TUESDAY, MAY 16, 2017
Mainstreamers still don't want to ask: Most mornings, we start by looking at certain news sites.
After last night's craziness, we found ourselves doing something different this morning. We reread the start of King Lear. You can accomplish that here!
Was the famous monarch "mentally ill" in some way? Was he suffering some form of "dementia?"
It seems to us that Shakespeare said yes. At any rate, Lear's behavior at the start of the play is not unlike Donald J. Trump's.
(Lear insisted on getting conned by the grifters Goneril and Regan. Trump is now said to surround himself with the gruesome Ivanka and her blame-shifting husband and with communications aide Hope Hicks, age 28. Two of his three favored sycophants are youngish former teen models.)
For whatever reason, Donald J. Trump has always had unattractive impulses and values. Now, it increasingly seems that he may be losing his basic acuity. It seems to us that many pundits still want to avoid this topic. This seems like a lousy idea.
We're also puzzled by two recent posts by Kevin Drum, whose work on lead exposure has been so instructive. In the first of these posts, Drum headlined Trump as an "idiot." In his very next post, he plainly suggested that Trump is dealing with dementia.
Trump has always had unattractive values and impulses. That said, dementia is a terrible disease, producing a loss to the individual and to the wider world.
When a person dies, "what has gone is not nothing?" We will remind you, once again, that (the late) Yevtushenko said that.
What was Flynn's "underlying conduct?"
TUESDAY, MAY 16, 2017
Cooper to interview Yates: Anderson Cooper is going to air an interview Sally Yates tonight. The interview has already been taped. Let's hope he asked her a basic question concerning Michael Flynn.
In "Trump years," it seems like it happened long ago. In fact, it has only been eight days since Yates testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
She described the warnings she delivered to White House counsel Don McGahn—warnings concerning the mighty Flynn. She said she warned McGahn about an array of problems, including Flynn's "underlying conduct:"
But she also said she told McGahn that Flynn's "underlying conduct" was "problematic in and of itself." In fact, she said that was the first point she made.
In the past week, different people have understood that remark in different ways. What exactly did Yates mean when she referred to Flynn's "underlying conduct?"
Let's start with the Washington Post's David Ignatius. In a May 10 column, he seemed to say the "underlying conduct" to which Yates referred was simply Flynn's discussion of sanctions with Ambassador Kislyak:
Ignatius has made similar statements on Morning Joe. Is that what Yates meant?
Last night, on The Eleventh Hour, Jeremy Bash had a different idea. He told Brian Williams this:
What did Yates mean by her statement? Will she tell Cooper if he asks? We don't know, but we hope he asks and she answers. Our reason is this:
Needless to say, a certain unnamed cable star drew a great deal of excitement from Yates' remark last week. On May 9, she went on, at some length, about this provocative question. Excitingly, she suggested that Flynn's "underlying conduct" must be some troubling new misbehavior of which we're still unaware. Several Democratic pols were pushing a similar-sounding line.
For ourselves, we were inclined to assume that Yates was simply referring to Flynn's discussion of sanctions. That unexciting interpretation seems to be supported by part of her statement above. ("We were concerned that the American people had been misled about the underlying conduct"—that is to say, they had been misled, by Pence and others, about Flynn's discussion of sanctions.)
We were inclined to think that was what Yates meant. That said, there's no way to know till she's asked.
Until that time, a certain drama-spewing host will be inclined to add to the excitement by imagining rich new offenses. It would be a good idea to find out what Yates meant.
Cooper's interview is in the can. If only for clarity's sake—remember that?—we very much hope he asked.
Cooper to interview Yates: Anderson Cooper is going to air an interview Sally Yates tonight. The interview has already been taped. Let's hope he asked her a basic question concerning Michael Flynn.
In "Trump years," it seems like it happened long ago. In fact, it has only been eight days since Yates testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
She described the warnings she delivered to White House counsel Don McGahn—warnings concerning the mighty Flynn. She said she warned McGahn about an array of problems, including Flynn's "underlying conduct:"
YATES (5/8/17): The first thing we did was to explain to Mr. McGahn that the underlying conduct that General Flynn had engaged in was problematic in and of itself.Oof! Yates told McGahn that Flynn could conceivably be blackmailed by the Russians. She told him that false statements were being made to the public.
Secondly, we told him we felt like the vice president and others were entitled to know that the information that they were conveying to the American people wasn't true...
We told him the third reason was, is because we were concerned that the American people had been misled about the underlying conduct and what General Flynn had done, and additionally, that we weren't the only ones that knew all of this, that the Russians also knew about what General Flynn had done.
And the Russians also knew that General Flynn had misled the vice president and others, because in the media accounts, it was clear from the vice president and others that they were repeating what General Flynn had told them, and that this was a problem because not only did we believe that the Russians knew this, but that they likely had proof of this information.
And that created a compromise situation, a situation where the national security adviser essentially could be blackmailed by the Russians.
But she also said she told McGahn that Flynn's "underlying conduct" was "problematic in and of itself." In fact, she said that was the first point she made.
In the past week, different people have understood that remark in different ways. What exactly did Yates mean when she referred to Flynn's "underlying conduct?"
Let's start with the Washington Post's David Ignatius. In a May 10 column, he seemed to say the "underlying conduct" to which Yates referred was simply Flynn's discussion of sanctions with Ambassador Kislyak:
IGNATIUS (5/10/17): The mystery at the center of the Flynn case is why Trump didn't react sooner to warnings about Flynn's involvement with Russia...Ignatius seemed to think that Yates was simply referring to Flynn's "problematic" discussion of sanctions with Kislyak—a discussion which, or so many people suggested, could have been a violation of the Logan Act.
We don't have answers. But one obvious possibility is that Trump didn't take action because he already knew about Flynn's Dec. 29 discussion with Ambassador Sergey Kislyak about sanctions, and knew that Flynn had misrepresented the Kislyak call to Vice President-elect Mike Pence.
Flynn's discussion with the Russian ambassador at such a sensitive time, when the United States was punishing Russia for hacking the 2016 election, was arguably a violation of the Logan Act, which bars private meddling during a confrontation with another country. It was "problematic" behavior, as former acting attorney general Sally Yates said in her riveting testimony Monday.
But this wasn't a hanging offense, and it probably wasn't even a prosecutable one.
Ignatius has made similar statements on Morning Joe. Is that what Yates meant?
Last night, on The Eleventh Hour, Jeremy Bash had a different idea. He told Brian Williams this:
BASH (5/15/17): The "underlying conduct" of Mike Flynn, the underlying conduct Sally Yates complained to the White House about? That was probably disclosure of national security information to the Russians...In Bash's view, Yates may have been referring to a whole second-order offense. Flynn may have flirted with a Logan offense by discussing the sanctions. But the "underlying conduct" to which Yates referred was probably a separate offense—a disclosure of national security information.
What did Yates mean by her statement? Will she tell Cooper if he asks? We don't know, but we hope he asks and she answers. Our reason is this:
Needless to say, a certain unnamed cable star drew a great deal of excitement from Yates' remark last week. On May 9, she went on, at some length, about this provocative question. Excitingly, she suggested that Flynn's "underlying conduct" must be some troubling new misbehavior of which we're still unaware. Several Democratic pols were pushing a similar-sounding line.
For ourselves, we were inclined to assume that Yates was simply referring to Flynn's discussion of sanctions. That unexciting interpretation seems to be supported by part of her statement above. ("We were concerned that the American people had been misled about the underlying conduct"—that is to say, they had been misled, by Pence and others, about Flynn's discussion of sanctions.)
We were inclined to think that was what Yates meant. That said, there's no way to know till she's asked.
Until that time, a certain drama-spewing host will be inclined to add to the excitement by imagining rich new offenses. It would be a good idea to find out what Yates meant.
Cooper's interview is in the can. If only for clarity's sake—remember that?—we very much hope he asked.
VILLAINS AND US: Unmasking McCabe!
TUESDAY, MAY 16, 2017
Part 2—Villainy revealed: Is Andrew McCabe a villain? Like you, we have no idea.
Andrew McCabe, 49, is the FBI's acting director. He took on the role last week when Comey the God was fired.
McCabe was largely unknown at that time. Last Wednesday night, on the Maddow Show, his villainy was described by that program's excitable host.
There's little doubt that Maddow imputed villainy to McCabe. That said, we can't link you to the program's transcript. In its typical haphazard way, the "cable news" channel which pays Maddow's wage has posted no transcripts of her show since April 24.
That said, we can link you to the videotape of that evening's lengthy opening segment. During Maddow's monologue, we liberals were sold the latest villain found under Maddow's bed.
To watch that videotape, click here. At the Maddow Show site, the synopsis reads like this:
In that lengthy opening segment, Maddow was telling her favorite type of story. It's a type of story we humans have relished since we first crawled from the swamp.
Over the past few years, Maddow has increasingly relished the kind of story in which villains lurk under every bed. She dramatically tells these stories in long-drawn-out, repetitive fashion. In the years since her worm has turned this way, her cable ratings have soared.
Here's the problem:
While Maddow tells a wonderfully scary tribal tale, she and/or her various staffers aren't always obsessively honest. In her scary villain tales, she tend to embellish basic facts, disappear certain others.
She's long been inclined to play it this way, even as she has peddled a story about how honest she is. We liberals have tended to swallow this whole, which isn't the greatest idea.
Today, let's review what Maddow said last Wednesday night about her newest villain. Before we do, we'll restate testerday's two warnings:
Last Wednesday night, Maddow described a villainous act performed by McCabe on February 15. But uh-oh! In real time, Maddow told the same story a different way.
Back in February, in real time, Maddow made McCabe the hero of the piece! Three months later, he was sold as the villain, without any sign that any new facts were part of the new improved tale.
There was a second, even larger problem with the story Maddow told us last Wednesday. Her accusation against McCabe seems to be based on accepting the word of two unreliable sources.
Below, we'll show you the slippery way she sidestepped letting us understand this fact. Would you buy a car from Priebus and Spicer? Most Maddow viewers would not!
Today, we'll look at what Maddow told us last Wednesday. Tomorrow, we'll review what she said in real time. We'll also look at the actual reporting of the incident in question, flimsy though it is. This may help you understand where scary stories, and high cable ratings, all too frequently come from.
What did Maddow say about McCabe last Wednesday night? As she started, she recalled the glorious days when Michael Flynn resigned or was fired.
We join her story in progress. To watch the whole segment, click here:
Michael Flynn resigned on February 13. The very next day, the New York Times published a lengthy report asserting "repeated contacts" between Trump associates and Russian intelligence officials.
Last Wednesday night, Maddow went over the details of this matter, as she's endlessly wont to do. Eventually, she dropped her bomb on McCabe, still without naming him yet:
As Maddow told us this story last week, she clearly presented this claim as an established fact. As viewers could tell from a visual, she was quoting this analysis/opinion piece from Time magazine as she lodged this initial indictment of McCabe.
But she clearly seemed to be making a flat assertion. The deputy director of the FBI had in fact gone to Priebus and called that report BS!
As you may have noticed, some weasel words had already been voiced by Maddow. But those weasel words flashed by very quickly. We'll highlight those words below.
Meanwhile, did Andrew McCabe actually do the thimgs Maddow described? Did he actually go to Priebus and call that report BS? We have no idea! But as Maddow continued, she conferred villain status on McCabe. She had found another villain lurking under our beds!
If you choose to watch that tape, you'll find that Maddow's scary story goes on and on and on. Again and again, she goes over the "really weird" things McCabe is said to have said and done.
This opening segment ran twenty minutes. Eventually, after fourteen minutes, Maddow dramatically named our latest villain:
Throughout this lengthy segment, Maddow kept asserting that McCabe had pulled Priebus aside and called that report BS. She said McCabe's behavior was "a scandal in its own right, because the FBI deputy director shouldn't be talking about the FBI's investigation with the White House."
Maddow went on and on and on, frogmarching our latest villain before us. She told the tale in dramatic fashion, as is her crowd-pleasing wont.
You've seen the flavor of the indictment. For today, we'll only repeat those two warnings:
Back in February, Maddow reported these same events in a totally different way. Back then, she presented the unnamed McCabe as the hero of the piece. Last Wednesday, she made no attempt to explain why her assessment had flipped.
That said, there was a bigger problem with the new story she told. Uh-oh! As we re-post a key part of Maddow's tale, we'll highlight her slick weasel words:
Did Andrew McCabe really engage in the conduct described by those senior officials? We don't have the slightest idea, but the names of those senior administration officials are Reince Priebus and Sean Spicer! How do you like this tale now?
Maddow burned twenty minutes last Wednesday night handing us our latest villain. She handed us a scary story—a story which was told by two people her viewers despise and mistrust.
She never named those senior officials. Instead, a generic attribution went flying quickly by.
Did McCabe engage in the conduct Maddow described? We have no idea.
Tomorrow, we'll review the way Maddow told the story in real time. We'll also review the original, shaky reporting done by the Washington Post and the New York Times.
Maddow's work last Wednesday night was slippery and dumb, but highly pleasing. Could this be where good ratings come from? Also, what else is new?
Tomorrow: Strange work by the Post and the Times
Concerning the transcript: We'd love to link you to last Wednesday's transcript. As we mentioned above, MSNBC is three weeks behind on that score.
This is a very slipshod "news org." Despite the profits Trump has brought them, they function this way all the time.
Part 2—Villainy revealed: Is Andrew McCabe a villain? Like you, we have no idea.
Andrew McCabe, 49, is the FBI's acting director. He took on the role last week when Comey the God was fired.
McCabe was largely unknown at that time. Last Wednesday night, on the Maddow Show, his villainy was described by that program's excitable host.
There's little doubt that Maddow imputed villainy to McCabe. That said, we can't link you to the program's transcript. In its typical haphazard way, the "cable news" channel which pays Maddow's wage has posted no transcripts of her show since April 24.
That said, we can link you to the videotape of that evening's lengthy opening segment. During Maddow's monologue, we liberals were sold the latest villain found under Maddow's bed.
To watch that videotape, click here. At the Maddow Show site, the synopsis reads like this:
New FBI director McCabe compromised by serious conflictYay yay yay yay yay yay yay! McCabe improperly discussed the investigation! He became part of the Trump disinformation campaign!
Rachel Maddow reviews how new Acting Director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe, improperly discussed the investigation into the Trump Camp's ties to Russia with Reince Priebus and became part of the Trump disinformation campaign.
In that lengthy opening segment, Maddow was telling her favorite type of story. It's a type of story we humans have relished since we first crawled from the swamp.
Over the past few years, Maddow has increasingly relished the kind of story in which villains lurk under every bed. She dramatically tells these stories in long-drawn-out, repetitive fashion. In the years since her worm has turned this way, her cable ratings have soared.
Here's the problem:
While Maddow tells a wonderfully scary tribal tale, she and/or her various staffers aren't always obsessively honest. In her scary villain tales, she tend to embellish basic facts, disappear certain others.
She's long been inclined to play it this way, even as she has peddled a story about how honest she is. We liberals have tended to swallow this whole, which isn't the greatest idea.
