http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Mon, 5 Jul 2004 16:21:58 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/07/05/162158.php Walter EnderbyMichael Moore's stated goal is to defeat George Bush. MoveOn.org was formed to defend Clinton and now is dedicated to defeating Bush. DemocraticUnderground.com is dedicated to defeating George Bush.And why not, George Bush has delivered inequitable tax cuts for purely maliputative partisan reasons; he has pandered to the right wing of his party by supporting a perversion of the U.S Constitution (banning gay marriage); and, he has acted against the best interest of the American economy and American worker by supporting growth-restricting tarriffs.Michael Moore and George Bush are really two sides of the same coin. Partisan hacks more interested in promoting party over principle.Look at it, if Michael Moore was really interested in the American people, he would be attacking Democrats for cozying up to Saudis, just like the Bushes, and for investing and sitting on the boards of the same multinational corporations he eviserates Bush for entangling himself in.Partisan politics sucks. It's evil. It's ruining the country, and here's a book that helps explain why and what you can do about it. Books17126@blogcritics.org Mon, 5 Jul 2004 16:21:58 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/06/12/144601.php Walter EnderbyJoshua Green, in the Washington Monthly, details all the liberal things Reagan did as president, such as raising taxes on corporations while cutting taxes for the working poor, negotiating away nuclear arms, pushing for human rights in the Soviet Union and increasing the size of the federal government. Culture16473@blogcritics.org Sat, 12 Jun 2004 14:46:01 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/06/02/003839.php Walter EnderbyAs we head deeper into the presidential season, carp all you want about how many Supreme Court nominees the 2004 winner might to get to appoint, the truly important nomination will be for Fed chairman in 2006, when Greenspan is likely to retire.The man Bush is likely to appoint is Martin Feldstein, a supply-side free marketer in the mold of Greenspan and Milton Friedman who favors sweeping Social Security reform. Fortune has a lengthy profile. Culture16173@blogcritics.org Wed, 2 Jun 2004 00:38:39 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/05/30/225034.php Walter EnderbyAs I understand it, no medals of honor have been awarded yet for heroism in Iraq. Here's the story of one Marine who deserves one. (via Jeff Jarvis) Culture16121@blogcritics.org Sun, 30 May 2004 22:50:34 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/05/30/215440.php Walter EnderbyLesson ... if you're blind golfing champion, don't get caught waving to your neighbors across the street. Culture16119@blogcritics.org Sun, 30 May 2004 21:54:40 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/05/29/000509.php Walter EnderbyFans of Depression-era photographer Dorothea Lange will love this ... a Thousand Oaks man discovered a bunch of her photos in his dad's old filing cabinet. The Ventura County Star published the first story, with some of the photos, today. The photos are pretty stunning examples of her work. Culture16091@blogcritics.org Sat, 29 May 2004 00:05:09 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/05/28/003515.php Walter EnderbyThanks to Tivo and a busy schedule, I'm just now catching up with American Idol. I've just seen Fantasia Barrino perform "I Believe." It's not the greatest song ever written, but it was a great performance.My admiration for Fantasia has already been expressed on BC.The performance I just watched only confirms the validity of all my praise.Even Simon Cowell knows, as he said, Fantasia is the best AI has ever put on stage.As my wife put it, Fantasia isn't the American Idol. She is the American Icon. Only once in a generation does a talent like this come along. Video16064@blogcritics.org Fri, 28 May 2004 00:35:15 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/05/27/011359.php Walter EnderbyMuch is being made of the NYT's "apology" today for blowing it on WMD coverage (see Romenesko). But all I see is a media, including the Times, that doesn't really want to deal with the root cause of the problem.Sure, you can argue that the Times got it wrong on many fronts related to WMD. Both the left and the right, pro-war and anti-war, can put its own spin on how WMD was covered in the run up to the war by the NYT and other major media. But if you want to be honest, and you care about ethical journalism, the issue isn't whether the Times and others displayed sufficient skepticism, because in the end, a news reporter is only as good as his sources (or source documents). In the run up to the war, there is only so much a reporter can uncover. In the end, it boils down to either relying on government sources and various "experts," or going and digging through the Iraqi sands yourself. And since any investigative reporter who would actually tried to find WMD (or lack of) in Iraq probably would have found out the truth about Abu Ghraib much faster than he would have liked, you're only left with human intelligence -- second hand information given to you by officials in various world governments. And in the end, that means the fault isn't with the information, but how the information is gathered, vetted and disseminated. It is all about sources, how they're handled and how they're trusted.And no ethical, honest reporter trusts a source who isn't willing to put his name to a quote, except under extreme and unique circumstances. Those circumstances rarely applied to any reporting prior to the