BuggBlog

Lowering the punditry limbo bar

When some bloggers began criticizing a Commentary column that criticized Barack Obama for choosing orange juice (a "childish" drink) over coffee ("bitter and bracing"), I kind of assumed that too many people were reading a joking column as a serious rant. Then I went to read it for myself.

And it really is about the stupidest thing I've read this campaign. It may even be stupider than Fox News talking about the Lincoln-Douglas debates.

Scary thing? There's plenty of room to go even lower between now and November.

Howard Kurtz and Brian Williams have dirty, dirty minds

Howard Kurtz tosses one off at the end of his Post media column today, noting NBC anchor Brian Williams consternation at all the sexy, sexy stuff in recent issues of the New York Times.

Finally, Brian Williams turns media critic on his NBC blog, questioning (without quite saying so) whether the New York Times is out of touch with mainstream America:

"It's tough to figure out exactly what readers the paper is speaking to, or seeking. Consider this: the Sunday Styles section lead story on April 13th was 'Scavengers on the Urban Savannah' (people buy things at flea markets!), and promoted on Page One was 'A Sex Chair Becomes A Battlefield.' Alrighty then.

"This Sunday's lead story was 'Through Sickness, Health, Sex Change . . . ' in a section that included the essay, 'Was I On A Date Or Baby-Sitting?,' and 'Let's Say You Want To Date A Hog Farmer' (and who among us hasn't?).

"The magazine cover story this week was 'The Newlywed Gays!' (happy gay men in Massachusetts who are married outdoor grilling enthusiasts!) . . .The lead story in the Travel Section? The rise of vacation resorts catering to nudists."

All the sex that's fit to print.

You know those stories about young gay men getting married and, in many cases, committing to monogamy -- nothing but sex, sex, sex!

Really, given that it looks like neither one of them bothered to read the Newlywed Gays story  -- I did, by the way, and it's pretty good overall -- it makes me wonder what pictures go through Williams's and Kurtz's heads when they hear the word "gay." And if they did read the story, well, ingrained bias is an ugly thing.

Full court press

Following up on its attention-grabbing antics of last week when it ran a blank stretch of space on its front page to emphasize the Obama campaign's decision not to do an interview with the paper, the Philadelphia Gay News continues its campaign this week with the front page with the complaint that it's been "1,529 days" since Obama interviewed with the "local gay press."

The complaint last week in a PGN editorial was  that "It has now been 1,522 days since Obama has been accessible to our community." Now that the Advocate has snagged an interview with him, the PGN complaint has shifted, essentially, to kvetching that Barack Obama won't interview with me!

PGN publisher Mark Segal, in a press release this morning highlighted four "questions of importance to the LGBT community of Pennsylvania":

1. Why has he not spoken with local gay media in 1529 days?

2. Why has he accepted only two interviews with gay media since 2004?

3. Why interview only with gay media when in damage control now that the national LGBT press is urging you to talk to us, not at us?

4.  Finally, with all due respect Senator, you've now avoided answering the single most important question which PGN readers must ask. The LGBT community of Pennsylvania wants to know your stand on the anti gay marriage state constitutional legislation currently before the Pennsylvania Senate.

You know, when three of your four "important" questions are essentially re-phrased versions of Barack Obama won't interview with me! then there's a bit of a substance problem to the complaint. The idea that we don't know anything about Obama's positions on GLBT issues -- or, conversely, that we now have some special insight into the mind of Hillary Clinton because she interviewed with PGN or Kevin Naff at the Blade -- is a non-starter because the positions have been spelled out, they've been discussed in public events, and they've been covered in press both mainstream and niche. And if you're a reporter who wants to know a candidate's position on a particular issue -- say, a Pennsylvania anti-marriage amendment -- you call the campaign office, ask them, and report the response (or non-response).

Tempest? Meet the teapot.

A renaissance of fair

The Washington Post reports today from Indiana, where the political mechanics of the state -- next door to Obama's Illinois stronghold, but a political apparatus aligned with the Clinton machine -- make for a close race. Writes Anne E. Kornblut:

Something unusual appears to be developing in the Democratic presidential race in this state: a fair fight.

What on earth does that mean? That primaries in states where demographics are favorable to one candidate or the other are unfair? That voters who pay attention and weigh their options early in the process are being unfair compared to those undecided voters who tune in during the final moments? That a state only counts if the press gets to write breathless "too close to call" stories? That the previous primaries and caucuses that put Barack Obama in the lead were somehow unfair to Hillary Clinton?

Honestly, I've written stuff like this before for the magazine: A lead that just sounds so good you miss the fact that it's fundamentally senseless. Usually a fellow editor or writer saves me from myself. Too bad someone at the Post didn't do that for Kornblut here.

About last night

So, Texas was close for Hillary Clinton, but I haven't found anything that sets out the delegate counts, particularly for the Texas caucuses that were apparently won by Barack Obama. Because for all the wild spinning going on this morning, it remains a close race in which Obama maintains a lead in delegates -- important, since delegates are what determine who wins the nomination.

Although that seems to be getting lost a bit. Howard Kurtz this morning takes a swing at Obama's inability to "close the deal" and the supposed spin from his rally last night: "Little wonder, then, than Obama said he has nearly the same delegate lead that he had in the morning. You go with the math most favorable to your side."

Actually, Howard, you just go with the math. The funny thing about math is that it pretty much always stays with the straightforward formulas, like "if a>b and b>c then a>c," even if you have Ohio and Texas voting systems trying to screw around with the fabric of the space-time continuum.