Today, let's review what Maddow said last Wednesday night about her newest villain. Before we do, we'll restate testerday's two warnings:
Last Wednesday night, Maddow described a villainous act performed by McCabe on February 15. But uh-oh! In real time, Maddow told the same story a different way.
Back in February, in real time, Maddow made McCabe the hero of the piece! Three months later, he was sold as the villain, without any sign that any new facts were part of the new improved tale.
There was a second, even larger problem with the story Maddow told us last Wednesday. Her accusation against McCabe seems to be based on accepting the word of two unreliable sources.
Below, we'll show you the slippery way she sidestepped letting us understand this fact. Would you buy a car from Priebus and Spicer? Most Maddow viewers would not!
Today, we'll look at what Maddow told us last Wednesday. Tomorrow, we'll review what she said in real time. We'll also look at the actual reporting of the incident in question, flimsy though it is. This may help you understand where scary stories, and high cable ratings, all too frequently come from.
What did Maddow say about McCabe last Wednesday night? As she started, she recalled the glorious days when Michael Flynn resigned or was fired.
We join her story in progress. To watch the whole segment, click here:
MADDOW (5/10/17): On February 13th, we only knew that Mike Flynn had just become the shortest serving national security adviser in U.S. history. On February 13th, we knew that this guy hadn't even lasted four weeks.Long story short:
Before we could even start to absorb that information, though, before we could even start to figure out all the backstory on Mike Flynn that has proved to be so damning and so illuminating in the weeks and months since; before we could even absorb that; before we could even start digging into it, that story, that Mike Flynn just resigned as national security adviser, that story got its tail stepped on.
Because Mike Flynn resigned on February 13th, and then the very next day, February 14th, is when the New York Times dropped this:
"Trump campaign aides had repeated contacts with Russian intelligence."
And, you know, once you see that, like, "Oh, right, OK." At that point, yes, "Oh, it's interesting that the national security adviser had to resign yesterday. But, ho-lee, look at this!" I mean, this was remarkable, right?
"Phone records and intercepted calls showed that members of Donald Trump's presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election."
Michael Flynn resigned on February 13. The very next day, the New York Times published a lengthy report asserting "repeated contacts" between Trump associates and Russian intelligence officials.
Last Wednesday night, Maddow went over the details of this matter, as she's endlessly wont to do. Eventually, she dropped her bomb on McCabe, still without naming him yet:
MADDOW: But then something happened to that story. Remember, right?At this point, McCabe's name still hadn't been mentioned. We had been told that he had done something "really weird" on February 15. We'd been told that he went to Reince Priebus and told him that the New York Times "story" (report) about the Trump/Russia contacts was "a bad story—BS."
February 13th, Flynn resigned. February 14th, New York Times posts this bombshell story, right?
What was the headline? [Pretends to fumble for information]
"Trump campaign aides had repeated contacts with Russian intelligence."
February 14th. Kuhhh! [makes sound of bomb exploding]
And February 15th, the next day, something very unusual happened. The deputy director of the FBI went to the White House for a 7:30 a.m. White House meeting on what was reportedly an unrelated intelligence matter. And at the end of that 7:30 a.m. meeting, the deputy director of the FBI had a private pull-aside, a little private pull-aside, one-on-one meeting with the White House chief of staff Reince Priebus.
The deputy director of the FBI, quote, "spoke with White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus for five minutes after a 7:30 a.m. meeting at the White House on February 15th." According to senior administration officials who briefed reporters on the matter, quote, "The deputy director of the FBI told Reince Priebus, I want you to know the story in the New York Times is BS."
Deputy director of the FBI, telling the White House, "Hey, that New York Times story about Trump campaign contacts with Russian officials? That's a bad story. That's BS."
That's really weird, right?
As Maddow told us this story last week, she clearly presented this claim as an established fact. As viewers could tell from a visual, she was quoting this analysis/opinion piece from Time magazine as she lodged this initial indictment of McCabe.
But she clearly seemed to be making a flat assertion. The deputy director of the FBI had in fact gone to Priebus and called that report BS!
As you may have noticed, some weasel words had already been voiced by Maddow. But those weasel words flashed by very quickly. We'll highlight those words below.
Meanwhile, did Andrew McCabe actually do the thimgs Maddow described? Did he actually go to Priebus and call that report BS? We have no idea! But as Maddow continued, she conferred villain status on McCabe. She had found another villain lurking under our beds!
If you choose to watch that tape, you'll find that Maddow's scary story goes on and on and on. Again and again, she goes over the "really weird" things McCabe is said to have said and done.
This opening segment ran twenty minutes. Eventually, after fourteen minutes, Maddow dramatically named our latest villain:
MADDOW: Why the heck was the deputy director of the FBI running to the White House and calling that apparently true story, that now-confirmed story, why was he calling that BS? Why was he giving the White House that ex parte advice on their bad press? Why was he talking to the White House ex parte about this investigation at all?Our biggest, multimillionaire corporate star had named our latest tribal villain!
What the heck was the deputy director of the FBI doing? I don't know. I've never known. It's been one of the weirdest parts of this investigation all along.
But now, the deputy director of the FBI has been promoted. He's now the director of the FBI, the acting director of the FBI, which means he's now leading the FBI investigation into the Russian attack on our election and the Trump campaign's potential involvement in it.
His name is Andrew McCabe. He reportedly took a long, in-person meeting with the president yesterday at the White House, and now he has been put in charge at the FBI, including in charge of the Trump-Russia investigation.
Given his previous named individual role in communicating inappropriately with the White House about this investigation, given his extraordinary effort to ky-bosh damning reporting about this story, reporting that we now know is well-corroborated and multiply sourced and confirmed as true by the director of national intelligence, isn't there an issue here with Deputy Director Andrew McCabe taking over the lead in the FBI's Trump Russia investigation? Isn't there?
How can he specifically be the one who's leading this investigation now?
Throughout this lengthy segment, Maddow kept asserting that McCabe had pulled Priebus aside and called that report BS. She said McCabe's behavior was "a scandal in its own right, because the FBI deputy director shouldn't be talking about the FBI's investigation with the White House."
Maddow went on and on and on, frogmarching our latest villain before us. She told the tale in dramatic fashion, as is her crowd-pleasing wont.
You've seen the flavor of the indictment. For today, we'll only repeat those two warnings:
Back in February, Maddow reported these same events in a totally different way. Back then, she presented the unnamed McCabe as the hero of the piece. Last Wednesday, she made no attempt to explain why her assessment had flipped.
That said, there was a bigger problem with the new story she told. Uh-oh! As we re-post a key part of Maddow's tale, we'll highlight her slick weasel words:
MADDOW: The deputy director of the FBI, quote, "spoke with White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus for five minutes after a 7:30 a.m. meeting at the White House on February 15th." According to senior administration officials who briefed reporters on the matter, quote, "The deputy director of the FBI told Reince Priebus, I want you to know the story in the New York Times is BS."Uh-oh! "According to senior administration officials?" Those weasel words went flying by as Maddow told her tale.
Deputy director of the FBI, telling the White House, "Hey, that New York Times story about Trump campaign contacts with Russian officials? That's a bad story. That's BS."
That's really weird, right?
Did Andrew McCabe really engage in the conduct described by those senior officials? We don't have the slightest idea, but the names of those senior administration officials are Reince Priebus and Sean Spicer! How do you like this tale now?
Maddow burned twenty minutes last Wednesday night handing us our latest villain. She handed us a scary story—a story which was told by two people her viewers despise and mistrust.
She never named those senior officials. Instead, a generic attribution went flying quickly by.
Did McCabe engage in the conduct Maddow described? We have no idea.
Tomorrow, we'll review the way Maddow told the story in real time. We'll also review the original, shaky reporting done by the Washington Post and the New York Times.
Maddow's work last Wednesday night was slippery and dumb, but highly pleasing. Could this be where good ratings come from? Also, what else is new?
Tomorrow: Strange work by the Post and the Times
Concerning the transcript: We'd love to link you to last Wednesday's transcript. As we mentioned above, MSNBC is three weeks behind on that score.
This is a very slipshod "news org." Despite the profits Trump has brought them, they function this way all the time.
New York Times says we should take deep breaths!
MONDAY, MAY 15, 2017
Gray lady helps us be mindful: We swore we were going to stop citing the New York Times' reimagined pages, A2 and A3.
Our resistance was broken by today's Here to Help feature. The heading looks like this:
There actually is such a site! The bulk of today's Here to Help introductory essay is available there. So are the eight "steps" for staying mindful which we're eventually given.
Given the very serious situations which may take people to a doctor's office, it wouldn't be polite or decent to poke fun at such material. That said, the very next item at the nytimes.com/mindful site is headlined as follows:
"How to Be Mindful While Taking a Shower"
One suggestion, live and direct from the New York Times: "Prepare your towel and other necessary items, treating them and yourself with the utmost care."
In terms of visiting the doctor's office, some of the steps almost seem macabre. We're not saying that any of what follows is "wrong." We're saying it represents a peculiar journey for our leading newspaper:
When readers turn to the New York Times for this sort of advice, no one should be surprised to learn that we the people have no freaking idea how national health care policy works, or to learn that Donald J. Trump is now in the Oval Office.
No one should be surprised to learn that half our nation's health care spending disappears into the ether, in a way your leading newspaper has long refused to examine or diagnose. That many people have no health care at all, for this very reason.
Meanwhile, how to be mindful while taking a shower? Let your newspaper help you! Click here.
Gray lady helps us be mindful: We swore we were going to stop citing the New York Times' reimagined pages, A2 and A3.
Our resistance was broken by today's Here to Help feature. The heading looks like this:
Here to HelpMost features on A2 and A3 can't be accessed on-line. The bulk of this feature can be accessed, by visiting nytimes.com/mindful.
HOW TO BE MINDFUL AT THE DOCTOR'S OFFICE
There actually is such a site! The bulk of today's Here to Help introductory essay is available there. So are the eight "steps" for staying mindful which we're eventually given.
Given the very serious situations which may take people to a doctor's office, it wouldn't be polite or decent to poke fun at such material. That said, the very next item at the nytimes.com/mindful site is headlined as follows:
"How to Be Mindful While Taking a Shower"
One suggestion, live and direct from the New York Times: "Prepare your towel and other necessary items, treating them and yourself with the utmost care."
In terms of visiting the doctor's office, some of the steps almost seem macabre. We're not saying that any of what follows is "wrong." We're saying it represents a peculiar journey for our leading newspaper:
Before you enter the doctor’s office, pause at the door and take two deep breaths, count slowly to three on both the inhalation and the exhalation.We're not saying any of that is wrong, not even the part about feeling your feet as they dangle. We are saying this:
Once seated in the waiting room, take a moment to focus on your breathing, counting to 10.
Look inward with complete acceptance, noting why you came to the doctor. Are you worried or scared? Are you in pain?
If you are, permit yourself to have these feelings. Understand that there’s nothing you are supposed to do about these feelings right now. Just let them be. That is why you are here.
In the examination room, notice the cool air, the bright lights and the feeling of your feet dangling as you sit on the table.
Acknowledge the universality of sickness and mortality. Often we feel our suffering isolates us and takes us out of the present moment.
But since suffering is inevitable, it is also an experience we share with everyone else. Allow yourself to feel that connection.
Take another deep breath and commit to sharing with the nurse or the doctor what they need to know to help you.
When readers turn to the New York Times for this sort of advice, no one should be surprised to learn that we the people have no freaking idea how national health care policy works, or to learn that Donald J. Trump is now in the Oval Office.
No one should be surprised to learn that half our nation's health care spending disappears into the ether, in a way your leading newspaper has long refused to examine or diagnose. That many people have no health care at all, for this very reason.
Meanwhile, how to be mindful while taking a shower? Let your newspaper help you! Click here.
Cable news ratings early in Trump!
MONDAY, MAY 15, 2017
As the resistance began: We don't plan to construct a history of primetime "cable news" ratings. But here's the way those numbers looked on a Wednesday night early in Trump:
Those numbers were already historically fantastic for MSNBC. As the week proceeds, we'll show you how the corresponding numbers looked just a few years back.
As of the start of this year, all the cables had already gained from the onset of Trump and its discontent. But as of last week, MSNBC was basically matching Fox in primetime, an amazing transformation.
In Hollywood, they said it came in part from the Comey bounce.
We'll have a few more thoughts on the product lines which helped MSNBC, and especially Maddow, gain numbers in recent years. Maddow rolled out some especially horrible product starting in the spring of 2015.
At that time, the cable star spent thirteen weeks staging a ludicrous nervous breakdown about the way Fox was going to stage the first GOP debate. She kept forgetting to say that CNN was going to stage the second GOP debate the same darn way.
For our money, it was one of the most ridiculous sustained performances in cable news history. But it was also wonderfully partisan, aimed at our tribe's favorite villain.
She rolled out a ludicrous product line. The evidence suggests that our self-impressed tribe flocked to buy what she was selling.
Itinerants once sold pills this way. It's why there's an FDA!
As the resistance began: We don't plan to construct a history of primetime "cable news" ratings. But here's the way those numbers looked on a Wednesday night early in Trump:
Total viewers, Wednesday primetime,As far as we know, we aren't cherry-picking. Here you see the numbers for the very first Wednesday in Trump:
February 8, 2017
Bill O'Reilly: 4.251 million
Tucker Carlson: 3.326 million
Sean Hannity: 3.018 million
Rachel Maddow: 2.013 million
Lawrence O'Donnell: 1.678 million
Chris Hayes: 1.437 million
Anderson Cooper: 1.309 million
Don Lemon: 1.100 million
Total viewers, Wednesday primetime,Megyn Kelly was already gone from Fox, replaced by Tucker Carlson.
January 25, 2017
Bill O'Reilly: 4.949 million
Tucker Carlson: 3.781 million
Sean Hannity: 3.175 million
Rachel Maddow: 2.090 million
Lawrence O'Donnell: 1.760 million
Chris Hayes: 1.399 million
Anderson Cooper: 1.455 million
Don Lemon: 1.106 million
Those numbers were already historically fantastic for MSNBC. As the week proceeds, we'll show you how the corresponding numbers looked just a few years back.
As of the start of this year, all the cables had already gained from the onset of Trump and its discontent. But as of last week, MSNBC was basically matching Fox in primetime, an amazing transformation.
In Hollywood, they said it came in part from the Comey bounce.
We'll have a few more thoughts on the product lines which helped MSNBC, and especially Maddow, gain numbers in recent years. Maddow rolled out some especially horrible product starting in the spring of 2015.
At that time, the cable star spent thirteen weeks staging a ludicrous nervous breakdown about the way Fox was going to stage the first GOP debate. She kept forgetting to say that CNN was going to stage the second GOP debate the same darn way.
For our money, it was one of the most ridiculous sustained performances in cable news history. But it was also wonderfully partisan, aimed at our tribe's favorite villain.
She rolled out a ludicrous product line. The evidence suggests that our self-impressed tribe flocked to buy what she was selling.
Itinerants once sold pills this way. It's why there's an FDA!
