually assaulted me.

The details are nauseating. But that's to be expected -- child abuse is dark and disquieting. But it's that first line that is surprisingly vexing because it turns watching and liking a Woody Allen film into an ethical consumption choice. And it has polarized his audience completely.


One side says it's all about the art and not about the artist behind it. The importance of being Milan Kundera, or at least the importance of his books, should not be affected by allegations he ratted on a dissident to the Czech secret police back in 1950. Enid Blyton's beloved children's books about Five Find-Outers and Toyland should not be matched up against her personal failings as a mother. On the Waterfront is no less a classic for its director Elia Kazan's role in naming names to the House Un-American Activities Committee trying to rid Hollywood of Communist influences. That purge ruined the careers of many of his peers but the Academy still gave him an honorary Oscar in 1999.


The other side insists the artist cannot duck moral culpability. Nicholas Kristof who has used his friendship with Mia Farrow and her son Ronan to give Dylan's allegations a bully pulpit in The New York Times has accused the Golden Globes of taking sides in the debate by choosing to honor him with a lifetime achievement award.


The standard to send someone to prison is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but shouldn't the standard to honor someone be that they are unimpeachably, well, honorable? Yet the Golden Globes sided with Allen, in effect accusing Dylan either of lying or of not mattering. That's the message that celebrities in film, music and sports too often send to abuse victims.

Both stances are problematic in their black-and-white rigidity. As Kristof admits, Woody Allen has never been convicted and should be presumed innocent. The presumption of innocence is critical even if we instinctively believe the victim is not lying. So is Kristof justified in lending his New York Times megaphone to launch what is effectively Dylan's call for a sort of cultural blacklisting of Woody Allen -- a trial by media because it's too late for a trial by court?


What if it had been your child, Cate Blanchett? Louis CK? Alec Baldwin? What if it had been you, Emma Stone? Or you, Scarlett Johansson? You knew me when I was a little girl, Diane Keaton. Have you forgotten me?

Dylan's anguish is raw and her frustration palpable. But it's unfair to call for a sort of organized cultural boycott on the basis of what are ultimately unproven allegations. The fact is the Golden Globes were unlikely to have given Woody Allen that award if he had actually been convicted of child sexual abuse.


Michael Maiello, obviously a Woody-phile, writing for DagBlog, says this is really belated payback for the fact that people were creeped out by Allen's relationship with 19-year-old Soon-Yi Previn while still being her adoptive mother Mia Farrow's partner: "The 'creep' factor is what gives currency to child abuse allegations that were not pursued by prosecutors more than two decades ago."


But Woody Allen's supporters are being disingenuous as well when they hide behind his craft as if the creator does not matter. In that case, Apple should also not be held to account for labor practices in its iPhone and iPad factories in China as long as the devices work like a dream. Even an actor or writer's proven acts of criminality or moral failings should not be held against them as long as it does not affect their work. By that logic it should not matter that a drunken Mel Gibson launched into an anti-Semitic tirade.


But artists know full well that the private-public dividing line is never that bright or clear. The revelations about Kundera provoked so much outrage because he wrote not detective thrillers, but about Communism, totalitarianism and dissidence. And the revelations about what he might have done in 1950 risked tainting everything he did afterwards with a charge of hypocrisy no matter how beautifully the sentences were constructed.


Woody Allen, too, does not make Fast and Furious thrillers. He makes films about human relationships, with a lot of autobiographical touches, often inviting us to identify with his neurotic, slightly confused on-screen protagonist. Now that persona, for those who believe Dylan's painful account, is tainted because Woody Allen put Woody Allen, the man, into his films. Now he cannot separate himself from his creation so neatly.


There's no easy answer to this quandary about what constitutes the line that separates the artist from the art. When Nick Nolte kept sitting while others gave Elia Kazan a standing ovation during his Oscar, he was clearly protesting Kazan, the man who named names. When Meryl Streep stood and applauded, she was paying her respects to Kazan, the director. That does not mean Streep betrayed those who suffered during those purges any more than it means Nolte was being oversensitive.


In fact, Dylan's adoptive mother Mia Farrow should, of all people, know how tricky it is to take such a black and white stand. Woody Allen is accused of child sexual abuse. He has not admitted to it or been convicted of it. Roman Polanski admitted to drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl in 1977. Mia Farrow, who acted in his Rosemary's Baby, has never spoken out against him. She even flew to London to testify on his behalf in his libel suit against Vanity Fair.