Anyways, cold hard delegate math aside, the next few days will be tough for supporters of either Democrat. And, despite the assurances of various political poo-bahs that an extended Democratic race won't hurt the party's chances at all, no sir, no way, it's hard not to be nervous about a footloose John McCain traipsing around the country basking in the glow of his still-rosy press corps, while Clinton and Obama continue to hack at each other.

I've put a full version of last night's liveblog after the jump, hard-posted into the blog so you don't have to launch something else to get it.

What rough beast slouches towards Cleveland?

Can't we all just agree with me and get along?

Cavin and I had a fight last night. About telecomm immunity.

I think I need for this portion of the election cycle to be over.

Speaking of, I'll probably be live-blogging some election returns tonight starting around 7:30 p.m., probably focusing on CNN and/or MSNBC. I'm unlikely to bother with Fox News as Karl Rove, et al, make me want to gouge out my eyeballs. Chris Mathews just makes me want to punch myself repeatedly in the head, so I can live with that in the name of, oh, bloggy news something or other.

Why Clinton, Obama and McCain don't really matter

I wouldn't want to say that who gets to be the next president is totally inconsequential -- a quick look at Iraq is all it takes. But when it comes to our day to day lives as citizens, we have just as much -- if not more -- to fear from incompetents and miscreants in our state and local governments. And nothing really highlights the assault on our civil liberties like the war on drugs.

Of course, the war on drugs is equally pernicious on both the federal and local level, and a lot of shit flows downhill from the feds at the Drug Enforcement Agency, where the agency head is actually a defender of our nation's historic (and disastrous) attempt at alcohol prohibition. How bad is it? Well, if the government wants to seize your personal property they just have to say "marijuana" and you'll likely never see it again. Naturally, local police departments have taken advantage of such current legal realities and begun using so-called drug-related property seizures as a fundraising tool for their departments. And what do they buy with that money they've taken?

SWAT gear. Because everyone knows that what a freedom-loving, liberal democracy like the United States needs is militarized local police departments.

But not enough people seem to care, at least until the local SWAT teams comes crashing through your door at 2 a.m because some shifty "informer" ratted out your neighbor for having a couple of joints and the officers in charge got the address wrong. And still not enough people seem to care, even when police are stomping on 80-something grandmothers.

Because drugs are bad, mmm-kay.

I'll drink to that

Before I started journalism school way back in 1986, I had a romanticized view of journalism shaped by the post-Watergate era of investigative reporters and my childhood enjoyment of the Mary Tyler Moore Show spin-off, Lou Grant. I envisioned reporters -- they were still reporters back then, not journalists or staff writers -- as a bunch of hard-working, hard-smoking and hard-drinking people.* By the time I got into the business, that first descriptor still fit, while the latter two had already begun dropping out of fashion.

Over at Slate, Jack Shafer has a small paean to the disappearing boozing newshound: "It's easy to reduce all of what is wrong with American journalism to the near industrywide ban on booze in the newsroom. So I will." More specifically, he says:

It wasn't that long ago that alcoholics were celebrated or at least regaled in newsrooms for their heroic immoderation. Today, praise goes to the "courageous" newsroom alcoholic or druggie who enters a company-financed rehab program. Today's newspaper will fire you for taking mood-altering drugs in the workplace unless, of course, they're prescription antidepressants paid for by the company health plan. And in the old days, great status was bestowed upon the foulest mouth in the newsroom. Today, that sort of talk will earn you a write-up from HR for creating a climate of sexual harassment. Paradoxically, the language and subjects now banned as inappropriate inside the newsroom are routinely found inside the pages of the newspaper.

Finding that most journalists were actually overly health-conscious, near-tee-totalers was one of the bigger disappointments of my fledgling, post-college career. You can still find the occasional throwback hanging out in downtown D.C. at the Post Pub or Stan's, but these days a prodigious consumption of substances, legal or illegal, is more likely a secret that will later be transformed into a confessional memoir or Style section feature. But since I quit smoking, dropped recreational substances, and drink at nowhere near the astronomical level I used to, I can't really say that the world would be a better place if journalists tipped the bottle more often (though it would likely result in better and more entertaining punditry).

Then again, I've done an outstanding job of maintaining on overtly (and overly) foul mouth at the Metro Weekly office, so I've upheld at least once journalistic tradition.

*For the best recent, fictional version of this archetype, check out Robert Downey Jr.'s performance in Zodiac.

And now for something really important

So The Advocate has sent me its usual mass e-mail to journalists, asking if I "might be interested in speaking to the editors about one or more of the crucial LGBT topics that are addressed in the issue."

What, pray tell, would one of those topics be? Here it is.

COVER STORY: Matthew Rhys plays gay brother and lawyer Kevin Walker on the hit ABC drama Brothers & Sisters.  Matthew, who is straight, sits down with The Advocate to discuss the challenges of playing gay and what it's like to kiss Sex and the City's Jason Lewis.  "When you're in a relationship with a girl, you go to set and you go, 'I'm going to make out with Jason Lewis,' he tells the magazine.  "And they go, 'Oh, you lucky thing,' and they feel totally secure about it.  But if you go to set and you have to make out with a hot blond girl, then you have the argument.”

Wow, straight guys playing gay and having to kiss other guys. What a crucial LGBT topic for these heady days.

When people wonder why I have such a cynical view of gay media -- with the exception of my own, natch -- this is what I'm talking about. Are we really still asking -- and interested in -- how well-paid TV actors feel pressing their lips together? Do we really need to buy into the premise that our same-sex affections are so freaky and weird that we have to ask professional pretenders, "What does it feel like to do that?"

Frankly, The Advocate's readers deserve better than that. Then again, they've deserved better for some time now and haven't gotten it.