VILLAINS AND US: Under every bed!
MONDAY, MAY 15, 2017
Part 1—An eternally popular story: Bill O'Reilly is gone from Fox. In the world of profit-based cable news, we liberals are suddenly hot.
Appropriately, the Hollywood Reporter announced the news of the latest big ratings bump. "Huge wins," last Friday's headlines said, in a bit of an embellishment:
As you may recall, Rachel Maddow barely cares about this sort of thing. How litle does she care? So little that she once told Charlie Rose that she didn't even know who her cable competitors were at the 9 PM hour.
Charlie didn't question the claim, which some people likely believed.
That said, Maddow and her fellow "cable liberals" produced very high numbers last week. In primetime, these were the numbers among all cable news viewers last Wednesday night, May 10:
(For whatever reason, "primetime" is generally defined, in such calculations, as 8-11 PM Eastern. When Brian was beating that Carlson rebroadcast, it was 8 PM on the west coast.)
For MSNBC, those are amazing numbers. They seem to represent an end to Fox's traditional dominance during primetime. For CNN, those numbers seem to say that we the people like our "cable news" with an undisguised partisan slant.
In our view, the rise of baldly partisan news orgs largely explains our ongoing state of political disintegration. Our tribes now receive their own sets of frameworks and facts.
They also receive their own sets of villains. As this pattern advances, it becomes harder and harder to function as intelligent individuals, let alone as a nation.
In our rundown of last week's numbers, we picked Wednesday night for a reason. On that evening, we liberals received a treat:
We were handed our latest villain by our biggest "cable news" star.
That villain's name is Andrew McCabe. Early last week, he became acting director of the FBI when James B. Comey got fired.
Is Andrew McCabe a villain? For ourselves, we have no real idea. But that's what we liberals were told that night by a highly convincing Rachel Maddow, our top-rated cable news star.
Indeed, Maddow's ratings rise in recent years has been fueled by the way she has supplied us with story-lines about the nation's villains. At one time, a certain type of analyst found communists under every bed. Although she often takes a dive on the most destructive political jihads, Maddow has been finding villains under every bed for the past several years.
Objectively, the world does contain some real villains. That said, given our inbred human desire to identify such monsters, it may not be the greatest idea to build our picture of world events around this eternally popular construct.
That said, we human beings love being told that villains are lurking under every bed. Last Wednesday night, Maddow sold us the villain McCabe. Tomorrow, we'll review the wonderfully scary claims she advanced on that high-rated program.
Warning! Maddow told you, last Wednesday night, that McCabe did something disturbing and bad on February 15, 2017. This alleged disturbing behavior represented Maddow's full indictment of this newly disturbing figure.
As has been true through the annals of time, last Wednesday's scary tale gave us tribals a thrill. But here's what we weren't told by Maddow last Wednesday night:
We weren't told what Maddow had said in real time, back in February. Back then, Maddow presented McCabe as the hero of the piece!
We also weren't told this:
We weren't told that Maddow's indictment of McCabe seems to be entirely based on accepting the word of Donald J. Trump's chief of staff and Donald J. Trump's press secretary!
That's right! Back in February, in real time, the accusation against McCabe was made by a pair of somewhat shaky sources. Initially, the accusation was made by Reince Priebus. It was then bruited about, second-hand, by Sean Spicer.
We know of no external evidence supporting the claim by these somewhat unreliable tribunes. Nor did Maddow cite any such evidence in her presentation last Wednesday night. In fact, she directly cited Reince and Sean, although she skipped their names.
In February, in real time, Maddow presented McCabe as the hero of the piece. By last Wednesday, though, that reading had changed. In convincing fashion, a major corporate cable star sold us our latest villain.
She'd found a new villain under our beds. Within tribal tents, beside a fire, it has always seemed convincing when we humans are told such tales.
Is Andrew McCabe a villainous figure? We have no idea. That said, our exploration of Maddow's claim may help us see the way our "news business" frequently works.
Warning! Our exploration may leave us somewhat puzzled about the major star Maddow. Also, about the work of the Washington Post, even the New York Times.
What lies behind last Wednesday night's claim? Millions hung on every word. Prepare for a bumpy ride.
Tomorrow: Maddow's indictment
The same numbers, one week before: To what extent did last week's numbers reflect a "Comey bounce?" To what extent did MSNBC's performance reflect interest caused by the firing of Comey the God?
There's no perfect way to answer that question. But below, you see the numbers from Wednesday, May 3, exactly one week before:
We liberals were highly engaged last week. On Wednesday evening, we received a tasty, familiar old treat.
Part 1—An eternally popular story: Bill O'Reilly is gone from Fox. In the world of profit-based cable news, we liberals are suddenly hot.
Appropriately, the Hollywood Reporter announced the news of the latest big ratings bump. "Huge wins," last Friday's headlines said, in a bit of an embellishment:
O'CONNELL (5/12/17): TV Ratings: MSNBC, Maddow Scoring Huge Wins With Comey Coverage/Brian outperformed Tucker among adults 25-54—and those are the people the advertisers adore! The bulk of the audience doesn't matter in the dollars game!
MSNBC dominates its third night of primetime since Trump's FBI ouster as 'The Five' proves more of a draw than Tucker Carlson for Fox News.
The incredibly eventful couple of days in Washington, D.C., has been a boon to MSNBC. The cable news network, which has seen ratings surges for star Rachel Maddow, just won its third night of the week.
MSNBC easily topped Thursday in primetime among adults 25-54 with an average 635,000 viewers in the key news demo across the three-hour block. Maddow led all of cable news, with 734,000 demo viewers and 2.87 million viewers, but the most interesting victory might be the one Brian Williams scored in late night. His 11 p.m. show, which trailed lead-in Lawrence O'Donnell for No. 3 status in all of cable news last night, actually outperformed Fox News' Tucker Carlson by 12 percent among adults 25-54.
At the risk of sounding dramatic, such across-the-board MSNBC advantages over Fox News Channel and CNN are in the realm of unprecedented—and offer the most substantial proof to date that viewers are tuning into MSNBC for coverage of the embattled Trump administration.
As you may recall, Rachel Maddow barely cares about this sort of thing. How litle does she care? So little that she once told Charlie Rose that she didn't even know who her cable competitors were at the 9 PM hour.
Charlie didn't question the claim, which some people likely believed.
That said, Maddow and her fellow "cable liberals" produced very high numbers last week. In primetime, these were the numbers among all cable news viewers last Wednesday night, May 10:
Total viewers, Wednesday primetime, May 10Cooper's number is an average across his two broadcast hours. At 11 PM, Brian Williams scored 2.050 million viewers, outdistancing a Carlson rebroadcast on Fox (1.499 million).
Tucker Carlson: 2.991 million
Rachel Maddow: 2.739 million
Sean Hannity: 2.581 million
The Five: 2.500 million
Lawrence O'Donnell: 2.450 million
Chris Hayes: 1.864 million
Anderson Cooper: 1.457 million
Don Lemon: 1.357 million
(For whatever reason, "primetime" is generally defined, in such calculations, as 8-11 PM Eastern. When Brian was beating that Carlson rebroadcast, it was 8 PM on the west coast.)
For MSNBC, those are amazing numbers. They seem to represent an end to Fox's traditional dominance during primetime. For CNN, those numbers seem to say that we the people like our "cable news" with an undisguised partisan slant.
In our view, the rise of baldly partisan news orgs largely explains our ongoing state of political disintegration. Our tribes now receive their own sets of frameworks and facts.
They also receive their own sets of villains. As this pattern advances, it becomes harder and harder to function as intelligent individuals, let alone as a nation.
In our rundown of last week's numbers, we picked Wednesday night for a reason. On that evening, we liberals received a treat:
We were handed our latest villain by our biggest "cable news" star.
That villain's name is Andrew McCabe. Early last week, he became acting director of the FBI when James B. Comey got fired.
Is Andrew McCabe a villain? For ourselves, we have no real idea. But that's what we liberals were told that night by a highly convincing Rachel Maddow, our top-rated cable news star.
Indeed, Maddow's ratings rise in recent years has been fueled by the way she has supplied us with story-lines about the nation's villains. At one time, a certain type of analyst found communists under every bed. Although she often takes a dive on the most destructive political jihads, Maddow has been finding villains under every bed for the past several years.
Objectively, the world does contain some real villains. That said, given our inbred human desire to identify such monsters, it may not be the greatest idea to build our picture of world events around this eternally popular construct.
That said, we human beings love being told that villains are lurking under every bed. Last Wednesday night, Maddow sold us the villain McCabe. Tomorrow, we'll review the wonderfully scary claims she advanced on that high-rated program.
Warning! Maddow told you, last Wednesday night, that McCabe did something disturbing and bad on February 15, 2017. This alleged disturbing behavior represented Maddow's full indictment of this newly disturbing figure.
As has been true through the annals of time, last Wednesday's scary tale gave us tribals a thrill. But here's what we weren't told by Maddow last Wednesday night:
We weren't told what Maddow had said in real time, back in February. Back then, Maddow presented McCabe as the hero of the piece!
We also weren't told this:
We weren't told that Maddow's indictment of McCabe seems to be entirely based on accepting the word of Donald J. Trump's chief of staff and Donald J. Trump's press secretary!
That's right! Back in February, in real time, the accusation against McCabe was made by a pair of somewhat shaky sources. Initially, the accusation was made by Reince Priebus. It was then bruited about, second-hand, by Sean Spicer.
We know of no external evidence supporting the claim by these somewhat unreliable tribunes. Nor did Maddow cite any such evidence in her presentation last Wednesday night. In fact, she directly cited Reince and Sean, although she skipped their names.
In February, in real time, Maddow presented McCabe as the hero of the piece. By last Wednesday, though, that reading had changed. In convincing fashion, a major corporate cable star sold us our latest villain.
She'd found a new villain under our beds. Within tribal tents, beside a fire, it has always seemed convincing when we humans are told such tales.
Is Andrew McCabe a villainous figure? We have no idea. That said, our exploration of Maddow's claim may help us see the way our "news business" frequently works.
Warning! Our exploration may leave us somewhat puzzled about the major star Maddow. Also, about the work of the Washington Post, even the New York Times.
What lies behind last Wednesday night's claim? Millions hung on every word. Prepare for a bumpy ride.
Tomorrow: Maddow's indictment
The same numbers, one week before: To what extent did last week's numbers reflect a "Comey bounce?" To what extent did MSNBC's performance reflect interest caused by the firing of Comey the God?
There's no perfect way to answer that question. But below, you see the numbers from Wednesday, May 3, exactly one week before:
Total viewers, Wednesday primetime, May 3Those were already historically high numbers for MSNBC. As the Hollywood newspaper said, Comey's firing seems to have pushed those numbers higher last week.
Tucker Carlson: 2.743 million
The Five: 2.480 million
Sean Hannity: 2.268 million
Rachel Maddow: 2.096 million
Lawrence O'Donnell: 1.691 million
Chris Hayes: 1.506 million
Anderson Cooper: 901,000
Don Lemon: 805,000
We liberals were highly engaged last week. On Wednesday evening, we received a tasty, familiar old treat.
DAYS OF EXCITEMENT AND SCANDAL: The Washington Post walks its banner back!
SATURDAY, MAY 13, 2017
Let them entertain you: Two days ago, the claim was bruited across the top of the Washington Post's front page in an exciting banner headline.
Comey had sought a big increase in funds for the Russia probe! Four reporters lent their names to the "revelation."
The exciting news report started like this. Hard-copy triple headline included:
Despite that Justice Department denial, the exciting claim about that request was framed as a "revelation." Did we mention the fact that the claim appeared beneath a banner headline which stretched across page A1?
Did James B. Comey—Comey the God—really make some such request? Like you and almost everyone else, we have no way of knowing.
That said, the Post began to waffle on this claim in yesterday's editions. This morning, we'd have to say that the Washington Post has basically walked its claim back.
In standard fashion, the paper does so in paragraph 23 of a news report which appears inside the paper, atop page A5. If you read all the way to paragraph 23, you meet this semi-admission:
Please note who Barrett, Nakashima and Horwitz are citing as their source. They're citing "a person with direct knowledge of the matter."
Presumably, very few people have direct knowledge of what happened when Comey met with Rosenstein, if indeed they met at all. (Presumably, acting FBI kingpin Andrew McCabe would not be such a person.)
Very few people would have "direct knowledge" of what happened. Today's report cites one such person. He or she says that no such request was made. The report offers no reason for thinking that this assertion might be false.
Just this once, let's be clear. It doesn't hugely "matter" if the Post's exciting "revelation" was actually false. After twenty-five years of mugging and clowning, our national discourse had moved so deeply into the dumpster that we actually managed to elect Donald J. Trump to his current post.
His apparent mental disorders have been on wide display this week. As long as he remains in the Oval, few other things hugely matter, human existence-wise.
Still, Martin Luther is said to have said that we should plant our apple tree even if Donald J. Trump is destined to start a world war. In accord with that nostrum, we'll offer a few small thoughts about the workings of our mainstream press corps.
First, let's enjoy a good laugh! In today's report, Barrett, Nakashima and Horwitz say "it [was] reported that Comey’s firing came days after he asked Rosenstein for more resources."
It was reported! It slipped their minds to say that this "was reported" in a banner headline which stretched across the front page of their own newspaper!
To say that this happened on Thursday morning! Which was just two day ago!
It was reported, the scriveners said! Truly, it doesn't get richer. Noting again that it doesn't matter whether Comey asked for more resources, let's compare the sourcing for today's report to the sourcing which drove the exciting report which dominated Thursday's Post.
Today, the reporters source a debunking statement to a person "with direct knowledge." By traditional norms, this is weak sourcing. To state one possibility, a single source with direct knowledge of some situation could be lying about what occurred.
The scribes don't seem to think that's the case. They cite no one who is disputing what this knowledgeable person has said. They report his or her claim and they leave it at that. No one says he or she's wrong.
Today, we hear from a person with direct knowledge. By way of contrast, what sort of sourcing lay behind Thursday's exciting reports, which topped the front page at the New York Times and at the Washington Post?
In Thursday morning's New York Times, two reporters described a game of Telephone. (They also referred to a "toilet bowl-shaped building" in the Washington suburbs.)
In their deathless evidence chain, Comey was said to have said something to Warner and Burr. After that, Warner was said to have told Durbin what Comey had said. Durbin then gave a third-hand account of what Comey said he did to the Times reporters.
At the very start of its report, the Times also cited "four congressional officials," none of whom could have had direct knowledge of the matter at hand. Readers were never told why they should credit these four unnamed people at all.
On its face, that looked like "group urinal sourcing." The Post offered less extensive but similar sourcing on Thursday. To examine their game of Telephone, you can just click here.
As we read these reports on Thursday morning, we thought their sourcing was weak. We especially thought this because the chain of claims about what happened began with a statement by Comey the God, a person we don't exactly regard as beyond reproach at this point.
(Comey's most recent jumbled, inaccurate public statement occurred just last week at a Senate hearing. Whatever his intentions may be, he seems to misstate fairly often.)
