Tuesday, December 13, 2005

"Fair and Balanced"

Well, the big-bloggers have jumped into the Froomkin matter and the whiners of the Washington Post -- who apparently find being urged to do their jobs -- APPALLING!

I don't have much to add to the debate, except to say that when reading those blogs I find it far too hard to think after seeing this...

I'm just a simple heterosexual man, I cannot just willy-nilly bump into representations of pornography. How else will you taunt MSNBC? What else will you do? And will you do it with that husky-voiced succubus Rita Crosby?

Oh, lovely, testosterone-laden Rita. It's as if Ray Davies wrote a song about you. Whenever I hear your voice, I think of two-things: frightening sex and three packs of Camels.

You know what would be great? If MSNBC not only sent Rita to an execution, but had her be an official witness -- and then advertised that fact every fucking 5 minutes! That would be a fantastic idea.

But surely we'll never see that. That could never happen!

It appears I may have digressed...

Excuse me for a couple of minutes.

Please feel free to comment amongst yourselves, while I am gone...

...One-minute, forty-five seconds later...

Anyhow, for those of you who follow a comedy premise, or who cannot, or those of you who follow a comedy premise, even if it doesn't deliver comedy, I thought Josh Marshall summed up the Froomkin matter with the Washington Post's high-horsed jackasses pretty well:

As for balancing Froomkin with a conservative blogger, can't we just match him with Jim Hoagland and it call it a draw? That would be pretty generous, I think. Has there ever been any accounting for all the misinformation Hoagland (presumably) unintentionally spread through his column? And what about all the stuff he's made up since then to cover for the earlier baloney? Who balances him? Who balances Howie Kurtz's sometimes myopic focus on 'liberal bias'? How about the fact that an editor at the Wapo.com recently intentionally tilted a scandal story to include more Democrats than the facts would bear so as to make the story appear more 'balanced'?

More to the point, with all that has happened to journalism and this country in the last three years -- or perhaps just the Post in the last few weeks -- is this really all the Post's ombudsman can think to concern herself with?

Now excuse me, as I try to figure out what the hell this means...

No comments: