wpostServer: http://css.washingtonpost.com/wpost2

Most Read: Opinions

direct signup

Today’s Opinions poll

Should Congress deal with the immigration crisis -- tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors at the border -- before its August recess?

Submit
Next
Review your answers and share
Erik Wemple
On Twitter E-mail |  On Twitter Follow |  On Facebook Fan |  RSS RSS Feed
Posted at 08:07 AM ET, 11/22/2011

Media news derivatives: Nov. 22

In case you missed it---Hugh Grant takes a righteous hatchet to the tendency of British tab editors to justify sleazy stories on the “public interest defence.” An example would be Grant himself: There’s a “public interest” in digging into his private life because he trades on his image as an upstanding family man, and therefore the public has a compelling interest in knowing whether that image is reliable. Grant: “I wasn’t aware I was trading on my good name, I’ve never had a good name at all. I’m a man who was arrested with a prostitute and the film still made loads of money. It doesn’t matter.”

Elsewhere:

l Media organizations in New York are fuming about their treatment by the New York Police Department. There’s even a letter from various New York news organizations saying how the police violated procedures when they rounded up journalists early Nov. 15 as they carried out the raid against the Occupy Wall Street encampment. A portion of the letter:

The signatories below wish to express their profound displeasure, disappointment and concern over the recent actions taken against the media. ... Over the past few months we have tried to work with [the Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Public Information] to improve police-press relations. However, if anything, the police actions of the last week have been more hostile to the press than any other event in recent memory.

The letter makes clear just where the power lies in this relationship. It notes that there was a meeting in August to discuss problems between the media and the NYPD, including training sessions that the police were supposed to institute:

We firmly believe that had such agreed-upon training occurred, it may have helped avoid the numerous inappropriate, if not unconstitutional, actions and abuses the police heaped upon both credentialed and non-credentialed journalists in the last few days.
Despite three follow-up letters there has been no action on your part — not even the courtesy of a response.

Stop this “dialogue,” then. It’s one-sided and going nowhere. You New York media outlets shouldn’t even have sent this letter. Don’t meet with the administration, cover it.

l Newt Gingrich kills it in national poll.

l Luke Russert debuts in anchor role.

l Personnel poaching is a two-way street between the New York Times and the Huffington Post.

l In a chat on “The O’Reilly Factor,” Fox News’s Megyn Kelly calls the UC Davis protest of pepper-spray fame “very American.” At the same time, Kelly says cops are allowed to use “reasonable force to effect compliance with an arrest.”

Bill O’Reilly comments that “we don’t have the right to Monday morning quarterback the police.” Not only do we have that right, but we have that obligation as well.

l How ESPN is filling the NBA void.

l  Here’s why you need to be very careful when listening to Arianna Huffington. The Huffington Post honcho told New York Mag that she was disheartened with the Obama presidency and could “see herself” voting for a Republican candidate in 2012. So Politico goes ahead and pushes her on the question, and she responds that she’d vote for a “theoretical” Republican like a modern-day Teddy Roosevelt. But not Cain-Perry-Romney.

All of which qualifies Huffington for a disingenuous violation: You can’t say you might vote Republican, except that you can’t stand the party’s candidates.

By  |  08:07 AM ET, 11/22/2011

 
Read what others are saying
     

    © 2011 The Washington Post Company