At any rate, let's review. As we do, we're simply planting an apple tree, remembering that none of this actually "matters," given the fact that a highly unstable person now holds the nuclear codes.
Reviewing:
On Thursday morning, a game of Telephone yielded a thrilling new claim. At the Washington Post, the claim was called a "revelation." It was bruited across the top of the paper's front page in a banner headline.
This very morning, just two days later, the Post seems to say "never mind." The paper cites a person with direct knowledge saying that Thursday's report was wrong.
Here's where the wonderful clownistry happens. This semi-retraction appears in a news report on page A5. You have to read to paragraph 23 to learn what that knowledgeable person said.
You're told the original claim "was reported," but you aren't told where!
As noted, none of this exactly matters. More in amusement than in anger, we continue to plant the occasional small award-winning apple tree.
Let them entertain you: Two days ago, the claim was bruited across the top of the Washington Post's front page in an exciting banner headline.
Comey had sought a big increase in funds for the Russia probe! Four reporters lent their names to the "revelation."
The exciting news report started like this. Hard-copy triple headline included:
VIEBECK, O'KEEFE, SULLIVAN AND KANE (5/11/17): Comey sought more resources for Russia probeYay yay yay yay yay yay yay! Indubitably, the furor had grown. It was exciting stuff!
REQUEST CAME DAYS BEFORE HIS FIRING
Justice Dept. denies reports as uproar grows
The furor over President Trump's abrupt firing of FBI Director James B. Comey grew Wednesday with the revelation that Comey had sought more resources for an investigation into possible coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government shortly before he was dismissed.
Republicans and Democrats alike expressed dismay Wednesday over Comey's firing the day before, which several said will frustrate bipartisan efforts to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election and any possible ties between the Kremlin and Trump associates. Many Democrats called for a special prosecutor to take on the investigation, and a handful of Republicans said they were open to the idea.
For some, the news of the request provided further evidence that Trump's stated reason for firing Comey—that the director had botched the bureau's investigation of Hillary Clinton's private email server—was untrue. The likelier and more troubling reason, critics said, was to quash the Russia investigation and the threat it poses to the Trump White House.
Although several Democrats confirmed that Comey had informed lawmakers of the request he made last week in a meeting with Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, the Justice Department denied those reports.
Despite that Justice Department denial, the exciting claim about that request was framed as a "revelation." Did we mention the fact that the claim appeared beneath a banner headline which stretched across page A1?
Did James B. Comey—Comey the God—really make some such request? Like you and almost everyone else, we have no way of knowing.
That said, the Post began to waffle on this claim in yesterday's editions. This morning, we'd have to say that the Washington Post has basically walked its claim back.
In standard fashion, the paper does so in paragraph 23 of a news report which appears inside the paper, atop page A5. If you read all the way to paragraph 23, you meet this semi-admission:
BARRETT, NAKASHIMA AND HORWITZ (5/13/17): While it had been reported that Comey’s firing came days after he asked Rosenstein for more resources for the Russia probe, a person with direct knowledge of the matter said that Comey did not make that request, and that the investigation had and continues to have all the personnel and resources it needs.Say what? Readers, what do Barrett, Nakashima and Horwitz know today that Viebeck, O'Keefe, Sullivan and Kane didn't know on Thursday?
Please note who Barrett, Nakashima and Horwitz are citing as their source. They're citing "a person with direct knowledge of the matter."
Presumably, very few people have direct knowledge of what happened when Comey met with Rosenstein, if indeed they met at all. (Presumably, acting FBI kingpin Andrew McCabe would not be such a person.)
Very few people would have "direct knowledge" of what happened. Today's report cites one such person. He or she says that no such request was made. The report offers no reason for thinking that this assertion might be false.
Just this once, let's be clear. It doesn't hugely "matter" if the Post's exciting "revelation" was actually false. After twenty-five years of mugging and clowning, our national discourse had moved so deeply into the dumpster that we actually managed to elect Donald J. Trump to his current post.
His apparent mental disorders have been on wide display this week. As long as he remains in the Oval, few other things hugely matter, human existence-wise.
Still, Martin Luther is said to have said that we should plant our apple tree even if Donald J. Trump is destined to start a world war. In accord with that nostrum, we'll offer a few small thoughts about the workings of our mainstream press corps.
First, let's enjoy a good laugh! In today's report, Barrett, Nakashima and Horwitz say "it [was] reported that Comey’s firing came days after he asked Rosenstein for more resources."
It was reported! It slipped their minds to say that this "was reported" in a banner headline which stretched across the front page of their own newspaper!
To say that this happened on Thursday morning! Which was just two day ago!
It was reported, the scriveners said! Truly, it doesn't get richer. Noting again that it doesn't matter whether Comey asked for more resources, let's compare the sourcing for today's report to the sourcing which drove the exciting report which dominated Thursday's Post.
Today, the reporters source a debunking statement to a person "with direct knowledge." By traditional norms, this is weak sourcing. To state one possibility, a single source with direct knowledge of some situation could be lying about what occurred.
The scribes don't seem to think that's the case. They cite no one who is disputing what this knowledgeable person has said. They report his or her claim and they leave it at that. No one says he or she's wrong.
Today, we hear from a person with direct knowledge. By way of contrast, what sort of sourcing lay behind Thursday's exciting reports, which topped the front page at the New York Times and at the Washington Post?
In Thursday morning's New York Times, two reporters described a game of Telephone. (They also referred to a "toilet bowl-shaped building" in the Washington suburbs.)
In their deathless evidence chain, Comey was said to have said something to Warner and Burr. After that, Warner was said to have told Durbin what Comey had said. Durbin then gave a third-hand account of what Comey said he did to the Times reporters.
At the very start of its report, the Times also cited "four congressional officials," none of whom could have had direct knowledge of the matter at hand. Readers were never told why they should credit these four unnamed people at all.
On its face, that looked like "group urinal sourcing." The Post offered less extensive but similar sourcing on Thursday. To examine their game of Telephone, you can just click here.
As we read these reports on Thursday morning, we thought their sourcing was weak. We especially thought this because the chain of claims about what happened began with a statement by Comey the God, a person we don't exactly regard as beyond reproach at this point.
(Comey's most recent jumbled, inaccurate public statement occurred just last week at a Senate hearing. Whatever his intentions may be, he seems to misstate fairly often.)
At any rate, let's review. As we do, we're simply planting an apple tree, remembering that none of this actually "matters," given the fact that a highly unstable person now holds the nuclear codes.
Reviewing:
On Thursday morning, a game of Telephone yielded a thrilling new claim. At the Washington Post, the claim was called a "revelation." It was bruited across the top of the paper's front page in a banner headline.
This very morning, just two days later, the Post seems to say "never mind." The paper cites a person with direct knowledge saying that Thursday's report was wrong.
Here's where the wonderful clownistry happens. This semi-retraction appears in a news report on page A5. You have to read to paragraph 23 to learn what that knowledgeable person said.
You're told the original claim "was reported," but you aren't told where!
As noted, none of this exactly matters. More in amusement than in anger, we continue to plant the occasional small award-winning apple tree.
DAYS OF EXCITEMENT AND SCANDAL: Did Comey make a hefty request?
FRIDAY, MAY 12, 2017
Exciting new fact fades away: In the days before he got fired, did James B. Comey request a funding increase for the FBI's Russia probe?
Did he seek "a hefty increase in resources for the Russia investigation," as Dan Balz excitingly said?
As of Thursday morning, this was the most exciting new "fact" anywhere in the land. In the hard-copy Washington Post, a banner headline across page one bruited this fact to the world.
The banner front-page headline said this: "Comey sought more resources for Russia probe." According to the exciting report, Comey had sought the additional resources in a meeting with Rod Rosenstein.
The New York Times also built its featured front-page report around this exciting new fact. The hard-copy headlines looked like this:
On Wednesday night, pundits had shouted this thrilling new fact all across cable, saying it explained Comey's sudden firing. On Thursday morning, Joe Scarborough even staged a classic Morning Joe rant. Click here, move ahead to 1:30.
Did Comey ask Rod Rosenstein for a funding increase? Yesterday afternoon, at a Senate hearing, Susan Collins posed that question to Andrew McCabe, Comey's former deputy and the current FBI acting director. We thought you might be interested in seeing what McCabe said:
Did Comey make a request? Does that explain why he got fired?
We can't answer that question. And thanks to Donald J. Trump's crazy interview with Lester Holt, we no longer need that exciting claim to explain why Comey got fired.
The claim was thrilling for a day. Then the pundit corps moved on. No one will examine this matter further. This is the way our press corps works in days of excitement and scandal.
Did Comey really make some sort of request? At the Post and the Times, sourcing for the exciting claim was extremely thin. In these days of excitement and scandal, that's pretty much all it takes.
Exciting new fact fades away: In the days before he got fired, did James B. Comey request a funding increase for the FBI's Russia probe?
Did he seek "a hefty increase in resources for the Russia investigation," as Dan Balz excitingly said?
As of Thursday morning, this was the most exciting new "fact" anywhere in the land. In the hard-copy Washington Post, a banner headline across page one bruited this fact to the world.
The banner front-page headline said this: "Comey sought more resources for Russia probe." According to the exciting report, Comey had sought the additional resources in a meeting with Rod Rosenstein.
The New York Times also built its featured front-page report around this exciting new fact. The hard-copy headlines looked like this:
F.B.I. FIRING ROILS CAPITAL AS TRUMP CALLS OUT CRITICSIn his final days, Comey had sought additional funding for the Russia probe!
In Last Days as Chief, Comey Sought Aid in Russia Inquiry
On Wednesday night, pundits had shouted this thrilling new fact all across cable, saying it explained Comey's sudden firing. On Thursday morning, Joe Scarborough even staged a classic Morning Joe rant. Click here, move ahead to 1:30.
Did Comey ask Rod Rosenstein for a funding increase? Yesterday afternoon, at a Senate hearing, Susan Collins posed that question to Andrew McCabe, Comey's former deputy and the current FBI acting director. We thought you might be interested in seeing what McCabe said:
COLLINS: Press reports yesterday indicated that Director Comey requested additional resources from the Justice Department for the bureau's ongoing investigation into Russian active measures. Are you aware of that request? Can you confirm that that request was in fact made?Did Comey make some sort of funding request when he met with Rosenstein? McCabe said he wasn't aware of any such request. He said that isn't the way a funding request would work.
MCCABE: I cannot confirm that request was made. As you know ma'am, when we need resources, we make those requests here. So I, I don't— I'm not aware of that request, and it's not consistent with my understanding of how we request additional resources.
That said, we don't typically request resources for an individual case. And as I mentioned, I strongly believe that the Russian investigation is adequately resourced.
Did Comey make a request? Does that explain why he got fired?
We can't answer that question. And thanks to Donald J. Trump's crazy interview with Lester Holt, we no longer need that exciting claim to explain why Comey got fired.
The claim was thrilling for a day. Then the pundit corps moved on. No one will examine this matter further. This is the way our press corps works in days of excitement and scandal.
Did Comey really make some sort of request? At the Post and the Times, sourcing for the exciting claim was extremely thin. In these days of excitement and scandal, that's pretty much all it takes.
Comic relief from the glorious Times!
THURSDAY, MAY 11, 2017
Reporters spot toilet-bowl shaped UFO in the Washington suburbs: Did James B. Comey get fired because he requested more money for the FBI's Russia probe?
Did Comey even make this request? After reading the New York Times this morning, we had no freaking idea.
(Also after reading the Washington Post.)
We did experience a moment of comic relief—and it wasn't even in the "noteworthy facts" from the Times' page A3. Near the end of a muddy discussion of Comey's alleged request, Rosenberg and Apuzzo baffled us with the highlighted statement:
Does anyone on the face of the earth have any idea what that means? Does the building have a flat white retractable roof which swings straight up toward the sky?
Did the toilet-bowl shaped suburban building possibly drop from the sky one day? Inquiring minds want to ask!
We find ourselves wondering more and more about the mental states of various players inside the question mark-shaped buildings owned by the New York Times. We end with a question which must now be asked:
Are Rosenberg and Apuzzo the scribes in charge of picking those "noteworthy facts?"
Reporters spot toilet-bowl shaped UFO in the Washington suburbs: Did James B. Comey get fired because he requested more money for the FBI's Russia probe?
Did Comey even make this request? After reading the New York Times this morning, we had no freaking idea.
(Also after reading the Washington Post.)
We did experience a moment of comic relief—and it wasn't even in the "noteworthy facts" from the Times' page A3. Near the end of a muddy discussion of Comey's alleged request, Rosenberg and Apuzzo baffled us with the highlighted statement:
ROSENBERG AND APUZZO (5/11/17): Also on Wednesday, Mr. Burr and Mr. Warner asked the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network for financial information on Mr. Trump and some of his associates that was relevant to the Russia investigation.According to Rosenberg and Apuzzo, the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network "operates out of a toilet bowl-shaped building" in the suburbs of Washington.
Both Mr. Warner and Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon—the ranking Democrat on the Finance Committee with jurisdiction over the Treasury Department and also a member of the Intelligence Committee—have said they will block the confirmation of Sigal Mandelker, Mr. Trump’s nominee to be the top Treasury official for terrorism and financial crimes, until the network delivers the information.
[...]
The little-known bureau, which operates out of a toilet bowl-shaped building in the suburbs of Washington, serves as the financial intelligence network of the United States, gathering and maintaining a vast collection of data on transactions and suspicious financial activity that can yield valuable leads and help expose hard-to-find networks.
Does anyone on the face of the earth have any idea what that means? Does the building have a flat white retractable roof which swings straight up toward the sky?
Did the toilet-bowl shaped suburban building possibly drop from the sky one day? Inquiring minds want to ask!
We find ourselves wondering more and more about the mental states of various players inside the question mark-shaped buildings owned by the New York Times. We end with a question which must now be asked:
Are Rosenberg and Apuzzo the scribes in charge of picking those "noteworthy facts?"
DAYS OF SCANDAL AND EXCITEMENT: Hewitt says the corps ran wild!
THURSDAY, MAY 11, 2017
Cooper goes 7 on 1: "These are the days of miracle and wonder," Paul Simon once alleged.
He advanced his claim in 1986. Times have changed since then.
At the dinner hour this past Tuesday night, Donald J. Trump directed James Comey to spend more time with his family. With that one act, we entered these current days—these days of excitement and scandal.
How vast was the excitement that night? So vast that conservative talker Hugh Hewitt may even have made a decent point in today's Washington Post.
Hewitt is in his early days as a columnist at the Post. He isn't especially troubled by Comey's dismissal. Instead, he makes some unflattering claims about the press corps' reactions to same:
Ignore Hewitt's judgment about Trump's recent action. We focus on the press corps here, not on the politicians.
Try to focus on the press. In the current instance, does Hewitt possibly have a point about their recent reactions?
For ourselves, we're inclined to assume that the actions of Donald J. Trump will almost always look like the work of a badly disordered man. Comey has been a bit of a hot rolling mess, but Trump seems vastly disordered.