Ultimately for all of us, it comes down to personal choice. It depends on each of us whether Dylan's revelations color the way we view Blue Jasmine or Annie Hall. A sort of sanctioned Hollywood boycott of Woody Allen actually allows us to evade the discomfort of exercising that tricky ethical choice because we can follow the herd.


For those of us in India, Woody Allen has actually made it a little easier. By deciding that his Blue Jasmine should not be released in India because of our annoying on-screen anti-smoking messages, Allen has inadvertently let us off the hook. We can choose to watch the pirated version, says a friend, smug in the knowledge that not a penny will be going to Woody Allen.


Another version of this blog first appeared on Firstpost.com.


Follow Sandip Roy on Twitter: http://ift.tt/1kFNuiH






Obama Group Urges Congress To 'Give America A Raise'






obama minimum wage
President Barack Obama speaks at General Electric?s Waukesha Gas Engines facility, Thursday, Jan. 30, 2014, in Waukesha, Wis. This trip to Waukesha, Wis., is part of a four-stop tour President Barack Obama is making to expand on themes from his State of the Union address. (AP Photo)






WASHINGTON (AP) — A group supporting President Barack Obama's agenda is airing a new television ad bolstering his call for an increase in the federal minimum wage.


Organizing for Action was formed from the remnants of Obama's re-election campaign. The group operates as a nonprofit and raised more than $26 million last year.


The ad shows Americans at work and touts the jobs that have been created during the economic recovery. A narrator says it's still harder than it should be to raise a family and save for retirement in the U.S. A narrator urges Congress to give America a well-deserved raise.


Organizing for Action isn't disclosing exactly how much it's spending on the ad but says it's more than $100,000. The ad will air on national cable TV networks.


Also on HuffPost:



"; var coords = [-5, -72]; // display fb-bubble FloatingPrompt.embed(this, html, undefined, 'top', {fp_intersects:1, timeout_remove:2000,ignore_arrow: true, width:236, add_xy:coords, class_name: 'clear-overlay'}); });




Watch: David Simon on America as a Horror Show





Previously published on BillMoyers.com




This week on Moyers & Company, David Simon, journalist and creator of the TV series The Wire and Treme, talks with Bill about the crisis of capitalism in America. After President Barack Obama's annual State of the Union address, it's a reality check from someone who artfully uses television drama to report on the state of America from an entirely different perspective -- the bottom up.


"The horror show is we are going to be slaves to profit. Some of us are going to be higher on the pyramid and we'll count ourselves lucky and many many more will be marginalized and destroyed," Simon tells Moyers. He blames a "purchased" Congress for failing America's citizens, leading many of them to give up on politics altogether.


Moyers & Company airs weekly on public television. Explore more at BillMoyers.com.


Follow Bill Moyers on Twitter: http://ift.tt/19QRIiv






Monday, 3 February 2014

Ford's Super Bowl Commercial Stars James Franco Topping Rob Riggle (VIDEO)






Ford is attempting to do something a little bit differently this year, creating a long-form Super Bowl commercial starring James Franco and Fox NFL Sunday host Rob Riggle.


The ad, which confused some viewers with its odd early teaser, features Riggle talking about the Ford Fusion Hybrid, followed by Franco trying to outdo Riggle's excitement.


There's also a tiger.


“Rob will be playing himself in part of it, and then I’ll be playing a version of Rob in the other part,” Franco told Entertainment Weekly. “Super Bowl commercials are almost like little movies nowadays. …In the ad, a lot of the little things in Rob’s portion will have doubles in my portion, but everything will be much grander. He has a chihuahua, I have a Bengal tiger.”


CLICK HERE to see the rest of the 2014 Super Bowl commercials as well as all of the best, worst and most unforgettable from the past.


As the Denver Broncos and Seattle Seahawks battle for the right to lift the Lombardi Trophy, Super Bowl advertisers compete for another prize: your attention. Each time that FOX cuts away from Super Bowl XLVIII to pay the bills, another group of blockbuster commercials and movie trailers was unveiled (although many had been teased or released in advance). Take a look around your Super Bowl party. Are people paying closer attention during the game or the commercial breaks?


CLICK HERE to visit our Super Bowl Live Blog to check out the latest on-field action.