war (possibly, never applied).Go through the Times' stories. There are scant few facts, real or imagined, that are attached to named sources. All you get are "administration officials," and the like.Here's the problem: When you don't hold sources accountable by printing their names, you are giving them a blank check to spin, to lie, to disinform, and to promote personal, political or institutional agendas. Where there is no accountability for information, there is no incentive to speak the truth, to be sure you're right, to be personally responsible for what you say.And don't think for a moment that every "official" in Washington doesn't understand this simple truth. Unnamed sourcing is the number one way in which Washington politicians manipulate the news media.Prior to the invasion of Iraq, we heard much about "shock and awe." To hear the news media tell it, this was THE war plan. And the idea that it was the plan was hammered home by various unnamed sources, various Pentagon sources and administration officials, over and over. But to anybody who took even 15 minutes to research "shock and awe" on the Internet, it would be apparent that this was no real plan, especially to anybody with a modicum of military background. The idea that "shock and awe" was the military plan was laughable on its face. Yet, it's what the news media fed us day after day. Why? Because it's what a bunch of anonymous sources kept feeding gullible Pentagon reporters. Why? Because the more the military could distract the media with bogus shock and awe stories, the less time the news media would spend scrutinizing what the real plan might be. And, most importantly, the fewer tough questions the media would ask about the real plan, and the POST WAR PLAN.Beltway journalist did American democracy a HUGE disservice by concentrating its fire on shock and awe instead of being enterprising and trying to find out the truth.It was, pure and simple, lazy and unethical journalism.The media will argue that many stories will go unreported if ethical standards were applied to unnamed sources. First, this is a lie, because anything that is news worthy (99 percent of the time), an official source will speak on the record if he can't get the information out otherwise. Second, the price of passing on stories that can't be properly sourced is a lot lower than the price of damaged credibility when a story turns out to be disinformation or worse. There is no valor in printing lies, no matter how many other news organizations you beat or how pearly your prose.In 99 percent of the cases where major media journalist use unnamed sources, it is lazy and unethical. It is unprofessional. In most cases, anonymous sources only speak to reporters to push agendas that have nothing to do with what the media should be most concerned with: the truth. Anonymous sources are either self-serving, in most cases, or serving a master that has authorized a "leak." Few anonymous sources are actually doing a reporter a favor when speaking on background, but of course the ego of every reporter is fed by whispered rumors and ideal speculation that supposedly only that reporter has the "scoop" on.It's clear by now that much of what the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, Israel -- or any other country you care to name -- was relying on was purely guess work. It wasn't real intelligence. It was only supposition and conjecture and somewhat logical deduction. Much of it wasn't unreasonable, but most of it was flawed. Little of it was based on fact and reality. But the flaw here, from a journalistic standpoint, isn't that this flawed intelligence was floated out to the public. It's that no source was forced to attach his name to it. The use of named sources would have improved public debate by getting more reliable information on the record, and allowing other reporters to more closely scrutinize the validity of WMD claims and suppositions.And so we get this apology from the Times that ignores the plank in its eye while straining to see the gnat.Incredibly, Howell Raines, displaying once again his huge ethical blindness, defends the Times' WMD stories. Whatever shred of credibility the man departed the Times with should now be lost. Culture16033@blogcritics.org Thu, 27 May 2004 01:13:59 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/05/24/225454.php Walter EnderbyRaise your hand if you love freedom. Culture15950@blogcritics.org Mon, 24 May 2004 22:54:54 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/05/22/204353.php Walter EnderbyThere is just an incredible diversity of music available. If all you're relying on to find new music is what your DJ tells you is hot, or what pops up on VH1, you're missing a huge underground of music.How huge? Well, I consider myself a pretty savvy and informed music consumer. I buy a lot of stuff. I get a lot of review copies of CDs. I pay attention (like, I read this site, for one thing). Yet, once a while an established performer slips through and I think, "Damn, this is good. How did I miss this?"Such a performer is Deborah Coleman, who's new CD "What About Love?" arrived on my desk a few days ago. Coleman has been recording and performing professionally for a decade now.If you're not a blues fan, Coleman isn't likely to turn you into one, even though her sound is hardly esoteric, but she is a strong and vibrant performer who's songs reward repeated listening. Coleman sings and plays some tasty and powerful guitar. Her sound is fresh and modern without being overproduced. She lacks the bombast of many modern blues musicians, which may be one of her most appealing aspects. Music15885@blogcritics.org Sat, 22 May 2004 20:43:53 EDT