That said, what about the men and women of the mainstream press? How have they conducted themselves in the wake of Comey's dismissal? Is it fair to say they've been "overwrought?" Have they "toppled into hysteria?"
We may do several posts on that general topic in the next few days. For starters, let's briefly review the modern history of televised pundit excitement.
To some extent, it started on 60 Minutes, with James J. Kilpatrick (conservative) battling liberal Shana Alexander (liberal). If memory serves, they generated lots of excitement and heat, perhaps some occasional light.
That said, the format was one-against-one at the start. When cable arrived, that format was formalized on CNN's Crossfire:
One liberal host, one conservative host! So too with each show's pair of guests!
(We guested on the program once, in the "liberal" chair.)
Inevitably, the Fox News Channel produced a better idea. Yes, they had Hannity & Colmes for many years—a program which, at least in the formal sense, worked on a one-on-one basis.
(We even guested on that.)
But then, good God! In 2011, the Fox News Channel invented The Five. In an undisguised parody of "fair and balanced," the program featured five co-equal panelists—but four of the five were conservatives!
Only one of the five was a liberal! On Fox, the balance for a fair pundit fight was now set at four-against-one.
Because The Five was quite successful, MSNBC tried to copy its ways. They created an unsuccessful program, The Cycle, where the suitable ideological balance was set at three-against-one.
(Starting in 2013, Abbie Huntsman was the lone conservative. Today, she has massively dumbed herself down, thus qualifying for her current role as the young woman between the two guys on the weekend Fox & Friends. Good God, she plays it dumb there!)
How quaint our early pundit days seem—days when a fair food fight among TV pundits was defined as one-against-one. That said, we were struck by the ridiculous behavior on Anderson Cooper's CNN program this Tuesday night.
On this exciting occasion, Cooper's hugely excited, eight-member panel broke down seven to one.
Ken Cuccinelli was the lone conservative in the eight-member panel. We thought he argued his claims rather well—and his overall claims weren't cartoonish. Beyond that:
In sharp distinction to some other guests, he conducted himself with what is typically called "professionalism."
Some of Cooper's other pundits possibly maybe did not. Most strikingly, David Gregory's excitement kept leading him to direct visible scorn at Cuccinelli as he kept interrupting him.
Especially given Gregory's former status within the industry, his behavior was quite striking. We'd say he was dumbly, overtly rude. He may be the nicest guy in the world. His performance that night was childish, silly, embarrassing.
Others in The Seven did better—but did we mention their number? The Seven kept over-talking each other as they tried to shout down The One. Rather plainly, Cuccinelli seemed to have been cast in the role of Piggy.
As we watched Cooper's program that night, we were struck by the journalistic disorder. Rather plainly, we were watching the start of the current days of excitement and scandal.
Excitement can be very exciting. That said, it isn't a journalistic trait. It tends to produce a lot of heat and over-simplification. without producing real light.
Last night, other cable stars were excited, even on The One True Liberal Channel. In their excitement, they kept pretending they had answers to various questions—answers they didn't yet have.
They kept pretending they were dealing in facts—facts they hadn't established. They kept disappearing other facts—actual facts which would have made their stories less simplistic, less simple-minded.
They rushed to explain the Rosenstein matter. They didn't yet have the slightest idea what had gone on in this typically disordered production by Donald J. Trump.
The children were very excited last night; this can be lots of fun. They were excited about the claim that Comey was fired because he'd asked for more funding. They were excited by the claim that the number-two man at the FBI might be a big Commie too.
(Needless to say, that was Maddow. She seemed to be basing her central claim on something Reince Priebus once said!)
We heard a lot of exciting claims. We kept failing to hear the documentation—the evidence which would establish these claims. Elsewhere, people have been rushing to jump to conclusions. This is the way excited mobs tend to run through streets.
Conduct like this is very exciting. It's also bad journalistic practice.
This is the way our press corps works. While fascinating and comical, it's a tough game to watch.
Cooper goes 7 on 1: "These are the days of miracle and wonder," Paul Simon once alleged.
He advanced his claim in 1986. Times have changed since then.
At the dinner hour this past Tuesday night, Donald J. Trump directed James Comey to spend more time with his family. With that one act, we entered these current days—these days of excitement and scandal.
How vast was the excitement that night? So vast that conservative talker Hugh Hewitt may even have made a decent point in today's Washington Post.
Hewitt is in his early days as a columnist at the Post. He isn't especially troubled by Comey's dismissal. Instead, he makes some unflattering claims about the press corps' reactions to same:
HEWITT (5/11/17): There are, in fact, plenty of superb candidates [for the post of FBI Director] who would bring stature and independence to the job.That's the way the column ends, with those unflattering claims.
But first we have to endure a few days of over-the-top takes from the always overwrought mainstream media. This isn’t the “Saturday Night Massacre.” There are no tapes, no subpoenas for presidential documents, no resignations from the Justice Department, but instead recommendations from the Justice Department. It’s four months into an administration, not four years. In short, the overwrought media has toppled into hysteria again.
Ignore Hewitt's judgment about Trump's recent action. We focus on the press corps here, not on the politicians.
Try to focus on the press. In the current instance, does Hewitt possibly have a point about their recent reactions?
For ourselves, we're inclined to assume that the actions of Donald J. Trump will almost always look like the work of a badly disordered man. Comey has been a bit of a hot rolling mess, but Trump seems vastly disordered.
That said, what about the men and women of the mainstream press? How have they conducted themselves in the wake of Comey's dismissal? Is it fair to say they've been "overwrought?" Have they "toppled into hysteria?"
We may do several posts on that general topic in the next few days. For starters, let's briefly review the modern history of televised pundit excitement.
To some extent, it started on 60 Minutes, with James J. Kilpatrick (conservative) battling liberal Shana Alexander (liberal). If memory serves, they generated lots of excitement and heat, perhaps some occasional light.
That said, the format was one-against-one at the start. When cable arrived, that format was formalized on CNN's Crossfire:
One liberal host, one conservative host! So too with each show's pair of guests!
(We guested on the program once, in the "liberal" chair.)
Inevitably, the Fox News Channel produced a better idea. Yes, they had Hannity & Colmes for many years—a program which, at least in the formal sense, worked on a one-on-one basis.
(We even guested on that.)
But then, good God! In 2011, the Fox News Channel invented The Five. In an undisguised parody of "fair and balanced," the program featured five co-equal panelists—but four of the five were conservatives!
Only one of the five was a liberal! On Fox, the balance for a fair pundit fight was now set at four-against-one.
Because The Five was quite successful, MSNBC tried to copy its ways. They created an unsuccessful program, The Cycle, where the suitable ideological balance was set at three-against-one.
(Starting in 2013, Abbie Huntsman was the lone conservative. Today, she has massively dumbed herself down, thus qualifying for her current role as the young woman between the two guys on the weekend Fox & Friends. Good God, she plays it dumb there!)
How quaint our early pundit days seem—days when a fair food fight among TV pundits was defined as one-against-one. That said, we were struck by the ridiculous behavior on Anderson Cooper's CNN program this Tuesday night.
On this exciting occasion, Cooper's hugely excited, eight-member panel broke down seven to one.
Ken Cuccinelli was the lone conservative in the eight-member panel. We thought he argued his claims rather well—and his overall claims weren't cartoonish. Beyond that:
In sharp distinction to some other guests, he conducted himself with what is typically called "professionalism."
Some of Cooper's other pundits possibly maybe did not. Most strikingly, David Gregory's excitement kept leading him to direct visible scorn at Cuccinelli as he kept interrupting him.
Especially given Gregory's former status within the industry, his behavior was quite striking. We'd say he was dumbly, overtly rude. He may be the nicest guy in the world. His performance that night was childish, silly, embarrassing.
Others in The Seven did better—but did we mention their number? The Seven kept over-talking each other as they tried to shout down The One. Rather plainly, Cuccinelli seemed to have been cast in the role of Piggy.
As we watched Cooper's program that night, we were struck by the journalistic disorder. Rather plainly, we were watching the start of the current days of excitement and scandal.
Excitement can be very exciting. That said, it isn't a journalistic trait. It tends to produce a lot of heat and over-simplification. without producing real light.
Last night, other cable stars were excited, even on The One True Liberal Channel. In their excitement, they kept pretending they had answers to various questions—answers they didn't yet have.
They kept pretending they were dealing in facts—facts they hadn't established. They kept disappearing other facts—actual facts which would have made their stories less simplistic, less simple-minded.
They rushed to explain the Rosenstein matter. They didn't yet have the slightest idea what had gone on in this typically disordered production by Donald J. Trump.
The children were very excited last night; this can be lots of fun. They were excited about the claim that Comey was fired because he'd asked for more funding. They were excited by the claim that the number-two man at the FBI might be a big Commie too.
(Needless to say, that was Maddow. She seemed to be basing her central claim on something Reince Priebus once said!)
We heard a lot of exciting claims. We kept failing to hear the documentation—the evidence which would establish these claims. Elsewhere, people have been rushing to jump to conclusions. This is the way excited mobs tend to run through streets.
Conduct like this is very exciting. It's also bad journalistic practice.
This is the way our press corps works. While fascinating and comical, it's a tough game to watch.
Donald J. Trump and his vast self-restraint!
WEDNESDAY, MAY 10, 2017
His letter's original text: Yesterday, Donald J. Trump wrote a somewhat peculiar letter. His second paragraph has produced anger, puzzlement, vast admiration, great controversy and mirth:
Very hard, and very unfairly!
In fairness to the commander in chief, that passage could have been worse. Sources now say the original text read like this:
Continuing to grow into his role, the commander in chief then settled down and composed his official text. Many people have said it's one of the best such letters ever to have been hand-delivered when its target was way out of town.
UPDATE/Fuller disclosure: The second version of that paragraph is now said to have gone like this:
Did this yield one of the best such letters ever written by any president? According to sources, Foreign Minister Sergey "Mad Dog" Lavrov has said there's a very good chance!
His letter's original text: Yesterday, Donald J. Trump wrote a somewhat peculiar letter. His second paragraph has produced anger, puzzlement, vast admiration, great controversy and mirth:
“While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur with the judgment of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively lead the bureau."Should Donald J. Trump have included that smack about (allegedly) not being under investigation? As usual, his critics are hitting him very hard.
Very hard, and very unfairly!
In fairness to the commander in chief, that passage could have been worse. Sources now say the original text read like this:
“While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that Trump hotels are the best in the world, I nevertheless concur with the judgment of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively lead the bureau."According to sources, the text about the Trump hotels soon made way for language in which Comey was thanked for having made some other remark, again on three separate occasions.
Continuing to grow into his role, the commander in chief then settled down and composed his official text. Many people have said it's one of the best such letters ever to have been hand-delivered when its target was way out of town.
UPDATE/Fuller disclosure: The second version of that paragraph is now said to have gone like this:
“While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that my daughter Ivanka was badly mistreated by the failing Nordstrom nomenklatura, I nevertheless concur with the judgment of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively do whatever it is you've been doing."The commander then composed himself, producing his final version.
Did this yield one of the best such letters ever written by any president? According to sources, Foreign Minister Sergey "Mad Dog" Lavrov has said there's a very good chance!
Can the New York Times read the New York Times?
WEDNESDAY, MAY 10, 2017
Who in the world are these people: Just like that, yesterday turned into a very big "news day."
There's a downside to such occasions. All too often, they keep us from the day's "noteworthy facts"—more specifically, from such "noteworthy facts" as this:
The New York Times' "noteworthy facts" are routinely inane, to the point of seeming bizarre. The daily "Here to Help" feature is typically just sad.
Today, though, we were struck by the reimagined A3 feature called "The Conversation." Here's the way it starts:
We're not entirely sure what that means, but the "column" in question is extremely short.
Mainly, the original "column" provided a brief, rather fuzzy account of Kimmel's opening monologue Monday night. During the segment, Kimmel discussed his recent remarks about health insurance for children. Mainly, the "column" provided videotape of the 12-minute segment.
Out of the Times' full body of work, was that really "the most read article on Tuesday?" A fellow could imagine being depressed by revelations like that.
More strikingly, we're puzzled by the account of the original column the New York Times proceeded to give on today's A3. Perhaps for obvious reasons, items on page A3 don't include the names of any authors. But whoever wrote today's account of that original column didn't seem to understand what he had read and seen.
During his monologue, Kimmel spoke with Senator Bill Cassidy (R-La.), who had said on CNN that any new health care law should pass a “Jimmy Kimmel test,” meaning that “a child born with congenital heart disease be able to get everything she or he would need in that first year of life.”
On Monday night, Kimmel and Cassidy had a very friendly, five-minute discussion. In all honesty, Kimmel didn't push very hard or seem to know very much. Cassidy said very little.
That said, there was exactly zero antagonism between the two men. Until you read today's A3, where you find yourself being told this:
"Commenters felt that the senator, who appeared on Mr. Kimmel's show on Monday via satellite, had been presumptuous—as did Mr. Kimmel."
Say what? The text goes on to quote the comment by Kimmel which supposedly demonstrates that he felt this way about Cassidy. Watching the actual videotape, we have no idea why the anonymous journalist who composed this text thought he'd seen any such thing. We don't know why he thought he saw a "confrontation" between the two men.
Giovanni Russonello's original "column" was fuzzy and hapless enough. Along came The Conversation to distort the episode further. Did the unnamed person who wrote today's piece actually watch the Kimmel tape? Kimmel was very friendly to Cassidy—and no, Kimmel doesn't seem to know enough to conduct such discussions. (Very few people would.)
What sorts of life-forms are writing the items on the Times' reimagined A3? Do they go unnamed on the page because, being aliens from deep outer space, they don't actually have any names, let alone any knowledge of this planet's noteworthy facts?
Russonello wrote a lazy original "column." On this morning's page A3, some alien life form proceeded to dumb it down substantially further. Meanwhile, Russonello's murky column was "the most read article on Tuesday," whatever that's supposed to mean.
That item today makes little sense. Are we getting a horrible look behind a terrible curtain?
Final question:
If our smartest newspapers function this way, should anyone be surprised that Donald J. Trump is now president?
Who in the world are these people: Just like that, yesterday turned into a very big "news day."
There's a downside to such occasions. All too often, they keep us from the day's "noteworthy facts"—more specifically, from such "noteworthy facts" as this:
"The ongoing restoration of the Roman Colosseum has been financed by a roughly $30 million donation from Tod’s, the Italian shoemaker."Now that's a noteworthy fact! It's right there today on the New York Times' reimagined page A3, along with noteworthy facts like these:
"The company that owned Southern Comfort liqueur thanked Janis Joplin, a devotee who made a show of drinking it, for the free advertising by giving her a fur coat."Good times! Truly, those were the days—and those are some noteworthy facts!
"At the height of its 14-year run, the singing competition show 'American Idol' sometimes drew more than 30 million viewers a night."
The New York Times' "noteworthy facts" are routinely inane, to the point of seeming bizarre. The daily "Here to Help" feature is typically just sad.
Today, though, we were struck by the reimagined A3 feature called "The Conversation." Here's the way it starts:
The ConversationAccording to that text, this latest "Best of Late Night" column was "the most read article on Tuesday."