"; var coords = [-5, -72]; // display fb-bubble FloatingPrompt.embed(this, html, undefined, 'top', {fp_intersects:1, timeout_remove:2000,ignore_arrow: true, width:236, add_xy:coords, class_name: 'clear-overlay'}); });




Obama Spars With Bill O'Reilly In Testy Pre-Super Bowl Interview








WASHINGTON, Feb 2 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama accused Fox News on Sunday of keeping alive controversies the White House believes have been settled in a testy interview that aired before the NFL's Super Bowl, the most-viewed sports event in the United States.

Host Bill O'Reilly asked Obama why he did not fire his health and human services chief over the botched rollout of the healthcare law last year, whether there was "widespread corruption" at the Internal Revenue Service, and whether the White House had tried to play down the significance of a 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

Obama said "some boneheaded decisions" were to blame for extra scrutiny the IRS had given to conservative Tea Party groups seeking tax-exempt status, and that the issue had been cleared up during "multiple hearings" in Congress.

"These kinds of things keep on surfacing in part because you and your TV station will promote them," Obama told O'Reilly.

O'Reilly, who hosts a popular program on the most-watched U.S. cable news network, told Obama that many people believed his campaign team sought to downplay the cause of insurgent attacks in Benghazi, which killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

"They believe it because folks like you are telling them that," Obama said, rejecting the allegation, which became a heated issue in the last stages of the 2012 presidential election.

O'Reilly pressed Obama to explain why he did not fire Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius after the website used to enroll people in the new healthcare program known as Obamacare, failed to work during its launch last October.

"My main priority right now is making sure that it delivers for the American people," Obama said, telling O'Reilly that enrollment in health insurance was "about a month behind" projections because of the early problems.

"I promise you that we hold everybody up and down the line accountable," Obama said. (Reporting by Roberta Rampton; Editing by Peter Cooney)


Also on HuffPost:



"; var coords = [-5, -72]; // display fb-bubble FloatingPrompt.embed(this, html, undefined, 'top', {fp_intersects:1, timeout_remove:2000,ignore_arrow: true, width:236, add_xy:coords, class_name: 'clear-overlay'}); });




MetLife Peanuts Super Bowl Commercial Reminds Us Why We Love Charlie Brown (VIDEO)






Does anyone not like the Peanuts?


Doubtful, which is why MetLife's heartwarming Super Bowl commercial works so well. Featuring Charlie Brown and the rest of the gang, the ad shows Schroeder playing the National Anthem on his trusty piano.


It's all very sweet, and is a goodexample of how effective a marketing tool nostalgia can be.


CLICK HERE to see the rest of the 2014 Super Bowl commercials as well as all of the best, worst and most unforgettable from the past.


As the Denver Broncos and Seattle Seahawks battle for the right to lift the Lombardi Trophy, Super Bowl advertisers compete for another prize: your attention. Each time that FOX cuts away from Super Bowl XLVIII to pay the bills, another group of blockbuster commercials and movie trailers was unveiled (although many had been teased or released in advance). Take a look around your Super Bowl party. Are people paying closer attention during the game or the commercial breaks?


CLICK HERE to visit our Super Bowl Live Blog to check out the latest on-field action.



"; var coords = [-5, -72]; // display fb-bubble FloatingPrompt.embed(this, html, undefined, 'top', {fp_intersects:1, timeout_remove:2000,ignore_arrow: true, width:236, add_xy:coords, class_name: 'clear-overlay'}); });




Chris Christie, Barack Obama and Other Nonsense About 'Liberal Media Bias'





The supposedly liberal media are out to thwart Chris Christie's presidential bid, according to conservative critics. Please.


This bilge is the latest in a long line of silly attempts to paint journalists as partisan firebrands. The detractors' evidence of this leftie persecution is that, well, the media run negative stories about conservatives and Republicans. Conveniently overlooked is the bad press that liberals and Democrats receive.


Typical of the persecution narrative is a post on Breitbart.com that "media outlets" are "gearing up to dismantle the popular image of Chris Christie." Noah Rothman, writing on Mediaite.com, charges that the New York Times was getting ready to "make a Mitt Romney out of Chris Christie," by dwelling on the New Jersey governor's "bullying." Radio talker Rush Limbaugh claims the media "has just glommed onto that like bees in a honeycomb so that they don't have to talk about the Gates book," which knocked some of President Barack Obama's policies.


