A small point by I suggest when discussing evolution we use the phrase "acknowlege evolution" as opposed to "believe in evolotion"

"Believe in" makes it easier to conflate a known fact with a religious belief. Evolution, of course doesn't give a fig what we beleive (except of course when those beliefs interfere with our reproductive success).

Kitt:

Also, The Dixie Chicks are musicians, but that didn't limit their ability to understand that Bush is an embarrassment. So, with that in mind, I think Olberman's sports background is irrelevant to whether or not he is qualified to express an opinion.

Not only are musicians traditional repositories for folk wisdom disdained at court, making them eminently qualified to speak on things political, there's also this musician Dave Frishberg's take on the journalistic integrity of sports journalism, in his song, "The Sports Page," which is, he sings, "The one place to turn, when a fellah wants to know the score."

David Sirota has a diary on DailyKos right now on last night's 60 Minutes segment on Lou Dobbs, that discusses the issue of journalistic bias, both acknowledged and unacknowledged, and on his opinion that the former kind is better and more honest than the latter kind (with yours truly posting a typically longish comment on how NO bias is preferable to either):

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/7/1055/16408

No journalist is free of bias, just as no person is. It's simply not possible. But honest and professional journalists at least try their best to minimize their biases, both personal and acquired, which begins with their acknowledgement, if not to the public, then at least to themselves. And even more important than trying to be unbiased (which, in the end, it is impossible to completely be), journalists should try--for a refreshing and shocking change--to stick to actual facts, and not to a CW or establishmentarian interpretation of them (i.e. spin).

"Journalists" like Hume and Kurtz are both partisan and dishonest. Hume, for clearly ideological (but probably also personal and professional) reasons, Kurtz in my opinion, more for personal and professional reasons (i.e. he's an inherently dishonest cowards who's just kissing up to the powers that be to advance his career) than for ideological ones. I dislike their partisanship, but it's their dishonesty that most disturbs me. If you favor one side over another, fine, that's your prerogative. Just don't shape your reporting to match your favoratism, which is dishonest.

Because dishonest reporting, far more than partisan reporting, is no reporting at all, but rather propaganda, and yellow journalism. Neither of which is tolerable in media outlets that call themselves news organizations--least of all ones that call themselves "fair and balanced". Last time I checked, lying and smearing is neither fair nor balanced.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/07/washington/07loans.html?pagewanted=1&hp&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1178560856-HrkHeKMX/V1LsXw2yIQl3A

This story is completely partisan! It makes it appear that the Bush administration deliberately worked to allow lending companies to rob tax payers of millions of dollars from a student loan program by actively blocking the efforts of a whistle-blower to stop the money stealing. Then this completely partisan story notes that Bush's education secretary overruled a decision to get the money back that a NEw Mexico lending company stole from US citizens. Then this partisan ideological liberal story points out that Nelnet - the company Spellings pardone - was the biggest donor to National Republican Congressional Committee in 2006 and that the company's president actually sat on the board of the gov't advisory committe that audited the company.

Friggin liberal partisanship! Where's the fair and balance?

But seriously? How the hell is this administration still in power?

Paul Dirks, offering excellent advice:

A framing suggestion.....

A small point by I suggest when discussing evolution we use the phrase "acknowlege evolution" as opposed to "believe in evolotion"

"Believe in" makes it easier to conflate a known fact with a religious belief. Evolution, of course doesn't give a fig what we beleive (except of course when those beliefs interfere with our reproductive success).

It is quite clear that many do not "believe in evolution" as proven by their staunch refusal to think beyond the level of amoeba.

Another Howard Kurtz conflict of interest

Last week, my opinion of Kurtz’s professionalism went from bad to worse when he failed to tell readers an important detail about his personal perspective.

Like every other political reporter in the country, Kurtz has been paying close attention to the California recall race, with plenty of attention on Arnold Schwarzenegger’s campaign.

In fact, in his daily “Media Notes” column, Kurtz mentioned Schwarzenegger five times in five columns last week. Kurtz’s work commented on the Schwarzenegger campaign’s response to the groping allegations, the alleged praise for Hitler, the endorsements from California newspapers, etc.

All the while, Kurtz was offering analysis on the quality of the Schwarzenegger message. What Kurtz failed to mention is that his wife, Sheri Annis, has been Schwarzenegger’s press secretary.

In other words, Kurtz is hardly a disinterested media critic, objectively considering a candidate’s media strategy and communications efforts. Kurtz is critiquing the very message that his wife has been shaping, making this a fairly obvious conflict of interest. Either the Post should have asked a different writer to cover these issues, or, at a minimum, Kurtz should have informed readers of his personal ties to the campaign.

What are we to think about Kurtz’s consistent support of Schwarzenegger’s campaign? Was it just a coincidence that Kurtz was supportive of the campaign’s media strategy in dealing with recent controversies?

Last week, for example, Kurtz was dismissive about the sexual misconduct story, parroting Schwarzenegger’s talking points, saying that “voters will probably see this as a late hit, six days before the recall,” and concluding that the allegations are an old story “discounted by much of the electorate.” Kurtz even mocked the story, saying, “[A] Hollywood star grabbing at actresses and crew members — shocking!”

Actually, for a lot of us, the fact that a gubernatorial candidate has repeatedly made unwanted sexual advances on women, groping and grabbing women’s bodies without their consent, is shocking and hardly the kind of behavior that should be mocked by professional journalists.

In fact, last Wednesday, Kurtz lambasted the Toronto Globe & Mail newspaper for publishing “the most tilted stories I’ve ever seen in a major newspaper” about the Schwarzenegger campaign. Kurtz concluded that he’s scared about the drop in “journalistic standards.”

Isn’t it ironic that a man with such obvious conflicts of interest would be lecturing others about journalistic standards?

http://tinyurl.com/yrqgyl