THREE OF THE MOST READ, SHARED AND DISCUSSED POSTS FROM ACROSS NYTIMES.COM
1. Jimmy Kimmel Responds to Critics Over Health Care
The latest "Best of Late Night" column, the most read article on Tuesday, includes a recap of Jimmy Kimmel's on-air confrontation with Senator Bill Cassidy...
We're not entirely sure what that means, but the "column" in question is extremely short.
Mainly, the original "column" provided a brief, rather fuzzy account of Kimmel's opening monologue Monday night. During the segment, Kimmel discussed his recent remarks about health insurance for children. Mainly, the "column" provided videotape of the 12-minute segment.
Out of the Times' full body of work, was that really "the most read article on Tuesday?" A fellow could imagine being depressed by revelations like that.
More strikingly, we're puzzled by the account of the original column the New York Times proceeded to give on today's A3. Perhaps for obvious reasons, items on page A3 don't include the names of any authors. But whoever wrote today's account of that original column didn't seem to understand what he had read and seen.
During his monologue, Kimmel spoke with Senator Bill Cassidy (R-La.), who had said on CNN that any new health care law should pass a “Jimmy Kimmel test,” meaning that “a child born with congenital heart disease be able to get everything she or he would need in that first year of life.”
On Monday night, Kimmel and Cassidy had a very friendly, five-minute discussion. In all honesty, Kimmel didn't push very hard or seem to know very much. Cassidy said very little.
That said, there was exactly zero antagonism between the two men. Until you read today's A3, where you find yourself being told this:
"Commenters felt that the senator, who appeared on Mr. Kimmel's show on Monday via satellite, had been presumptuous—as did Mr. Kimmel."
Say what? The text goes on to quote the comment by Kimmel which supposedly demonstrates that he felt this way about Cassidy. Watching the actual videotape, we have no idea why the anonymous journalist who composed this text thought he'd seen any such thing. We don't know why he thought he saw a "confrontation" between the two men.
Giovanni Russonello's original "column" was fuzzy and hapless enough. Along came The Conversation to distort the episode further. Did the unnamed person who wrote today's piece actually watch the Kimmel tape? Kimmel was very friendly to Cassidy—and no, Kimmel doesn't seem to know enough to conduct such discussions. (Very few people would.)
What sorts of life-forms are writing the items on the Times' reimagined A3? Do they go unnamed on the page because, being aliens from deep outer space, they don't actually have any names, let alone any knowledge of this planet's noteworthy facts?
Russonello wrote a lazy original "column." On this morning's page A3, some alien life form proceeded to dumb it down substantially further. Meanwhile, Russonello's murky column was "the most read article on Tuesday," whatever that's supposed to mean.
That item today makes little sense. Are we getting a horrible look behind a terrible curtain?
Final question:
If our smartest newspapers function this way, should anyone be surprised that Donald J. Trump is now president?
CURTAINS FOR US: We finally know what he did last summer!
WEDNESDAY, MAY 10, 2017
Part 1—Comey the God in July: On the bright side, we the liberals have finally been told what he did last summer.
More specifically, we've finally been told what he did on July 5, 2016.
Our instruction in this matter arrived on the scene ten months later. It was delivered, just yesterday, in a memo by Rod Rosenstein, Donald J. Trump's somewhat puzzling deputy Justice Department head.
(It remains to be seen if Rosenstein himself has been trapped in bit of a con.)
Needless to say, "ten months later" is ten months too late in matters of this type. Still and all, the late arrival of such news typifies the way our tribe's "intellectual leaders" have functioned in recent decades, at least since 1992.
Still and all, let's be thankful for tiny favors! Let's be thankful for Rosenstein's belated account of a set of actions by the being then known as Comey the God—actions which caused our tribe's top pundits and TV stars to run off and hide in the woods.
We'll highlight the most salient point Rosenstein made in this part of his memo. We will also stress the date which is under review.
To peruse the full memo, click here:
According to Rosenstein's memo, "Almost everyone agrees that [Comey the God] made serious mistakes [last July and later]; it is one of the few issues that unites people of diverse perspectives."
Ow ow ow ow ow ow ow! Quickly, let's run through what Rosenstein said:
On July 5, 2016, the being then known as Comey the God "ignored a longstanding principle" when he "held a press conference to release derogatory information" about Candidate Hillary Clinton. So Rod Rosenstein said.
According to Rosenstein, Comey "laid out his version of the facts for the news media as if it were a closing argument, but without a trial." In Rosenstein's view, it was "a textbook example of what federal prosecutors and agents are taught not to do." Our emphasis!
Ow ow ow ow ow ow ow! Ten months later, we liberals got to read an account of what Comey did last summer. In rather typical tribal fashion, we were spared such ruminations back in July, in real time.
What happened when Comey engaged in this conduct last summer? At the risk of repetition, let's quickly review the way our favorite entertainers reacted on cable TV at that time.
Good God! For those of us who may have forgotten, a presidential campaign was underway at that time! In that sense, it wasn't just anyone who got mugged in the manner Rosenstein described.
It wasn't just anyone who got mugged; it was Candidate Hillary Clinton. And it wasn't just anyone she was opposing. From the liberal perspective, she was running against the craziest major-party nominee in all the annals of time.
Under the circumstances, you'd almost think that our tribe's corporate stars would have wanted to push back against what Comey did last summer. You'd almost think that these corporate stars would have wanted to push back hard, even bigly.
Gullibles, please! Let us borrow from Willa Cather, describing the way Nebraska's (Anglo) young men of the 1890s refused to act on their desires concerning the territory's vibrant immigrant girls:
"The country girls were considered a menace to the social order. Their beauty shone out too boldly against a conventional background. But anxious mothers need have felt no alarm. They mistook the mettle of their sons. The respect for respectability was stronger than any desire in Black Hawk youth."
If you thought our liberal corporate stars were going to push against Comey the God, you "mistook the mettle" of our tribe's vastly overpaid and overpraised corporate youth.
What happened last summer when Comey the God behaved in the manner described? As we noted in real time, this is what occurred:
During that first full week of July, Rachel Maddow was enjoying a well-deserved summer vacation. Steve Kornacki guest-hosted that week.
Good God! Two nights running, Kornacki aggressively reinforced Comey's claims and battered Clinton's defenders. (This was especially hard to watch because, until the suits reinvented his broadcast style, Kornacki had plainly been one of the smart ones.)
Good lord! If he'd been auditioning for Fox & Friends, Kornacki couldn't have pimped Comey harder. When Ellen Tauscher appeared on the show to criticize Comey's behavior, she was met with aggressive push-back and with withering scorn.
Maddow returned on Monday, July 11—and, as everyone knows, she is Our Own Rhodes Scholar! By now, she even owned a TV set. She may have had some tiny inkling about what Kornacki had done.
Did Maddow proceed to right the balance? Gullibles, please! According to the Nexis archive, she never mentioned Comey's name all through the summer and deep into the fall! Maddow finally spoke Comey's name in the last week in October!
Maddow gave Comey a total pass last summer! Unless we want to persist as fools, we would say it's fairly obvious why Our Own Scholar did that:
Last July, it was well-known that Comey was an insider establishment god. Over the course of the past thirty years, the insider establishment had always had a supply of such untouchables.
Generally, they were figures from the right. Their names were Powell, McCain, Rice, even Ryan. As of last summer, Comey the God belonged to this class.
By fairly obvious rule of law, these godlike figures could not be challenged within the insider establishment. Maddow would jump off the Golden Gate Bridge before she would challenge such insider figures. Except to gullibles like us, this fact has been clear for some time.
Alas! Our Own Rhodes Scholar returned from vacance and took a four-month dive. She'd done the same thing four years before, during Campaign 2012, when Saint McCain and the great Bob Scheiffer took the lead is savaging Susan Rice and creating the iconic Benghazi bullroar.
(At that time, it was Hayes who affirmed the GOP stance. Maddow maintained total silence, as she would do four years later when faced with Comey the God.)
In fairness, Maddow's a talented entertainer who likes to mug and clown. She would be an excellent choice for children's birthday parties.
She's also a multimillionaire corporate-owned self-dealer. We liberals have proven to be completely unable to discern such obvious facts, which helps explain why Donald J. Trump is currently in the White House.
Quite literally, Maddow didn't say a word in the face of Comey the God. Yesterday, ten months later, we liberals were finally allowed to learn what he did way back when.
We were informed by a Trump appointee in a scathing memo. You heard no such thing on Maddow's show, where a TV star was mugging and clowning and sleeping way off in the woods.
A few weeks back, we suggested you google Tomasky and Drum to see what they said last summer. You'll be embarrassed if you do. But this embarrassing deference to attacks by the gods has been a mark of our pitiful tribe for the past twenty-five years.
It's been this way since 1992; it was this way during Campaign 2000. The Marshalls, the Drums, the Dionnes, the Maddows have always agreed not to mention such things. Fools for Scandal came and went, as did the attacks on Gore.
This group-wide conduct has represented curtains for us, the brainy ones found Over Here in our pitiful tribe. Today, Donald J. Trump sits in the Oval. We happily cast all the blame at Those People, the dumb bunnies found Over There.
If you're a liberal or a Democrat, you've been represented, for twenty-five years, by waves of quisling climbers. With that in mind, we'll explore our own tribe's current inanity in our next few reports.
In the meantime, let's look on the bright side! Yesterday, we finally learned, from Donald Trump's man, what Comey did last summer.
The news arrived some ten months later. That was twenty-five years too late!
Tomorrow: Inanity all the way down
Part 1—Comey the God in July: On the bright side, we the liberals have finally been told what he did last summer.
More specifically, we've finally been told what he did on July 5, 2016.
Our instruction in this matter arrived on the scene ten months later. It was delivered, just yesterday, in a memo by Rod Rosenstein, Donald J. Trump's somewhat puzzling deputy Justice Department head.
(It remains to be seen if Rosenstein himself has been trapped in bit of a con.)
Needless to say, "ten months later" is ten months too late in matters of this type. Still and all, the late arrival of such news typifies the way our tribe's "intellectual leaders" have functioned in recent decades, at least since 1992.
Still and all, let's be thankful for tiny favors! Let's be thankful for Rosenstein's belated account of a set of actions by the being then known as Comey the God—actions which caused our tribe's top pundits and TV stars to run off and hide in the woods.
We'll highlight the most salient point Rosenstein made in this part of his memo. We will also stress the date which is under review.
To peruse the full memo, click here:
ROSENSTEIN (5/9/17): [Comey the God] was wrong to usurp the Attorney General’s authority on July 5, 2016, and announce his conclusion that the case should be closed without prosecution. It is not the function of the Director to make such an announcement. At most, the Director should have said the F.B.I. had completed its investigation and presented its findings to federal prosecutors.Oof. "The goal of a federal criminal investigation is not to announce our thoughts at a press conference," Rosenstein thoughtfully said as he continued.
The Director now defends his decision by asserting that he believed Attorney General Loretta had a conflict. But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department. There is a well-established process for other officials to step in when a conflict requires the recusal of the Attorney General. On July 5, however, the Director announced his own conclusions about the nation’s most sensitive criminal investigation, without the authorization of duly appointed Justice Department leaders.
Compounding the error, the Director ignored another longstanding principle: we do not hold press conferences to release derogatory information about the subject of a declined criminal investigation. Derogatory information sometimes is disclosed in the course of criminal investigations and prosecutions, but we never release it gratuitously. The Director laid out his version of the facts for the news media as if it were a closing argument, but without a trial. It is a textbook example of what federal prosecutors and agents are taught not to do.
According to Rosenstein's memo, "Almost everyone agrees that [Comey the God] made serious mistakes [last July and later]; it is one of the few issues that unites people of diverse perspectives."
Ow ow ow ow ow ow ow! Quickly, let's run through what Rosenstein said:
On July 5, 2016, the being then known as Comey the God "ignored a longstanding principle" when he "held a press conference to release derogatory information" about Candidate Hillary Clinton. So Rod Rosenstein said.
According to Rosenstein, Comey "laid out his version of the facts for the news media as if it were a closing argument, but without a trial." In Rosenstein's view, it was "a textbook example of what federal prosecutors and agents are taught not to do." Our emphasis!
Ow ow ow ow ow ow ow! Ten months later, we liberals got to read an account of what Comey did last summer. In rather typical tribal fashion, we were spared such ruminations back in July, in real time.
What happened when Comey engaged in this conduct last summer? At the risk of repetition, let's quickly review the way our favorite entertainers reacted on cable TV at that time.
Good God! For those of us who may have forgotten, a presidential campaign was underway at that time! In that sense, it wasn't just anyone who got mugged in the manner Rosenstein described.
It wasn't just anyone who got mugged; it was Candidate Hillary Clinton. And it wasn't just anyone she was opposing. From the liberal perspective, she was running against the craziest major-party nominee in all the annals of time.
Under the circumstances, you'd almost think that our tribe's corporate stars would have wanted to push back against what Comey did last summer. You'd almost think that these corporate stars would have wanted to push back hard, even bigly.
Gullibles, please! Let us borrow from Willa Cather, describing the way Nebraska's (Anglo) young men of the 1890s refused to act on their desires concerning the territory's vibrant immigrant girls:
"The country girls were considered a menace to the social order. Their beauty shone out too boldly against a conventional background. But anxious mothers need have felt no alarm. They mistook the mettle of their sons. The respect for respectability was stronger than any desire in Black Hawk youth."
If you thought our liberal corporate stars were going to push against Comey the God, you "mistook the mettle" of our tribe's vastly overpaid and overpraised corporate youth.
What happened last summer when Comey the God behaved in the manner described? As we noted in real time, this is what occurred:
During that first full week of July, Rachel Maddow was enjoying a well-deserved summer vacation. Steve Kornacki guest-hosted that week.
Good God! Two nights running, Kornacki aggressively reinforced Comey's claims and battered Clinton's defenders. (This was especially hard to watch because, until the suits reinvented his broadcast style, Kornacki had plainly been one of the smart ones.)
Good lord! If he'd been auditioning for Fox & Friends, Kornacki couldn't have pimped Comey harder. When Ellen Tauscher appeared on the show to criticize Comey's behavior, she was met with aggressive push-back and with withering scorn.
Maddow returned on Monday, July 11—and, as everyone knows, she is Our Own Rhodes Scholar! By now, she even owned a TV set. She may have had some tiny inkling about what Kornacki had done.
Did Maddow proceed to right the balance? Gullibles, please! According to the Nexis archive, she never mentioned Comey's name all through the summer and deep into the fall! Maddow finally spoke Comey's name in the last week in October!
Maddow gave Comey a total pass last summer! Unless we want to persist as fools, we would say it's fairly obvious why Our Own Scholar did that:
Last July, it was well-known that Comey was an insider establishment god. Over the course of the past thirty years, the insider establishment had always had a supply of such untouchables.
Generally, they were figures from the right. Their names were Powell, McCain, Rice, even Ryan. As of last summer, Comey the God belonged to this class.