Missing from these complaints is proof that the New York Times and other news providers are scheming to undermine Republican pols and support Dems. Do the critics have transcripts from editorial meetings? Inside sources who report on newsroom plots? Likely not. Just assumptions that journalists are out to get 'em.


In reality, Democrats suffer loads of negative coverage when they get into a jam. As New York's governor, Eliot Spitzer received plenty of it for his arrogant handling of the state legislature, especially using the state police to spy on the Senate majority leader. Then the Times broke the story that Spitzer patronized a prostitution ring, and he resigned in disgrace. News stories about Rod Blagojevich's corruption were legion, culminating in his ouster as Illinois governor and 14-year prison sentence. During the 1998 Monica Lewinsky scandal, Bill Clinton was a media piñata, so much so that some criticized the media for over-doing it.


Media detractors on the right contend that their side gets disproportionately bad press. That's highly questionable. Let's look at the Media Research Center, a conservative organization dedicated to denigrating journalists, and its complaint that coverage of Christie's bridge scandal was far higher than of the Internal Revenue Service's scrutiny of Tea Party groups.


If this is true, bias has nothing to do with it. Christie is a potential presidential contender, and the three-day traffic jam in Fort Lee, N.J., that his aides engineered is an outrage everyone can understand. The targeting of Tea Party groups postponed their receiving tax-exempt status. Creepy, yes, but that's not on the same scale as a three-day traffic snarl that blocked school buses and ambulances from moving. And besides, the IRS also targeted some left-wing groups. Moreover, shouldn't the alleged liberal advocates in the media have given the IRS story zero coverage?


Regardless of its dubious merits, anti-media complaining is part of conservative orthodoxy. And it makes for very effective propaganda, relentlessly delivered, which has seeped into the popular culture -- to the point that a Gallup survey last fall found that 46 percent of the American people think the media are biased toward the left (37 percent believe that news folk play it down the middle).


That flies in the face of a Pew Research Center poll showing that most journalists are moderates. Moreover, it ignores the realities of newsroom culture, where finding doctrinaire believers in any cause is very hard. Even news people who say they are conservative or liberal emerge, when you talk to them, as wishy-washy about their ideological leanings. The truth is that, whether in the media or the public as a whole, not everybody is political.


Anti-media propaganda is very helpful to the right, uniting its followers against a powerful perceived enemy and giving its politicians cover if they run into trouble. By and large, the mainstream media let them get away with such baloney, seldom issuing correctives.


Some conservatives' media hatred is palpable. In 2011, Limbaugh said on his show that "it was being breathlessly reported" that Egyptian soldiers were arresting foreign reporters, including two from the Times: "Are we supposed to feel outrage - I don't feel any outrage over it. Are we supposed to feel anger - I don't feel anger over this. Do we feel happy? Well, do we feel kinda going like: Nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah."


So here was a pundit, sitting in the comfort and safety of his studio, mocking brave journalists who put their lives on the line trying to find out what was happening in riot-torn Egypt and inform the public. To the haters, it is evidently inconceivable that journalists are simply working to discover what is going on.


A favorite anti-media technique is to project ideological motives onto reporters' work. Thus, Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan, a former Reagan speechwriter, writes that Bill Clinton's chiding of Barack Obama over the botched health law rollout was marching orders for the servile Fifth Estate to do critical stories on the president.


Hmmm, isn't that the same media who hounded Clinton over Lewinsky? Why didn't they take orders from him in 1998?


The Drudge Report wrote that, after the screwed-up Oct. 1 launch of Obamacare, "the media tried to cover it up for over a week" and bought the White House's line that problems were solely due to a popular surge.


Um, not quite. The MSM chronicling of the train wreck was extensive and immediate. On launch day, the account in the Times did include the Obama Administration's popular-surge excuse (as it should have) and the Republicans' assessment of disaster (as it should have). But the story also recounted numerous anecdotes of snags that pointed to the unfolding mess ahead.


Leading up to the launch, the Times had a spate of articles about the law's shortcomings, such as its forcing municipal workers out of their generous plans, about how Democratic aides who drafted Obamacare were cashing in on their backgrounds and that many consumers faced fewer choices of doctors and hospitals.


Trouble is, when an entire profession occupies a prominent place in the right's roster of demons, disabusing conservatives of their illusions is next to impossible.


Follow Larry Light on Twitter: http://ift.tt/1ej9KPe