By fairly obvious rule of law, these godlike figures could not be challenged within the insider establishment. Maddow would jump off the Golden Gate Bridge before she would challenge such insider figures. Except to gullibles like us, this fact has been clear for some time.
Alas! Our Own Rhodes Scholar returned from vacance and took a four-month dive. She'd done the same thing four years before, during Campaign 2012, when Saint McCain and the great Bob Scheiffer took the lead is savaging Susan Rice and creating the iconic Benghazi bullroar.
(At that time, it was Hayes who affirmed the GOP stance. Maddow maintained total silence, as she would do four years later when faced with Comey the God.)
In fairness, Maddow's a talented entertainer who likes to mug and clown. She would be an excellent choice for children's birthday parties.
She's also a multimillionaire corporate-owned self-dealer. We liberals have proven to be completely unable to discern such obvious facts, which helps explain why Donald J. Trump is currently in the White House.
Quite literally, Maddow didn't say a word in the face of Comey the God. Yesterday, ten months later, we liberals were finally allowed to learn what he did way back when.
We were informed by a Trump appointee in a scathing memo. You heard no such thing on Maddow's show, where a TV star was mugging and clowning and sleeping way off in the woods.
A few weeks back, we suggested you google Tomasky and Drum to see what they said last summer. You'll be embarrassed if you do. But this embarrassing deference to attacks by the gods has been a mark of our pitiful tribe for the past twenty-five years.
It's been this way since 1992; it was this way during Campaign 2000. The Marshalls, the Drums, the Dionnes, the Maddows have always agreed not to mention such things. Fools for Scandal came and went, as did the attacks on Gore.
This group-wide conduct has represented curtains for us, the brainy ones found Over Here in our pitiful tribe. Today, Donald J. Trump sits in the Oval. We happily cast all the blame at Those People, the dumb bunnies found Over There.
If you're a liberal or a Democrat, you've been represented, for twenty-five years, by waves of quisling climbers. With that in mind, we'll explore our own tribe's current inanity in our next few reports.
In the meantime, let's look on the bright side! Yesterday, we finally learned, from Donald Trump's man, what Comey did last summer.
The news arrived some ten months later. That was twenty-five years too late!
Tomorrow: Inanity all the way down
Did you notice the change last night?
TUESDAY, MAY 9, 2017
CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT gone missing: Did you notice the change last night? Our eagle-eared analysts did!
Rachel was slickly slip-sliding away. Gaze on what she kept saying:
There was never any reason to make that claim, except it made the story better. But she said it again and again and again.
Pleasingly, this made us feel tribally good. For this and many other pleasures, we rewarded our weirdly grinning corporate favorite with a nice bump in the ratings.
By now, even Maddow seems to have seen that this formulation can't be sustained at this time. Can we tell you what she hasn't done?
She hasn't posted that stupid DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS sign and conned us about the way she always corrects herself. Presumably, there's an obvious reason for that.
That silly game was always a con, a con she worked on us rubes. The game was reserved for tiny errors that no one could possibly care about. In the process, Rachel established an utterly bogus belief about her vast moral greatness, though only among us rubes.
As a simple matter of fact, Rachel Maddow, the corporate clown, just isn't obsessively honest. This basic fact has been plain for years. Last night, she continued to slip-slide away from an unjustified, pleasing claim which she repeated for months.
The stupid claim was always a con. In fairness, it made us liberals feel morally good, and it helped out with her ratings.
For what it's worth, Flynn seems virtually crazy to us, which of course is a shame and a loss to the world. Maddow's not far from the ballpark.
For the record: Other parts of that blockquote involve stretchers too. Maddow and her sycophants routinely do terrible work.
CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT gone missing: Did you notice the change last night? Our eagle-eared analysts did!
Rachel was slickly slip-sliding away. Gaze on what she kept saying:
MADDOW (5/8/17): We had known before today that whatever happened with Mike Flynn, the White House has been telling a story about him that does not add up, that does not make sense.How strange! For months, Our Own Rhodes Scholar used a different formulation as she told this story again and again and again. She kept saying that Michael Flynn had been "on the Turkish government payroll."
For example, just as one part of this, Vice President Mike Pence, he was the head of the transition, right? He was the head of the transition when the transition was notified multiple times, including in person twice by Flynn's lawyers, and in writing by Congress, that Mike Flynn had taken foreign payments.
Foreign payments to Flynn were also the subject of multiple contemporaneous press reports. NBC News now reports that the Trump transition had direct knowledge of Mike Flynn's payments from foreign sources, but nevertheless, Vice President Mike Flynn—excuse me, Vice President Mike Pence, head of the transition, he proclaims that he was perfectly ignorant of that fact until weeks after Mike Flynn was fired.
There was never any reason to make that claim, except it made the story better. But she said it again and again and again.
Pleasingly, this made us feel tribally good. For this and many other pleasures, we rewarded our weirdly grinning corporate favorite with a nice bump in the ratings.
By now, even Maddow seems to have seen that this formulation can't be sustained at this time. Can we tell you what she hasn't done?
She hasn't posted that stupid DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS sign and conned us about the way she always corrects herself. Presumably, there's an obvious reason for that.
That silly game was always a con, a con she worked on us rubes. The game was reserved for tiny errors that no one could possibly care about. In the process, Rachel established an utterly bogus belief about her vast moral greatness, though only among us rubes.
As a simple matter of fact, Rachel Maddow, the corporate clown, just isn't obsessively honest. This basic fact has been plain for years. Last night, she continued to slip-slide away from an unjustified, pleasing claim which she repeated for months.
The stupid claim was always a con. In fairness, it made us liberals feel morally good, and it helped out with her ratings.
For what it's worth, Flynn seems virtually crazy to us, which of course is a shame and a loss to the world. Maddow's not far from the ballpark.
For the record: Other parts of that blockquote involve stretchers too. Maddow and her sycophants routinely do terrible work.
Ninety-day plan passes first hundred days!
TUESDAY, MAY 9, 2017
American discourse in action: So many noteworthy facts! We're ashamed to admit that, until this day, we had never heard this:
"Eating a whole human body is the equivalent of consuming more than 125,000 calories."
Truly, we had no idea.
Believe it or not, that's one of the "noteworthy facts" on the reimagined page A3 in today's New York Times. For those who favor cremation over consumption, the Times also offers this fact:
"The main cremation tower being constructed for the late King Blumibol Adulyadej of Thailand will be 165 feet tall and will feature both iconography of his accomplishments and a statue of his favorite dog."
Awwwwwww! That really drew us in!
It's hard to miss a basic point concerning this veil of tears. The scattershot grab-bag of New York Times "facts" evokes the scattershot mental stylings of the living Emperor Trump.
These facts are less noteworthy than bizarre, the apparent fruit of some type of disordered intellect. In today's list, we also receive noteworthy facts about a plaque to Julia Child "which, when pushed, unleashes the piped-in smell of cookies baking" and about a former exhibition by Banksy "which featured, among other things, mock security guards instructed to frown."
What kind of person seeks daily exposure to "noteworthy facts" of this type? What kind of journalist thumbs through the Times and thinks these are the nuggets?
The reimagined pages A2 and A3 seem like monuments to our nation's failed mental state. With that dangerous breakdown in mind, ponder this:
If you watched cable news last night, your facts about the Senate hearing were largely picked and chosen for you, largely depending on which tribe you favor.
We'd have to say that MSNBC and CNN each picked-and-chose their facts and frameworks to pleasure our own liberal tribe. Sally Yates won every round if you watched these channels.
We didn't watch much Fox last night, but their selection of facts seemed different.
For ourselves, we didn't think that Sally Yates won every single round. We actually thought she offered some rather fuzzy formulations.
That said, we've come to accept a basic fact. It's utterly pointless to try to fight the drive toward simple tribal narration and high-order dumbnification.
By now, our tribe seeks a set of pleasing tales about as much at the other tribe does. Complication must be washed away. On cable, they know how to keep it simple.
We moderns also like a dramatic tale. Consider the way the New York Times began this morning's front-page report on yesterday's hearing:
Yates toggled between these two accounts. So does this morning's Times, right in its first three paragraphs.
On what basis do we claim to know that Flynn lied to poor abused Pence? Do we actually know that's true? Or does it just simplify the story-telling?
How do we know that Vice President Pence wasn't lying too? Do we know any such thing? Or did we all agree to agree on this claim, back in the first ten minutes?
We'd planned to close this post with a favorite pet peeve. It concerns the temporary 90-day plan which has now extended through more than a hundred days.
We chuckled as the Post and the Times blew past this topic this morning. We refer to their news reports about yesterday's judicial hearing concerning Donald J. Trump's proposed 90-day travel ban.
Later, reading Kevin Drum, we were amazed to see that the judges in yesterday's hearing actually raised this very issue—and to see that USA Today actually reported this exchange.
Drum plays this matter as a complaint against Trump. Without any question, that's an obvious part of this story.
That said, nothing will ever change Donald J. Trump; it's hard to see why we want to rehearse our unanimous fury every single time. This is also a story about the press corps' failure to notice anything which isn't part of a simple comfortable narrative.
Trump's 90-day study of vetting procedures ought to be finished by now. As USA Today reported, the judges actually mentioned this clown-worthy fact!
The judges actually mentioned this fact! The Times and the Post still haven't done so. Neither has anyone else.
Reimagine all the people: One of the clues in today's Mini Crossword:
"Much __ About Nothing."
Could the three-letter word, which starts with an A, possibly be "ado?" Also, will A3 soon link that word to this clue:
"French word for goodbye?"
American discourse in action: So many noteworthy facts! We're ashamed to admit that, until this day, we had never heard this:
"Eating a whole human body is the equivalent of consuming more than 125,000 calories."
Truly, we had no idea.
Believe it or not, that's one of the "noteworthy facts" on the reimagined page A3 in today's New York Times. For those who favor cremation over consumption, the Times also offers this fact:
"The main cremation tower being constructed for the late King Blumibol Adulyadej of Thailand will be 165 feet tall and will feature both iconography of his accomplishments and a statue of his favorite dog."
Awwwwwww! That really drew us in!
It's hard to miss a basic point concerning this veil of tears. The scattershot grab-bag of New York Times "facts" evokes the scattershot mental stylings of the living Emperor Trump.
These facts are less noteworthy than bizarre, the apparent fruit of some type of disordered intellect. In today's list, we also receive noteworthy facts about a plaque to Julia Child "which, when pushed, unleashes the piped-in smell of cookies baking" and about a former exhibition by Banksy "which featured, among other things, mock security guards instructed to frown."
What kind of person seeks daily exposure to "noteworthy facts" of this type? What kind of journalist thumbs through the Times and thinks these are the nuggets?
The reimagined pages A2 and A3 seem like monuments to our nation's failed mental state. With that dangerous breakdown in mind, ponder this:
If you watched cable news last night, your facts about the Senate hearing were largely picked and chosen for you, largely depending on which tribe you favor.
We'd have to say that MSNBC and CNN each picked-and-chose their facts and frameworks to pleasure our own liberal tribe. Sally Yates won every round if you watched these channels.
We didn't watch much Fox last night, but their selection of facts seemed different.
For ourselves, we didn't think that Sally Yates won every single round. We actually thought she offered some rather fuzzy formulations.
That said, we've come to accept a basic fact. It's utterly pointless to try to fight the drive toward simple tribal narration and high-order dumbnification.
By now, our tribe seeks a set of pleasing tales about as much at the other tribe does. Complication must be washed away. On cable, they know how to keep it simple.
We moderns also like a dramatic tale. Consider the way the New York Times began this morning's front-page report on yesterday's hearing:
APUZZO AND HUETTEMAN (5/9/17): Less than a week into the Trump administration, Sally Q. Yates, the acting attorney general, hurried to the White House with an urgent concern. The president’s national security adviser, she said, had lied to the vice president about his Russian contacts and was vulnerable to blackmail by Moscow.That's dramatic story-telling. Yay yay yay yay yay! But had Flynn lied to Vice President Pence, or had he apparently lied?
“We wanted to tell the White House as quickly as possible,” Ms. Yates told a Senate Judiciary subcommittee on Monday. “To state the obvious: You don’t want your national security adviser compromised with the Russians.”
But President Trump did not immediately fire the adviser, Michael T. Flynn, over the apparent lie or the susceptibility to blackmail. Instead, Mr. Flynn remained in office for 18 more days. Only after the news of his false statements broke publicly did he lose his job on Feb. 13.
Yates toggled between these two accounts. So does this morning's Times, right in its first three paragraphs.
On what basis do we claim to know that Flynn lied to poor abused Pence? Do we actually know that's true? Or does it just simplify the story-telling?
How do we know that Vice President Pence wasn't lying too? Do we know any such thing? Or did we all agree to agree on this claim, back in the first ten minutes?
We'd planned to close this post with a favorite pet peeve. It concerns the temporary 90-day plan which has now extended through more than a hundred days.
We chuckled as the Post and the Times blew past this topic this morning. We refer to their news reports about yesterday's judicial hearing concerning Donald J. Trump's proposed 90-day travel ban.
Later, reading Kevin Drum, we were amazed to see that the judges in yesterday's hearing actually raised this very issue—and to see that USA Today actually reported this exchange.
Drum plays this matter as a complaint against Trump. Without any question, that's an obvious part of this story.
That said, nothing will ever change Donald J. Trump; it's hard to see why we want to rehearse our unanimous fury every single time. This is also a story about the press corps' failure to notice anything which isn't part of a simple comfortable narrative.
Trump's 90-day study of vetting procedures ought to be finished by now. As USA Today reported, the judges actually mentioned this clown-worthy fact!
The judges actually mentioned this fact! The Times and the Post still haven't done so. Neither has anyone else.
Reimagine all the people: One of the clues in today's Mini Crossword:
"Much __ About Nothing."
Could the three-letter word, which starts with an A, possibly be "ado?" Also, will A3 soon link that word to this clue:
"French word for goodbye?"
BEHIND THE CURTAIN CONTINUED: The humor of the music men!
TUESDAY, MAY 9, 2017
Comic relief—The three faces of TV: When Dorothy peeked behind the curtain, she spotted a music man. Flawlessly, the leading authority has described this famous event:
The music men are numerous in our modern "press corps." Unfortunately, career liberals have long agreed—this curtain must never be drawn back, not Over Here on our side. In part for that reason, we liberals have proven unable to spot our own tribe's music men.
One such person may be Rachel Maddow. As a bit of comic relief, we thought we'd review the wonderfully comical, three-part tale which we'll offer under this name:
"The three faces of Rachel's TV"
In order to understand this story, you must be willing to accept a few unfortunate facts. Despite the marketing built around her, Maddow has proven to be a bit of a full-blown circus clown.
Also, a person who isn't obsessively honest. Also, a person devoted to selling the car, where the model in question is the car called The Maddow.
Dorothy saw a middle-aged person of little distinction perched behind that screen. Behind our own curtain sits a clown—and a devoted car salesman.
Does Maddow understand the extent to which she toys with facts? We would guess that she doesn't. But when the rewards become so vast, disordered people are drawn to the guild, and decent people get lost.
Within that framework, for comic relief, let's review the three faces of Rachel's TV:
Episode the first
It all began with a defining story. Rachel was the TV star who didn't own at TV!
Rachel began to host her own show in September 2008. By that time, NBC News had pioneered the use of the defining story with its big major stars.
Tim Russert was the unassuming son of the garbage collector from Buffalo. This pleasing story kept us from drawing back the curtain on other parts of his life.
Brian Williams was the kid who hung out with the volunteer firemen and always loved NASCAR. Eventually, other "defining stories" about this star brought his career to a halt.
Did the suits invent or select the story about Rachel's TV set? We have no idea, but the story became the go-to, defining tale in the early profiles of the new cable star.
Rachel was the TV star who didn't own a TV! Not that this made her smarter than us, she would add, thereby suggesting the opposite.
In truth, it wasn't so much that she didn't own a TV. Rachel couldn't own a TV! She was so fey, so "Little Prince," that she couldn't do that. Here's the way the story was told to the San Francisco Chronicle, Maddow's hometown newspaper:
If you've watched Maddow selling the car, you'll recognize the play. Maddow is skilled at noting her lack of control as a way to define her uniqueness, her status as Our Own Patricia Pan.
She makes us rubes feel that she needs our help. She plays a highly skilled game.
At any rate, the defining story had been established. Rachel was the TV star who didn't (and couldn't) own a TV. Not that she's better that we are!
Episode the second
Uh-oh! In April 2009, a minor problem arose. It turned out that Rachel Maddow had actually bought a TV. This would require some skill and some hustle, selling The Maddow-wise.
Unintentional comedy followed. Donald J. Trump wasn't president yet, so "nos morituri" could still enjoy such self-adoring plays.
Rachel Maddow had bought a TV! The word went forth in various venues. Here's how Politico broke the news on April 8 of that fateful year:
Alex "Kid" Pareene had grabbed the story over at Gawker. "TV host buys TV," Politico's headline then blared.
The humor came as Maddow explained how the purchase happened. In this case, the humor was transplendent.
On Olympus, the gods were roaring with laughter. Below, you see the transcript published by Dossier. Did any humans, down below, really believe this tale?
When other people get blackout drunk, they engage in drunken sex play. When Rachel gets blackout drunk, she weirdly orders a TV set and sends it to the wrong place! She awakes to the paperwork!
Let's be fair! Rachel didn't tell Dossier that she got blackout drunk. Clearly though, the claim seemed to be implied. When she and Susan woke up the next day, the printouts were all around them! It seemed they didn't have any idea how the score had occurred!
Who knows? Maybe Rachel got blackout drunk one afternoon and told Dossier this story! Unfortunately, when Access Hollywood asked the suits if the unlikely tale was actually true, "an MSNBC publicist confirmed to Access Hollywood that the tale of her cocktail-inspired TV purchase was indeed legit."
Did anyone believe that crap? As the gods rocked with laughter, we tried to calm the analysts down. We told them they should chalk it up to skill at selling the car, and to disordered desire.
Episode the third
First, Rachel couldn't own a TV because she was just so different. When she actually bought a TV set, she seemed to have found a way to maintain that defining pose.
Did anybody actually think that Rachel was actually telling the truth? Who knows? During that same time span, she told Charlie Rose that she pays so little attention to the business of cable news that she didn't even know who was in her same time slot at Fox and CNN!
Did anyone believe that claim? Charlie just let it go.
The third chapter in this comical story appeared in 2014. In its Spring Design issue, New York Magazine offered these perplexing headlines:
In truth, this Spring Design photo spread squared a ridiculous circle. It wasn't just that Rachel had built a stand-alone bathhouse/TV room where she could bathe in her giant tub while watching her big-screen TV with her big fireplace going. To appearances, she allowed the photographer in, letting us see the way she now watches her great-big giant TV!
Not that there's anything wrong with it! There's nothing "wrong" with living the life of the corporate TV star. There's nothing wrong with overcoming your fear of cohabiting with a TV set.
That said, this three-part story captures the clownish culture which defines the persistent charade known as "TV news." Or so it somewhat comically seems to us.
Did Maddow buy that first TV because she was blackout drunk? Was she really unaware of the fact that she was competing with Sean Hannity over at Fox, and with Larry King Live?
Everything is possible! It's also possible that something may be a little bit "wrong" inside this persistent dissembler's self-referential head.
When the rewards become too large, it may be that the wrong people are attracted to this particular game. When stars become too rich and too famous, you may even end up with the low-grade dissembling which now typifies Maddow's devolving TV show.
That said, Maddow persistently serves us the comfort food we liberals very much like. As we wait for Mr. Trump's war, our tribe has been rewarding her for it.
When you pull the curtain back, some very strange people are involved in this devolving game. They're busily chasing money and fame. Their pitiful work reflects this destructive state of affairs.
The Others can't see through Sean, we say. As we complain, a fact becomes clear:
We can't see through Rachel!
Rachel is good at selling the car. In our view, she seems hopelessly devoted to the process, and to other cons:
She completely ducked Benghazi in 2012. She completely ducked Comey the God last year.
She praises Chris Matthews as a genius and friend. No one worked harder, down through the years, to defeat Candidate Gore, thus letting George Bush stage his war. No one worked harder, year after year, to make Candidate Clinton unelectable when push would finally come to shove, as it did last year.
As Matthews did those things, Jack Welch made him very rich—even let him summer on Nantucket. Matthews was Trump many years before Candidate Trump. Maddow is paid $10 million per year to sell you on his greatness.
(She loves Greta too!)
Persistently, we keep buying this fully-loaded, thoroughly ridiculous car. In this way, we're much like Them, the people we mock Over There.
Starting tomorrow: Curtain call!
Comic relief—The three faces of TV: When Dorothy peeked behind the curtain, she spotted a music man. Flawlessly, the leading authority has described this famous event:
Back at the Emerald City, the Wizard delays granting their requests. Then Toto pulls back a curtain and exposes the "Wizard" as a normal middle-aged man who has been projecting the fearsome image; he denies Dorothy's accusation that he is a bad man, but admits to being a humbug.When the curtain was pulled back, Dorothy was able to see that the wizard was no such thing. All along, he'd been a music man!
The music men are numerous in our modern "press corps." Unfortunately, career liberals have long agreed—this curtain must never be drawn back, not Over Here on our side. In part for that reason, we liberals have proven unable to spot our own tribe's music men.
One such person may be Rachel Maddow. As a bit of comic relief, we thought we'd review the wonderfully comical, three-part tale which we'll offer under this name:
"The three faces of Rachel's TV"
In order to understand this story, you must be willing to accept a few unfortunate facts. Despite the marketing built around her, Maddow has proven to be a bit of a full-blown circus clown.
Also, a person who isn't obsessively honest. Also, a person devoted to selling the car, where the model in question is the car called The Maddow.
Dorothy saw a middle-aged person of little distinction perched behind that screen. Behind our own curtain sits a clown—and a devoted car salesman.
Does Maddow understand the extent to which she toys with facts? We would guess that she doesn't. But when the rewards become so vast, disordered people are drawn to the guild, and decent people get lost.
Within that framework, for comic relief, let's review the three faces of Rachel's TV:
Episode the first
It all began with a defining story. Rachel was the TV star who didn't own at TV!
Rachel began to host her own show in September 2008. By that time, NBC News had pioneered the use of the defining story with its big major stars.
Tim Russert was the unassuming son of the garbage collector from Buffalo. This pleasing story kept us from drawing back the curtain on other parts of his life.
Brian Williams was the kid who hung out with the volunteer firemen and always loved NASCAR. Eventually, other "defining stories" about this star brought his career to a halt.
Did the suits invent or select the story about Rachel's TV set? We have no idea, but the story became the go-to, defining tale in the early profiles of the new cable star.
Rachel was the TV star who didn't own a TV! Not that this made her smarter than us, she would add, thereby suggesting the opposite.
In truth, it wasn't so much that she didn't own a TV. Rachel couldn't own a TV! She was so fey, so "Little Prince," that she couldn't do that. Here's the way the story was told to the San Francisco Chronicle, Maddow's hometown newspaper:
GAROFOLI (9/11/08): Armed with self-deprecating humor and an impressive intellect, Maddow is the newest marquee commentator on a network that finds itself in the middle of controversy about blurring the line between political commentary and straight reporting...Maddow wasn't like you and me. Unlike you and me, she had a constitutional weakness. It wouldn't allow her to own her own TV.
Maddow won't touch the turmoil, saying she doesn't follow media issues. She might be the only TV talk show host who doesn't own a television—she hasn't since she left her folks' house to attend Stanford University.
“It's not like 'Oh, I am too righteous for television,’” Maddow said over lunch recently during the Republican National Convention in St. Paul. She lives in western Massachusetts with her partner of nine years and maintains an apartment in New York, where her nightly (6 p.m. Pacific time) show is produced.
“I have a constitutional weakness in which I am very easily distracted by flashing lights. If there is a TV on in the room, I can't have a conversation with you. I won't eat, I won't sleep, I'll just meld with my couch.”
If you've watched Maddow selling the car, you'll recognize the play. Maddow is skilled at noting her lack of control as a way to define her uniqueness, her status as Our Own Patricia Pan.
She makes us rubes feel that she needs our help. She plays a highly skilled game.
At any rate, the defining story had been established. Rachel was the TV star who didn't (and couldn't) own a TV. Not that she's better that we are!
Episode the second
Uh-oh! In April 2009, a minor problem arose. It turned out that Rachel Maddow had actually bought a TV. This would require some skill and some hustle, selling The Maddow-wise.
Unintentional comedy followed. Donald J. Trump wasn't president yet, so "nos morituri" could still enjoy such self-adoring plays.
Rachel Maddow had bought a TV! The word went forth in various venues. Here's how Politico broke the news on April 8 of that fateful year:
TV host buys TVJust for now, we're omitting the comical part of the tale. But Maddow had broken the news during an interview with Dossier, "an independently published and owned bi-annual arts and culture journal" which may still exist.
Rachel Maddow has said in countless profiles that despite hosting a show on MSNBC, she doesn't actually own a television.
But Gawker, quoting an upcoming interview in Dossier magazine, points out that Maddow will soon be able to watch the broadcast networks—if not yet cable...
Alex "Kid" Pareene had grabbed the story over at Gawker. "TV host buys TV," Politico's headline then blared.
The humor came as Maddow explained how the purchase happened. In this case, the humor was transplendent.
On Olympus, the gods were roaring with laughter. Below, you see the transcript published by Dossier. Did any humans, down below, really believe this tale?
DOSSIER: On a lighter note, people love to talk about the fact that you are on television and yet don't actually own a television.We'd be inclined to call this play "maintaining the Little Prince pose." To wit:
RACHEL: Oh no, I got drunk last Thursday and ordered one on Amazon! (Laughs) Susan and I ordered takeout Chinese, and I made cocktails and then somehow it just happened. I mean, it wasn't like we were on some total bender or something—it was a weeknight—but I woke up the next morning, and there was the confirmation e-mail stating that we had indeed bought a $400 television. Of course, since we were drunk, we had it shipped to the wrong place, so now we have to get this giant box all the way to NYC from our place up in Massachusetts and figure out how to install it. Neither of us have had a TV in years and years. The last time I lived in a house with the TV was in 1990, when I moved out of my parents' house to go to college. Now there's a giant box with a TV sitting in Susan's art studio waiting for us.
When other people get blackout drunk, they engage in drunken sex play. When Rachel gets blackout drunk, she weirdly orders a TV set and sends it to the wrong place! She awakes to the paperwork!
Let's be fair! Rachel didn't tell Dossier that she got blackout drunk. Clearly though, the claim seemed to be implied. When she and Susan woke up the next day, the printouts were all around them! It seemed they didn't have any idea how the score had occurred!
Who knows? Maybe Rachel got blackout drunk one afternoon and told Dossier this story! Unfortunately, when Access Hollywood asked the suits if the unlikely tale was actually true, "an MSNBC publicist confirmed to Access Hollywood that the tale of her cocktail-inspired TV purchase was indeed legit."
Did anyone believe that crap? As the gods rocked with laughter, we tried to calm the analysts down. We told them they should chalk it up to skill at selling the car, and to disordered desire.
Episode the third
First, Rachel couldn't own a TV because she was just so different. When she actually bought a TV set, she seemed to have found a way to maintain that defining pose.
Did anybody actually think that Rachel was actually telling the truth? Who knows? During that same time span, she told Charlie Rose that she pays so little attention to the business of cable news that she didn't even know who was in her same time slot at Fox and CNN!
Did anyone believe that claim? Charlie just let it go.
The third chapter in this comical story appeared in 2014. In its Spring Design issue, New York Magazine offered these perplexing headlines:
Spring Design 2014Say what? Rachel's allowed to do what?
Where Rachel Maddow Is Allowed to Watch TV
A bathhouse that is more than just a bathhouse.
In truth, this Spring Design photo spread squared a ridiculous circle. It wasn't just that Rachel had built a stand-alone bathhouse/TV room where she could bathe in her giant tub while watching her big-screen TV with her big fireplace going. To appearances, she allowed the photographer in, letting us see the way she now watches her great-big giant TV!
Not that there's anything wrong with it! There's nothing "wrong" with living the life of the corporate TV star. There's nothing wrong with overcoming your fear of cohabiting with a TV set.
That said, this three-part story captures the clownish culture which defines the persistent charade known as "TV news." Or so it somewhat comically seems to us.
Did Maddow buy that first TV because she was blackout drunk? Was she really unaware of the fact that she was competing with Sean Hannity over at Fox, and with Larry King Live?
Everything is possible! It's also possible that something may be a little bit "wrong" inside this persistent dissembler's self-referential head.
When the rewards become too large, it may be that the wrong people are attracted to this particular game. When stars become too rich and too famous, you may even end up with the low-grade dissembling which now typifies Maddow's devolving TV show.
That said, Maddow persistently serves us the comfort food we liberals very much like. As we wait for Mr. Trump's war, our tribe has been rewarding her for it.
When you pull the curtain back, some very strange people are involved in this devolving game. They're busily chasing money and fame. Their pitiful work reflects this destructive state of affairs.
The Others can't see through Sean, we say. As we complain, a fact becomes clear:
We can't see through Rachel!
Rachel is good at selling the car. In our view, she seems hopelessly devoted to the process, and to other cons:
She completely ducked Benghazi in 2012. She completely ducked Comey the God last year.
She praises Chris Matthews as a genius and friend. No one worked harder, down through the years, to defeat Candidate Gore, thus letting George Bush stage his war. No one worked harder, year after year, to make Candidate Clinton unelectable when push would finally come to shove, as it did last year.
As Matthews did those things, Jack Welch made him very rich—even let him summer on Nantucket. Matthews was Trump many years before Candidate Trump. Maddow is paid $10 million per year to sell you on his greatness.
(She loves Greta too!)
Persistently, we keep buying this fully-loaded, thoroughly ridiculous car. In this way, we're much like Them, the people we mock Over There.
Starting tomorrow: Curtain call!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)